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

# 

# Legislative Bulletin.................................................... September 27, 2006

**Contents:**

> **H.R. 6138 ---** Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 4766** --- Esther Martinez Native American Languages
> Preservation Act of 2006

**H.Res. 1009**---Supporting efforts to promote greater public awareness
of effective runaway youth

prevention programs and the need for safe and productive alternatives,
resources, and supports for

homeless youth and youth in other high-risk situations

> **H.R. 6106** --- To extend the waiver authority for the Secretary of
> Education under title IV, section 105, of Public Law 109-148

**H.Res. 295**--- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
supporting the establishment

of September as Campus Fire Safety Month

**H.Con.Res. 478**---Supporting the goals and ideals of "Lights On
Afterschool!," a national

celebration of after-school programs

**H.R. 5483**---Railroad Retirement Disability Earnings Act

> **H.R. 4981**---Dam Safety Act
>
> **H.R. 5546** --- Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. Federal Courthouse
> Designation Act
>
> **H.R. 5606** --- William M. Steger Federal Building and United States
> Courthouse Designation Act
>
> **H.R. 5026** --- Andres Toro Building Designation Act

H.R. 6051 --- John F. Seiberling Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
Designation Act

H.R. 1556 --- Clyde S. Cahill Memorial Park Designation Act

H.R. 2322 --- Kika de la Garza Federal Building Designation Act

> **H.R. 5637** --- Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act

**S. 3850---**Credit Rating Agency Reform Act

> **H.R. 5347** --- HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006

**H.R. 6079**---Hedge Fund Study Act

**H.R. 5503**---FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment Act

**H.R. 5585**---Financial Netting Improvements Act

> **H.R. 6062** --- Community Development Investment Enhancement Act
>
> **H.R. 6072** --- Financial Services Regulatory Relief Amendments Act
>
> **H.R. 6162** --- Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability
> Act

H.Con.Res. 473 --- Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Gynecologic Cancer
Awareness Month

H.Res. 402 --- Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Infant Mortality
Awareness Month

> H.Res. 748 --- Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and
> French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War
>
> H.Con.Res. 222 --- Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National
> Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day
>
> **H.Res. 991** --- Congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League
> Baseball Team from Columbus, Georgia, on its victory in the 2006
> Little League World Series Championship games
>
> **H.R. 5108** --- Lance Corporal Robert A. Martinez Post Office
> Building Designation Act
>
> **H.R. 6075** --- Robert J. Thompson Post Office Building Designation
> Act
>
> **H.R. 6078** --- Chuck Fortenberry Post Office Building Designation
> Act

**H.R. 4720**---Beverly J. Wilson Post Office Building Designation Act

> **H.Res. 973 ---** Recognizing Financial Planning Week, recognizing
> the significant impact of sound financial planning on achieving life's
> goals, and honoring families and the financial planning profession for
> their adherence and dedication to the financial planning process

H.R. 5989 --- John J. Sinde Post Office Building Designation Act

> **H.R. 5990** --- Wallace W. Sykes Post Office Building Designation
> Act
>
> S. 3613 --- Major George Quamo Post Office Building Designation Act

S. 3187 --- Richard L. Cevoli Post Office Building Designation Act

H.R. 6138 --- Third Higher Education Extension Act of 2006 --- *as
amended* (Keller, R-FL)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6138 would extend the authorization (at
current, FY04 levels) for the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) through
September 30, 2006. The House previously passed a short-term extension
through September 30, 2006. Current law allows for flexibility in the
authorization depending upon amendments to HEA enacted during FY05 or
FY06. This is the 5^th^ temporary HEA extension considered in the House
this Congress.

The bill also makes the following changes to current HEA law:

-   Directs the Secretary to cancel federal student loan debts, under
    certain circumstances, **of spouses or parents of individuals who
    died or was (or becomes) permanently disabled from the terrorist
    attacks of September 11, 2001.** Specifically, the Secretary is
    directed to cancel the entire student loan debt of the spouse of
    such an individual who was a public servant (police office,
    firefighter, other safety or rescue personnel, or an Armed Forces
    member); and the portion of student loans incurred by a spouse or
    parent on behalf of any other such individual who was a victim.

-   Eliminates the two-year wait-out period between grant applications
    for Hispanic-serving institutions by eliminating the two-year
    wait-out period between grant applications. Under this provisions,
    grants may be awarded to these institutions for five years, with no
    wait period in-between grant renewal.

-   Places a moratorium on the ability of eligible student loan lenders
    to make or hold loans to students as trustee for an institution of
    higher education (IHE), unless certain requirements are met. The
    Deficit Reduction Act placed a moratorium on the number of IHEs that
    can enter into the schools-lender program (which allows IHEs to
    provide loans to its own graduate students). However, some schools
    have begun to use a trust in order to provide these loans, as a way
    to circumvent the DRA provision. This provision of H.R. 6138 aims to
    close the trust loophole.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was introduced on September
21, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: An unofficial estimate CBO review
estimates that enacting this legislation will cost less than \$500,000.

**[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)*

**[Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Joelle Cannon,
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, x60718

H.R. 4766 --- Esther Martinez Native American Languages Preservation Act
of 2006 --- *as amended* (Wilson, R-NM)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**Note:** Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation
authorizing more than a 10% funding increase in any given year may
[not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the Suspension Calendar.
Although the Conference rule may be waived, H.R. 4766, which appears to
violate this rule, did not receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4766 amends the Native American Programs
Act, adding three new purposes for which grants may be awarded by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). The added purposes include
Native American language nests, Native American language survival
schools, and Native American language restoration programs.

Native American language nests are defined as site-based educational
programs providing instruction and child care in a Native American
language, where the Native American language is the dominant medium of
instruction, to at least ten children under the age of seven for an
average of 500 hours per year per student. The nest must also provide
Native American language instruction to the students' parents.

Native American language survival schools are defined as site-based
educational programs that provide at least 500 hours per year per
student for at least 15 school-aged students where the survival school
is the students' principal place of instruction in areas with high
numbers or a great percentage of Native American students. The survival
school must provide teacher training, and work toward all students being
fluent in a Native American language.

Native American language restoration programs are defined as educational
programs which operate at least one Native American language program,
provide training programs for teachers of Native American languages,
develop curricula for the Native American language programs, work toward
increasing fluency in a Native American language. Granted funds may be
used for, among other things, Native American language and culture
camps, and for the development of Native American language instruction
materials, such as audio visual tools and interactive media programs.

Additionally, H.R. 4766 requires applicants for grants to have at least
three years of experience in any educational program which is conducted
in a Native American language. The bill requires that grants awarded
under the new purposes are three year grants.

Finally, the bill authorizes such sums as necessary to provide grants to
applicants in the years from 2008 to 2012.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may be
concerned that the Native American Programs Act allows grants under H.R.
4766 to go to Native Hawaiians (see [42 U.S.C.
2991b-3(a)(1)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002991---b003-.html)
and [42 U.S.C.
2991b(a)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00002991---b000-.html)).
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 financial assistance to this group is not
only duplicative of numerous current federal education programs, but is
also likely unconstitutional.

Additionally, English First will key vote a no vote on H.R. 4766, as
part of its 2005-2006 Congressional Rating.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4766 was introduced on February
15, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce's
Subcommittee on Education Reform, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: No official cost estimate is
available for H.R. 4766, however, unofficially, CBO estimates
authorizations of \$108 million over the 2007-2011 period to pay for the
new purposes for which grants may be provided. The estimate is in
addition to the \$6 million per year that CBO projects that a mere
reauthorization of the current purposes would cost. All together, CBO
unofficially estimates \$132 million in the 2007-2011 period.

The estimate projects authorizations of \$22 million for the new grants
in 2008, which is more than a 10% increase over the level, \$6 million
per year, that the grant program has been receiving. Additionally, CBO's
projections show more than a 10% increase in authorizations from 2008 to
2009, and more than a 10% increase in authorizations from 2009 to 2010
for the new purposes. Leadership has scheduled the bill for the
suspension calendar and has not granted a waiver.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce contends that H.R. 4766
neither creates a new program, nor increases authorization levels. The
Committee contends that the bill merely adds purposes for which the
Secretary of Health and Human Services may make grants, that "such sums"
language already in the law, and that H.R. 4766 merely reauthorizes such
sums over the 2008-2012 period.

Additionally, the Committee contends that the unofficial CBO score is
based on fully funding all applicants for grants. According to the
Committee, the CBO score is too high because the Secretary of Health and
Human Services may use his discretion in awarding grants.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, it adds new purposes for which federal
grants may be provided.

**[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.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

H.Res. 1009---Supporting efforts to promote greater public awareness of
effective runaway youth prevention programs and the need for safe and
productive alternatives, resources, and supports for homeless youth and
youth in other high-risk situations---*as introduced* (Porter, R-NV)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1009 would resolve that the House
"supports efforts to promote greater public awareness of effective
runaway youth prevention programs and the need for safe and productive
alternatives, resources, and supports for homeless youth and youth in
other high-risk situations."

The resolution asserts that:

-   "the prevalence of runaway and homeless youth in the Nation is
    staggering, with studies suggesting that between 1,600,000 and
    2,800,000 young people live on the streets of the United States each
    year; and

-   "running away from home is widespread, with 1 out of every 7
    children in the United States running away before the age of 18."

The resolution also notes that, "the purpose of National Runaway
Prevention Month in November 2006 is to increase public awareness of the
life circumstances of youth in high-risk situations and the need for
safe and productive alternatives, resources, and supports for youth,
their families, and their communities."

[Note]{.underline}: 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))

H.Res. 1009 implies that Congress supports National Runaway Prevention
Month, yet does not establish a commemorative day. Therefore, it is
allowable under House rules.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On September 13, 2006, the
resolution was referred to the Education and the Workforce Committee,
which took no official action on it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution would authorize 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}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718

H.R. 6106 --- To extend the waiver authority for the Secretary of
Education under title IV, section 105, of Public Law 109-148 --- *as
introduced* (Jindal, R-LA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**Note:** Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation lacking a
cost estimate may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. Although the Conference rule may be waived, H.R.
6106, which lacks a cost estimate, did not received a waiver from the
elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: Following Hurricane Katrina, Congress enacted
legislation authorizing the Secretary of Education to waive certain
requirements placed on states receiving funding through most federal
education programs. Specifically, the Secretary was authorized to waive
non-federal matching fund requirements and condition that federal funds
should supplement, not supplant, non-federal funds, as well as other
provisions that require states to financially contribute to these
programs in addition to federal funding. This waiver authority, which
expires at the end of FY06 (September 30, 2006), was granted to the
Secretary for purposes of relieving states affected by Hurricane Katrina
from their financial responsibilities for most education programs. H.R.
6106 would extend the Secretary's waiver authority through FY 2007.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6106 was introduced on
September 19, 2006 and was referred to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for H.R. 6106

**[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}**: There is no committee report
citing constitutional authority available.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Joelle Cannon;
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-0718.

H.Res. 295--- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
supporting the establishment of September as Campus Fire Safety
Month---*as introduced* (*Jones, D-OH*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 295 would resolve that the House:

-   "supports the establishment of September as Campus Fire Safety
    Month;

-   "encourages administrators and municipalities across the country to
    provide educational programs to all students during September and
    throughout the school year; and

-   "encourages administrators and municipalities to evaluate the level
    of fire safety being provided in both on- and off-campus student
    housing and take the necessary steps to ensure fire-safe living
    environments through fire safety education, installation of fire
    suppression and detection systems and the development and
    enforcement of applicable codes relating to fire safety."

The resolution also maintains that, "it is vital to educate the future
generation of our Nation about the importance of fire safety behavior so
that these behaviors can help to ensure their safety during their
college years and beyond."

[Note]{.underline}: 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))

H.Res. 295 *supports* the establishment of Campus Fire Safety Month, but
does not actually establish it. Therefore, the resolution is allowable
under House rules.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The resolution asserts that,
"since January 2000, at least 75 people, including students, parents,
and children have died in student housing fires."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 24, 2005, the resolution was
referred to the Education and the Workforce Committee. On June 22, 2005,
the committee referred it to its Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness. Neither entity took official action on the resolution.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution would authorize 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}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718

H.Con.Res. 478---Supporting the goals and ideals of "Lights On
Afterschool!," a national celebration of after-school programs---*as
introduced* (*Lowey, D-NY*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 478 would resolve that Congress
"supports the goals and ideals of 'Lights On Afterschool!,' a national
celebration of after-school programs."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The resolution notes that the
seventh "Lights On Afterschool!" will be celebrated on October 12, 2006,
to promote the "critical importance of high-quality after-school
programs in the lives of children, their families, and their
communities." The resolution asserts that, "more than 28,000,000
children in the United States have parents who work outside the home,
and 14,300,000 children have no place to go after school."

To learn more about Lights On Afterschool!, visit this website:
<http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/lights_on/index.cfm>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On September 21, 2006, the
resolution was referred to the Education and the Workforce Committee,
which took no official action on it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution would authorize 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}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718

H.R. 5483---Railroad Retirement Disability Earnings Act --- *as
reported* (Young, R-AK)

[]{.mark}

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 5483 would amend the Railroad Retirement
Act of 1974 to nearly double, from \$400 monthly to \$700 monthly, the
amount of employment income that an individual may earn while continuing
to receive an annuity due to a disabling permanent physical or mental
condition.

[]{.mark}

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: CBO provides this additional
information: "Based on data provided by the Railroad Retirement Board,
CBO estimates that few current or prospective beneficiaries would be
affected by the change. Current recipients only infrequently have
benefits withheld due to excess earnings. About 100 applicants annually
are denied benefits because of excess earnings, and many of those
workers have earnings that would exceed the new limit."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 25, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which
referred it to its Subcommittee on Railroads the following day. On July
19, 2006, the full Committee marked up the bill and, by voice vote,
ordered it reported to the full House.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that any resulting
increase in mandatory spending because of this bill, in light of the
"Additional Background" information above, would be minimal to zero.

**[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}**: The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, in House Report 109-669, 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

H.R. 4981---Dam Safety Act---*as amended* (Kuhl, R-NY)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, September 26^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4981 would amend the National Dam Safety
Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467d) to [require]{.underline} (it is only
allowed, not required, in current law) the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, to maintain and update information on
the inventory of dams in the United States, including a
performance-based assessment of each dam based on inspections completed
by either a federal agency or a state dam safety agency.

Current law authorizes \$6 million a year through FY2006 for the
National Dam Safety Program. H.R. 4981 would authorize appropriations
(allocated proportionally to the states with dams, with no more than a
50% federal share) as follows:

FY2007\--\$6.5 million

FY2008\--\$7.1 million

FY2009\--\$7.6 million

FY2010\--\$8.3 million

FY2011\--\$9.2 million

Current law authorizes \$500,000 a year for the National Dam Inventory.
H.R. 4981 would authorize appropriations as follows:

FY2007\--\$650,000

FY2008\--\$700,000

FY2009\--\$750,000

FY2010\--\$800,000

FY2011\--\$850,000

Current law authorizes \$1.5 million a year through FY2006 for dam
research. H.R. 4981 would authorize appropriations as follows:

FY2007\--\$1.6 million

FY2008\--\$1.7 million

FY2009\--\$1.8 million

FY2010\--\$1.9 million

FY2011\--\$2.0 million

Current law authorizes \$500,000 a year through FY2006 for dam safety
training. H.R. 4981 would authorize appropriations as follows:

FY2007\--\$550,000

FY2008\--\$600,000

FY2009\--\$650,000

FY2010\--\$700,000

FY2011\--\$750,000

Current law authorizes \$600,000 a year through FY2006 for FEMA staff
working on dam safety issues. H.R. 4981 would authorize appropriations
as follows:

FY2007\--\$700,000

FY2008\--\$800,000

FY2009\--\$900,000

FY2010\--\$1 million

FY2011\--\$1.1 million

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On March 16, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which on
the subsequent day referred it to its Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment. On September 14, 2006, the Subcommittee marked up,
amended, and by voice vote forwarded the bill to the full Committee. On
September 20, 2006, the full Committee marked up the bill and by voice
vote ordered it reported to the full House.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The bill would authorize \$10
million in FY2007 and a total of \$59.2 million over the FY2007-FY2011
period.

**[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.

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

H.R. 5546 --- Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse
Designation Act --- *as amended* (Inglis, R-SC)

[]{.mark}

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5546 would designate the United States
courthouse to be constructed in Greenville, South Carolina, as the
"Carroll A. Campbell, Jr. United States Courthouse."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Former Congressman Carroll
Campbell served in the South Carolina House of Representatives, from
1970 to 1974, and in the South Carolina Senate, from 1976 to 1978 before
being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1979. Campbell
served in the House until 1987, when he was elected Governor of South
Carolina. He served two terms as governor. Campbell died at the age of
65 from Alzheimer's Disease.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5546 was introduced on June 7,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the
House, as amended, by voice vote on September 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
U.S. courthouse 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 9 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to
make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers in
Article I, Section 8.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 5606 --- William M. Steger Federal Building and United States
Courthouse Designation Act --- *as introduced* (Hall, R-TX)

[]{.mark}

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5606 would designate the Federal
Building and U.S. courthouse located at 221 and 211 West Ferguson Street
in Tyler, Texas, as the "William M. Steger Federal Building and United
States Courthouse."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: William Steger was a U.S.
Attorney and federal judge. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, Steger left
Baylor University to become a pilot for the Army Air Corps. He rose to
the rank of Captain, and was awarded the Air Medal four times. After the
war, Steger became a test pilot.

Later, Steger earned a law degree from Southern Methodist University,
and was appointed to be a U.S. Attorney in 1953 by President Eisenhower.
In 1970, President Nixon appointed Steger to be a federal district
judge. Steger died June 4, 2006.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5606 was introduced on June 14,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the
House by voice vote on September 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
federal building and U.S. courthouse 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 9 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to
make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers in
Article I, Section 8.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 5026 --- Andres Toro Building Designation Act

--- *as introduced* (Fortuno, R -PR)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5026 would designate the Investigations
Building of the Food and Drug Administration located at 466 Fernandez
Juncos Avenue in San Juan, Puerto Rico, as the "Andres Toro Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the sponsor's
office, Andres Toro was the former Director of Investigations for the
San Juan, Puerto Rico District. He played a major role in unprecedented
regulatory cases that the Food and Drug Administration initiated against
the regulated entities. Toro was the first, and only, Puerto Rican to
become Director of Investigations.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5026 was introduced on March
28, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the
House by voice vote on September 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
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 3 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate
interstate commerce; and Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the Necessary
and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to make all laws necessary
and proper to carry out the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 6051 --- John F. Seiberling Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
Designation Act --- *as amended* *(Ryan, D-OH)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6051 would designate the Federal
building and U.S. courthouse located at 2 South Main Street in Akron,
Ohio, as the "John F. Seiberling Federal Building and United States
Courthouse."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Former Congressman [John F.
Seiberling](http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=S000230)
represented an Ohio district. He was elected as a Democrat to the
Ninety-second through the Ninety-ninth Congresses. In 1950, he was a
volunteer for the New York Legal Aid Society. From 1992 to 1996,
Seiberling was a member of the faculty of the University of Akron Law
School. He is currently a resident of Akron, Ohio.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6051 was introduced on
September 8, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the
House, as amended, by voice vote on September 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
federal building and U.S. courthouse 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 9 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to
make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers in
Article I, Section 8.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 1556 --- Clyde S. Cahill Memorial Park Designation Act

--- *as introduced* *(Clay, D-MO)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1556 would designate a parcel of land on
the site of the Thomas F. Eagleton United States Courthouse in St.
Louis, Missouri, as the "Clyde S. Cahill Memorial Park."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Judge [Clyde
Cahill](http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/library/julaug04.cahillmemoriam.html)
received his law degree from St. Louis University School of Law in 1951.
He served as the chief legal advisor to the Missouri office of the
NAACP, and filed the first lawsuit in Missouri to enforce *Brown v.
Board of Education*. Cahill was appointed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri in 1980. He was the first
African-American federal district judge to serve in the 8th Circuit.
Judge Cahill was critical of the federal sentencing guidelines as overly
severe. In 1994 he ruled that the federal law requiring longer sentences
for crack cocaine crimes as opposed to powder cocaine crimes was
unconstitutional, noting the impact of the law on black communities.
Judge Cahill is survived by his wife, Thelma, and their six children.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1556 was introduced on April
12, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the
House by voice vote on September 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
memorial park 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 9 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to constitute
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18, the Necessary and Proper Clause, grants Congress the power to
make all laws necessary and proper to carry out the enumerated powers in
Article I, Section 8.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 2322 --- Kika de la Garza Federal Building Designation Act

--- *as introduced* *(Doggett, D-TX)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2322 would designate the Federal
building located at 320 North Main Street in McAllen, Texas, as the
"Kika de la Garza Federal Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Former Congressman ["Kika" de
la Garza](http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/congress/delagarza.html) served
in the Eighty-ninth through the One Hundred Fourth Congresses
representing a Texas district. According to the Library of Congress, he
was a strong supporter of civil rights safeguards for minorities. De la
Garza fought for improved access to health care for the elderly and
veterans, better living conditions for low-income individuals and the
impoverished, and access to education.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 2322 was introduced on May 12,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the
House by voice vote on September 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
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 IV, Section 3,
Clause 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations respecting property belonging
to the U.S.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

**H.R. 5637---Nonadmitted and Reinsurance Reform Act---*as reported*
(Brown-Waite, R-FL)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[]{.mark}

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5637 attempts to reform the regulatory
structure for nonadmitted insurance, also known as "surplus lines,"
which are insurance policies sold to cover specialized risks for which
the standard market does not offer policies (earthquakes, terrorism,
product liability, etc.). The bill states that only the home state
(where the principal place of business is maintained) of an insured may
charge a premium tax for nonadmitted insurance. In addition, states
would be encouraged to enter into a compact to share the premium taxes
collected by the insured's home state and adopt a nationwide, uniform
procedure for the reporting, paying, and collecting of such taxes. Under
current law, nonadmitted insurance purchasers are often double taxed, as
different states have different assessment formulas and insurance
policies often must cover multiple states.

H.R. 5637 similarly states that the statutory and regulatory
requirements of the insured's home state will govern alone (all
regulations of a non-home state are preempted), and no state, other than
an insured's home state, would be permitted to require a broker to be
licensed to sell nonadmitted insurance in their state. Currently,
brokers often have to maintain as many as 50 different licenses. H.R.
5637 requires that states impose uniform eligibility requirements in
conformance with the Non-Admitted Insurance Model Act. GAO would be
required to study the effect of H.R. 5637's provisions on the
nonadmitted insurance market and submit its findings to Congress.

The legislation also attempts to reform the regulatory structure for
reinsurance (insurance for insurance companies). H.R. 5637 ensures that
no state may deny a "credit" for reinsurance to a primary insurer (or
ceding insurer) who is domiciled in another state if that state is
properly accredited by the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC). Currently, a ceding insurer can receive a credit
for purchasing reinsurance and therefore either reduce its liabilities
or increase its assets on its financial statements. However, some states
have been refusing to accept the credits given to companies in their
state of domicile. H.R. 5637 preempts states' ability to refuse the
credits of other states, as it would their ability to impose laws and
regulations that further restrict the ceding insurer. Such authority
would rest solely with the state of domicile. Furthermore, the bill
provides the state of domicile (if accredited) with the authority to
regulate the financial solvency standards of a reinsurer.

[]{.mark}

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On June 19, 2006, H.R. 5637 was
introduced and referred to the House Financial Services and Judiciary
Committees for consideration. On September 12, 2006, the Financial
Services Committee reported the bill for consideration by the full
House.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 5637
increases federal revenues by \$5-10 million per year between 2008-2016,
since the bill prohibits states from taxing certain insurance products
which in turn reduces federal tax deductions. The bill would have no
significant impact on direct spending.

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-]{.underline}**

**[Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: Yes. By preempting states from
taxing and regulating insurance products issued to companies who are
principally located in other states, H.R. 5637 includes an
intergovernmental mandate. However, according to CBO, the costs to state
governments of complying with this mandate would fall under the annual
threshold for intergovernmental mandates established by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

[]{.mark}

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-649
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
Constitution ("to regulate commerce...among the several states").

**[RSC Staff Contact:]{.underline}** Russ Vought,
<russell.vought@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-8581

S. 3850---Credit Rating Agency Reform Act---*as received*

(Sen. Shelby, R-AL)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

On July 12, 2006, the House passed a similar bill (H.R. 2990) by a vote
of 255-166: <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll368.xml>. To read the
RSC Legislative Bulletin on H.R. 2990, as it came to the House floor,
visit this webpage:

<http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_071206_creditrating.doc>.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 3850 would replace the Securities and
Exchange Commission's (SEC) staff's subjective role in designating
credit rating agencies (i.e. agencies rating debt securities, like
bonds) as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations
(NRSROs), with a voluntary, more objective registration system for those
agencies who want their ratings to be able to be used for federal
regulatory purposes. Under current law, there is no formal registration
process; SEC staff currently recognize five credit rating agencies as
NRSROs. Rating agencies that have issued fee-based credit ratings for at
least three years using a quantitative or qualitative model to determine
its publicly available ratings and registered with the SEC would be
eligible to be NRSROs.

[]{.mark}

NRSROs would be required to disclose, as part of their applications (in
an electronically-accessible format), their long-term, mid-term, and
short-term statistical record at rating securities and public companies,
the methods they use in deriving their ratings, any conflicts their
respective practices create (and how such conflicts are resolved), and
their respective organizational structures.

Applicants would also be required to submit written certifications from
at least ten qualified institutional buyers, none of which is affiliated
with the applicant, but all of which have used the applicant's credit
ratings for the previous three years. NRSROs would also be required to
implement systematic procedures to manage conflicts of interest and
prevent the misuse of non-public information.

The SEC would have 90 days to either approve an application or initiate
procedures for its denial. This timeframe could be extended upon
agreement with the applicant. NRSROs would have to update their
registration information annually with the SEC, and the SEC could take
disciplinary action (including revoking a registration) against an NRSRO
that violates the terms of its registration.

The SEC would be instructed to inspect, examine, and bring enforcement
actions under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.)*.* NRSROs would have to appoint a chief compliance officer to
ensure compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations.

It would be illegal for NRSROs to:

-   represent themselves as statistical rating organizations, unless
    they are in compliance with this bill's registration requirements;
    and

-   represent or imply that they have been sponsored, recommended, or
    approved by any federal entity or officer.

SEC would be given 270 days from this bill's enactment to review and, if
necessary, revise its regulations that use the term "NRSRO." The SEC
could adopt rules or regulations to prohibit NRSROs from engaging in any
act or practice the SEC deems to be unfair, coercive, or abusive
(including modifying ratings on the condition of the customer purchasing
other services from the credit rating agency).

[]{.mark}

S. 3850 would make NRSROs subject to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (such as those for
those for mutual funds, investment advisors, and brokers).

The registration regime created by this legislation would go into effect
270 days after enactment. Immediately upon enactment of this
legislation, the SEC could no longer enforce its existing rules on
NRSROs (17 CFR 240.15c3-1).

The bill would clarify that there is no private right of action for
NRSROs under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by establishing
"furnishing" requirements, rather than "filing" requirements and by
affirmatively stating that the legislation creates no right of private
action. \[Current securities law allows private rights of action against
certain [filings]{.underline}.\]

S. 3850 would require the U.S. Comptroller General to report to Congress
between three and four years of this bill's enactment on:

-   the impact that this legislation has had on the quality of credit
    ratings issued, the financial markets, competition among credit
    rating agencies, incidences of conflicts of interest and
    inappropriate sales practices, and other such matters;

-   the problems arising from the above impacts; and

-   the solutions to any problems identified above.

The bill notes, regarding credit rating agencies, that "their ratings,
publications, writings, analyses, and reports customarily relate to the
purchase and sale of securities traded on securities exchanges and in
interstate over-the-counter markets, securities issued by companies
engaged in business in interstate commerce, and securities issued by
national banks and member banks of the Federal Reserve System; and the
foregoing transactions occur in such volume as substantially to affect
interstate commerce, and securities markets, the national banking
system, and the national economy."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The five NRSROs are: A.M. Best
Company, Inc.; Dominion Bond Rating Service Limited; Fitch, Inc; Moody's
Investors Service, Inc.; and the Standard & Poor's Division of the
McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. (Moody's and S&P are the two dominant
ones.).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The Senate bill was not referred to
any House committee. On June 20, 2005, the House version of this bill,
H.R. 2990, was referred to the Financial Services Committee, which (on
June 14, 2006) marked up and ordered the bill reported to the full House
by voice vote.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: Although a formal
Administration position is not available for S. 3850, the Statement of
Administration Policy (SAP) for H.R. 2990 indicated support for the
legislation:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/hr2990sap-h.pdf>.
Additionally, the SEC testified last year before Congress that it favors
a more explicit regulatory regime for NRSROs:
<http://financialservices.house.gov/media/pdf/041205an.pdf>.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that S. 3850 would
cost \$3 million over the FY2007-2011 period and would not affect direct
spending or revenues.

**[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}**: CBO confirms that the new
registration requirements in the bill would be considered private-sector
mandates.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Senate committee reports are
not required to contain statements of constitutional authority. The
House Financial Services Committee, in House Report 109-546 for H.R.
2990, cites constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
(relating to the general welfare of the United States) and Clause 3
(relating to the power to regulate interstate commerce).

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

H.R. 5347 --- HOPE VI Reauthorization Act of 2006 --- *as reported*

(Shays, R-CT)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended

**Note:** Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation creating
new programs or reauthorizing sunset programs may [not]{.underline} be
considered by the House on the Suspension Calendar. Although the
Conference rule may be waived, H.R. 5347, which extends a sunset, did
not received a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 5347 would amend the U.S. Housing Act of
1937 to extend appropriations (such sums as necessary) for FY2007 for
demolition, site revitalization, replacement housing, and tenant-based
assistance grants for public housing projects (42 U.S.C. 1437v). The
bill also extends the sunset date (currently September 30, 2006) for
this type of assistance to September 30, 2007.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 5347 was introduced on May 10,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Financial Services. The bill was
marked-up on May 24, 2006, and it was reported to the House by voice
vote on July 27, 2006 (H. Rept.
[109-605](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr605):)).

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}:** Originally known as
the Urban Revitalization Demonstration (URD), HOPE VI grew out of
recommendations by the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public
Housing, which was charged with proposing a National Action Plan to
eradicate severely distressed public housing. In response, Congress
established the Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing
(HOPE VI) program in 1992 to address 100,000 of the most severely
distressed public housing units in the nation\'s urban neighborhoods by
2003. This HUD program provides competitive grants to local housing
authorities to construct, rehabilitate and transform distressed public
housing units into mixed-income communities. ***However, the 2003 goal
has been met and exceeded according to HUD. In addition, in 2002 the
Government Accountability Office reported that HOPE VI has 27 percent
higher per-unit housing costs than vouchers that serve the same
population and 47 percent higher when all costs are considered. It is
also duplicative of other federal programs providing similar
assistance.*** The President\'s FY2007 budget request defunded the HOPE
VI program, and Administration also submitted a request that Congress
rescind the as-of-yet unawarded FY2006 HOPE VI funds. In addition, the
FY07 RSC Budget proposed termination of this program.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** In FY2006, \$99 million was
appropriated for this program. CBO estimates that "assuming
appropriation of a similar amount adjusted for inflation, implementing
H.R. 5347 (as amended) would cost \$60 million through FY2011." However,
the bill would actually authorize \$574 million for FY2007.

**[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}:** The Financial Services
Committee, in House Report
[109-605](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr605):),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
(relating to the general welfare of the U.S.) and Clause 3 ((relating to
the power to regulate interstate commerce).

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. 6079---Hedge Fund Study Act---*as introduced* (Castle, R-DE)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6079 would direct the President's
existing Working Group on Financial Markets to study and (within 180
days of enactment) report to Congress on the hedge fund industry. The
study would have to focus on:

-   the changing nature of hedge funds and what characteristics define a
    hedge fund;

-   the growth of hedge funds within financial markets;

-   the growth of pension funds investing in hedge funds;

-   whether hedge fund investors are able to protect themselves
    adequately from the risk associated with their investments;

-   whether hedge fund leverage is effectively constrained; and

-   the potential risks hedge fund pose to financial markets or to
    investors.

The report would also have to include recommendations on:

-   any proposed legislation relating to appropriate disclosure
    requirements for hedge funds;

-   the type of information hedge funds should disclose to regulators
    and to the public; and

-   any oversight responsibilities that members of the President's
    Working Group should have over the hedge fund industry, and the
    degree and scope of such oversight.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: For information on what hedge
funds are, visit this webpage:
<http://www.thehfa.org/Aboutus.cfm?CFID=5501272&CFTOKEN=8062ace1f6269f22-EA9F2E42-3048-2197-8E84C2500F3A0A26>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On September 14, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Financial Services Committee, which took no official
action on it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: This bill would not yield any
significant cost to the taxpayer.

**[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.

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

H.R. 5503---FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment Act---*as reported*

(Miller, Gary, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary and Background]{.underline}**: H.R. 5503 would increase the
current limit on the value of

individual loans that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) could
guarantee in certain high-cost areas of the country under 12 of its 20
multifamily loan guarantee programs. \[Under the National Housing Act,
FHA is authorized to insure private loans (up to certain amounts) for
financing certain multifamily homes.\]

The maximum amount of a loan that FHA can guarantee for multifamily
housing depends

on the base loan levels established by FHA, which vary by type and size
of housing within a project. Currently, in regions designated by FHA as
high-cost areas (urban areas, such as Los Angeles, New York, and
Seattle), the base loan limit can be increased by up to 140% of the
base. H.R. 5503 would increase the loan limit in high-cost areas to 170%
of the base amount and allow the FHA the discretion, on a case-by-case
basis, to increase it to 215% of the base.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The Financial Services
Committee, in House Report 109-645, writes the following:

> The FHA multifamily mortgage insurance program allows developers to
> obtain long-term, fixed-rate, non-recourse loans for the construction
> and substantial rehabilitation of affordable, multifamily housing.
> FHA-insured multifamily units are available for low- and
> moderate-income families and serve as an important source of housing,
> especially in expensive cities that lack other affordable housing
> alternatives. However, because of its statutory loan limits, in the
> past two years FHA was only able to insure a handful of multifamily
> loans for areas where housing costs are especially high, such as New
> York City, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Los Angeles.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 25, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Financial Services Committee, which, two months later,
marked up and by voice vote ordered the bill reported to the full House.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Similar to concerns
raised about the increased loan limits in last year's GSE bill (H.R.
1461), some conservatives have expressed concerns about H.R. 5503's
increasing the availability of a government loan guarantee
program---especially in such a way that could allow more financially
secure people to participate.

To read the RSC Legislative Bulletin on H.R. 1461, see pages two and six
here:

[http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/GSE%20Legislative%20Bulletin.pdf](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/GSE Legislative Bulletin.pdf).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.R. 5503 would
[reduce]{.underline} authorizations by \$15 million a year, beginning in
FY2007.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The bill would expand who could participate
in a federal loan guarantee program.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Financial Services
Committee, in House Report 109-645, cites constitutional authority in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the congressional power to provide for
the general welfare of the United States) and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 3 (the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce).

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

H.R. 5585---Financial Netting Improvements Act---*as reported*

(McHenry, R-NC)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5585 would amend current (banking,
securities, and bankruptcy) laws regarding the disposition of financial
contracts in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency, to provide that
contracts and various components of contracts are settled consistently
on a net-value basis (i.e. settling mutual obligations at their *net*
value as opposed to each obligation's *gross* dollar value). This method
of settling, known as "netting," is seen as reducing the risk that the
failure of one entity will disrupt financial markets.

Several of the provisions of the bill are clarifying or technical
changes to Title IX of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-8).

H.R. 5585 would also increase the statutory filing fee (by \$40) paid by
those filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, in order to raise the
compensation (from \$60 to \$100) paid from part of the filing fee to
private trustees appointed to manage a debtor's estate under such
bankruptcy relief.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On June 12, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Financial Services and Judiciary Committees. On June
14^th^, the Financial Services Committee marked up and by voice vote
ordered the bill reported to the full House. On September 22^nd^, the
Judiciary Committee discharged the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO reports that this bill would
yield no significant change in mandatory spending. CBO also reports the
following regarding the fee increase: "Increasing filing fees and
trustee compensation under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code would have
no budgetary impact. Under current law, \$45 of the \$245 fee paid by
those filing for Chapter 7 relief is collected by the government on
behalf of a private trustee, placed in a (nonbudgetary) deposit account,
and paid to the private trustee. Those amounts are not owned by the
Federal Government and are not recorded on the 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}**: The Financial Services
Committee, in House Report 109-648, cites constitutional authority in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the congressional power to provide for
the general welfare of the United States), Article I, Section 8, Clause
3 (the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce), and Article
I, Section 8, Clause 4 (the congressional power to establish uniform
bankruptcy laws).

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

**H.R. 6062---Community Development Investment Enhancement Act --- *as
introduced* (Frank, *D-MA*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[]{.mark}

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6062 increases the amount that national
and state member banks can contribute "to promote the general welfare,
including the welfare of low- and moderate-income communities or
families (such as by providing housing, services, or jobs)," as a
percent of their capital stock, from 10% to 15%. In addition, the bill
extends the same authority to federal thrifts institutions "to promote
the public welfare." Such authority would be limited to between 5-15% of
their capital stock.

[]{.mark}

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The provisions of H.R. 6062
were largely encompassed in the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act
(H.R. 3505), sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, that passed the House on
March 8, 2006, by a vote of 415 to 2.

[]{.mark}

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On September 13, 2006, H.R. 6072 was
introduced and referred to the House Financial Services Committee for
consideration. The Committee has not yet taken any formal action on the
bill.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO cost estimate is not
available.

[]{.mark}

**[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}**: A CBO cost estimate is not
available.

[]{.mark}

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

**[RSC Staff Contact:]{.underline}** Russ Vought,
<russell.vought@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-8581

**H.R. 6072---Financial Services Regulatory Relief Amendments Act ---**

***as introduced* (Ross, *D-AR*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[]{.mark}

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6072 amends Section 43 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act, dealing with requirements for depositary
institutions that are not insured by FDIC, namely state-charted credit
unions. The bill would allow state supervisors of private deposit
insurers to enforce compliance with Section 43. In addition, H.R. 6072
clarifies that such institutions' deposit slips do not need to
conspicuously note that they are not federally insured, loosens the
requirement that any of the institution's advertising contain such a
statement, and requires a written acknowledgment card be signed by the
new depositors (either through a merger or not) and current depositors
that the institution is not federally insured.

In addition, H.R. 6072 repeals a provision in current law that prohibits
privately-insured credit unions from using "any instrumentality of
interstate commerce to receive or facilitate receiving deposits" (i.e.
mail, telephone, Internet) unless the institution meets all the
eligibility requirements of a federally-insured institution. The bill
also limits the Federal Trade Commission enforcement of Section 43 to
the required disclosures and the manner and content by which they are
made. According to the Financial Service Committee, this is to prevent
the FTC from identifying entities that are not depository institutions
and yet subjecting them to Section 43's requirements. Finally, H.R. 6072
clarifies the maximum interest rate that can be levied by certain
financial institutions.

[]{.mark}

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The provisions of H.R. 6072
were encompassed in the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act (H.R.
3505), sponsored by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, that passed the House on March
8, 2006, by a vote of 415 to 2.

[]{.mark}

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On September 14, 2006, H.R. 6131 was
introduced and referred to the House Financial Services Committee for
consideration. The Committee has not taken any formal action on the bill
as of yet.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO cost estimate is not
available.

**[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}**: A CBO cost estimate is not
available.

[]{.mark}

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

**[RSC Staff Contact:]{.underline}** Russ Vought,
<russell.vought@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-8581

**H.R. 6162 --- Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act
--- *as introduced* (Rogers, R-AL)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:**  The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 26 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill. 

**[Summary]{.underline}: ** H.R. 6162 would require the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) to review each contract
action (greater than \$20 million) related to DHS' Secure Border
Initiative, to determine whether the action complies with applicable
cost requirements, performance objectives, *inclusion of small,
minority, and women-owned business*, and timelines.

The bill requires that the IG complete a report within 60 days of the
action's start, and upon conclusion of the contract, and submit these
reports to the DHS Secretary.  Requires the DHS Secretary to submit a
report to Congress on the findings of the IG reports, and include what
steps are being taken to remedy any problems identified in the reports.

The bill authorizes to be appropriated, in addition to amounts otherwise
authorized to the Office of the Inspector General, an additional amount
equal to at least 5% for FY2007, 6% for FY2008, and 7% for FY2009, of
the overall budget for that office.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:**  H.R. 6162 was introduced on
September 25, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:**  A CBO score of H.R. 6162 is
unavailable.

**[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

[]{.mark}

H.Con.Res. 473 --- Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Gynecologic Cancer
Awareness Month --- *as reported* (Issa, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 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 Congress supports the ideals and goals of
the day, and urges the President to issue a proclamation with respect to
the day. Because the resolution merely states support for, and urges a
proclamation on, but does not establish a commemorative day, the
parliamentarian's office has ruled that it is allowable under House
rules.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 473 resolves that Congress:

-   "supports the goals and ideals of Gynecologic Cancer Awareness
    Month; and

-   "requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon the
    people of the United States to observe Gynecologic Cancer Awareness
    Month with appropriate educational programs and activities."

[]{.mark}

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

-   "the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation was founded by the Society of
    Gynecologic Oncologists in 1991;

-   "the mission of the Gynecologic Cancer Foundation is to raise
    awareness about the prevention, early detection, and treatment of
    reproductive cancers;

-   "over 77,000 American women will be diagnosed with a reproductive
    cancer in 2006; and

-   "September is widely recognized as Gynecologic Cancer Awareness
    Month."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 473 was introduced on
September 14, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform.
The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by
unanimous consent on September 21, 2006.

**[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.Res. 402 --- Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Infant Mortality
Awareness Month --- *as reported* (Burgess, R-TX)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 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 Congress supports the ideals and goals of
the month. Because the resolution merely states support for, but does
not establish a commemorative month, the parliamentarian's office has
ruled that it is allowable under House rules.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 402 resolves that the House supports
the goals and ideals of Infant Mortality Awareness Month in order to:

-   "increase national awareness of infant mortality and its
    contributing factors; and

-   "facilitate activities that will assist local communities in their
    efforts to meet the objective, as established by the Secretary of
    Health and Human Service in Healthy People 2010, that the rate of
    infant mortality in the United States be reduced to a rate of not
    more than 4.5 infant deaths per 1,000 births."

[]{.mark}

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

-   "infant mortality refers to the death of a baby before it reaches
    its first birthday;

-   "the United States ranks 28th among industrialized nations in the
    rate of infant mortality;

-   "in the United States, infant mortality increased in 2002 for the
    first time in more than four decades;

-   "in 2002 the rate reached 7 deaths per 1,000 live births, which was
    the first increase since 1958;

-   "the recent increase is a significant and troubling public health
    issue, especially for African American families, Native American
    families, and Hispanic families;

-   "the infant mortality rate among African American women is more than
    double that of Caucasian women, according to a report produced by
    the National Healthy Start Association and by a related group
    supported by the health department of Allegheny County, in the State
    of Pennsylvania;

-   "the Secretary of Health and Human Services has designated 2010 as
    the year by which certain objectives should be met with respect to
    the health status of the people of the United States;

-   "such objectives, known as Healthy People 2010, include an objective
    regarding a decrease in the rate of infant mortality;

-   "September 1, 2005, is the beginning of a period of several months
    during which there will be several national observances that relate
    to the issue of infant mortality, including the observance of
    October as Sudden Infant Death Awareness Month and November as
    Prematurity Awareness Month; and

-   "it would be appropriate to observe September 2005 as Infant
    Mortality Awareness Month."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 402 was introduced on July
28, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill
was marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent
on September 21, 2006.

**[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.Res. 748 --- Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and
French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War

--- *as reported* (Jo Ann Davis, R-VA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 748 resolves that the House,
"recognizes the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at
Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War and reminds the
American people of the debt the United States owes to its armed forces
and the important role Yorktown and the Commonwealth of Virginia played
in securing their liberty."

[]{.mark}

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

-   "at Yorktown, Virginia, on October 19, 1781, General George
    Washington and the American and French armies received the surrender
    of Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis and nearly 7,100 British
    soldiers and sailors, ending nine days of siege operations against
    the British army;

-   "the victory at Yorktown concluded the last major battle of the
    American Revolution, effectively ending the war and securing for the
    colonies their independence by providing a military conclusion to
    the political declaration issued five years earlier;

-   "Virginia, as the largest and most populous of the original 13
    colonies and the home of General Washington, Thomas Jefferson,
    Patrick Henry, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and other leaders of the American
    Revolution, is blessed with a rich history of noteworthy
    contributions to the struggle to secure liberty and democracy;

-   "in 1983 the Virginia General Assembly designated the 19th day of
    October of each year to be recognized and celebrated as Yorktown Day
    throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia; and

-   "the 2006 observance of Yorktown Day celebrates the 225th
    anniversary of the American and French victory at Yorktown."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 748 was introduced on March
30, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill
was marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent
on September 21, 2006.

**[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.Con.Res. 222 --- Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National Pregnancy
and Infant Loss Remembrance Day --- *as introduced* (Latham, R-IA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 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 Congress supports the ideals and goals of
the day, and urges the President to issue a proclamation with respect to
the day. Because the resolution merely states support for, and urges a
proclamation on, but does not establish a commemorative day, the
parliamentarian's office has ruled that it is allowable under House
rules.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 222 resolves that Congress:

-   "supports the goals and ideals of National Pregnancy and Infant Loss
    Remembrance Day; and

-   "requests that the President issue a proclamation calling upon the
    people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate
    programs and activities."

[]{.mark}

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

-   "each year, approximately one million pregnancies in the United
    States end in miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of a newborn
    baby;

-   "during the past two years, Governors of all 50 States have signed
    proclamations designating October 15 as Pregnancy and Infant Loss
    Remembrance Day;

-   "the legislatures of the States of Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky,
    Louisiana, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, and South Dakota have
    passed concurrent resolutions recognizing October 15 of each year,
    as Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day;

-   "the observance of Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day may
    provide validation to those who have lost a baby through
    miscarriage, stillbirth, or other complications;

-   "recognizing Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day will provide
    the people of the United States with an opportunity to increase
    their understanding of the great tragedy involved in the deaths of
    unborn and newborn babies;

-   "Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day would enable the people
    of the United States to consider how, as individuals and
    communities, they can meet the needs of bereaved mothers, fathers,
    and family members, and work to prevent the causes of these deaths;
    and

-   "October 15, 2005 would be an appropriate day to observe National
    Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 222 was introduced on
July 27, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.Res. 991 --- Congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League
Baseball Team from Columbus, Georgia, on its victory in the 2006 Little
League World Series Championship games --- *as introduced*
(Westmoreland, R-GA)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.Res. 991 would resolve that the House of
Representatives congratulates the Columbus Northern Little League
Baseball Team from Columbus, Georgia, on its victory in the 2006 Little
League World Series Championship games.

The resolution also states a number of findings, including the
following:

-   "although Columbus Northern had taken 1 loss in the series, they did
    not give up, and although the Championship game was delayed a day by
    rain, the Columbus Northern team still kept pressing hard to come
    from behind to win the Championship game;

-   "a team from the State of Georgia had not won the world title in
    more than 20 years;

-   "the championship victory of the Columbus Northern Little League
    Baseball Team sets an example of sportsmanship, dedication, and a
    'never give up' spirit for men and women all across the country; and

-   "the achievement of the Columbus Northern Little League Baseball
    Team is the cause of enormous pride for the Nation, the State of
    Georgia, and the city of Columbus."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.Res. 991 was introduced on
September 7, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform.
The bill was marked-up on September 21, 2006, and it was reported to the
House by unanimous consent the same day.

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

H.R. 5108 --- Lance Corporal Robert A. Martinez Post Office Building
Designation Act --- *as introduced* (Poe, R-TX)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="0.88125in"
height="1.3958333333333333in"}**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5108 would
designate the U.S. Postal Service facility located at 1213 East Houston
Street in Cleveland, Texas, as the "Lance Corporal Robert A. Martinez
Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Marine Lance Corporal Robert
A. Martinez died from an improvised explosive device at the age of 22 on
December 1, 2005 while inside an abandoned flour factory being used as a
patrol base. Lance Corporal Martinez was assigned to the 2nd Battalion,
7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, First Marine Expeditionary
Force.

For additional information on Robert Martinez and other fallen heroes of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, please visit:
<http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/oif/profiles/martinezroberta.html>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5108 was introduced on April 5,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
September 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 6075 --- Robert J. Thompson Post Office Building Designation Act

--- *as introduced* (Pitts, R-PA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6075 would designate the U.S. Postal
Service facility located at 101 East Gay Street in West Chester,
Pennsylvania, as the "Robert J. Thompson Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: [Robert
Thompson](http://www.politicspa.com/pressreleasedetailed.asp?id=788) was
a Pennsylvania state Senator who represented parts of Chester and
Montgomery counties. Thompson died at the age of 68 as a result of
complications from pulmonary fibrosis. He had been in public service for
more than 30 years. He is survived by his wife, two daughters, four
grandchildren, a sister and brother.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6075 was introduced on
September 14, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform.
The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by
unanimous consent on September 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 6078 --- Chuck Fortenberry Post Office Building Designation Act

--- *as introduced* (Brady, R-TX)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6078 would designate the U.S. Postal
Service facility located at 307 West Wheat Street in Woodville, Texas,
as the "Chuck Fortenberry Post Office Building."

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="1.0159722222222223in" height="1.625in"}

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: [According to the Associated
Press](http://www.militarycity.com/valor/257215.html), Warrant Officer
Chuck Fortenberry was killed on April 11, 2004 at the age of 38, when
his AH-64 Apache attack helicopter was shot down by insurgents near
Baghdad. He was escorting a fuel convoy to Falujah when his helicopter
was attacked. Fortenberry was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 227th
Aviation Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6078 was introduced on
September 14, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform.
The bill was marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by
unanimous consent on September 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

H.R. 4720---Beverly J. Wilson Post Office Building Designation Act---*as
introduced* (Doolittle, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, September 27^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4720 would designate the U.S. postal
facility located at 200 Gateway Drive in Lincoln, California, as the
"Beverly J. Wilson Post Office Building."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: Beverly J. Wilson was a
fifty-year resident of Lincoln, CA, and served as a postal carrier for
over twenty-five years. Tragically, Beverly was killed in the line of
duty a mere four weeks short of retirement.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On February 8, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Government Reform Committee, which on September 21,
2006, marked up and by unanimous consent ordered the bill reported to
the full House.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

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

H.Res. 973 --- Recognizing Financial Planning Week, recognizing the
significant impact of sound financial planning on achieving life's
goals, and honoring families and the financial planning profession for
their adherence and dedication to the financial planning process --- *as
introduced*

(*Hinojosa, D-TX*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the resolution.

[Note]{.underline}: 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 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that
a Financial Planning Week has been designated as beginning on October 2,
2006. Because the resolution merely congressional findings, but does not
actually establish a commemorative week, the Parliamentarian's office
has apparently ruled that it is allowable under House rules.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.Res. 973 would resolve that the House of
Representatives:

1)  "encourages Americans to observe 'Financial Planning Week' with
    appropriate programs and activities;

2)  "supports the goals and ideals of 'Financial Planning Week';

3)  "recognizes the significant impact that sound financial planning can
    have on securing financial independence and achieving life's goals
    and dreams; and

4)  "acknowledges and commends the millions of families across the
    United States, as well as the financial planning profession, for
    their adherence and dedication to the financial planning process."

The resolution also states a number of findings, including the
following:

-   "the financial planning process can play a vital role in helping
    workers achieve financial independence by empowering them to
    identify and manage realistic financial objectives and meet the
    financial challenges that arise at every stage of life;

-   "all individuals in the United States can improve their quality of
    life by securing competent, objective, and comprehensive financial
    advice to assist them in attaining their financial goals; and

-   "the Financial Planning Association has designated the week
    beginning October 2, 2006, as 'Financial Planning Week.'"

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.Res. 973 was introduced on
September 7, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform on
September 21, 2006. The bill was marked-up on September 21, 2006, and it
was reported to the House by unanimous consent on the same day.

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

H.R. 5989 --- John J. Sinde Post Office Building Designation Act

--- *as introduced (Davis, D-IL)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5989 would designate the U.S. Postal
Service facility located at 10240 Roosevelt Road in Westchester,
Illinois, as the "John J. Sinde Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: John J. Sinde was the mayor of
the Village of Westchester from 1981 to 2004. [Mayor
Sinde](http://www.cookctyclerk.com/html/092104resdoc.htm) is survived by
his wife Marilyn, 3 children, and 6 grandchildren.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5989 was introduced on July 28,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
September 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

H.R. 5990 --- Wallace W. Sykes Post Office Building Designation Act

--- *as introduced* *(Davis, D-IL)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5990 would designate the U.S. Postal
Service facility located at 415 South 5th Avenue in Maywood, Illinois,
as the "Wallace W. Sykes Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to materials
received from the Committee on Government Reform, "Pastor Wallace Wyatt
Sykes is an institution in the town of Maywood, Illinois," and "has
provided dedicated leadership sorely needed for the Church of God since
1961."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5990 was introduced on July 28,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
September 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

S. 3613 --- Major George Quamo Post Office Building Designation Act

--- *as received* *(Sen. Clinton, D-NY)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5990 would designate the U.S. Postal
Service facility located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park,
New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Senator Clinton's
website, [Maj.
Quamo](http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=261684)
was a member of the Special Forces Unit in the Vietnam War, and was
killed in 1968 at age 27 when the helicopter he was traveling in crashed
outside of Laos in a heavily wooded area. "Quamo commanded three
reconnaissance teams while in Vietnam, leading a number of covert
missions. His actions saved the lives of 14 of his men. During his
distinguished career he was awarded 26 medals which included the
Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars, Bronze Star, Legion of
Merit and Presidential Unit Citations. He was 27 and the youngest major
ever to have served in the Special Forces Unit."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 3613 was received from the Senate
on September 6, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government
Reform, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

[]{.mark}

S. 3187 --- Richard L. Cevoli Post Office Building Designation Act

--- *as received* *(Reed, D-RI)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 27, 2006, under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 3187 would designate the U.S. Postal
Service facility located at 5755 Post Road, East Greenwich, Rhode
Island, as the "Richard L. Cevoli Post Office."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the sponsor's
office, Richard Cevoli fought in World War II and the Korean War. In
World War II, Commander Cevoli was awarded the Navy Cross for his
bravery during the Battle of Leyte Gulf. During the battle, Cevoli
strafed the largest Japanese ship, silencing many of its guns. The
following day he severely damaged a Japanese aircraft carrier with a
500-pound bomb, and strafed a destroyer, silencing its antiaircraft
weapons, thereby contributing to the successful bombing and torpedo
attacks that followed.

Following the Second World War, Cevoli served as the Executive Officer
in Squadron VF-19 on board the USS LEYTE, seeing action in the Korean
War. In addition to the Navy Cross, Commander Cevoli earned two
Distinguished Flying Crosses and eight Air Medals during his active
flying career.

Cevoli was born in East Greenwich in 1919, where he remained a life-long
resident.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 3187 was received from the Senate
on July 24, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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
Post Offices and post roads.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717