![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.666666666666667in"
height="1.0833333333333333in"}

# Legislative Bulletin...........................................December 5, 2006

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 5076** --- National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act
> of 2006
>
> **H.Res. 1087**---Designating Room H-139 of the Capitol as the "Henry
> J. Hyde Room"
>
> **H.R. 6316** --- To extend through December 31, 2008, the authority
> of the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by
> non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits
>
> **H.R. 6111** --- To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
> provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent
> spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations
> while such claims are pending
>
> **H.R. 5666** --- Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act
> of 2006
>
> **H.R. 5466** --- Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic
> Trail Designation Act
>
> **H.R. 1492** --- To provide for the preservation of the historic
> confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World
> War II, and for other purposes
>
> **S. 1219** --- A bill to authorize certain tribes in the State of
> Montana to enter into a lease or other temporary conveyance of water
> rights to meet the water needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water
> Association, Inc.
>
> **H.R. 5110 ---** More Water and More Energy Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 395 ---** Lowell National Historical Park Boundary Adjustment
> Act
>
> **S. 3711---**Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act
>
> **H.R. 1176** --- Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of
> 2006
>
> **H.R. \_\_\_** --- To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent
> and repress the misuse of the Red Crescent distinctive emblem and the
> Third Protocol (Red Crystal) distinctive emblem
>
> **H.Con.Res. 73** --- Supporting the goals and ideals of National High
> School Seniors Voter Registration Day
>
> **H.Res. 1070** --- Expressing the sense of the House of
> Representatives that Members of the House should actively engage with
> employers and the American public at large to encourage the hiring of
> members and former members of the Armed Forces who were wounded in
> service and are facing a transition to civilian life

H.R. 5076 --- National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of
2006 []{.mark}--- *as amended* (Young, R-AK)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

[Note]{.underline}: Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation
authorizing more than a ten percent increase in authorizations in any
given year may not be considered by the House on the Suspension
Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected Leadership.
H.R. 5076, which appears to authorize more than a ten percent increase
in authorizations, has not received such a waiver from the elected
Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5076 authorizes \$81.6 million in FY07,
\$100.0 million in FY08, and \$104.8 million in FY09, for the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

The bill moves \$2 million from the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization fund to the emergency fund for unexpected accident
investigation costs. H.R. 5076 authorizes appropriations to maintain the
emergency fund at \$4 million.

H.R. 5076 strikes language relating to the NTSB Academy for training
accident investigators, and amends the language of the law to allow the
Board to collect fees, refunds, and reimbursements for services provided
through the Board. The bill strikes the language relating to a separate
report on the Academy's activities to incorporate the Academy report
into the NTSB's annual report.

The bill expands the power of the NTSB to investigate accidents from
investigating accidents on U.S. navigable waters and territorial seas to
all waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Additionally, H.R. 5076 creates
a new, staffed office to investigate and report on marine accidents.

H.R. 5076 removes a provision from current law requiring the NTSB to
reimburse the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation for
its oversight of NTSB activities.

The bill makes permanent the authority of the NTSB to contract for
investigative services.

Finally, the bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to select the
least costly alternative to improve runway safety after environmental
review.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-512](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_reports&docid=f:hr512.109.pdf),
the NTSB's authorization expired September 30, 2006. Additionally, the
H.R. 5076 provisions striking the language relating to the Academy, but
still allowing the Board to recoup fees, refunds, and reimbursements for
services rendered by the Board, is an attempt to reduce the amount of
investigative resources used at the Academy.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5076 was introduced on April 4,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation. The bill was marked-up and
was ordered reported to the House by voice vote on April 5, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.R. 5076
authorizes \$82 million in 2007; \$287 million over the 2007-2011
period. Additionally, CBO estimates that the bill will have no
significant impact on direct spending.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill expands the power of the NTSB
to investigate accidents from only on U.S. navigable waters and
territorial seas to on or under all waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
In addition, the bill creates a new, staffed office to investigate and
report on marine accidents.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-512
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8 of the Constitution, 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}**: Marcus Kelley;
<marcus.kelley@mail.house.gov>; (202) 226-9717

H.Res. 1087---Designating Room H-139 of the Capitol as the "Henry J.
Hyde Room"---*as introduced* (Pence, R-IN)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, December 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1087 would designate room H-139 in the
Capitol (currently an annex for the House International Relations
Committee) as the "Henry J. Hyde Room," effective the day after Mr. Hyde
is no longer a Member of the U.S. House.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: Rep. Hyde is the current
chairman of the House International Relations Committee and was a
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Hyde was the House's
lead impeachment manager during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.
As Rep. Hyde's website says, "Hyde still believes today that the House
was constitutionally obligated to impeach Clinton for lying to a federal
grand jury."

Rep. Hyde is known as one of the strongest pro-life leaders the House
has ever had. To read more about Rep. Hyde, visit this webpage:
<http://www.house.gov/hyde/Biography.htm>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On November 15, 2006, the resolution
was referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure 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. 6316 --- To extend through December 31, 2008, the authority of the
Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by
non-Federal public entities to expedite the processing of permits

--- *as introduced* *(Baird, D-WA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6316 amends the Water Resources
Development Act of 2000 to extend the time in which the Secretary of the
Army may accept and expend non-federal public donations to expedite the
evaluation of from December 31, 2006, to December 31, 2008.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6316 was introduced on November
13, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 6316 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.

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

H.R. 6111 --- To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that
the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and
to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims
are pending --- *as introduced* *(Tauscher, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6111 amends the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 by adding several provisions favorable to innocent spouses seeking
equitable relief from tax liability for understatements of tax liability
on joint tax returns by a divorced or separated spouse, including:

-   Allowing the innocent spouse to petition the Tax Court to determine
    the appropriate relief after the innocent spouse has petitioned the
    Secretary of the Treasury for equitable relief;

-   Delaying levies or proceedings for collections in the tax court for
    90 days once the innocent spouse requests equitable relief; and

-   Allowing an innocent spouse to enjoin any levy or proceeding during
    the 90 day period for the amount of tax relief to which the innocent
    spouse may be entitled.

H.R. 6111 allows the innocent spouse to waive the 90-day delay in levies
and proceedings for collection on tax liability.

The bill directs the Tax Court to promulgate rules regarding
notification of the divorced or separated spouse to be notified of the
innocent spouse's election to seek equitable relief.

The bill states that final decisions of courts with respect to the same
taxable year for which the innocent spouse seeks relief are conclusive.

H.R. 6111 directs the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate rules
relating to notice to both spouses with respect to administrative
proceedings regarding the innocent spouse's request for equitable
relief, and the opportunities for both spouses to participate in such
proceedings.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6111 was introduced on
September 19, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 6111 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.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding
Earmarks?]{.underline}**: Yes.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the U.S, and Article I, Section 8,
Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, grants Congress the
authority to make all laws necessary and proper for executing the
bankruptcy laws.

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

> **H.R. 5666 --- Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of
> 2006 --- *as introduced* (Simpson, R-ID)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5666 allows landowners within the A&B
Irrigation District in Idaho to repay their portion of the construction
costs of the District project facilities at any time. Once a landowner
discharges his debt, the land is no longer subject to the full-cost
pricing limitations under federal reclamation law. The landowner
discharging his debt may request certification from the Secretary of the
Interior that the debt has been repaid.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5666 was introduced on June 21,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Water
and Power. The subcommittee held hearings on July 27, 2006, but took no
further official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 5666 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.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding
Earmarks?]{.underline}**: Yes.

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

H.R. 5466 --- Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail
Designation Act --- *as introduced* (Davis, Jo Ann, R-VA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5466 amends the National Trails System
Act to establish the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic
Trail along 3,000 miles of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries in
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the District of
Columbia. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate
the administration of the historic trail with the Chesapeake Bay
Gateways and Watertrails Network; the Chesapeake Bay Program; federal,
state, tribal, regional, and local agencies; and the private sector.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The House Committee on
Resources website features the April 27, 2006 testimony of J. Peyton
Knight, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs at the National
Center for Public Policy Research, on the negative property rights
implications of National Historical Trails. Knight testified that
national scenic trail legislation, "carries significant negative
property rights implications for landowners in the path and vicinity" of
the trails, "whether the trail be the river itself or an adjacent,
land-based trail." Knight stated, "national scenic and historic trails
pose numerous, serious threats to property owners unfortunate enough to
lie in their path. These threats include land acquisition, restrictive
easements or increased land use controls and restrictive zoning
measures. But perhaps chief among the threats posed by such trails to
landowners is the condemnation of private property through eminent
domain."

Knight stated that the National Park Service's modus operandi to gain
consent of private landowners is to confront, "a property owner who
isn't interested in selling his land. Next, the Park Service makes the
property owner an offer he can't refuse - he can either capitulate to
the Park Service's demands, or lose his property via eminent domain.
Voila! A willing seller is born." Knight cited two cases; the Franciscan
Friars of the Atonement's Graymoor property in Garrison, New York; and
the Breen family, owners of the Saddleback Mountain Ski Area in Maine;
where the Park Service bullied property owners into giving up rights to
their land. According to Knight, "U.S. Representative Sue Kelly (R-NY)
aptly, if not understatedly, described the Park Service's approach as a
'strong-arm tactic.'"

(source:
<http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/testimony/2006/peytonknight.pdf>)

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5466 was introduced on May 24,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
National Parks. The subcommittee held hearings on September 28, 2006,
but took no further official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 5466 is
unavailable.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill adds 3,000 miles of land to
the portfolio of land under federal control.

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

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding
Earmarks?]{.underline}**: Yes.

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

H.R. 1492 --- To provide for the preservation of the historic
confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World
War II, and for other purposes --- *as amended* (Thomas, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

[Note]{.underline}: Under the House Republican Conference Rules, no
bills creating new programs may be

considered under suspension of the rules. This rule can be waived by a
vote of the elected leadership. H.R. 1492, which would create a new
federal grant program, received a waiver from the elected leadership
when it first appeared on the suspension calendar. H.R. 1492 has not
been granted a second waiver.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1492 would create a **new \$38 million
grant program** within the National Park

Service to encourage, support, recognize, and work in partnership with
citizens, federal agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, other
public entities, educational institutions, and private nonprofit
organizations for the purpose of identifying, researching, evaluating,
interpreting, protecting, restoring, repairing, and acquiring historic
confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World
War II. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to develop the
criteria for making grants after consulting state, local, and tribal
governments, other public entities, educational institutions, and
private nonprofit organizations. The Senate amendment increased the
requirement of non-federal matching funds from 25 percent to 50 percent.
The program would sunset two years after the last of the \$38 million is
disbursed.

Funds under this legislation could be used to acquire four non-federal
properties (listed in the bill), though the program overall could apply
to at least ten internment sites. The grants can not be used to acquire
property or an interest in land without the landowner's written consent.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: As the Resources Committee
points out, two years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President
Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 that called for all people of
Japanese ancestry residing on the west coast of the U.S., most of whom
were American citizens, to be placed in relocation camps. The Committee
describes this action as the largest forced relocation in U.S.
history\--over 120,000 Japanese-American citizens and Japanese aliens
were uprooted from their homes and interned in sites throughout the
country.

There are currently three units in the National Park System that
preserve and interpret the internment period: the Manzanar National
Historic Site, the Minidoka Internment National Monument, and the
Japanese-American Memorial located on New Jersey Avenue and Louisiana
Avenue:

<http://www.nps.gov/manz/>

<http://www.nps.gov/miin/>

<http://www.njamf.com/memorial.htm>

**[Administration Policy]{.underline}**: **The Administration OPPOSES
this bill**:

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/testimony/2005/michaelsnyder0414.htm.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Conservatives may be
concerned about creating a new multi-million dollar federal grant
program.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1492 passed the House on the
suspension calendar by voice vote on November 16, 2005. The bill was
received from the Senate on November 17, 2006, as amended.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.R. 1492 would
authorize appropriations of \$6 million in 2007, and \$38 million over
the 2007-2011 period.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, it would create a new grant program.

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

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding
Earmarks?]{.underline}**:

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-142
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8 of the Constitution, and Article IV, Section 3, but fails to
cite a specific Clause in either case.

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

S. 1219 --- A bill to authorize certain tribes in the State of Montana
to enter into a lease or other temporary conveyance of water rights to
meet the water needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Inc.

--- *as received* (Sen. Burns, R-MT)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 1219 allows the Assiniboine and Sioux
tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior, to lease their water rights, under the Fort
Peck-Montana Compact, to the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Inc.
The lease may not be for more than 100 years, may be for no monetary
compensation in return, and the water rights may not be permanently
sold. Under S. 1219, the Secretary of the Interior cannot be held liable
for any claim relating to compensation to the tribes under the lease.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The House version of the bill,
H.R. 2978, passed the House on the suspension calendar by voice vote on
May 16, 2006.

The 106^th^ Congress passed the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System
Act of 2000 to construct a rural water project in the northeastern
corner of Montana to serve the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and parts of
Valley, Daniels, Sheridan, and Roosevelt Counties.

Under the Fort Peck-Montana Compact, the tribes have rights to the water
in the Dry Prairie Rural Water System. The Montana State Water Compact
Commission has already approved the conveyance from the tribes to the
Association. The tribes will give the Association 28,000 acre-feet of
water per year at no cost since the tribes have plenty of water and are
not asking for payment for the water. Upon projected completion in 2011,
the Association should be able to serve a population of 31,000.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 1219 was received from the Senate
on February 7, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources'
Subcommittee on Water and Power, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing S.
1219 would have no significant effect on the federal budget.

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Senate report, Committee
Report
[109-213](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_reports&docid=f:sr213.109.pdf),
does not cite constitutional authority for this legislation.

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

> **H.R. 5110 --- More Water and More Energy Act of 2006**
>
> **--- *as amended (Udall, D-CO)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5110 would authorize \$5 million for the
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the U.S Geological Survey
to conduct a study to identify the technical, economic, environmental,
legal, and other obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced
water can be used for irrigation and other purposes. The bill would
direct the Secretary to report to Congress on the results of this study.

H.R. 5110 would also authorize \$1 million for the implementation of
several local projects. Specifically, the bill authorizes "at least one
project in one of the Upper Basin States," "at least one project in one
of the Lower Basin States other than California," and "at least one
project in California." The bill defines the local authorized projects
as follows: "the provision of financial assistance for the development
of a facility to demonstrate the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety
of processes to increase the extent to which produced water may be
recovered and made suitable for use for irrigation, municipal or
industrial uses, or other purposes."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5110 was introduced on April 5,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which requested
executive comment, but took no further official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no cost estimate available
for H.R. 5110. However, the bill authorizes \$6 million.

**[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. House Rule XIII, Section
3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain "a statement citing
the *specific* powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact
the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*

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

H.R. 395 --- Lowell National Historical Park Boundary Adjustment Act ---
*as introduced (Meehan, D-MA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 395 would adjust the boundaries of the
Lowell National Historical Park to include five parcels of land located
in the City of Lowell, Massachusetts.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 395 was introduced on January
26, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which took no
official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for H.R. 395.

**[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.

House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports
contain "a statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*

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

S. 3711---Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act---*as received*

(Sen. Domenici, R-NM)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, December 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 3711 would provide for expanded oil and
gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the underwater lands
adjacent to the coastal areas of the United States. That is, under S.
3711, the Secretary of the Interior would offer some OCS areas for
leasing that otherwise could not be leased over the next 10 years under
current law. Highlights of the bill are as follows:

-   Allows OCS oil and gas leasing in two areas of the Gulf of Mexico
    ("181 area" and "181 south area") not currently available for such
    leasing.

-   Places certain OCS areas off the coast of Florida under moratorium
    for oil and gas leasing through June 30, 2022. Entities that
    currently have leases in certain of these newly off-limits areas
    would be eligible to receive royalty and bonus credits equal to the
    value of the bonus bid plus any rental paid for the lease as of the
    date the lessee notifies the Secretary of the decision to exchange
    the lease. Such credits could only be used for new leases in the
    Gulf of Mexico.

-   Reserves the United States' right to designate national defense
    areas on the Outer Continental Shelf.

-   Allocates revenues from the newly-allowed OCS leasing, as follows:

> \--50% to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury
>
> \--50% to a special fund in the U.S. Treasury (capped at \$500 million
> for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055), for distribution as
> mandatory spending without further appropriation (and
> [not]{.underline} in place of any existing funds), as follows:
>
> \--75% to the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
>
> \--25% to provide financial assistance to states in accordance with
> Section 6 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16
> U.S.C. 460L-8) \[funds for land and water conservation programs\]

-   Allocates the funds from the "75%" line above to each of the four
    states in amounts (based on a formula established by the Secretary
    by regulation) that are inversely proportional to the respective
    distances between the point on the coastline of each state that is
    closest to the geographic center of the applicable leased tract
    (with no state receiving less than 10% of the funds allocated to the
    four states under this section). 20% of each state's share under
    this section would have to go to coastal political subdivisions (as
    defined in current law). Up to and including fiscal years 2016, this
    revenue-sharing could be on new leases in presently accessible
    areas. After 2016, the revenue-sharing would be just in the areas
    made accessible by this legislation.

-   Requires that the funds from the "75%" line above be used only for:

> \--Projects and activities for the purposes of coastal protection,
> including conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, and
> infrastructure directly affected by coastal wetland losses;
>
> \--Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources;
>
> \--Implementation of a federally-approved marine, coastal, or
> comprehensive conservation management plan;
>
> \--Mitigation of the impact of OCS activities through the funding of
> onshore infrastructure projects; and
>
> \--Planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with
> this section (administrative costs limited to 3% of funds received
> under this section).

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The House passed a related
bill, H.R. 4761, on June 29, 2006, by a vote of 232-187:
<http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2006&rollnumber=356>. The
House bill would allow for considerably more leasing on the OCS, but
also contains some new programs and extraneous provisions.

To read the RSC Legislative Bulletin on H.R. 4761, visit this webpage:
<http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_062906_OCS.doc>. To read the RSC
document on the amendments to H.R. 4761 (amendment numbers 1, 2, and 3
passed; amendment numbers 4 and 5 failed), visit this webpage:
<http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_062906_OCSAmdts.doc>. The
amendments document also indicates the results of RSC negotiations to
bring the cost of the bill down so that it saves money over ten years.

According to the House Resources Committee, "the U.S. is more than 60
percent dependent on foreign sources of oil to meet our domestic energy
requirements." The committee also points out that we are nearly 100%
dependent on crude oil for our transportation fuel, and population
increases continue to strain our energy needs.

Under current law, moratoria through June 2012 generally prohibit new
leasing and pre-leasing activities in most OCS areas outside of the
western and central Gulf of Mexico (though leasing occurs in small parts
of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Alaskan OCS).

The House bill (H.R. 4761) has some of the same language that was
originally part of the House's Deficit Reduction Act (H.R. 4241) last
year. To see the RSC Legislative Bulletin on last year's OCS language,
which was not included in the final spending reconciliation bill signed
into law, visit this webpage and scroll to page 4:

[http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB%2011-08-05\--Resources%20Reconciliation.doc](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB 11-08-05--Resources Reconciliation.doc).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 3711 was not referred to a House
Committee; it is being held at the desk.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned about the mandatory spending nature of the revenue-sharing
provisions with the states. Other conservatives may feel that this
legislation does not open up the OCS for leasing the way the House bill
would have. However, because the Senate bill saves money over ten years
(within the budget window) and expands *some* OCS leasing, any
conservative opposition to the Senate bill is not expected to be
widespread.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: The Statement of
Administration Policy (SAP) on S. 3711 supports passage of the
legislation:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/s3711sap-s.pdf>.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that S. 3711 would
have no effect on spending in FY2007, would reduce mandatory spending by
\$140 million in FY2008, would reduce mandatory spending by \$241
million over the FY2007-FY2011 period, and would reduce mandatory
spending by \$926 million over the FY2007-FY2016 period.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The bill would create a new fund in the
Treasury. Otherwise, no.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that the bill
contains no mandates.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Although a Senate committee
report citing constitutional authority is unavailable, the House
Resources Committee, in House Report 109-531, cites constitutional
authority in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 14 (the congressional power
to makes rules for the government and for the land and naval forces) and
18 (the congressional power to make all laws necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers given to Congress). The
report does not cite Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, which grants
Congress the power to dispose of and make all "needful" rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.

**[Outside Organizations]{.underline}**: The House bill was publicly
supported by hundreds of organizations, including:

-   American Chemistry Council

-   American Conservative Union

-   American Farm Bureau Federation

-   American Gas Association

-   Americans for Tax Reform

-   Coalitions for America

-   Competitive Enterprise Institute

-   Citizens Against Government Waste

-   Edison Electric Institute

-   FreedomWorks

-   Frontiers of Freedom

-   National Association of Manufacturers

-   National Center for Public Policy Research

-   National Mining Association

-   60 Plus Association

-   U.S. Chamber of Commerce

It is unclear which, if an, of these groups would not support the Senate
bill.

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

> **H.R. 1176 --- Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006
> --- *as reported* (Souder, R-IN)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

An almost identical bill, H.R. 3369, received a majority vote but failed
to garner the required 2/3s under suspension of the rules during the
108^th^ Congress
([217-176](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll445.xml)) on September
14, 2004.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 1176 would provide legal immunity (with
certain conditions and exceptions) to nonprofit athletic organizations,
such as Little League, in certain civil suits alleging harm from an act
or omission by such an organization in the adoption of rules for
athletic competitions or practices. The bill preempts state laws where
they are inconsistent with this federal law, unless the state laws
provide additional liability protection relating to rule making. The
liability immunity becomes effective on the date of enactment. The bill
further states that the immunity provided for in this bill would *not*
apply to a claim involving antitrust, defamation, civil rights laws, or
other laws providing protection from discrimination.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}:** According to the bill sponsor,
there has been a significant increase over the last decade in personal
injury lawsuits targeted at the rule-making bodies of amateur and
education-based athletics. This is a questionable attempt to sue these
associations for catastrophic injuries (which are rare) that occur
during participation in athletic competition and practice. The legal
attacks against rule-making bodies rely on the presumption that rules
should eliminate ***all*** risk in athletic competition. The increasing
frequency and cost of liability claims against rule-making bodies is
causing the few insurance companies that offer rule-makers liability
coverage to increase premiums substantially, raise deductibles to
unaffordable levels, and deny coverage altogether.

The bill would protect rulemaking bodies from "frivolous lawsuits" by
raising the standard for liability from *negligence* to *gross
negligence*. The litigating party would have to demonstrate that an
injury was caused by willful or reckless misconduct on the part of the
rule-making organization. The bill would apply this liability standard
to all amateur, non-profit rulemaking organizations such as the National
Federation of State High School Associations, the NCAA, Little League
Baseball or Pop Warner Football.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 1176 was introduced on March 8,
2005, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill was
marked-up on March 2, 2006, and it was reported to the House by voice
vote the same day (House Report
[109-393](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr393):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that "implementing
the legislation would result in no significant costs to the federal
government. Enacting H.R. 1176 would not affect direct spending or
revenues."

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}:** The bill would preempt certain state
liability laws, as noted above.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}:** Yes. According to CBO, H.R.
1176 contains an intergovernmental mandate (because it would preempt
certain state liability laws) as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates that the resulting costs, if any, would
not be significant and would be well below the \$64 million annual
threshold (adjusted for inflation) for intergovernmental mandates
established in that act.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** The Judiciary Committee, in
House Report
[109-393](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr393):),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8 (Powers of
Congress), 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}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

H.R. \_\_\_\_ --- To amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent and
repress the misuse of the Red Crescent distinctive emblem and the Third
Protocol (Red Crystal) distinctive emblem --- *as introduced* (Flake,
R-AZ)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. \_\_\_ would criminalize the fraudulent
use of the Red Crescent and Third Protocol emblem (the Red Crystal) or
any insignia created to imitate either emblem, and would make violators
punishable by a fine, imprisonment up to six months, or both. Current
law already stipulates criminal penalties for misuse of the Red Cross
emblem, and this legislation would extend these protections to the
existing Red Crescent emblem and the newly adopted (into the Geneva
Conventions) Red Crystal emblem.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="2.517361111111111in"
height="1.1319444444444444in"}**[Additional Background]{.underline}:**
On December 8, 2005, the Third Additional Protocol was adopted to the
1949 Geneva Conventions. The protocol creates a new emblem -- the Red
Crystal -- in addition to the Red Cross and Red Crescent Emblems
currently in use.

The American Red Cross stated that "the Protocol paves the way for Magen
David Adom, Israel's national society, to take up full membership in the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It is an important
step toward the Movement's goal of being truly universal."

The U.S. Department of State issued the following statement regarding
adoption of the Third Additional Protocol: "The United States thanks the
Swiss Government for its intensive diplomatic efforts to address this
long-standing humanitarian issue. We also congratulate in particular the
Palestine Red Crescent Society and Magen David Adom for concluding a
Memorandum of Understanding and an operational agreement in advance of
the conference, achievements which facilitated the adoption of the Third
Protocol."

For additional information on the Third Additional Protocol and the
Magen David Adom Society, please see [this press
release](http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_172_4976,00.html)
from the American Red Cross, or visit: <http://www.afmda.org/>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. \_\_\_ will likely be
introduced on December 5, 2006, and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

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

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

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

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

House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports
contain "a statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*

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

H.Con.Res. 73 --- Supporting the goals and ideals of National High
School Seniors Voter Registration Day --- *as introduced* (McCrery,
R-LA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 5, 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 encourages students to register to vote. Because the
resolution merely states support for, and urges students to register,
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. 73 resolves that, "Congress
supports the goals and ideals of National High School Seniors Voter
Registration Day, and encourages all eligible students to register to
vote."

[]{.mark}

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

-   "in order for the government of the United States to remain of the
    people, by the people, and for the people, individuals must take
    advantage of their right to vote;

-   "the right to vote is one of the most important rights of a citizen,
    and every effort should be made to promote voter registration at
    school so that students may begin participating in the foundation of
    the Nation's representative democracy;

-   "the Legislature of Louisiana voted in 2002 to recognize annually
    the first Tuesday in May as National High School Seniors Voter
    Registration Day; and

-   "the purpose of National High School Seniors Voter Registration Day
    is to allow students to register to vote at school to encourage
    their participation in making democracy work."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 73 was introduced on
February 17, 2005, and referred to the Committee on House
Administration, 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. 1070 --- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
that Members of the House should actively engage with employers and the
American public at large to encourage the hiring of members and former
members of the Armed Forces who were wounded in service and are facing a
transition to civilian life --- *as introduced* (Hunter, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, December 4, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1070 resolves that:

-   Members of the House should actively engage with employers and the
    American public at large to encourage the hiring of members and
    former members of the Armed Forces who were wounded in service and
    are facing a transition to civilian life; and

-   a strong relationship should be forged between Congress, local
    businesses, and members and former members of the Armed Forces
    towards the goal of finding employment for those who have sacrificed
    so much.

[]{.mark}

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

-   "United States soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines continue to
    make significant personal sacrifices to protect and defend the
    Nation;

-   "since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
    Freedom in late 2001 over 1,348,000 members of the Armed Forces have
    served overseas in combat theaters of operations;

-   "over 19,600 members of the Armed Forces have been wounded in
    theater and as a result of their injuries many have been separated
    from their respective service;

-   "as a result of required separation from military service due to
    their injuries incurred while in service, these members of the Armed
    Forces are transitioning to civilian careers; and

-   "Members of Congress could provide assistance in making businesses
    and employers aware of the unique skills of wounded veterans and
    thereby help reduce the jobless rate for wounded veterans."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1070 was introduced on
September 29, 2006, and referred to the House Armed Services Committee's
Subcommittee on Military Personnel and the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, 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

\###