![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in"
height="1.0520833333333333in"}

# 

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

**Contents:**

> **H.R. 6115 ---** Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2006

**S. 362---**Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act

> **H.R. 5946 ---** Stevens-Inouye International Fisheries Monitoring
> and Compliance Legacy Act of 2006

**H.R. 6014**---To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to

improve California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and water supply

**H.R. 1711**---New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act

**H.R. 5160**---Long Island Sound Stewardship Act

> **H.R. 2069 ---** Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2005
>
> **H.R. 5842 ---** Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources
> Restoration Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 4789** --- To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey
> certain public land located wholly or partially within the boundaries
> of the Wells Hydroelectric Project of Public Utility District No. 1 of
> Douglas County, Washington, to the utility district
>
> **H.R. 3626** -- Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005
>
> **H.R. 4750** --- Lower Republican River Basin Study Act

**H.R. 5016** --- Las Cienegas Enhancement Act

**H.R. 5692** --- Columbia Space Shuttle Memorial Study Act

> **S. 56** -- Rio Grande Natural Area Act
>
> **S. 2430** -- Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 5690** --- Ouachita National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of
> 2006
>
> **H.R. 4876** --- To ratify a conveyance of a portion of the Jicarilla
> Apache Reservation to Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico, pursuant
> to the settlement of litigation between the Jicarilla Apache Nation
> and Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico, to authorize issuance of a
> patent for said lands, and to change the exterior boundary of the
> Jicarilla Apache Reservation accordingly, and for other purposes
>
> **H.R. 5516** --- To allow for the renegotiation of the payment
> schedule of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the
> Redwood Valley County Water District
>
> **H.R. 3606** -- To modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary
> of the Interior
>
> **H.R. 2134** -- Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a
> National Museum of the American Latino Community Act of 2005
>
> **H.R. 5340** -- Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act

**S. 213---**Rio Arriba County Land Conveyance Act

> **H.R. 2110---**Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop
> Protection Study Act
>
> **H.R. 5644 ---** Green Energy Education Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 5658 ---** To facilitate the development of markets for
> alternative fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through research,
> development, and demonstration and data collection
>
> **H.R. 4846 ---** To authorize a grant for contributions toward the
> establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library
>
> **S. 2146**---A bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for
> Federal employees
>
> **H.R. 5418---**To establish a pilot program in certain United States
> district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases
> among district judges

H.R. 6115 --- Mark-to-Market Extension Act of 2006 ---

*as introduced* (Pryce, R-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.

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. This rule may be
waived by a vote of the elected Leadership. H.R. 6115, which extends a
sunset authorization, received such a waiver from the elected
Leadership.

Note: The text of H.R. 6115 is identical to the reported version of H.R.
5527.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 6115 would reauthorize two sections in
the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act (MAHRA) of
1997 through October 1, 2011: the Mark-to-Market program, and provisions
of the FHA-insured Multifamily Housing Mortgage and Housing Assistance
Restructuring program regarding projects and programs for which binding
commitments have been entered into. According to CBO, MAHRA, "authorizes
the so-called mark-to-market approach for renewing Section 8 Housing
Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts and for the restructuring of certain
mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Under the
mark-to-market approach, HAP contracts are renewed at market rents for
FHA-insured projects that currently receive above-market rents and, if
necessary, the mortgages for those projects are written down to levels
that could be supported by the lower rents."

Additional provisions of the bill are as follows:

-   Amends MAHRA to increase to 9% (up from 5%), the rent level limits
    for all units subject to restructured mortgages in any fiscal year,
    based on need. According to the sponsor's office, "The first
    \[provision\] raises the limit on high-cost restructurings, those
    with Exception Rents above 120% of Fair Market Rents.  Currently,
    nationwide, only 5 percent of the properties in the program may have
    exception rents.  This \[provision\] raises the cap to up to 9% of
    the properties closed in any given year."

-   Extends eligibility for projects that sustain substantial damage in
    areas declared by the president to be disaster areas. According to
    the Committee, "Damaged properties in disaster areas will benefit
    from the rehabilitation and debt restructuring tools available to
    Mark-to-Marking. This inclusion will erase the question of
    eligibility, making Mark-to-Market tools quickly available to
    rebuilding efforts."

-   Extends from 3 to 5 years, the period during which a
    community-approved non-profit may purchase a Mark-to-Market property
    after the closing. According to the sponsor's office, "The current
    3-year rule limits the options available to a property owner who may
    consider transferring the property to a non-profit.  Today, if an
    owner who closed a Mark-to-Market deal 4 years ago wants to sell to
    a non-profit it is not feasible; without the debt forgiveness or
    debt reassignment provided by HUD a non-profit simply can't take
    over the property."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the sponsor's
office, "the Mark-to-Market program was enacted by Congress in 1997 to
reduce the cost to the federal government of renewing section 8
contracts.  By restructuring mortgages and lowering rents, the
Mark-to-Market program preserves and improves affordable housing and
reduces the cost to taxpayers."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 6115 was introduced in the
House on September 20, 2006, and referred to the House Committee on
Financial Services, which took no official action. However, as
previously noted, the text of H.R. 6115 is identical to that of the
reported version of H.R. 5527. H.R. 5527 was introduced on June 6, 2006,
and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, which considered
it, held a mark-up and reported the bill, as amended, by voice vote on
July 17, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO review of H.R. 5527 (see
committee action section), estimated that "enacting H.R. 5527 would
prevent some projects from defaulting on FHA-insured mortgages and thus
**reduce direct spending** by \$188 million over the 2006-2011"
(emphasis added). Regarding spending subject to appropriations, CBO
estimates that the bill would "allow for savings of \$35 million in
discretionary spending over the 2007-2011 period, assuming that future
appropriations are reduced to reflect the lower costs of Section 8
contracts."

However, in a study requested by Congressman Jeb Hensarling, CBO stated
that current budget rules understate the cost of federal credit
programs, such as FHA loan programs, in part by failing to account for
market risk and separately listing administrative expenses.

> \[Current budget rules\] understate the cost of FHA guarantees
> relative to that of other federal spending programs....For example, a
> proposal to spend \$2 billion per your for vouchers to permit
> high-risk first-time home buyers to purchase private mortgage
> insurance would have a budget cost of \$10 billion over a five-year
> period, whereas the fiscally equivalent alternative of operating the
> \[FHA\] program under current policy would be shown in the budget as
> having net savings of \$1.8 billion for that same period.
>
> Source:
> [[http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7412/07-17-FHA.pdf]{.underline}](http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/74xx/doc7412/07-17-FHA.pdf)

**[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 committee report for
H.R. 5527 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) of the
Constitution.

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

S. 362---Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act---*as
reported* (*Sen. Inouye, D-HI*)

**[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. The Senate passed S. 362 by unanimous consent
on July 1, 2005.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 362, as amended by the House, would
consolidate existing efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to reduce the amount of marine debris (such as
garbage, lost fishing gear, and abandoned vessels) in oceans and coastal
areas into a new umbrella program. NOAA would conduct projects to
identify and catalogue debris hazards, determine the sources of such
debris, and develop methods for removing existing---and preventing
new---debris, with the goals of reducing and preventing the occurrence
and adverse impacts of such debris on the environment and on navigation
safety. The centralized program would coordinate the mapping,
identification, impact assessment, removal, and prevention efforts
related to marine debris.

Under this new program, NOAA would provide grants to nonfederal entities
(e.g. state, local, and tribal governments, universities, and nonprofits
involved with marine debris removal) for marine debris identification,
removal, reduction, and prevention activities and outreach and education
programs to prevent and address marine debris with recreational boaters,
the fishing industry, and commercial stakeholders. The federal share of
a project funded with a grant could not exceed 50% (subject to waiver).

The bill would also instruct the Coast Guard to strengthen the
enforcement of existing laws and treaties that address ocean pollution
and waste disposal at sea. Additionally, the Coast Guard would be
directed to create a voluntary reporting program that will provide a
central location at which to receive information from commercial vessel
operators, recreational boaters, and the general public about marine
debris.

The existing Interagency Marine Debris Coordinating Committee (33 U.S.C.
1914) would be revised to improve the coordination of marine debris
research and activities throughout the federal government (through
increased reporting requirements and the creation of a federal
information clearinghouse on marine debris).

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee staff provided this background information:

> Over the past two decades, NOAA has conducted marine debris research
> and management under the Marine Entanglement Research Program and
> under debris assessment and removal programs in the Northwest Hawaiian
> Islands and other regions. From 1985 to 1996, NOAA administered the
> Marine Entanglement Research Program, a marine debris research and
> management program that was created in response to growing public
> concern over the impacts of marine debris on wildlife. Beginning in
> 1996, NOAA has carried out marine debris-related activities through
> the NOAA Community-Based Restoration Program, NOAA Sea Grant
> (state-by-state efforts), NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
> Management (state-by-state efforts), and NOAA Coral Reef Conservation
> Program. In 2005, Congress provided direct appropriations to NOAA to
> re-establish a centralized marine debris capability within NOAA to
> organize, strengthen, and increase the visibility of the marine debris
> efforts within the agency.
>
> Additionally, NOAA has a number of mandates that require the agency to
> address marine debris. These include, but are not limited to, the
> Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (section which states that NOAA
> must "provide assistance to States in removing abandoned fishing gear,
> marine debris, and abandoned vessels from coral reefs to conserve
> living marine resources,"); and the Marine Protection, Research, and
> Sanctuaries Act, which regulates ocean dumping and monitoring and
> takes into account the aesthetic properties of the National Marine
> Sanctuaries in regards to marine debris. Other mandates for NOAA
> Marine Debris include the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (section
> 309) and the Marine Plastic Pollution Research Control Act, which
> deals with outreach and education and pollution from ships.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On July 11, 2005, the Senate-passed
bill was referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, as well as the House Resources Committee. On November 16,
2005, the Resources Committee marked up the bill, amended it, and by
unanimous consent ordered it reported to the full House. On June 28,
2006, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee marked up the
Resources-amended bill, amended it further, and by voice vote ordered it
reported to the full House. The version of the bill on the floor today
is the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee version.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that the bill would
authorize \$12 million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 (for a
total of \$60 million).

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Although the bill would create two new
programs and one subprogram, these would largely embody activities
already conducted by NOAA and the Coast Guard (though not entirely).

**[Note]{.underline}**: 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.
This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected House Leadership. S.
362 received such a waiver.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Resources Committee, in
House Report 109-332 Part 1, cites constitutional authority in Article
1, Section 8, but fails to cite a specific clause. The Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, in House Report 109-332 Part 2, cites
constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8, but also 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. 5946 --- Stevens-Inouye International Fisheries Monitoring and
Compliance Legacy Act of 2006 --- *as amended* (Pombo, R-CA)

**[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.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5946 would amend the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, to authorized activities to
promote improved monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries. The
specific provisions of the bill are as follows, summarized by title.

*Title I*

-   Authorizes the Secretary of the Commerce to promote improved
    monitoring and compliance for high seas fisheries or fisheries
    governed by international or regional fishery management agreements.
    To accomplish these goals, the provision would authorize the
    Secretary to, among other things:

    -   share information on harvesting and processing capacity and
        illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing on the high
        seas with relevant enforcement organizations of foreign nations
        and international organizations;

    -   further develop real time information sharing capabilities, on
        IUU fishing;

    -   participate in global and regional efforts to build an
        international network for monitoring;

    -   support efforts to create an international registry of fishing
        vessels; and

    -   enhance regional enforcement capabilities through the use of
        remote sensing technology.

-   Directs the Secretary to improve the effectiveness of international
    fishery management organizations (IFMOs) by urging those
    organizations to incorporate multilateral sanctions against member
    or nonmember governments with vessels engaging in IUU fishing, and
    implement other reforms.

-   Directs the Secretary to identify nations whose vessels participate
    in IUU fishing, to take certain measures to address the nation's
    violations, to notify the President of the nation in question, and
    to establish a procedure for certifying that the nation is taking
    corrective actions.

-   Directs the Secretary to take similar actions against nations that
    do not end or reduce bycatch (fish that are accidentally caught
    along with the targeted catch) of protected living marine resources.

-   Reauthorizes at \$32.97 million (current authorization level
    according to the Committee) over six years (\$5.49 million each year
    from FY07 to FY12), the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Of the
    total amount, \$160,000 is allocated each year to the advisory
    committee established under ATCA, and \$4.2 million is allocated
    each year for research activities.

*Title II*

-   According to the Committee, "This title contains provisions to
    implement the Convention on the Conservation and Management of
    Highly Migratory Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean
    (Convention), adopted on September 5, 2000 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The
    Convention, which the United States signed in 2000, became effective
    on June 19, 2004 prior to U.S. ratification. ...The objective of the
    Convention is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable
    use of tuna and other highly migratory stocks in the Western and
    Central Pacific Ocean, and also will be an important tool in helping
    to reduce the impact of fishing for such stocks on non-target
    species."

-   Provides that the U.S. is to be represented on the Commission for
    the conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in
    the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Commission), by five U.S.
    Commissioners, appointed by the President.

-   Establishes an advisory committee to be composed from between 15 and
    20 individuals appointed by the U.S. Commissioners to the
    Commission.

-   Authorizes the Secretary of State, in consultation with the
    Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Commissioners, to approve or
    disapprove recommendations of the Commission.

-   Prohibits the violation of certain acts (similar to those activities
    prohibited under the Magnuson-Stevens Act), including the
    importation of fish caught in violation of the international
    agreement.

-   Authorizes \$6 million over six years (\$1 million each year for
    FY07 through FY12), for the Secretary of Commerce to carry out the
    provisions in this title.

*Title III*

-   According to the Committee, this title "implements the terms of the
    Agreement on Pacific Hake/Whiting as signed by the United States and
    Canada in November, 2003."

-   Directs the Secretary of Commerce to appoint four individuals to
    represent the U.S. on the joint management committee established by
    the Agreement.

-   Directs the Secretary to appoint not more than two scientific
    experts to the scientific review group established by the Agreement.

-   Directs the Secretary to appoint between six and 12 individuals to
    serve as members of the Advisory Panel on Pacific Hake/Whiting
    established by the Agreement.

-   Directs the Secretary to establish a catch level for Pacific whiting
    according to the standards and procedures of the Agreement.

-   Authorizes \$6 million over six years (\$1 million each year from
    FY07 through FY12) for the Secretary of Commerce to carry out this
    title.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5946 was introduced in the
House on July 27, 06, and referred to the House Resources Committee,
which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: No official CBO estimate for H.R.
5946 is available. However, according to the Committee, H.R. 5946 is
"almost identical to title 4, 5, and 6 of S. 2012 (except that the
Senate bill had "such sums" for titles 5 and 6 and we authorize \$1
million per year for each title). CBO had estimated the Senate bill's
title 5 at \$1 million per year and they scored title 6 at \$2 million
per year."

**[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}** Joelle Cannon;
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-0718.

H.R. 6014---To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation, to improve California's Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and water supply---*as introduced* (Pombo, 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. 6014 would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to deposit
\$10 million for each of six years into the Delta Flood Protection Fund
to be used for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta project in California.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: For more information on the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, visit this website:
<http://www.water.ca.gov/nav.cfm?topic=Environment&subtopic=Sacramento-San_Joaquin_Delta>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On July 28, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Resources Committee, which, about a week later, referred
it to its Subcommittee on Water and Power. On September 7^th^, the
Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill, but no further official action
has been taken at the subcommittee or committee level.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The bill would authorize \$10
million for each of fiscal years 2007-2012.

**[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. 1711---New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act---*as introduced*
(Wilson, R-NM)

**[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. 1711 would authorize \$3 million for
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for the Secretary of the
Interior, upon request of a state governor, to:

-   provide non-reimbursable technical assistance and non-reimbursable
    grants for the development of comprehensive state water plans;

-   conduct water resources mapping in the requesting state; and

-   conduct a comprehensive study of groundwater resources (including
    potable, brackish, and saline water resources) in the requesting
    state to assess the quantity, quality, and interaction of
    groundwater and surface water resources.

The authorizations would be allocated as follows:

-   \$5 million to develop hydrologic models and acquire associated
    equipment for the New Mexico Rio Grande main stem sections and Rios
    Pueblo de Taos and Hondo, Rios Nambe, Pojoaque and Teseque, Rio
    Chama, and Lower Rio Grande tributaries;

-   \$1.5 million to complete the hydrographic survey development of
    hydrologic models and acquire associated equipment for the San Juan
    River and tributaries;

-   \$1 million to complete the hydrographic survey development of
    hydrologic models and acquire associated equipment for Southwest New
    Mexico, including the Animas Basin, the Gila River, and tributaries;

-   \$4.5 million for statewide digital orthophotography mapping; and

-   such sums as are necessary to carry out additional projects.

The federal share for any project authorized by this legislation would
be 50%. The non-federal share could be in monetary or non-monetary
format.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On April 19, 2005, the bill was
referred to the Resources Committee, which, on April 25, 2005, referred
it to its Subcommittee on Water and Power. The Subcommittee held
hearings on the bill on April 26, 2005. No further committee action on
this bill occurred.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives
might be concerned about creating a new, non-offset grant-and-assistance
program in which non-reimbursable cash payments are made to one
particular state.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The bill would authorize \$3
million for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010. (CBO confirms this
for an identical Senate bill---S. 178.)

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

**[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. 5160---Long Island Sound Stewardship Act---*as amended*

(Simmons, R-CT)

**[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. 5160 would establish the Long Island
Sound Stewardship Initiative to identify, protect, and enhance sites
within the Long Island Sound ecosystem (in the coastal areas of
Connecticut and New York) with significant ecological, educational, open
space, public access, or recreational value. The bill would authorize
\$125 million over five years for the Initiative.

The bill would also establish the Long Island Sound Stewardship Advisory
Committee (the membership and operations of which are detailed in the
bill), which would:

-   review applications to become, and then recommend, 20 initial Long
    Island Sound stewardship sites;

-   recommend an equal distribution of funds between Connecticut and New
    York for the initial sites (upon requests from property owners to be
    identified as stewardship sites);

-   identify additional recreation areas and natural areas with
    ecological value as potential stewardship sites (as long as the
    property owners can decline identification as such);

-   use scientific modeling and predicting for updating the list of
    potential sites; and

-   report annually on recommended sites and recommended grants for
    securing and improving sites.

The Advisory Committee would affirmatively terminate on December 31,
2011.

Stewardship areas should be selected based on the natural ecological
value they have to the region and based on such factors as ease of
public access, cultural and historic significance, and proximity to
areas with high population density. A stewardship site could not be
designated without notice to the property owner (and his receipt of such
notice) of his responsibilities as a result of such designation.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency would have to
review the Advisory Committee's recommendations, approve the stewardship
sites, award grants for the purchase or maintenance of the sites (from
willing sellers only), post all related information on the site
selection and grant awards on the Internet, and report annually on the
Initiative.

The federal share of an activity conducted using a grant under this
legislation could not exceed 60%.

The bill affirmatively states that nothing in this legislation would
require any private property owner to allow public or government access
to the private property or would modify the application of current law
with regard to public access to or use of private property, except as
entered into by voluntary agreement of the owner or custodian of the
property. The participation of a private property owner within the
region affected by this bill would NOT be required. Nothing in this
legislation would alter liability for injuries on the private property.

The Administrator would be allowed to accept and use gifts to further
the goals of this bill. Not more than 8% of appropriated funds in any
year could be used for administrative purposes.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On April 6, 2006, the bill was
referred concurrently to the Resources Committee and the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee. Neither committee took official action on
the bill.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned about the creation of an expensive new federal program
without offsets.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The bill would authorize \$25
million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

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

**[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. 2069 --- Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2005 --- *as
reported* (Cannon, R-UT)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2069 directs the Secretary of the
Interior, upon request of the state of Utah, to accept an offer from
Utah to convey to the U.S., a parcel of non-federal land in Grand
County, Utah. Upon accepting this land, the bill directs the Secretary
to convey to Utah, a parcel of federal land located in Grand and Uintah
Counties. The value of the two lands conveyed is to be approximately
equal, or made equal by removing parcels of the non-federal land until
the exchange value is equal.

H.R. 2069 also sets forth provisions regarding the administration of
non-federal land after the exchange, including mineral revenues, grazing
permits, hazardous materials, and historic properties.

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

-   "the area surrounding the Colorado River in Grand County, Utah, and
    Dinosaur National Monument and the Book Cliffs in Uintah County,
    Utah, contains nationally recognized scenic vistas, significant
    archaeological and historic resources, valuable wildlife habitat,
    and outstanding opportunities for public recreation that are enjoyed
    by hundreds of thousands of people annually;

-   "the State of Utah owns multiple parcels of land in the area that
    were granted to the State under the Act of July 16, 1894 (28 Stat.
    107, chapter 138), to be held in trust for the benefit of the public
    school system and other public institutions of the State;

-   "the parcels of State trust land are largely scattered in
    checkerboard fashion amid the Federal land comprising the area of
    the Colorado River corridor, the Dinosaur National Monument, and the
    Book Cliffs;

-   "the State trust land in the area of the Colorado River corridor,
    Dinosaur National Monument, and the Book Cliffs includes significant
    natural and recreational features, including\--

    -   portions of Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River;

    -   the nationally recognized Kokopelli and Slickrock trails;

    -   several of the largest natural rock arches in the United States;

    -   multiple wilderness study areas and proposed wilderness areas;
        and

    -   viewsheds for Arches National Park and Dinosaur National
        Monument;

-   "the large presence of State trust land located in the Colorado
    River corridor, Dinosaur National Monument, and the Book Cliffs area
    makes land and resource management in the area more difficult,
    costly, and controversial for the United States and the State of
    Utah; and

-   "it is in the public interest to exchange federally owned land in
    the State for the Utah State trust land located in the Colorado
    River Corridor, Dinosaur National Monument, and the Book Cliffs
    area, on terms that are fair to the United States and the State of
    Utah."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-623](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr623)),
"The intent of the legislation is to place valuable recreation lands
into public ownership while also benefiting public school funding in
Utah. The exchange will also continue the process of consolidating State
and federal ownership patterns in Utah."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 2069 was introduced on May 4,
2005, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which considered
it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill by voice vote on September 6,
2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: An unofficial CBO estimate
determined that implementation of this bill would not affect federal
spending.

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** Committee Report 109-623
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
(interstate commerce), and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (regulating
federal property) of the Constitution.

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

H.R. 5842 --- Pueblo of Isleta Settlement and Natural Resources
Restoration Act of 2006--- *as reported* (Pearce, 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.

**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, S. 3525, which creates one new program,
did not received a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5842 establishes at the U.S. Treasury, a
trust fund, to be known as the Pueblo of Isleta Natural Resources
Restoration Fund, consisting of:

-   \$32.8 million from a settlement of the claims of the Pueblo of
    Isleta (a federally recognized tribe);

-   \$7.2 million as authorized by this bill; and

-   the acquisition, restoration, improvement, development, and
    protection of land, natural resources, and cultural resources within
    the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo.

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to allocate assistance from the
Fund, as follows:

-   \$7.1 million for drainage and remediation of the agricultural land;

-   \$5.7 million to the Pueblo of Isleta for use in carrying out
    drainage and remediation of waterlogged land; and

-   \$1.5 million for the Pueblo of Isleta to carry out the
    rehabilitation and remediation of forest and range land.

**The bill authorizes \$7.2 million for the Fund,** and directs the
Pueblo of Isleta to submit to the Secretary, an annual report describing
expenditures from the Restoration Fund.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5842 was introduced on July 19,
2006 and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which requested
executive comment from the Department of Interior.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for H.R. 5842. However, the bill authorizes at least \$7.2 million in
discretionary spending.

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

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

**[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. 4789 --- To require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
public land located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the
Wells Hydroelectric Project of Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas
County, Washington, to the utility district --- *as reported* (Hastings,
R-WA)

**[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. 4789 would require the Secretary of the
Interior, at the request of Public Utility District (PUD) No. 1 of
Douglas County, Washington, to convey to PUD eight parcels of public
land (622 acres) that are located entirely or partially within the
boundaries of the Wells Hydroelectric PUD and that are administered by
the Secretary through the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The bill
requires that the Interior Department complete a land appraisal, and
that within 30 days of the land transfer PUD must pay the Interior
Department the appraisal amount for the land.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 4789 was introduced on February
16, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health. The bill was marked-up on July 19, 2006, and
it was reported, amended, to the House by unanimous consent the same day
(House Report
[109-634](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr634):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 4789 is
unavailable, but the bill does not authorize new expenditures. According
to the bill language, the government will be paid for the land to be
transferred, and as a result federal land holdings will decrease.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}:** No. It will decrease the size of federal
land holdings.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** The Resources Committee, in
House Report
[109-634](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr634):),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (to
power of Congress to regulate commerce), and Article IV, Section 3,
Clause 2 (regarding U.S. territories).

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

H.R. 3626 --- Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005--- *as
reported* (Bishop, R-UT)

**[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. 3626 would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior (through the Bureau of Reclamation) to conduct a
feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam to
provide additional storage to meet water supply needs within the Weber
Basin Project area and the Wasatch Front, Utah. The study must include
an environmental evaluation and a cost allocation. The bill limits the
federal share to 50 percent of the study's cost, and allows the Interior
Department to accept in-kind contributions of goods or services from the
Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. It terminates the Secretary's
authority for the Act ten years after enactment, and authorizes
appropriations of \$1 million for the federal share.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 3626 was introduced on July 29,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Water
and Power. The Committee held hearings, held a mark-up session on
November 16, 2005, and reported the bill to the House by unanimous
consent on the same day (House Report
[109-339](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr339):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that, "assuming
appropriation of the specified amount, **implementing H.R. 3626 would
cost \$1 million over the 2006-2007 period**. Enacting H.R. 3626 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}:** No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** The Resources Committee, in
House Report
[109-339](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr339):),
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}:** Derek V. Baker;
[derek.baker@mail.house.gov](mailto:Derek.baker@mail.house.gov);
202-226-8585

H.R. 4750 --- Lower Republican River Basin Study Act

--- *as amended* (Osborne, R-NE)

**[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. 4750 permits the Secretary of the
Interior to share up to 50% of the cost of a feasibility study for a
water supply and conservation project in Nebraska and Kansas. The study
should determine if a water project can improve water supply
reliability, increase water storage capacity, and improve water
management efficiency in the Republican River Basin.

The Secretary must finish the study and submit a report to Congress
within three years of enactment. The Secretary's authority to conduct
the study sunsets 10 years after enactment of the bill.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: This bill arises from a
lawsuit between Kansas and Nebraska and the rulings of the Supreme
Court's Special Master in the case.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4750 was introduced on February
14, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House, as amended, by
unanimous consent on September 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 4750 would cost \$0.75 million over the 2007-2011 period, subject
to appropriations.

**[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}**: Committee Report 109-632,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I,
Section 8, and Clause 3 (the interstate commerce clause).

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

H.R. 5016 --- Las Cienegas Enhancement Act --- *as reported* (Kolbe,
R-AZ)

**[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. 5016 requires the Secretary of the
Interior to accept an offer of 2,392 acres of land located 50 miles
south of Tucson Arizona in the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area
from Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC in exchange for 1,280 acres owned by
the Arizona Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The lands exchanged are to
be subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. As a condition
of the exchange, Las Cienegas Conservation, LLC must convey, without
consideration, to Pima County, Arizona, 98 acres. Las Cienegas
Conservation, LLC is required to bear all the costs associated with the
conveyance. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to include all
acquired acres into the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area.
Finally, H.R. 5016 allows the redrawing of the boundaries of the Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area to exclude 40 acres inadvertently
included in the Area that is being used by Elgin, Arizona as a landfill.
The exchange must be completed within one year of enactment.

The value of the properties to be exchanged is to be equal, so H.R. 5016
requires an appraisal by an independent third party. In order for the
exchange to be equal, the bill allows for either cash equalization
payments, which may be in excess of 25% of the value of the federally
owned 1,280 acres notwithstanding the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, or a reduction in the acreage exchanged.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5016 was introduced on March
28, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by voice vote on
September 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 5016 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.
Additionally, CBO has estimated any change in direct spending and
offsetting receipts should result in an insignificant impact on the
federal budget. Last, CBO states revenues would not be affected by H.R.
5016.

**[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}**: Committee Report 109-635,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article I,
Section 8, and Clause 3, (the interstate commerce clause) and Article
IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (the property clause).

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

**H.R. 5692 ---Columbia Space Shuttle Memorial Study Act**

**--- *as reported* (Gohmert, 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. 5692 directs the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a feasibility study to add at least four parcels of
land in Texas to the National Park System as memorials to the Space
Shuttle Columbia disaster. The study may consider only lands which would
be donated for the purpose of memorializing the disaster. The bill
includes a description of four sites that may be donated for memorials.
The Secretary is allowed to make suggestions for other sites for
National Park System memorials.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The four parcels of land
listed in the bill had debris from the disintegration of the Space
Shuttle Columbia fall on them.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5692 was introduced on June 27,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
National Parks, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 5692 is
unavailable, but studies of this kind have cost between
\$250,000-300,000, subject to appropriation.

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

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

**[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

S. 56 --- Rio Grande Natural Area Act --- *as amended* (Sen. Allard,
R-CO)

**[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

**[Summary]{.underline}:** S. 56 would establish the Rio Grande Natural
Area (Area) in Colorado along a 33-mile stretch of the Rio Grande River
to be administered by the Bureau of Land Management, to "promote the
protection and restoration of the riparian zone of the Rio Grande." The
specific provisions of the bill are as follows:

-   defines the Area's boundaries as including the river from the
    Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge to the Colorado-New Mexico State
    line and extending 1/4 mile on either side of the river;

-   defines the powers of the Commission, including authorizing the
    Commission to enter into cooperative agreements to carry out the
    management plan on nonfederal land in the Area, and *prohibits the
    Commission from acquiring any real property or interest in real
    property;*

-   encourages the Secretary to negotiate with the state, the Rio Grande
    Water Conservation District, and affected water users concerning
    changes in the streamflow;

-   applies the management plan for the nonfederal land to private land
    in the Area only if the private landowner agrees to be bound by such
    plan.

-   permits the Secretary to acquire land or an interest in land within
    the Area from willing sellers.

-   **authorizes appropriations of such sums to carry out the provisions
    of this Act; and**

-   terminates the Commission ten years after the enactment of this Act.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** S. 56 was introduced in the Senate
on January 24, 2005, and passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July
26, 2005. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Resources'
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, which held hearings on March
9, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that "S. 56 would not
significantly affect the federal budget. The bill could affect direct
spending, but we estimate that any such effects would be negligible.
Enacting S. 56 would not affect 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}:** 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

S. 2430 --- Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2006 ---
*as amended* (Sen. DeWine, R-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.

**[Note]{.underline}**: 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.
This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected House Leadership. This
legislation, which creates a new committee and a new Great Lakes
coordination office under FWS, received such a waiver from the elected
Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** S. 2430 directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) Director to implement fish and wildlife restoration
proposals and regional projects (by amending the Great Lakes Fish and
Wildlife Restoration Act of 1990), subject to the availability of
appropriations. The bill defines "regional projects" as authorized
activities of FWS related to fish and wildlife resource protection,
restoration, maintenance, and enhancement that benefit the Great Lakes
basin. Additional provisions of the bill are as follows:

-   establishes a new Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Proposal
    Review Committee (operating under the guidance of FWS), and defines
    committee members and functions;

-   requires the FWS Director, based on Committee recommendations,
    select proposals and regional projects to be implemented (assuming
    funds are available), and defines selection criteria and cost
    sharing provisions requiring at least 25 percent of a project cost
    must come from non-federal funds;

-   establishes a new Great Lakes Coordination Office, to coordinate all
    FWS activities in the Great Lakes Basin;

-   requires the Great Lakes Coordination Office to: 1) ensure that
    information acquired under the Act is made available to the public;
    and 2) report to the FWS Director of Region Three, Great Lakes Big
    Rivers; and

-   authorizes appropriations of \$14 million for each of the fiscal
    years FY2007 -- FY2012, for a total of \$84 million over six years.
    Of those funds:

a)  no more than 33.3% may be allocated to implement regional projects
    by FWS as selected by the Director;

b)  the lesser of 5% or \$600,000 must be allocated to FWS to cover
    costs to administer the proposals by any entity; and

c)  \$2 million must be allocated for Great Lakes Coordination Office
    activities in East Lansing, MI, of the Upper Great Lakes Fishery
    Resources Office, and the Lower Great Lakes Fishery Resources
    Office.

**[Possible Conservative Concern]{.underline}:** This bill creates a
Great Lakes Coordination Office under FWS, creates a new Review
Committee to propose future FWS projects, and authorizes \$84 million
over six years. Further, as noted above, this bill is being considered
under Suspension of the Rules and as such violates House Republican
Conference Rules regarding consideration of bills that create new
programs.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** S. 2430 was introduced in the Senate
on Mach 16, 2006, and passed the Senate on July 11, 2006 by unanimous
consent. It was referred to the House Committee on Resources'
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, which held hearings on September
14, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that, assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, **implementing S. 2430 would
cost \$14 million in 2007 and \$84 million over the 2007-2012 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. 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. 5690 --- Ouachita National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of
> 2006 --- *as introduced (Boren, D-OK)***

**[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. 5690 alters the boundaries of the
Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma and Arkansas as depicted in four
maps listed in the bill. The bill allows the Secretary of Agriculture to
make minor adjustments to the boundaries as depicted on the maps.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: [S.
33](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB 10-05-04--suspensions part 2.pdf),
which passed the House by voice vote on October 5, 2004, allowed the
Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange various lands in the
Ouachita National Forest. Under S. 33, the proceeds are available for
expenditure, without further Act of appropriation, for the acquisition,
construction, or improvement of administrative facilities, land, or
interests in land for the national forests in Arkansas and Oklahoma.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5690 was introduced on June 27,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health, which held hearings, but took no other
official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 5690 is
unavailable, but it does not appear that the bill will have any
significant impact on the federal budget.

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

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: 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. 4876 --- To ratify a conveyance of a portion of the Jicarilla
Apache Reservation to Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico, pursuant
to the settlement of litigation between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and
Rio Arriba County, State of New Mexico, to authorize issuance of a
patent for said lands, and to change the exterior boundary of the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation accordingly, and for other purposes --- *as
introduced* *(Udall, D-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.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4876 would ratify a Jicarilla Apache
Nation's quitclaim deed for land identified in a settlement agreement to
Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. The bill directs the Secretary to issue a
patent to Rio Arriba County for the land it receives from the Apache
nation. The Secretary is also directed, in the patent, to restrict the
use of the land so that a jail or prison may not be built adjacent to
the Apache reservation. The boundaries of the Jicarilla Apache
Reservation would be changed to match the loss of land to Rio Arriba
County.

For H.R. 4876 to take effect, the Secretary of the Interior must find
that the Board of Commissioners of Rio Arriba County has enacted a
resolution permanently abandoning a disputed county road and has
submitted a copy of the resolution to the Secretary, and that the
Jicarilla Apache Nation has executed a quitclaim deed to Rio Arriba
County for land identified in a settlement agreement and has submitted a
copy of the quitclaim deed to the Secretary.

[]{.mark}

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

-   "The lands constituting the 1988 Reservation Addition to the
    Jicarilla Apache Reservation were purchased by the Jicarilla Apache
    Nation in June 1985 and were conveyed to the United States by a
    trust deed accepted by the Secretary of the Interior in March 1988
    pursuant to authority granted by section 5 of the Act of June 18,
    1934 (25 U.S.C. 465; popularly known as the Indian Reorganization
    Act);

-   "The lands constituting the 1988 Reservation Addition were added to
    the Jicarilla Apache Reservation in September 1988 by proclamation
    of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to authority granted by
    section 7 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 467; popularly
    known as the Indian Reorganization Act);

-   "There is pending before the Court of Appeals of the State of New
    Mexico a lawsuit, filed in October 1987, that involves a claim that
    a county road passing through the 1988 Reservation Addition had been
    established by prescription prior to acquisition of the land by the
    Jicarilla Apache Nation in 1985;

-   "The parties to that lawsuit, the Jicarilla Apache Nation and the
    County of Rio Arriba, have executed a Settlement Agreement, approved
    by the Secretary of the Interior, to resolve all claims relating to
    the disputed county road, which agreement requires ratifying
    legislation by the Congress of the United States; and

-   "The parties to the Settlement Agreement desire to settle the claims
    relating to the disputed county road on the terms agreed to by the
    parties, and it is in the best interests of the parties to resolve
    the claims through the Settlement Agreement and this implementing
    legislation."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4876 was introduced on March 2,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources, which took no official
action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 4876 is
unavailable, but it does not appear that the bill will have any
significant impact on the federal budget.

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

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: 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. 5516 --- To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of
contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley
County Water District --- *as introduced* *(Thompson, D-CA)*

**[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. 5516 allows the Redwood Valley County
Water District to enter into finance agreements to finance new water
improvements. Once the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley
County Water District renegotiate a schedule of payments for debts owed
by the Redwood District to the U.S., the schedule will commence when the
Redwood District's new obligations have been repaid. The due date of the
first payment owed by the District to the United States will be the date
when interest will start to accrue.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5516 was introduced on May 25,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Water
and Power, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO score of H.R. 5516 is
unavailable, but Committee on Resources staff confirms that the stream
of revenue from the Redwood District may be slowed or delayed, but the
bill would not result in a loss of revenue to the district.
Additionally, Committee on Resources staff states that the Bureau of
Reclamation staff has asserted that H.R. 5516 would not result in a
significant budget impact.

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

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

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

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

H.R. 3606 --- To modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary of
the Interior --- *as introduced* (*Stupak, D-MI*)

**[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. 3606 would modify a land grant patent
(number 61-2000-0007) issued by the Secretary of the Interior to the
Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society in Chippewa County, Michigan,
allowing the Society to fully utilize the property (which was conveyed
to the Historical Society by the Interior Department in 1996.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 3606 was introduced on July 28,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans, which took no official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 3606 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.R. 2134 --- Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National
Museum of the American Latino Community Act of 2005--- *as amended*
(*Becerra, D-CA*)

**[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]{.underline}**: 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.
This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected House Leadership. This
legislation, which creates a new commission and paid position, received
such a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 2134 would establish a new commission to
study the potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Heritage to develop a plan of action for the establishment and
maintenance of this museum in Washington, D.C. The specific provisions
of the bill are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 2134 was introduced on May 5,
2005, and referred to the Committee on the Resources' Subcommittee on
National Parks. The bill was marked-up on June 21, 2006, and
subsequently referred to the House Administration Committee, which also
marked-up the bill on July 27, 2006, and reported it to the House by
voice vote the same day (House Report
[109-584](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr584):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that, if H.R. 2134
were enacted, "***the federal government would spend about \$3 million
over the next three years to establish the commission and to develop a
plan for the proposed museum***" (*emphasis added*).

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** The Resources Committee, in
House Report
[109-561](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr561):),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the
power of Congress to regulate 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. 5340 --- Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act --- *as
reported* (*Kind, D-WI*)

**[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.

An almost identical bill, H.R. 961, passed the House during the 108^th^
Congress by a vote of [411 -
13](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll085.xml) on March 25, 2003.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 5340 would require the Interior
Secretary, acting through the U.S. Geological Survey, to establish a
nutrient and sediment monitoring network for the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. Additional provisions of the bill are as follows:

-   directs the Secretary to: 1) establish guidelines for related data
    collection and storage activities; 2) inventory the sediment and
    monitoring efforts of governmental and nongovernmental entities for
    the purpose of creating a baseline understanding of overlap, data
    gaps, and redundancies; and 3) collaborate with other public and
    private monitoring efforts in establishing the monitoring program;

-   directs the National Research Council of the National Academy of
    Sciences to conduct a water resources assessment of the Basin;

-   requires the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to establish: 1)
    a computer modeling program of nutrient and sediment sources in the
    Basin; and 2) an Internet-based system to distribute information
    about nutrient and sediment loss reduction projects and nutrient and
    sediment levels in the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries;
    and

-   ***Authorizes appropriations of \$6.25 million each fiscal year to
    carry out this Act. (emphasis added)***

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 5340 was introduced on May 10,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Water
and Power. The bill was considered, marked-up on June 21, 2006, and was
reported to the House by unanimous consent the same day (House Report
[109-561](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr561):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that, "assuming
appropriations of the authorized amounts, ***implementing H.R. 5340
would cost \$31 million over the 2007-2011 period and about \$6 million
annually thereafter through 2016." (emphasis added*).**

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** The Resources Committee, in
House Report
[109-561](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr561):),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (the
power of Congress to regulate 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

S. 213---Rio Arriba County Land Conveyance Act---*as received*

(*Sen. Bingaman, D-NM*)

**[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. The Senate passed the hill by unanimous consent
on November 16, 2005.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 213 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to convey to the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico, 171 acres of
land located on the Sebastian Martin Land Grant in the vicinity of
Alcalde, New Mexico. The County would have to absorb any costs
associated with the conveyance. If the County sells any portion of the
land conveyed to it under this bill, the price would have to reflect
fair market value (as determined by an appraisal) and the County would
have to pay the federal government an amount equal to the gross proceeds
of the sale, for use by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management in
the State of New Mexico, without further appropriation.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On November 17, 2005, the
Senate-passed bill was referred to the House Resources Committee, which
took no official action on it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that this bill would
have no significant budgetary effects.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: No, it would reduce federal landholdings by
171 acres.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Senate committee reports are
not required to contain statements of constitutional authority, and this
bill was not reported from a House committee.

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

H.R. 2110---Colorado Northern Front Range Mountain Backdrop Protection
Study Act---*as reported* (*Udall, D-CO*)

**[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. 2110 would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service and in
consultation with the state and local officials and agencies, to study
specified lands in southern Boulder, northern Jefferson, and northern
Gilpin Counties, Colorado (i.e. certain lands in and adjacent to the
Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests), and report to such officials
and to Congress on the following:

-   The present ownership of such lands;

-   Which undeveloped land may be "at risk of development;" and

-   Actions that could be taken by the United States, the State of
    Colorado, or any other parties to preserve the open and undeveloped
    character of such lands.

The bill defines "undeveloped" as land that is free or primarily free of
structures, the development of which is likely to adversely affect its
scenic, wildlife, or recreational value.

The bill affirmatively states that, "Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to take any action
that would affect the use of any lands not owned by the United States."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 4, 2005, the bill was
referred to the Resources Committee, which forwarded it to its
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health one week later. On March 9,
2006, the Subcommittee held hearings on the bill but did not mark it up.
On July 19^th^, the full Committee marked up the bill and by unanimous
consent ordered it reported to the full House.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: The Forest Service expressed
support of this legislation, given the inclusion of their requested
changes.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that this bill would
have no significant impact on the federal budget.

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Resources Committee, in
House Report 109-624, cites constitutional authority in 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. 5644 --- Green Energy Education Act of 2006--- *as introduced*

(McCaul, 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. 5644 authorizes the Secretary of Energy,
in carrying out research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application activities authorized for the Department of Energy, to
contribute funds to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program to
support projects that enable graduate education related to such
activities.

The bill would also authorize the Secretary, in carrying out advanced
energy technology research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application activities authorized for the Department of Energy related
to high performance buildings, to contribute funds to curriculum
development activities at the NSF for the purpose of improving
undergraduate or graduate interdisciplinary engineering and architecture
education related to the design and construction of high performance
buildings, including development of curricula, of laboratory activities,
of training practicums, or of design projects. A primary goal of
curriculum development activities supported under this bill is to
improve the ability of engineers, architects, and planners to work
together on the incorporation of advanced energy technologies during the
design and construction of high performance buildings. H.R. 5644 directs
the NSF Director, in awarding grants with respect to which the Secretary
has contributed funds under this section, to give priority to
applications from departments, programs, or centers of a school of
engineering that are partnered with schools, departments, or programs of
design, architecture, and city, regional, or urban planning.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5644 was introduced on June 20,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Science, which took no
official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no official CBO estimate
for H.R. 5644. An unofficial estimate suggests that the bill will not
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}:** 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. 5658 --- To facilitate the development of markets for alternative
fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel through research, development,
and demonstration and data collection --- *as introduced (Gordon, D-TN)*

**[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 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. 5658, which creates two new
programs, did not receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

### [Summary]{.underline}: H.R. 5658 directs the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of materials to be added to alternative biobased fuels and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuels to make them more compatible with existing infrastructure used to store and deliver petroleum-based fuels to the point of final sale. The program is to address the following:

-   materials to prevent or mitigate:

    -   corrosion of metal, plastic, rubber, cork, fiberglass, glues, or
        any other material used in pipes and storage tanks;

    -   dissolving of storage tank sediments;

    -   clogging of filters;

    -   contamination from water or other adulterants or pollutants;

    -   poor flow properties related to low temperatures;

    -   oxidative and thermal instability in long-term storage and use;

    -   increased volatile emissions;

    -   microbial contamination;

    -   problems associated with electrical conductivity; and

    -   increased nitrogen oxide emissions;

-   alternatives to conventional methods for refurbishment and cleaning
    of gasoline and diesel tanks, including tank lining applications;
    and

-   other problems as identified by the Secretary in consultation with
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The bill also directs the Secretary, in consultation with NIST, **to
carry out a research, development, and demonstration program** on
portable, low-cost, and accurate methods and technologies for testing of
sulfur content in fuel, including Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel and Low Sulfur
Diesel.

H.R. 5658 directs NIST to develop a physical properties database and
standard reference materials for alternative fuels. The database and
standard reference materials is to be maintained and updated as
appropriate as additional alternative fuels become available.

H.R. 5658 lists a number of findings, including the following:

-   "in order to lessen United States dependence on foreign sources of
    petroleum, and decrease demand for petroleum in the transportation
    sector, the Nation must diversify its fuel supply to include
    domestically produced alternative biobased fuels;

-   "introduction of alternative biobased fuels presents a unique set of
    problems that may render the fuels incompatible with the current
    fuel transportation and delivery infrastructure, placing the burden
    of costly refurbishment and construction on fuel distributors and
    retailers;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "in order to mitigate air pollution and comply with Federal
    mandates, Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel is being introduced into the
    marketplace in 2006;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "fuel labeled Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel can accumulate more than the
    statutory limit of 15 parts per million of sulfur when transported
    through multiple pipelines, tanks, and trucks to the final point of
    sale; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "fuel distributors and retailers may inadvertently take delivery of
    fuel labeled Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel with more than 15 parts per
    million of sulfur without a practical means of verifying sulfur
    content."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5658 was introduced on June 21,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Science, which took no
official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for H.R. 5658

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

**[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. 4846 --- To authorize a grant for contributions toward the
establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library--- *as
reported* (Goodlatte, R-VA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, September 6, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4846 authorizes the Archivist of the
National Archives and Records Administration to make grants to
contribute funds for the establishment in Staunton, Virginia, of a
library to preserve and make available materials related to the life of
President Woodrow Wilson and to provide interpretive and educational
services that communicate the meaning of the life of Woodrow Wilson.
This grant may not be made to the Library until the Library certifies to
the Archivist that funds have been raised from non-federal sources for
use to establish the library in an amount equal to at least double the
amount of the grant. Funds provided from the federal government may not
be used for the maintenance or operation of the Library. H.R. 4846
terminates this new grant authority of the Secretary on September 30,
2011.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Although this legislation
authorizes grants to be made for the "establishment in Staunton,
Virginia, of a library" honoring President Woodrow Wilson, currently,
the city of Staunton, Virginia already maintains and operates a Woodrow
Wilson Library. The Wilson Library and adjoining property currently
includes The Mance (the birthplace of the former President), the Wilson
Museum, the Pierce Arrow Limousine (Wilson's limousine), and the Wilson
Library, which offers opportunities for students and teachers to
research the life of the President. In addition, according to the Wilson
Library's own [website](http://www.woodrowwilson.org/), "Woodrow Wilson
Presidential Library houses a unique collection of Woodrow Wilson
materials from during and immediately after his life, including many
works by those who knew him best such as Edith Bolling Wilson, John
Randolph Bolling, Stockton Axson, and his daughter Eleanor, to name but
a few. In addition, the Library contains many memoirs of those who
worked with Wilson in an official capacity. The Library also houses an
array of official and non-official governmental volumes concerning World
War I."

The Wilson Library is currently launching a new campaign to
significantly overhaul the current property and buildings. According to
its website, the Library plans to build a new library and provide
"interactive, multi-media installations and special effects will go far
beyond the typical flat-case "books on a wall" displays of traditional
museums."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4846 was introduced on March 2,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, which
considered it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill by unanimous
consent on July 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 4846 will authorize \$6 million in FY07, and \$16 million over five
years. CBO also states, "According to NARA and the library, the
estimated cost of the library expansion is about \$50 million, including
a federal grant of about \$16 million (the library estimates that it
will collect \$32 million from nonfederal sources)."

**[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. 2146---A bill to extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal
employees---*as received* (Sen. Collins, R-ME)

**[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}**: S. 2146 would reinstitute the General
Services Administration's (GSA) relocation expenses test program through
October 20, 2009. With GSA's approval, federal agencies had been able to
test alternative methods of reimbursing their employees for travel and
relocation expenses without seeking a waiver of current rules or law,
but this authority (originally enacted as part of the Travel and
Transportation Reform Act of 1998---Public Law 105-264) expired on
October 20, 2005.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: CBO provides the following
background information:

> Under existing Federal Travel Regulation requirements, certain
> relocation expenses must be reimbursed, including transportation and
> per diem for travel to the employee's new duty station, real estate
> sales and settlement expenses, and the transportation and storage of
> household goods. Other expenses that may be reimbursed at an agency's
> discretion are costs associated with finding a home, securing
> temporary quarters, and the use of a relocation service company.
>
> Before authority to operate a relocation expenses test program
> expired, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Bureau
> of Investigation each initiated a voluntary relocation program. Those
> programs allowed employees being transferred to arrange and pay for
> their own moves using a predetermined lump-sum payment rather than
> submitting expense reports to obtain reimbursement.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On August 2, 2006, the Senate-passed
bill was referred to the House Government Reform Committee, which took
no official action on it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that this bill would
[REDUCE]{.underline} spending subject to appropriation by about \$15
million a year.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: This bill would reauthorize a program that
had been sunset.

**[Note]{.underline}**: 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.
This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected House Leadership. S.
2146 received such a waiver.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Senate committee reports are
not required to contain statements of constitutional authority, and this
bill was not reported from a House committee.

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

H.R. 5418---To establish a pilot program in certain United States
district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases
among district judges---*as reported* (Issa, 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. 5418 would authorize the appropriation
of \$5 million per year (for ten years) to create a new pilot program
within the federal court system to increase the expertise of district
judges presiding over patent and plant variety protection cases.
Specifically, the program funds would be used for educational and
professional development of participating district judges in matters
relating to patents and plant variety protection and for compensation of
law clerks with expertise in technical matters arising in patent and
plant variety protection cases.

The program, administered by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, would have to operate in at least five U.S. district courts in
at least three circuits. The Administrative Office would have to
periodically report to Congress on the progress made by this program.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: For information on plant
variety protection, as an alternative to patents, visit this website:
<http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/PVPO/PVPO_Act/PVPA.htm>.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 18, 2006, the bill was
referred to the Judiciary Committee, which on June 5^th^, referred it to
its Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. On
July 27, 2006, the Subcommittee marked up the bill and by voice vote
forwarded it to the full Committee. On September 13, 2006, the full
Committee marked up the bill, amended it, and by voice vote ordered it
reported to the full House.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that the bill would
authorize \$5 million a year for ten years.

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

**[Note]{.underline}**: 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.
This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected House Leadership. H.R.
5418 received such a waiver.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Judiciary Committee, in
House Report 109-673, 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