![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.995833333333334in"
height="0.9715277777777778in"}

# 

# Legislative Bulletin.......................................\...........................May 3, 2006

**Contents:**

> H. Res. 781 --- Congratulating charter schools and their students,
> parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for
> their ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes
>
> H.Con.Res. 359 --- Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the
> District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run
>
> H.R. 4700 --- To provide for the conditional conveyance of any
> interest retained by the United States in St. Joseph Memorial Hall in
> St. Joseph, Michigan
>
> H.R. 5253 --- To prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline,
> diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes
>
> H.R. 5254 --- Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act
>
> H.Con.Res. 99 --- Expressing the need for enhanced public awareness of
> traumatic brain injury and support for the designation of a National
> Brain Injury Awareness Month
>
> H.Res. 245 --- Supporting the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week

**H.Res. 781 --- Congratulating charter schools and their students,
parents, teachers, and administrators across the United States for their
ongoing contributions to education, and for other purposes. -- *as
introduced* (Porter, R-NV)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 781 resolves that:

-   "the House of Representatives acknowledges and commends charter
    schools and their students, parents, teachers, and administrators
    across the United States for their ongoing contributions to
    education and improving and strengthening our public school system;

-   "the House of Representatives supports the seventh annual National
    Charter Schools Week;

-   "it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President
    should issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United
    States to conduct appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities
    to demonstrate support for charter schools during this weeklong
    celebration in communities throughout the United States."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The resolution lists a number
of findings, including the following:

-   "40 States and the District of Columbia have passed laws authorizing
    charter schools;

-   "over 3,600 charter schools are now operating in 40 States and the
    District of Columbia serving more than 1 million students;

-   "over the last 12 years, Congress has provided nearly
    \$1,775,000,000 in support to the charter school movement through
    facilities financing assistance and grants for planning, startup,
    implementation, and dissemination;

-   "charter schools must meet the student achievement accountability
    requirements under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
    1965 in the same manner as traditional public schools, and often set
    higher and additional individual goals to ensure that they are of
    high quality and truly accountable to the public;

-   "charter schools give parents new freedom to choose their public
    school, routinely measure parental satisfaction levels, and must
    prove their ongoing success to parents, policymakers, and their
    communities;

-   "nearly 56 percent of charter schools report having a waiting list,
    and the total number of students on all such waiting lists is enough
    to fill over 1,100 average-sized charter schools;

-   "charter schools nationwide serve a higher percentage of low-income
    and minority students than the traditional public system; and

-   "the seventh annual National Charter Schools Week, to be held May 1
    through 6, 2006, is an event sponsored by charter schools and
    grassroots charter school organizations across the United States to
    recognize the significant impacts, achievements, and innovations of
    charter schools."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 781 was introduced on April
26, 2006 and referred to the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce, which took no official action.

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

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

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

**H.Con.Res. 359 --- Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the
District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run ---**

***as introduced* (Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: The resolution authorizes the Capitol Police
to design the Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run course through
the Capitol Grounds on June 9, 2006, or on a different date as
determined by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate.

The Capitol Police Board is to carry out the event and enforce
restrictions on sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on
the grounds in connection to the run.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The Law Enforcement Torch Run
is a fundraiser intended to raise awareness about the Special Olympics.
It is an actual running event in which law enforcement officers and
athletes carry the Flame of Hope to the Opening Ceremonies. In addition
to the running event, there are other fundraising activities, such as
t-shirt sales, accepting donations, and charity golf events.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On March 16, the resolution was
referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On
March 30, The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management considered the resolution, held a mark-up, and
forwarded it to the Full Committee by voice vote. On April 5, the full
committee considered the resolution, held a mark-up, and reported it to
the House by voice vote.

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

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

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

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

H.R. 4700 --- To provide for the conditional conveyance of any interest
retained by the United States in St. Joseph Memorial hall in St. Joseph,
Michigan --- *as reported* (Garrett, R-NJ)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** The bill directs the Administrator of General
Services to convey by, quitclaim deed, St. Joseph Memorial Hall to the
city of St. Joseph, Michigan, for \$10,000. The Administrator of General
Services may require such additional terms and conditions to the
conveyance as he considers appropriate to protect the interest of the
United States.

**[Additional Information:]{.underline}** The city of St. Joseph
received the building and property from the federal government through
Public Act 81 on May 28, 1935. This conveyance required that the
property be used for public park purposes "or such other wholly public
use as may be approved by the United States."

According to the sponsor, the city of St. Joseph wants to redevelop the
Bluffside area and is concerned that, although incorporated into a
larger effort to provide public recreation and education to the
community, possible alternative uses of the Memorial Hall property may
technically be prohibited by the 1935 deed restriction, and could impede
the entire Bluffside development. This bill will eliminate the deed
restrictions imposed by the federal interest in the hall.

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.R. 4700 was introduced on February
1, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation. The bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings
and Emergency Management the following day. The subcommittee took no
official action.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

[**Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?**:]{.underline} The bill decreases federal land holdings,
and thus slightly contracts the size of government.

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

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

H.R. 5253 --- To prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel
fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil (Rep. Wilson, R-NM)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, May 3^rd^, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: Highlights of this legislation are as
follows:

-   Makes it a violation of federal law (an unfair or deceptive act or
    practice) to "price-gouge" for crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel,
    home heating oil, or any biofuel.

-   **Does [NOT]{.underline} define "price-gouging,"** yet directs the
    Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate a definition of "price
    gouging," "retail sale," "wholesale sale," and other necessary
    regulations within six months of this legislation's enactment.

-   Provides that this Act could only be enforced by the Federal Trade
    Commission (civil penalties), the U.S. Department of Justice
    (criminal penalties), or state attorneys general (civil penalties).

-   Specifically, a state attorney general could bring a civil action
    under this Act (in a U.S. district court) on behalf of the residents
    of his state, if he feels that "an interest of the residents of that
    State has been or is threatened or adversely affected" by any person
    who price-gouges. The civil action could seek to either enjoin
    further price-gouging, compel compliance with price-gouging rules,
    or impose a civil penalty on a price-gouger.

-   Requires a state attorney general to alert the FTC of any such
    action (in advance, if possible), who would be allowed to intervene
    in the action. No state action could be brought while an
    already-initiated FTC action is pending.

-   Explicitly states that this Act should not be construed to prevent a
    state attorney general from taking state-only actions in state
    courts.

-   Sets [civil]{.underline} penalties for price-gouging, as follows:

> \--For "wholesale sale" violations:
>
> (three times the difference between the total amount charged in the
> wholesale sale and the total amount that would be charged in the same
> sale at the wholesale fair market price) plus (up to \$3 million per
> day of a continuing violation).
>
> \--For "retail sale" violations:
>
> three times the difference between the total amount charged in the
> retail sale and the total amount that would be charged in the same
> sale at the retail fair market price.

-   The collections from civil penalties from wholesale sale violations
    (excluding the \$3 million-per-day fine) and the retail sale
    violations would be deposited into any state account or fund (in a
    state where a person was price-gouged) used for paying compensation
    to consumers for violation of state consumer protection laws. If no
    such state account or fund exists, the collections would be
    deposited into the general fund of the state treasury.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Sets [criminal]{.underline} penalties for price-gouging, as follows:

> \--For "wholesale sale" violations:
>
> up to a \$150 million fine, up to two years in prison, or both.
>
> \--For "retail sale" violations:
>
> up to a \$2 million fine, up to two years in prison, or both.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: This bill goes significantly
farther than the price-gouging language contained in the GAS Act (H.R.
3893) that the House passed on October 7, 2005, by a vote of 212-210:
<http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll519.xml>. To read the RSC
Legislative Bulletin on the GAS Act, visit this webpage and scroll down
to page 5:

[http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB%2010-07-05\--GAS%20Act.pdf](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB 10-07-05--GAS Act.pdf).

To access a variety of statistics about gas prices, including the change
in gas prices over time, visit this webpage:
<http://www.factsonfuel.org/gasoline/index.html>

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was referred to the Energy
& Commerce Committee on May 2, 2006, which did not take official action
on it.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives
might be concerned that certain entities, such as *The Wall Street
Journal* and the Cato Institute, have described anti-price-gouging
efforts as federal interference in free-market pricing. Some
free-marketeers have asserted that there is no such thing as
price-gouging, as long as the consumer has reasonably accessible choices
of products, services, and prices in the open market.

Some conservatives may also be concerned that, for more than half of the
states, this legislation would lay a federal layer of anti-price-gouging
law on top of the existing state anti-price-gouging laws.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: An Administration position is
not immediately available, though explicit opposition appears unlikely.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: Although no CBO cost estimate is
available, the bill does not seem to yield any new cost to taxpayers.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill would expand the federal
government's role in "price-gouging" (i.e. in free-market pricing).

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: The bill would effectively
mandate that certain private companies sell their products within a
price-range that is acceptable to the government.

**[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. 5254 ---Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act (Rep. Bass, R-NH)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, May 3^rd^, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: Highlights of this legislation are as
follows:

-   Creates a new federally-directed implementation and assistance
    process for the consideration of refinery authorizations required by
    federal law, available to states whose governors request federal
    assistance (technical, legal, or other). Refinery authorizations not
    involving federal law are not covered by the legislation.

-   Defines "federal refinery authorizations" to include any permits,
    licenses, special-use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or
    other approvals required under federal law regarding the siting,
    constriction, expansion, or operation of an oil, gas, or biofuel
    refinery.

-   Directs the President to appoint a federal coordinator to manage the
    multi-agency refinery permitting process (across state and federal
    jurisdictions).

-   Instructs the federal coordinator, within 30 days of receiving an
    application for a refinery authorization, to convene a meeting of
    representatives from all federal and state agencies responsible for
    a federal refinery authorization with respect to the specific
    refinery. At the meeting, the participants would have to create a
    memorandum of agreement (which would have to be published in the
    Federal Register), setting forth "the most expeditious coordinated
    schedule possible for completion of all Federal refinery
    authorizations with respect to the refinery."

-   Gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) priority in
    scheduling, in the event of conflict among federal refinery
    authorization scheduling needs.

-   Directs the federal coordinator to ensure that all parties to the
    memorandum of agreement (MoA) are working "in good faith" (not
    defined) to stay on schedule, and to maintain a complete
    consolidated record of all decisions made or actions taken by the
    coordinator or by an individual agency regarding any federal
    refinery authorization.

-   Provides for civil actions alleging failure of adherence to the MoA
    to be brought exclusively in the U.S. district court for the
    district in which the proposed refinery is located. Only refinery
    applicants and parties to the MoA would have standing to bring such
    an action in court, and the court would have to consider such action
    under expedited consideration. Allows the court to establish a new
    schedule, if necessary, for the timely completion of the refinery
    authorizations.

-   Directs the President (within 90 days of this bill's enactment) to
    designate no less than three closed military installations (or
    portions thereof), as potentially suitable for the construction of a
    refinery, based on the "feasibility and practicability" of such
    siting. At least one of these sites would have to be potentially
    suitable for refining biomass to produce biofuel. Directs the
    Secretary of Defense to give "substantial deference" to these siting
    recommendations when disposing of real property at a close military
    installation; the Secretary would not [have]{.underline} to accept
    the recommendations.

-   Explicitly states that this Act should not be construed to affect
    the application of any environmental or other law, or to prevent
    legal actions thereunder.

-   Repeals the section of the Energy Policy Act (Public Law 109-58)
    that allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enter into
    refinery permitting cooperative agreements with states for
    streamlining the consideration of federal and state environmental
    permits for a new refinery.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: This bill does not include
nearly as many provisions aimed at streamlining refinery permitting as
does the GAS Act (H.R. 3893) that the House passed on October 7, 2005,
by a vote of 212-210: <http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll519.xml>. To
read the RSC Legislative Bulletin on the GAS Act, visit this webpage:

[http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB%2010-07-05\--GAS%20Act.pdf](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB 10-07-05--GAS Act.pdf).

The Energy & Commerce Committee has reported that no new crude oil
refinery has been constructed in the United States since 1976, and there
are now 148 operating refineries in the U.S. (concentrated mainly in the
Gulf Region), down from 324 in 1981. As a result, refined product
imports are rising. The Committee asserts that, "a key barrier to new
plant development is the complexity of permitting and the regulatory
uncertainty that comes with that."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was referred to the Energy
& Commerce Committee on May 2, 2006, which did not take official action
on it.

**[Administration Position]{.underline}**: An Administration position is
not available.

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

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The bill would create a new federal
coordinator for federal refinery authorization processing (though the
coordinator could be an existing government official or entity).

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: The bill does contain some
mandates on state governments for compliance with the federal
coordinator and the refinery authorization process.

**[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.Con.Res. 99 --- Expressing the need for enhanced public awareness of
traumatic brain injury and support for the designation of a National
Brain Injury Awareness Month --- *as introduced* (*Pascrell, D-NJ*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.Con.Res. 99 resolves that Congress:

-   "recognizes the life-altering impact traumatic brain injury may have
    both on Americans living with the resultant disabilities and on
    their families;

-   "recognizes the need for enhanced public awareness of traumatic
    brain injury;

-   "supports the designation of an appropriate month as National Brain
    Injury Awareness Month; and

-   "encourages the President to issue a proclamation designating such a
    month."

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

-   "traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability
    among children and young adults in the United States;

-   "at least 5.3 million Americans currently live with permanent
    disabilities resulting from a traumatic brain injury;

-   "traumatic brain injuries cost the nation \$56.3 billion annually;

-   "the Brain Injury Association of America has recognized March as
    Brain Injury Awareness Month."

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.Con.Res. 99 was introduced on
March 15, 2005, and referred to the Committee on the Energy and
Commerce's Subcommittee on Health, which took no official action.

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

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

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

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

> **H.Res. 245 ---Supporting the goals and ideals of National Nurses
> Week --- *as amended* (*Johnson, D-TX*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

[Note]{.underline}: The House passed a related resolution, H.Con.Res.
500, in the 108^th^ Congress regarding nurse practitioners. The
resolution recognized the week of November 7-13, 2004 as National Nurse
Practitioners Week.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.Res. 245 would support the goals and ideals
of National Nurses Week. It resolves that the House of Representatives:

-   "recognizes the important contributions of nurses to the health care
    system of the United States;

-   "supports the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week, as founded
    by the American Nurses Association; and

-   "encourages the people of the United States to observe National
    Nurses Week with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities,
    and programs to demonstrate the importance of nurses to the everyday
    lives of patients."

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

-   "since 2003, National Nurses Week is celebrated annually from May 6,
    also known as National Nurses Day, through May 12, the birthday of
    Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing;

-   "registered nurses ('RNs') represent the largest single component of
    the health care profession, with an estimated 2.7 million RNs in the
    United States;

-   "according to a report from the Department of Health and Human
    Services, the United States currently has a nurse shortage of nearly
    150,000 RNs and will have a shortage of more than 800,000 RNs by the
    year 2020; and

-   "cutting-edge technologies are useless without a staff of trained
    professionals to implement them."

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.Res. 245 was introduced on April
27, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce'
Subcommittee on Health, which took no official action.

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

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

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

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

**\###**