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

# 

# Legislative Bulletin....................................................September 25, 2006

**Contents:**

> **H.R. 1344** --- Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and
> Scenic River Study Act
>
> **H.R. 3961** --- To authorize the National Park Service to pay for
> services rendered by subcontractors under a General Services
> Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued
> for work to be completed at the Grand Canyon National Park.
>
> **H.R. 4382** --- Southern Nevada Readiness Center Act
>
> **H.R. 4588** --- Water Resources Research Act Amendments of 2006
>
> **H.R. 5079** --- North Unit Irrigation District Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 383 ---**Ice Age Floods National Geologic Route Designation Act
>
> **H.R. 1515** --- Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
> Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005
>
> **H.R. 5059 ---** New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006
>
> **H.R**. **5062** --- New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006
>
> **H**.**R. 5861** --- River Raisin National Battlefield Study Act
>
> **H.R. 4275** --- To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the
> authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia
> or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in
> the Armed Forces of the United States
>
> **H.R. 3871** --- To authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey to
> The Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and
> Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. certain Federal land associated with
> the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in Nebraska, to be used as
> an historical interpretive site along the trail
>
> **H.R. 5132** --- River Raisin National Battlefield Study Act
>
> **H.R. 1796** --- Mississippi River Trail Study Act
>
> **H.R. 3534** --- Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station Outstanding
> Natural Area Act of 2005
>
> **H.R. 3127** --- Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006
>
> **H.Res. 965** --- Commending the people of Montenegro on the conduct
> of the referendum on independence, welcoming United States recognition
> of the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Montenegro, and
> welcoming Montenegrin membership in the United Nations and other
> international organizations\
> **H. Res. 1017** --- Affirming support for the sovereignty and
> security of Lebanon and the Lebanese people\
> **H.Res. 940** --- Recognizing the 185th anniversary of the
> independence of Peru on July 28, 2006
>
> **H.R. 5454** --- To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and
> judges of the United States for fiscal year 2007
>
> **H.R. 5092** --- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
> (BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006\
> **H.R. 1036** --- Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
> Corrections Act\
> **H.R. 683** --- Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006\
> **H.R. 4772** --- Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006\
> **H.R. 5575** --- Pigford Claims Remedy Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 3049** --- Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act
>
> **H.R. 5323** --- Proud to Be an American Citizen Act
>
> **H.R. 2066** --- General Services Administration Modernization Act
>
> **H.R. 3508** --- 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act

H.R. 1344 --- Lower Farmington River and Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic
River Study Act --- *as introduced* (Johnson, R-CT)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1344 amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act to include part of the Lower Farmington River and part of Salmon
Brook, watercourses in Connecticut, as possible additions to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The bill directs the Secretary
of the Interior to submit to Congress a study of adding the watercourses
to the national system. H.R. 1344 authorizes such sums as necessary to
complete the study.

[]{.mark}

The bill lists two findings:

-   "The Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut
    possess important resource values, including wildlife, ecological,
    and scenic values, and historic sites and a cultural past important
    to America's heritage; and

-   "There is a longstanding interest among State and local officials,
    area residents, and river and brook users in undertaking a concerted
    cooperative effort to manage the river and brook in a productive and
    meaningful way."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1344 was introduced on March
16, 2005, 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. 1344 is
unavailable. However, CBO estimated the cost for the companion bill in
the Senate, S. 435. CBO estimated implementing S. 435 would cost
\$200,000 over the next three years, subject to appropriations, and that
the bill 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}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

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

H.R. 3961 --- To authorize the National Park Service to pay for services
rendered by subcontractors under a General Services Administration
Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be
completed at the Grand Canyon National Park

--- *as reported* (Renzi, R-AZ)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3961 authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to use \$1.3 million from entrance fee revenues to pay for
services rendered by subcontractors that should have been paid by
Pacific General, Inc. (PGI).

[]{.mark}

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

-   "The park issued approximately 40 task orders to PGI under an IDIQ
    (Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity contract) between fiscal
    years 2002 and 2003 for a variety of projects;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "The value of these task orders was over \$17,000,000 for various
    construction projects throughout the park (Grand Canyon National
    Park);

-   "According to invoices sent to the park, PGI certified that proceeds
    of payments were being sent to subcontractors and suppliers;

-   "In January 2004, complaints were received by numerous
    subcontractors citing lack of payments by PGI;

-   "The National Park Service has paid over \$10,000,000 to PGI, of
    which an estimated \$1,300,000 was owed, but not paid to
    subcontractors;

-   "During an acquisition management review conducted by the Washington
    Contracting and Procurement Office of the National Park Service, it
    was found that the park had failed to ensure that PGI obtained the
    necessary payment and performance bonds required by the IDIQ and the
    Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 270a);

-   "On February 6, 2004, the National Park Service suspended further
    payment to PGI and issued a suspension notice to cease activity by
    the contractor;

-   "The National Park Service gave PGI every reasonable opportunity to
    resolve the situation, but PGI has effectively ceased doing
    business;

-   "Recovery by the Government of that \$1,300,000 is unlikely;

-   "The National Park Service is prohibited from making payments to a
    contractor without obtaining payment and performance bonds; and

-   "Contract law generally prohibits payment directly to subcontractors
    because of the lack of a direct, contractual relationship between
    the parties."

Before a subcontractor can be paid, the contract between the National
Park Service and PGI must be terminated, the amount owed to the
subcontractor must be verified, the subcontractor must exhaust its legal
recourses against PGI, and the subcontractor must state that the amount
paid by Secretary of the Interior is payment in full for work done under
the IDIQ between 2002 and 2003.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3961 was introduced on
September 29, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill
was marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent
on July 19, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing the
bill would increase direct spending by about \$1 million in 2007.

**[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 109-628,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 (the commerce clause), and Article 4, Section 3,
Clause 2 (the property clause).

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

[]{.mark}

H.R. 4382 --- Southern Nevada Readiness Center Act

--- *as reported* (Porter, R-NV)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4382 allows Clark County, Nevada to
convey between 35 to 50 acres of land to the Nevada Division of State
Lands for use by the Nevada National Guard.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
109-629, the conveyance of this land would normally require the state to
pay the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 85% of the value of the land
because of provisions in the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
Act. The State of Nevada would like to build a National Guard facility
(the Southern Nevada Readiness Center), possibly for the new Weapons of
Mass Destruction Civil Support Team, on some of this land and needs
roughly 35 to 50 acres to do so. This legislation would allow the
conveyance of the land for free.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4382 was introduced on November
17, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
July 19, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 4382 would have no significant effect 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}**: Committee Report 109-629,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 (the commerce clause), and Article 4, Section 3,
Clause 2 (the property clause).

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

H.R. 4588 --- Water Resources Research Act Amendments of 2006 --- *as
amended* (Doolittle, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4588 would reauthorize appropriations
for the Water Resources Research Act (WRDA) for FY 2007 through FY 2011
at \$18 million each fiscal year (\$90 million over five years).

In addition, H.R. 4588 would amend WRDA to require each water resources
research and technology institute to plan, conduct, or otherwise arrange
for competent applied and peer reviewed research that fosters
improvements in water supply reliability; resolutions of other water
problems; the entry of new research scientists, engineers, and
technicians into water resources fields; and the dissemination of
research results to water managers and the public. The bill would also
limit to 5% (currently 15%) the amount of funds that may be used for
administrative costs and expenditures.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-630](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr630)),
WRDA "originally authorized the establishment of a water resources
research and technology institute at each of the 54 land grant colleges
in all 50 States, and in the Virgin Islands, Guam, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. ...The program is under the general guidance
of the Secretary of the Interior, through the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). In administering the water resources research program, the USGS
distributes appropriated funds equally among the Institutes. The
Institutes, in turn, award research funds through a competitive, peer
review process." The current authorization for this program expired in
FY 2005; however WRDA was funded through the annual appropriations
process in FY 2006.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4588 was introduced on December
16, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which
considered it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill, as amended, by
unanimous consent on September 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that H.R. 4588
authorizes \$18 million in FY 2007, and \$90 million over the FY07-FY11
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 not available.

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

H.R. 5079 --- Oregon Water Resources Management Act of 2006

--- *as reported* (Walden, R-OR)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5079 makes several changes to law
regarding water resources in Oregon.

*Section 2*

H.R. 5079 amends the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 by adding
provisions allowing the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group to
spend up to \$2 million per year on water projects between 2006 and
2015. The bill authorizes appropriations in the same amount, \$20
million.

*Section 3*

H.R. 5079 allows the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements
to fund the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program. The Secretary may
not provide grants for more than 50% of the cost of the activities
funded, nor may the grants be used to operate of maintain any facility
constructed or rehabilitated under this section. H.R. 5079 authorizes
appropriations of \$6 million for this program. The authority of the
Secretary of the Interior under this section sunsets 10 years after
enactment.

*Section 4*

The bill authorizes appropriations of \$500,000 for the Bureau of
Reclamation to fund 50% of a feasibility and environmental impact study
for the Water for Irrigation, Streams and the Economy Project. The
authority of the Secretary of the Interior under this section sunsets 10
years after enactment.

*Section 5*

H.R. 5079 amends a contract between the Bureau of Reclamation and the
North Unit Irrigation District. The contract, in part, pertains to the
North Unit Irrigation District repaying the Bureau of Reclamation for
construction charges. The bill adds provisions allowing 9,000 more acres
of land to be irrigated, and changing the repayment from a variable
rate, to a fixed rate, so that the North Unit Irrigation District's
obligation will be paid off on June 30, 2044. The section also gives the
Secretary of the Interior the authority to renegotiate the contract at a
later date.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5079 was introduced on April 4,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was marked-up
and was ordered reported, as amended, to the House by voice vote
unanimous consent on June 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates H.R. 5079 authorizes
appropriations of \$16.5 million from 2007 to 2011, and an additional
\$8 million over the 2012-2015 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}**: Committee Report 109-636,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 (the commerce clause).

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

**H.R. 383**---**Ice Age Floods National Geologic Route Designation
Act---*as reported* (Hasting, R-WA)**

[]{.mark}

**[Order of Business:]{.underline}** The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, September 25, 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. This legislation, which
arguably contains a new program, failed to receive a waiver from the
elected Leadership.

**[Summary:]{.underline}** H.R. 383 authorizes the National Park Service
(NPS) to designate a vehicle tour route along existing public roads
"from western Montana, across northern Idaho, through eastern and
southern sections of Washington, and across northern Oregon" as the Ice
Age Floods National Geologic Trail. The trail is meant to enhance the
public's appreciation and understanding of the "cataclysmic floods that
occurred in what is now the northwestern United States during the last
Ice Age primarily from massive, rapid, and recurring drainage of Glacial
Lake Missoula."

Under the provisions of H.R. 383, NPS would prepare a description of
sites along the route with either unique geographic or geologic features
or cultural importance (with appropriate markers to guide the public).
H.R. 383 also requires "a comprehensive interpretative program of the
Route" (it is unclear what such a program entails). NPS would also
distribute information to assist in the public's appreciation of the
sites and technical assistance to the various federal, state, tribal, or
nonprofit entities currently operating such sites. And finally, H.R. 383
contains language stating that nothing in the legislation should be
construed to require private property owners to allow public access to
their property or modify current law with regard to public assess on
private lands.

[]{.mark}

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the [Geologic
Society of
America](http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1130/1052-5173(2005)015%5B22:IAFNGT%5D2.0.CO;2):

> A grassroots movement began in 1994, when Pacific Northwest geologists
> and interested citizens joined forces to organize the Ice Age Floods
> Institute (IAFI), a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to
> bringing the story of repeated cataclysmic floods to the public. In
> 1999, the NPS, recognizing the significance of these obscure events,
> commissioned an environmental assessment and study of alternatives to
> tell the story of the floods. The recommendation for an Ice Age Floods
> National Geologic Trail came as a result of the NPS and IAFI study.
> The study called for the NPS to coordinate with the IAFI as well as
> state and local governments, public, tribal, and private interpretive
> efforts to tell a cohesive story.
>
> Recently, the National Geologic Trail idea has received widespread
> bipartisan support and attention of legislators from the Pacific
> Northwest delegation. Two separate bills were introduced to each house
> of Congress calling for adoption of an Ice Age Floods National
> Geologic Trail. Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) introduced the bill
> to the House, while Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) introduced it to the
> Senate. This "park without boundaries" would include kiosks and signs
> placed on the existing network of public lands and roadways that pass
> through the floods region.

**[Committee Action:]{.underline}** On January 26, 2005, H.R. 358 was
introduced and referred to the House Resources Committee which reported
the measure on September 6, 2006, for consideration by full House.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers:]{.underline}** According to CBO, H.R. 383
authorizes \$250,000 annually, subject to appropriations, for the costs
involved with designating the trail's sites and providing technical
assistance to participating entities. Over five years, CBO estimates
that NPS would spend \$1.25 million to develop and monitor the trail.

[]{.mark}

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?:]{.underline}** Yes, the bill creates a new federal program
for the NPS to develop and monitor an educational tour route for the
public.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-619
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution, but failed 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."
*\[emphasis added\]*

[]{.mark}

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

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

H. R. 1515 --- Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
Boundary Adjustment Act of 2005 --- *as introduced* (Jindal, R-LA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

NOTE: Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation lacing a cost
estimate, may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
Leadership. This legislation, which lacks a cost estimate, failed to
receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1515 would amend the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978, adjusting the boundary for the Barataria Marsh
Unit-Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. Specifically,
the boundary would be expanded to include 23,000 acres (currently the
park is 20,000 acres), and dated August 2002 (currently dated April
1978).

H.R. 1515 provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to
acquire (by donation, purchase with donated or appropriated funds, or
transfer) any land, water, and interests in land and water within the
boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit. The bill provides that any
private land in the area may only be acquired by the Secretary with
"consent of the owner of the land."

The legislation directs the Secretary to, with respect to the Barataria
Unit, preserve and protect:

-   fresh water drainage patterns;

-   vegetative cover;

-   the integrity of ecological and biological systems; and

-   water and air quality.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the sponsor's
office, "H.R. 1515 adds important estuarine and freshwater wetlands to
the Barataria Preserve, allowing the Jean Lafitte National Park boundary
to conform to existing waterways and levee corridors. The federal
government already owns most of the land that would fall in the park's
new boundaries. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, scientists documented
the importance wetlands provide as natural hurricane buffers to protect
the levees.  Levees that are unprotected by wetlands were destroyed or
overtopped during Katrina, however sections of levees with large tracts
of wetlands in front were generally undamaged because the soil in the
wetlands has the natural ability to absorb water.  Experts believe that
for every linear mile of wetlands, 2-4 miles of coastal wetlands reduces
storm surge by one foot.  The Barataria Preserve is located outside the
Westbank Hurricane Protection Levee (between the levee and the Gulf of
Mexico) it protects the communities of Harvey, Westwego, and Marrero
from hurricane surges."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1515 was introduced on April 6,
2005, and was referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
National Parks, which held one hearing.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: As of press time, there was no CBO
score available for H.R. 1515.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The bill adds new land to the federal
portfolio. According to the sponsor's office, "most" of the 3,000 acres
being added to the National Part and Preserve is already owned by the
federal government.

**[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 not available.

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

H.R. 5059 --- New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 --- *as amended*
(Bass, R-NH)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

NOTE: Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation lacing a cost
estimate, may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
Leadership. This legislation, which lacks a cost estimate, failed to
receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5059 would designate as wilderness and
as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System, certain
National Forest System land in the White Mountain National Forest in New
Hampshire, which consists of approximately 23,700 acres (to be called
the Wild River Wilderness). The bill directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to file a map and legal description of the Wild River
Wilderness with the appropriate House and Senate committees. H.R. 5059
also provides that, subject to valid existing rights, all federal land
in the Wild River Wilderness is withdrawn from:

-   all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
    laws;

-   location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and

-   disposition under the mineral leasing laws (including geothermal
    leasing laws).

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: To learn more about the
National Wilderness Preservation system, please view this site:
[www.wilderness.net](http://www.wilderness.net/).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5059 was introduced on March
30, 2006, and was referred to the Committees on Resources and
Agriculture. The Resources Committee requested executive comment from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for H.R. 5059. However, in a review of a previous wilderness bill (H.R.
362), CBO estimated that enacting that legislation 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.

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

H.R. 5062 --- New Hampshire Wilderness Act of 2006 ---

*as introduced* (Bradley, R-NH)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

NOTE: Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation lacing a cost
estimate, may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
Leadership. This legislation, which lacks a cost estimate, failed to
receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5062 would designate as wilderness and
as a component of the Sandwich Range Wilderness, certain land managed by
the Forest Service in the White Mountain National Forest in New
Hampshire, which consists of approximately 10,800 acres. H.R. 5059 also
provides that, subject to valid existing rights, all federal land in the
Wild River Wilderness is withdrawn from:

-   all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land
    laws;

-   location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and

-   disposition under the mineral leasing laws (including geothermal
    leasing laws).

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: To learn more about the
National Wilderness Preservation system, please view this site:
[www.wilderness.net](http://www.wilderness.net/).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5062 was introduced on March
30, 2006, and was referred to the Committees on Resources and
Agriculture. The Resources Committee requested executive comment from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: There is no CBO estimate available
for H.R. 5062. However, in a review of a previous wilderness bill (H.R.
362), CBO estimated that enacting that legislation 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}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available.

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

H.R. 5861 --- National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 2006 ---

*as amended* (Pearce, R-NM)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5861 would amend the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), reauthorizing the National Historic Fund
through 2015.

Specific provisions are as follows:

-   Provides that the State Historic Preservation Officer has no
    authority to require an applicant for federal assistance, permit, or
    license to identify historic properties outside the undertaking's
    area of potential effects as determined by the federal agency.

-   Provides that if the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal
    Historic Preservation Officer fails to respond within 30 days after
    an adequately documented finding of "no historic properties
    affected" or "no adverse effect," the federal agency may assume that
    the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic
    Preservation Officer has no objection to the finding.

-   Reauthorizes the National Historic Preservation Fund through 2015
    (expired in 2005), at the current authorization of \$150 million
    each year. The \$150 million deposited annually into the Fund is
    derived from revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

-   Reauthorizes at such sums as necessary (currently \$4 million each
    year), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Council's
    authorization expired in 2005.

-   Expands the Advisory Council to include the Secretary of Agriculture
    and the heads of seven federal agencies (currently four).

-   Adds a new section to NHPA, authorizing the Advisory Council to
    enter into a cooperative agreement with any federal agency that
    administers a grant or assistance program for the purpose of
    improving the effectiveness of the administration of that program in
    meeting the purposes and policies of the NHPA. As such, the Council
    may:

    -   review the operation of any federal grant or assistance program
        to evaluate the effectiveness of such program in meeting NHPA
        purposes and policies;

    -   make recommendations to the head of the federal agency that
        administers such program to further the consistency of the
        program with the purposes and policies of this Act and to
        improve its effectiveness in carrying out those purposes and
        policies; and

    -   make recommendations to the president and the Congress regarding
        the effectiveness of federal grant and assistance programs in
        meeting NHPA objectives.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to its
[website](http://www.achp.gov/aboutachp.html), "The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent Federal agency that
promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our
Nation's historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on
national historic preservation policy. The goal of the [National
Historic Preservation Act](http://www.achp.gov/nhpa.html) (NHPA), which
established ACHP in 1966, is to have Federal agencies act as responsible
stewards of our Nation's resources when their actions affect historic
properties. ACHP is the only entity with the legal responsibility to
encourage Federal agencies to factor historic preservation into Federal
project requirements."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5861 was introduced on July 20,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which considered
it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill, as amended, by unanimous
consent on September 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
5861 will authorize \$77 million in FY 2006, and \$698 million over five
years.

**[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
[109-641](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr641))
cites constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
Constitution (interstate commerce).

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

H.R. 4275 --- To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization
for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs
to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces
of the United States --- *as reported* (Kelly, R-NY)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4275 exempts the establishment of the
Memorial to Honor Disabled Veterans of the United States Armed Forces
from compliance with the Commemorative Works Act by extending the
authority for constructing the memorial from the end of 2007 to October
24, 2015.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4275 was introduced on November
9, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
June 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
4275 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}**: Committee Report 109-548,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 4,
Section 3, and Clause 2 (the commerce clause).

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

[]{.mark}

H.R. 3871 --- To authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey to The
Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor
Center Foundation, Inc. certain Federal land associated with the Lewis
and Clark National Historic Trail in Nebraska, to be used as an
historical interpretive site along the trail --- *as introduced*
(Fortenberry, R-NE)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3871 allows the Secretary of the
Interior to convey roughly 73 federally owned acres of land in Nebraska
to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and
Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) on the condition that the
land is used as a historic site and interpretive center for the Lewis
and Clark National Historic Trail. All survey and conveyance costs are
to be borne by the Foundation. The U.S retains a reversionary interest
in the acreage if the Foundation decides to no longer use the lands as a
historic site and interpretive center. Finally, H.R. 3871 authorizes
appropriations of \$1.5 million over 10 years.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3871 was introduced on
September 22, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources'
Subcommittee on National parks, which held a hearing, but took no
further official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: No official cost estimate is
available, but conveyance costs for the land is to be borne by the
Foundation, and the bill authorizes \$1.5 million over 10 years, 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}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

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

H.R. 5132 --- River Raisin National Battlefield Study Act

--- *as amended* *(Dingell, D-MI)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5132 directs the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of adding sites in Monroe
County, Michigan, relating to the battle on the River Raisin during the
War of 1812, to the National Park System. The Secretary of the Interior
is directed to submit its findings to Congress within three years of the
availability of funding for the study.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: During the War of 1812, half
of General William Henry Harrison's encamped army was attacked near
Frenchtown, Michigan by Native Americans and the British. The attack
decimated the American force. Native Americans killed 60 to 80 American
prisoners of war in their custody after the battle.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5132 was introduced on April 6,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was marked-up
and was ordered reported, as amended, to the House by unanimous consent
on July 19, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 5132 would cost \$500,000 over the 2007-2009 period.  Enacting the
bill would have no effect on revenues or direct 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 109-637,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 (the commerce clause).

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

H.R. 1796 --- Mississippi River Trail Study Act

--- *as reported* *(McCollum, D-MN)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1796 amends the National Trails System
Act by adding a Mississippi River Trail to the list of routes subject to
consideration for designation as national scenic trails. The Mississippi
River Trail is designated as, "the route of the Mississippi River from
its headwaters in the State of Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
109-622, "establishing a national trail along the River will connect the
nearly 40 existing public land units on or very near the River, which
include national forests, national parks and national wildlife refuges."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1796 was introduced on April
21, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by voice vote on July
19, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 1796 would cost \$500,000, subject to appropriations. Enacting
H.R. 1796 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}**: Committee Report 109-622,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
section 8, clause 3 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (the commerce
clause).

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

H.R. 3534 --- Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station Outstanding Natural
Area Act of 2005 --- *as reported (Capps, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3534 establishes the Piedras Blancas
Historic Station Outstanding Natural Area as a part of the National
Landscape Conservation System. The bill exempts the land from
appropriation, disposal, mining, and mineral and geothermal leasing. The
Secretary of the Interior is directed to complete a management plan
within 3 years of enactment. Additionally, the Secretary must manage the
land in a manner so as to preserve and restore the light station
facilities; and to conserve, protect and enhance the historical,
natural, cultural, scientific, educational, scenic, and recreational
values of the area. Under the bill, all other uses of the land are to be
prohibited. The management plan should provide for a continuing public
education program about the light station.

Native Americans are allowed to continue to use the Area for traditional
cultural and religious purposes. At the request of the Native American
community, the Natural Area can be closed to the public during cultural
and traditional uses.

Lands adjacent to the Natural Area are considered appropriate for
acquisition for inclusion in the Area.

[]{.mark}

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

-   "The publicly owned Piedras Blancas Light Station has nationally
    recognized historical structures that should be preserved for
    present and future generations;

-   "The coastline adjacent to the Light Station is internationally
    recognized as having significant wildlife and marine habitat that
    provides critical information to research institutions throughout
    the world;

-   "The Light Station tells an important story about California's
    coastal prehistory and history in the context of the surrounding
    region and communities;

-   "The coastal area surrounding the Light Station was traditionally
    used by Indian people, including the Chumash and Salinan Indian
    tribes;

-   "The Light Station is historically associated with the nearby
    world-famous Hearst Castle (Hearst San Simeon State Historical
    Monument), now administered by the State of California;

-   "The Light Station represents a model partnership where future
    management can be successfully accomplished among the Federal
    Government, the State of California, San Luis Obispo County, local
    communities, and private groups.

-   "Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station Outstanding Natural Area
    would make a significant addition to the National Landscape
    Conservation System administered by the Department of the Interior's
    Bureau of Land Management; and

-   "Statutory protection is needed for the Light Station and its
    surrounding Federal lands to ensure that it remains a part of our
    historic, cultural, and natural heritage and to be a source of
    inspiration for the people of the United States."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3534 was introduced on July 28,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was marked-up
and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on July 19,
2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates implementing H.R.
3534 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.
Additionally, any impact on direct spending would be insignificant, and
the bill would not affect revenues.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill directs the federal government
to manage and proscribe uses for the area.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-627,
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 (the commerce clause).

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

H.R. 3127 --- Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2006

--- *as amended* (Hyde, R-IL)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3127 amends the Comprehensive Peace in
Sudan Act of 2004, by adding provisions directing the President to
freeze the assets of, and deny entrance visas to, any individual deemed
to be complicit in acts of genocide or war crimes in the Darfur region
of Sudan. The bill also states that the President should impose these
sanctions on Janjaweed militia commanders

H.R. 3127 allows the President to assist the African Union Mission in
Sudan (AMIS) with efforts to protect civilians and humanitarian efforts,
and to deter airborne attacks against civilians and humanitarian
workers. Additionally, the President may provide logistical support,
training, and intelligence support to AMIS. The assistance offered by
the President must be used in the Darfur region.

In an effort to deny Sudan oil revenues, H.R. 3127 directs the President
to deny Sudanese cargo ships and oil tankers entry to U.S. ports until
the government of Sudan stops the conflict in Dafur.

H.R. 3127 prohibits aid to countries under the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, which violate the United Nations embargo on military assistance to
Sudan. Additionally, the bill states the restrictions on the government
of Sudan imposed by Executive Order and the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2006, are to remain
in place until the President certifies to the appropriate congressional
committees that the government of Sudan is making a good faith effort to
peacefully resolve the conflict in Darfur.

H.R. 3127 repeals section 501 of the Assistance for International
Malaria Control Act and section seven of the Comprehensive Peace in
Sudan Act of 2004. Those provisions allowed the President to give direct
assistance to individuals or entities in areas outside of the control of
the government of Sudan in support of peace agreements at the local,
regional, or national level. H.R. 3127 specifically lists several states
in Sudan eligible for assistance in support of peace and stability in
Sudan. The Secretary of State must notify Congress fifteen days before
such aid is sent.

The bill allows the President to give military training, non-lethal
military equipment, and small arms to the autonomous region of Southern
Sudan if he finds such aid is in the national interest of the U.S. The
President must notify Congress of the type of aid sent to the government
of Sudan, the value of the equipment, the end users of the equipment,
and any assurances from Southern Sudan on the use of the equipment.

H.R. 3127 requires the Secretary of State to submit annual report to
Congress on the assistance given to AMIS, sanctioning activities, and
military assistance.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: H.R. 3127 was originally
passed in the House on April 5, 2006. To read the RSC Legislative
Bulletin on this version, click
[here](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_040506_Suspensions.doc).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3127 was introduced on June 30,
2005, and referred to the Committees on International Relations and the
Judiciary respectively. Both committees held a mark-up and ordered the
bill reported by voice vote. The bill passed the House under suspension
of the rules on a vote of 416-3 on April 5, 2006. ([Roll call vote no.
90](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll090.xml)) The Senate passed H.R.
3127 with an amendment on September 21, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO prepared two estimates for the
reported House versions of H.R. 3127. Assuming the same estimate for the
amended Senate version of the bill, CBO estimates that implementing H.R.
3127 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}**: Committee Report 109-392,
cites constitutional authority for the House passed version of H.R. 3127
in Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 3 (the commerce clause).

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

H.Res. 965 --- Commending the people of Montenegro on the conduct of the
referendum on independence, welcoming United States recognition of the
sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Montenegro, and
welcoming Montenegrin membership in the United Nations and other
international organizations --- *as introduced* *(Lantos, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 965 resolves that the House of
Representatives:

-   "commends the people and the Government of the Republic of
    Montenegro for the free, fair, and responsible way in which the
    referendum on independence was conducted and acknowledges the broad
    participation of the citizens of Montenegro in that important vote;

-   "congratulates the people of Montenegro on their decision to
    establish an independent and sovereign state and welcomes them to
    the community of nations, to membership in the United Nations, to
    full participation in the Organization for Security and Cooperation
    in Europe (OSCE), and to membership in other international
    organizations;

-   "welcomes the decision of the United States to recognize the
    sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Montenegro and urges
    the expeditious establishment of diplomatic relations between our
    two countries; and

-   "urges the people and Government of Montenegro to continue to
    embrace the principles of democratic government and to take actions
    that will encourage respect for human rights, for a free market
    economy, and for a free, open and democratic society with full
    respect for all people of Montenegro."

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

-   "the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and
    Montenegro established provisions and procedures for withdrawal of a
    member state from the State Union, providing that a decision to
    withdraw 'shall be made after a referendum has been held';

-   "in accordance with Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of the
    State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, the Parliament of Montenegro
    unanimously adopted in March 2006 the Law on the Referendum on the
    State Legal Status of the Republic of Montenegro, which established
    the conditions for the conduct of the referendum on state
    independence, including establishing the standard that 55 percent of
    voters must support independence to achieve a valid mandate;

-   "the people of Montenegro in a popular referendum on May 21, 2006,
    voted to support the sovereign independence of the Republic of
    Montenegro from the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro by a margin
    of 55.5 percent in favor of independence with over 86 percent of
    eligible voters participating in the referendum; and

-   "in accordance with the expressed will of a majority of the people
    of Montenegro, on June 3, 2006, the Parliament of Montenegro
    declared the independence of Montenegro, declaring that the Republic
    is a 'multiethnic, multicultural and multireligious society . . .
    based on the rule of law and market economy'."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 965 was introduced on July
28, 2006, and was referred to the Committee on International Relations,
which considered it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill by unanimous
consent on September 13, 2006.

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

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

H. Res. 1017 --- Affirming support for the sovereignty and security of
Lebanon and the Lebanese people --- *as introduced* *(Lantos, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1017 resolves that the House of
Representatives:

-   "commends the many Lebanese who continue to adhere steadfastly to
    the principles of the Cedar Revolution;

-   "commends the democratically-elected Government of Lebanon for its
    critical and courageous decision to deploy the Lebanese armed
    forces, for the first time in decades, to Lebanon's border with
    Israel;

-   "affirms that the clear intention of the international community, as
    expressed in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, is
    that the flow of weapons to Hizballah should cease and that
    Hizballah should be disarmed;

-   "calls on all countries, and particularly countries through which
    Iranian-supplied materiel passes en route from Iran to Hizballah, to
    take every possible measure to prevent the transfer of arms to
    Hizballah, so as to contribute to the stability of Lebanon and of
    the region and to the enforcement of the sovereignty of the
    Government of Lebanon over its own territory, as required by UNSCR
    1701;

-   "calls on the international community to monitor the compliance of
    Iran and Syria with the arms embargo on Hizballah, as these two
    countries are the principal suppliers of weaponry to Hizballah;

-   "calls on Iran and Syria to cease supporting Hizballah with funds
    and arms;

-   "condemns Syria's ongoing overt and covert campaign of intimidation
    against Lebanon;

-   "condemns the Syrian leader\'s outrageous claim that the deployment
    of international peace-keeping forces on the Lebanese-Syrian border
    would be 'hostile' against Syria;

-   "urges the Government of Lebanon to request without delay a robust
    international force deployment on the Lebanese border with Syria, so
    as to prevent the re-supply of weapons to Hizballah and to ensure
    the full implementation of all aspects of UNSCR 1701 in spirit and
    intent, as well as in letter;

-   "believes that without such an international deployment on the
    Lebanese border with Syria another Hizballah-provoked war will break
    out with horrendous consequences for the people of Lebanon, Israel,
    and the entire region;

-   "pledges support for the democratically-elected Government of
    Lebanon and the Lebanese people against Syria's campaign of
    intimidation; and

-   "re-affirms its strong support for Lebanon's independence and for
    the full sovereignty of the Government of Lebanon over Lebanese
    territory, through the instrument of the Lebanese armed forces."

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

-   "Lebanon's remarkable Cedar Revolution led to the withdrawal of
    Syrian occupation troops in April 2005, the most significant step
    toward true Lebanese independence and sovereignty since the outbreak
    of civil war in 1975;

-   "true Lebanese independence and sovereignty was not fully achieved
    even after the Syrian troop withdrawal for many reasons, including
    especially the apparent ongoing presence of Syrian security
    personnel in Lebanon, an ongoing assassination campaign against
    Lebanese public figures who oppose appeasement of Syria, and
    Hizballah's control and militarization of southern Lebanon;

-   "on August 12, 2006, during the fighting between Israel and
    Hizballah, the Government of Lebanon for the first time in decades
    called for the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces throughout
    Lebanese territory 'such that there will be no weapons or authority
    other than that of the Lebanese state';

-   "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the
    fighting, authorizes an enhanced United Nations Interim Force in
    Lebanon (UNIFIL) to 'accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces
    as they deploy throughout the (Lebanese) South', a process which is
    currently underway;

-   "the Government of Lebanon has not yet requested the assistance of
    the enhanced UNIFIL force on the Syrian border; and

-   "it is manifestly in the interests of the international community,
    which seeks peace and stability in the Middle East, to support the
    full sovereignty and security of Lebanon."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 1017 was introduced on
September 20, 2006, and was referred to the Committee on International
Relations, 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-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

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

H. Res. 940 --- Recognizing the 185th anniversary of the independence of
Peru on July 28, 2006 --- *as amended (Crowley, D-NY)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 940 resolves that the House of
Representatives:

-   "recognizes the 185th anniversary of the independence of Peru;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   "extends warm congratulations and best wishes to Peru for peace and
    further progress, development, and prosperity; and

-   "extends best wishes to Peruvians and Peruvian-Americans residing in
    the United States as they celebrate the 185th anniversary of Peru's
    independence."

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

-   "Peru gained independence from Spain on July 28, 1821, when the
    Republic of Peru was established as a sovereign and independent
    country;

-   "Peru continues to serve as a shining model of democratic values by
    regularly holding free and fair elections and promoting the free
    exchange of ideas;

-   "since Peru became an independent country, the interests of Peru and
    the United States have been closely aligned;

-   "Peru is a supporter of the United States in the Global War on
    Terror, and joins the United States in promoting political and
    economic freedoms, combating poverty, crime, disease, and drugs, and
    promoting security, stability, and prosperity; and

-   "the Peruvians and Peruvian-Americans residing in the United States
    have enriched and added to the United States way of life in the
    social, economic, and political arenas and Peru's rich identity and
    heritage have become an integral part of the cultural tapestry of
    the United States."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 940 was introduced on July
24, 2006, and was referred to the Committee on International Relations,
which considered it, held a mark-up, and reported it, as amended, by
unanimous consent on September 13, 2006.

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

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

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

H.R. 5454 --- To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of
the United States for fiscal year 2007 --- *as introduced*
(Sensenbrenner, R-WI)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

NOTE: Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation lacking a
cost estimate, may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
Leadership. This legislation, which lacks a cost estimate, failed to
receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5454 would authorize salary adjustments
for justices and judges of the United States for fiscal year 2007.
Specifically, the bill states:

> "Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97-92, Justices and judges of
> the United States are authorized during fiscal year 2007 to receive a
> salary adjustment in accordance with section 461 of title 28, United
> States Code."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5454 was introduced on May 23,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which took no
official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: As of press time, there was no cost
estimate available for H.R. 5454.

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

H.R. 5092 --- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(BATFE) Modernization and Reform Act of 2006 --- *as amended* (Coble,
R-NC)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5092 would amend current law, revising
the civil penalties for violations of firearms law, and the process for
determining and assessing these violations. Specifically, the bill makes
the following changes:

-   If the violation is of a minor nature, or if the violation is that
    the licensee has failed to have secure gun storage or safety devices
    available at any place in which firearms are sold under the license
    to persons who are not licensees, the Attorney General may:

    -   impose a civil penalty of not more than \$1,000 for each
        violation, except that the total amount of penalties imposed for
        violations arising from a single inspection or examination can
        not exceed \$5,000; or

    -   suspend the license for not more than 30 days, and specify the
        circumstances under which the suspension is to be terminated,
        if, in the period for which the license is in effect, there have
        been at least 2 prior occasions on which the licensee has
        violated the law.

-   If the violation is of a serious nature, the Attorney General (AG)
    may:

    -   impose civil penalty of not more than \$2,500 for each
        violation, except that the total amount of penalties imposed for
        a violations arising from a single inspection or examination can
        not exceed \$15,000;

    -   suspend the license for not more than 90 days, and specify the
        circumstances under which the suspension is to be terminated; or

    -   revoke the license.

-   In determining the amount of a civil penalty to impose, the AG may
    consider the nature and severity of the violation involved, the size
    of the firearms business operated by the licensee, and the prior
    record of the licensee. In addition, on request of the licensee, the
    AG may consider the ability of the licensee to pay a penalty, and
    may allow the licensee to submit documents and information to
    establish the ability of the licensee to pay.

-   A violation is to be considered to be of a serious nature if it:

    -   results in or could have resulted in the transfer of a firearm
        or ammunition to a person prohibited under current law from
        possessing or receiving the firearm or ammunition;

    -   obstructs or could have obstructed a criminal investigation or
        prosecution; or

    -   prevents or could have prevented a licensee from complying with
        certain sections of current law.

-   A violation is to be considered to be of a minor nature "if the
    violation is not of a serious nature," as defined above.

-   Not less than 30 days before the effective date of any penalty
    imposed on a licensee, the AG is to send the licensee a written
    notice:

    -   of the determination, and the grounds on which the determination
        was made;

    -   of the nature of the penalty; and

    -   that the licensee may, within 30 days after receipt of the
        notice, request a hearing to review the determination.

H.R. 5092 also directs the AG to establish guidelines for how the BATFE
is to conduct inspections, examinations, or investigations of possible
firearms violations. The bill requires the Inspector General at the
Department of Justice to submit to Congress a review of the operations
of the BATFE, for the purpose of assessing the manner in which the
Bureau conducts the gun show enforcement program and blanket residency
checks of prospective and actual firearms purchasers.

The bill also repeals the current authority of the AG to delegate to the
BATFE, responsibility for investigating certain crimes and acts of
domestic terrorism.

H.R. 5092 establishes the following definition for "willfully," for the
purpose of firearm law: "with respect to conduct of a person, that the
person knew of a legal duty, and engaged in the conduct knowingly and in
intentional disregard of the duty." According to Committee Report
[109-672](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr672)),
"The purpose of the definition is to clarify and codify Congress' intent
when it enacted the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 ('FOPA'),
i.e., to ensure that licenses are not revoked for inadvertent or
unintentional errors, but only for knowing, intentional actions by a
licensee. It's entirely reasonable to require the government to prove
bad intent (knowledge of the law, and the intent to violate it) before
putting a dealer out of business or under this legislation imposing
stiff fines or a license suspension. However, a dealer cannot evade its
responsibilities by intentionally ignoring the law, or simply stating
that he or she was unaware of the requirements of the law."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
109-672, this legislation is "a bipartisan attempt to address issues
raised during the BATFE oversight hearings. ...The oversight hearings
held by the Subcommittee raised serious concerns relating to the BATFE's
allocation of resources; licensing procedure and enforcement of
regulations against licensees; criminal investigation techniques,
including questionable stops, searches and seizures of firearm
purchasers and Federal firearm licensees (FEL); and the lack of
consistent law enforcement policies and procedures among the BATFE's
field offices and central management. ...The Subcommittee's oversight
hearings revealed the need for: (1) a graduated penalty system in title
18 U.S.C. Sec. 923, which includes civil penalties, based on the degree
of risk of harm that the FFL's violation poses to others; (2)
establishing a system of neutral administrative law judges to review the
licensing decisions of the BATFE; (3) establishing investigative
guidelines similar to those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Drug Enforcement Agency; and (4) other modifications to Federal law to
ensure that American citizens receive due process of law.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5092 was introduced on April 5,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which
considered it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill, as amended, by
voice vote on September 7, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
5092 would authorize \$7 million in FY 2007, and \$52 million over five
years. CBO outlines that this additional discretionary spending would be
generated from provisions in the bill that "require administrative law
judges to review BATFE actions that are disputed by firearms licensees
and applicants," and the fact that BATFE estimates it will need to hire
an additional attorney for each division.

**[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}**: In Committee Report 109-672,
the Committee cites constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8 of
the Constitution, but fails to cite a specific clause. House Rule XIII,
Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports contain "a
statement citing the *specific* powers granted to Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution."
*\[emphasis added\]*

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

H.R. 1036 --- Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act
--- *as received* (Smith, R-TX)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as received from the Senate.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1036 would amend current law to
authorize the Copyright Royalty Judges, at any time after the filing for
distribution of cable and satellite royalty fee claims, to make a
partial distribution of these fees, if, based upon all responses
received during a 30-day period beginning on the date of publication in
the Federal Register, the Copyright Royalty Judges conclude that no
claimant entitled to receive the fees has stated a reasonable objection
to the partial distribution.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The Copyright Royalty and
Distribution Reform Act replaced the previous system of copyright
arbitration, which used copyright arbitration royalty panels convened by
the Librarian of Congress, with Copyright Royalty Judges. These judges
determine rates and distribution of royalties for certain material when
copyright users and owners cannot reach agreement in private
negotiation. According to Committee Report
[109-64](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr064)),
"These corrections would allow the Register of Copyrights, copyright
owners, and commercial users of compulsory licenses to benefit from a
more precise delineation of the respective roles of the U.S. Copyright
Office and the newly established Copyright Royalty Judges in proceedings
that involve the determination of copyright royalty rates and royalty
distributions. H.R. 1036 will eliminate unintended ambiguities, thereby
ensuring the transitional and permanent provisions that relate to the
new program operate efficiently, saving both time and money for future
participants in copyright royalty determination and distribution
proceedings."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1036 was passed in the House by
voice vote on November 16, 2005. The Senate considered it, and passed
the bill, with an amendment, by unanimous consent on July 19, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, enacting this
legislation does not affect the federal budget in any way.

**[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 Judiciary Committee, in
House Report 109-64, cites constitutional

authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 (the congressional power to
promote the Progress of

Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to

their respective Writings and Discoveries).

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

H.R. 683 --- Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ---

*as amended* (Smith, R-TX)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 683 would make changes to trademark law
to strengthen a trademark owner's defense against the use of other
similar marks in the market that could harm the reputation of the
trademark or confuse consumers. Specifically, this bill amends the
Trademark Act of 1946 to revise provisions relating to trademark
dilution. The revision will entitle an owner of a "famous" mark that is
distinctive to an injunction against another person who uses a similar
mark or trade name in commerce to designate that person's goods or
services and by doing so is likely to cause dilution of the owner's mark
by blurring or tarnishment (defined below). The revisions in H.R. 683
would apply regardless of actual evidence or instances of confusion or
competition between the two products or services.

The bill defines a mark as "famous" if it is widely recognized by the
general consuming public of the United States to designate the source of
the goods or services to the mark's owner. H.R. 683 defines "dilution by
blurring" as an association arising from the similarity between a mark
or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the
famous mark. The bill defines "dilution by tarnishment" as an
association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and
a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark.

The bill declares that certain acts are not actionable as dilution by
blurring or dilution by tarnishment, including: (1) fair use of a famous
mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the
person's own goods or services, including for advertising or promotion
that permits consumers to compare goods or services, or identifying and
parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the
owner's goods or services; (2) all forms of news reporting and news
commentary; and (3) any noncommercial use of a mark.

H.R. 683 provides that in a civil action for "trade dress dilution"
under this Act, for trade dress not registered on the principal
register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden
of proving that:

-   the claimed trade dress, taken as a whole, is not functional and is
    famous; and

-   if the claimed trade dress includes any mark or marks registered on
    the principal register, the unregistered matter, taken as a whole,
    is famous separate and apart from any fame of such registered marks.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}:** Cases and injunctions
involving "dilution" are commonplace in the United States today, since
branding (distinguishing a product or service by a particular brand name
or symbol) is so important in marketing. There have been numerous cases
involving the Olympics and specifically the unauthorized use of the
Olympic torch and the five interlocking rings in past years. Since the
International Olympic Committee (IOC) produces revenue for the Olympic
Games by granting (selling) entities the right and use of the official
Olympic symbols, the IOC vigorously pursues those that use the symbols
or similar ones without consent. For example, the 2010 Winter Olympics
will be held in Vancouver, B.C., and a local pizza establishment called
Olympic Pizza and Pasta has been targeted by the IOC for trademark
infringement. The restaurant's signage carries similar symbols of the
Olympic torch and rings. If this case were in the U.S., this may
constitute examples of "diluting by tarnishment" (having the Olympics
associated with a local pizza establishment) or an example of "dilution
by blurring," since the symbols the restaurant is using is not exactly
the same, but is arguably close enough to cause confusion.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 683 was passed in the House by
a vote of [411-8](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll109.xml), on April
19, 2005. The senate passed the bill, with an amendment, by unanimous
consent on March 8, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.R. 683 would
not have a "significant effect" on spending subject to appropriation,
and would not affect direct spending or revenues.

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee in Report
109-23 cites authority for this legislation under Article I, Section 8,
and Clause 8 of the Constitution (regarding patents, trademarks, and
copyrights: "The Congress shall have Power...To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries").

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

H.R. 4772 --- Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006 ---

*as reported* (Chabot, R-OH)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4772 would simplify and expedite access
to the federal courts for constitutional property takings cases. injured
parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution
have been deprived by final actions of federal agencies or other
government officials or entities acting under color of state law, and
for other purposes.

The specific provisions of H.R. 4772 are as follows:

-   Provides that if a federal district court exercises jurisdiction in
    a civil rights case in which the operative facts concern the uses of
    real property, it is prohibited from not from exercising that
    jurisdiction, or relinquishing it to a state court if the party
    seeking redress does not allege a violation of a state law, right,
    or privilege, and no parallel proceeding is pending in state court.

-   Provides that if the district court has jurisdiction in a civil
    rights case in which the operative facts concern the uses of real
    property, and it cannot be decided without resolution of an
    unsettled question of state law, the district court may certify the
    question of state law to the highest appellate court of that state.
    After the state appellate court resolves the question, the district
    court is direct to proceed with resolving the merits. The district
    court cannot certify a question of state law under unless the
    question 1) is necessary to resolve the merits of the Federal claim
    of the injured party; and 2) is patently unclear.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Current law provides that a constitutional takings claim is ripe for
    federal adjudication (ready for a federal court to settle) when a
    "final decision" has been rendered. This legislation clarifies what
    constitutes a final decision, as follows:

    -   any person acting under color of any statute, ordinance,
        regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory of the
        United States, makes a definitive decision regarding the extent
        of permissible uses on the property that has been allegedly
        infringed or taken, without regard to any uses that may be
        permitted elsewhere; and

    -   one meaningful application to use the property has been
        submitted but denied, and the party seeking redress has applied
        for but is denied one waiver and one appeal, if the applicable
        statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage provides a
        mechanism for waiver by or appeal to an administrative agency.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Clarifies the term final decision in regards to takings claims
    against the U.S. involving \$10,000 or less (tried in federal
    district court), and claims involving more than \$10,000 (tried in
    Court of Federal Claims) , as follows:

    -   the United States makes a definitive decision regarding the
        extent of permissible uses on the property that has been
        allegedly infringed or taken, without regard to any uses that
        may be permitted elsewhere; and

    -   one meaningful application to use the property has been
        submitted but denied, and the party seeking redress has applied
        for but is denied one waiver and one appeal, if the applicable
        law of the United States provides a mechanism for waiver by or
        appeal to an administrative agency.

-   Requires a federal agency to, when taking an action limiting the use
    of private property, give notice to the owners of that property
    explaining their rights and the procedures for obtaining any
    compensation that may be due the owners.

-   Provides that changes made to current law by this legislation apply
    to actions began on or after the date of enactment.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-658](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr658)),
"H.R. 4772 will allow greater and fairer access to Federal courts by
those who assert Federal property rights claims under the Fifth
Amendment's Takings Clause." The Committee also notes that H.R. 4772 is
very similar to H.R. 2372, which passed the House on March 16, 2000, by
a vote of [226-182](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll055.xml).

According to CBO, "The Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private
property for public use without just compensation. This restriction on
government action is extended to the states through the due process
clause of the 14th Amendment. Under current law, parties who believe
that a government agency's actions or decisions have taken their
property may sue the federal, state, or local government. Plaintiffs
alleging takings by state and local governments are often denied access
to federal district courts, however, until they have exhausted their
opportunities to obtain compensation through the state courts."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 4772 was passed in the House by
voice vote on November 16, 2005. The Senate considered it, and passed
the bill, with an amendment, by unanimous consent on July 19, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, "enacting the
changes under H.R. 4772 would impose additional costs on the U.S. court
system to the extent that additional takings claims are filed and heard
in federal courts. Based on information obtained from various legal
experts, however, CBO estimates that only a small percentage of all
civil cases filed in state courts involve takings claims and that only a
small proportion would be tried in federal court as the result of
enacting H.R. 4772. ... On the other hand, most cases that would reach
trial in a federal court as a result of this bill are likely to involve
relatively large claims and could be time-consuming and costly to
adjudicate. ...However, CBO has no basis for estimating the number of
cases that would be affected or the amount of court costs that would
result. Administrative costs for handling additional cases would be paid
from appropriated funds, while any additional judgment payments would
increase direct 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 109-658
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, bit 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}** Joelle Cannon;
<joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-0718.

**H.R. 5575---Pigford Claims Remedy Act---*as introduced* (Chabot,
R-OH)**

[]{.mark}

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**Note**: Under House Republican Conference Rules, legislation lacking a
cost estimate may [not]{.underline} be considered by the House on the
Suspension Calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
leadership. This legislation, which lacks a cost estimate, failed to
receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

[]{.mark}

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5575 allows any *Pigford* claimant who
has not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her
claim may seek such a determination via a civil action. The bill
expressly states that it is Congress' intent "to effectuate its remedial
purpose of giving a full determination on the merits for each *Pigford*
claim denied that determination." A *Pigford* claimant is defined as one
who submitted a late-filing request under the consent decree in the case
of *Pigford v. Glickman* (see below).

[]{.mark}

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: On April 14, 1999, a settlement
agreement was reached to resolve *Pigford v. Glickman*, a suit in which
black farmers complained that they were discriminated against when they
applied for farm loans and other forms of assistance in their local
counties. Furthermore, the farmers argued that USDA had not responded to
discrimination complaints in a timely manner for some time. The
settlement agreement provided \$50,000 plus additional relief (for
example, loan forgiveness) or larger payments if claimants could prove
to a third-party arbiter that they received worse or slower service than
a similarly situated white farmer.

Claimants were given a deadline of October 12, 1999, to file. Those who
missed that deadline, so-called late-filing claimants, were given to
September 15, 2000, to file their claim and show that their delay was
due to extraordinary circumstances. According to CRS, 73,800 petitions
were filed late, of which, 2,131 were approved---roughly 3%. H.R. 5575
would provide a new avenue for these late-filing claimants to receive a
determination on the merits of their case.

[]{.mark}

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On June 9, 2006, H.R. 5575 was
introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee for
consideration. The Committee has not taken any formal action on the bill
as of yet.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO cost estimate is not
available. However, it is likely that H.R. 5575 will cost the federal
government *something* since it restores the potential for monetary
settlements to be provided to a sizable class of farmers, if they prove
they are eligible.

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

[]{.mark}

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

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

**H.R. 3049**---**Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act---*as
reported***

**(Green, R-WI)**

**[Order of Business:]{.underline}** The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[]{.mark}

**[Summary:]{.underline}** H.R. 3049 adds four species of Asian carp
(black, bighead, silver, and largescale silver carp) to the list of
injurious species whose importation is prohibited under Title 18,
Section 42 of U.S. Code, commonly referred to as the Lacey Act. Under
current law, it is a federal crime to import various injurious species
(for instance, the mongoose, the fruit bat and the zebra mussel) unless
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services permits it for "zoological,
educational, medical, and scientific purposes."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Asian carp is a fairly large
(as much as 80-100 pounds) species of fish, foreign to the U.S., that
were imported in the 1970s to control algae on southern catfish farms.
Carp are known to consume up to 50 percent of their body weight in algae
every day, often leaving nothing for other fish to feed upon, and
reproduce quickly. These fish have been making their way up the
Mississippi River (after being washed into the river in the 1980s) and
its tributaries, and there is an effort currently to keep them from
reaching Lake Michigan. One such enterprise consists of laying 84 steel
belts along the bottom of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which
will be electrically "juiced" to shock and deter the carp. However,
according to at least one media report, a market has developed for Asian
carp. One fisherman said in an [NPR
report](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5542199)
that, "Some people say that smoked; its better than salmon."

**[Committee Action:]{.underline}** On June 23, 2005, H.R. 3049 was
introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which reported
the measure on July 20, 2006, for consideration by full House.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers:]{.underline}** According to CBO, H.R. 3049 would
have no significant cost to the federal government.

[]{.mark}

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

[]{.mark}

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-585
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution, but failed 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."
*\[emphasis added\]*

[]{.mark}

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local Government, or
Private Sector Mandates?:]{.underline}** Yes. According to CBO, the bill
imposes a private-sector mandate on companies that import or ship
certain species of Asian carp, and the cost of the mandate would be
foregone net income. However, such costs would fall under the annual
threshold for private-sector mandates established by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

[]{.mark}

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

**H.R. 5323**---**Proud to Be an American Citizen Act---*as reported***

**(Farr, D-CA)**

**[Order of Business:]{.underline}** The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[]{.mark}

**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. This legislation, which
arguably either contains a new program or extends a sunset, failed to
receive a waiver from the elected Leadership.

[]{.mark}

**[Summary:]{.underline}** H.R. 5323 requires the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to "make available funds" to public and private
nonprofits (with approval from DHS) to perform public ceremonies to
administer the oath of allegiance to legal immigrants whose
naturalization applications are approved. These ceremonies would be held
on or near Independence Day at sites selected by DHS. Each ceremony
would be eligible for up to \$5,000, and these funds could be used for
travel expenses for INS officials, site and equipment (audio) rentals,
and printing costs for brochures. According to CBO, DHS would support
roughly 100 of these ceremonies per year.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to a statement from
Chairman Sensenbrenner, H.R. 5323 revives a program that was originally
enacted in 1996 and expired in 2001.

**[Committee Action:]{.underline}** On May 9, 2006, H.R. 5323 was
introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, which reported
the measure on July 17, 2006, for consideration by full House.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers:]{.underline}** According to CBO, H.R. 5323 would
increase direct spending (by less than \$500,000 annually) by drawing
down adjudication fees currently collected by DHS and credited as
offsetting receipts.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?:]{.underline}** Yes, the bill establishes a new program at
DHS for honoring new citizens taking the oath of allegiance.

[]{.mark}

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-576
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the
Constitution ("to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization").

[]{.mark}

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

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

**H.R. 2066---General Services Administration Modernization Act---*as
received* (Tom Davis, R-VA)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2066 would create within the General
Services Administration (GSA) a

new Federal Acquisition Service that would combine the Federal Supply
Service, which

purchases office equipment and other materials, with the Federal
Technology Services,

which provides information technology products. In doing so, the bill
would abolish the

General Supply Fund and the Information Technology Fund in the U.S.
Treasury and

transfer all assets, liabilities, and obligations to the newly created
Acquisition Services

Fund.

The Fund would also be credited with all reimbursements, advances, and
refunds or

recoveries relating to personal property or services procured through
the Fund, including:

-   the net proceeds of disposal of surplus personal property;

-   receipts from carriers and others for loss of, or damage to,
    personal property; and

-   receipts from agencies charged fees pursuant to rates established by
    the

Administrator.

The GSA Administrator could appoint regional executives for the new
acquisition service for additional oversight. If an individual receiving
an annuity from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund becomes
reemployed in an acquisition-related position, this legislation would
prevent such annuity from being discontinued.

The legislation would also permit the federal government to dispose of
surplus property by transferring it to state agencies for the purpose of
historic light stations. Such authority already exists for educational
and public health purposes (for instance to libraries, homeless
assistance providers, child care centers, hospitals, museums, etc.).

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: According to [*National
Journal*](http://nationaljournal.com/members/markups/2005/05/mr_20050505_1.htm),
"Allegations of contract mismanagement at the GSA's regional offices
prompted \[Rep. Tom\] Davis and Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, to monitor
procurement more closely."

[]{.mark}

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 23, 2005, the House passed
H.R. 5066 by voice vote after the measure was considered by the
Government Reform Committee, and the Senate passed the legislation on
September 6, 2006, with amendments.

[]{.mark}

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, H.R. 2066 would
have no significant cost to the federal government. CBO's estimate is
based on the legislation that passed the House in 2005 and does not
reflect the amendments made by the Senate. However, these Senate
amendments are not expected to add cost to the legislation.

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

reorganize and consolidate some federal government functions.

[]{.mark}

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

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

[]{.mark}

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-091
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the
Constitution ("to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper").

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

H.R. 3508 --- 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act ---

*as amended by the Senate* (Tom Davis, R-VA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, September 25, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended.

[NOTE]{.underline}: H.R. 3508 originally passed the House on December
14, 2005, by voice vote ([click
here](http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB_121405_DCauthrevised.pdf) to
view the initial RSC Leg. Bulletin). It was referred to the Senate
committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which held
hearings and reported the bill, as amended by Sen. Collins, to the full
Senate. The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on August 3,
2006, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3508 would amend various federal laws
applicable to the operation of the District of Columbia (DC) government.
Highlights of the bill are as follows:

-   Authorizes DC, subject to certain conditions, to spend up to 6% of
    unappropriated local funds during the 2006-2007 fiscal years, to
    allow D.C. to respond to unforeseen budget circumstances.

-   Allows D.C. to tap into reserve funds in FY2006 and FY2007, under
    certain circumstances and only if they replenish such funds before
    the end of the fiscal year or within nine months (whichever is
    sooner). No more than 50% of any funds could be utilized in any
    fiscal year.

-   Directs D.C. to require, within one year of enactment, that all
    taxicabs licensed in D.C. to charge fares using a metered system
    (rather than the zone system). Allows the D.C. mayor to opt out of
    this metered system requirement by issuing an executive order
    stating such.

-   Allows D.C. to enter into an interstate insurance compact.

-   Increases the pay cap available for non-judicial employees in D.C.
    courts from Executive Schedule IV (\$136,900) to Executive Schedule
    III (\$145,600). According to the Government Reform Committee, this
    provision would "put the non-judicial personnel of the DC Courts on
    par with the non-judicial employees of the federal courts in the
    District."

-   Provides the DC Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court with
    the authority to conduct business outside DC, in the event of an
    emergency.

-   Allows the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to use
    volunteers in administering its services. Such volunteers would be
    treated as federal employees for the purposes of workers'
    compensation.

-   Permanently establishes the existing DC Chief Financial Officer
    (CFO) and details various procedures and duties for the CFO. The
    bill would also rename various finance-related entities in the DC
    Government and place them under the authority of the CFO. The Mayor
    would nominate the CFO, subject to the DC Council's advice and
    consent, for five-year terms. Congress would [not]{.underline} have
    to approve the appointment. The CFO would have independent authority
    to make personnel and procurement decisions.

-   Requires that all of the DC Council's permanent bills and
    resolutions be accompanied by a fiscal impact statement before final
    passage. Permanent and emergency acts that are accompanied by a
    fiscal impact statement reflecting unbudgeted costs would be subject
    to federal appropriations before becoming effective.

-   Authorizes the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to
    accept gifts of space and training (during fiscal years 2006
    through 2008) to support offender and defendant programs (and
    requires that records be kept of all gifts received and how they are
    used). The bill would also authorize the Public Defender Service to
    charge fees (during fiscal years 2006 through 2008) to cover the
    costs of materials distributed to attendees of educational events.

-   Exempts the evaluation process for DC public school employees from
    collective bargaining.

-   Permanently exempts DC government employees from federal civil
    service laws.

-   Prohibits the CFO from renewing or extending a noncompetitively bid
    contract (during fiscal years 2006 through 2008), unless done so in
    accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures.

-   Authorizes the Mayor, during FY2006-FY2008, to accept, obligate, and
    expend federal, private, or other grants received by DC that are not
    reflected in the District's congressionally-approved budget,
    provided that certain reporting requirements are met.

-   Requires DC to use any fines generated from violations of DC's
    alcohol-related traffic laws exclusively for the enforcement and
    prosecution of such laws.

-   Requires the CFO to establish certification procedures for attorneys
    in cases brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
    Act (IDEA).

The bill contains a variety of purely technical and conforming
amendments to various statutes related to the federal role in DC
government operations.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was referred to the
Government Reform Committee on July 28, 2005. On September 15^th^, the
Committee marked-up and ordered the bill reported to the full House by
voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that this bill would
have no 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}**: CBO reports: "Because most
provisions of H.R. 3508 would codify current law and practice, the bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on the
District of Columbia."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Government Reform
Committee, in House Report
[109-267](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr267)),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (the
power of Congress "to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever, over such District").

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Derek V. Baker,
<derek.baker@mail.house.gov>, 202-226-8585

\###