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

# 

# Legislative Bulletin....................................................July 11, 2006

**Contents:**

> **H.R. 5646 ---** To study and promote the use of energy efficient
> computer servers in the United States
>
> **S. 655 ---** A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with
> respect to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control
> and Prevention
>
> **H.Res. 576 ---** Celebrating Advancement Via Individual
> Determination's 25 years of success
>
> **H.J.Res. 86 ---** Approving the renewal of import restrictions
> contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for
> other purposes

H.Res. 5646 --- To study and promote the use of energy efficient
computer servers in the United States --- *as amended* (Rogers, R-MI)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5646 would require the EPA's Energy Star
program to study:

-   the growth rate of data centers and server use in both the federal
    and private sectors;

-   the growth rate of use of energy efficient microchips and servers;

-   the construction of data centers for the purpose of cost savings;

-   the impact on the energy grid by use of energy efficient microchips
    and servers, and other energy externalities;

-   the possible computing benefits of energy efficiency; and

-   government incentives to use energy efficient microchips and
    servers.

The bill also declares that it is the sense of Congress that it is in
the best interests of the U.S. for purchasers of servers to consider
energy efficiency when calculating best value and performance.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The FY07 RSC Budget called for
the elimination of the Energy Star Program. Started in 1992, the EPA
introduced Energy Star as a voluntary labeling program designed to
identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Through 1995, EPA expanded the label to additional office
equipment products and residential heating and cooling equipment. In
1996, EPA partnered with the U.S. Department of Energy for particular
product categories. The Energy Star label is now on major appliances,
office equipment, lighting, home electronics, and more. The EPA has also
extended the label to cover new homes and commercial and industrial
buildings. The private sector and competitive marketplace are better
equipped to provide this function to consumers.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5646 was introduced on June 20,
2006, referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, which considered
it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill by vice vote on June 28, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that the study would
cost less than \$500,000 in FY07 assuming the availability of
appropriated funds.

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Committee Report
109-538, cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article
1, Section 8, and Clause 3 of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause.

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

S. 655 --- A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention --- *as amended* (Senator Isakson, R-VA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**Note**: Under the House Republican Conference Rules, no bill which
authorizes more than a 10% increase in authorizations, appropriations,
or direct spending in any given year, may be considered on the
suspension calendar. This rule may be waived by a vote of the elected
leadership. **This legislation, which increases funding authorizations
for the Centers for Disease Control Foundation by 150%, received a
waiver from the elected leadership.**

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S. 655 amends the Public Health Service Act
to increase, from \$500,000 per year to \$1.25 million per year, the
amount of the grants the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
is authorized to provide to the National Foundation of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Under current law, the CDC
Foundation is authorized to annually receive \$500,000 in direct federal
appropriations, and HHS is authorized to transfer from its own to the
CDC Foundation, an additional \$500,000 annually. Thus, under current
law, the Foundation may receive up to \$1million annually. However,
Congress has not historically appropriated the direct funding of
\$500,000; however HHS has routinely provided the Foundation with
\$500,000 each year. S. 655 would increase from \$500,000 to \$1.25
million, the current direct authorization from Congress to the
Foundation. In addition, the bill also increases, from \$500,000 to
\$1.25 million, the amount HHS is authorized to transfer for the
Foundation. The bill also requires HHS to transfer *at least* \$500,000
to the Foundation on an annual basis. As such, upon enactment of S. 655,
the Foundation will automatically receive \$500,000 annually from HHS,
but could receive *up to* \$2.5 million annually in federal funding.

S. 655 would also amend the current provision limiting to two years, the
amount of time voluntary service may be accepted from an individual
provided by the CDC Foundation. S. 655 would repeal the two-year
restriction and allow the individuals to provide services until the
point at which the private funding ends. In addition, the bill permits
the CDC to provide facilities, utilities, and support services to the
Foundation if it is determined by the CDC Director to be beneficial to
the CDC's programs.

The legislation requires that the Foundation to include in its annual
report, an accounting of the use of funds transferred from the CDC to
the Foundation, to make the report available for public inspection and
to any individual requesting a copy, and to submit the reports to "the
appropriate committees of Congress."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The CDC Foundation was
authorized by Congress in 1992, and began its work in 1995 as a
non-profit entity designed to raise private funding to support the work
of the CDC. According to Committee Report 109-510, "In its eleven year
history, the Foundation has raised more than \$100 million in private
funds to enhance the CDC\'s work. Donations to the CDC Foundation come
from individuals, corporations, foundations, and other organizations.
Along with private donations, the Federal government contributes
\$500,000 per year through the CDC to help cover the Foundation's
operating expenses. Over the past five years, the CDC Foundation has
raised an average of \$15 million per year to boost the work of the CDC,
representing a 30 to 1 return on CDC's \$500,000 annual investment in
the Foundation. The CDC Foundation uses donated funds to bring the
flexibility of a non-profit organization to bear on the CDC's many
efforts to improve health and safety." To learn more about the
Foundation, please visit their website at:
<http://cdcfoundation.org/about/whatwedo.aspx>.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives may
be concerned that this legislation significantly increases federal
funding for a charitable foundation, which currently raises an average
of \$15 million annually in private dollars. In addition, the Foundation
exists to support the work of the CDC, which has consistently used
federal funding for low-priority expenditures, such as \$6.9 million on
a new visitors center, \$5 million on "greenscape," which included
Japanese gardens, and \$106 million for a Global Communications Center,
in addition to \$11.1 million for audio visual systems in two other
buildings. (Source: CDC Response to Congressional Inquiry, February
2006) Also, the CDC has continued to request emergency funding from
Congress in order to prepare for a possible Bird Flu pandemic. Given
these concerns, some conservatives may be weary that S. 655 has been
placed on the suspension calendar, with no opportunity for amendments or
an appropriate debate discussing the merits of this legislation.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: S. 655 was received from the Senate
on July 28, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, which considered it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill, as
amended, by voice vote on June 20, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, S. 655 authorizes
\$2 million in FY07, and \$10 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}**: Although the Committee cites
Constitutional Authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (interstate
commerce), it is difficult to justify increasing funding a foundation is
interstate commerce.

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

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

H.Res. 576 --- Celebrating Advancement Via Individual Determination's 25
years of success --- *as introduced (Davis, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 576 resolves that Congress:

-   "congratulates Advancement Via Individual Determination students and
    their teachers on increasing college eligibility and attendance; and

-   "celebrates Advancement Via Individual Determination's 25 years of
    success."

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

-   "Advancement Via Individual Determination \[AVID\] started in 1980
    with one teacher, Mary Catherine Swanson, and 32 high school
    students in San Diego, California, and developed into an easily
    replicated program that promotes academic success;

-   "students are selected because they are low-income,
    first-generation, college-going students who are underperforming
    academically;

-   "students are required to take a rigorous, college preparatory
    curriculum including advanced level courses;

-   "the program provides SAT/ACT preparation, college information and
    financial aid assistance, college visits, and motivational
    experiences; and

-   "at the end of the first college year, 89 percent of Advancement Via
    Individual Determination students are fully eligible and do enroll
    for their sophomore year compared to a national average of 50
    percent."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: AVID was developed by a public
high school teacher in 1980. The organization received 501(c)(3) status
in 1992. AVID targets average students for participation in advanced
high school curriculum and an elective class designed by AVID. The
organization's vision is to, "prepare all students with the opportunity
to enroll in colleges and universities, providing college by design
rather than college by chance." (source:
[https://www.avidonline.org](https://www.avidonline.org/).)

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 576 was introduced on
November 18, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. On March 27, 2006 the resolution was referred to the
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which took no official
action.

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

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

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

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

H.J.Res. 86 --- Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained
in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes
--- *as reported (Lantos, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, July 11, 2006, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.J.Res. 86 amends the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-61) lengthening from three years to six
years the maximum number of years from passage that trade restrictions
may be renewed. The resolution approves renewal of trade restrictions,
and declares that the joint resolution shall be deemed a "renewal
resolution" under the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The RSC summary of the
underlying Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act can be found here:
<http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/doc/LB71403.pdf>. The original
legislation expired on July 28, 2004, but has been extended twice. The
trade restrictions currently expire on July 28, 2006.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: While the Burmese
government has violated human rights and has effectively destroyed free
enterprise in Burma by nationalizing economic activity, some
conservatives may feel that restricting trade with Burma is not free
market.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.J.Res. 86 was introduced on May
19, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which took no
official action.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.J.Res. 86
would reduce federal revenues by less than \$500,000 on FY06, and reduce
revenues by \$1million in FY07, if the trade restrictions are kept in
place.

**[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}**: Yes, renewal imposes
private-sector mandates.

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

\###