![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in"
height="1.15625in"}**Legislative
Bulletin...........................................March 26, 2007**

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 753** - To redesignate the Federal building located at 167
> North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, as the "Clifford Davis/Odell
> Horton Federal Building"\
> **H.R. 1019** - To designate the United States customhouse building
> located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as
> the "Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building"\
> **H.R. 1138** - To designate the Federal building and United States
> courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North
> Carolina, as the "J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United
> States Courthouse"\
> **H.R. 802** - Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007\
> **H.R. 1195** - To amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
> Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical
> corrections, and for other purposes\
> **H.Res. \_\_** - Supporting the goals and ideals of Professional
> Social Work Month and the World Social Work Day\
> **H.R. 1468** - Disadvantaged Business Disaster Eligibility Act\
> **H.R. 137** - Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007\
> **H.R. 580** - To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to
> provide for a 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney
> appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General

H.R. 753 --- To redesignate the Federal building located at 167 North
Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, as the "Clifford Davis/Odell Horton
Federal Building" (*Cohen, D-TN*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, March 26^th^, 2007, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 753 would designate the federal building
located at 167 North Main Street in Memphis, Tennessee, (commonly known
as the Clifford Davis Federal Building) as the "Clifford Davis/Odell
Horton Federal Building."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}:** According to Sen. Alexander's
office, Odell Horton was the first black U.S. District Court judge
appointed in Tennessee since Reconstruction. Judge Horton was appointed
by President Carter on May 12, 1980, and subsequently served as Chief
Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
from 1987 through 1993. The federal building is current known as the
Clifford Davis Federal Building, in honor former Rep Davis, who
represented the Memphis area in Congress from 1940 through 1965. Judge
Horton died on February 22, 2006.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 753 was introduced on January
31, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings
and Emergency Management, which marked-up the bill and reported it to
the House by voice vote on March 1, 2007.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 753 is
unavailable, but the bill does not authorize new expenditures. The only
costs associated with a federal building renaming are those for sign and
map changes, none of which significantly affect the federal budget.

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

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

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

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

H.R. 1019 --- To designate the United States customhouse building
located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the
"Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building" (R.C.
Fortuno, R-PR)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 1019 would designate the U.S.
customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in
Mayagu.AE4ez, Puerto Rico, as the "Rafael Martinez Nadal United States
Customhouse Building."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}:** Rafael Martinez Nada is a
former president of the Senate in Puerto Rico.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 1019 was introduced on February
13, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which marked-up up the bill on March 1^st^, and reported
it to the House by voice vote the same day.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 1019 is
unavailable, but the bill does not authorize new expenditures. The only
costs associated with a federal building renaming are those for sign and
map changes, none of which significantly affect the federal budget.

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

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

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

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

H.R. 1138 --- To designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North
Carolina, as the "J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States
Courthouse" (*Butterfield, D-NC*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 1138 would designate the federal
courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North
Carolina, as the "J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States
Courthouse."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 1138 was introduced on March 1,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings
and Emergency Management, which marked-up the bill and reported it to
the House by voice vote on March 1, 2007.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** A CBO score of H.R. 1138 is
unavailable, but the bill does not authorize new expenditures. The only
costs associated with a federal building renaming are those for sign and
map changes, none of which significantly affect the federal budget.

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

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

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

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

H.R. 802--- Maritime Pollution Prevention Act of 2007 --- *(Oberstar,
D-MN)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 802 is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 802 would amend the Prevent Pollution
from Ships Act by applying the provisions (relating to vessel air
emissions standards) of the Protocol of 1997 to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). These
provisions would apply to certain marine diesel engines, and other
classes of public vessels. The bill would give the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) significant authority over enforcing these
regulations, which typically is an authority held by the Coast Guard.
This would result in a large expansion of the EPA's authority over
domestic and international waters. In addition, the requirements would
likely impact owners of recreational watercraft (such as fishing boats).

The bill directs the EPA to establish regulations setting criteria for
determining the adequacy of reception facilities for receiving ozone
depleting substances and other substances. H.R. 802 would allow the
Secretary of Energy and Commerce to deny the entry of a ship to a port
required by the MARPOL Protocol or other regulations required by this
Act.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 802 was introduced on February
5, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which held a mark-up and reported the bill, as amended,
by voice vote on March 20, 2007.

**[Cost to Taxpayer:]{.underline}** CBO estimates that developing new
regulations would cost the EPA \$2 million over the next three years,
and that ongoing enforcement activities would cost \$1 million annually
thereafter.

**[Does the Bill Create New Federal Programs or Rules?]{.underline}**:
No.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The committee report cites
constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,
but fails to cite a specific clause. However, 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**](mailto:joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov),
202.226.0718.

H.R. 1195---To amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical
corrections, and for other purposes --- *(Oberstar, D-MN)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.R. 1195 is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1195 makes numerous technical
corrections to federal surface transportation programs authorized by
SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59). Below are the *highlights*:

-   Provides \$90 million in new contract authority for the magnetic
    levitation technology program (a mass transit program) or MAGLEV
    over three years. Under SAFETEA-LU, 50% of this funding is earmarked
    for a Nevada project and the rest for a project "east of the
    Mississippi."

-   Amends 231 earmarks included in SAFETEA-LU by either changing the
    definition of the project or increasing the amount of the earmark.
    There following is just a few of these changes:

    -   Amends an earmark that provides \$20 million for a new American
        border plaza at the Blue Water Bridget near Port Huron, MI, by
        providing that \$7.4 million is for planning, design, and
        construction of the project, and \$12.6 million is for
        integrated highway realignment and grade separations to
        eliminate road blockages from NAFTA rail traffic;

    -   Amends an earmark that provides \$5 million for I-80
        improvements, to direct this money to "improvements to state
        road 312, Hammond;"

    -   Increases from \$2.4 million to \$4.8 million, an earmark for
        the widening of Highway 92 in Kearney, Missouri;

    -   Amends an earmark for \$256,000 to "improve Bailie Street in
        Kentland, Indiana," to be used for "biking and pedestrian trail
        construction in Kentland, Indiana;"

    -   Increases from \$800,000 to \$2.4 million, an earmark to widen
        I-240 in Shelby County, Tennessee; and

    -   Increases from \$800,000 to \$1.6 million, as earmark to widen
        state road 80 in Hendry County, Florida.

-   Provides \$2 million in new contract authority for the National
    Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.
    (Specifically, increases funding from \$1.4 million for each of FY
    2006 and FY 2007, to \$1.4 million for FY 2006, and \$3.4 million
    for FY 2007.)

-   Annually reduces core highway formula programs by 0.2% for FY
    2007-2009 and transfers the contract authority to the F-SHARP
    highway research program. This takedown would transfer some \$200
    million in total "above the line," but would not affect the Equity
    Bonus (EB) calculations, even though some states will lose funding.
    This is to address the fact that the research programs in Title V of
    SAFETEA-LU were over-earmarked.

-   Offsets the costs of the bill's provisions by increasing the
    scheduled rescission of contract authority on September 30, 2009,
    under SAFETEA-LU, from \$8.593 billion to \$8.710 billion (an
    increase of \$117 million). While some conservatives may be
    concerned that this rescission of contract authority will never
    materialize, it is important to remember that the obligation
    limitations, which control the amount of annual transportation
    spending regardless of what has been authorized, are not being
    changed. This will ensure that SAFETEA-LU's "real world" funding
    will not surpass \$286 billion.

-   Amends the requirement that second-offense drunk drivers have their
    licenses revoked for one year (without states being subject to
    financial penalty) and instead, allows for either a one year
    suspension *or* a 45 day suspension followed by a reinstatement
    period, so long as an ignition interlock device (breathalyzer) is
    installed on the individual's vehicle.

-   Clarifies that the Federal Highway Administration's current
    application of the Buy America test---with regard to the policy only
    being applied to components or parts of a bridge project and not the
    entire bridge project---is inconsistent with congressional intent.

[]{.mark}

**[Background]{.underline}**: On August 10, 2005, the President signed
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59) into law to provide \$286
billion over five years for all federal surface transportation programs.
The bill also included over 6,300 member earmarks, representing 8% of
the bill's overall funding and a substantial increase over the preceding
transportation authorization bill's (TEA-21, 1998-2003) then-record
level of 1,850 earmarks.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was introduced on February
27, 2007, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, which held a mark-up and reported the bill by voice
vote, as amended, on March 21, 2007.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding
Earmarks?]{.underline}** H.R. 1195 is being considered under a motion to
suspend the rules and pass the bill. As a result, the bill technically
does not have to include a list of all the earmarks (and the requesting
member) or a statement that no earmarks are included. However, the
Committee Report states that "it is not clear if the definition of
'congressional earmark' under clause 9(d) of rule XXI applies to
technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU projects because these technical
corrections do not provide new budget authority for such projects.
However, in the interests of full disclosure and transparency, the
Committee has required Members of Congress to comply with all
requirements of clause 9(d), 9(c), or 9(f) of rule XXI." The Committee
Report provides a table listing all of the provisions in the bill
(including the requesting Member) amending earmarks provided for in the
original SAFETEA-LU legislation. To view this list, please click
[here](http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_reports&docid=f:hr062.110.pdf).

**[Cost to Taxpayer:]{.underline}** According to CBO, the bill reduces
contract authority by \$25 million over the FY 2007 through FY 2009
period.

**[Does the Bill Create New Federal Programs or Rules?]{.underline}**:
No.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The committee report cites
constitutional authority in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,
but fails to cite a specific clause. However, 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**](mailto:joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov),
202.226.0718.

H.Res. \_\_ --- Supporting the goals and ideals of Professional Social
Work Month and World Social Work Day --- *(Shea-Porter, D-NH)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: H.Res.\_\_ is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

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

-   "supports the goals and ideals of Professional Social Work Month and
    World Social Work Day;

-   "acknowledges the diligent efforts of individuals and groups who
    promote the importance of social work and who are observing
    Professional Social Work Month and World Social Work Day;

-   "encourages the American people to engage in appropriate ceremonies
    and activities to further promote awareness of the life-changing
    role of social workers;

-   "recognizes with gratitude the contributions of the millions of
    caring individuals who have chosen to serve their communities
    through social work; and

-   "encourages young people to seek out educational and professional
    opportunities to become social workers."

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

-   "social workers have the demonstrated education and experience to
    guide individuals, families, and communities through complex issues
    and choices;

-   "social workers connect individuals, families, and communities to
    available resources;

-   "social workers are dedicated to improving the society in which we
    live;

-   "social workers are positive and compassionate professionals;

-   "social workers stand up for others to make sure everyone has access
    to the same basic rights, protections, and opportunities;

-   "social workers have been the driving force behind important social
    movements in the United States and abroad; and

-   "Professional Social Work Month, and World Work Social Day, which is
    March 27, 2007, will build awareness of the role of professional
    social workers and their commitment and dedication to individuals,
    families, and communities everywhere though service delivery,
    research, education, and legislative advocacy."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. \_\_ will reportedly be
introduced today.

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

**[Does the Bill Create New Federal Programs or Rules?]{.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**](mailto:joelle.cannon@mail.house.gov),
202.226.0718.

H.R. 1468 --- Disadvantaged Business Disaster Eligibility Act

(*Jefferson, D-LA*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 1468 would extend the eligibility small
and disadvantaged businesses in Louisiana affected by Hurricane Katrina
to participate in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program and
to receive related technical assistance programs for an additional 18
months. Thus, businesses participation in the SBA 8(a) program located
in Louisiana areas that were designated disaster areas due to Hurricane
Katrina would be eligible for this extension. The bill would also
require the SBA to continue to review every small business involved in
the program to ensure compliance.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}:** According to CBO, the SBA 8(a)
program helps small and disadvantaged businesses bid for federal
contracts. Eligible businesses generally participate in the 8(a) program
for nine years, receiving technical support as necessary during that
time.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 1468 was introduced on March
12, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Small Business, which
marked-up the bill and reported it by voice vote on March 15, 2007.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
1468 would cost less than \$1 million. Enacting H.R. 1468 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.

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

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

H.R. 137---Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (Gallegly, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Monday, March 26^th^, under a motion to suspend the rules
and pass the bill.

[NOTE]{.underline}: This bill has been amended since the RSC's
Legislative Bulletin on this bill last week.

**[Summary (as amended)]{.underline}**: H.R. 137 would enforce the
current prohibitions against certain animal fighting ventures (often
referred to as "cockfighting") as if they were **[federal
crimes]{.underline}** under Chapter 3 of Title 18, U.S. Code. They are
presently federal misdemeanors (7 U.S.C. 2156) with lower penalties. The
penalties would no longer exist under Title 7.

Specifically, H.R. 137 would enforce as a **[federal
crime]{.underline}** the act of any person knowingly sponsoring or
exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture, if *any* animal in
the venture was moved in interstate or foreign commerce. Even in a state
that allows cockfighting, it would be enforced as a **[federal
crime]{.underline}** for a person to sponsor or exhibit a bird in the
cockfight if the person knew that *any* bird in the fight was knowingly
bought, sold, delivered, transported, or received in interstate or
foreign commerce for the purpose of a cockfight.

H.R. 137 would also enforce as a **[federal crime]{.underline}** the act
of any person knowingly selling, buying, transporting, delivering, or
receiving for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign
commerce, any dog or other animal to have the dog or other animal
participate in an animal fighting venture.

Furthermore, the bill would enforce as a **[federal crime]{.underline}**
the act of any person knowingly using the United States Postal Service,
or any instrumentality (i.e. communication method) of interstate
commerce, for commercial speech promoting an animal fighting venture,
except as performed outside the United States and except for cockfights
that are legal under state law.

Additionally, the bill would enforce as a **[federal
crime]{.underline}** the act of any person knowingly selling, buying,
transporting, or delivering in interstate or foreign commerce a knife,
gaff, or any other sharp instrument attached, or designed or intended to
be attached, to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture.
This federal criminal enforcement is completely new and not currently a
misdemeanor under Section 2156 of Title 7, U.S. Code (though this bill
would also make it a misdemeanor).

Anyone violating any of the above provisions would **[have to
be]{.underline}** fined under Title 18, U.S. Code, and/or **[imprisoned
for up to three years]{.underline}** for [each]{.underline} violation.
The maximum prison time in current law is one year.

"Animal fighting venture" is defined as "any event which involves a
fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of
sport, wagering, or entertainment, except that the term 'animal fighting
venture' shall not be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose
of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another
animal." Animal is defined as "any live bird, or any live dog or other
mammal, except man."

These enforcements as federal crimes would apply to the District of
Columbia and the U.S. territories as well.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: According to the Judiciary
Committee, all 50 states ban dogfighting, and 49 states ban
cockfighting.

**[RSC Bonus Fact]{.underline}**: It may be worth noting that
**[181]{.underline}** Democrats have co-sponsored this legislation,
making it a federal crime to bring [an animal]{.underline} across state
lines for the purposes of fighting, but only **[9]{.underline}**
Democrats have co-sponsored H.R. 1063, making it a federal crime to
bring [a young human being]{.underline} across state lines to abort a
child.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On January 4, 2007, the bill was
referred to the Judiciary and Agriculture Committees. On February 6^th^,
the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security marked up the bill and forwarded it by voice vote to the full
committee. Later that same day, the full Judiciary Committee marked up
and ordered the bill reported to the full House by voice vote. On March
1, 2007, the Agriculture Committee discharged the bill without taking
other action. However, on March 21^st^, the Agriculture asserted its
jurisdiction over the bill and demanded amendments. The amended version
on the schedule today reflects such changes.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Some conservatives
might be concerned that this bill would require the enforcement of four
misdemeanors as federal crimes (and create one completely new federal
misdemeanor to be enforced as a federal crime)---and increase the
penalties---for activities that are already banned in most states. Some
conservatives may also believe that people who own or purchase property
should be able to do what they want with it, as long as they are not
harming another human being.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO expects that any increase in
federal costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison
operations also would be insignificant and subject to the availability
of appropriated funds.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The bill would create one completely new
federal misdemeanor enforced as a federal crime, enforce four current
misdemeanors as federal crimes, and increase the penalties for the
existing offenses.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: Yes---various new
private-sector mandates on the interstate transportation of knives,
gaffs, and sharp objects for certain purposes.

**[Does the Bill Comply with House Rules Regarding Earmarks/Limited Tax
Benefits/Limited Tariff Benefits?]{.underline}**: Though the bill
contains no earmarks, the earmarks rule (House Rule XXI, Clause 9(a))
does not apply, by definition, to legislation considered under
suspension of the rules.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Judiciary Committee, in
House Report 110-27, cites constitutional authority in Article I,
Section 8 (powers of Congress), but fails to cite a specific clause.
House Rule XIII, Section 3(d)(1), requires that all committee reports
contain "a statement citing the *specific* *powers* granted to Congress
in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution." *\[emphasis added\]*

[Note]{.underline}: Article VI, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states
that, "The Senators and Representatives...and all executive and judicial
Officers...shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution."

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

H.R. 580 --- To amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to
provide for a 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney
appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General (*Berman, D-CA*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Monday, March 26, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 580 would change the terms for interim
appointments of U.S. Attorneys. Specifically, the bill would amend the
federal judicial code to provide that any individual appointed (under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 546c)) as a United States Attorney in a district where there
is a vacancy may serve until the earlier date of either: 1) the
qualification of a U.S. Attorney appointed by the President, or 2) the
expiration of 120 days after the appointment by the Attorney General of
an interim U.S. Attorney. The bill further provides that if an
appointment expires, the district court for such district may appoint a
U.S. Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled (and the court must
file the order of appointment with the clerk of the court), and
stipulates that this section of the U.S. Code (546) is the exclusive
means for appointing an individual to temporarily perform the functions
of a U.S. Attorney for a district where there is a vacancy.

Under current law, the Attorney General may appoint an interim U.S.
Attorney to serve for an *indefinite* period of time until a vacancy is
filled by the President with the advice and consent of the United States
Senate. This bill would limit interim appointments to a maximum of 120
days. Upon expiration of any interim appointment made by the Attorney
General, the district court would be granted authority to appoint a U.S.
Attorney to serve until the vacancy is filled (by the president and with
the advice and consent of the Senate). In other words, it would strip
this power from the Attorney General to provide an indefinite U.S.
Attorney, and instead allow the U.S. district court to fill the vacancy
if the initial 120 interim appointment expires.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}:** According to the Democrat
majority's committee report, this bill is in response to the recent
dismissal of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Bush Administration. Also, the
committee report noted that "Section 502 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement
and Reauthorization Act of 2005 gave the Attorney General the authority
to fill U.S. Attorney vacancies on an indefinite, interim basis, pending
confirmation of new nominees by the Senate. Previously, the Attorney
General could appoint interim U.S. Attorneys only for 120 days, after
which interim appointment authority passed to the district courts until
new nominees were confirmed."

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}:** Several Republican
committee members voiced their concern over the provisions of this bill,
and the fact that it was not fully deliberated in committee. Further,
Ranking Member Lamar Smith stated it was likely avoidable to have a bill
calling for "judges to appoint the very Executive Branch prosecutors
practicing before them\--judicial appointments that raise legal and
practical concerns that we believe would have merited more
consideration." Further, it was observed in the dissenting views of the
committee report that Rep. Nadler "suggested that Congress could
reinstate the interim appointment authority at some future date for some
other President" at the committee mark-up, suggesting that this bill is
specifically a punitive measure against the President Bush and the
current Administration, while all of the facts of the case have not been
settled.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 580 was introduced on January
19, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Judiciary's Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law. Hearings were held in early March,
and the bill was marked-up and reported (amended) to the House by voice
vote on March 15, 2007 (House Report
[110-58](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr058):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
580 would have no significant impact on the federal budget.

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

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}:** The Judiciary Committee, in
House Report
[110-58](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp110:FLD010:@1(hr058):),
cites constitutional authority in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
(Senate's advise and consent responsibility regarding judicial
appointments).

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

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

\###