![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.916666666666667in"
height="1.1159722222222221in"}

# Legislative Bulletin...........................................September 12, 2006

> **Contents:**
>
> **H.R. 5434 --** Larry Cox Post Office Designation Act
>
> **H.R. 5428 --** Joshua A. Terando Princeton Post Office Building
> Designation Act
>
> **H.Res. 983 --** Honoring the life and accomplishments of the late
> Robert E. O'Connor, Jr.
>
> **H.R. 5539 --** North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization
> Act of 2006
>
> **H.R. 138 --** To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee coastal
> Barrier Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P
>
> **H.R. 479 ---** To replace a Coastal Barrier Resources System map
> relating to Coastal Barrier Resources System Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P
> in Walton County, Florida
>
> **H.R. 5094** --- Lake Mattamuskeet Lodge Preservation Act
>
> **H.R. 5381**--- National Fish Hatchery System Volunteer Act of 2006
>
> **S. 1773** --- Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act of 2005
>
> **H.R. 631** --- To provide for acquisition of subsurface mineral
> rights to land owned by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and land held in trust
> for the Tribe, and for other purposes
>
> **H.Res. 175** --- Recognizing the importance of establishing a
> national memorial at the World Trade Center site to commemorate and
> mourn the events of February 26, 1993, and September 11, 2001

H.R. 5434 --- To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 40 South Walnut Street in Chillicothe, Ohio, as the
"Larry Cox Post Office" --- *as reported* (Ney, R-OH)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5434 would designate the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 40 South Walnut Street in
Chillicothe, Ohio, as the "Larry Cox Post Office."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Larry Cox was a DARE program
police officer, shot and killed while off-duty. Cox witnessed a car
theft and robbery suspect, who had recently escaped from prison, fleeing
police, and joined the chase. The suspect shot and killed Cox when Cox
confronted him in an alley. Cox is survived by his wife, son, parents,
and sister.

(source: <http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=17739>)

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5434 was introduced on May 19,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
June 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
Post Offices and post roads.

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

[]{.mark}

H.R. 5428 --- To designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 202 East Washington Street in Morris, Illinois, as
the "Joshua A. Terando Princeton Post Office Building" --- *as reported*
(Weller, R-IL)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="0.84375in"
height="1.0625in"}**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5428 would designate
the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 202 East
Washington Street in Morris, Illinois, as the "Joshua A. Terando
Princeton Post Office Building."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: Joshua Terando was an Army
Reserve sergeant with the 2^nd^ Brigade Combat Team, 28^th^ Infantry
Division. He was killed in Al Taqaddum, Iraq, when his M1A1 Abrams tank
was attacked by enemy forces using small arms fire.

(source:
<http://www.operationhomefront.org/News/news_memoriam_2005.shtml>)

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5434 was introduced on May 19,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The bill was
marked-up and was ordered reported to the House by unanimous consent on
June 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The only costs associated with a
postal facility 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}**: Although no committee report
citing constitutional authority is available, Article I, Section 8,
Clause 7 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish
Post Offices and post roads.

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

H.Res. 983 --- Honoring the life and accomplishments of the late Robert
E. O'Connor, Jr. --- *as introduced (Doyle, D-PA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 983 resolves that the House:

-   "has learned with profound sorrow of the death of Bob O'Connor;

-   "recognizes Bob O'Connor as a role model of entrepreneurship, civic
    engagement, and public service in southwestern Pennsylvania and
    throughout the entire Nation;

-   "expresses its deep gratitude to Bob O'Connor for working tirelessly
    on behalf of the citizens of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;

-   "extends condolences to his wife, Judy, his children, Heidy,
    Terrence, and Corey, his extended family, and his many friends; and

-   "extends condolences to the residents of the City of Pittsburgh."

[]{.mark}

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

-   "Mr. O'Connor was a successful entrepreneur and businessman for more
    than two decades;

-   "Mr. O'Connor was actively involved in his church and community
    service, serving on the Board of Directors of Carnegie-Mellon
    University, Gateway Rehabilitation Institute, the Sudden Infant
    Death Syndrome Alliance, The Caring Foundation, and Soldiers and
    Sailors Memorial Hall;

-   "Mr. O'Connor loved the City and his community so much that he left
    the private sector in 1992 to serve on the Pittsburgh City Council,
    where he served his community effectively until 2003;

-   "Mr. O'Connor served two terms as Pittsburgh City Council President;

-   "Mr. O'Connor was elected the 58th Mayor of Pittsburgh in 2005;

-   "Mr. O'Connor, only seven months into his first term in office, was
    diagnosed with a primary central nervous system lymphoma; and

-   "Mr. O'Connor, after a valiant struggle to fight this aggressive
    form of cancer, passed away on September 1, 2006."

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: O'Connor, a Democrat, was a
political opponent of former Philadelphia mayor Tom Murphy. O'Connor ran
for mayor three times before winning the Democratic primary without
Murphy in the race.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 983 was introduced on
September 6, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Government reform,
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.R. 5539 --- North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act
of 2006 --- *as amended* (Pombo, R-CA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5539 would extend the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) until the end of fiscal year 2012.
NAWCA Currently expires in 2007.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
109-639, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council oversees
disbursement of funds for proposed public-private conservation projects
throughout North America. The NAWCA mandates that 30 to 60 percent of
the funds must be spent on projects in Canada and Mexico. Additionally,
for projects in Mexico, funding must be provided for educational
activities.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5539 was introduced on June 7,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
Fisheries and Oceans. The bill was reported out, as amended, by the full
Committee on July 19, 2006, by unanimous consent (H. Rept. 109-639).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: H.R. 5539 authorizes appropriations
of \$75 million per year through FY 2012. CBO estimates that, assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, H.R. 5539 would cost \$75
million in 2008, and \$375 from 2008-2012. 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}**: Committee Report 109-639
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 of the Constitution (the power to regulate
commerce).

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

[]{.mark}

H.R. 138 --- To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P --- *as amended* (Kingston,
R-GA)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 138 would substitute the current GA-06P
map of the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System on Jekyll Island for the map dated July 10, 2006.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to the committee
report, Jekyll Island is owned by the state of Georgia and is an
Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs) in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System (Chafee CBRS). OPAs are ineligible for flood insurance.
Georgia allows up to 35% of the Jekyll Island to be developed. The
island was developed before it was included in the Chafee CBRS. While
the land of the island is owned by the state, 867 structures on the
island are privately owned. Private property owners on Jekyll Island
have been unable to procure flood insurance. H.R. 138 would place the
developed areas outside of the Chafee CBRS so that the private owners
would be able to buy flood insurance. The revised map excludes a total
of 1,282 acres of developed and undeveloped lands from the Chafee
System, but it includes 1,157 new acres of wetlands and open water
areas.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 138 was introduced on January
4, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. The bill was reported out,
as amended, by the full Committee on July 19, 2006, by unanimous consent
(H. Rept. 109-618).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.R. 138 would
have no significant impact on the federal budget. The estimate states
that H.R. 138 makes 100 acres eligible for flood insurance. Premium
collections are projected to total less than \$500,000 a year, and
collections will be offset by mandatory spending for overhead, and in
some years by insurance claims. CBO estimates that the impact on direct
spending would be negligible.

**[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 109-618
cites constitutional authority for this legislation in Article 1,
Section 8, and Clause 3 of the Constitution (power to regulate
commerce).

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

H.R. 479 --- To replace a Coastal Barrier Resources System map relating
to Coastal Barrier Resources System Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P in Walton
County, Florida --- *as amended* (Miller, R-FL)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 479 would replace a Coastal Barrier
Resources System map relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System
unit Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P, located in Walton County, Florida, with
another map relating to that unit entitled "Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P
and Draper Lake Unit FL-96" and dated July 24, 2006.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-620](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr620)),
the "Coastal Barrier Resources System is made up of coastal barrier
units which are delineated on maps adopted by Congress. These units
consist of undeveloped sections of coastal barrier islands and the
associated aquatic habitat which lies behind these barriers. \...The
1990 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act added an important new category of
units to the System called 'Otherwise Protected Areas' (OPAs). ...While
OPAs remain eligible for a variety of federal financial assistance
programs, they are ineligible for participation in the Federal Flood
Insurance Program. ...the Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P would be modified
*to exclude four homes and six undeveloped lots from the prohibitions on
federal flood insurance*. ...H.R. 479 would allow them to retain federal
flood insurance in the future by removing their ten lots, which comprise
six acres of land from the system. In addition, the new map would remove
forty additional private lots representing twenty acres in the Towns of
Grayton Beach and Gulf Trace that should not have been included within
the system" (emphasis added).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 479 was introduced on February
1, 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 estimates that enactment of
H.R. 479 would increase premium collections of the national flood
insurance fund by less than \$500,000 annually; however, "such
collections would be partially offset each year by new mandatory
spending for underwriting and administrative expenses." As such, CBO
estimates implementation of H.R. 479 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 109-620
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3
(interstate commerce) of the Constitution of the United States.

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

H.R. 5094 --- Lake Mattamuskeet Lodge Preservation Act --- *as reported*

(Jones, R-NC)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5094 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior (within six months of enactment) to convey to the state of
North Carolina, without consideration, all rights, title, and interest
of the United States, except for certain utility and road easements, a
parcel of real property consisting of approximately 6.25 acres, for the
purpose of permitting the state to use the property as a public facility
dedicated to the conservation of the natural and cultural resources of
North Carolina. The property contains the Mattamuskeet Lodge and
surrounding property, including the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife
Refuge headquarters.

The bill also directs the Secretary to cooperate with the state to
develop a memorandum of agreement encompassing mutually beneficial
opportunities to use the property to be conveyed under this bill to
provide visitor services, to construct and utilize facilities and
utilities, and to implement wildlife conservation projects.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-560](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr560)),
"the Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge was established in October of
1934 when the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries purchased the Mattamuskeet lake
property to create a migratory bird refuge. ...The Mattamuskeet Lodge
was constructed in 1915 at a cost of \$205,000. ...In 2001, Congressman
Walter B. Jones (R-NC) was successful in obtaining \$3.5 million to
restore the lodge. Regrettably, the money was never spent and was
transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service's fire suppression program.
These funds have not been replaced or even requested by the Fish and
Wildlife Service since that time. ... It has been estimated that it will
cost the State of North Carolina about \$12.5 million to restore the
Mattamuskeet Lodge. According to testimony, 'the State cannot, however,
make funding available until the Lodge is in State ownership'."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5094 was introduced on April 5,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which considered
it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill by unanimous consent on July
13, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that enactment of
H.R. 5094 would "have no significant effect 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 109-560
cites constitutional authority in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (power
to regulate territories) of the Constitution of the United States.

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

H.R. 5381 --- National Fish Hatchery System Volunteer Act of 2006 ---
*as amended* (Saxton, R-NJ)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 5381 would permit the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a new pilot project at one or more sites in the
National Fish Hatchery System (NFHS). These new projects would be
required to provide for a volunteer coordinator for the hatchery
facility, who would be responsible for recruiting, training, and
supervising volunteers.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary to approve community partnership
enhancement projects and programs for facilities that:

-   "promote the stewardship of resources of the hatchery through
    habitat maintenance, restoration, and improvement, biological
    monitoring, or research;

-   "support the operation and maintenance of the hatchery through
    constructing, operating, maintaining, or improving the facilities
    and services of the hatchery;

-   "increase the awareness and understanding of the hatchery and the
    System, through the development, publication, or distribution of
    educational materials and products;

-   "advance education concerning the purposes of the hatchery and the
    mission of the System, through the use of the hatchery as an outdoor
    classroom and development of other educational programs; or

-   "contribute financial resources to the hatchery, under the terms
    that require that the net revenues be used exclusively for the
    benefit of the hatchery, through donation of net revenues from the
    sale of educational materials and products and through encouragement
    of gifts, devises, and bequests."

Funds received by the Department of Interior through these partnerships
are to be used to pay the costs of incidental expenses related to
volunteer activities and to carry out cooperative agreements for the
hatchery facilities.

H.R. 5381 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts,
devises, or bequests of real and personal property or proceeds for the
benefit of the NFHS, and permits the Secretary to provide funds matching
these gifts.

Finally, the bill directs the Department of Interior, within one year of
enactment, to develop hatchery educational programs in state, local and
private schools, which are to provide outdoor classroom opportunities
for students on fish hatcheries that combine educational curricula with
personal experiences of students relating to fish; to promote
understanding and conversation of fish; and improve scientific literacy
in conjunction with both formal and non-formal education programs.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
[109-638](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr638)),
the goal of H.R. 5381 is to generate increased volunteer involvement in
the National Fish Hatchery System. The current hatchery volunteer
program has "limited statutory authority," which H.R. 5381 seeks to
expand and enhance.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 5381 was introduced on May 11,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Resources, which considered
it, held a mark-up, and reported the bill, by unanimous consent on
September 6, 2006.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO estimate for a previous
version of H.R. 5381, which contained funding authorizations for the
expanded volunteer program, estimated that implementation of the bill
would cost \$1.75 million over the 2007-2011 period. As of press time, a
CBO estimate reflecting the updated language was not available, and it
is unclear how the revision would change the cost of H.R. 5381. In
addition, the previous CBO estimate concluded that enacting the bill
could also increase revenues from private donations and associated
direct spending, but that such effects would be less than \$500,000
annually.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The bill expands an existing volunteer
program and gives the Secretary of the Interior a new authority to match
contributions to the hatchery system.

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

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 109-638
cites constitutional authority in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (power
to regulate territories) of the Constitution of the United States.

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

S. 1773 --- Pueblo de San Ildefonso Claims Settlement Act of 2005 ---

as received (Sen. Domenici, R-NM)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** S. 1773 would ratify the Settlement Agreement
between the United States and the Pueblo de San Ildefonso Indian tribe,
which would resolve all of the Pueblo Indian's land title and trespass
claims. The bill would also ratify the Los Alamos Agreement, among Los
Alamos County, the state of New Mexico, the Pueblo Indians, the
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. This bill would also:

-   require the United States and the Pueblo to execute and file with
    the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in the Pending Litigation
    (regarding certain lands within the Santa Fe National Forest) a
    motion for final judgment provided for within the Settlement
    Agreement;

-   stipulate (upon final judgment on the pending litigation) that the
    U.S. will pay \$6.9 million into the Settlement Fund (created by
    this bill, with certain use restrictions) as compensation to the
    Pueblo Indians;

-   extinguish all claims of the Pueblo Indians against the United
    States, and exempt from this Act certain land titles, water rights,
    and other rights relating to religious or cultural access to, and
    use of, federal land;

-   allow the Secretary of Agriculture to sell the Settlement Area Land,
    Water System Land, and Los Alamos Townsite Land to the Pueblo
    Indians (purchased by the Settlement Fund proceeds), which consists
    of about 7,600 acres of national forest land; and

-   direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell the Northern Tier Land,
    and grants the Pueblo of Santa Clara an exclusive option to purchase
    it within 90 days after enactment of this Act.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** S. 1773 was introduced in the Senate
on September 26, 2005. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on May
24, 2006, and was referred to the House Committee on Resources, which
ordered it reported to the House by unanimous consent on July 26, 2006
(H. Rept.
[109-633](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr633):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that implementing S.
1773 "would increase direct spending from the Judgment Fund of the U.S.
Treasury by about \$7 million" in FY2007. CBO notes that the payment
could be offset by a reduction in possible future payments from the
Judgment Fund to settle the tribe's claims, but this is not certain.
Also, according to the Forest Service, the lands to be sold currently
generate "no significant receipts and are not expected to do so during
the next 10 years." Hence, CBO estimates that selling the land would not
significantly affect offsetting receipts (a credit against 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}:** The Resources Committee, in
House Report
[109-633](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr633):),
cites constitutional authority in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (power
of Congress to regulate territories). 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. 631 --- To provide for acquisition of subsurface mineral rights to
land owned by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and land held in trust for the
Tribe, and for other purposes --- *as reported* (*Grijalva, D-AZ*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.R. 631 would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to acquire subsurface mineral rights to certain lands (by use
of eminent domain) owned by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (436 acres) and lands
held in trust for the Tribe by the state of Arizona (140 acres), for the
benefit of the Tribe. The bill would also require that the Tribe pay to
the state of Arizona an amount equal to the market value of those
subsurface mineral interests acquired, and would require that the Tribe
pay the U.S. for all transaction costs associated with assessment,
review, and transfer of the lands.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.R. 631 was introduced on February
28, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources. The bill was
marked-up on July 19, 2006, and it was reported to the House by
unanimous consent the same day (H. Rept.
[109-621](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr621):)).

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}:** CBO estimates that, assuming the
availability of appropriated funds, that "acquiring the affected
property rights for the Pascua Yaqui Tribe would cost less than
\$500,000 over the next year. We expect that reimbursement by the tribe
for associated transaction costs would sum to a few thousand dollars;
therefore, we estimate that enacting this legislation would have no
significant effect on 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}:** The Resources Committee, in
House Report
[109-621](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/cpquery/R?cp109:FLD010:@1(hr621):),
cites constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (power
of Congress to regulate commerce), and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2
(power of Congress to regulate territories). 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.Res. 175 --- Recognizing the importance of establishing a national
memorial at the World Trade Center site to commemorate and mourn the
events of February 26, 1993, and September 11, 2001 --- *as introduced*
(*Nadler, D-NY*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, September 12, 2006, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}:** H.Res. 175 would resolve that the House of
Representatives:

1)  "recognizes the importance of establishing a national memorial at
    the World Trade Center site, as the highest honor the Nation can
    confer to commemorate and mourn the events of February 26, 1993, and
    September 11, 2001; and

2)  "supports the efforts of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation
    to build a permanent memorial at the World Trade Center site."

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

-   "on February 26, 1993, terrorists detonated a bomb in the basement
    of the World Trade Center in an attempt to destroy the building,
    killing six and wounding hundreds;

-   "on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft,
    causing two of them to crash into the twin towers of the World Trade
    Center in New York City, a third into the Pentagon, and a fourth in
    rural southwest Pennsylvania;

-   "nearly 3,000 people were killed at the World Trade Center site in
    the most lethal terrorist attack ever committed against the United
    States;

-   "the site of the World Trade Center requires the highest form of
    national recognition;

-   "the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation has been established to
    create a permanent memorial at the site to honor the victims and
    heroes of the attacks;

-   "in April 2003, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation launched
    the largest design competition in history for the creation of a
    permanent memorial, with designs submitted by 5,201 individual
    participants from 63 nations and 49 States; and

-   "after a distinguished 13-member jury reviewed every submission, on
    January 6, 2004, the jury announced the winning memorial design,
    'Reflecting Absence' by architect Michael Arad and landscape
    architect Peter Walker."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}:** H.Res. 175 was introduced on March
17, 2005, and referred to the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on
National Parks, which took no official action.

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

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

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

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