# ![](media/image1.png)

# Legislative Bulletin...............................................October 5, 2004

**Contents:**

**Bills Subject to a Rule:**

**S. 878**---Bankruptcy Judgeship Act

**Suspensions:**

> **H.Con.Res. 480---**Recognizing the spirit of Jacob Mock Doub and his
> contribution to encouraging youth to be physically active and fit and
> expressing the sense of Congress that "National Take a Kid Mountain
> Biking Day" should be established in Jacob Mock Doub's honor
>
> **H.R. 918---**Patient Navigator, Outreach, and Chronic Disease
> Prevention Act of 2004

**H.R. 3015---**National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting
Act of 2004

> **H.R. 3858---**Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004

**H.R. 2023**---Asthmatic Schoolchildren\'s Treatment and Health
Management Act

**H.R. 4555**---Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act

**H.R. 2929**---Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act
("SPY-ACT")

> **H.Con.Res. 250**---Recognizing community organization of public
> access defibrillation programs
>
> **H.Con.Res. 34** --- Expressing the sense of the Congress that
> private health insurance companies should take a proactive role in
> promoting healthy lifestyles, and for other purposes
>
> **H.R. 4504** --- Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster
> Children Act of 2004
>
> **H.J.Res. 57**---Expressing the sense of Congress in recognition of
> the contributions of the seven Columbia astronauts by supporting
> establishment of a Columbia Memorial Science Learning Center
>
> **H.R. 5011**---Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
>
> **H.Con.Res. 306---**Honoring the service of Native American Indians
> in the United States Armed Forces

**S. 878**---**Bankruptcy Judgeship Act (Craig)**

**[Order of Business:]{.underline}** The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, 2004, under a structured rule
(H.Res. 814) that makes two amendments in order (summarized below). The
rule will be debated and voted on the same day.

**[Summary:]{.underline}** The bill would authorize the following 47
additional district court judges and 11 additional circuit court judges:

*New District Judgeships:*

Northern District of Arizona (1) Western District of Missouri (1)

Middle District of Alabama (1) District of Nebraska (1)

District of Arizona (3) District of New Mexico (2)

Northern District of California (1) Eastern District of New York (3)

Eastern District of California (3) District of Oregon (1)

Central District of California (1) District of South Carolina (1)

Southern District of California (2) District of Utah (1)

Middle District of Florida (2) Eastern District of Virginia (2)

Southern District of Florida (4) Western District of Washington (1)

District of Idaho (1)

*Conversion of Temporary to Permanent Judgeships:*

District of Hawaii (1) Eastern District of Missouri (1)

District of Kansas (1)

*New Temporary Judgeships:*

Northern District of California (1) Northern District of Indiana (1)

Central District of California (1) Southern District of Indiana (1)

Southern District of California (3) Northern District of Iowa (1)

District of Colorado (1) District of New Mexico (1)

Middle District of Florida (1) Eastern District of New York (1)

Northern District of Illinois (1) Western District of New York (1)

*Additional Circuit Judges:*

1^st^ Circuit (1) 6^th^ Circuit (1)

2^nd^ Circuit (2) 9^th^ Circuit (5 permanent, 2 temporary)

**[Background]{.underline}**: According to the Committee report, the
Judicial Conference of the United States reviews biannually the
judgeship needs of all U.S. courts of appeal and district courts. It
then submits its recommendations to the House and Senate Judiciary
Committees. The Conference recommended in May 2003 that Congress
establish an additional 46 district court judges and 11 circuit court
judges.

**[Cost to Taxpayers:]{.underline}** According to CBO, the bill (as
reported) would increase direct spending by \$3 million in FY05 and \$40
million over five years to pay for the salaries and benefits of the new
judges. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost
(subject to appropriations) \$225 million over five years to pay staff
salaries, supplies, and rent or construct additional office space.
However, the bill exceeds the Judiciary Committee's 302(a) allocation
over the five year period and would be subject to a point of order.

**NOTE:** The rule makes in order a manager's amendment (described
below) that will bring the cost of the bill into compliance with the
budget resolution. The amended bill is expected to cost \$3 million in
FY05 and \$22 million over five years (the amount provided for in the
budget resolution for new judges).

**[Committee Action:]{.underline}** The bill passed the Senate by
unanimous consent on May 22, 2003 and was referred to the House
Judiciary Committee, which considered the bill and reported it to the
full House on September 9 by voice vote.

**[Amendments Made in Order Under the Rule (H.Res. 814):]{.underline}**

[Sensenbrenner (Manager's Amendment)]{.underline}: Staggers
implementation of the 58 new Federal circuit and district court
judgeships created by bill over seven fiscal years (i.e. through
FY2011). This delay would push much of the cost of the bill beyond the
five-year window of the budget resolution, therefore allowing the bill
to comply with the budget resolution.

[Simpson]{.underline}: Splits the current 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
into three new Circuits: a new 9th Circuit would consist of California,
Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands; a new 12th Circuit
featuring Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana; and a new 13th Circuit
featuring Alaska, Oregon, and Washington.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?:]{.underline}** Yes, the bill expands the federal judiciary
to add 47 new district court judges and 11 new circuit court judges.

**[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 108-708, cites authority in Article III, Section 1 of the
Constitution.

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

H.Con.Res. 480---Recognizing the spirit of Jacob Mock Doub and his
contribution to encouraging youth to be physically active and fit and
expressing the sense of Congress that "National Take a Kid Mountain
Biking Day" should be established in Jacob Mock Doub's honor (Burr)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 480 resolves that Congress:

> "(1) recognizes the health risks associated with childhood obesity;
>
> "(2) recognizes the spirit of Jacob Mock Doub and his contribution to
> encouraging youth of all ages to be physically active and fit,
> especially through bicycling;
>
> "(3) expresses its sense that 'National Take a Kid Mountain Biking
> Day' should be established in honor of Jacob Mock Doub; and
>
> "(4) encourages parents, schools, civic organizations, and students to
> promote increased physical activity among youth in the United States."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: According to the resolution,
Jacob Mock 'Jack' Doub, born July 11, 1985, was actively involved in
encouraging others, especially children, to ride bicycles. He won almost
every cross-country bicycling race he entered for two years, and between
the ages of 14 and 17 became a top national-level downhill and slalom
competitor. He died unexpectedly from complications related to a
bicycling injury on October 21, 2002. Jack Doub\'s family and friends
have joined, in association with the International Mountain Bicycling
Association, to honor his spirit and love of bicycling by establishing
the Jack Doub Memorial Fund to promote and encourage children of all
ages to learn to ride and lead a physically active lifestyle.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The resolution was introduced on
July 22, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
Committee did not take official action on the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
any 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.

**[Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Lisa Bos, <lisa.bos@mail.house.gov>,
(202) 226-1630

H.R. 918---Patient Navigator Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act
of 2004 (*Menendez*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 918 would authorize the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to make "patient navigator" grants to public
or private nonprofit health centers. Funds would be used to hire and
train patient navigators, who would help facilitate the care and
treatment of individuals in the community. Specifically, patient
navigators would assist in the coordination of health care services and
provider referrals, notify individuals of clinical trials and facilitate
involvement in trials, provide information to individuals about health
coverage options, and conduct outreach to medically underserved
populations.

Grants would be for a period of three years (with the option of an
extension by the Secretary). All grant periods must conclude before
September 30, 2010. The bill requires an evaluation report after the
program has concluded.

H.R. 918 authorizes the following amounts:

-   \$2 million for FY2006

-   \$5 million for FY2007

-   \$8 million for FY2008

-   \$6.5 million for FY2009

-   \$3.5 million for FY2010

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 918 was introduced on February
26, 2003, and referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and
Resources. The Committee on Energy and Commerce favorably reported the
bill (amended) by voice vote on September 30, 2004. The Committee on
Resources did not act on the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: H.R. 918 authorizes \$25 million
over five years.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill creates a new patient
navigator grant pilot program.

**[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.

**[Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Lisa Bos, <lisa.bos@mail.house.gov>,
(202) 226-1630

H.R. 3015---National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act
of 2004 (Whitfield)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3015 would establish a new program
through which the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would
provide grants to States to establish and implement controlled substance
monitoring programs. States receiving a grant would have to require
dispensers to report each dispensing of a controlled substance to the
State within one week. This report would include the name of the
practitioner who prescribed the drug; the name, address, and telephone
number of the user of the drug; the name and quantity of the drug; and
the number of refills ordered. States would maintain this information in
an electronic database. The information in the database could be
provided to a practitioner (if the information is for a current
patient), any law enforcement or disciplinary authority (if the
information is needed for an investigation), or an agent of a federal or
state health agency (if the information is for research purposes).

One year after the date of the bill's enactment, the Secretary of HHS
would be required to complete a study on the progress of the program and
the feasibility of implementing a real-time electronic controlled
substance monitoring program (including cost).

The bill authorizes \$25 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007
and \$15 million for each of fiscal years 2008-2010.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3015 was introduced on
September 4, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Committee reported the bill (amended) on September 30, 2004.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The bill authorizes \$95 million
over 5 years.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill establishes a new grant
program for substance abuse monitoring.

**[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.

**[Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Lisa Bos, <lisa.bos@mail.house.gov>,
(202) 226-1630

H.R. 3858---Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004
(Nethercutt)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 3858 would direct the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to grant credit to organ
procurement organizations (OPOs), for the purposes of their
certification, for pancreases harvested and used for islet cell
transplantation and research. The bill also requires the Diabetes
Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee at the National Institutes
of Health to include in its annual report an assessment of the Federal
activities and programs related to islet cell transplantation and to
make recommendations for legislative or administrative actions that
might increase the supply of pancreases available for islet cell
transplantation.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: Islet cell transplantation is a
potential cure for diabetes. In the procedure, islet cells --- which
contain the insulin-producing beta cells that have been destroyed in
type 1 diabetes --- are taken from a donor\'s pancreas, and transferred
to a person with the disease.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 3858 was introduced on February
26, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
Committee favorably reported the bill by voice vote on September 30.

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

**[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.

**[Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Lisa Bos, <lisa.bos@mail.house.gov>,
(202) 226-1630

H.R. 2023---Asthmatic Schoolchildren\'s Treatment and Health Management
Act (Stearns)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2023 would amend Section 399L of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g) to give a preference (when
Health and Human Services makes asthma-related federal grants) to states
that allow schoolchildren to self-medicate for asthma and anaphylaxis (a
sometime fatal, body-wide allergic reaction that is common with asthma
sufferers). To get preferential treatment, a state would have to require
that each public elementary school and secondary school in that state
give to any student in the school an authorization for the
self-administration of medication to treat that student\'s asthma or
anaphylaxis, after the proper consultation (as detailed in the bill)
among the student, parents, the student's doctor, and school
administrators (including the submission to the school of any written
documentation required by the school). A student would have to be
allowed to self-medicate while at school, at school-sponsored events,
and in transit to and from school---and such medication could be stored
at the school as a back-up.

The bill would express a sense of Congress:

1.  commending the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for
    identifying and creating "Strategies for Addressing Asthma Within a
    Coordinated School Program" for schools to address asthma; and

2.  encouraging all schools to review these strategies and adopt
    policies that will best meet the needs of their student population.

The bill also contains 15 findings about the history of and current
statistics regarding asthma and about the importance of allowing
self-treatment in schools. One such finding is: "No school should
interfere with the patient-physician relationship."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: Asthma causes airways in the
lungs to become inflamed and constricted, causing coughing, wheezing,
and difficulty breathing. To learn more about asthma, visit this
website: <http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/default.htm>

To access the CDC's "Strategies for Addressing Asthma Within a
Coordinated School Program," visit this website:
<http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/asthma/pdf/strategies.pdf>

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On May 7, 2003, the bill was
referred to the Energy & Commerce Committee, as well as the Education
and the Workforce Committee. On June 15, 2004, the Energy & Commerce's
Health Subcommittee marked up and forwarded the bill to the full
Committee by voice vote. On June 24^th^, the full Committee marked up
and by voice vote ordered the bill reported to the full House. The
Education and the Workforce Committee did not take official action on
the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO confirms that the bill would
not alter how much federal money is spent on asthma programs---only the
distribution of such money.

**[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 Energy & Commerce
Committee, in House Report 108-606, cites constitutional authority in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (which grants Congress the power to
regulate interstate commerce).

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

H.R. 4555---Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act
(*Dingell*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[Note]{.underline}: The Senate passed a similar bill, S. 1879 (sponsored
by Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD), on February 2, 2004, by unanimous
consent. That bill would reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards
Act through 2005 (the House bill reauthorizes it through 2007).

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4555 would reauthorize through fiscal
year 2007 the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), first enacted in
1992 and reauthorized in 1998 through 2002. The Act, as the name
implies, sets federal standards for the delivery of mammographies, in
the name of increasing the early detection of breast cancer. More
specifically, MQSA provided that mammography screening and diagnostic
services be accredited and certified by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). According to the Energy & Commerce Committee, as of June 30,
2004, there were 9,039 MQSA-certified facilities in the U.S. and its
territories.

H.R. 4555 would also allow the FDA to issue temporary renewal
certificates, for periods not to exceed 45 days, to facilities (under
certain circumstances) seeking reaccreditation under MQSA. The FDA could
also issue (upon the request of an accreditation body operating under
the FDA) a limited provisional certificate for a period not to exceed 72
hours, to allow facilities to conduct examinations for educational
purposes while onsite visits from an accreditation body is in progress.

H.R. 4555 would allow the FDA to appoint mammography equipment experts
to the National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee and
remove the requirement that the Advisory Committee meet twice a year.

Although the bill would authorize "such sums" for the FDA accreditation
and certification processes, CBO estimates that H.R. 4555 would
authorize \$17 million in each of FY2005 and FY2006 and \$18 million in
FY2007 (for the MQSA activities that are not supported by user fees).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On June 15, 2004, the Energy &
Commerce's Health Subcommittee marked up and forwarded the bill to the
full Committee by voice vote. On June 24^th^, the full Committee marked
up and by voice vote ordered the bill reported to the full House.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that H.R. 4555 would
authorize \$17 million in each of FY2005 and FY2006 and \$18 million in
FY2007.

**[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 Energy & Commerce
Committee, in House Report 108-606, cites constitutional authority in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (which grants Congress the power to
regulate interstate commerce).

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

H.R. 2929---Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act
("SPY-ACT") (Bono)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

[Note]{.underline}: A similar bill on this topic, H.R. 4661, reported by
the House Judiciary Committee, will be considered on the House floor
tomorrow.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2929 would make it illegal for any
person, who is [not]{.underline} the owner or authorized user of a
protected computer (defined in the bill), to engage in deceptive acts or
practices in connection with any of the following:

-   Taking control of the computer by\--

> \--utilizing such computer to send unsolicited information or material
> from the protected computer to others;
>
> \--diverting the Internet browser of the computer away from the site
> the user intended to view;
>
> \--accessing or using the modem and thereby causing damage to the
> computer or unauthorized financial charges;
>
> \--using the computer as part of an activity performed by a group of
> computers that causes damage to another computer; or
>
> \--delivering advertisements that a user cannot close without turning
> off the computer or shutting down the Internet browser.

-   Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the
    computer\'s access to or use of the Internet by altering\--

> \--the user's default homepage when using an Internet browser;

\--the default Internet Service Provider or other existing Internet
connections settings;

> \--a list of bookmarks; or

\--security settings.

-   Collecting personally identifiable information through the use of a
    keystroke logging function or similar function.

-   Inducing the owner or authorized user to install a computer software
    component onto the computer, or preventing reasonable efforts to
    block the installation or execution of, or to disable, a computer
    software component by\--

> \--presenting a fake option to decline a software installation; or
>
> \--causing a computer software component that the owner or authorized
> user has properly removed or disabled to automatically reinstall or
> reactivate on the computer.

-   Misrepresenting that installing a separate software component or
    providing log-in and password information is necessary for security
    or privacy reasons, or that installing a separate software component
    is necessary to open, view, or play a particular type of content.

-   Inducing the owner or authorized user to install or execute computer
    software by misrepresenting the identity or authority of the person
    or entity providing the computer software to the owner or user.

-   Inducing the owner or authorized user to provide personally
    identifiable information to another person by misrepresenting the
    identity or authority of the person seeking the information.

-   Removing, disabling, or rendering inoperative a security,
    anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology installed on the computer.

-   Installing or executing on the computer one or more additional
    computer software components with the intent of causing a person to
    use such components in a way that violates any other provision of
    this section.

The bill would also make it a unlawful to transmit an information
collection program to a computer without consent of the owner or
authorized user of the computer. Notice seeking consent would have to
meet the detailed standards outlined in the bill. Distinct consent would
have to be received from the computer owner or authorized user for each
type of information sought. A telecommunications carrier, provider of
information service or interactive computer service, cable operator, or
provider of transmission capability would not be liable for violations
of the information collection program provisions.

This bill would not apply to "cookies." \[A cookie is a small text file
that a [Web server](http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-server.htm)
can store on a user\'s [hard
disk](http://computer.howstuffworks.com/hard-disk.htm). Cookies, which
are mainly used for identification purposes, allow a Web site to store
information on a user\'s machine and later retrieve it.\]

H.R. 2929 would set that violations of this legislation would be
punishable by the Federal Trade Commission and would establish maximum
civil penalties.

Activities conducted under properly authorized law enforcement or
national security auspices would be exempt from the provisions of this
bill. The bill would also protect from liability:

\--providers of Internet access that are taking actions to protect
network security; and

> \--people and companies who are making good-faith efforts (with the
> consent of computer owners) to remove spyware.

H.R. 2929 would explicitly pre-empt state laws regarding the above
topics, though NOT state trespass, contract, tort, or other
fraud-related law.

The Federal Trade Commission would have to report annually to Congress
on the enforcement of these provisions. The legislation would not apply
after December 31, 2009.

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: The Federal Trade Commission
loosely defines "spyware" as software "that aids in gathering
information about a person or organization without their knowledge and
which may send such information to another entity without the
consumer\'s consent, or asserts control over a computer without the
consumer\'s knowledge."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On June 17, 2004, the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection marked up and forwarded the
bill to the full Energy & Commerce Committee by voice vote. On June
24^th^, the Committee marked up and ordered the bill reported to the
full House by a vote of 45-5.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that this legislation
would not have a significant impact on federal revenues or spending.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: The FTC has already been combating spyware.
However, this bill would explicitly pre-empt state laws in this area.
According to CBO, Utah has already passed legislation that this bill
would preempt, and California, Iowa, and New York have bills pending
before their state legislatures.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: Yes: one intragovernmental
mandate (the pre-emption) and various private-sector mandates (on
persons who use computer programs to collect certain information from
another person\'s computer).

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: The Energy & Commerce
Committee, in House Report 108-619, cites constitutional authority in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (which grants Congress the power to
regulate interstate commerce).

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

H.Con.Res. 250---Recognizing community organization of public access
defibrillation programs (*Brown of Ohio*)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 250 would resolve that Congress:

-   "recognizes the growing number of community activists,
    organizations, and municipal governments leading the national effort
    to establish public access defibrillation (PAD) programs; and

-   "encourages the continued development and implementation of PAD
    programs in schools, sports arenas, large hotels, concert halls,
    high-rise buildings, gated communities, buildings subject to
    high-security, and similar facilities to increase the survival rate
    for victims of cardiac arrest."

**[Additional Background]{.underline}**: According to the resolution,
60% of all cardiac arrests occur outside the hospital, and the average
national survival rate for an out-of-hospital victim of cardiac arrest
is only 5%. Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) make it possible
for trained non-medical rescuers to deliver potentially life-saving
defibrillation to victims of cardiac arrest. Public Access
Defibrillation (PAD) programs train non-medical individuals to use AEDs.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On September 30, 2004, the Energy &
Commerce Committee ordered the resolution reported to the House floor by
voice vote.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution would authorize 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}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718

**H.Con.Res. 34---Expressing the sense of the Congress that private
health insurance companies should take a proactive role in promoting
healthy lifestyles, and for other purposes (*McCarthy*)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5, 2004, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: The resolution resolves that:

(1) "the Congress commends Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy
    Thompson for his efforts to encourage private health insurance
    companies to take action to encourage people in the United States to
    lead active lifestyles;

> \(2\) "**it is the sense of the Congress that private health insurance
> companies should\--**
>
> \(A\) do more to encourage people in the United States to lead a
> healthier and more active lifestyle to prevent expensive and painful
> illnesses;
>
> \(B\) **provide discounted premiums to those who exercise regularly;**
> and
>
> \(C\) encourage frequent screening for diseases that are easily
> treatable in their early stages; and
>
> "(3) the Congress applauds private health insurance companies that are
> already taking these actions "(emphasis added)."

**[Additional Information:]{.underline}** The resolution's findings
state that HHS Secretary "**Tommy Thompson** acknowledges that \$270
\[billion\] in health costs are caused by preventable diseases,
including \$183 \[billion\] for heart disease alone, **and has called
current policies of insurance companies "wrongheaded" for not doing more
to encourage people to stay healthy to prevent expensive illnesses."**

The findings also note that "**the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
provides tax incentives for taxpayers who are obese, but not for those
who are active and healthy" and "providing incentives for exercise and
strength training would help more people become active and healthy and
would decrease national medical costs"** (emphasis added).

The findings also note that obesity increases the risk of illness from
more than 30 medical conditions, including heart disease, cancer,
stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes, which
account for 2/3 of all deaths in the United States, and that 61 percent
of U.S. adults are above their target weight, and 13 percent of children
and adolescents are obese or overweight.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The resolution was introduced on
June 3, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which reported it by voice vote on September 30, 2004.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: None.

**[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}**: Sheila Cole,
sheila.cole@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-9719

**H.R. 4504---Orderly and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children
Act of 2004 (DeLay)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5, 2004, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 4504 amends the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 671) with regard to federal foster care reimbursement to require
that within 60 days after a state requests a home study background from
another state (for purposes of adoption or placement), the other state
must respond and report on the results. The bill authorizes \$10 million
a year for FY05-08 (\$40 million total) for incentive payments to states
that implement "timely interstate home studies" for foster care
adoptions or placements. Such payments will be \$1,500 for each
interstate home study completed within 30 days to facilitate the
placement of a foster care child with a relative or for adoption. The
state that requested the home study would be required to treat the study
as meeting any of its own child placement requirements, unless within 14
days of receiving the report the state determines that relying on the
report would be contrary to the welfare of the child. The bill lays out
a payment scale if the funds authorized are not fully appropriated and
states that funds must be used for children or family services
authorized under the Social Security Act.

H.R. 4504 requires all states to conduct criminal background checks and
child abuse registry checks on prospective foster and adoptive parents
before placing any foster child in their care. The bill immediately
suspends the ability of any additional states to "opt-out" of federal
criminal background check procedures, which requires mandatory
disapproval of a placement for any federally funded foster care child,
if the records check of the prospective foster or adoptive parent
reveals that person was at any time convicted of felony child abuse,
spousal abuse, a crime involving children (including child pornography),
or a crime involving violence (including rape, sexual assault or
battery, but not including other physical assault or battery); or if the
record check shows a felony conviction for homicide, physical assault,
battery or a drug-related offense that was committed in the last five
years. There are currently a number of states which opt out of this
requirement, though the opt out is eliminated entirely in H.R. 4504 by
October 2006, if a state intends to file a federal foster care payment
claim.

The bill also prohibits states from restricting the ability of a state
agency to contract with a private agency to conduct interstate home
studies and encourages states to contract for such services, if needed,
to meet the 60-day deadline established by this bill. A GAO study is
required within a year following enactment.

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: The bill was introduced on June 3,
2004, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, which did not
consider it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
The bill authorizes \$40 million over the 2005 to 2008 period. If the
bill is successful in more rapidly placing a foster care child in a
permanent setting, it is likely it will reduce mandatory spending by
reducing federal outlays for foster care payments to states.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: Yes, the bill creates a new federally funded
incentive grant program for interstate foster care adoption. As noted
above it also has the potential to shrink mandatory foster care
reimbursement payments to states.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: The bill requires background
checks for foster child placements, which is likely an intergovernmental
mandate, though a CBO report on mandates is unavailable

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A Ways and Means Committee
report citing authority is unavailable.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Sheila Cole,
sheila.cole@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-9719

**H.R. 5011**---**Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
(Burns)**

**[Order of Business:]{.underline}** The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, 2004, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary:]{.underline}** The bill would prohibit the sale of
contractual or periodic payment plan mutual funds to military personnel.
According the bill's findings, these financial products have not been
marketed to civilians since 1980s as a result of high fees. In addition,
the bill would clarify that State insurance commissioners have the
jurisdiction to regulate the business of insurance on military bases.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: The House Financial Services
Committee recently held a hearing to consider the merits of contractual
mutual funds. These plans have a high first-year sales charge (50%) with
such fees gradually diminishing over the term of the contract. According
to one witness, "it is particularly offensive that insurance agents
peddle overpriced, unsuitable products to the men and women who daily
put their lives on the line for America's defense." For more information
regarding this hearing, please visit the Committee's website:
[http://financialservices.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=331]{.underline}

**[Committee Action:]{.underline}** The bill was introduced on September
7, 2004 and referred to the House Financial Services Committee, which
considered the bill and reported it to the full House on September 15 by
a vote of 68 to 0.

**[Cost to Taxpayers:]{.underline}** A cost estimate is not yet
available, but the bill authorizes no funding.

**[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
authority is not available.

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

**H.J.Res. 57**---**Expressing the sense of Congress in recognition of
the contributions of the seven Columbia astronauts by supporting
establishment of a Columbia Memorial Science Learning Center
(*Roybal-Allard*)**

**[Order of Business:]{.underline}** The bill is scheduled to be
considered on Tuesday, October 5^th^, 2004, under a motion to suspend
the rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary:]{.underline}** The resolution has nine findings and states:

> "(1) the space science learning center in Downey, California, should
> be designated as the Columbia Memorial Space Science Learning Center
> as a living memorial to the seven Columbia astronauts who died serving
> their country in the name of science and research and (2) the federal
> government, along with public and private organizations and persons,
> should continue to cooperate in the establishment of such a center."

**[Additional Information:]{.underline}** On February 1, 2003, the NASA
Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over northeastern Texas as it
returned to Earth after a 16-day scientific mission. All seven
astronauts aboard were killed. Downey, California is the site of the
former Boeing manufacturing plant that built the space shuttles
(including the Columbia and the Challenger).

**[Committee Action:]{.underline}** The resolution was introduced on May
22, 2003 and referred to the House Science Committee. The committee did
not consider it.

**[Cost to Taxpayers:]{.underline}** None.

**[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}** Russ Vought,
<russell.vought@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-8581

H.Con.Res. 306---Honoring the Service of Native American Indians in the
United States Armed Forces (Renzi)

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution is scheduled for
consideration on Tuesday, October 5^th^, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 306 resolves that the House:

> "(1) honors the service of Native American Indians in the Armed
> Forces;
>
> "(2) recommends the establishment of a National Native American Indian
> Veterans Day;
>
> "(3) encourages all Americans to learn about the history of the
> service of Native American Indians in the Armed Forces; and
>
> "(4) requests the President to issue a proclamation calling on the
> people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate
> ceremonies, activities, and programs to demonstrate their support for
> Native American Indian veterans."

The findings in the bill note, "November 7, a date during the annual
Native American Indian Heritage Month, would be an appropriate day to
establish as National Native American Indian Veterans Day."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Con.Res. 306 was introduced on
October 17, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The
Committee did not take official action on the bill.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution does not authorize
any 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.

**[Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Lisa Bos, <lisa.bos@mail.house.gov>,
(202) 226-1630