![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.489583333333333in"
height="1.15625in"}**Legislative
Bulletin...........................................June 6, 2007**

> **Contents:**

**H.R. 1051 ---** National STEM Scholarship Database Act

> **H.R. 2559 ---** Higher Education Act Extension Act of 2007
>
> **H.Res. 421 ---** Honoring the trailblazing accomplishments of the
> "Mercury 13" women, whose efforts in the early 1960s demonstrated the
> capabilities of American women to undertake the human exploration of
> space
>
> **H.Res. 446** --- Honoring the life and accomplishments of Astronaut
> Walter Marty Schirra and expressing condolences on his passing
>
> **H.R. 1467** --- 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act
>
> **H.R. 1716 ---** Green Energy Education Act of 2007

**H.R. 632** --- H-Prize Act of 2007

> **H.R. 964 ---** Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act

H.R. 1051 --- National STEM Scholarship Database Act (*Holt, D-NJ)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1051 would authorize such sums as
necessary over the FY 2008- FY 2012 period for the Secretary of
Education to establish and maintain, on the Department's public website,
a searchable database consisting of information on scholarships,
fellowships, and other programs of financial assistance available from
public and private sources for the study of science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (STEM), at the post-secondary and
post-baccalaureate levels. The database would detail various information
on financing available for individuals studying in the STEM fields,
including:

-   specific information on any programs target to individuals of a
    particular gender, ethnicity, or other demographic group;

-   a link to the website of each program listed in the database; and

-   general information on how to contact the sponsor of a financing
    program.

H.R. 1051 directs the Department to disseminate information on the
database and encourage its use by sending notices to secondary schools,
colleges, and universities, and by any other necessary means. The bill
directs the Secretary to enter into a contract with a private entity in
order to furnish and regularly update all of the information required to
be included in the database.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: An October 2005 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) study reported that in FY04, 13 federal
agencies reported **spending roughly \$2.8 billion on 207 different
education programs** directly related to science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM). In addition, during the 110^th^
Congress, the House has approved the creation of at least 12 new federal
programs related to the STEM areas of study.

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.R. 1051 was introduced on February
14, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, which
took no official action.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} There is no CBO score available for
H.R. 1051. According to the text, the bill would authorize such sums as
necessary for the creation of new database.

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

[]{.mark}

**[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."

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

H.R. 2559 --- Higher Education Act Extension Act of 2007

*(Miller, D-CA)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 2559 would extend the authorization (at
current, FY04 levels) for the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) through
October 31, 2007. In the 109^th^ Congress, the House passed a short-term
extension through June 30, 2007. Current law allows for flexibility in
the authorization depending upon amendments to HEA enacted during FY05
or FY06.

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.R. 2559 was introduced on
introduced June 5, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Education and
Labor, which took no official action.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} A CBO score for H.R. 2559 is not
available.

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

[]{.mark}

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-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."

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

**H.Res. 421 --- Honoring the trailblazing accomplishments of the
"Mercury 13" women, whose efforts in the early 1960s demonstrated the
capabilities of American women to undertake the human exploration of
space *(Kagen, D-WI)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.Res. 421 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 421 would express that the House of
Representatives:

-   "recognizes and honors the contributions of Myrtle Cagle, Geraldyn
    'Jerrie' Cobb, Jan Dietrich, Marion Dietrich, Mary Wallace 'Wally'
    Funk, Jane Briggs Hart, Jean Hixson, Gene Nora Stumbough Jessen,
    Irene Leverton, Sarah Lee Gorelick Ratley, Bernice Trimble Steadman,
    Geraldine 'Jerri' Sloan Truhill, and Rhea Hurrle Allison Woltman;
    and

-   "encourages young women to follow in the footsteps of the Mercury 13
    women and pursue careers of excellence in aviation and astronautics,
    as well as in engineering and science."

The resolution lists several findings, including:

-   "all of the Mercury 13 women were accomplished pilots with
    commercial ratings or better and at least 2,000 hours of flying
    time;

-   "the Mercury 13 women passed the same rigorous physical and
    psychological tests that the original Mercury 7 astronauts had to
    undergo;

-   "the Mercury 13 women successfully completed their testing at the
    Lovelace Clinic, in Albuquerque, New Mexico by the end of 1961;

-   "the Mercury 13 women were prepared to continue their contributions
    to America's space program at the Naval School of Aviation Medicine
    in Pensacola, Florida, by undergoing advanced aeromedical
    examinations using jet aircraft and military equipment, until they
    were informed that their testing program was canceled;

-   "the Soviet Union flew the first woman in space in 1963;

-   "the United States flew the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally
    Ride, in 1983;

-   "the United States flew the first woman to pilot the Space Shuttle,
    Lt. Col. Eileen Collins, in 1995;

-   "the Mercury 13 women served as pathfinders for NASA's female
    astronauts; and

-   "the careers of accomplishment of the Mercury 13 women can serve as
    an inspiration for other young women who are considering pursuing a
    career in aviation, astronautics, science, or engineering."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 421 was introduced on May 21,
2007, and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology,
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}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

**H.Res. 446 --- Honoring the life and accomplishments of Astronaut
Walter Marty Schirra and expressing condolences on his passing (Bilbray,
R-CA)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.Res. 446 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the resolution.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.Res. 446 would express that the House of
Representatives:

-   "honors the life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty
    Schirra and expresses condolences on his passing; and

-   "recognizes the profound importance of Astronaut Schirra's record as
    a pioneer in space exploration and long-time contributor to NASA's
    mission as a catalyst to space exploration and scientific
    advancement in the United States."

The resolution lists several findings, including:

-   "Walter Schirra was born on March 12, 1923, in Hackensack, New
    Jersey

-   "as an exchange pilot with the 154th Fighter Bomber Squadron during
    the Korean War, he flew 90 combat missions in F-84E jets and was
    credited with downing at least one MIG fighter;

-   "on October 3, 1962, Walter Schirra became the fifth person to fly
    in space when he piloted Mercury 8 (Sigma 7) on a six-orbit mission
    lasting 9 hours, 13 minutes and 11 seconds;

-   "on December 15, 1965, Walter Schirra piloted Gemini 6A in what was
    the first attempted rendezvous by two manned spacecraft in earth
    orbit;

-   "on October 11, 1968, he concluded his third and final mission when
    he was launched as commander of Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo
    mission, making Commander Schirra the only astronaut to fly aboard
    Mercury, Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts;

-   "Commander Schirra was the recipient of many distinguished awards,
    including three distinguished flying crosses, two air medals, two
    NASA Distinguished Services Medals and induction into the National
    Aviation Hall of Fame;

-   "after he retired to San Diego in 1984, Wally dedicated much of his
    later years to working with children on connecting them to the
    amazing possibilities that a career on space exploration could
    provide, and as a tireless advocate for discovery, Wally was an
    inspirational figure for countless San Diegans; and

-   "Commander Schirra was an exemplary resident of the State of
    California where he resided in La Jolla until the time of his death
    on May 2, 2007."

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.Res. 446 was introduced on May 24,
2007, and referred to the House Committee on Science and Technology,
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}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

H.R. 1467 --- 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act *(Wu, D-OR)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1467 would create several new federal
programs related to promoting the study of information systems---the
study of modern information technology, typically closely associated
with the study of computer systems. The specific provisions of the bill
are as follows:

-   Authorizes \$14.6 million over the FY 2008-FY 2011 period for the
    **creation of a new grant program** at the National Science
    Foundation (NSF). Through the new program, NSF would award grants
    for basic research on innovative approaches to improve information
    systems.

-   Authorizes \$18.6 million over the FY 2008-FY 2011 period for the
    **creation of a new grant program** at NSF to provide grants to
    colleges and universities for the establishment of multidisciplinary
    Centers for Informatics Research. The Centers would be designed to
    generate innovative approaches in information by conducting
    "cutting-edge, multidisciplinary research."

-   Authorizes \$37.2 million over the FY 208-FY 2011 period for the
    **creation of a new grant program** at NSF to award grants to
    colleges and universities to establish or improve undergraduate and
    master's degree information programs, and to increase the number of
    students pursuing degrees in this field.

-   Authorizes \$29.2 million over the FY 2008-FY2011 period for two
    programs previously authorized under the Scientific and Advanced
    Technology Act of 1992. These programs provides grants to colleges
    and universities that offer associate's degrees in advanced
    technology fields

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}: Some conservatives may
be concerned that H.R. 1467 would authorize \$102 million over four
years, and would establish three new programs at the National Science
Foundation.**

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.R. 1467 was introduced on March 9,
2007, and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, which
held a mark-up, and reported the bill by voice vote on May 23, 2007.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} According to CBO, the bill would
authorize \$25 million in FY 2008, and \$102 million over four years.

[**Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?**:]{.underline} Yes, the bill creates several new programs.

[]{.mark}

**[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."

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

**H.R. 1716 --- Green Energy Education Act of 2007 (McCaul, R-TX)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.R 1716 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 1716 would authorize the Secretary of
Energy to transfer funds to the National Science Foundation (NSF) for
the purpose of funding various research, education, development, and
building projects.

Specifically, the bill would allow the Secretary to transfer funds to
the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
program, which provides funding to universities to offer stipends for
activities related to energy research, as well as architectural and
engineering education.

H.R. 1716 would also authorize the Secretary to transfer funds to the
NSF that would directly improve energy and engineering curricula, lab
activities, training practices, and design projects with the expressed
goal of increasing the ability of engineers, architects, and planners to
design and construct "high performance buildings" (defined by CBO as
buildings that "optimize energy efficiency, durability, life-cycle
performance, and occupants' productivity").

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 1716 was introduced on March
23, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. On
May 23, 2007, a mark up was held and the bill was reported, as amended.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: According to CBO, NSF plans to
allocate about \$67 million to IGERT in 2007, which, under the bill,
would be used for energy research and development. However, H.R. 1716
would only authorize a transfer of funds, thus the bill would not
authorize any new 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}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is not available. 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}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

H.R. 632 --- H-Prize Act of 2007 *(Lipinski, D-IL)*

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The bill is scheduled for
consideration on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 632 would authorize the Secretary of
Energy to **establish a new program** to competitively award cash prizes
"to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application of hydrogen energy technologies." Six prizes, in three
categories, are authorized under H.R. 632. The Secretary is required to
enter into an agreement with a private, non-profit entity to administer
the prize competitions, and the entity's duties will include advertising
prize competitions and their results, raising funds from private
entities and individuals to pay for administrative costs and to
contribute to cash prizes, and developing criteria for selecting
winners, and determining the prize amounts.

The three categories of prizes are as follows:

-   Biennial (every second year) awards of not more than \$1 million
    each to each of these four categories for advancements in components
    or systems related to---

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   hydrogen production;

-   hydrogen storage;

-   hydrogen distribution; and

-   hydrogen utilization;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Biennial awards of not more than **\$4 million** for prototypes of
    hydrogen-powered vehicles or other hydrogen-based products that best
    meet or exceed objective performance criteria, such as completion of
    a race over a certain distance or terrain or generation of energy at
    certain levels of efficiency; and

-   One, not less than **\$10 million lump-sum prize**, for
    transformational changes in technologies for the distribution or
    production of hydrogen that meet or exceed far-reaching objective
    criteria, which shall include minimal carbon emissions and which may
    include cost criteria designed to facilitate the eventual market
    success of a winning technology. The federal funding for this award
    is capped at \$10 million, though the entity is authorized to seek
    an additional \$40 million (from non-federal sources) to match each
    dollar of private funding raised by the award recipient for up to
    three years after the prize is announced.

The bill notes that the federal government shall not be entitled "to any
intellectual property rights derived as a consequence of, or direct
relation to, the participation by a registered participant" in these
competitions.

The Secretary may require registered participants to waive claims
against the federal government and the administering entity (except
claims for willful misconduct) for any injury, death, damage, or loss of
property, revenue, or profits arising from the registered participants'
participation in these competitions.

Registered participants are required to obtain liability insurance or
demonstrate financial responsibility, at levels determined by the
Secretary, for claims by---

> \(1\) a third party for death, bodily injury, or property damage or
> loss resulting from an activity carried out in connection with
> participation in these competitions; and
>
> \(2\) the federal government for damage or loss to government property
> resulting from such an activity.

In addition, the bill states that the federal government shall be named
as an additional insured under a registered participant's insurance
policy required under (1) above, and registered participants shall be
required to agree to indemnify the federal government against third
party claims for damages arising from or related to competition
activities.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}: Some conservatives may
be concerned that this bill would create a new program and authorize
\$50 million for the new program.**

[**Committee Action**:]{.underline} H.R. 632 was introduced on
introduced January 23, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Science
and Technology, which considered it, held a markup, and reported the
bill, as amended, by voice vote on May 23, 2007.

[**Cost to Taxpayers**:]{.underline} CBO estimates that the bill would
authorize \$16 million in FY2008 and \$34 million over the FY2008-FY2012
period.

[**Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?**:]{.underline} Yes, the bill creates a new program at the
Department of Energy.

[]{.mark}

**[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."

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

**H.R. 964 --- Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act
*(Towns, D-NY)***

**[Order of Business]{.underline}:** H.R 964 is scheduled to be
considered on Wednesday, June 6, 2007, under a motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: H.R. 964 would make it illegal for an
unauthorized person (not defined in the bill) to use computer software
(spyware) to engage in "unfair or deceptive" acts by monitoring and
collecting other computer users' personal information without their
consent. Specifically, the bill would make it a federal crime to use
Internet software to take unsolicited control of a computer or to modify
a computer's online settings, such as homepage displays, bookmarks, or
default browsers. In addition, it would be unlawful to induce the owner
of a computer to install, remove, or disable software and anti-spyware
technology.

The bill would also make it illegal to collect and/or transmit any
information regarding an owner's personal information or Internet
activity history without the consent of the owner. H.R. 964 would
require sites that utilize information collecting software to provide a
notice and give users the option to accept or decline the terms and
conditions of the site. The bill would require that, once owner consent
has been given, any information gathering program must have a function
that allows a user to easily disable the program at any time.

The legislation would establish a fine of no more than \$3 million for
taking unsolicited control and modifying a computer, and a penalty of no
more than \$1 million for unlawfully obtaining or transferring
information. H.R. 964 would give the Federal Trade Commission the power
to issue and oversee regulations under the bill. The bill would not
apply to law enforcement conducting investigations and would supersede
any current state anti-spyware laws.

**[Additional Information]{.underline}**: According to Committee Report
110-169, current file sharing and information gathering programs on the
Internet are "capable of visiting great harm on consumers and commerce
when misapplied by scam artists, criminals, and others with unsavory
motives." The report goes on to state that computer software designed to
gather information from another computer, known as spyware, represents a
"broad continuum from the most pernicious criminal activities on one end
to the less threatening but still intrusive on the opposite end." Among
the tactics used by some spyware programs are Internet monitoring and
keystroke logging, both of which can result in identity theft. In order
to protect Internet users, the committee has sought to pass laws
prohibiting the use of software intended to capture a user's information
without their knowledge or consent.

**[Possible Conservative Concerns]{.underline}**: Although the House
passed similar legislation in the last two Congresses, some groups, such
as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that the language in H.R. 964
is too vague and will have the unintended consequence of hurting
legitimate businesses. The bill requires that any website that retrieves
personal information (an e-mail address, a mailing address, a phone
number) or records Internet activity (an Internet search) be subject to
repetitive and foreboding popup messages requiring user's consent. Some
are concerned that this will discourage online commerce.

According to the Chamber of Commerce, "the bill does not target
deceptive behaviors known as spyware; rather it is a broad notice and
choice provision for all collection of information by all commercial
websites, whether lawful or deceptive, and whether owned by 'Mom and
Pop' or a multinational corporation." They argue that online consumers
will either stop purchasing products on the Internet or simply consent
to the constant stream of popup notices, rendering the spyware warnings
useless.

Many also argue that this particular version of the bill is purposefully
vague so as to increase regulation on legitimate online businesses. For
instance, bills similar to H.R. 964 (such as H.R. 2929, passed in the
108th Congress), would have prohibited use of spyware to "engage in
deceptive acts or practices," while H.R. 964 makes it a crime to "engage
in *unfair* or deceptive acts or practices" (emphasis added). Some
groups, such as the National Business Coalition on E-Commerce & Privacy,
have pointed out that this broader language only lowers the required
level of intent and brings every legitimate commercial websites under
FTC regulation.

The increased regulations in H.R. 964 have also brought challenges from
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), which has come out against the bill.
According to ATR, "the legislation would only apply to U.S. companies,
placing them at a disadvantage to foreign competitors when they are
forced to implement these onerous requirements, while overseas companies
are not." The overall consensus of these groups is that this bill will
fail to effectively target spyware used for deceptive purposes, while
imposing harmful regulations on legitimate online businesses.

The bill, in its current form, is opposed by:

-   The U.S. Chamber of Commerce

-   Americans for Tax Reform

-   The Financial Services Roundtable

-   The Consumer Data Industry Association

-   NetCoalition

-   The National Retail Federation

-   The American Bankers Association

-   The Consumer Banker Association

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: H.R. 964 was introduced on February
8, 2007 and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which held
a mark up and reported the bill, as amended, on May 24, 2007.\
\
**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: CBO estimates that enacting H.R.
964 would authorize \$1 million in FY 2008, and \$7 million over a five
year period, to fund FTC enforcement of the bill's provisions. The bill
could increase civil penalties, but CBO estimates that the amount would
be insignificant.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}** Yes. The bill would make it a federal crime
to use spyware programs collect personal information or monitor computer
users without their consent. The legislation would also authorize the
FTC to enforce the new laws.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}** Yes. H.R. 964 would preempt laws
that regulate spyware in states, some of which may incur costs from lost
civil fines. However, CBO estimates that these costs would be well below
the UMRA threshold.

Also, according to CBO, "H.R. 964 would impose private-sector mandates,
as defined in UMRA, on persons who use computer programs to collect
certain information from another person's computer. The bill would
require a person who transmits or executes an information collection
program on someone's computer to receive prior consent from the owner or
authorized user of that computer."

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: Committee Report 110-169
does not cite constitutional authority for H.R. 1469. 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}**: Andy Koenig;
<andy.koenig@mail.house.gov>; 202-226-9717.

\###