Daily
Floor Briefing
Friday,
September 29, 2006
The House will meet
9:00 AM
for legislative business.
One Minutes (5 per side)
H.Res. 1054 -
Rule providing for consideration of Conference Report on H.R. 5441, S. 3930 and
H.R. 4772
Bills Subject to a Rule (2 bills)
H.R. 4772 – Private Property Rights
Implementation Act of 2006
S. 3930 – Military Commissions Act of 2006
H.Res. 1053 - Rule providing for same day consideration of any resolution
reported on the legislative day of September 29, 2006
Conference
Report (1 report)
Conference Report on H.R. 5441 –
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007
Suspensions (6)
H.Res. 1028 – Supporting the goals and
ideals of Red Ribbon Week
H.Res. – Requests the Department of
Health and Human Services to outline the federal government’s responsibilities,
taking into account the responsibilities and actions of the state and local
governments, to support a program for medically monitoring and treating all
individuals who were exposed to the toxins of Ground Zero on 9/11
H.R. 6228 – Wright Amendment Reform Act of
2006
H.R. 6233 – To amend the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make
technical corrections, and for other purposes
H.R. 6203 – To provide for Federal energy
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities, and
for other purposes
S. 3728 – North Korea Nonproliferation Act of
2006
Special Orders
Host: TBD
Republicans have the FIRST HOUR
*Conference Reports may be
brought up at any time.
*Motions to go to Conference should they become available.
*Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.
Bills Subject to a Rule (2 bills)
H.R. 4772
Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006
Floor Situation
The House is scheduled to consider H.R. 4772, pursuant to a rule, on
Friday, September 29, 2006.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2006, the Rules Committee granted a closed rule that:
Summary
The Private Property Rights
Implementation Act of 2005 amends the federal judicial code to provide that,
whenever a district court exercises jurisdiction in civil rights cases in which
the operative facts concern the uses of real property, it shall not abstain from
exercising such jurisdiction, or relinquish it to a state court, if the party
seeking redress does not allege a violation of a state law, right, or privilege,
and no parallel proceeding is pending in state court that arises out of the same
operative facts as the district court proceeding.
The bill declares that in an action in which operative facts concern the uses of real
property, the district court shall exercise jurisdiction even if the party
seeking redress does not pursue judicial remedies provided by a state or
territory. The legislation provides for referral of an unsettled question of state law to the
state's highest appellate court. Prohibits the district court from certifying a
question of state law unless it is necessary to resolve the merits of the
injured party's federal claim, and such question is patently unclear.
H.R. 4772 declares that any claim or action to redress the deprivation of a property right
or privilege secured by the Constitution shall be ripe for adjudication by the
district courts upon a final decision rendered by any person acting under color
of any law, regulation, custom, or usage of any state or U.S. territory that
causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress.
The Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2005 declares that any claim founded upon a property right or privilege secured by
the Constitution, but allegedly infringed or taken by the United States, shall
be ripe for adjudication upon a final decision rendered by the United States
which causes actual and concrete injury to the party seeking redress.
The bill amends the Revised Statutes of the United States with respect to
certain Constitutional property rights claims, and requires a federal agency, whenever it takes action limiting the use of private
property that may be affected by the amendments made by this Act, to give notice
to the owners of that property explaining their rights and the procedures for
obtaining any compensation that may be due to them under such amendments.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Section 2. Jurisdiction
in Civil Rights Cases Concerning Real Property.
This section prevents a federal court from refusing to hear a case in which only
federal claims are alleged. If a matter of state law is unresolved, then the
federal district court may certify the question of state law to the highest
appellate court of that state. After the state appellate court resolves the
question certified to it, the federal district court shall proceed with
resolving the merits of the federal claim.
This provision addresses abstention, the legal principle under which courts relinquish their jurisdiction over a case and refuse to hear it. Abstention is one of the primary jurisdictional hurdles that currently prevent nearly all property owners from having their federal Fifth Amendment taking claims heard in federal court. This provision of H.R. 4772 states that abstention can not be exercised by a federal court in a takings case where no state law claim is alleged, and where there is no pending state court proceeding addressing the same claims. Moreover, to address any concerns about federal courts’ entangling themselves with state law issues, this section allows a federal judge to have unresolved questions concerning state law answered by the state courts through a certification procedure if doing so is factually necessary to resolve the federal constitutional property rights claim. This ensures that federal courts do not decide state law issues, while ensuring property owners have access to federal court to defend their Fifth Amendment rights.
This section also allows
a property owner whose constitutional rights may have been violated the same
access to federal court that other claimants alleging a violation of their
constitutional rights (such as freedom of speech and religion) have.
Accordingly, under this section, a property owner raising solely federal claims
can have his or her case decided in federal court without first pursuing a
litigation detour in state court on the same issues. If an individual claims
that his constitutional right to free speech was violated, he can take that
claim directly to federal court. The same goes for alleged infringements of
other constitutional rights, like the rights to privacy and the free exercise of
religion, and all such claims can be brought immediately in federal court.
However, property owners with a Fifth Amendment claim have been treated
differently and unfairly by courts. Unlike other constitutional cases, the
federal courts require that property owners with takings and due process claims
litigate their case in state court first. This unfair situation derives from the
Supreme Court’s Williamson County (1985) decision, which the lower federal
courts have interpreted as requiring property owners to pursue, and exhaust, all
available remedies for just compensation in state court, before the property
owner can file suit in federal court on a Fifth Amendment claim. Moreover, the
Supreme Court’s decision in San Remo (2005)
confirmed that once a takings case is brought to state court and decided there,
the property owner is forever
precluded from a review of the case in federal court, thereby placing property
owners who want to file a
constitutional takings claim in federal court in an untenable Catch-22.
Section two of the bill also clarifies when a constitutional takings claim is “ripe” and therefore ready for federal adjudication. Current case law requires, among other factors, a “final decision” to be rendered before a constitutional takings claim is ripe, because exactly what a “final decision” is is unclear under current law. Under the terms of the bill, a final agency decision exists after a property owner goes through three steps: (1) the property owner submits and is denied a “meaningful application” to use property that is consistent with local land use and zoning requirements; (2) the property owner then applies for but is denied a waiver from applicable land use requirements that caused the initial application to be rejected; and (3) after the waiver is denied, the property owner then pursues but is denied an administrative appeal on the waiver. Therefore, under the bill, only after land use reviews at the application, waiver, and administrative appeal levels would a property owner have a “ripe” federal constitutional claim for adjudication by a federal court. Finally, section two includes an explanation of “futility.” This provision reflects current case law of the Supreme Court and states that a property owner shall not be required to apply for an appeal or waiver if no such appeal or waiver is available, if the appeal or waiver cannot provide the relief requested, or if the application would be futile.
Section 3. United States as a
Defendant.
This section closely mirrors section 2 but applies to takings claims against the
United States. This section applies only to suits against the federal government
involving $10,000 or less. Under federal law, these cases are tried in federal
district court.
Section 4. Jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims.
Section 4 is identical to section 3, except it applies to suits against the
federal government involving more than $10,000. Under federal law, these cases
are heard in the Court of Federal Claims.
Section 5. Clarification for Certain Constitutional Property Rights Claims.
Section 5 clarifies the rights of property owners raising certain types of
constitutional claims.
Subsection 1 of Section 5 clarifies that conditions or exactions that are
imposed upon a property owner in order to receive a permit must be roughly
proportional to the impact the development might have. This would apply to all
kinds of exactions, regardless of whether the exaction stems from a legislative
or regulatory requirement.
Property owners and
business owners may constitutionally be required to cover the government’s costs
that areincurred due to development or expansion of a business. For example,
exactions may be imposed on developers to pay for expanding schools to
accommodate children who will be living in the new development. Also, a business
owner who is seeking permission to expand the business may be required to pay
for the costs of installing a stop light if the expansion will result in an
increase in traffic, and the increase in traffic merits a stop light. However,
sometimes the conditions imposed on a development plan amount to nothing more
than
extortion. Occasionally, a government will try to palm-off on a property owner a
condition for approval that has nothing to do with the project at hand or has no
relationship to the extent of the project’s impact. For example, a developer
cannot be required to build a new school for children who already live in the
town and likewise should not be required to pay for a road that will not be used
by residents of the subdivision under construction, and the business owner
should not be required to build a library or fund art exhibits in exchange for
receiving approval to expand her store. Property owners should have the right in
federal court to defend themselves against unreasonable exactions or impact fees
that amount to extortion. The Supreme Court in the Nollan (1987) and Dolan
(1994) cases affirmed these principles, but this subsection clarifies that these
principles apply to both regulatory and legislatively-imposed exactions, and
extortionate conditions in any form, whether they encompass the compelled
give-away of land, the payment of disproportionate fees, or some other demanded
condition that has no nexus to the project or its impact on public resources.
Subsection 2 of Section 5 clarifies the so-called “denominator question” in cases concerning subdivided lots by requiring that federal courts look at the impact of a takings claim on each individual lot that is recognized as a separate independent property unit under state law. If a government approves subdividing a property into lots, the property owner is often required to pay higher property taxes on each of the newly-created lots. On occasion, the government will later impose restrictions on some of the lots that deprive the property owner of all use of that particular lot. In challenging such an action as an unconstitutional taking, courts frequently look at the entire swath of owned property. In doing so, the courts almost always rule that as long as the property owner can still develop some of the lots in a larger subdivision, it is not a taking. In this scenario, the property owner is now saddled with unusable lots on which he or she is paying a higher property tax burden. It is unjust for cities to both receive the higher tax revenue on individual lots and also deny the property owner the use of that lot. If the government wants to receive the monetary benefit of taxing each individual lot as a separate unit, then it should also have the responsibility of paying compensation when it takes each individual lot and renders it unusable by regulation. The proper remedy is for the courts to look at each individual lot rather than the entire subdivision, and that is what this section of H.R. 4772 requires. This means that a property owner may have a valid constitutional takings claim if any single lot is rendered unusable due to government actions.
Subsection 3 of Section 5
clarifies that the standard for due process claims in a takings case is an
“arbitrary and capricious” standard. This section of H.R. 4772 provides hat the
appropriate question in a due process case in land use matters is whether the
government had no rational basis for its decision and it made an “arbitrary and
capricious” decision. (Proving that a government made an arbitrary and
capricious decision on a land use matter remains an extremely high standard, and
only a small number of land use cases will meet it.)
Section 6. Duty of Notice to Owners.
This section requires a federal agency to provide notice to property owners
explaining their rights and the procedures for obtaining any compensation that
may be due to them whenever that agency takes an action impacting their private
property.
Section 7. Severability and Effective Date.
This section makes the provisions of this act severable should any provision be
found unconstitutional. This section also provides that the amendments made by
this act become effective when it is signed into law.
Background
On March 16, 2000, the House passed H.R. 2372 - Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000, by a recorded vote of 226 - 182 (Roll no. 55). This legislation is substantially similar to H.R. 4772.
Under current law, property owners are now blocked from raising a federal Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court. The Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), requires property owners to pursue, and exhaust, all available remedies for just compensation in state court before the property owner can file suit in federal court under the Fifth Amendment. In San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 125 S.Ct. 2491 (2005), the Supreme Court recently confirmed and did not modify prior lower court case law that held that once a property owner tries their case in state court, and loses, the doctrines of res judicata and claim preclusion allow federal courts to dismiss the claims on the grounds they were already decided by the state court. The combination of these two rules means that those with federal property rights claims are effectively shut out of federal court on their federal takings claims, setting them unfairly apart from those asserting any other kind of federal right, such as First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion rights, who nearly universally enjoy the right to have their federal claims heard in federal court in the first instance.
Legislative History
H.R. 4772 was introduced by Rep. Chabot
(OH) on February 16, 2005. The bill was
ordered to be reported from the Judiciary Committee, by voice vote, on July 12, 2006.
House Report 109-658 was filed on
September 14, 2006.
On Monday, September 25, 2006, H.R. 4772 was considered by the House under suspension of the rules. On Tuesday, September 26, 2006, the bill failed by a recorded vote of 234-172 (Roll no. 447).
For additional information or questions, please contact the Judiciary Committee at 5-3951.
S. 3930
Military Commissions Act of 2006
Floor Situation
The House is scheduled to consider S. 3930, pursuant to a rule, on Friday, September 29, 2006.
On Thursday, September 28, 2006, the Rules Committee granted a closed rule that:
Summary
A summary will be made available on gop.gov.
Legislative History
S.3930 was introduced by Sen. McConnell
(KY) on September 22, 2006.
For additional information or questions, please contact the House Armed Services Committee at 5-4151.
Conference Report (1 report)
H.R.
5441
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007
Conference Report
Floor Situation
The House is scheduled to consider the Conference Report to H.R. 5441 , pursuant to a rule, on
Friday, September 29, 2006.
On Thursday, September 28, 2006 the Rules Committee granted a closed rule that:
Summary
The conference agreement provides $34.8 billion for operations and activities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $2.3 billion above fiscal year 2006 and $2.7 billion above the President’s request (includes $1.8 in emergency spending).
Border Security and Immigration Reform
The agreement provides $21.3 billion for border protection, immigration
enforcement, and related activities, +$2.1 billion over FY 2006. This includes
$5.2 billion for the Secure Border Initiative. Highlights include:
- $2.27 billion for border patrol, adding 1,500 new Border Patrol agents, for a
total of 14,800;
- $1.2 billion for border fencing, vehicle barriers, technology and
infrastructure;
- $4.2 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE);
- $3.1 billion for the Coast Guard’s homeland security missions;
- $1.38 billion for ICE custody operations, adding 6,700 detention beds, for a
total of 27,500;
- $28.2 million to assist state and local efforts to enforce immigration law;
- $238 million for transportation and removal of undocumented aliens;
- $600 million for Air and Marine Operations for border and airspace security;
- $183 million for a total of 75 fugitive operations teams nation-wide, an
increase of 23;
- $137 million for the Criminal Alien Program;
- $44 million for Alternatives to Detention;
- $362 million for the US-VISIT program; and
- $135 million to support immigration verification systems.
Includes Senate provision criminalizing the creation of tunnels to illegally
cross U.S. borders. Provision is identical to legislation which passed the House
unanimously last week.
Port, Container, and Cargo Security
The agreement provides $4.34 billion, +$600 million over FY 2006. Performance
requirements mandate a strategy to double the amount of cargo currently
inspected, screen 100% of cargo through the Automated Targeting System, and
establish minimum security standards for cargo containers. The agreement further
requires DHS to maintain a 100% manifest review rate at all CSI ports; a 100%
validation rate of all C-TPAT participants; and doubling the amount of cargo
entering the U.S. screened for radiation. Highlights include:
- $2.05 billion for Coast Guard port and waterway security operations;
- $1.435 billion for CBP cargo inspection and trade operations, including 450
new CBP officers;
- $139 million for Container Security Initiative, expanding the program to 58
foreign seaports;
- $241 million for non-intrusive inspection equipment;
- $55 million for C-TPAT, supporting 100% validation of over 6,070 certified
partners;
- $178 million for radiation portal monitors;
- $15 million to increase port facility and vessel inspections domestically and
overseas;
- $210 million for port security grants;
- $23 million for Science & Technology’s Cargo Security Program.
Funding for State and Local First Responders
The agreement provides $3.4 billion for first responders, including grants to
high threat areas, firefighters, and emergency management. Since September 11th,
2001, and including funds in this agreement, $37.6 billion has been provided to
first responders – including terrorism prevention and preparedness, general law
enforcement, firefighter assistance, airport security, seaport security, and
public health preparedness. The agreement maintains current law for all formula
grants. Highlights include:
- $1.229 billion for high risk area grants, including $770 million for urban
area grants, $175 million for rail security, $210 million for port security, and
$74 million for other infrastructure protection;
- $525 million for basic formula grants;
- $547 million for firefighter grants and $115 million for the SAFER program;
- $375 million for state and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants;
- $200 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants; and
- $352 million for First Responder training, exercise, and assistance programs.
Funding for Federal Disaster Response and Implementing Katrina Lessons
Learned
The agreement provides a total of $6.5 billion for the Preparedness Directorate
and FEMA to prepare for and respond to any form of disaster or terrorist attack
and includes funds and direction to address lessons learned from the 2005
hurricane season. Highlights include:
- $1.5 billion for Disaster Relief;
- $526 million for FEMA’s operational capability;
- $196 million for flood map modernization; and
Creates a new, independent appropriation for the Federal Coordinator for Gulf
Coast Rebuilding to ensure accountability for federal rebuilding efforts in the
Gulf Coast.
Includes comprehensive structural overhaul of FEMA which would elevate the
status of the Director and require that the Director have extensive emergency
response and crisis management experience, prevent the diversion of FEMA funds
to other agencies, require better and clearer coordination between federal,
state and local emergency preparedness entities.
Protecting the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure
Highlights include:
- $69 million for critical infrastructure identification and evaluation;
- $101 million for critical infrastructure outreach and partnerships with
industry;
- $481 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to coordinate global
nuclear detection and tracking;
- $32 million for protective actions; and
- $496 million for biological, chemical and explosives countermeasures.
Includes a provision authorizing the Secretary of Homeland Security to regulate
high-risk chemical facilities.
Transportation Security
In total, the agreement provides $6.3 billion – partially offset by fees – for
TSA and Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). Highlights include:
- $2.6 billion for passenger and baggage screeners;
- $244 million for the training of airport screeners;
- $524 million to procure, install, maintain and refurbish explosive detection
systems;
- $173 million to procure, install, and maintain technologies at passenger
screening checkpoints;
- $55 million for air cargo;
- $13.2 million for rail security inspectors and explosive detection canines;
and
- $714 million for FAMs, ensuring mission coverage on both domestic and
international flights.
Supporting Traditional Missions such as Drug Interdiction, Law Enforcement,
Maritime Safety, and Presidential Protection
- $2.4 billion for traditional Coast Guard operating activities, including
maritime safety, drug interdiction, and fisheries, environmental, and
humanitarian missions;
- $1.065 billion for the Coast Guard’s Deepwater program;
- $1.27 billion for the U.S. Secret Service including enhancement of the
agency’s protective and investigative capabilities;
- $46 million for the U.S. Fire Administration; and
- $274 million for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Key Oversight Provisions and Other Items
The conferees fence $1.6 billion from spending until DHS meets certain planning
and management requirements.
Includes compromise language that would allow an individual to physically
transport non-narcotic prescription drugs from Canada for their personal use.
Modifies Senate provision delaying Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative until
certain conditions are met.
Requires DHS to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for port, cargo and
container security and the Secure Border Initiative.
Requires expenditure plans for the SBInet border security system, US-VISIT,
Federal Protective Service, business transformation for CIS, explosive detection
systems in airports, Customs IT systems, and overall better financial data
throughout the Department - in particular Science and Technology.
The Committee directs the Preparedness Directorate and FEMA to improve its
capabilities in communications, training, capabilities assessments, incident
management, logistics, emergency housing, debris removal, and victim
registration.
Legislative History
H.R. 5441 was introduced by Rep. Rogers
(KY) on May 22, 2006. The bill was reported from the Appropriations
Committee as an original measure, and House Report
109-476 was filed on May 22, 2006.
On June 6, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5411 by
a recorded vote of 398-9 (Roll
no. 226). The bill passed the Senate, with an amendment, on July 13 by a
recorded vote of 100-0 (Record
Vote Number: 203). On September 25,
2006, Conferees agreed to file conference report.
For additional information or
questions, please contact the
Appropriations Committee at 5-2771.
Suspensions (6 bills)
H.Res. 1028
Supporting the goals and ideals of Red Ribbon Week
Floor Situation
The House considered H.R. 1028, under suspension of the rules, on
Friday, September 29, 2006. It is debatable for 40 minutes, may not be
amended, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage.
Summary
H.R. 1028 resolves that the House of Representatives supports the goals and
ideals of Red Ribbon Week, encourages children and teens to choose to live a
drug-free life, and encourages the people of the United States to promote
drug-free communities and to participate in drug prevention activities to show
support for healthy, productive, and drug-free lifestyles.
Legislative History
H.R. 1028 was introduced by Rep. Souder (IN) on March 1, 2005. It
was referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, but was not considered.
For additional information or questions, please contact Rep. Souder's office at 5-4436.
H.Res_
Requests the Department of Health and Human Services to outline the federal
government’s responsibilities, taking into account the responsibilities and
actions of the state and local governments, to support a program for medically
monitoring and treating all individuals who were exposed to the toxins of Ground
Zero on 9/11
Floor Situation
The House considered H.Res_, under suspension of the rules, on
Friday, September 29, 2006. It is debatable for 40 minutes,
can not be amended, and requires a two-thirds
majority vote for passage.
Summary
A summary will be made available on gop.gov.
Legislative History
H.Res_ was introduced by Rep. Fossella
(NY).
For additional information or questions, please contact the Energy and Commerce Committee at 5-2927.
H.R. 6228
Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006
Floor Situation
The House considered H.R. 6228, under suspension of the rules, on
Friday, September 29, 2006. It is debatable for 40 minutes,
can not be amended, and requires a two-thirds
majority vote for passage.
Summary
A summary will be made available on gop.gov.
Legislative History
H.R. 6228 was introduced by Rep. Young (AK).
For additional information or questions, please contact the Transportation and Commerce Committee at 5-9446.
H.R.
6233
To amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes
Floor Situation
The House considered H.R. 6233, under suspension of the rules, on
Friday, September 29, 2006. It is debatable for 40 minutes,
can not be amended, and requires a two-thirds
majority vote for passage.
Summary
A summary will be made available on gop.gov.
Legislative History
H.R. 6233 was introduced by Rep. Young (AK).
For additional information or questions, please contact the Transportation and Commerce Committee at 5-9446.
H.R. 6203
To Provide for Federal energy research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application activities, and for other purposes.
Floor Situation
The House is scheduled to consider H.R. 6203 under suspension of the rules on
Tuesday, November 8, 2005. The bill is debatable for 40 minutes, may not be
amended, and requires a two-thirds majority vote for passage.
Summary
H.R. 6203:
·
Accelerates
development of advanced solar photovoltaic power technology by
authorizing photovoltaic R&D (Section 5) and demonstrations (Section 9).
Legislative History
H.R. 6203 was introduced by Rep. Biggert
(IL) on September 27, 2006. The bill was referred to the
Science Committee but was not considered.
For additional information or questions, please contact Rep. Biggert's office at 5-3515.
S. 3728
North Korea Nonproliferation Act of 2006
Floor Situation
The House considered S. 3728, under suspension of the rules, on
Friday, September 29, 2006. It is debatable for 40 minutes,
can not be amended, and requires a two-thirds
majority vote for passage.
Summary
S. 3728 amends the Iran and
Syria Nonproliferation Act to extend the provisions of such Act to North Korea.
The bill states that in view of North Korea's determination to produce missiles,
nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction and to proliferate
missiles, and in view of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1695 (prevention by
Member states of missile and related transfers to or from North Korea), it
should be U.S. policy to impose sanctions on persons who transfer such weapons
and related goods and technology to and from North Korea in the same manner as
persons who transfer such items to and from Iran and Syria currently are
sanctioned under U.S. law.
The measure urges all governments to comply with Resolution 1695 and to impose
measures on persons involved in such proliferation that are similar to those
imposed by the United States pursuant to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria
Nonproliferation Act, as amended by this Act.
Legislative History
S. 3728 was introduced by Sen. Frist (TN)
on July 25, 2006. The bill passed the Senate, without amendment, by unanimous
consent. The bill was referred to the International Relations Committee but was
not considered.
For additional information or questions, please contact the International Relations Committee at 5-5021.
TO SUBSCRIBE OR UNSUBSCRIBE TO
THIS E-MAIL PUBLICATION, PLEASE SEND AN E-MAIL TO
CommitteeRelations@mail.house.gov AND TYPE “SUBSCRIBE” OR “UNSUBSCRIBE”
IN THE SUBJECT LINE. PLEASE INCLUDE THE EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) YOU WOULD LIKE
ADDED IN THE BODY OF THE EMAIL.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
House Republican Conference
Office of Committee Relations
202A Cannon House Office Building • Washington, D.C. 20515 •
(202) 226-2302
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________