    [House Report 104-882]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                     Union Calendar No. 484
    104th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     2d Session                                                     104-882
    _______________________________________________________________________

    REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE FOR THE 104th CONG.

    January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

        One Hundred Fourth Congress

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            JACK FIELDS, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               JOE BARTON, Texas
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BILL PAXON, New York
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

                             LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                                  ----------

                         U.S. House of Representatives,
                                         Committee on Commerce,
                                       Washington, DC, January 2, 1997.
    Hon. Robin H. Carle,
    Clerk, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Ms. Carle: I present herewith a report on the activity
    of the Committee on Commerce for the 104th Congress, including
    the Committee's review and study of legislation within its
    jurisdiction and the oversight activities undertaken by the
    Committee.
                Sincerely,
                                       Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.

                                C O N T E N T S

                                   __________
                                                                       Page

        Jurisdiction.................................................     1
        Rules for the Committee......................................     2
        Membership and Organization..................................    11
        Legislative and Oversight Activity...........................    17
        Full Committee...............................................    19
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance...............    23
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.....    67
        Subcommittee on Health and Environment.......................   117
        Subcommittee on Energy and Power.............................   207
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................   267
        Oversight Plan for the 104th Congress........................   309
        Appendix I--Legislative Summary..............................   355
        Appendix II--Full Committee Membership Changes...............   357
        Appendix III--Subcommittee Membership Changes................   363
        Appendix IV--Public Laws.....................................   381
        Appendix V--Publications of the Committee....................   385

                                                     Union Calendar No. 484
    104th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

     2d Session                                                     104-882
    _______________________________________________________________________

       REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE FOR THE 104TH
                                    CONGRESS

    _______________________________________________________________________

    January 2, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

    _______________________________________________________________________

      Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

                                  R E P O R T

        The Committee on Commerce, reports herewith on its
    activities during the 104th Congress, in accordance with the
    Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended by Public
    Law 92-136 (2 U.S.C. 190(d)), rule X(2)(b).

                   Jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce

    (1) Biomedical research and development.
    (2) Consumer affairs and consumer protection.
    (3) Health and health facilities, except health care supported
            by payroll deductions.
    (4) Interstate energy compacts.
    (5) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
    (6) Measures relating to the exploration, production, storage,
            supply, marketing, pricing, and regulation of energy
            resources, including all fossil fuels, solar energy,
            and other unconventional or renewable energy resources.
    (7) Measures relating to the conservation of energy resources.
    (8) Measures relating to energy information generally.
    (9) Measures relating to (A) the generation and marketing of
            power (except by federally chartered or Federal
            regional power marketing authorities), (B) the
            reliability and interstate transmission of, and
            ratemaking for, all power, and (C) the siting of
            generation facilities; except the installation of
            interconnections between Government waterpower
            projects.
    (10) Measures relating to general management of the Department
            of Energy, and the management and all functions of the
            Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    (11) National energy policy generally.
    (12) Public health and quarantine.
    (13) Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry,
            including regulation of research and development
            reactors and nuclear regulatory research.
    (14) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
    (15) Securities and exchanges.
    (16) Travel and tourism.

        The Committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect
    to regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear
    energy as it has with respect to regulation of nonnuclear
    facilities and of use of nonnuclear energy. In addition to its
    legislative jurisdiction under the preceding provisions of this
    paragraph (and its general oversight functions under clause
    2(b)(1)), such committee shall have the special oversight
    functions provided for in clause (3)(h) with respect to all
    laws, programs, and Government activities affecting nuclear and
    other energy, and nonmilitary nuclear energy and research and
    development including the disposal of nuclear waste.
        The Committee on Commerce shall have the function of
    reviewing and studying on a continuing basis, all laws,
    programs and government activities relating to nuclear and
    other energy.

      Rules for the Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives,
                                 104th Congress

    Rule 1. General Provisions.
        (a) Rules of the Committee. The Rules of the House are the
    rules of the Committee on Commerce (hereinafter ``the
    Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as is applicable,
    except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to
    dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or
    resolution, if printed copies are available, are nondebatable
    motions of high privilege in the Committee and its
    subcommittees.
        (b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the
    Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the
    authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so
    far as applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee, not
    inconsistent with the Rules of the House, shall be binding on
    each subcommittee of the Committee.
    Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings.
        (a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the
    fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration
    of bills, resolutions, and other business, if the House is in
    session on that day. If the House is not in session on that day
    and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee
    shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the
    House is again in session. The chairman of the Committee may,
    at his discretion, cancel, delay or defer any meeting required
    under this section, after consultation with the ranking
    minority member.
        (b)(1) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and
    convene, as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the
    Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution
    pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other
    Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purposes
    pursuant to that call of the chairman.
        (b)(2) Special Meetings. If at least three members of the
    Committee or subcommittee (whichever is applicable) desire that
    a special meeting of the Committee or subcommittee (whichever
    is applicable) be called by the chairman or subcommittee
    chairman, those members may file in the offices of the
    Committee their written request to the chairman or subcommittee
    chairman for that special meeting. Such request shall specify
    the measure or matter to be considered. Immediately upon the
    filing of the request, the clerk of the Committee shall notify
    the chairman or subcommittee chairman of the filing of the
    request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of the
    request, the chairman or subcommittee chairman does not call
    the requested special meeting to be held within 7 calendar days
    after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of
    the Committee or subcommittee (whichever is applicable) may
    file in the offices of the Committee their written notice that
    a special meeting of the Committee or subcommittee (whichever
    is applicable) will be held, specifying the date and hour
    thereof, and the measure or matter to be considered at that
    special meeting. The Committee or subcommittee (whichever is
    applicable) shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon
    the filing of the notice, the clerk of the Committee shall
    notify all members of the Committee or subcommittee (whichever
    is applicable) that such meeting will be held and inform them
    of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered
    and only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be
    considered at that specified meeting.
        (c) Vice Chairman; Presiding Member. The chairman shall
    designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice
    chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority
    member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each
    subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or
    subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any meeting
    or hearing during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the
    chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are
    not present at any meeting or hearing, the ranking member of
    the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting
    or hearing.
        (d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Each meeting of the
    Committee or any of its subcommittees for the transaction of
    business, including the markup of legislation, and each
    hearing, shall be open to the public including to radio,
    television and still photography coverage, consistent with the
    provisions of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. This paragraph
    does not apply to those special cases provided in the Rules of
    the House where closed sessions are otherwise provided.
        (e) Regular Meeting of the Chairmen. At least once a month,
    the chairman shall convene a meeting of the chairmen of the
    subcommittees. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss
    issues pending before the Committee and the procedures for
    Committee and subcommittee consideration of such matters. The
    discussion may include, among other items, the scheduling of
    hearings and meetings, questions of subcommittee jurisdiction,
    and the conduct of joint subcommittee hearings.
    Rule 3. Agenda.
        The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee meeting
    (other than a hearing), setting out the date, time, place, and
    all items of business to be considered, shall be provided to
    each member of the Committee by delivery to his or her office
    at least 36 hours in advance of such meeting.
    Rule 4. Procedure.
        (a)(1) The date, time, place, and subject matter of any
    hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall be
    announced at least 1 week in advance of the commencement of
    such hearing, unless the Committee or subcommittee determines
    in accordance with such procedure as it may prescribe, that
    there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner.
        (2)(A) The date, time, place, and subject matter of any
    meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday,
    Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session, shall
    be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays
    and legal holidays) in advance of the commencement of such
    meeting.
        (B) The date, time, place, and subject matter of a meeting
    (other than a hearing or a meeting to which subparagraph (A)
    applies) shall be announced at least 72 hours in advance of the
    commencement of such meeting.
        (b) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a
    subcommittee shall file with the clerk of the Committee or a
    subcommittee, at least 2 working days in advance of his or her
    appearance, 75 copies of a written statement of his or her
    proposed testimony and shall limit his or her oral presentation
    to a brief summary of the argument, unless this requirement, or
    any part thereof, is waived by the Committee or subcommittee
    chairman or the presiding member.
        (c) The right to interrogate the witnesses before the
    Committee or any of its subcommittees shall alternate between
    majority and minority members. Each member shall be limited to
    5 minutes in the interrogation of witnesses until such time as
    each member who so desires has had an opportunity to question
    witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of
    5 minutes to interrogate a witness until each member of the
    Committee present has been recognized once for that purpose.
    While the Committee or subcommittee is operating under the 5-
    minute rule for the interrogation of witnesses, the chairman
    shall recognize in order of appearance members who were not
    present when the meeting was called to order after all members
    who were present when the meeting was called to order have been
    recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee or
    subcommittee, as the case may be.
        (d) No bill, recommendation, or other matter reported by a
    subcommittee shall be considered by the full Committee unless
    the text of the matter reported, together with an explanation,
    has been available to members of the Committee for at least 36
    hours. Such explanation shall include a summary of the major
    provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the
    relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary of the
    need for the legislation. All subcommittee actions shall be
    reported promptly by the clerk of the Committee to all members
    of the Committee.
        (e) Opening statements by members at the beginning of any
    hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall be
    limited to 5 minutes each for the chairman and ranking minority
    member (or their respective designee) of the Committee or
    subcommittee, as applicable, and 3 minutes each for all other
    members.
    Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Layover Requirements.
        Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by
    a majority of those present and voting (a majority being
    present) of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be.
    Rule 6. Quorum.
        Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing
    at which there are present not fewer than two members of the
    Committee or subcommittee in question. In the case of a meeting
    other than a hearing, the number of members constituting a
    quorum shall be one-third of the members of the Committee or
    subcommittee, as the case may be, except that a matter may not
    be reported by the Committee or a subcommittee unless a
    majority of the members thereof is actually present.
    Rule 7. Prohibition Against Proxy Voting.
        No vote by any member of the Committee or a subcommittee
    with respect to any measure or matter may be cast by proxy.
    Rule 8. Journal, Rollcalls.
        (a) The proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded in a
    journal which shall, among other things, show those present at
    each meeting, and include a record of the votes on any question
    on which a record vote is demanded and a description of the
    amendment, motion, order or other proposition voted. A copy of
    the journal shall be furnished to the ranking minority member.
    A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of the members
    present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one
    member. No demand for a rollcall shall be made or obtained
    except for the purpose of procuring a record vote or in the
    apparent absence of a quorum. The result of each rollcall vote
    in any meeting of the Committee shall be made available in the
    Committee office for inspection by the public, as provided in
    Rule XI, clause 2(e) of the Rules of the House.
        (b) Archived Records. The records of the Committee at the
    National Archives and Records Administration shall be made
    available for public use in accordance with Rule XXXVI of the
    Rules of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking
    minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or
    clause 4(b) of the rule, to withhold a record otherwise
    available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee
    for a determination on the written request of any member of the
    Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking minority
    member on any communication from the Archivist of the United
    States or the Clerk of the House concerning the disposition of
    noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of the rule.
    Rule 9. Filing of Committee Reports.
        If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by
    this Committee, any member or members of the Committee should
    give notice of an intention to file supplemental, minority, or
    additional views, that member shall be entitled to not less
    than 3 calendar days (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and
    legal holidays) in which to file such views in writing and
    signed by that member or members with the Committee. All such
    views so filed shall be included within and shall be a part of
    the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure
    or matter.
    Rule 10. Subcommittees.
        There shall be such standing subcommittees with such
    jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party
    caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of
    the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party
    caucus prior to the start of the process for establishing
    subcommittee chairmanships and assignments.
    Rule 11. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees.
        Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
    receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the
    Committee on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen
    shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of
    the chairman of the Committee with a view toward assuring the
    availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous
    scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings
    wherever possible.
    Rule 12. Reference of Legislation and Other Matters.
        All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee
    shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate
    jurisdiction immediately unless, by majority vote of the
    members of the Committee within 5 legislative days,
    consideration is to be by the full Committee. In the case of
    legislation or other matter within the jurisdiction of more
    than one subcommittee, the chairman of the Committee may, in
    his discretion, refer the matter simultaneously to two or more
    subcommittees for concurrent consideration, or may designate a
    subcommittee of primary jurisdiction and also refer the matter
    to one or more additional subcommittees for consideration in
    sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations), either on
    its initial referral or after the matter has been reported by
    the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction. Such authority shall
    include the authority to refer such legislation or matter to an
    ad hoc subcommittee appointed by the chairman, with the
    approval of the Committee, from the members of the
    subcommittees having legislative or oversight jurisdiction.
    Rule 13. Ratio of Subcommittees.
        The majority caucus of the Committee shall determine an
    appropriate ratio of majority to minority party members for
    each subcommittee and the chairman shall negotiate that ratio
    with the minority party, provided that the ratio of party
    members on each subcommittee shall be no less favorable to the
    majority than that of the full Committee, nor shall such ratio
    provide for a majority of less than two majority members.
    Rule 14. Subcommittee Membership.
        (a) The majority party members of the standing
    subcommittees shall be selected by a process determined by the
    majority party members. The selection of majority party members
    of the standing subcommittees shall be conducted at a meeting
    of the majority party caucus of the Committee held prior to any
    organizational meeting of the Committee.
        (b) The minority party members of the standing
    subcommittees shall be selected by a process determined by the
    minority party members. The selection of minority party members
    of the standing subcommittees shall be conducted prior to any
    organizational meeting of the Committee.
        (c) The chairman and ranking minority member of the
    Committee shall be ex officio members with voting privileges of
    each subcommittee of which they are not assigned as members.
    Rule 15. Subcommittee Chairmen.
        (a) The chairman shall nominate a slate of chairmen for the
    standing subcommittees. The chairman's slate shall be subject
    to approval by a majority of the majority party caucus of the
    Committee. If the chairman's initial slate is not approved by a
    majority, the chairman shall present an alternative slate of
    nominations until a slate is approved by a majority of the
    majority party caucus.
        (b) The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which
    member shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to
    the House.
        (c) The chairman of the Committee may make available to the
    chairman of any subcommittee office equipment and facilities
    which have been provided to him and for which he is personally
    responsible, subject to such terms and conditions as the
    chairman deems appropriate.
    Rule 16. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff Appointments.
        (a) Whenever the chairman of the Committee determines that
    any professional staff member appointed pursuant to the
    provisions of clause 6 of Rule XI of the House of
    Representatives, who is assigned to such chairman and not to
    the ranking minority member, by reason of such professional
    staff member's expertise or qualifications will be of
    assistance to one or more subcommittees in carrying out their
    assigned responsibilities, he may delegate such member to such
    subcommittees for such purpose. A delegation of a member of the
    professional staff pursuant to this subsection shall be made
    after consultation with the subcommittee chairmen and with the
    approval of the subcommittee chairman or chairmen involved.
        (b) Professional staff members appointed pursuant to clause
    6 of Rule XI of the House of Representatives, who are assigned
    to the ranking minority party member of the Committee and not
    to the chairman of the Committee, shall be assigned to such
    Committee business as the minority party members of the
    Committee consider advisable.
        (c) In addition to the professional staff appointed
    pursuant to clause 6 of Rule XI of the House of
    Representatives, the chairman of the Committee shall be
    entitled to make such appointments to the professional and
    clerical staff of the Committee as may be provided within the
    budget approved for such purposes by the Committee. Such
    appointee shall be assigned to such business of the full
    Committee as the chairman of the Committee considers advisable.
        (d) The chairman shall ensure that sufficient staff is made
    available to each subcommittee to carry out its
    responsibilities under the rules of the Committee.
        (e) The chairman shall ensure that the minority members of
    the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of Committee
    staff .
        (f) Any contract for the temporary services or intermittent
    services of individual consultants or organizations to make
    studies or advise the Committee or its subcommittees with
    respect to any matter within their jurisdiction shall be deemed
    to have been approved by a majority of the members of the
    Committee if approved by the chairman and ranking minority
    member of the Committee. Such approval shall not be deemed to
    have been given if at least one-third of the members of the
    Committee request in writing that the Committee formally act on
    such a contract, if the request is made within 10 days after
    the latest date on which such chairman or chairmen, and such
    ranking minority member or members, approve such contract.
    Rule 17. Supervision, Duties of Staff.
        (a) The professional and clerical staff of the Committee
    not delegated to the minority shall be under the supervision
    and direction of the chairman who, in consultation with the
    chairmen of the subcommittees, shall establish and assign the
    duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate
    such authority as he determines appropriate.
        (b) The professional and clerical staff assigned to the
    minority shall be under the supervision and direction of the
    minority members of the Committee, who may delegate such
    authority as they determine appropriate.
    Rule 18. Committee Budget.
        (a) The chairman of the Committee, after consultation with
    the ranking minority member of the Committee and the chairmen
    of the subcommittees, shall for the 104th Congress prepare a
    preliminary budget for the Committee, with such budget
    including necessary amounts for professional and clerical
    staff, travel, investigations, equipment and miscellaneous
    expenses of the Committee and the subcommittees, and which
    shall be adequate to fully discharge the Committee's
    responsibilities for legislation and oversight. Such budget
    shall be presented by the chairman to the majority party caucus
    of the Committee and thereafter to the full Committee for its
    approval.
        (b) The chairman shall take whatever action is necessary to
    have the budget as finally approved by the Committee duly
    authorized by the House. No proposed Committee budget may be
    submitted to the House Committee on Oversight unless it has
    been presented to and approved by the majority party caucus and
    thereafter by the full Committee. The chairman of the Committee
    may authorize all necessary expenses in accordance with these
    rules and within the limits of the Committee's budget as
    approved by the House.
        (c) Committee members shall be furnished a copy of each
    monthly report, prepared by the chairman for the House
    Committee on Oversight, which shows expenditures made during
    the reporting period and cumulative for the year by the
    Committee and subcommittees, anticipated expenditures for the
    projected Committee program, and detailed information on
    travel.
    Rule 19. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings.
        Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be
    covered in whole or in part by radio or television or still
    photography, subject to the requirements of Rule XI, clause 3
    of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any hearing or other
    proceeding of the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by
    television, radio, or still photography shall be under the
    direct supervision of the chairman of the Committee, the
    subcommittee chairman, or other member of the Committee
    presiding at such hearing or other proceeding and may be
    terminated by him in accordance with the Rules of the House.
    Rule 20. Comptroller General Audits.
        The chairman of the Committee is authorized to request
    verification examinations by the Comptroller General of the
    United States pursuant to Title V, Part A of the Energy Policy
    and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163), after consultation
    with the members of the Committee.
    Rule 21. Subpoenas.
        The Committee, or any subcommittee, may authorize and issue
    a subpoena under clause 2(m)(2)(A) of Rule XI of the House of
    Representatives, if authorized by a majority of the members
    voting of the Committee or subcommittee (as the case may be), a
    quorum being present. The chairman of the Committee may
    authorize and issue subpoenas under such clause during any
    period for which the House has adjourned for a period in excess
    of 3 days when, in the opinion of the chairman, authorization
    and issuance of the subpoena is necessary to obtain the
    material set forth in the subpoena. Subpoenas may be issued
    over the signature of the chairman of the Committee, or any
    member of the Committee authorized by such chairman, and may be
    served by any person designated by such chairman or member. The
    chairman shall report to the members of the Committee on the
    authorization and issuance of a subpoena during the recess
    period as soon as practicable but in no event later than 1 week
    after service of such subpoena.
    Rule 22. Travel of Members and Staff.
        (a) Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such
    additional expense resolutions as may have been approved, the
    provisions of this rule shall govern travel of Committee
    members and staff. Travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside
    for the Committee for any member or any staff member shall be
    paid only upon the prior authorization of the chairman. Travel
    may be authorized by the chairman for any member and any staff
    member in connection with the attendance of hearings conducted
    by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof and meetings,
    conferences and investigations which involve activities or
    subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee.
    Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to
    the chairman in writing the following: (1) The purpose of the
    travel; (2) The dates during which the travel is to be made and
    the date or dates of the event for which the travel is being
    made; (3) The location of the event for which the travel is to
    be made; and (4) The names of members and staff seeking
    authorization.
        (b) In the case of travel of members and staff of a
    subcommittee to hearings, meetings, conferences, and
    investigations involving activities or subject matter under the
    legislative assignment of such subcommittee to be paid for out
    of funds allocated to such subcommittee, prior authorization
    must be obtained from the subcommittee chairman and the
    chairman. Such prior authorization shall be given by the
    chairman only upon the representation by the applicable
    chairman of the subcommittee in writing setting forth those
    items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (a).
        (c) In the case of travel by minority party members and
    minority party professional staff for the purpose set out in
    (a) or (b), the prior approval, not only of the chairman but
    also of the ranking minority party member, shall be required.
    Such prior authorization shall be given by the chairman only
    upon the representation by the ranking minority party member in
    writing setting forth those items enumerated in (1), (2), (3),
    and (4) of paragraph (a).

            MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
        ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS

              (Ratio: 27-22)

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois \4\        \3\
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 JACK FIELDS, Texas
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico \5\      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  BILL PAXON, New York
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia \2\
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York \7\         BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
                                         ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

                                   __________
    \1\ Steve Largent (R-OK) was assigned to the Committee on Commerce for
    seniority purposes (after Mr. Cox) but served on the Committee on the
    Budget for 104th Congress. When Mr. Deal was elected to the Committee
    on Commerce, Mr. Largent's listing for seniority purposes was changed
    to after Mr. Deal, rather than after Mr. Cox.
    \2\ Nathan Deal (R-GA) was elected to the Committee on Commerce on May
    10, 1995, pursuant to H. Res. 143, which passed the House on May 10,
    1995.
    \3\ W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (R-LA) was elected as a Republican Member to
    the Committee on Commerce on September 12, 1995, pursuant to H. Res.
    217, which passed the House on September 12, 1995.
    \4\ Cardiss Collins (D-IL) was elected to the Committee on Commerce for
    the 104th Congress on September 27, 1995, pursuant to H. Res. 229,
    which passed the House on September 27, 1995. Previously, Mrs. Collins
    had been on sabbatical leave from the Committee since the beginning of
    the 104th Congress.
    \5\ Bill Richardson (D-NM) was elected to the Committee on Commerce for
    the 104th Congress on September 27, 1995, pursuant to H. Res. 229,
    which passed the House on September 27, 1995. Previously, Mr.
    Richardson had been on sabbatical leave from the Committee since the
    beginning of the 104th Congress.
    \6\ Ron Wyden (D-OR) resigned as a Member of the House of
    Representatives on February 6, 1996; he was subsequently sworn in as a
    United States Senator on the same date.
    \7\ Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) was elected to the Committee on Commerce for
    the 104th Congress on April 22, 1996, pursuant to H. Res. 408, which
    passed the House on April 22, 1996.

                                Committee Staff

    James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
     Charles L. Ingebretson, General
                  Counsel
        James D. Barnette, Counsel
    Eric S. Berger, Professional Staff
                  Member
    Matthew P. Bosher, Staff Assistant
    Marie Elena Burns, Administrative
                Coordinator
     Dwight Cates, Research Assistant
         David L. Cavicke, Counsel
         John J. Clocker, Systems
               Administrator
           Howard Cohen, Counsel
         John J. Cohrssen, Counsel
       Michael Collins, Director of
              Communications
        John Penn Crawford, Staff
                 Assistant
      Nora Demirjian, Staff Assistant
      Shanan D. Dunn, Staff Assistant
        Frederick R. Eames, Counsel
        Brian Matthew Elms, Staff
                 Assistant
    B. Paige Estep, Professional Staff
                  Member
       Fernanda Dau Fisher, Junior
                  Counsel
    Michael P. Flood, Jr., Legislative
                   Clerk
      Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Chief
                 Economist
       Gabriele A. Glynn, Personnel
                Specialist
          Robert Gordon, Counsel
       Christina K. Gungoll, Deputy
          Communications Director
      Anthony B. Habib, Legislative
                   Clerk
         Hugh Nathanial Halpern,
         Professional Staff Member
         Edward D. Hearst, Counsel
    James Alan Hill, Legislative Clerk
      Rodney C. Hoppe, Deputy Press
                 Secretary
         Steven Irrizarry, Counsel
        Joseph T. Kelliher, Counsel
        Nandan Kenkeremath, Counsel
       John Charles LePore, Counsel
    C. Barbara Loza, Legislative Clerk
      Brian McCullough, Legislative
                  Analyst
        Darlene G. McMullen, Chief
             Legislative Clerk
         Robert J. Meyers, Counsel
        Melissa Clark Niceswanger,
             Legislative Clerk
      Michael O'Rielly, Legislative
                  Analyst
         Mark A. Paoletta, Counsel
          Trish Paoletta, Counsel
     Joseph P. Patterson, Jr., Printer
        Catherine M. Reid, Counsel
         Clifford M. Riccio, Jr.,
             Legislative Clerk
        Linda Dallas Rich, Counsel
    Donn J. Salvosa, Legislative Clerk
         Stephen C. Sayle, Counsel
        Peter V. Sheffield, Staff
                 Assistant
      Alan Michael Slobodin, Counsel
    Carter C. Smith, Legislative Clerk
     Anthony M. Sullivan, Comptroller
      Troy D. Timmons, Professional
               Staff Member
     Michael S. Twinchek, Legislative
                   Clerk
        Catherine Van Way, Counsel
      William Edward Walters, Counsel
         John Marc Wheat, Counsel
        Kristina Tanasichuk White,
         Professional Staff Member
       Cynthia M. Wilkinson, Counsel
      Christopher R. Wolf, Research
                 Assistant
     C. Chance Wright, Staff Assistant
              MINORITY STAFF

       Alan J. Roth, Minority Staff
        Director and Chief Counsel
     Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Minority
           Deputy Staff Director
    Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority General
                  Counsel
     Sharon E. Davis, Chief Minority
                   Clerk
      Richard A. Frandsen, Minority
                  Counsel
    Alison T. Berkes, Minority Counsel
       Candace E. Butler, Assistant
     Minority Clerk/LAN Administrator
    Carla R. Hultberg, Minority Senior
                 Secretary
    Timothy J. Forde, Minority Counsel
      Kathleen S. Holcombe, Minority
         Professional Staff Member
      Nick Karamanos, Minority Staff
                 Assistant
         David C. Leach, Minority
         Professional Staff Member
      David G. Tittsworth, Minority
                  Counsel
     Consuela M. Washington, Minority
                  Counsel
      Raymond R. Kent, Jr., Minority
             Finance Assistant
       Christopher Knauer, Minority
               Investigator
     Andrew W. Levin, Minority Counsel
    D. Elaine Sheets, Minority Senior
                 Secretary
     Sue D. Sheridan, Minority Counsel
       Bridgett E. Taylor, Minority
         Professional Staff Member
       William F. Tyndall, Minority
                  Counsel

                   SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTIONS
                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 17-14)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JOE BARTON, Texas
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              BILL PAXON, New York
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign telecommunications including but
    not limited to, all telecommunication and information transmission by
    broadcast, radio, wire, microwave, satellite, or other mode; securities
    and finance.

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 15-12)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JACK FIELDS, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               BILL PAXON, New York
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Solid Waste, hazardous waste and toxic substances,
    including Superfund and RCRA (excluding mining, oil, gas, and coal
    combustion wastes); noise pollution control; interstate and foreign
    commerce, including trade matters within the jurisdiction of the full
    committee; motor vehicle safety; regulation of commercial practices
    (the FTC); insurance, except health insurance; consumer protection in
    general, consumer product safety (the CPSC) and product liability;
    regulation of travel, tourism, and time.

                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment

               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIR NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction;
    mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection
    in general, including Medicaid and national health insurance; foods and
    drugs; drug abuse; Clean Air Act and environmental protection in
    general, including the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

               (Ratio 14-11)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New jersey       MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia                 Vice Chairman
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRED UPTON, Michigan
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy,
    renewable energy resources and synthetic fuels; energy conservation;
    energy regulation and utilization; utility issues and regulation of
    nuclear facilities; nuclear energy and waste; mining, oil, gas, and
    coal combustion wastes; all laws, programs, and government activities
    affecting such matters.

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments and
    all programs within the jurisdiction of the full committee, and for
    conducting investigations within such jurisdiction.
              Legislative and Oversight Activity of the Committee

        During the 104th Congress, 810 bills were referred to the
    Committee on Commerce. The Full Committee reported 65 measures
    to the House (not including conference reports). The Committee
    also approved and transmitted to the Committee on the Budget 9
    measures, including H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of
    1995, for inclusion in H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of
    1995, and two Committee Prints for inclusion in the H.R. 3734,
    the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
    Act of 1996. Sixty-five measures regarding issues within the
    Committee's jurisdiction were enacted into law.
        In areas as diverse as telecommunications, securities, the
    environment, and health care, the Committee's activities
    resulted in the enactment of legislation that is intended to
    result in a more effective, less expensive, and more
    accountable government.
        The enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    represents a comprehensive reform of the Communications Act of
    1934 and moves Federal telecommunications laws and regulations
    into the 21st Century. In the securities area, the National
    Securities Market Improvement Act of 1996 represents the first
    major overhaul of America's securities laws since their
    enactment over sixty years ago. In addition, the Private
    Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 addresses the high
    cost of frivolous lawsuits in an effort to protect American
    companies, investors, and workers.
        With respect to the environment, the Safe Drinking Water
    Act Amendments of 1996 and the Food Quality Protection Act of
    1996 were enacted to protect the safety of America's drinking
    water and food supply.
        The Committee played a leading role in the passage of the
    Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was
    enacted to make health care more responsive, efficient, and
    affordable. Extension of the Medicare Select Program preserves
    the savings enjoyed by the seniors enrolled in the program and
    empowers Medicare recipients nationwide with the ability to
    choose the most effective and least expensive supplementary
    care available. Finally, the enactment of the Personal
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
    represents a major reform of the Nation's welfare system.
        The Committee also focused significant time and effort in
    several areas which will continue to be the focus for
    legislative activity in the 105th Congress, including reform of
    the Superfund Program, enhancement of competition in the
    electric utility industry, preservation and stabilization of
    the Medicare Program, restructuring of the Medicaid Program,
    and reform of the Food and Drug Administration.
        The Committee also conducted oversight activities in many
    areas as part of its commitment to (1) closely monitor the
    expenditure of Federal funds by the departments and agencies
    under its jurisdiction and (2) examine the implementation and
    enforcement of the various laws under the Committee's
    jurisdiction to determine where reforms may be needed to
    eliminate unnecessary or burdensome regulations. These
    activities included a comprehensive review of the Food and Drug
    Administration's day-to-day operations; waste, fraud, and abuse
    in the Nation's health care system; Department of Energy travel
    expenditures and related financial issues; and the
    implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments
    of 1990.
        The following is a summary of the legislative and oversight
    activities of the Committee on Commerce during the 104th
    Congress, including a summary of the activities taken by the
    Committee to implement its Oversight Plan for the 104th
    Congress.
                             Committee on Commerce

                                 full committee
              (Ratio: 27-22)

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            JACK FIELDS, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               JOE BARTON, Texas
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BILL PAXON, New York
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

                              Legislative Hearings

            personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3507)

        To restore the American family, enhance support and work
    opportunities for families with children, reduce out-of-wedlock
    pregnancies, reduce welfare dependence by requiring work, meet
    the health care needs of America's most vulnerable citizens,
    control welfare and Medicaid spending, and increase State
    flexibility.

    Summary

        H.R. 3507 is a two-part bill providing for the reform and
    restructuring of the Welfare and Medicaid Programs. Division A
    deals with the nonmedical welfare provisions of current law.
    Division B, the Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996, deals with
    the Medicaid Program and includes some of the Medicaid
    restructuring recommendations contained in the Unanimous
    Bipartisan National Governors Association Medicaid
    Restructuring Proposal adopted on February 6, 1996.
        Division B of H.R. 3507 amends the Social Security Act to
    add a new title XV, Program of Medical Assistance for Low-
    Income Individuals and Families. Division B establishes a
    mechanism to provide funds to States for the provision of
    medical assistance to low-income individuals and families.
    Persons for whom such medical assistance is guaranteed under
    this plan include: (1) certain poor pregnant women; (2) the
    disabled; (3) poor elderly individuals; and (4) children
    receiving foster care or adoption assistance. The plan also
    guarantees the provision of a specified benefits package to
    recipients, in addition to guaranteed coverage of Medicare
    premiums and cost-sharing for certain Medicare beneficiaries.
        Other provisions of the plan include: (1) nominal cost-
    sharing for children and pregnant women with regard to primary
    and preventive care services; (2) the prevention of spousal and
    family impoverishment with regard to long-term care; (3) State
    flexibility in benefits, provider payments, geographical
    coverage area, and selection of providers; (4) coverage of
    abortions only for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or
    when a woman suffers from a physical disorder, illness, or
    injury that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman
    in danger of death unless an abortion is performed; (5) denial
    of payment under the State Medicaid plan for any item or
    service furnished for euthanasic purposes; (6) limitation on
    payments for Medicaid services to nonlawful aliens, generally
    allowing treatment only in emergency situations; (7) periodic,
    independent evaluations and audits; (8) a separate fraud
    prevention program, as well as, under certain conditions, State
    fraud control units; (9) an information reporting system with
    regard to actions taken by State licensing authorities against
    health care practitioners and providers; (10) quality assurance
    requirements for nursing facilities, as well as requirements
    relating to residents' rights; and (11) an optional master drug
    rebate agreement program for covered outpatient drugs of a
    manufacturer.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3507 was introduced in the House on May 22, 1996, by
    Representatives Archer, Bliley, Roberts, Shaw, Bilirakis,
    Emerson, Camp, McCrery, Collins of Georgia, English of
    Pennsylvania, Nussle, Dunn of Washington, Ensign, Laughlin, and
    Deal of Georgia. The bill was referred to Committee on Ways and
    Means, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, the
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on
    Commerce, the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities, the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
    National Security, the Committee on International Relations,
    and the Committee on the Budget.
        Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was referred to
    the Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the Subcommittee
    on Energy and Power on May 24, 1996, for a period ending not
    later than June 7, 1996. On June 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Health and Environment and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3507. On
    June 11, 1996, the Committee on Commerce held a Full Committee
    legislative hearing on H.R. 3507. Witnesses at the hearing
    included the Secretary of Health and Human Services and
    representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the American
    Hospital Association, and the Long Term Care Campaign, a
    coalition of more than 140 national organizations representing
    long term care recipients and providers. Prior to this hearing,
    the Full Committee also held two oversight hearings on the
    National Governors Association Medicaid Restructuring Proposal
    on February 21, 1996, and March 6, 1996.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 3507 in the 104th
    Congress. However, on June 13, 1996, the Full Committee
    considered and approved two Committee Prints pertaining to
    Medicaid Restructuring and Welfare Reform for transmittal to
    the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in the FY 1997
    Medicaid and Welfare Reform Act. These Committee Prints were
    largely based on the provisions of H.R. 3507 which fell within
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
        The first Committee Print, entitled ``Title II, Subtitle
    A--Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996'' was ordered transmitted
    to the Committee on the Budget, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 26 yeas to 14 nays.
        The second Committee Print, entitled ``Title II, Subtitle
    B--Other Provisions'' was ordered transmitted to the Committee
    on the Budget, as amended, by a voice vote. The second
    Committee Print contained provisions dealing with: (1) energy
    assistance; (2) involvement of the Committee on Commerce in
    Federal government position reductions; and (3) restricting
    public benefits for aliens.
        The provisions of these two Committee Prints were included
    in the text of Title II of H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid
    Reform Act of 1996, as reported to the House by the Committee
    on the Budget on June 27, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-651; H. Rpt. 104-
    651, Errata Report). For the legislative history of H.R. 3734,
    see the discussion of that bill in the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment section of this report.

                               Oversight Hearings

                  developments in municipal finance disclosure

        The Committee on Commerce held a Full Committee hearing on
    January 12, 1995, on Developments in Municipal Finance
    Disclosure. On December 8, 1994, Orange County, California, and
    the ``Orange County Investment Pools,'' a common fund of county
    monies maintained for investment, filed for bankruptcy under
    Chapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. These filings began
    the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation's history.
        The purpose of the Full Committee hearing was to examine
    (1) the adequacy of disclosure by municipal securities issuers
    of material events that impact the value of their securities
    and (2) the development of rules and systems to avoid
    situations similar to the events in Orange County, California,
    in the future. The hearing focused on the current state of
    municipal securities disclosure regulation and whether
    regulatory or legislative action was necessary to improve
    investor protection.
        Witnesses at the hearing included the Chairman of the
    Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chairman of the
    Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, the Chairman of the
    Public Securities Association, a representative of Fitch
    Investors Service, Inc., and a representative of the Port
    Authority of New York and New Jersey testifying on behalf on
    the Government Finance Officers Association.

       unanimous bipartisan national governors association agreement on
                                    medicaid

        On February 6, 1996, the National Governors Association
    (NGA) unanimously adopted a bipartisan proposal to restructure
    the Medicaid Program. The NGA proposal would replace current
    Medicaid law with a new flexible program that would allow
    States a combination of increased Federal funding and enhanced
    operational and administrative flexibility to implement new
    ideas and management techniques for providing those below the
    income poverty level with adequate and efficient health care.
        The Full Committee held two oversight hearings on the NGA
    Medicaid Restructuring Proposal. The first hearing was held on
    February 21, 1996. Witnesses included Governors of the States
    of Michigan, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Colorado.
    The purpose of the hearing was to examine the process by which
    the Governors reached consensus and the manner in which their
    bipartisan proposal would enable them to improve the
    effectiveness and quality of their Medicaid programs.
        The Full Committee held a follow-up hearing on the NGA
    Medicaid Restructuring Proposal on March 6, 1996. Witnesses at
    the second hearing included the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, various health industry officials, and
    representatives of non-profit organizations as well as
    beneficiaries. The purpose of this hearing was to receive
    testimony from the Administration and those in the health care
    industry concerning the NGA's Medicaid Restructuring Proposal.

                                 Hearings Held

        Developments in Municipal Finance Disclosure.--Oversight
    Hearing on Developments in Municipal Finance Disclosure.
    Hearing held on January 12, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-1.
        The Unanimous Bipartisan National Governors Association
    Agreement on Medicaid.--Oversight Hearing on the Unanimous
    Bipartisan National Governors Association Agreement on
    Medicaid. Hearing held on February 21, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-103.
        The Unanimous Bipartisan National Governors Association
    Agreement on Medicaid.--Oversight Hearing on the Unanimous
    Bipartisan National Governors Association Agreement on
    Medicaid. Hearing held on March 6, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-103.
        The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of
    1996.--Hearing on H.R. 3507, the Personal Responsibility and
    Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Hearing held on June 11, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-102.
                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
               (Ratio 17-14)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JOE BARTON, Texas
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              BILL PAXON, New York
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign telecommunications including but
    not limited to, all telecommunication and information transmission by
    broadcast, radio, wire, microwave, satellite, or other mode; securities
    and finance.

                             Legislative Activities

                      philanthropy protection act of 1995

                         Public Law 104-62 (H.R. 2519)

        To facilitate contributions to charitable organizations by
    codifying certain exemptions from the Federal securities laws,
    and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The Philanthropy Protection Act of 1995 exempts from the
    registration requirements of the Investment Company Act of
    1940, the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act
    of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 any security
    issued by or any interest or participation in any pooled income
    fund, collective trust fund, collective investment fund, or
    similar fund maintained by a charitable organization (such
    funds are referred to as ``charitable income funds'')
    exclusively for the collective investment and reinvestment of
    certain assets. The Act also requires certain donor disclosures
    and prohibits incentive-based commissions. Notwithstanding the
    exemptions from the above-mentioned Acts, H.R. 2519 maintains
    the application of the anti-fraud provisions of the 1933 Act,
    1934 Act, Investment Company Act, and Investment Advisers Act
    to entities qualifying for the exemptions.
        Public Law 104-62 provides a conditional exemption from the
    above-mentioned Acts for charitable income funds that contain
    assets that have been revocably donated and grants the
    Securities and Exchange Commission specific exemptive authority
    regarding such funds if they do not otherwise qualify for the
    Act's exemption.
        Additionally, it amends the Investment Company Act of 1940
    to codify disclosure requirements for exempt charitable income
    funds.
        Public Law 104-62 also amends the Securities Exchange Act
    of 1934 to provide an exemption from that Act's broker-dealer
    provisions for employees or volunteers of charitable
    organizations or charitable income funds who buy, hold, sell,
    or trade in securities for the charitable organization or fund
    so long as they are volunteers or are engaged in overall fund-
    raising activities of the organization but receive no
    commission or other special compensation based on the number or
    value of donations collected.
        Public Law 104-62 includes a provision that temporarily
    preempts State laws. This provision provides that for a period
    of 3 years following the enactment of the Act, interests in
    charitable income funds are exempted from State registration or
    qualification requirements, and charitable organizations,
    trustees, directors, officers, employees, and volunteers of
    such organizations are exempted from State regulation regarding
    dealers, brokers, agents, and investment advisers. Following
    this 3-year period, States are permitted to enact statutes that
    reestablish the State authority that had been preempted during
    the 3-year period.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2519 was introduced in the House on October 24, 1995,
    by Representatives Fields of Texas, Bliley, Burr, Dingell,
    Edwards, Frisa, and Markey. On October 31, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a hearing
    on H.R. 2519. Testimony was received from representatives of
    charitable organizations and Federal securities regulators.
    Immediately following the hearing, the Subcommittee met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 2519 and approved the bill for
    Full Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice
    vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2519 on November 1, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2519 to the House on November 10, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-333).
        On November 28, 1995, the House considered H.R. 2519 on the
    Corrections Calendar and passed the bill by a roll call vote of
    421 yeas to 0 nays. On November 29, 1995, the Senate received
    H.R. 2519 and, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of the bill and passed H.R. 2519 without
    amendment.
        H.R. 2519 was presented to the President on November 30,
    1995. The President signed H.R. 2519 into law on December 8,
    1995 (P.L. 104-62).

                private securities litigation reform act of 1995

                     Public Law 104-67 (H.R. 1058, S. 240)

        To reform Federal securities litigation, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1058 is to reform the Federal civil
    justice system with regards to private securities litigation.
    It eliminates certain abusive practices, provides for greater
    plaintiff control over litigation, and defines or modifies the
    legal standards establishing liability in actions based on
    securities fraud. The major provisions of H.R. 1058 are as
    follows:

     Amends the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act) and
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act) by
            providing for a presumptive lead plaintiff and for
            enhanced control of the class lawyers by the
            plaintiffs. Additionally, it provides that all
            discovery is stayed during the pendency of any motion
            to dismiss or for summary judgement;
     Amends the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act to provide for a
            safe harbor for certain forward looking statements made
            by persons specified in the legislation;
     Amends the 1934 Act by prohibiting referral fees to
            brokers, dealers, or anyone associated with a broker or
            dealer for assisting an attorney in obtaining the
            representation of any person in any private action;
     Amends the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act by prohibiting
            the payment of attorneys' fees from a Securities and
            Exchange Commission (SEC) disgorgement fund unless
            otherwise ordered by the court;
     Amends the 1934 Act to provide authority to the SEC to
            prosecute aiding and abetting in a securities violation
            under this Act;
     Amends the 1933 Act to provide for enhanced Rule 11
            sanctions and discretionary bonding for sanctions under
            Rule 11;
     Amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to eliminate
            securities fraud as a predicate offense in a civil
            action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
            Organizations Act (RICO);
     Amends the 1933 Act and the 1934 Act to provide for
            proportionate liability for certain defendants in a
            private action; and
     Amends the 1934 Act to require independent public
            accountants to adopt certain procedures in connection
            with their audits and to inform the SEC of illegal
            acts.

    Legislative History

        On February 27, 1995, Representatives Bliley, Fields of
    Texas, Cox, and Tauzin introduced H.R. 1058, the Securities
    Litigation Reform Act, in the House. As introduced, the text of
    H.R. 1058 was identical to the text of Title II of H.R. 10, as
    reported to the House by the Committee on Commerce on February
    24, 1995. H.R. 1058 was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary.
        On March 3, 1995, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1058. The rule was
    filed in the House as H. Res. 103. On March 6, 1995, the
    Committee on Rules met and granted a second rule providing for
    the consideration of H.R. 1058. The rule was filed in the House
    as H. Res. 105. Section 2 of H. Res. 105 laid H. Res. 103, the
    first rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1058, on the
    table. The House passed H. Res. 105 on March 7, 1995, by a
    voice vote.
        On March 7 and March 8, 1995, the House considered H.R.
    1058; on March 8, 1995, the House passed H.R. 1058 by a roll
    call vote of 325 yeas to 99 nays, and 1 voting present. On
    March 10, 1995, H.R. 1058 was received in the Senate, read
    twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking,
    Housing, and Urban Affairs.
        On June 19, 1995, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,
    and Urban Affairs reported S. 240, a companion bill to H.R.
    1058, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-98). The Senate considered S.
    240 on June 22, June 23, June 26, June 27, and June 28, 1995.
    On June 28, 1995, the Senate, by unanimous consent, discharged
    the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
    from further consideration of H.R. 1058. The Senate then passed
    H.R. 1058, as amended with the text of S. 240 as amended by the
    Senate, by a roll call vote of 69 yeas to 30 nays, and 1 voting
    present. On that same day, S. 240 was returned to the Senate
    Calendar.
        On October 24, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 1058, requested a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. On November 17, 1995, the Senate
    insisted on its amendment, agreed to a conference with the
    House, and appointed conferees. On November 28, 1995, the
    conferees met and agreed to file a conference report on H.R.
    1058. The conference report was filed in the House on November
    28, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-369).
        The Senate agreed to the conference report by a roll call
    vote of 65 yeas to 30 nays, and 1 voting present on December 5,
    1995. On December 5, 1995, the Committee on Rules met and
    granted a rule providing for the consideration of the
    conference report on H.R. 1058. The rule was filed in the House
    as H. Res. 290. The House passed H. Res. 290 by a roll call
    vote of 318 yeas to 97 nays, and 1 voting present on December
    6, 1995. The House agreed to the conference report on December
    6, 1995, by a roll call vote of 320 yeas to 102 nays, and 1
    voting present. On December 7, 1995, H.R. 1058 was presented to
    the President.
        The President vetoed H.R. 1058 on December 19, 1995. On
    December 20, 1995, the veto message on H.R. 1058 was received
    and read in the House (H. Doc. 104-150).
        On December 20, 1995, the House considered and passed H.R.
    1058, the objections of the President to the contrary
    notwithstanding, by a roll call vote of 319 yeas to 100 nays,
    and 1 voting present. On December 22, 1995, the Senate passed
    H.R. 1058, the objections of the President to the contrary
    notwithstanding, by a roll call vote of 68 yeas to 30 nays and
    1 voting present.
        H.R. 1058 became Public Law over the objections of the
    President on December 22, 1995 (P.L. 104-67).

                         telecommunications act of 1996

          Public Law 104-104 (S. 652, H.R. 1555, H.R. 1556, H.R. 514,
                        H.R. 912, H.R. 1528, H.R. 1869)

        To promote competition and reduce regulation in order to
    secure lower prices and higher quality services for American
    telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment
    of new telecommunications technologies.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-104 represents a bipartisan, multi-year
    effort to reform our nation's telecommunications industry. For
    decades prior to the adoption of this law, U.S.
    telecommunications policy had relied on heavily regulated
    monopolies to provide communications services to business and
    consumers. The new law reflects the view that a competitive
    market rather than regulated monopolies will yield greater
    public good in terms of lower prices for consumers, greater
    choice of high quality services and products, a more rapid
    deployment of new telecommunications technologies, and the
    creation of numerous employment opportunities within the
    telecommunications industry. The major provisions of Public Law
    104-104 are outlined below.

    Title I--Telecommunications Services

        One of the primary goals of the new telecommunications law
    is the promotion of competition in the local telephone market.
    Using the lessons learned from the advent of competition in the
    long distance telephone market, the new law focuses on opening
    the local telephone market, without threatening the provision
    of local telephone service in the process. The law requires
    local telephone companies to negotiate to provide service
    connections to any requesting telecommunications carrier, and
    allows the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) to enter
    the long distance telephone market under certain conditions.
    The combination of these two features will further promote
    competition in the American telecommunications industry and
    will allow the free market, tied to the choices of consumers,
    to be the arbitrator of telecommunications prices.
        Specifically, the law requires all local exchange carriers,
    upon request from another carrier, to interconnect with or
    provide services using the carrier's network. The law places
    additional obligations on local telephone companies and even
    further requirements on incumbent telephone companies. Local
    telephone companies, upon a request from another carrier,
    cannot prohibit resale of its service; must provide number
    portability, dialing parity, and access to its rights-of-way;
    and must establish reciprocal compensation to competitors for
    transport and termination of traffic.
        For incumbent local telephone providers, the law also
    imposes the duty to: (1) negotiate, in good faith,
    interconnection agreements that meet the above mentioned
    obligations and provide interconnection at any technically
    feasible point of the same type and quality it provides itself
    on just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory conditions; (2)
    provide access to network elements on an unbundled basis; (3)
    offer resale of its telecommunications services at wholesale
    rates; (4) provide reasonable public notice of changes to its
    network; and (5) provide physical collocation, or virtual
    collocation where physical collocation is not practicable.
        The law exempts rural telephone companies from these
    requirements and permits States to modify or suspend these
    local loop-opening requirements in limited situations, such as
    for smaller telephone companies. The law also establishes a
    broad framework, coupled with the interconnection requirements,
    to resolve situations where the local telephone company and the
    new entrant do not agree on the specific details of
    interconnection. This process includes a period for negotiation
    that may be followed by arbitration overseen by State public
    utility commissions if any unresolved issues remain. State
    commissions are required to approve any interconnection
    agreement reached to ensure that the agreements are in the
    public interest and meet the interconnection requirements of
    the law.
        The law also sets forth the framework for allowing the
    RBOCs into telecommunications markets heretofore closed by
    court action and, where appropriate, places additional
    safeguards to minimize the threat of anticompetitive activities
    by the RBOCs when they enter these markets. These markets
    include: long distance telephone service, manufacturing,
    electronic publishing, alarm monitoring, payphones, and
    telemessaging. For in-region long distance entry, the law
    requires an RBOC to submit an application to the Federal
    Communications Commission (FCC) certifying either that there
    exists a facilities-based competitor currently providing
    service to both residential and business customers, or that no
    provider has sought the ability to interconnect. The law also
    sets out specific interconnection requirements comprising a
    ``checklist'' which must also be satisfied by the RBOC as part
    of its entry test. The FCC is to review the application and
    consult with the Department of Justice regarding the merits of
    the application. The FCC is required to give substantial weight
    to the Attorney General's evaluation.
        The law also creates a Federal-State Joint Board on
    Universal Service to provide recommendations to the FCC and to
    answer paramount questions facing the Federal universal service
    support system. The mechanisms and policies must be based on
    the following principles: (1) quality and rates; (2) access to
    advanced services; (3) access in rural and high cost areas; (4)
    equitable and nondiscriminatory contributions; (5) specific and
    predictable support mechanisms; and (6) access to advanced
    telecommunications services for schools, rural health care
    facilities, and libraries. The FCC is required to implement
    rules based on the Joint Board's recommendations.
        The new law also removes State and local barriers to entry
    in order to promote competition, while maintaining local and
    State authority to manage public rights-of-way. The law also
    permits public utility holding companies to enter the
    telecommunications industry; requires FCC regulations to
    increase the accessibility by persons with disabilities to
    telecommunications services and equipment; requires the FCC to
    identify and remove market entry barriers for small businesses;
    and prohibits telecommunications carriers from changing carrier
    selection without prior approval from customers, while
    strengthening related penalties for violators. H.R. 912 and a
    similar provision in the Senate-passed telecommunications bill
    became the basis for the changes made to the Public Utility
    Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA), allowing public utilities
    into the telecommunications industry.

    Title II--Broadcast Services

        The new law includes provisions addressing spectrum
    flexibility which enable the FCC to move forward and award
    digital television licenses. The law requires that if the FCC
    decides to issue licenses for advanced television (ATV), the
    initial recipients should be existing broadcasters and that the
    issuance of such licenses will be preconditioned on the
    requirement that either the new license, or the broadcaster's
    original license, would be surrendered to the FCC pursuant to
    FCC regulations. The law authorizes the FCC to adopt
    regulations that would permit broadcasters to use such spectrum
    for ancillary or supplementary services, but would require the
    FCC to establish a fee if broadcasters use the spectrum to
    provide a subscription or other compensation based service to
    the user. These provisions will provide the FCC with the
    necessary statutory framework to issue ATV licenses in early
    1997.
        In addition, the new law relaxes numerous FCC regulations
    and statutory prohibitions on multiple ownership of broadcast
    outlets. Specifically, the law eliminates the national
    limitations on the number of radio stations one entity may
    control, and establishes a new local radio station ownership
    limitation structure based upon the size of the local radio
    market. Similarly, the law eliminates the restriction on the
    absolute number of television stations any one entity can own
    and increases the national ownership limitation for television
    stations from 25 percent to 35 percent. The law requires the
    FCC to review its limitation on the number of stations one
    party can own in a local market. It permits the FCC to allow
    the ownership of a radio station and a television station in
    the top 50 markets; and it requires the FCC to revise its
    regulations to allow the merger of TV networks, with
    limitations to guard against undue concentration. The law
    repeals the statutory cable-broadcast cross-ownership
    restriction and requires the FCC to examine all of its
    broadcast ownership rules biennially and to repeal or modify
    such rules that are no longer in the public interest.
        The new law also extends the terms of broadcast licenses
    for up to 8 years and streamlines the broadcast license renewal
    process by implementing a new procedure which gives the
    incumbent broadcaster the ability to apply for a license
    renewal without competing applications. It also gives the FCC
    exclusive jurisdiction over the direct broadcast satellite
    systems (DBS) and requires the FCC to preempt local, State or
    non-governmental restrictions that impair a viewer's ability to
    receive a DBS, broadcast TV, or wireless cable signal.
        Many of the provisions of this section incorporate
    provisions, in amended form, contained in H.R. 1556.

    Title III--Cable Services

        The new law requires the FCC to reform many of its
    regulations for the video programming market and mandates
    substantial revisions to the FCC's regulation of cable systems.
    The advent and promotion of video programming competition,
    combined with regulatory flexibility, will produce greater
    choice for consumers. The new law deregulates numerous aspects
    of the cable industry to provide it with the flexibility to
    compete in the increasingly competitive marketplace.
        Specifically, the law sunsets the FCC's regulation of the
    cable programming services tier on March 31, 1999, and ends FCC
    cable TV rate regulation for smaller cable operators. The law
    expands the definition of cable service to include interactive
    services and amends the definition of a cable system to exclude
    services that do not use any public right-of-way. It amends the
    cable rate complaint process to allow only State and local
    franchise authorities to file complaints; modifies the starting
    point for calculating refunds for unreasonable cable rates and
    limits the time frame of FCC consideration of rate complaints;
    modifies the time frame for a local franchise authority to file
    a rate complaint; relaxes uniform rate requirements; and adds a
    fourth prong to the test that determines when a cable company
    faces ``effective competition'' under the law. It also (1)
    modifies the FCC's methodology for market determinations; (2)
    eliminates State and local jurisdiction over technical
    standards for cable equipment; (3) limits the magnitude of FCC
    regulations designed to increase compatibility between VCRs and
    TVs; (4) relaxes a cable operator's obligation regarding
    subscriber notices; (5) extends the program access requirements
    to common carriers providing video programming; (6) eliminates
    the anti-trafficking provisions for cable systems; (7) allows
    for the aggregation of equipment costs when setting equipment
    rates; and (8) allows for the consideration of prior year
    losses when setting rates.
        In addition, the new law sets forth regulations for a local
    telephone company that enters the video programming
    marketplace. Under the law, a telephone company can be
    regulated, based upon its method of providing service, as a
    wireless cable system, a common carrier, a cable system, or an
    open video system. The law establishes criteria for permitting
    financial arrangements, including buyouts, between a local
    telephone company and an existing cable operator. The law
    further provides specific minimum requirements for open video
    system providers.
        The new law also prevents localities from requiring a local
    franchise agreement for a cable operator's provision of
    telecommunications services. This provision is intended to
    promote regulatory parity between the new entrant community,
    which includes cable companies, and the incumbent telephone
    companies.
        The new law also requires the FCC to adopt regulations to
    assure the competitive availability of navigation devices in
    order to ensure the development of competition in the set-top
    box marketplace.

    Title IV--Regulatory Reform

        The new law requires the FCC to forbear from applying any
    regulation or statutory provision to a telecommunications
    carrier or class of carriers if the FCC determines that
    enforcement is not necessary to ensure just, reasonable, and
    nondiscriminatory prices or to protect the consumer or public
    interest.
        In addition, the law requires the FCC to conduct a biennial
    review, beginning in 1998, of all regulations issued to comply
    with the requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 and
    requires the FCC to repeal any of these regulations if it
    determines them to be unnecessary because of the development of
    competition.

    Title V--Obscenity and Violence

        The new law includes provisions to decrease access by
    minors to indecent or obscene material via the Internet. These
    provisions broaden the scope of the existing ``dial-a-porn''
    provisions to include the new electronic media using computers.
    Specifically, the law adapts the definition of indecency
    developed by the courts and the FCC to prohibit the use of a
    telecommunications device to make available indecent or obscene
    material to minors. The law provides numerous defenses to
    remove liability for certain circumstances, such as for
    providers merely providing access to the Internet, and it
    provides an exemption for Internet and other providers that
    make an effort to decrease access to indecent material to
    children.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Challenges have been made to the constitutionality of section
    502 of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and an appeal has
    been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 11, 1996, a three judge
    panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of
    section 502 based on its finding certain portions of that section
    unconstitutional. ACLU v. Reno, 929 F. Supp. 824 (E.D.Pa. 1996) (order
    granting preliminary injunction). On September 29, 1996, the Justice
    Department filed its appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 6,
    1996, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case by noting probable
    jurisdiction. Argument will be scheduled in late March 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The law establishes new requirements for cable companies in
    order to decrease the access by minors to obscene material
    available over cable systems.\2\ In addition, the new law
    requires TV manufacturers to include a ``V-chip'' not earlier
    than February 8, 1998, to decipher ratings codes on sex and
    violence established by the industry. If private industry does
    not establish its own ratings standard within 1 year of
    enactment, the law authorizes the FCC to prescribe guidelines
    for a ratings system. It also encourages the video programming
    and distribution industries to develop technology that will
    allow parents to block unwanted material from their children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Enforcement of these provisions has been stayed by a three
    judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of
    Delaware, pending its decision in the case of Playboy Entertainment
    Group, Inc. and Graff-Pay-Per-View, Inc. v. Reno, Nos. 96-94 & 96-107
    (D. Del. Nov. 15, 1996) (order staying enforcement of section 505 of
    the Telecommunications Act of 1996).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title VI--Effect on Other Laws

        The new law supersedes the provisions and requirements of
    the Modification of Final Judgment (AT&T Consent Decree), the
    GTE Consent Decree, and the AT&T-McCaw Consent Decree.
    Specifically, the law provides that all conduct or activities
    subject to these decrees become subject to the requirements of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by this law, rather
    than the existing decrees that were in effect on the date of
    enactment.
        The new law also makes clear that local, but not State,
    taxation of the direct-to-home satellite service market is
    preempted by the Federal government.
        Many of the provisions and reforms of H.R. 1528, the
    Antitrust Consent Decree Reform Act of 1995, reported to the
    House by the House Committee on the Judiciary, were included in
    this title.

    Title VII--Miscellaneous Provisions

        The new law implements other communications reforms,
    including: (1) preventing abuse of the toll-free numbers for
    ``pay-per-call'' services; (2) increasing the privacy of
    consumers using telecommunications equipment; (3) reforming the
    reimbursement structure for pole attachments; (4) establishing
    certain procedures for cellular facilities siting; (5)
    clarifying that commercial mobile service providers are not
    required to provide equal access to long distance carriers; (6)
    studying whether advanced telecommunications capability is
    being deployed; (7) forming a ``Telecommunications Development
    Fund'' to provide funding for small telecommunications firms;
    (8) forming the ``National Education Technology Funding
    Corporation'' to increase investment in educational technology;
    (9) reporting on the status of Federal telemedicine projects;
    and (10) authorizing appropriations to implement the provisions
    of the new law.

    Legislative History

        On May 3, 1995, Representatives Bliley, Dingell, Fields of
    Texas, Moorhead, Oxley, Bilirakis, Schaefer, Barton of Texas,
    Hastert, Stearns, Paxon, Gillmor, Klug, Greenwood, Crapo,
    Frisa, White, Coburn, Tauzin, Hall of Texas, Boucher, Manton,
    Towns, Eshoo, and Lincoln introduced H.R. 1555, Communications
    Act of 1995, in the House. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the
    Judiciary.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on H.R. 1555 and three other bills on May 10,
    May 11, and May 12, 1995. The three additional bills were H.R.
    514, a bill to repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of
    licensed telecommunications facilities; H.R. 912, a bill to
    permit registered utility holding companies to participate in
    the provision of telecommunications services; and H.R. 1556, a
    bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce the
    restrictions on ownership of broadcasting stations and other
    media of mass communications. Testimony was received from over
    50 witnesses, including representatives from the Federal
    government, industry, and private organizations.
        On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1555 and
    approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, as amended,
    by a voice vote. The Full Committee met in open markup session
    to consider H.R. 1555 on May 24 and May 25, 1995; on May 25,
    1995, the Full Committee ordered the bill reported to the
    House, amended, by a roll call vote of 38 yeas to 5 nays. The
    Committee reported H.R. 1555 to the House on July 24, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-240, Part 1).
        On July 24, 1995, the referral of the bill to the Committee
    on the Judiciary was extended for a period ending not later
    than July 24, 1995. Subsequently, the Committee on the
    Judiciary was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1555 on July 24, 1995.
        On August 1, 1995, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1555. The rule was
    filed in the House as H. Res. 207. On August 3, 1995
    (legislative day of August 2, 1995), the House passed H. Res.
    207 by a roll call vote of 255 yeas to 156 nays. The House
    considered H.R. 1555 on August 3, 1995 (legislative day of
    August 2, 1995) and August 4, 1995. On August 4, 1995, the
    House passed H.R. 1555, as amended, by a roll call vote of 305
    yeas to 117 nays. No further action was taken on H.R. 1555.
        On March 30, 1995, Mr. Pressler introduced S. 652, the
    Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995, in
    the Senate as an original measure reported by the Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on that date
    (S. Rpt. 104-23).
        The Senate considered S. 652 on June 7, June 8, June 9,
    June 12, June 13, June 14, and June 15, 1995; on June 15, 1995,
    the Senate passed S. 652, amended, by a roll call vote of 81
    yeas to 18 nays. S. 652 was received in the House and June 20,
    1995, and held at the Speaker's desk.
        On October 12, 1995, the House, pursuant to the provisions
    of H. Res. 207, took S. 652 from the Speaker's desk and, by a
    voice vote, passed the bill, as amended with the text of H.R.
    1555, as passed by the House on August 4, 1995. The House then
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    Senate, and appointed conferees. A motion to instruct the
    conferees passed by a voice vote on October 12, 1995. The
    Senate disagreed with the House amendment to S. 652, agreed to
    a conference with the House, and appointed conferees on October
    13, 1995.
        Conference meetings were held on October 25, December 6,
    and December 12, 1995. The conference report on S. 652 was
    filed in the House on January 31, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-458). The
    conference report was filed in the Senate on February 1, 1996
    (S. Rpt. 104-230).
        The House agreed to the conference report to S. 652 on
    February 1, 1996, by a roll call vote of 414 yeas to 16 nays.
    The Senate agreed to the conference report on February 1, 1996,
    by a roll call vote of 91 yeas to 5 nays.
        On February 2, 1996, S. 652 was presented to the President.
    On February 8, 1996, the President signed S. 652 into law (P.L.
    104-104).

                 contract with america advancement act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-121 (H.R. 3136, H.R. 994)

        To provide for enactment of the Senior Citizens' Right to
    Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, and the Small
    Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide for a
    permanent increase in the public debt limit.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement
    Act of 1996, is a three-title bill which includes: (1)
    provisions concerning regulatory reform and Congressional
    review of rulemaking activities by Federal departments and
    agencies, including those under the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce; and (2) provisions relating to health
    issues.
        Title I of H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
    of 1996, amends Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA) to
    allow persons of retirement age to increase their earnings
    under the earnings limits set by the SSA.
        Title I includes a provision under the Commerce Committee's
    jurisdiction which directs the Commissioner of Social Security
    to: (1) ensure that funds made available for continuing
    disability reviews are used, to the greatest extent
    practicable, to maximize the combined savings in the Old-Age,
    Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), Supplemental
    Security Income (SSI), Medicare, and Medicaid programs; and (2)
    provide annually, at the conclusion of each of the 7 years from
    Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2002, a report to Congress
    on continuing disability reviews that includes the results of
    such reviews in terms of cessations of benefits or
    determinations of continuing eligibility, by program.
        Title II of H.R. 3136, the Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, provides regulatory reform
    for small businesses, as defined in Title II, and Congressional
    review of Federal agency rules. The major provisions of Title
    II are as follows:

    (1) requires agencies to provide increased compliance
            assistance to small businesses;
    (2) requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
            designate a ``Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
            Enforcement Ombudsman'' to provide a confidential
            channel for audited small businesses to comment on such
            procedures;
    (3) requires the SBA to establish regional ``Small Business
            Regulatory Fairness Boards'' to report to the
            Ombudsman;
    (4) allows administrative and judicial courts to award fees and
            costs to small businesses if the judgment demanded by
            an agency is substantially in excess of that awarded;
    (5) amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require an
            analysis by the promulgating agency of the effects of a
            rule on small businesses; and
    (6) lays out a framework for Congressional review of newly
            promulgated agency rules.
        This legislation will require the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance to review recently promulgated
    rules by the Federal agencies and departments within its
    jurisdiction, including the Federal Communications Commission,
    the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Department of
    Commerce National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration.
        Title III of H.R. 3136, Public Debt Limit, raises the
    public debt limit to $5.5 trillion.

    Legislative History

        On February 21, 1995, H.R. 994, the Regulatory Sunset and
    Review Act of 1995, was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Chapman, Mica, DeLay, Deal of Georgia, and
    Geren of Texas. The bill was referred to the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the
    Committee on the Judiciary.
        On October 19, 1995, the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part
    1). The referral of the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary
    was extended for a period ending not later than November 3,
    1995. On October 26, 1995, H.R. 994, as reported by the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce, sequentially, for a period ending
    not later than November 3, 1995.
        On October 25, 1995, the Committee on Commerce scheduled a
    Full Committee hearing on H.R. 994. On October 30, 1995, the
    Full Committee hearing was cancelled because of scheduling
    conflicts. In lieu of the Full Committee hearing, the Committee
    conducted a briefing on November 3, 1995, at which
    representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of
    Transportation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission, and the
    Food and Drug Administration presented the views of their
    respective departments and agencies on the impact of, and
    concerns with, the provisions of H.R. 994, as reported to the
    House by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
        On November 3, 1995, the referral of H.R. 994 to the
    Committee on the Judiciary was extended for a period ending not
    later than November 7, 1995. On November 3, 1995, the Committee
    on Commerce was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    994. On November 7, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary
    reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part 2). On
    February 29, 1996, the Rules Committee met and granted a rule
    providing for the consideration of H.R. 994. The rule was filed
    in the House as H. Res. 368 on February 29, 1996. H. Res. 368
    made in order, as an original bill for purposes of amendment,
    an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to be offered by Mr.
    Hyde and printed in the Congressional Record (Printed in the
    Congressional Record on February 29, 1996.) On April 17, 1996,
    H. Res. 368 was laid on the table by unanimous consent.
        On March 21, 1996, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 3136 in the
    House. H.R. 3136 contained language similar to H.R. 994. As
    introduced in the House, Title II, Subtitles A through D, of
    H.R. 3136 aimed to achieve the same goal as Sections 102 and
    103 of H.R. 994, as scheduled for consideration by the House
    under the provisions of H. Res. 368. The goal of Sections 102
    and 103, ``Rules Commented on by SBA Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy'' and ``Sense of Congress Regarding SBA Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy,'' respectively, was to achieve a streamlined and
    effective regulatory process for small businesses.
    Additionally, Subtitle E of Title II of H.R. 3136,
    ``Congressional Review,'' contains only one section, Section
    807, that differs from Title III of H.R. 994, as scheduled for
    consideration by the House.
        H.R. 3136 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, the Committee
    on Rules, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
    Small Business, and the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight.
        On March 27, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3136. The rule was
    filed in the House on March 27, 1996 as H. Res. 391 (H. Rpt.
    104-500). On March 28, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 391 by a
    roll call vote of 232 yeas to 177 nays. H. Res. 391 provided,
    among other things, that amendments printed in the Committee
    report on H. Res. 391 shall be considered as adopted.
        The House considered H.R. 3136 on March 28, 1996, and
    passed the bill, by a roll call vote of 328 yeas to 91 nays. On
    March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was received in the Senate. The
    Senate proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3136 on
    March 28, 1996, and passed the bill without amendment.
        On March 29, 1996, H.R. 3136 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 3136 into law on March 29,
    1996 (P.L. 104-121).

              national securities markets improvement act of 1996

      Public Law 104-290 (H.R. 3005, S. 1815, H.R. 2131, H.R. 1495, H.R.
                                     2972)

        To amend the Federal securities laws in order to promote
    efficiency and capital formation in the financial markets, and
    to amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to promote more
    efficient management of mutual funds, protect investors, and
    provide more effective and less burdensome regulations.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 3005 is to promote efficiency and
    capital formation in the financial markets, promote more
    efficient management of mutual funds, protect investors,
    provide more effective and less burdensome regulation, and
    eliminate excess securities fees.

    Title I--Capital Markets

        The development and growth of the nation's capital markets
    prompted the Committee to examine the need for legislation
    modernizing and rationalizing securities regulation to promote
    investment, decrease the cost of capital, and encourage
    competition without diminishing our longstanding commitment to
    investor protection. It was discovered that the system of dual
    Federal and State securities regulation has resulted in a
    degree of duplicative and unnecessary regulation and that
    securities offerings and the brokers and dealers engaged in
    securities transactions were subject to a dual system of
    regulation that in some instances was redundant, costly, and
    ineffective.
        Title I addresses this problem by reallocating
    responsibility over the regulation of the nation's securities
    markets in a more logical fashion between the Federal
    government and the States. With respect to securities
    offerings, the regulatory responsibility between the Federal
    government and the States has been allocated based on the
    nature of the securities offering. Offerings involving
    securities that are inherently national in nature, such as
    those traded on national securities exchanges and made by
    investment companies, are, therefore, subject only to Federal
    regulation. Smaller, regional, and intrastate securities
    offerings remain subject to State regulation. The legislation
    preserves State antifraud laws, as well as States' ability to
    collect fees and require notice filings for securities that are
    now exempt from their review.
        Title I contains other provisions designed to improve the
    efficiency of the regulation of the securities markets and
    reduce unnecessary regulatory costs. Specifically, it provides
    national standards for broker dealers for capital, custody,
    margin, financial responsibility, books and records, and
    bonding requirements. It also provides a grace period from
    State registration for a certain number of de minimis
    transactions. Eligible sources of financing for broker dealers
    are broadened through amendments to laws governing margin.
        In addition, H.R. 3005 includes provisions that: (1) grant
    the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) general exemptive
    authority; (2) direct the SEC to consider efficiency,
    competition, and capital formation when considering rulemaking;
    (3) establish a Federal requirement that securities authorities
    coordinate examination efforts and share information; and (4)
    direct the SEC to promulgate regulations to facilitate access
    of American news organizations to foreign press conferences,
    meetings with company representatives conducted offshore, and
    press related materials released offshore in which an offering
    of securities is discussed.

    Title II--Investment Company Act Amendments

        Title II of H.R. 3005 promotes more efficient management of
    mutual funds, protects investors, and provides more effective
    and less burdensome regulation. This is accomplished through
    amendments to the Investment Company Act of 1940 that (1)
    facilitate mutual fund investments in other mutual funds; (2)
    improve the ability of mutual funds to advertise; (3) provide
    the SEC with flexibility to require investment companies to
    provide information to investors; (4) authorize the SEC to
    require investment companies to maintain books and records that
    must be available for SEC review; (5) prohibit names that the
    SEC finds are deceptive for investment companies; and (6)
    establish a new category of private investment companies.

    Title III--Investment Advisers Supervision Coordination Act

        The regulation of investment advisers is addressed in Title
    III by dividing the responsibility for supervision between the
    Federal government and the States. The legislation allocates
    the responsibility based on the size of the adviser, creating a
    dividing line of $25 million or more in assets under management
    or being an adviser to an investment company as the criteria
    for the Federal government being the primary regulator. The
    authority of State officials and the SEC to investigate and
    bring enforcement actions against any investment adviser for
    fraud or deceit is preserved, as well as the State authority
    for setting licensing requirements of investment adviser
    representatives with a place of business in the licensing
    State. The SEC is expected to define the term investment
    adviser representative.
        The legislation gives investors greater access to the
    enforcement background history of investment advisers, and
    authorizes the SEC to prohibit registration to anyone who has
    been convicted of a felony within the previous 10 years.
    Regulation of investment advisers is also made more efficient
    by providing uniformity in State requirements for books and
    records, capital, and bonding requirements. Investment advisers
    will not have to register in a State where they do not have a
    place of business and have no more than five clients.

    Title IV--Securities and Exchange Commission Authorization

        The purpose of Title IV, the Securities and Exchange
    Commission Authorization Act of 1996, is to reauthorize the SEC
    and to reduce excess fee collections. The legislation
    authorizes $300 million for the SEC for Fiscal Year 1997. Fee
    rates imposed for the registration of securities with the SEC
    are reduced incrementally over a 10 year period. Fees for
    transactions that are currently imposed on trades on the New
    York and American Stock Exchanges are also applied, in a
    consistent manner, to off-exchange trades including those
    conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers
    Automated Quotation (NASDAQ) system.

    Title V--Reducing the Cost of Saving and Investment

        Title V encourages capital formation while also providing
    for studies of several issues that impact the securities
    markets. Church employee pension plans are conditionally
    exempted from most Federal securities regulation, and the
    availability of funding for business development companies is
    improved. The legislation requires studies to be conducted to:
    (1) examine the impact of technological advances on the
    securities markets; (2) study and report on shareholder access
    to proxy statements; and (3) study and report on the market
    practice of ``preferencing.''

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a
    hearing on H.R. 1495, the Investment Company Act Amendments of
    1995, on October 31, 1995. Testimony was received from
    representatives of mutual fund companies, industry trade
    groups, and Federal regulators.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance also
    held 3 days of hearings on H.R. 2131, the Capital Markets
    Deregulation and Liberalization Act of 1995, and the current
    state of regulation of the securities markets on November 14,
    November 30, and December 5, 1995. Testimony was received from
    State and Federal regulators as well as representatives of
    industry trade groups and financial experts.
        On March 5, 1996, Mr. Fields of Texas introduced H.R. 3005,
    the Securities Amendments of 1996, in the House. As introduced,
    H.R. 3005 contained the intent and much of the text of H.R.
    2131 and H.R. 1495, as previously considered by the
    Subcommittee during its hearings on these two bills. For the
    legislative history of H.R. 2131 and H.R. 1495, see the
    discussions of those bills in this section.
        On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance met in an open markup session to consider H.R.
    3005, and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 25 yeas to 0 nays.
        The Full Committee met in an open markup session to
    consider H.R. 3005 on May 15, 1996, and ordered the bill
    reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 3005 to the House on June 17, 1996 (H.
    Rpt. 104-622).
        The House considered H.R. 3005 under Suspension of the
    Rules on June 18 and June 19, 1996. On June 19, 1996, the House
    passed H.R. 3005, as amended with a Manager's Amendment in the
    Nature of a Substitute, by a roll call vote of 407 yeas to 8
    nays and 1 voting present. The Amendment in the Nature of a
    Substitute adopted by the House added a new Title III to H.R.
    3005 consisting of the text of H.R. 2972, the Securities and
    Exchange Commission Authorization Act of 1996, as passed by the
    House on March 12, 1996. On June 20, 1996, H.R. 3005 was
    received in the Senate.
        On May 23, 1996, Senators Gramm, D'Amato, Dodd, Bryan, and
    Moseley-Braun introduced S. 1815, a companion bill to H.R.
    3005, in the Senate. The bill was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. On June 26,
    1996, the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
    reported S. 1815 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-293).
        On June 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3005 and
    passed the bill amended with the text of S. 1815, as amended by
    the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and
    reported to the Senate on June 26, 1996. The Senate then
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    House, and appointed conferees.
        On July 24, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3005, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3005 was
    filed in the House on September 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-864). On
    September 28, 1996, the House considered the conference report
    on H.R. 3005 under Suspension of the Rules, and agreed to the
    conference report by a voice vote. On October 1, 1996, by
    unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3005, and agreed
    to the conference report.
        H.R. 3005 was presented to the President on October 3,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 3005 into law on October 11,
    1996 (P.L. 104-290).

                 omnibus consolidated appropriations act, 1997

               Public Law 104-208 (H.R. 3610, S. 1894, H.R. 4278)

        Making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the Fiscal
    Year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3610 served as an omnibus continuing appropriations
    measure for those Federal agencies which did not have
    individual Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations measures enacted
    into law. Affected agencies and entities included the
    Departments of Justice, Commerce, State, Defense, Interior,
    Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and the Treasury,
    as well as the Post Office and the Judiciary. Independent
    agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission were also funded
    by the bill. Additionally, a number of legislative provisions,
    some affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    were included in H.R. 3610.
        Specifically, H.R. 3610 adds a new Title IV to Public Law
    103-414, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
    (CALEA). This new title establishes a fund, entitled the
    ``Telecommunications Carrier Compliance Fund,'' and authorizes
    agencies with law enforcement and intelligence responsibilities
    to transfer unobligated balances into this fund to reimburse
    telecommunications carriers for compliance with the provisions
    of CALEA. The Committee on Commerce did not oppose the
    inclusion of this language.
        H.R. 3610 also contains provisions relating to spectrum
    allocation. It requires the Federal Communications Commission
    (FCC) to assign by means of competitive bidding, consistent
    with international agreements, licenses for wireless
    subscription services for portions of the electromagnetic
    spectrum located at 2305-2320 megahertz and 2345-2360
    megahertz. The FCC, in adopting procedures for the assignment
    of licenses in this band, must: (1) seek to promote the most
    efficient use of the spectrum; and (2) take into account the
    needs of public safety radio services. The FCC must also
    commence the competitive bidding for the assignment of the
    licenses for these frequencies by April 15, 1997. In order to
    meet the deadlines imposed by the Act, the FCC is permitted to
    waive certain statutory notice and comment timetables. All
    revenue generated from the assignment of such licenses must be
    collected and deposited in the U.S. Treasury by September 30,
    1997. The requirements of the Act apply only to the assignment
    of licenses for the specified frequencies. Nothing in the Act
    shall be interpreted as a change of current policy governing
    competitive bidding for spectrum for any frequencies other than
    those specified in this section. The Committee on Commerce
    assisted in the drafting of the legislative language and
    approved its inclusion in the Act with a reservation based on
    the concern for the spectrum needs of the public safety
    community.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3610 was introduced in the House on June 11, 1996, by
    Mr. Young of Florida and reported to the House on the same day
    by the Committee on Appropriations (H. Rpt. 104-617). On June
    13, 1996, the House considered and passed H.R. 3610, amended,
    by a roll call vote of 278 yeas to 126 nays.
        On June 14, 1996, H.R. 3610 was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. On June 20,
    1996, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1894,
    a companion bill, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-286). The Senate
    considered S. 1894 on July 11, July 17, and July 18, 1996. On
    July 18, 1996, the Committee on Appropriations was discharged
    from further consideration of H.R. 3610, and the bill was
    passed, by a roll call vote of 72 yeas to 27 nays, as amended
    with the text of S. 1894 as amended by the Senate.
    Subsequently, S. 1894 was returned to the Senate Calendar and
    no further action was taken on that bill. The Senate then
    insisted on its amendment to H.R. 3610, requested a conference
    with the House, and appointed conferees on July 18, 1996.
        On July 30, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3610, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3610 was
    filed in the House on September 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-863). On
    September 28, 1996, the House agreed to the conference report
    on H.R. 3610 by roll call vote of 370 yeas to 37 nays. Pursuant
    to a unanimous consent agreement reached earlier that day, upon
    the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 3610, H.R. 4278,
    a bill making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the
    Fiscal Year ending September 30, 1997, was considered as
    passed. The text of H.R. 4278 was identical to the text
    contained in the conference report on H.R. 3610.
        On September 30, 1996, the Senate considered and passed
    H.R. 4278 by a roll call vote of 84 yeas to 15 nays. Then
    Senate then agreed to the conference report on H.R. 3610 by a
    voice vote. On September 30, 1996, H.R. 3610 was presented to
    the President. On September 30, 1996, the President signed H.R.
    3610 into law (P.L. 104-208).

                          balanced budget act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2491)

         (Title III--Communications and Spectrum Allocation Provisions)

        To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of
    the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 1996.

    Summary

        Title III of H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as
    presented to the President, contains provisions relating to
    communications and spectrum allocation, which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
        Title III extends the Federal Communications Commission's
    (FCC's) competitive bidding authority through Fiscal Year 2002
    and expands the scope for which the FCC may use the competitive
    bidding process (spectrum auctions) for the awarding of
    licenses. It maintains the requirement that competitive bidding
    be used to select licensees from among mutually exclusive
    applications. Further, it exempts from these requirements
    licenses or construction permits used by public safety radio
    services and initial licenses or construction permits for
    advanced television (ATV).
        It also requires the FCC to complete all actions necessary
    to permit the assignment of licenses by September 30, 2002, of
    100 megahertz (MHz) of spectrum located below 3 gigahertz not
    previously designated for auction or for reallocation by the
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA). If the FCC cannot provide for effective relocation of
    incumbent licensees, it is required to notify the NTIA of
    suitable government spectrum needed for relocating current
    license holders. The NTIA would be required to identify
    spectrum allocated to the Federal government for reallocation
    to meet commercial relocation needs.
        Finally, Title III requires the NTIA to identify and
    designate for reallocation to the FCC a single frequency band
    of 20 megahertz of spectrum under 3 gigahertz. The FCC is
    required then to schedule an auction for this reallocated
    spectrum within 1 year.

    Legislative History

        On September 13, 1995, the Full Committee considered and
    approved two Committee Prints pertaining to communications
    issues for transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for
    inclusion in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 as follows.
        The first Committee Print. entitled ``Communications:
    Spectrum Auctions'', was approved, as amended, by a voice vote.
    Prior to this action, on September 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held a hearing on Federal
    Management of the Radio Spectrum, focusing on the Federal
    spectrum management activities of the Department of Commerce's
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration
    (NTIA). Witnesses included a representative from the NTIA, as
    well as several representatives from private research
    organizations. The panel discussed the spectrum needs of the
    Federal government in relation to its current allocation of
    spectrum.
        The second Committee Print, entitled ``Communications:
    Federal Communications Commission Authorization'', was
    approved, as amended, by a voice vote. Prior to this action, on
    June 19, 1995, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance held a hearing on H.R. 1869, the Federal Communications
    Commission Authorization Act of 1995. For the legislative
    history of H.R. 1869, see the discussion of that bill in this
    section.
        In addition, on September 14, and September 19, 1995, the
    Full Committee considered a Committee Print entitled
    ``Department of Commerce Abolition''. On September 19, 1995,
    the Full Committee approved the Committee Print, as amended,
    for transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in
    the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 by a roll call vote of 25 yeas
    to 19 nays. Prior to this action, on July 24, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a
    joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance on H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling
    Act of 1995. For the legislative history of that bill, see the
    discussion of the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of
    1995 (H.R. 1756) in this section.
        The provisions of these three Committee Prints were
    included in the text of Title III and Title XVII of H.R. 2491
    as reported to the House by the Committee on the Budget on
    October 17, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-280, Volumes I and II). The House
    considered H.R. 2491 on October 25 and October 26, 1995, and
    passed the bill on October 26, 1995, by a roll call vote of 227
    yeas to 203 nays. H.R. 2491 was received in the Senate on
    October 27, 1995, read twice, and placed on the Senate
    Calendar. The Senate passed H.R. 2491 on October 28, 1995, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 52 yeas to 47 nays. On October
    30, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate amendments,
    requested a conference with the Senate, and appointed
    conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce were appointed
    as conferees. The Senate insisted on its amendments, agreed to
    a conference with the House, and appointed conferees on
    November 13, 1995.
        On November 15, 1995, the conference report was filed in
    the House (H. Rpt. 104-347). On November 17, 1995, the House
    passed H. Res. 272 which vacated the proceedings with respect
    to H. Rpt. 104-347, and the conference report was refiled in
    the House as H. Rpt. 104-350. The provisions dealing with the
    Federal Communications Commission Authorization and the
    Department of Commerce Abolition were deleted from the final
    legislation because of assertions by the Senate conferees that
    consideration of these provisions was prohibited by Section
    313(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
        The House agreed to the conference report on November 17,
    1995, by a roll call vote of 237 yeas to 189 nays. The Senate
    sustained a point of order against the conference report on
    November 17, 1995 as being in violation of the Congressional
    Budget Act with respect to consideration of Section 1853(f) of
    the Social Security Act as added by Section 8001 of the
    conference report and Section 13301 of Subtitle M of Title XIII
    of the conference report. The Senate then, by a roll call vote
    of 52 yeas to 47 nays, receded from its amendment to H.R. 2491
    and concurred therein with a further amendment consisting of
    the text of the conference report (H. Rpt. 104-350) excluding
    the provisions stricken on the point of order. On November 20,
    1995, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a roll call
    vote of 235 yeas to 192 nays, and cleared the measure for the
    President. H.R. 2491 was presented to the President on November
    30, 1995. On December 6, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 2491
    and returned the bill to the House (H. Doc. 104-141). The veto
    message and the accompanying bill were referred to the
    Committee on the Budget on December 6, 1995.

                 tax fairness and deficit reduction act of 1995

                             (H.R. 1215, H.R. 1327)

        To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strengthen
    the American family and create jobs.

    Summary

        Title II of H.R. 1215 incorporates the text of H.R. 1218, a
    bill to extend the authority of the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) to use competitive bidding in granting
    licenses and permits. The bill amends the Communications Act of
    1934 to extend through Fiscal Year 2000 the FCC's authority to
    use competitive bidding. The FCC's competitive bidding
    authority is due to expire on September 30, 1998.

    Legislative History

        On March 13, 1995, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 1215 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
    Means. On March 21, 1995, the Committee on Ways and Means
    reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 104-84). On April 5,
    1995, the House considered H.R. 1215 and agreed to an amendment
    in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
    1327, a bill introduced by Representatives Kasich, Archer, and
    Bliley. The House passed H.R. 1215, as amended, by a roll call
    vote of 246 yeas to 188 nays. Included within the text of H.R.
    1327 were the provisions of H.R. 1218, a bill to extend the
    authority of the Federal Communications Commission to use
    competitive bidding in granting licenses and permits, as
    reported to the House by the Committee on Commerce on March 23,
    1995. For the legislative history of H.R. 1218, see the
    discussion of that bill in this section.
        On April 6, 1995, H.R. 1215 was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No further action
    was taken in the Senate on the legislation during the 104th
    Congress.

          securities and exchange commission authorization act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 2972)

        To authorize appropriations for the Securities and Exchange
    Commission, to reduce the fees collected under the Federal
    securities laws, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2972 is to provide a stable funding
    mechanism for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
    to reduce over time different fees charged by the SEC. In lieu
    of a ``self-funding'' or ``user-fee'' system, H.R. 2972
    gradually moves the SEC from reliance on increased offsetting
    fees towards a full appropriation.
        H.R. 2972 represents an agreement reached between the
    Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Ways Means, and the
    Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    State and Judiciary. The bill provides that: (1) different fees
    charged by the SEC are reduced incrementally over 6 years by
    over $751 million; and (2) over the same period, the SEC is
    increasingly funded by means of an appropriation, so that at
    the end of the period, the SEC is fully funded by means of an
    appropriation and SEC fees approximately cover the cost of
    running the SEC. These fees will be deposited in the Treasury
    as general revenue.

    Legislative History

        On February 27, 1996, H.R. 2972 was introduced in the House
    by Representatives Bliley, Archer, Rogers, Fields of Texas,
    Dingell, Markey, Oxley, and Tauzin.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a
    hearing on H.R. 2972 on February 28, 1996, and received
    testimony from Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the Securities and
    Exchange Commission. Immediately following the hearing, the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 2972, and approved the bill for
    Full Committee consideration, by a voice vote.
        On March 6, 1996, the Full Committee met in an open markup
    session to consider H.R. 2972 and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2972 to the House on March 12, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-479).
        On March 12, 1996, the House considered H.R. 2972 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
    March 13, 1996, H.R. 2972 was received in the Senate, read
    twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking,
    Housing, and Urban Affairs.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 2972 in the 104th
    Congress. However, substantially all of the provisions of H.R.
    2972 were included in H.R. 3005, National Securities Markets
    Improvement Act of 1996, and enacted into law. For the
    legislative history of H.R. 3005, see the discussion of the
    National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996 in this
    section.

           repeal of 4.3-cent increase in transportation fuels taxes

                                  (H.R. 3415)

        To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the
    4.3-cent increase in the transportation motor fuels excise tax
    rates enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
    and dedicated to the general fund of the Treasury.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 3415 is to provide for a temporary
    repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund excise tax on
    transportation motor fuels, effective during the period
    beginning 7 days after enactment through December 31, 1996. The
    bill also includes a ``Sense of Congress'' that the full
    benefit of the repeal be passed through to consumers, and
    directs the General Accounting Office to study the impact of
    the repeal of the 4.3-cents-per gallon transportation motor
    fuels excise tax on consumers, and to report its findings to
    Congress by January 3, 1997. Finally, H.R. 3415 includes two
    budgetary offset provisions which fall within the jurisdiction
    of the Committee on Commerce, Section 6 and Section 7.
        Section 7 of H.R. 3415 requires the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) to complete all actions necessary to permit
    the assignment of licenses by March 31, 1998, by competitive
    bidding of 35 megahertz (MHz) of spectrum (in blocks not less
    than 12.5 MHz unless smaller blocks would produce greater
    receipts) located below 3 gigahertz not previously designated
    for auction or reallocation by the National Telecommunications
    and Information Administration (NTIA) or not reserved for the
    use of Federal Government.
        In making available bands of frequencies available for
    auction, the FCC is required to: (1) seek to promote the most
    efficient use of the spectrum; (2) take into account the cost
    to incumbent licensees of relocating existing uses to other
    bands of frequencies or other means of communication; (3) take
    into account the needs of public safety radio services; (4)
    comply with the requirements of international agreements
    concerning spectrum allocations; and (5) take into account the
    costs to satellite service providers that could result from
    multiple auctions of like spectrum internationally for global
    satellite systems.
        Section 7 also makes the FCC's auction authority permanent.

    Legislative History

        On May 8, 1996, Representatives Seastrand, Riggs, Royce,
    and Zimmer introduced H.R. 3415 in the House. The bill was
    referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
    the Committee on Commerce. On May 8, 1996, the Committee on
    Ways and Means ordered H.R. 3415 reported to the House,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 23 yeas to 13 nays.
        On May 15, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
    Means indicating that H.R. 3415 included provisions within the
    jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. The Chairman further
    stated that the Committee on Commerce had reviewed the action
    taken by the Ways and Means Committee and in order to expedite
    consideration of this measure by the House, the Committee on
    Commerce would not insist on its right to a sequential referral
    of H.R. 3415 provided that: (1) based on an agreement between
    the two Committees, certain clarifications would be made to
    Section 6 and Section 7; and (2) the waiver of its right to a
    sequential referral would not prejudice the Commerce
    Committee's future jurisdictional interests in the legislation.
        On May 15, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
    Means sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
    concerns with respect to H.R. 3415 and the Commerce Committee's
    prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 3415 to the
    House on May 15, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-576, Part 1). Referral of
    H.R. 3415 to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a
    period ending not later than May 15, 1996. The Committee on
    Commerce was subsequently discharged from further consideration
    of H.R. 3415 on May 15, 1996.
        On May 16, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3415. The rule was
    filed in the House as H. Res. 436 (H. Rpt. 104-580).
        On May 21, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 436 by a voice
    vote. H. Res. 436 provided, among other things, that an
    amendment to Section 7 offered by the Chairman of the Commerce
    Committee and printed in H. Rpt. 104-580 shall be considered as
    adopted upon the adoption of H. Res. 436. The House then
    considered H.R. 3415, and passed the bill, amended, by a roll
    call vote of 301 yeas to 108 nays.
        On May 22, 1996, H.R. 3415 was received in the Senate. On
    June 25, 1996, H.R. 3415 was read twice and referred to the
    Senate Committee on Finance. No further action was taken on
    H.R. 3415 in the 104th Congress.

                 space commercialization promotion act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3936)

        To encourage the development of a commercial space industry
    in the United States, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 3936 is to encourage the development of
    a commercial space industry in the United States by (1)
    streamlining government regulatory procedures and (2) providing
    investment incentives and risk reduction measures for investors
    to encourage private sector participation in the space
    industry.
        As passed by the House, H.R. 3936 contains two provisions
    that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
    Both Section 105, ``Promotion of United States Global
    Positioning Systems Standards,'' and Section 201, ``Land Remote
    Sensing Policy Act of 1992 Amendments,'' place new obligations
    on the Federal Communications Commission and change the
    application of the fee structure as established in the
    Communications Act of 1934.

    Legislative History

        On August 1, 1996, H.R. 3936 was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Walker, Sensenbrenner, Largent, Weldon of
    Florida, Rohrabacher, Hilleary, Stockman, Davis, Calvert, Baker
    of California, Seastrand, and Tiahrt. The bill was referred to
    the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight.
        On September 11, 1996, the Committee on Science met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 3936 and ordered the bill
    reported to the House.
        On September 17, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Science indicating that H.R. 3936 included provisions within
    the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. The Chairman
    further stated that the Committee on Commerce had reviewed the
    action taken by the Science Committee and in order to expedite
    consideration of this measure by the House, the Committee on
    Commerce would not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 3936,
    provided such action would not prejudice the Commerce
    Committee's future jurisdictional interests in the legislation.
        On September 17, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Science sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
    concerns with respect to H.R. 3936 and the Commerce Committee's
    prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        The Committee on Science reported H.R. 3936 to the House on
    September 17, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-801, Part 1). Referral of the
    bill to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight was
    extended for a period ending not later than September 17, 1996.
        On September 17, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3936 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, as amended, by a
    voice vote. H.R. 3936 was received in the Senate on September
    18, 1996.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 3936 in the 104th
    Congress.

                         common sense legal reforms act

         (Title II of H.R. 10--Reform of Private Securities Litigation)

        To reform the Federal civil justice system; to reform
    product liability law.

    Summary

        The purpose of Title II of H.R. 10 is to reform the Federal
    civil justice system with regard to private securities
    litigation. It eliminates certain abusive practices, provides
    for greater plaintiff control over litigation, and defines or
    modifies the legal standards establishing liability in actions
    based on securities fraud.

    Legislative History

        On January 4, 1995, Representatives Hyde, Ramstad,
    Chenoweth, and Condit and 117 cosponsors introduced H.R. 10,
    the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act, in the House. H.R. 10 was
    referred by title to the Committee on the Judiciary, the
    Committee on Rules, and the Committee on Commerce. Title II,
    Reform of Private Securities Litigation, was referred to the
    Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the
    Judiciary. Within the Committee on Commerce, Title II of H.R.
    10 was referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance for a period ending not later than February 10, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 2
    days of hearings on Title II of H.R. 10 on January 19 and
    February 10, 1995. Testimony was received from Federal and
    State regulators, law professors, accounting firms,
    corporations, various trade associations, and law firms
    representing both plaintiffs and defendants in class action
    suits.
        On February 10, 1995, the referral of the bill to the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications was extended for an
    additional period ending not later than February 14, 1995. On
    February 14, 1995, the Subcommittee met in open markup session
    and approved Title II of H.R. 10 for Full Committee
    consideration, as amended, by a voice vote.
        On February 16, 1995, the Full Committee met in open markup
    session to consider Title II of H.R. 10, and ordered the bill
    reported to the House, amended, by a roll call vote of 32 yeas
    to 10 nays, and 3 voting present. On February 24, 1995, the
    Committee reported H.R. 10 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-50, Part
    1). No further action was taken on H.R. 10 in the 104th
    Congress.
        On February 27, 1995, Representatives Bliley, Fields of
    Texas, Cox, and Tauzin introduced H.R. 1058, the Securities
    Litigation Reform Act, in the House. As introduced, the text of
    H.R. 1058 was identical to the text of Title II of H.R. 10, as
    reported to the House by the Committee on Commerce on February
    24, 1995. H.R. 1058 was enacted into law as Public Law 104-67.
    For the legislative history of H.R. 1058, see the discussion of
    the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in this
    section.

    to  extend  the  authority  of  the  federal  communications commission
          to use competitive bidding in granting licenses and permits

                                  (H.R. 1218)

        To extend the authority of the Federal Communications
    Commission to use competitive bidding in granting licenses and
    permits.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1218 is to extend the Federal
    Communication Commission's (FCC) competitive bidding authority,
    which was originally granted in 1993 through Fiscal Year 1998.
    H.R. 1218 extends this authority for an additional 2 years,
    through the end of Fiscal Year 2000. The bill does not expand
    the scope of the authority beyond current authorization.

    Legislative History

        On March 13, 1995, Mr. Bliley introduced H.R. 1218 in the
    House. On March 15, 1995, a request that H.R. 1218 be
    considered directly by the Full Committee was agreed to by
    unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered H.R. 1218
    and ordered the bill reported to the House by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 1218 to the House on March 23, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-88). No further action was taken on H.R. 1218 in the
    104th Congress.
        The provisions of H.R. 1218 were incorporated into the text
    of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of
    1995, which passed the House on April 5, 1995. For the
    legislative history of that bill, see the discussion of the Tax
    Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 (H.R. 1215) in this
    section.

                 financial services competitiveness act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1062)

        To enhance competition in the financial services industry
    by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of
    banks, securities firms, and other financial services
    providers.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1062 is to permit affiliations between
    full-service depository institutions and full-service
    securities companies.
        First, it permits a firm to conduct both banking and full
    service securities activities under the legal framework of the
    Bank Holding Company Act, which H.R. 1062 renames the Financial
    Services Holding Company Act. Second, it requires that banking
    and securities activities be conducted in separate subsidiaries
    of the bank holding company or in separately identifiable
    divisions or departments of banks subject to ``functional
    regulation'' by the appropriate bank regulator and the
    Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively. Third, it
    imposes statutory ``firewalls'' and other restrictions in an
    effort to insulate the insured depository from risk associated
    with the securities affiliate and to prevent unfair
    competition. Finally, it imposes conflict of interest
    provisions relating to investment company activities.
        The bill, as reported to the House by the Committee on
    Banking and Financial Services, does not include affiliations
    between banks and insurance companies and brokers.

    Legislative History

        On February 27, 1995, Mr. Leach introduced H.R. 1062 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and
    Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on
    Commerce. Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was
    referred to both the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance.
        On May 18, 1995, the Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services reported H.R. 1062 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-127, Part
    1). Referral of the bill to the Committee on Commerce was
    extended for a period ending not later than June 16, 1995. On
    June 13, 1995, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services
    filed a supplemental report on H.R. 1062 in the House (H. Rpt.
    104-127, Part 2).
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a
    joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials on H.R. 1062 on June 6 and June 8, 1995.
    Testimony on securities related issues was received from
    Administration officials, representatives of securities and
    banking firms, State financial officials, and representatives
    of other financial associations.
        On June 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1062
    and approved H.R. 1062, as reported by the Committee on Banking
    and Financial Services, for Full Committee consideration,
    without recommendation, by a voice vote. On June 14, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials met in
    open markup session to consider H.R. 1062 and approved H.R.
    1062, as reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services, for Full Committee consideration, without
    recommendation, by a voice vote.
        On June 16, 1995, referral of H.R. 1062 to the Committee on
    Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than June
    22, 1995. The Full Committee met in open markup session on June
    16, 1995, and ordered H.R. 1062 reported to the House, as
    reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services,
    without recommendation, by a voice vote. On June 22, 1995, the
    Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1062 to the House (H. Rpt.
    104-127, Part 3).
        No further action was taken in the House on H.R. 1062 in
    the 104th Congress.

                         fcc modernization act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3957)

        To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the
    Federal Communications Commission to streamline its management,
    to eliminate unnecessarily burdensome regulatory provisions,
    and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 3957 is: (1) to further reduce
    regulatory burdens on the telecommunications industry; (2) to
    streamline the operations of the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC); and (3) to require the FCC to prepare a
    written plan for the future of the FCC in a competitive world.
        H.R. 3957 requires the FCC to streamline its management and
    prepare an agency plan for accomplishing its current mission
    with reduced resources; repeals outdated and unnecessary
    provisions of the Communications Act of 1934; and reduces
    regulatory burdens and agency functions at the FCC. H.R. 3957
    requires the FCC to prepare an interim report, within 6 months
    of enactment, and a detailed final report, within 1 year of
    enactment, to be submitted to the President and the appropriate
    authorizing Committees in Congress that includes: (1) detailed
    projections of agency financial and personnel requirements over
    the next 5 years; (2) the savings expected from automating and
    privatizing routine agency functions, and the date by which
    automation and privatization will be attained; (3) the
    appropriate level of funding for agency management and overhead
    expenses; and (4) any additional authority or statutory changes
    required to achieve the plan or carry out the purposes of this
    legislation.
        In addition, H.R. 3957 repeals limited FCC authority to
    award Pioneer Preferences in licensing procedures to persons
    who make substantial contributions to the development of a new
    service or new technologies that substantially enhance an
    existing service. It also repeals Section 331(a) of the
    Communications Act of 1934 requiring the FCC to allocate VHF
    commercial television broadcast channels to ensure that, if
    technically feasible, each State has at least one such station,
    and to allow a station to relocate to a State where there is no
    VHF station.

    Legislative History

        On March 27 and March 28, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held 2 days of oversight
    hearings on Federal Communications Commission Reform. Witnesses
    included the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
    (FCC), the FCC Commissioners, and representatives from private
    industry and private organizations. The hearing provided
    Members with the opportunity to examine the broad issue of the
    Commission's role and structure in the future and whether or
    not the FCC is currently operating at maximum efficiency.
        On August 2, 1996, Mr. Fields of Texas and Mr. Dingell
    introduced H.R. 3957, the FCC Modernization Act of 1996, in the
    House.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance met in
    open markup session to consider H.R. 3957 on September 12,
    1996, and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration,
    as amended, by a voice vote.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 3957 in the 104th
    Congress.

    to repeal foreign ownership restrictions on licensed telecommunications
                                   facilities

                                   (H.R. 514)

        To repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed
    telecommunications facilities.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 514 is to repeal the foreign ownership
    restrictions under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act of
    1934. In addition, H.R. 514 provides an exception to Section
    310(a) of the Act by permitting the Federal Communications
    Commission to grant temporary or occasional licenses to foreign
    owned stations providing news transmissions via satellite to
    points outside the United States.

    Legislative History

        On February 21, 1995, Representatives Oxley, Boucher,
    Fields of Texas, Tauzin, and Hastert introduced H.R. 514 in the
    House.
        On March 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
    Hazardous Material held an oversight hearing on trade
    implications of foreign ownership restrictions on
    telecommunications companies and whether legislative action was
    needed to address this issue. Testimony was received from a
    Member of Congress, the Chairman of the Federal Communications
    Commission, the Director of the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration, and representatives of the affected
    industries.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on H.R. 514 on May 10, May 11, and May 12,
    1995. Testimony was received from over 50 witnesses, including
    representatives from the Federal government, industry, and
    private organizations. On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance met in open markup session and
    approved H.R. 1555 for Full Committee consideration in lieu of
    H.R. 514.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 514 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 514 were included in H.R.
    1555 as passed by the House, but were deleted during the
    conference with the Senate on S. 652, the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996. For the legislative history of those bills, see
    the discussion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
    104) in this section.

           to permit registered utility holding companies to provide
                          telecommunications services

                                   (H.R. 912)

        To permit registered utility holding companies to
    participate in the provision of telecommunications services.

    Summary

        Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935
    (PUHCA), firms designated as registered holding companies,
    generally those utilities that provide multi-stage services and
    operate under a holding company structure where the holding
    company owns more than 10 percent of the outstanding securities
    in a public utility company, are subject to extensive
    regulation of their corporate and capital structure which
    prevents their involvement in the provision of
    telecommunications services. Specifically, the principal PUHCA
    restriction is Section 11 of the Act, which directs the
    Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to limit the non-
    utility interests of a registered holding company to those
    which are ``reasonably incidental or economically necessary or
    appropriate to the operations of [an] integrated public-utility
    system.'' The SEC and the courts have interpreted these
    provisions to require a functional relationship between the
    proposed non-utility activity and a system's core utility
    operations. A registered holding company is, therefore,
    required to make an affirmative showing of the existence of a
    functional relationship between the proposed acquisition and
    the system's core utility business. In addition, PUHCA empowers
    the SEC to place numerous reporting requirements and
    restrictions on registered holding companies.
        The purpose of H.R. 912 is to allow the utility firms to
    provide telecommunications services, thereby increasing
    competition in the local telephone business and yielding better
    services at lower prices for consumers. The bill includes
    provisions to address many of the concerns that led to the
    enactment of PUHCA while eliminating PUHCA's restrictions on
    registered holding companies entering the telecommunications
    marketplace. Specifically, the bill requires that the
    registered holding company create an affiliate separate from
    the company providing utility service; requires the keeping of
    separate books for the affiliate; and allows State regulatory
    authorities the right to require an annual audit to examine the
    financial relationship between the affiliate and the parent
    utility firm. The bill also authorizes the SEC to promulgate
    rules concerning additional ``risk assessment'' reporting.

    Legislative History

        On February 13, 1995, Representatives Gillmor, Boucher,
    Fields of Texas, Hall of Texas, Hastert, and Tauzin introduced
    H.R. 912 in the House.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on H.R. 912 on May 10, May 11, and May 12,
    1995. Testimony was received from over 50 witnesses, including
    representatives from the Federal government, industry, and
    private organizations. On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance met in open markup session and
    approved H.R. 1555 for Full Committee consideration in lieu of
    H.R. 912.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 912 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 912 were included in H.R.
    1555, as passed by the House, and in the conference report on
    S. 652. For the legislative history of those bills, see the
    discussion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104)
    in this section.

      to reduce ownership restrictions on broadcasting stations and other
                           mass communications media

                                  (H.R. 1556)

        To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce the
    restrictions on ownership of broadcasting stations and other
    media of mass communications.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1556 is to repeal the current national
    broadcast ownership restrictions and to replace those
    restrictions with a limitation on the national audience reach
    of 35 percent on television stations that can be owned or
    controlled by one entity. The national audience reach
    limitation would be increased to 50 percent in 1 year. Further,
    the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is required to
    report to Congress within 3 years on the possibility of
    increasing or eliminating this limitation altogether.
         H.R. 1556 also limits the ownership of television stations
    in a local market by any one entity. One entity may own two
    television stations that include a UHF/UHF or a UHF/VHF station
    ownership combination unless the FCC shows that such ownership
    would harm local diversity or competition. The FCC may also
    permit a VHF/VHF combination if it determines that such a
    combination would not harm local diversity or competition.
        Finally, it allows the FCC to limit the concentration of
    local cross-media ownership when the acquisition of an
    additional media outlet would result in reducing the number of
    independent voices in a local market to two or fewer. Finally,
    H.R. 1556 grandfathers current cross-ownership arrangements and
    protects owners from having to divest to comply with this
    restrictions.

    Legislative History

        On May 3, 1995, Representatives Stearns, Bliley, Fields of
    Texas, Schaefer, Gillmor, Hall of Texas, Oxley, White, Klug,
    and Hastert introduced H.R. 1556 in the House.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on H.R. 1556 on May 10, May 11, and May 12,
    1995. Testimony was received from over 50 witnesses, including
    representatives from the Federal government, industry, and
    private organizations. On May 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance met in open markup session and
    approved H.R. 1555 for Full Committee consideration in lieu of
    H.R. 1556.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 1556 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 1556 were included in
    H.R. 1555, as passed by the House, and in the conference report
    on S. 652. For the legislative history of those bills, see the
    discussion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104)
    in this section.

                  antitrust consent decree reform act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1528)

        To supersede the Modification of Final Judgment entered
    August 24, 1982, in the antitrust action styled United States
    v. Western Electric, Civil Action No. 82-0192, United States
    District Court for the District of Columbia, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1528 replaces the line of business restrictions
    contained in the Modification of Final Judgment (MFJ) entered
    in the AT&T case on August 24, 1982.
        Specifically, H.R. 1528 establishes a new streamlined
    procedure under which the regional Bell Operating Companies
    (RBOCs) may, notwithstanding the MFJ's prohibitions, obtain
    authorization from the Attorney General to: (1) provide
    interexchange telecommunications services (i.e., long distance
    service); (2) manufacture or provide telecommunications
    equipment; (3) manufacture customer premise equipment; or (4)
    provide alarm monitoring services.
        In addition, H.R. 1528 addresses the issue of electronic
    publishing. H.R. 1528 prohibits the RBOCs from providing
    electronic publishing services over their own lines until June
    30, 2000, unless they do so through a separate subsidiary or
    joint venture. The bill also sets forth the conditions under
    which the RBOCs can use these separate subsidiaries or joint
    ventures.

    Legislative History

        On May 5, 1995, Mr. Hyde introduced H.R. 1528 in the House.
    The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce.
        The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1528 to the
    House, amended, on July 24, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-203, Part 1.) On
    July 24, 1995, the referral of H.R. 1528 to the Committee on
    Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than July
    24, 1995. Subsequently, the Committee on Commerce was
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1528 on July 24,
    1995.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 1528 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 1528 were included in
    H.R. 1555, as passed by the House, and in the conference report
    on S. 652. For the legislative history of those bills, see the
    discussion of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104)
    in this section.

          federal communications commission authorization act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 1869)

        To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to extend the
    authorizations of appropriations of the Federal Communications
    Commission, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1869 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to
    authorize appropriations for the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC). H.R. 1869 authorizes an appropriation of
    $186,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1996, with additional sums as may
    be required for necessary nondiscretionary cost increases. In
    addition, H.R. 1869 authorizes the FCC to expand licensing fees
    from telecommunications entities in order to cover the costs of
    certain regulatory activities. The legislation also clarifies
    certain provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 and the
    FCC's authority under the Act. Finally, it modifies and reduces
    burdensome requirements of the FCC.

    Legislative History

        On June 16, 1995, Mr. Fields of Texas and Mr. Markey
    introduced H.R. 1869 in the House. On June 19, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a hearing
    on H.R. 1869. Testimony was received from the Chairman of the
    Federal Communications Commission and the four Federal
    Communications Commission Commissioners.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 1869 in the 104th
    Congress. However, on September 13, 1995, the Full Committee
    considered a Committee Print entitled ``Communications: Federal
    Communications Commission Authorization,'' which contained
    provisions of H.R. 1869, and ordered the Committee Print
    transmitted to the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1995. For the legislative history of
    that bill, see the discussion of the Balanced Budget Act of
    1995 (H.R. 2491) in this section.
        Provisions of H.R. 1869 were also included Title IV of
    Public Law 104-104, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. For the
    legislative history of that bill, see the discussion of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 in this section.

                     department of commerce dismantling act

                              (H.R. 1756, S. 929)

        To abolish the Department of Commerce.

    Summary

        H.R. 1756 replaces the Department of Commerce (DOC) with
    the Commerce Programs Resolution Agency (CPRA), which is
    limited to 3 years to wind up and discontinue the functions and
    obligations of the DOC before the CPRA itself is abolished.
    H.R. 1756 terminates outright many of the agencies and programs
    within the DOC, and limits annual expenditures for any function
    not terminated to 75 percent of their FY 1994 expenditures.
        In particular, H.R. 1756 transfers the functions and duties
    of the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA) to the Federal Communications Commission.
    All grant programs overseen by NTIA are terminated, including
    the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, the
    Telecommunications Information Infrastructure Administration
    Program, and the National Endowment for Children's Educational
    Television.
        H.R. 1756 further transfers many of the non-terminated
    trade related functions of the DOC to the United States Trade
    Representative (USTR), including many of the functions of the
    International Trade Administration (ITA). Specific offices
    within ITA that are effectively transferred by the ITA include
    the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Finance, and
    the Office of Service Industries and Finance. The functions of
    the Secretary of Commerce under the International Investment
    and Trade in Services Survey Act and certain provisions of the
    Export Administration Act are transferred to the Secretary of
    the Treasury.

    Legislative History

        On June 7, 1995, Mr. Chrysler and 51 cosponsors introduced
    H.R. 1756 in the House. The bill was referred to the Committee
    on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure, the Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services, the Committee on International Relations, the
    Committee on National Security, the Committee on Agriculture,
    the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Government
    Reform and Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the
    Committee on Science, and the Committee on Resources.
        Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was referred to
    both the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance and the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a
    joint hearing on H.R. 1756 on July 24, 1995. Testimony was
    received from Members of Congress, representatives of the
    Administration, State officials, and representatives of various
    industries.
        The Committee on Commerce took no further action on H.R.
    1756. However, on September 14 and 19, 1995, the Full Committee
    met in open markup session to consider a Committee Print
    entitled ``Department of Commerce Abolition''. On September 19,
    1995, the Full Committee approved the Committee Print, as
    amended, for transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for
    inclusion in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, by a roll call
    vote of 25 yeas to 19 nays. For the legislative history of that
    bill, see the discussion of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995
    (H.R. 2491) in this section.
        The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 1756 to the
    House on September 24, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-260, Part 1.) No
    further action was taken on H.R. 1756 in the House in 104th
    Congress.
        S. 929, an identical bill to H.R. 1756, was introduced in
    the Senate on June 15, 1995, by Senators Abraham, Dole,
    Faircloth, Nickles, Gramm, and Brown, and referred to the
    Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. On October 20, 1995,
    the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs reported S. 929 to
    the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-164). No further action was taken on S.
    929 in the 104th Congress.

          capital markets deregulation and liberalization act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2131)

        To amend the Federal securities laws in order to promote
    efficiency and capital formation in the financial markets.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2131 is to provide a more efficient
    regulatory structure for capital formation.
        The legislation seeks to create a national uniform system
    of registration for securities offerings that currently are
    subject to the Federal securities laws as well as individual
    State securities laws in order to make a more logical
    regulatory structure and eliminate the unnecessary costs and
    burdens associated with overlapping regulation.
        In addition to the creation of a national securities
    market, the legislation makes the following changes to the
    capital markets. It establishes a presumption that a broker or
    dealer is not liable for the investment decisions of an
    institutional investor unless the parties have entered into a
    contract for such advice.
        The legislation also eliminates the disclosure required
    under the Williams Act, while maintaining its anti-fraud
    provision, and amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to
    repeal certain provisions governing margin requirements to
    promote competition for lending sources available to broker
    dealers.
        H.R. 2131 also changes the prospectus delivery requirements
    to allow for delivery only if requested in order to reduce
    costs to securities issuers, and grants the Securities and
    Exchange Commission (SEC) exemptive authority to eliminate
    unnecessary regulations. Additionally, it directs the SEC, when
    promulgating a new rule or exemption, to consider efficiency,
    capital formation, and competition. It also includes a
    provision that increases the maximum asset size of public
    offerings that may be exempted under Section 5 of the
    Securities Act of 1933 from $5 million to $15 million.
        Other provisions of the legislation effect changes by: (1)
    reducing the number of SEC commissioners from five to three;
    (2) directing the SEC to solicit proposals for the
    privatization of the EDGAR system; (3) streamlining self-
    regulatory organization (SRO) rule changes by modifying the
    timetable for public notice of proposed rule changes; (4)
    directing the SEC to designate a primary SRO and examining
    authority for brokers and dealers; (5) amending the Securities
    Act of 1933 to allow U.S. reporters in foreign press
    conferences; and (6) repealing the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2131 was introduced in the House on July 27, 1995, by
    Representatives Fields of Texas, Frisa, Oxley, Gillmor, Paxon,
    Hastert, Barton of Texas, and White.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on H.R. 2131 and the current state of
    regulation of the securities markets on November 14, November
    30, and December 5, 1995. Testimony was received from State and
    Federal regulators as well as representatives of industry trade
    groups and financial experts.
        On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance met in open markup session and approved H.R. 3005
    for Full Committee consideration in lieu of H.R. 2131.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 2131 in the 104th
    Congress. However, major provisions of H.R. 2131 were included
    in H.R. 3005, as passed by the House and Senate, and enacted
    into law as Public Law 104-290. For the legislative history of
    H.R. 3005, see the discussion of the National Securities
    Markets Improvement Act of 1996 in this section.

                   investment company act amendments of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1495)

        To amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to promote more
    efficient management of mutual funds, protect investors, and
    provide more effective and less burdensome regulation.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1495 is to update Federal securities
    laws to reduce costly regulation and facilitate competition in
    the mutual fund industry, the fastest growing segment of our
    capital markets, in order to promote capital formation that
    benefits investors as well as the companies issuing the
    securities.
        H.R. 1495 provides more efficient management of mutual
    funds by amending the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Act)
    to change corporate governance requirements, and modifies the
    guidelines for: (1) investment advisory and underwriting
    contracts; (2) selection of accountants and auditors; (3)
    changes in investment policy; (4) information filing; (5)
    voting procedures; and (6) the definition of a majority vote.
    The legislation directs the Securities and Exchange Commission
    (SEC) to promulgate rules to permit an investment company
    broader use of advertising, but maintains the Federal anti-
    fraud provisions that apply to such advertising.
        The legislation also facilitates the regulation of mutual
    funds by expanding the SEC's record keeping and inspection
    authority under the Act, and authorizes the SEC to exempt a
    unified fee investment company (UFIC) from specified statutory
    prescriptions, including the directors' fiduciary duty
    regarding advisory fees charged by the UFIC. It also contains
    language that narrows the strictures governing deceptive or
    misleading investment company names.
        Promoting investment and capital formation is accomplished
    by modifying the guidelines that exempt investment companies
    with 100 or fewer investors from the Act, and providing a new
    exemption from the Act for investment companies that sell their
    securities only to ``qualified investors,'' which are defined
    as (1) institutional investors that own or manage on a
    discretionary basis $100 million in securities, or (2) natural
    persons who own at least $10 million in securities.
        H.R. 1495 amends the Act to lift restrictions on mutual
    funds making investments in other mutual funds in the same
    complex. Finally, it grants the SEC rulemaking authority to
    exempt persons, securities, or transactions (that may not
    otherwise qualify for the exemption) from the restrictions on
    funds of funds if consistent with the protection of investors.

    Legislative History

        On April 7, 1995, Mr. Fields of Texas and Mr. Markey
    introduced H.R. 1495, the Investment Company Act Amendments of
    1995, in the House.
        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a
    hearing on H.R. 1495 on October 31, 1995. Testimony was
    received from representatives of mutual fund companies,
    industry trade groups, and Federal regulators.
        On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance met in open markup session and approved H.R. 3005
    for Full Committee consideration in lieu of H.R. 1495.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 1495 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 1495 were included in
    H.R. 3005, as passed by the House and Senate, and enacted into
    law as Public Law 104-290. For the legislative history of H.R.
    3005, see the discussion of the National Securities Markets
    Improvement Act of 1996 in this section.

                public broadcasting self-sufficiency act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 2979)

        To ensure the financial self-sufficiency of public
    broadcasting, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2979, the Public Broadcasting Self-
    Sufficiency Act of 1996, is to assist public broadcasting in
    making the transition away from Federal government
    appropriations while ensuring that the industry continues to
    fulfill its traditional missions.
        The bill amends various sections of the Communications Act
    of 1934 pertaining to public broadcasting and gives public
    broadcasting stations more flexibility in their operations,
    including ways of raising revenues.
        The legislation includes a menu of earned income options
    from which public broadcasting stations could choose. First,
    noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations would be
    allowed to broadcast programs produced by, at the expense of,
    or furnished by, persons other than the licensee, and the NCE
    stations would be allowed to receive compensation for
    broadcasting those programs. Second, UHF and VHF swaps would be
    allowed. Third, the bill would permit licensees of two
    overlapping NCE stations to operate one station for
    remunerative purposes, including the transmission of commercial
    television programming, subscription television, and pay-per-
    view services, if the stations have filed a joint operating
    agreement with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
    a certain amount of the remuneration from the commercial
    station is dedicated to the overlapping station. Neither
    station would be eligible for station grants from the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).
        Fourth, the bill would permit a licensee of two overlapping
    stations to sell one station if the proceeds are dedicated to
    the retained station. The remaining station would not be
    eligible for a CPB station grant. Fifth, the bill would allow
    stations that voluntarily submit their licenses to the FCC for
    auction to be reimbursed for a portion of the proceeds.
    Finally, the earned income option would allow ``extended
    underwriting.''
        The bill also establishes a trust fund to provide ongoing
    support for public broadcasting after Congressional
    appropriations cease at the end of Fiscal Year 2000. Finally,
    the bill makes a number of changes to CPB operations, to ensure
    a smooth transition when CPB is privatized after appropriations
    cease.

    Legislative History

        On February 28, 1996, Representatives Fields of Texas,
    Porter, Oxley, Moorhead, Schaefer, Barton of Texas, Hastert,
    Gillmor, and Frisa introduced H.R. 2979, the Public
    Broadcasting Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996, in the House.
        On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held a hearing on H.R. 2979.
    Testimony was received from representatives of the Corporation
    for Public Broadcasting, public radio and television stations,
    independent producers, and minority organizations.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 2979 in the 104th
    Congress.

                              Oversight Activities

     securities and exchange commission's report: the regulation of public-
                           utility holding companies

        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 2
    days of joint hearings with the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power on the repeal or reform of the Public Utility Holding
    Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). At the hearings held on August 4,
    1995, and October 13, 1995, witnesses from the Securities and
    Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC), and State and private organizations focused
    on the SEC's report on PUHCA, its recommendations, and how
    PUHCA reform or repeal impacts the issue of electric utility
    industry restructuring.

                    federal management of the radio spectrum

        On September 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held an oversight hearing on the
    use of the radio spectrum by the Federal government, focusing
    on the Federal spectrum management activities of the Department
    of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA). Witnesses included a representative from
    the NTIA, as well as several representatives from private
    research organizations. The panel discussed the spectrum needs
    of the Federal government in relation to its current allocation
    of spectrum. Testimony received at the hearing assisted the
    Committee in the development of the legislative language
    included in H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as it
    related to the spectrum auctions. For the legislative history
    of H.R. 2491, see the discussion of that bill in this section.

                         future of public broadcasting

        On September 12, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held an oversight hearing on the
    future of public broadcasting. Specifically, the hearing
    focused on ways of promoting self-sufficiency in the public
    broadcasting industry, so that it is able to function without
    Federal appropriations while ensuring that it continues to
    fulfill its traditional missions. The hearing also dealt with
    problems within the industry, legislative and regulatory
    restrictions that require change, and ways of promoting
    efficiencies in all levels of public broadcasting. The
    witnesses represented public radio and television stations,
    public broadcasting organizations, and commercial broadcasters.
         As a result of this hearing, H.R. 2979, the Public
    Broadcasting Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996, was introduced in
    the House on February 28, 1996. The Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held a legislative hearing on
    H.R. 2979 on February 29, 1996. For the legislative history of
    H.R. 2979, see the discussion of the Public Broadcasting Self-
    Sufficiency Act of 1996 in this section.

     federal management of the radio spectrum: advanced television services

        On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance held an oversight hearing on the use and management
    of the electromagnetic spectrum as it relates to awarding
    licenses for advanced television services (ATV). Witnesses
    included a Member of Congress and representatives from the
    Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Communications
    Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration, and the broadcasting industry, and other
    experts.

                    federal communications commission reform

        On March 27 and 28, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held 2 days of oversight
    hearings on reform of the Federal Communications Commission
    (FCC). Witnesses included the Chairman of the FCC, the FCC
    Commissioners, and representatives from private industry and
    private organizations. The hearing provided Members with the
    opportunity to examine the broad issue of the Commission's role
    and structure in the future and whether or not the Commission
    is currently operating at maximum efficiency. Testimony
    received at these hearings assisted the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance during its consideration of H.R.
    3957, the FCC Modernization Act of 1996, which it approved for
    Full Committee consideration on September 12, 1996. For the
    legislative history of H.R. 3957, see the discussion of that
    bill in this section.

              implementation of the telecommunications act of 1996

        On July 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance held an oversight hearing on Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) implementation of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, signed into law on February 8, 1996. Witnesses
    included the Chairman of the FCC and three FCC Commissioners.
    The purpose of the hearing was to determine if the FCC is
    meeting the deadlines imposed by the Act and if the FCC is
    adhering to the statute.

             restructuring of international satellite organizations

        In May of 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct and
    report on the competitive impact of: (1) possible alternative
    approaches to reforming INTELSAT and Inmarsat; (2) an Inmarsat
    affiliate company, formed in 1994 to provide new services; and
    (3) proposals for restructuring INTELSAT.
        On July 8, 1996, the GAO submitted a report to the
    Committee on Commerce entitled Competitive Impact of
    Restructuring the International Satellite Organizations. The
    GAO determined that the competitive impact of any alternative
    approach for the treaty organizations depends on how the
    resulting organizations are structured, particularly with
    regard to the number of separate entities created and the
    degree to which they are owned by the parent organization, or
    its owners, in its present form or in a new form. In
    particular, GAO determined that the more entities that are
    created, the more competitive the market will be. It also
    concluded that the lower the proportion of ownership by the
    parent organization or its owners, the more likely it is that
    the restructuring will improve competition.
        GAO also concluded in its report that the structure of ICO,
    an Inmarsat affiliate, could give the affiliate a competitive
    edge over private satellite providers. Under the terms of its
    organization, at least 70 percent of the affiliate will be
    owned by Inmarsat and some of Inmarsat's signatories. With
    their ownership interest in the affiliate, these signatories
    may have the incentive to grant access to their markets to the
    affiliate and to preclude or inhibit access to other private
    satellite providers, even though the private satellite provider
    might offer services at lower prices. GAO also concluded that
    the effect on competition of either proposal for restructuring
    INTELSAT depends on the degree to which it can reduce the
    market dominance that INTELSAT enjoys in certain markets and
    encourage countries to open their telecommunications markets to
    new entrants.
        Finally, GAO concluded that: (1) the treaty organizations
    have benefited from their intergovernmental status and a
    variety of advantages designed to help ensure their success in
    achieving worldwide satellite communications; (2) advances in
    technology and increases in demand have transformed the
    industry into one that may provide profitable business
    opportunities for private firms; (3) making changes to the
    present structure of the treaty organizations could be
    difficult because doing so would likely depend on achieving
    consensus among member nations around the world that have a
    broad range of perspectives and interests; and (4) consumers,
    however, would benefit from increased competition in the
    marketplace.
        On September 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held an oversight hearing on the
    restructuring of international satellite organizations (ISOs),
    INTELSAT and Inmarsat. Witnesses included representatives from
    the Federal Government, private satellite telecommunications
    providers, and Comsat, the U.S. signatory to both Inmarsat and
    INTELSAT. The focus of this hearing was to hear testimony on
    the proposals and efforts to restructure INTELSAT and Inmarsat,
    and on how competition can be brought to international
    satellite communications.

                                 Hearings Held

        Common Sense Legal Reforms Act.--Hearing on H.R. 10, Title
    II, Reform of Private Securities Litigation. Hearing held on
    January 19, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-2.
        Common Sense Legal Reforms Act.--Hearing on H.R. 10, Title
    II, Reform of Private Securities Litigation. Hearing held on
    February 10, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-2.
        Communications Law Reform.--Hearing on H.R. 1555, the
    Communications Act of 1995; H.R. 912, a bill to permit
    registered utility holding companies to participate in the
    provision of telecommunications services; H.R. 514, a bill to
    repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed
    telecommunications facilities; and H.R. 1556, a bill to amend
    the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce the restrictions on
    ownership of broadcast stations and other media. Hearing held
    on May 10, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-34.
        Communications Law Reform.--Hearing on H.R. 1555, the
    Communications Act of 1995; H.R. 912, a bill to permit
    registered utility holding companies to participate in the
    provision of telecommunications services; H.R. 514, a bill to
    repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed
    telecommunications facilities; and H.R. 1556, a bill to amend
    the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce the restrictions on
    ownership of broadcast stations and other media. Hearing held
    on May 11, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-34.
        Communications Law Reform.--Hearing on H.R. 1555, the
    Communications Act of 1995; H.R. 912, a bill to permit
    registered utility holding companies to participate in the
    provision of telecommunications services; H.R. 514, a bill to
    repeal the restrictions on foreign ownership of licensed
    telecommunications facilities; and H.R. 1556, a bill to amend
    the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce the restrictions on
    ownership of broadcast stations and other media. Hearing held
    on May 12, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-34.
        The Financial Services Competitiveness Act of 1995.--Joint
    Hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials on H.R. 1062, the Financial Services Competitiveness
    Act of 1995. Hearing held on June 6, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-33.
        The Financial Services Competitiveness Act of 1995.--Joint
    Hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials on H.R. 1062, the Financial Services Competitiveness
    Act of 1995. Hearing held on June 8, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-33.
        Reauthorization of the Federal Communications Commission.--
    Hearing on H.R. 1869, the Federal Communications Commission
    Authorization Act of 1995. Hearing held on June 19, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-28.
        Department of Commerce Dismantling Act.--Joint Hearing with
    the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials on
    H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of 1995.
    Hearing held on July 24, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-48.
        The Securities and Exchange Commission Report Entitled: The
    Regulation of Public Utility Holding Companies.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on
    the Securities and Exchange Commission's Report, ``The
    Regulation of Public Utility Holding Companies''. Hearing held
    on August 4, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-62.
        Federal Management of the Radio Spectrum.--Oversight
    Hearing on Federal Management of the Radio Spectrum. Hearing
    held on September 7, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-35.
        The Future of Public Broadcasting.--Oversight Hearing on
    the Future of Public Broadcasting. Hearing held on September
    12, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-37.
        The Securities and Exchange Commission Report Entitled: The
    Regulation of Public Utility Holding Companies.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on
    the Securities and Exchange Commission's Report, ``The
    Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies''. Hearing held
    on October 13, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-62.
        The Investment Company Act Amendments of 1995.--Hearing on
    H.R. 1495, the Investment Company Act Amendments of 1995.
    Hearing held on October 31, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    41.
        The Philanthropy Protection Act of 1995.--Hearing on H.R.
    2519, the Philanthropy Protection Act of 1995. Hearing held on
    October 31, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-38.
        Capital Markets Deregulation and Liberalization Act of
    1995.--Hearing on H.R. 2131, the Capital Markets Deregulation
    and Liberalization Act of 1995. Hearing held on November 14,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-50.
        Capital Markets Deregulation and Liberalization Act of
    1995.--Hearing on H.R. 2131, the Capital Markets Deregulation
    and Liberalization Act of 1995. Hearing held on November 30,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-50.
        Capital Markets Deregulation and Liberalization Act of
    1995.--Hearing on H.R. 2131, the Capital Markets Deregulation
    and Liberalization Act of 1995. Hearing held on December 5,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-50.
        The Securities and Exchange Commission Reauthorization Act
    of 1996.--Hearing on H.R. 2972, the Securities and Exchange
    Commission Authorization Act of 1996. Hearing held on February
    28, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-61.
        The Public Broadcasting Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996.--
    Hearing on H.R. 2979, the Public Broadcasting Self-Sufficiency
    Act of 1996. Hearing held on February 29, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-58.
        Federal Management of the Radio Spectrum: Advanced
    Television Services.--Oversight Hearing on the Federal
    Management of the Radio Spectrum: Advanced Television Services.
    Hearing held on March 21, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-75.
        Reform of the Federal Communications Commission.--Oversight
    Hearing on Federal Communications Commission Reform. Hearing
    held on March 27, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-82.
        Reform of the Federal Communications Commission.--Oversight
    Hearing on Federal Communications Commission Reform. Hearing
    held on March 28, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-82.
        Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.--
    Oversight Hearing on the Implementation of the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996. Hearing held on July 18, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-98.
        Restructuring of International Satellite Organizations.--
    Oversight Hearing on Restructuring of International Satellite
    Organizations. Hearing held on September 25, 1996. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-111.
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials
               (Ratio 15-12)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JACK FIELDS, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               BILL PAXON, New York
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Solid Waste, hazardous waste and toxic substances,
    including Superfund and RCRA (excluding mining, oil, gas, and coal
    combustion wastes); noise pollution control; interstate and foreign
    commerce, including trade matters within the jurisdiction of the full
    committee; motor vehicle safety; regulation of commercial practices
    (the FTC); insurance, except health insurance; consumer protection in
    general, consumer product safety (the CPSC) and product liability;
    regulation of travel, tourism, and time.

                             Legislative Activities

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

                    Public Law 104-106 (S. 1124, H.R. 1530)

                    (Hazardous Materials Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, to reform acquisition laws and
    information technology management of the Federal Government,
    and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-106 includes a number of provisions which
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    including several dealing with hazardous materials related
    issues. Although Members of the Committee on Commerce were not
    appointed as conferees on S. 1124, they were appointed as
    conferees on H.R. 1530, the predecessor legislation to S. 1124
    which was vetoed by the President.
        These provisions include provisions of H.R. 714 that deal
    with certain land conveyances involving the Joliet Army
    Ammunition Plant which would create a Midewin National
    Tallgrass Prairie from the Joliet Arsenal. Public Law 104-106
    also includes: (1) changes to existing law regarding
    Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) which work in conjunction
    with the environmental cleanup of national defense facilities;
    and (2) changes to existing law governing the Department of
    Defense's ability to lease parcels of defense facilities which
    may have environmental contamination. For the legislative
    history of H.R. 714, see the discussion of the Illinois Land
    Conservation Act of 1995 in this section.

    Legislative History

        On August 7, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    reported S. 1124 to the Senate as an original measure (No
    Written Report).
        On September 6, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1530, and the Senate then passed H.R. 1530, amended with the
    text of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote
    of 64 yeas to 34 nays. Further action on S. 1026 was
    indefinitely postponed. Following the passage of H.R. 1530, the
    Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of S. 1124 and passed the bill amended with the
    text of Division A of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate. S.
    1124 was received in the House and held at the Speaker's desk
    on September 14, 1995. For the legislative history of H.R.
    1530, see the discussion of that bill in this section.
        On December 30, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 1530. The
    House failed to override the veto on January 3, 1996, by a roll
    call vote of 240 yeas to 156 nays. On January 5, 1996, the
    House took S. 1124 from the Speaker's desk by unanimous
    consent, and, by a voice vote, passed the bill amended with the
    text of the H.R. 1530 as reported by the committee of
    conference on December 13, 1995, as contained in H. Rpt. 104-
    406. The House insisted on its amendment, requested a
    conference with the Senate, and appointed conferees. Although
    Members of the Committee on Commerce had been appointed as
    conferees on H.R. 1530, the predecessor legislation to S. 1124,
    they were not appointed conferees on S. 1124 because the issues
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce were
    resolved during the conference on H.R. 1530 and were not the
    subject of the President's veto of that bill.
        On January 5, 1996, the Senate disagreed to the House
    amendment to S. 1124, agreed to a conference with the House,
    and appointed conferees. Conference meetings were held on
    January 18 and January 19, 1996. On January 19, 1996, the
    conferees agreed to file a conference report. The conference
    report was filed in the House on January 22, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    450). The provisions of the conference report dealing with
    those issues under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Commerce were identical to those contained in the conference
    report on H.R. 1530.
        The House agreed to the conference report on January 24,
    1996, by a roll call vote of 287 yeas to 129 nays. The Senate
    agreed to the conference report on January 26, 1996, by a roll
    call vote of 56 yeas to 34 nays. On January 30, 1996, S. 1124
    was presented to the President. On February 10, 1996, the
    President signed S. 1124 into law (P.L. 104-106).

            national technology transfer and advancement act of 1995

              Public Law 104-113 (H.R. 2196, H.R. 1870, H.R. 2405)

                 (Section 11--Fastener Quality Act Amendments)

        To amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of
    1980 with respect to inventions made under cooperative research
    and development agreements, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Section 6 of H.R. 1870, the American Technology Advancement
    Act of 1995; Section 606 of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian
    Science Authorization Act of 1995; and Section 11 of H.R. 2196,
    the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,
    all amend the Fastener Quality Act (P.L. 101-592), an act which
    falls within the jurisdictions of both the Committee on
    Commerce and the Committee on Science.
        Section 11 of H.R. 2196 contains essentially the same
    amendments recommended by the advisory panel convened by the
    original Act. The amendments (1) eliminate certain
    Congressional findings, (2) change the technical standards used
    in the definitions of ``alter'' and ``fastener,'' (3) strike a
    section which provides a waiver procedure for the exemption of
    certain fasteners from the Act's requirements, (4) provide an
    alternative procedure for determining the chemical
    characteristics of fasteners, (5) eliminate the requirement
    that each shipment of fasteners be accompanied by a
    manufacturer's certification and instead require that such
    certification be retained for inspection by the manufacturer or
    the Secretary of Commerce, (6) eliminate the Act's prohibition
    against commingling of fastener lots, and (7) reduce the record
    keeping requirements from 10 years to 5 years.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1870 was introduced in the House on June 16, 1995, by
    Mrs. Morella, and referred solely to the Committee on Science.
    On June 28, 1995, the Committee on Science ordered H.R. 1870
    reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The
    Committee on Science reported H.R. 1870 to the House on August
    4, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-232).
        On August 3, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Science indicating that Section 6 of H.R. 1870 included
    provisions within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.
    The Chairman further stated that the Committee on Commerce had
    reviewed the action taken by the Science Committee and in order
    to expedite consideration of this measure by the House, the
    Committee on Commerce would not seek a sequential referral of
    H.R. 1870, provided such action would not prejudice the
    Commerce Committee's future jurisdictional interests in the
    legislation.
        On August 4, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on Science
    sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional concerns
    with respect to H.R. 1870 and the Commerce Committee's
    prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 1870 in the House.
    However, on September 27, 1995, H.R. 2405 was introduced in the
    House by Representatives Walker, Sensenbrenner, Morella,
    Rohrabacher, and Schiff. The bill was referred to the Committee
    on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce and
    the Committee on Resources. H.R. 2405 consolidated into one
    bill provisions of seven bills previously reported to the House
    by the Committee on Science, including amendments to the
    Fastener Quality Act contained in H.R. 1870.
        On September 29, 1995, the Committee on Rules granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2405 (H. Res.
    234). On October 11, 1995, the House passed H. Res. 234 by a
    voice vote. The House considered H.R. 2405 on October 11 and
    October 12, 1995, and on October 12, 1995, passed the bill,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 248 yeas to 161 nays. During
    House consideration of H.R. 2405, Mr. Walker offered an
    amendment to Section 606 of H.R. 2405, which simplified the
    commingling provisions of the Fastener Quality Act. The
    amendment was adopted by a voice vote. H.R. 2405, as passed by
    the House, was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred
    to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation on October 17, 1995. No further action was taken
    in the Senate on H.R. 2405 in the 104th Congress.
        On August 4, 1995, H.R. 2196 was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Morella, Walker, Brown of California, and
    Tanner. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on
    Science. On December 7, 1995, the Committee on Science reported
    H.R. 2196 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-390).
        Prior to this action, on November 30, 1995, the Chairman of
    the Committee on Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of the
    Committee on Science indicating that H.R. 2196 included
    provisions within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee,
    but in order to expedite consideration of this measure by the
    House, the Committee on Commerce would not seek a sequential
    referral of H.R. 2196, provided such action would not prejudice
    the Commerce Committee's future jurisdictional interests in the
    legislation.
        On December 1, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Science sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
    concerns with respect to H.R. 2196 and the Commerce Committee's
    prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        As reported to the House, Section 11 of H.R. 2196 included
    the provisions amending the Fastener Quality Act that were
    contained in H.R. 2405, as passed by the House on October 12,
    1995. The House considered H.R. 2196 under Suspension of the
    Rules, and passed the bill by a voice vote on December 12,
    1995.
        On December 13, 1995, H.R. 2196 was received in the Senate,
    read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation. On February 7, 1996, the Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation was
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2196, and the
    Senate considered and passed the bill, amended, by a voice
    vote. On February 27, 1996, the House considered the Senate
    amendments under Suspension of the Rules, and agreed to the
    Senate amendments by a voice vote. H.R. 2196 was presented to
    the President on February 28, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2196 into law on March 7, 1996 (P.L. 104-113).

                 land disposal program flexibility act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-119 (H.R. 2036)

        To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to make certain
    adjustments in the land disposal program to provide needed
    flexibility, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 2036 addresses two Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) regulations that were overturned on judicial review. In
    each case, EPA sought a flexible, risk management approach to
    the regulation of land disposal of wastes. In both cases, the
    courts rejected EPA's approach and directed the Agency to
    promulgate a more stringent and costly approach.
        The first case concerns the ``Third Third'' Land Disposal
    Restriction Rule. On May 8, 1990, EPA promulgated regulations
    implementing statutory land disposal restrictions for
    characteristic, hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Solid
    Waste Disposal Act. The rule provided exemptions for two
    categories of waste: (1) wastes in treatment systems ultimately
    regulated under the Clean Water Act; and (2) wastes disposed in
    nonhazardous deep injection wells regulated under the Safe
    Drinking Water Act. In Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976
    F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Court overturned EPA's approach
    with regard to the two exempted categories. Section 2 of H.R.
    2036 requires that the EPA complete a study of these two
    categories of hazardous waste to characterize risks to human
    health and the environment associated with the management of
    the wastes. Upon receipt of additional information or upon
    completion of the study, the EPA may impose additional
    requirements to address such risks.
        The second case involves ground water monitoring
    requirements at municipal landfills. On October 9, 1991, EPA
    promulgated regulations to exempt certain small municipal solid
    waste landfills from ground water monitoring requirements. The
    intent of the exemption was to provide some relief for
    municipalities with little annual precipitation and a daily
    disposal of less than 20 tons of solid waste. In May 1993, the
    U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
    Circuit overturned the EPA's regulations in Natural Resources
    Defense Council v. EPA. The court held that EPA was without
    authority to issue an exemption for ground water monitoring,
    thus eliminating the benefits of the promulgated rule. The
    ground water monitoring provision of H.R. 2036 provides an
    exemption for small municipal solid waste landfills that
    dispose of less than 20 tons of municipal solid waste daily,
    provided there is no evidence of ground water contamination
    from the municipal solid waste unit.

    Legislative History

        On July 13, 1995, Mr. Oxley introduced H.R. 2036 in the
    House. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2036 on July 20, 1995. The
    hearing also included H.R. 1696, a bill to authorize the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to exempt
    certain small landfills from the ground water monitoring
    requirements contained in landfill regulations promulgated by
    the Agency. Testimony was received from representatives of the
    Environmental Protection Agency, the Association of State and
    Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the environmental
    community, and the affected business community. The
    Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2036
    on November 30, 1995, and approved the bill, as amended, for
    Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2036 on December 21, 1995, and ordered the bill reported,
    as amended, to the House by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 2036 to the House on January 30, 1996 (H. Rpt.
    104-454).
        The House considered H.R. 2036 under Suspension of the
    Rules on January 30 and January 31, 1996, and on January 31,
    1996, passed the bill by a roll call vote of 402 yeas to 19
    nays. H.R. 2036, as passed by the House, was received in the
    Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and
    Public Works on February 1, 1996.
        On February 20, 1996, the Senate Committee on Environment
    and Public Works was discharged from further consideration of
    H.R. 2036. The Senate then considered and passed H.R. 2036,
    amended, on February 20, 1996. On March 7, 1996 the House
    agreed to the Senate amendments to H.R. 2036, clearing the
    measure for the President.
        H.R. 2036 was presented to the President on March 15, 1996.
    The President signed H.R. 2036 into law on March 26, 1996 (P.L.
    104-119.)

                 contract with america advancement act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-121 (H.R. 3136, H.R. 994)

        To provide for enactment of the Senior Citizens' Right to
    Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, and the Small
    Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide for a
    permanent increase in the public debt limit.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement
    Act of 1996, is a three-title bill which includes: (1)
    provisions concerning regulatory reform and Congressional
    review of rulemaking activities by Federal departments and
    agencies, including those under the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce; and (2) provisions relating to health
    issues.
        Title I of H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
    of 1996, amends Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA) to
    allow persons of retirement age to increase their earnings
    under the earnings limits set by the SSA.
        Title I includes a provision under the Commerce Committee's
    jurisdiction which directs the Commissioner of Social Security
    to: (1) ensure that funds made available for continuing
    disability reviews are used, to the greatest extent
    practicable, to maximize the combined savings in the Old-Age,
    Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), Supplemental
    Security Income (SSI), Medicare, and Medicaid programs; and (2)
    provide annually, at the conclusion of each of the 7 years from
    Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2002, a report to Congress
    on continuing disability reviews that includes the results of
    such reviews in terms of cessations of benefits or
    determinations of continuing eligibility, by program.
        Title II of H.R. 3136, the Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, provides regulatory reform
    for small businesses, as defined in Title II, and Congressional
    review of Federal agency rules. The major provisions of Title
    II are as follows:

    (1) requires agencies to provide increased compliance
            assistance to small businesses;
    (2) requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
            designate a ``Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
            Enforcement Ombudsman'' to provide a confidential
            channel for audited small businesses to comment on such
            procedures;
    (3) requires the SBA to establish regional ``Small Business
            Regulatory Fairness Boards'' to report to the
            Ombudsman;
    (4) allows administrative and judicial courts to award fees and
            costs to small businesses if the judgment demanded by
            an agency is substantially in excess of that awarded;
    (5) amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require an
            analysis by the promulgating agency of the effects of a
            rule on small businesses; and
    (6) lays out a framework for Congressional review of newly
            promulgated agency rules.
        This legislation will require the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials to review recently promulgated
    rules by the Federal agencies and departments within its
    jurisdiction, including the Department of Commerce, the Federal
    Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
        Title III of H.R. 3136, Public Debt Limit, raises the
    public debt limit to $5.5 trillion.

    Legislative History

        On February 21, 1995, H.R. 994, the Regulatory Sunset and
    Review Act of 1995, was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Chapman, Mica, DeLay, Deal of Georgia, and
    Geren of Texas. The bill was referred to the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the
    Committee on the Judiciary.
        On October 19, 1995, the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part
    1). The referral of the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary
    was extended for a period ending not later than November 3,
    1995. On October 26, 1995, H.R. 994, as reported by the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce, sequentially, for a period ending
    not later than November 3, 1995.
        On October 25, 1995, the Committee on Commerce scheduled a
    Full Committee hearing on H.R. 994. On October 30, 1995, the
    Full Committee hearing was cancelled because of scheduling
    conflicts. In lieu of the Full Committee hearing, the Committee
    conducted a briefing on November 3, 1995, at which
    representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of
    Transportation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission, and the
    Food and Drug Administration presented the views of their
    respective departments and agencies on the impact of, and
    concerns with, the provisions of H.R. 994, as reported to the
    House by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
        On November 3, 1995, the referral of H.R. 994 to the
    Committee on the Judiciary was extended for a period ending not
    later than November 7, 1995. On November 3, 1995, the Committee
    on Commerce was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    994. On November 7, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary
    reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part 2). On
    February 29, 1996, the Rules Committee met and granted a rule
    providing for the consideration of H.R. 994. The rule was filed
    in the House as H. Res. 368 on February 29, 1996. H. Res. 368
    made in order, as an original bill for purposes of amendment,
    an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to be offered by Mr.
    Hyde and printed in the Congressional Record (Printed in the
    Congressional Record on February 29, 1996.) On April 17, 1996,
    H. Res. 368 was laid on the table by unanimous consent.
        On March 21, 1996, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 3136 in the
    House. H.R. 3136 contained language similar to H.R. 994. As
    introduced in the House, Title II, Subtitles A through D, of
    H.R. 3136 aimed to achieve the same goal as Sections 102 and
    103 of H.R. 994, as scheduled for consideration by the House
    under the provisions of H. Res. 368. The goal of Sections 102
    and 103, ``Rules Commented on by SBA Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy'' and ``Sense of Congress Regarding SBA Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy,'' respectively, was to achieve a streamlined and
    effective regulatory process for small businesses.
    Additionally, Subtitle E of Title II of H.R. 3136,
    ``Congressional Review,'' contains only one section, Section
    807, that differs from Title III of H.R. 994, as scheduled for
    consideration by the House.
        H.R. 3136 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, the Committee
    on Rules, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
    Small Business, and the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight.
        On March 27, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3136. The rule was
    filed in the House on March 27, 1996 as H. Res. 391 (H. Rpt.
    104-500). On March 28, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 391 by a
    roll call vote of 232 yeas to 177 nays. H. Res. 391 provided,
    among other things, that amendments printed in the Committee
    report on H. Res. 391 shall be considered as adopted.
        The House considered H.R. 3136 on March 28, 1996, and
    passed the bill, by a roll call vote of 328 yeas to 91 nays. On
    March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was received in the Senate. The
    Senate proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3136 on
    March 28, 1996, and passed the bill without amendment.
        On March 29, 1996, H.R. 3136 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 3136 into law on March 29,
    1996 (P.L. 104-121).

       mercury-containing and rechargeable Battery management act of 1996

                     Public Law 104-142 (H.R. 2024, S. 619)

        To phase out the use of mercury in batteries and provide
    for the efficient and cost-effective collection and recycling
    or proper disposal of used nickel cadmium batteries, small
    sealed lead-acid batteries, and certain other batteries, and
    for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 2024 is a two title bill which amends the Solid Waste
    Disposal Act to ban or limit the use of mercury in most
    consumer batteries and to alter certain hazardous waste
    requirements with respect to spent rechargeable batteries to
    facilitate the recycling of such batteries.

    Title I--Rechargeable Battery Recycling Act

         Under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), used
    rechargeable batteries are considered to be ``hazardous waste''
    because of their heavy metal content. Such batteries are
    subject to the regulatory requirements applicable to hazardous
    waste under Subtitle C of that Act. Household waste is exempted
    from the requirements of Subtitle C, but waste from commercial
    sources is not exempted.
        Title I of H.R. 2024 makes rechargeable batteries subject
    to the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 273, known as the
    ``Universal Waste Rule.'' Title I also prohibits the sale of a
    rechargeable battery or a rechargeable consumer product unless
    the battery bears a label stating that it must be recycled.

    Title II--Mercury-Containing Battery Management Act

        Title II prohibits the sale in the United States after the
    date of enactment of this Act of (1) zinc-carbon batteries
    which contain mercury that was intentionally introduced; (2)
    button cell mercuric oxide batteries; and (3) alkaline-
    manganese batteries which contain mercury that was
    intentionally introduced, except that alkaline-manganese button
    cell batteries may contain up to 25 milligrams of
    intentionally-introduced mercury. It prohibits the sale of
    mercuric-oxide batteries in the United States after such date
    unless the manufacturer or importer of the battery identifies
    and informs purchasers of a collection site where the battery
    can be properly disposed of or recycled.

    Legislative History

        On July 12, 1995, Representatives Klug, Gillmor, Bilirakis,
    Brown of Ohio, Fields of Texas, Franks of Connecticut, Hastert,
    Lincoln, Manton, Pallone, Richardson, Stearns, Tauzin, and
    Thurman introduced H.R. 2024 in the House.
        On August 30, 1995, the Senate Committee on Environment and
    Public Works reported S. 619, a companion bill to H.R. 2024, to
    the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-136). On September 21, 1995, the
    Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of S. 619 and passed the bill. On September 27,
    1995, S. 619 was received in the House and referred to the
    Committee on Commerce.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2024 and S. 619 on March 21,
    1996. The Subcommittee received testimony from the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, representatives of State and
    local governments, and the battery manufacturing and retailing
    industries.
        On April 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials, was discharged from further consideration
    of H.R. 2024 by unanimous consent and the Full Committee
    proceeded in an open markup session to consider H.R. 2024. The
    Full Committee ordered H.R. 2024 reported, amended, by a voice
    vote, to the House. The Committee reported H.R. 2024 to the
    House on April 23, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-530).
        The House considered H.R. 2024 under Suspension of the
    Rules and passed the bill on April 23, 1996, by a voice vote.
    H.R. 2024, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    on April 24, 1996, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On April 25, 1996, the Senate considered and passed H.R.
    2024, without amendment, by a voice vote. H.R. 2024 was
    presented to the President on May 2, 1996. The President signed
    H.R. 2024 into law on May 13, 1996 (P.L. 104-142).

                    anti-car theft improvements act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-152 (H.R. 2803)

        To amend the anti-car theft provisions of Title 49, United
    States Code, to increase the utility of motor vehicle theft
    information to State and Federal law enforcement officials, and
    for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 2803, the Anti-Car Theft Improvements Act of 1996,
    makes a number of technical and substantive changes to those
    provisions of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 which establish a
    National Motor Vehicle Title Information System to provide
    access for States to automobile titling information maintained
    by other States. This system would allow a State motor vehicle
    authority to check instantly whether a motor vehicle had been
    stolen before it issues a title for that vehicle.
        Jurisdiction over the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 is shared
    by the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the
    Judiciary. The Committee on Commerce worked with the Judiciary
    Committee to develop legislative language to address the
    Committee's concerns and expedite consideration of this
    important legislation.
        H.R. 2803 returns the system's title to the National Motor
    Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS), the originally
    enacted title, from the National Automobile Title Information
    System, a change made by the Law Revision Counsel.
        The legislation also transfers authority for the
    implementation of the NMVTIS from the Department of
    Transportation to the Department of Justice. It directs the
    Attorney General, by no later than December 31, 1997, to
    establish a NMVTIS that will provide specified individuals and
    entities with instant and reliable access to information
    maintained by the States relating to motor vehicle titling. It
    also directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on
    which States have met requirements with respect to NMVTIS by no
    later than October 1, 1998.
        H.R. 2308 also grants immunity from any civil action
    seeking money damages or equitable relief in any Federal or
    State court for any person performing activities, in good faith
    and with the reasonable belief that such activities were in
    accordance with Federal provisions, relating to NMVTIS and the
    National Stolen Passenger Motor Vehicle Information System
    (NSPMVIS).
        Finally, the Act authorizes the Attorney General to make
    grants to participating States to be used in making titling
    information available and authorizes appropriations to carry
    out provisions regarding State participation in NMVTIS and
    NSPMVIS.

    Legislative History

        On December 18, 1995, Representatives McCollum, Schumer,
    Coble, Heineman, Schiff, Durbin, Bryant of Tennessee, Lofgren,
    Rogers, Conyers, Petri, Kleczka, and Hamilton introduced H.R.
    2803 in the House. The bill was referred solely to the
    Committee on the Judiciary. On June 12, 1996, the Committee on
    the Judiciary reported H.R. 2803 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-
    618).
        On January 23, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Speaker concerning the referral
    of H.R. 2803 and expressing a number of substantive problems
    with the bill which fall within the Commerce Committee's
    jurisdiction. During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of
    H.R. 2803, the Committee on Commerce worked with the Judiciary
    Committee to develop legislative language to address the
    Committee's concerns. As a result of these negotiations, an
    agreement was reached on a number of technical and substantive
    changes which would be offered as a Floor amendment to H.R.
    2803. On April 29, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary
    Committee indicating that, based on the agreement reached
    between the two Committees and in order to expedite
    consideration, the Commerce Committee would not seek a
    sequential referral of H.R. 2803.
        On June 18, 1996, the House considered H.R. 2803 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, as amended, by a
    voice vote. H.R. 2803, as passed by the House, was received in
    the Senate on June 19, 1996. On June 20, 1996, the Senate, by
    unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration of
    H.R. 2803 and passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2803 was
    presented to the President on June 25, 1996. The President
    signed H.R. 2803 into law on July 2, 1996 (P.L. 104-152).

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1997

                    Public Law 104-201 (H.R. 3230, S. 1745)

                    (Hazardous Materials Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-201 includes a number of provisions which
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    including several dealing with hazardous materials related
    issues. Members of the Committee on Commerce were appointed as
    conferees on these provisions.
        These provisions include three amendments to the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act (CERCLA), all of which were added during the
    Senate consideration of this bill. The first provision provides
    a new authority to defer the listing of a Federal facility on
    the CERCLA National Priorities List if a cleanup is taking
    place under the authority of a different law, such as the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The second provision
    changes existing law to allow for the transfer of all, or a
    portion, of a Federal facility prior to a completed cleanup, as
    long as certain requirements are met. Finally, the legislation
    includes a provision making a change to the definition of
    ``uncontaminated'' property under CERCLA. The Committee on
    Commerce supported the inclusion of these provisions in the
    final bill.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3230 was introduced in the House on April 15, 1996, by
    Mr. Spence and Mr. Dellums and referred to the Committee on
    National Security. On May 7, 1996, the Committee on National
    Security reported H.R. 3230 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-563). The
    House considered H.R. 3230 on May 14 and 15, 1996, and on May
    15, 1996, passed the bill, amended, by a roll call vote of 272
    yeas to 153 nays. On May 17, 1996, H.R. 3230 was received in
    the Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On May 13, 1996, the Senate Committee on Armed Forces
    reported a companion bill, S. 1745, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    267). On May 15, 1996, S. 1745 was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Intelligence, which reported the bill to the
    Senate on June 11, 1996 (S. Rpt. 104-278). The Senate
    considered S. 1745 on June 18, June 19, June 20, June 24, June
    25, June 26, June 27, June 28, and July 10, 1996. On July 10,
    1996, the Senate passed S. 1745 by a roll call vote of 68 yeas
    to 31 nays. The Senate, by unanimous consent, then took H.R.
    3230 from the Senate Calendar and passed the bill, amended with
    the text of S. 1745 as passed by the Senate. The Senate
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    House, and appointed conferees.
        On July 17, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3230, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3230
    was filed in the House on July 30, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-724). The
    House agreed to the conference report on August 1, 1996, by a
    roll call vote of 285 yeas to 132 nays. The Senate considered
    the conference report on September 9 and September 10, 1996,
    and agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 73
    yeas to 26 nays on September 10, 1996.
        H.R. 3230 was presented to the President on September 13,
    1996. On September 23, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3230
    into law (P.L. 104-201.)

                 omnibus consolidated appropriations act, 1997

               Public Law 104-208 (H.R. 3610, S. 1894, H.R. 4278)

                    (Hazardous Materials Related Provisions)

        Making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the Fiscal
    Year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3610 served as an omnibus continuing appropriations
    measure for those Federal agencies which did not have
    individual Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations measures enacted
    into law. Affected agencies and entities included the
    Departments of Justice, Commerce, State, Defense, Interior,
    Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and the Treasury,
    as well as the Post Office and the Judiciary. Independent
    agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission were also funded
    by the bill. Additionally, a number of legislative provisions,
    some affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    were included in H.R. 3610. The Committee on Commerce supported
    the inclusion of these provisions in the public law.
        Specifically, Public Law 104-208 contains a comprehensive
    Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996,
    certain provisions of which are within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce. Subtitle E of that Act, entitled the
    ``Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance
    Protection Act of 1996'', amended the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    (CERCLA) to provide protections to the financial community with
    respect to liability under CERCLA. These provisions were within
    the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction. Members of the
    Committee were involved in the processing of the legislation,
    and similar provisions were included in Superfund reform
    legislation considered by the Committee.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3610 was introduced in the House on June 11, 1996, by
    Mr. Young of Florida and reported to the House on the same day
    by the Committee on Appropriations (H. Rpt. 104-617). On June
    13, 1996, the House considered and passed H.R. 3610, amended,
    by a roll call vote of 278 yeas to 126 nays.
        On June 14, 1996, H.R. 3610 was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. On June 20,
    1996, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1894,
    a companion bill, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-286). The Senate
    considered S. 1894 on July 11, July 17, and July 18, 1996. On
    July 18, 1996, the Committee on Appropriations was discharged
    from further consideration of H.R. 3610, and the bill was
    passed, by a roll call vote of 72 yeas to 21 nays, as amended
    with the text of S. 1894, as amended by the Senate.
    Subsequently, S. 1894 was returned to the Senate Calendar and
    no further action was taken on that bill. The Senate then
    insisted on its amendment to H.R. 3610, requested a conference
    with the House, and appointed conferees on July 18, 1996.
        On July 30, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3610, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3610 was
    filed in the House on September 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-863). On
    September 28, 1996, the House agreed to the conference report
    on H.R. 3610 by roll call vote of 370 yeas to 37 nays. Pursuant
    to a unanimous consent agreement reached earlier that day, upon
    the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 3610, H.R. 4278,
    a bill making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the
    Fiscal Year ending September 30, 1997, was considered as
    passed. The text of H.R. 4278 was identical to the text
    contained in the conference report on H.R. 3610.
        On September 30, 1996, the Senate considered and passed
    H.R. 4278 by a roll call vote of 84 yeas to 15 nays. Then
    Senate then agreed to the conference report on H.R. 3610 by a
    voice vote. On September 30, 1996, H.R. 3610 was presented to
    the President. On September 30, 1996, the President signed H.R.
    3610 into law (P.L. 104-208).

              federal trade commission reauthorization act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-216 (H.R. 3553, S. 1840)

        To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to authorize
    appropriations for the Federal Trade Commission.

    Summary

        H.R. 3553, the Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act
    of 1996, authorizes appropriations of $107 million for Fiscal
    Year 1997 and $111 million for Fiscal Year 1998. These amounts
    represent a current services budget for the FTC and contemplate
    no increase in the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    personnel.

    Legislative History

        On May 30, 1996, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Manton introduced H.R.
    3553 in the House. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 3553 on July 11,
    1996. Testimony was received from the Chairman and
    Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission. On July 18,
    1996, the Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 3553 and approved the bill for Full Committee
    consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 3553 on July 24, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 3553 to the House on August 2, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    754).
        The House considered H.R. 3553 under Suspension of the
    Rules and passed the bill by a voice vote on September 4, 1996.
    H.R. 3553, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    on September 5, 1996, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On July 31, 1996, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation reported S. 1840, a companion bill,
    to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-342.) No further action was taken on
    S. 1840 in the 104th Congress. Instead, on September 13, 1996,
    the Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 3553 and passed that bill without
    amendment.
        H.R. 3553 was presented to the President on September 20,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 3553 into law on October 1,
    1996 (P.L. 104-216).

                     professional boxing safety act of 1996

               Public Law 104-272 (H.R. 4167, H.R. 1186, S. 187)

        To provide for the safety of journeymen boxers, and for
    other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 4167 improves the ability of State-authorized boxing
    commissions to provide proper oversight of professional boxing,
    and establishes a minimum level of health and safety standards
    for professional boxers. It ensures that no professional boxing
    match may be conducted without the supervision of a State-
    authorized boxing commission. It creates a uniform system of
    registration, licensing, and reporting, which is regulated and
    managed by States and private interests. Procedures are
    outlined for mutual recognition, review, and appeal of boxer
    suspensions. Minimum safety standards are established with the
    manner and extent left up to the States, including a pre-fight
    physical exam by a licensed physician, a physician and an
    ambulance or medical personnel with appropriate resuscitation
    equipment continuously present at ringside, and health
    insurance for each boxer to provide medical coverage for
    injuries sustained during a match.
        The Act also provides that members and employees of boxing
    commissions and the Association of Boxing Commissions are
    prohibited from belonging to, contracting with, or receiving
    compensation from those who sanction, arrange, or promote
    professional boxing matches or who have a financial interest in
    a boxer.
        Two studies are authorized, one by the Secretary of Labor
    to determine the feasibility of a national pension system for
    boxers; the second by the Department of Health and Human
    Services (National Institute for Occupational Safety and
    Health) to develop recommendations for health, safety, and
    equipment standards for boxing.
        Finally, the Act empowers the Attorney General to enforce
    this legislation, and authorizes States to adopt additional
    regulations and penalties that are not inconsistent with these
    purposes.

    Legislative History

        On January 10, 1995, Mr. McCain and Mr. Bryan introduced S.
    187, a companion bill to H.R. 1186, in the Senate. On October
    19, 1995, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation reported S. 187 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-159).
    On October 31, 1995, the Senate, by unanimous consent proceeded
    to the immediate consideration of S. 187 and passed the bill,
    amended. On November 1, 1995, S. 187 was received in the House
    and referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce.
    Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
        On March 9, 1995, Mr. Oxley introduced H.R. 1186 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Economic and
    Educational Opportunities, and in addition to the Committee on
    Commerce. On June 11, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials, and the Committee on Economic
    and Educational Opportunities Subcommittee on Workforce
    Protections held a joint hearing on H.R. 1186 and S. 187.
    Testimony was received from Members of Congress, State boxing
    commissioners and associations, professional boxers, and
    doctors with fight supervision experience.
        On July 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials met in open markup session to consider H.R.
    1186, and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration,
    as amended, by a roll call vote of 11 yeas and 10 nays. No
    further action was taken by the House on S. 187.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1186 on September 18, 1996, and ordered the bill reported
    to the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on
    Commerce reported H.R. 1186 to the House on September 24, 1996
    (H. Rpt. 104-833, Part 1). No further action was taken on H.R.
    1186 in the House in the 104th Congress.
        On September 25, 1996, Representatives Williams, Oxley, and
    Manton introduced H.R. 4167 in the House. H.R. 4167 was
    referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce.
    The text of H.R. 4167 was identical to the text of H.R. 1186,
    as reported to the House by the Committee on Commerce on
    September 24, 1996.
        On September 25, 1996, the House considered H.R. 4167 under
    Suspension of the Rules, thereby discharging the Committee on
    Commerce and the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities from further consideration. On that same date,
    H.R. 4167 passed the House by a voice vote. H.R. 4167, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate on September
    26, 1996, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4167 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 4167 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    4167 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-272).

            united states national tourism organization act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-288 (H.R. 2579, S. 1735)

        To establish the National Tourism Board and the National
    Tourism Organization to promote international travel and
    tourism to the United States.

    Summary

        H.R. 2579 establishes a United States National Tourism
    Organization (USNTO) as a privately-funded, non-profit, non-
    Federal organization. The purpose of the USNTO is to promote
    the United States share of the international travel and tourism
    market, develop and implement a national travel and tourism
    strategy, advise the President and Congress on how to implement
    this strategy and on other critical matters affecting the
    travel and tourism industry, conduct travel and tourism market
    research, and promote the interests of the United States travel
    and tourism industry at international trade shows. The Act
    provides that the governing board of USNTO will consist of a
    broad cross-section of the American travel and tourism
    industry.
        The Act also requires Federal agencies, which conduct
    activities relating to international travel and tourism, to
    give priority consideration to USNTO's recommendations, and to
    report to Congress on any travel and tourism activities carried
    out with the participation of the United States Federal
    government. Finally, H.R. 2579 repeals the authorization for
    the United States Travel and Tourism Administration and revises
    the travel and tourism-related responsibilities of the
    Secretary of the Department of Commerce to be more narrowly
    focused only on those functions which the private sector is
    unable to implement effectively.

    Legislative History

        On November 2, 1995, H.R. 2579 was introduced in the House
    by Representatives Roth, Skelton, Clement, Petri, Morella,
    Frazer, Gejdenson, Lincoln, Abercrombie, Oxley, Vucanovich,
    Zeliff, Boehlert, Burton of Indiana, Doolittle, Dixon, Roemer,
    Seastrand, McCollum, Pickett, Oberstar, and Farr. The bill was
    referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the
    Committee on International Relations.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a joint hearing with the Committee on
    International Relations Subcommittee on Economic Policy and
    Trade on H.R. 2579 on January 24, 1996. Testimony was received
    from Department of Commerce officials, foreign tourism
    commissioners, and executives from the travel and tourism
    industry. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2579 on
    May 7, 1996, and approved the bill for Full Committee
    consideration, amended, by a voice vote. The Full Committee met
    in open markup session to consider H.R. 2579 on July 24, 1996,
    and ordered the bill reported to the House, as amended, by a
    voice vote.
        The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation reported a companion bill, S. 1735, to the
    Senate on July 31, 1996. On August 2, 1996, the Senate, by
    unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration of
    S. 1735 and passed the bill. S. 1735 was received in the House
    on September 4, 1996, and referred to the Committee on
    Commerce, and in addition, to the Committee on International
    Relations. No further action was taken on S. 1735 in the House
    in the 104th Congress.
        The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 2579 to the House
    on September 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-839, Part 1). Referral of
    the bill to the Committee on International Relations was
    extended for a period ending not later than September 25, 1996.
    On September 25, 1996, the Committee on International Relations
    was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2579.
        The House considered H.R. 2579 under Suspension of the
    Rules and passed the bill, amended, on September 26, 1996, by a
    voice vote. H.R. 2579, as passed by the House, was received in
    the Senate on September 26, 1996, read twice, and placed on the
    Senate Calendar.
        On September 28, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2579 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2579 was presented to
    the President on October 2, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2579 into law on October 11, 1996 (P.L. 104-288).

                          balanced budget act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2491)

     (Title XVII, as passed by the House--Department of Commerce Abolition)

        To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of
    the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 1996.

    Summary

        Title XVII of H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995,
    as passed by the House, contains provisions relating to the
    abolition of the Department of Commerce, which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
        The purpose of Title XVII is to reduce Federal spending and
    the size of the Federal government by dismantling the
    Department of Commerce. This title terminates many of the
    Department's grant-making programs, eliminates the Department's
    agencies for which authorization has expired, abolishes several
    of the Department's recently created super-bureaucracies, and
    consolidates the remaining functions into other Departments or
    agencies. Except for the Bureau of the Census and the Patent
    and Trademark Office, a spending cap of 75 percent of FY 1994
    expenditures is imposed on all transferred agencies or
    functions.

    Legislative History

        On September 14, and September 19, 1995, the Full Committee
    considered a Committee Print entitled ``Department of Commerce
    Abolition''. On September 19, 1995, the Full Committee approved
    the Committee Print, as amended, for transmittal to the
    Committee on the Budget for inclusion in the Balanced Budget
    Act of 1995 by a roll call vote of 25 yeas to 19 nays. Prior to
    this action, on July 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a joint hearing with the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance on H.R. 1756,
    the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of 1995. For the
    legislative history of that bill, see the discussion of the
    Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of 1995 (H.R. 1756) in
    this section.
        The provisions of this Committee Print were included in the
    text of Title XVII of H.R. 2491 as reported to the House by the
    Committee on the Budget on October 17, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-280,
    Volumes I and II). The House considered H.R. 2491 on October 25
    and October 26, 1995, and passed the bill on October 26, 1995,
    by a roll call vote of 227 yeas to 203 nays. H.R. 2491 was
    received in the Senate on October 27, 1995, read twice, and
    placed on the Senate Calendar. The Senate passed H.R. 2491 on
    October 28, 1995, as amended, by a roll call vote of 52 yeas to
    47 nays. On October 30, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendments, requested a conference with the Senate, and
    appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce were
    appointed as conferees. The Senate insisted on its amendments,
    agreed to a conference with the House, and appointed conferees
    on November 13, 1995.
        On November 15, 1995, the conference report was filed in
    the House (H. Rpt. 104-347). On November 17, 1995, the House
    passed H. Res. 272 which vacated the proceedings with respect
    to H. Rpt. 104-347, and the conference report was refiled in
    the House as H. Rpt. 104-350. The provisions dealing with the
    Department of Commerce Abolition were deleted from the final
    legislation because of assertions by the Senate conferees that
    consideration of these provisions was prohibited by Section
    313(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
        On December 6, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 2491 and
    returned the bill to the House (H. Doc. 104-141). The veto
    message and the accompanying bill were referred to the
    Committee on the Budget on December 6, 1995.

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

                              (H.R. 1530, S. 1026)

                    (Hazardous Materials Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1530 as presented to the President included a number
    of provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce, including several dealing with hazardous
    materials related issues. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees on these provisions.
        These provisions include provisions of H.R. 714 that deal
    with certain land conveyances involving the Joliet Army
    Ammunition Plant which would create a Midewin National
    Tallgrass Prairie from the Joliet Arsenal. H.R. 1530 also
    includes: (1) changes to existing law regarding Restoration
    Advisory Boards (RABs) which work in conjunction with the
    environmental cleanup of national defense facilities; and (2)
    changes to existing law governing the Department of Defense's
    ability to lease parcels of defense facilities which may have
    environmental contamination. For the legislative history of
    H.R. 714, see the discussion of the Illinois Land Conservation
    Act of 1995 in this section.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1530 was introduced in the House by Mr. Spence and Mr.
    Dellums on May 2, 1995, and referred to the Committee on
    National Security. The Committee on National Security reported
    the bill to the House on June 1, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-131).
        The House considered H.R. 1530 on June 13, June 14, and
    June 15, 1995; on June 15, 1995, the House passed H.R. 1530, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 300 yeas to 126 nays. H.R.
    1530, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 20,
    1995.
        On July 12, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    reported a companion bill, S. 1026, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    112). The Senate considered S. 1026 on August 2, August 3,
    August 4, August 5, August 9, September 5, and September 6,
    1995. On September 6, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1530, and the Senate then passed H.R. 1530, amended with the
    text of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote
    of 64 yeas to 34 nays. Further action on S. 1026 was
    indefinitely postponed. The Senate insisted on its amendment to
    H.R. 1530 and requested a conference with the House. Senate
    conferees were appointed on September 8, 1995.
        On September 21, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 1530, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. The conference report on H.R. 1530
    was filed in the House on December 13, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-406).
    The House agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote
    of 267 yeas to 149 nays, on December 15, 1995. The Senate
    agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote of 51 yeas
    to 43 nays on December 19, 1995. The bill was presented to the
    President on December 22, 1995.
        On December 28, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 1530. On
    January 3, 1996, the veto message on H.R. 1530 was received and
    read in the House (H. Doc. 104-155). The House then considered
    H.R. 1530 and failed to pass the bill, the objections of the
    President to the contrary notwithstanding, by a roll call vote
    of 240 yeas to 156 nays. The veto message and the accompanying
    bill were referred to the Committee on National Security on
    January 3, 1996.
        Subsequently, the House and Senate passed S. 1124, which
    was signed into law by the President on February 10, 1996
    (Public Law 104-106). For the legislative history of S. 1124,
    see the discussion of that bill in this section.

            common sense product liability legal reform act of 1996

                    (H.R. 956, H.R. 917, H.R. 1075, S. 565)

        To establish legal standards and procedures for product
    liability litigation, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 956 improves the uniformity of State and Federal
    product liability laws. Specifically, it sets forth liability
    standards for product sellers, provides a liability defense
    where a claimant is more than 50 percent responsible for an
    accident causing harm as a result of intoxication or improper
    drug usage, and reduces any damages for harm attributable to a
    claimant's misuse or alteration of a product. It establishes a
    uniform 2 year statute of limitation from when the claimant
    discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the harm and
    the cause of the harm, and a 15 year statute of repose where a
    claimant is eligible for workers' compensation and has not
    suffered a chronic illness.
        H.R. 956 establishes nonbinding alternative dispute
    resolution procedures. It sets forth minimum standards for
    punitive damage awards, requiring clear and convincing evidence
    of conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of
    others, and setting proportionality limits of the lesser of
    $250,000 or 2 times the harm for individuals with net worth
    less than $500,000 and organizations with fewer than 25
    employees, and the greater of $250,000 or 2 times the harm for
    other persons. A court may award additional damages after
    considering specific factors (profitability of the misconduct,
    etc.), and must set forth the reasons for so doing.
        H.R. 956 also provides that a defendant's liability for
    noneconomic damages shall be several only and not joint, and
    that each defendant's liability for noneconomic damages shall
    be in direct proportion to its percentage of responsibility for
    the harm caused. It sets forth a uniform workers compensation
    subrogation procedure, preventing claimants from recovering
    both product liability damages and workers'' compensation, and
    allowing defendant manufacturers to reduce a damage award by
    the amount of such compensation already awarded. It also
    reforms the liability standards for biomaterials suppliers,
    particularly by expediting dismissal of unwarranted lawsuits to
    minimize litigation expenditures.
        Finally, H.R. 956 applies to all civil product liability
    actions, except those governed under established commercial or
    contract law, and applies to any action filed after the date of
    enactment, regardless of when the harm occurred.

    Legislative History

        On February 13, 1995, Mr. Oxley introduced H.R. 917 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
    and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. Within the
    Committee on Commerce, the bill was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials for a
    period ending not later than February 21, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 917 on February 21, 1995.
    Testimony was received from associations representing
    manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, trial lawyer
    associations, State legislator councils, and small business
    owners. On February 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials was discharged from further
    consideration of H.R. 917.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 917 on February 22 and February 23, 1995. On February 23,
    1995, the Full Committee ordered H.R. 917 reported to the
    House, amended, by a roll call vote of 26 yeas to 17 nays. The
    Committee reported H.R. 917 to the House on March 1, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-63, Part 1).
        On February 15, 1995, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Hoke introduced H.R.
    956 in the House. That bill was referred solely to the
    Committee on the Judiciary. On March 2, 1995, the Committee on
    the Judiciary reported H.R. 956, as amended, to the House (H.
    Rpt. 104-64, Part 1). On the same day, H.R. 956 was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce sequentially for a period ending not
    later than March 7, 1995.
        On March 7, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    sent a letter to the Speaker waiving the Commerce Committee's
    right to mark up H.R. 956 without prejudicing its jurisdiction
    with respect to product liability legislation, in order to
    expedite consideration of this legislation by the House. The
    Chairman further asked that Commerce Committee action taken on
    H.R. 917 and the Committee's report thereon (H. Rpt. 104-63,
    Part 1) be incorporated into the legislative history on H.R.
    956.
        The House considered H.R. 956 on March 8, March 9, and
    March 10, 1995. On March 9, 1995, the House passed H. Res. 109,
    the rule which made it in order to consider the text of H.R.
    1075 as an original bill for purposes of amendment on the House
    Floor. H.R. 1075 reflected a consensus agreement developed by
    the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary,
    and contained provisions from both H.R. 917 and H.R. 956. The
    House passed H.R. 956, as amended, by a roll call vote of 265
    yeas to 161 nays on March 10, 1995. H.R. 956, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on March 14, 1995, and read
    for the first time. On March 15, 1995, H.R. 956 was read for
    the second time and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On April 18, 1995, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation reported its version of product
    liability legislation to the Senate as S. 565 (S. Rpt. 104-69).
    No further action was taken on S. 565 in the Senate in the
    104th Congress.
        The Senate considered H.R. 956 on April 24, April 25, April
    26, April 27, May 1, May 2, May 3, May 5, May 8, May 9, and May
    10, 1995. The Senate passed H.R. 956, as amended, by a roll
    call vote of 61 yeas to 37 nays, on May 10, 1995.
        The House disagreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 956 on
    November 9, 1995, requested a conference with the Senate, and
    appointed conferees. On November 28, 1995, the Senate insisted
    on its amendment, agreed to a conference with the House, and
    appointed conferees. On December 15, 1995, a conference meeting
    was held.
        On March 14, 1996, the House appointed Mr. Markey as a
    conferee in lieu of Mr. Wyden. The conference report on H.R.
    956 was filed in the House on March 14, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-481).
    The Senate considered the conference report on March 15, March
    18, March 19, March 20, and March 21, 1996. On March 21, 1996,
    the Senate agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote
    of 59 yeas to 40 nays.
        On March 27, 1996, the House Committee on Rules met and
    granted a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 956. The
    rule was filed in the House as H. Res. 394. The House passed H.
    Res. 394 on March 29, 1996 by a voice vote. The House agreed to
    the conference report on March 29, 1996, by a roll call vote of
    259 yeas to 158 nays.
        On April 30, 1996, H.R. 956 was presented to the President.
    The President vetoed H.R. 956 on May 2, 1996.
        On May 6, 1996, the veto message on H.R. 956 was received
    and read in the House (H. Doc. 104-207). Further consideration
    of the veto message by the House was postponed until May 9,
    1996. On May 9, 1996, the House considered H.R. 956 and failed
    to pass the bill, the objections of the President to the
    contrary notwithstanding, by a roll call vote of 258 yeas to
    163 nays. The veto message and the accompanying bill were
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on May 9, 1996.

                  risk assessment and cost-benefit act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1022)

        To provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic
    resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and
    the environment through scientifically objective and unbiased
    risk assessments and through the consideration of costs and
    benefits in major rules, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1022 addresses the Federal risk assessment and
    regulatory decisions in programs designed to protect human
    health, safety, or the environment. Title I of the Risk
    Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act provides for minimum standards
    of disclosure, objectivity, and informativeness for the
    assessment and presentation of risk information in significant
    Federal risk assessment and risk characterization documents.
    Title II requires analysis and consideration of costs,
    benefits, and flexibility among regulatory options when
    promulgating new major rules. The bill specifically requires
    heads of Federal agencies to certify that the incremental
    benefits of new major regulations are justified and reasonably
    related to the incremental costs. Costs and benefits may be
    both quantifiable and non-quantifiable. To the extent
    provisions of existing law preclude the head of the Federal
    agency from certifying that the incremental benefits are
    justified and reasonably related to the incremental costs, the
    authority of H.R. 1022 supersedes the standards in existing law
    in order to provide regulatory options which can meet the
    certification requirement. Notwithstanding other provisions of
    law, certifications must be supported by substantial evidence
    of the rulemaking record. Title III requires independent peer
    review of certain major risk or economic assessments. Title IV
    clarifies the mechanism for judicial review. Title V requires
    covered Federal agencies to provide an additional plan
    outlining any additional processes for receiving new
    information and setting priorities for revising prior risk
    assessments. Finally, Title VI requires the President to
    identify and report the priorities among Federal regulatory
    programs to protect human health, to consider a number of
    criteria to provide for recommendations to Congress, and to
    incorporate such priorities into strategic planning.

    Legislative History

        On February 23, 1995, Mr. Walker and Mr. Bliley introduced
    H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
    This bill represented a compromise agreement developed by the
    Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Science with respect
    to their differing versions of Title III of H.R. 9.
        H.R. 1022 was referred to the Committee on Science, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce. On February 27, 1995,
    the House passed H. Res. 96 providing for the consideration of
    H.R. 1022 by the House. The House considered H.R. 1022 on
    February 27 and February 28, 1995. On February 28, 1995, the
    House passed H.R. 1022, as amended, by a roll call vote of 286
    yeas to 141 nays.
        H.R. 1022, as passed by the House, was received in the
    Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental
    Affairs on March 2, 1995. No further action was taken in the
    Senate on the legislation in the 104th Congress.
        On March 3, 1995, the House considered H.R. 9, and struck
    all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the
    provisions of a text composed of four divisions: H.R. 830, H.R.
    925, H.R. 926, and H.R. 1022, as each bill passed the House
    previously. The House then passed H.R. 9, as amended, by a roll
    call vote of 277 yeas to 141 nays. For the legislative history
    of H.R. 9, see the discussion of the Job Creation and Wage
    Enhancement Act of 1995 in this section.

                 job creation and wage enhancement act of 1995

          (Division D of H.R. 9--Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act)

        To create jobs, enhance wages, strengthen property rights,
    maintain certain economic liberties, decentralize and reduce
    the power of the Federal Government with respect to the States,
    localities, and citizens of the United States, and to increase
    the accountability of Federal officials.

    Summary

        As passed by the House, Division D of H.R. 9 contains the
    text of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of
    1995, which passed the House on February 28, 1995. Division D
    of H.R. 9 addresses the Federal risk assessment and regulatory
    decisions in programs designed to protect human health, safety
    or the environment. First, Division D provides for minimum
    standards of disclosure, objectivity, and informativeness for
    the assessment and presentation of risk information in
    significant Federal risk assessment and risk characterization
    documents. Second, it requires analysis and consideration of
    costs, benefits, and flexibility among regulatory options when
    promulgating major rules. The bill specifically requires heads
    of Federal agencies to certify that the incremental benefits of
    new major regulations are justified and reasonably related to
    the incremental costs. Costs and benefits may be both
    quantifiable and non-quantifiable. To the extent provisions of
    existing law preclude the head of the Federal agency from
    certifying that the incremental benefits are justified and
    reasonably related to the incremental costs, the authority of
    Division D of H.R. 9 supersedes the standards in existing law
    in order to provide regulatory options which can meet the
    certification requirement. Notwithstanding other provisions of
    law, certifications must be supported by substantial evidence
    of the rulemaking record. Third, it requires independent peer
    review of certain major risk or economic assessments. Fourth,
    it clarifies the mechanism for judicial review. Fifth, it
    requires covered Federal agencies to provide an additional plan
    outlining any additional processes for receiving new
    information and setting priorities for revising prior risk
    assessments. Finally, it requires the President to identify and
    report the priorities among Federal regulatory programs to
    protect human health, to consider a number of criteria to
    provide for recommendations to Congress, and to incorporate
    such priorities into strategic planning.

    Legislative History

        On January 4, 1995, Representatives Archer, DeLay, Saxton,
    Smith of Washington, Tauzin, and 107 cosponsors introduced H.R.
    9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. H.R. 9
    was referred, by title, to the following Committees: the
    Committee on Ways and Means; the Committee on Science; the
    Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight; the Committee on the Budget; the Committee on Rules;
    the Committee on the Judiciary; and the Committee on Small
    Business.
        Title III of H.R. 9, Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit
    Analysis for New Regulations, was referred to the Committee on
    Science, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce and the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Within the
    Committee on Commerce, Title III of H.R. 9 was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials and
    the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, and in addition
    to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for a period ending
    not later than February 3, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment held
    joint hearings on H.R. 9 on February 1 and February 2, 1995.
    The hearing included twenty-five witnesses from a broad range
    of interests, including representatives of Federal agencies,
    State governments, local governments, school boards, scientific
    organizations, the environmental community, labor unions, and
    the regulated community. On February 3, 1995, the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials; the Subcommittee
    on Health and Environment; and the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 9 on February 7 and February 8, 1995. On February 8, 1995,
    the Full Committee ordered H.R. 9 reported to the House, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 27 yeas to 16 nays. The
    Committee reported H.R. 9 to the House on February 15, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-33, Pt. 1).
        The Committee on Science also reported H.R. 9 to the House
    on February 15, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-33, Pt. 2).
        On March 3, 1995, the House considered H.R. 9, and struck
    all after Section 1 and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions
    of a text composed of four divisions: H.R. 830, H.R. 925, H.R.
    926, and H.R. 1022, as each bill passed the House previously.
    The House then passed H.R. 9, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 277 yeas to 141 nays. For the legislative history of H.R.
    1022, see the discussion of the Risk Assessment and Cost-
    Benefit Act of 1995 in this section.
        H.R. 9, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    and referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on
    March 9, 1995. No further action was taken in the Senate on the
    legislation in the 104th Congress.

                     illinois land conservation act of 1995

                                   (H.R. 714)

        To establish the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in the
    State of Illinois, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 714 is to provide for the transfer of
    property formerly constituting the Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
    from the Department of the Army to the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture for the purpose of creating the Midewin National
    Tallgrass Prairie. The bill would also convey portions of the
    Ammunition Plant to (1) the Department of Veterans Affairs for
    the purpose of establishing a national cemetery, (2) to the
    State of Illinois for economic development, and (3) to Will
    County, Illinois, for purposes of creating a landfill.
        H.R. 714 includes provisions amending the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    (CERCLA) with respect to the environmental cleanup of this
    property which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Commerce.

    Legislative History

        On January 26, 1995, Mr. Weller introduced H.R. 714 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture,
    and in addition to the Committee on National Security, the
    Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure.
        The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported
    H.R. 714, as amended, to the House on July 18, 1995 (H. Rpt.
    104-191, Part I). The Committee on Agriculture reported H.R.
    714 to the House on July 28, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-191, Part II).
    On July 28, 1995, the referral of the bill to the Committee on
    Commerce and the Committee on National Security was extended
    for a period ending not later than August 4, 1995.
        On July 31, 1995, by unanimous consent, the Committee on
    Commerce and the Committee on National Security were discharged
    from further consideration of H.R. 714.
        The House considered and passed H.R. 714, as amended, by
    unanimous consent on July 31, 1995. H.R. 714, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on August 1, 1995. H.R. 714
    was read twice and placed on the Senate Calendar on August 2,
    1995. No further action was taken in the Senate on H.R. 714 in
    the 104th Congress.
        Provisions of H.R. 714 were included in both the conference
    report on H.R. 1530 and the conference report on S. 1124. For
    the legislative history of H.R. 1530 and S. 1124, see the
    discussion of those bills in this section.

            armored car industry reciprocity improvement act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3431)

        To amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of 1993
    to clarify certain requirements and to improve the flow of
    interstate commerce.

    Summary

        The bill amends subsection 3 of the Armored Car Industry
    Reciprocity Act of 1993 (15 U.S.C. 5902) to provide that if an
    armored car crew member employed by an armored car company: (1)
    has a weapons permit issued by an appropriate State agency in
    the State in which the crew member is primarily employed to
    carry a weapon or weapons while in the service of such company
    and the State meets the statute's minimum criteria, and (2) has
    met all other applicable requirements in the State in which the
    crew member is employed, then that crew member shall be
    entitled to lawfully carry any weapon authorized by the license
    and function as an armored car crew member in any State.
        Further, it clarifies the minimum requirements for States'
    licenses to be granted reciprocity. When issuing an initial
    license to an armored car crew member, the State must determine
    to its satisfaction that (1) the crew member has received both
    classroom and range training in weapons safety and marksmanship
    during the current year, and (2) that receipt or possession of
    a weapon by the crew member would not violate Federal law, as
    determined on the basis of a criminal records background check
    conducted during the current year. When issuing renewal
    licenses, the State must determine to its satisfaction that the
    crew member (1) received continuing training in weapons safety
    and marksmanship from a qualified instructor for each weapon
    that the crew member is licensed to carry, and (2) the receipt
    or possession of a weapon by the crew member would not violate
    Federal law, as determined by the agency.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3431 was introduced in the House by Mr. Whitfield on
    May 9, 1996. On May 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 3431. The
    Subcommittee heard testimony from Mr. James L. Dunbar, Chairman
    and CEO of Dunbar Armored, and Mr. Wayne Rigillio, Executive
    Secretary of the Louisiana State Board of Private Security
    Examiners, both of whom testified that the technical problems
    identified by the States have hindered the implementation of
    the original Act. They also testified that H.R. 3431 would
    correct those problems.
        Immediately following the hearing on May 22, 1996, the
    Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3431
    and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. On June 11, 1996, the Full
    Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3431
    reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 3431 to the House on June 17, 1996 (H.
    Rpt. 104-623).
        On July 9, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3431 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by a voice vote.
    H.R. 3431 was received in the Senate on July 10, 1996, read
    twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation. No further action occurred in the
    Senate on H.R. 3431 in the 104th Congress.

                 international dolphin conservation program act

                                  (H.R. 2823)

        To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to
    support the International Dolphin Conservation Program in the
    eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Conservation Program
    Act, implements the LaJolla/Declaration of Panama Agreement and
    provides for U.S. participation in the International Dolphin
    Conservation program established under that agreement by
    modifying U.S. law to end the existing tuna import embargo, and
    to permit tuna caught with purse seine nets in the eastern
    tropical Pacific Ocean to be labeled as ``dolphin-safe,''
    provided certain conditions are met.
        Provisions of the legislation within the Committee on
    Commerce's jurisdiction amend the Dolphin Consumer Information
    Act of 1989, which was later included in the Magnuson Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 101-627). These
    provisions modify the definition of ``dolphin-safe'' for the
    purpose of labeling tuna products sold in the United States,
    and alter current regulations on the importation of tuna
    products. Further, the bill makes misuse of the ``dolphin-
    safe'' label an unfair and deceptive trade practice under
    Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

    Legislative History

        On December 21, 1995, Representatives Gilchrest,
    Cunningham, Richardson, Boehlert, Bilbray, Goss, Young of
    Alaska, Packard, Castle, Lazio of New York, Gillmor, Kolbe,
    Shays, Hunter, Klug, Hansen, Pombo, Cardin, DeFazio, Coble,
    Ehlers, Upton, Davis, Morella, Torkildsen, Foley, and Blute
    introduced H.R. 2823 in the House. The bill was referred solely
    to the Committee on Resources. On May 8, 1996, the Committee on
    Resources ordered H.R. 2823 reported to the House, amended, by
    a voice vote.
        On June 27, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Resources
    indicating that H.R. 2823 included several provisions within
    the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. The Chairman
    stated, however, that the Committee on Commerce had reviewed
    the action taken by the Resources Committee and in order to
    expedite consideration of this measure by the House, the
    Committee on Commerce would not seek a sequential referral of
    H.R. 2823, provided such action would not prejudice the
    Commerce Committee's future jurisdictional interests in the
    legislation.
        On June 27, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Resources sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce recognizing the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
    concerns with respect to H.R. 2823 and supporting the Commerce
    Committee's prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        The Committee on Resources reported H.R. 2823 to the House
    on July 10, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-665, Part 1.) On that date, the
    bill was referred sequentially to the Committee on Ways and
    Means for a period ending not later than July 23, 1996. On July
    23, 1996, the Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 2823 to
    the House (H. Rpt. 104-655, Part 2).
        On July 31, 1996, the House considered and passed H.R. 2823
    by a roll call vote of 316 yeas to 108 nays. H.R. 2823, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate on August 1,
    1996, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation. No further action was taken by the
    Senate on H.R. 2823 during the 104th Congress.

                        made in america toll free number

                                   (H.R. 447)

        To establish a toll free number in the Department of
    Commerce to assist consumers in determining if products are
    American-made.

    Summary

        H.R. 447 requires the Secretary of Commerce to determine if
    interest exists in the manufacturing community for the
    establishment of a toll free number that would provide
    consumers with information on whether particular products with
    a retail value of $250 or greater are ``made in America.'' If
    there is sufficient interest shown on the part of manufacturers
    not only to participate in such a program, but also to provide
    private sector funding, the Secretary is directed to enter into
    a contract for the establishment and operation of the program.
    The program is to be funded solely from fees collected from
    manufacturers wishing to have their products listed as ``made
    in America''.
        In order to qualify as ``made in America'' for purposes of
    the registry, a product's domestic content must be consistent
    with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) standards for use of
    the ``made in America'' designation. Further, the bill
    explicitly provides that nothing in the Act would be construed
    to alter, amend, modify, or otherwise affect the opinions,
    decisions, and rules of the FTC, which currently has its own
    standard for the use of the term ``made in America.''

    Legislative History

        H.R. 447 was introduced in the House by Mr. Traficant on
    January 9, 1995. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 447 on July 11,
    1996. Testimony was received from Representative Traficant. The
    Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 447 on
    July 18, 1996, and approved the bill for Full Committee
    consideration, amended, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 447 on July 24, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to the
    House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R.
    447 to the House on August 2, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-753).
        On September 4, 1996, the House considered H.R. 447 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, by a roll call
    vote of 367 yeas to 9 nays with 1 Member voting present. H.R.
    447, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate on
    September 5, 1996, read twice, and referred to the Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No further
    action occurred on H.R. 447 in the Senate in the 104th
    Congress.

       leaking underground storage tank trust fund amendments act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3391)

        To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to require at least
    85 percent of funds appropriated to the Environmental
    Protection Agency from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
    Trust Fund to be distributed to States for cooperative
    agreements for undertaking corrective action and for
    enforcement of subtitle I of such Act.

    Summary

        H.R. 3391 expands the purposes of the Leaking Underground
    Storage Tank Trust Fund and requires that the Environmental
    Protection Agency give at least 85 percent of its annual
    appropriation from the trust fund to States for administration
    of the program.
        H.R. 3391 continues the practice of distributing funds from
    the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund through State/
    Federal cooperative agreements. Under H.R. 3391, the expanded
    purposes of the trust fund allow States to use the trust funds
    to cover necessary administrative expenses directly related to
    the operation of State financial assurance programs under
    9004(c)(1) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. States may also use
    the funds to enforce Federal, State or local tank leak
    detection, prevention and other requirements through State and
    local programs. Finally, States may use the funds to take
    corrective actions and compensate parties for cleanups of
    releases through 9004(c)(1) programs in cases where the State
    determines that the financial resources of an owner or
    operator, excluding resources provided by programs under
    9004(c)(1), are not adequate to pay for the corrective action
    without significantly impairing the ability of an owner or
    operator to continue in business.

    Legislative History

        On May 2, 1996, H.R. 3391 was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Schaefer, Stupak, Burr, Hefner, and Bereuter.
    The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 3391 on July 26, 1996. The
    Subcommittee heard testimony from the representatives of the
    Environmental Protection Agency, State governments, and
    industry. The Subcommittee met in open markup session to
    consider H.R. 3391 on July 31, 1996, and approved the bill for
    Full Committee consideration, amended, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 3391 on September 18, 1996, and ordered the bill reported
    to the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on
    Commerce reported H.R. 3391 to the House on September 24, 1996
    (H. Rpt. 104-822, Part 1). Referral of the bill to the
    Committee on Ways and Means was extended for a period ending
    not later than September 24, 1996. On September 24, 1996, the
    Committee on Ways and Means was discharged from further
    consideration of H.R. 3391.
        The House considered H.R. 3391 under Suspension of the
    Rules on September 25, 1996, and passed the bill by a voice
    vote. H.R. 3391, as passed by the House, was received in the
    Senate on September 26, 1996. On September 27, 1996, H.R. 3391
    was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
    Works. No further action was taken on H.R. 3391 in the Senate
    in the 104th Congress.

        interstate transportation of municipal solid waste/flow control

                                 (H. Res. 349)

        To provide for the consideration of S. 534.

    Summary

        H. Res. 349 would consolidate a number of procedural
    requirements regarding S. 534 into a single House vote.
        H. Res. 349 provides that upon adoption of the resolution
    by the House (1) that the Committee on Commerce shall be
    discharged from further consideration of S. 534, the Interstate
    Transportation of Municipal Solid Waste Act; (2) that the House
    shall be considered to have struck all after the enacting
    clause of S. 534 and inserted in lieu thereof an amendment in
    the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Section 2
    of this resolution; (3) that S. 534 shall be considered as
    having passed the House as so amended; and (4) that the House
    shall be considered to have insisted on its amendments and
    requested a conference with the Senate.
        Section 2 of H. Res. 349 authorizes States and political
    subdivisions to exercise flow control authority (the authority
    to direct waste to a designated waste management facility) for
    waste generated within the borders of the State or political
    subdivision, where flow control was imposed through a law,
    ordinance, regulation, resolution, or other legally binding
    provision or legally binding official act of the State or
    political subdivision, and where the State or political
    subdivision presented eligible bonds for sale or executed a
    legally binding ``put or pay'' contract.
        Under the resolution, flow control could be exercised for
    the longer of the life of any contract for disposal of waste at
    a designated facility; the life of a bond issued to pay for the
    facility; or the adjusted date of such a bond where qualified
    environmental retrofits had been issued.
        The resolution does not include a substantive House
    position on the issue of interstate shipments of solid waste.

    Legislative History

        H. Res. 349 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bliley on
    January 30, 1996. The House considered H. Res. 349 under
    Suspension of the Rules on January 30 and January 31, 1996. On
    January 31, 1996, the House failed to suspend the rules and
    pass H. Res. 349 by a roll call vote of 150 yeas to 271 nays.
    No further action was taken on H. Res. 349 in the 104th
    Congress.
        Legislation addressing the issues of interstate
    transportation of solid waste and flow control was approved for
    Full Committee consideration by the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials as H.R. 2323. For the
    legislative history of H.R. 2323, see the discussion of that
    bill in this section.

                 financial services competitiveness act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1062)

        To enhance competition in the financial services industry
    by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of
    banks, securities firms, and other financial services
    providers.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1062 is to permit affiliations between
    full-service depository institutions and full-service
    securities companies.
        First, it permits a firm to conduct both banking and full
    service securities activities under the legal framework of the
    Bank Holding Company Act, which H.R. 1062 renames the Financial
    Services Holding Company Act. Second, it requires that banking
    and securities activities be conducted in separate subsidiaries
    of the bank holding company or in separately identifiable
    divisions or departments of banks subject to ``functional
    regulation'' by the appropriate bank regulator and the
    Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively. Third, it
    imposes statutory ``firewalls'' and other restrictions in an
    effort to insulate the insured depository from risk associated
    with the securities affiliate and to prevent unfair
    competition. Finally, it imposes conflict of interest
    provisions relating to investment company activities.
        The bill, as reported to the House by the Committee on
    Banking and Financial Services, does not include affiliations
    between banks and insurance companies and brokers.

    Legislative History

        On February 27, 1995, Mr. Leach introduced H.R. 1062 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and
    Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on
    Commerce. Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was
    referred to both the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance.
        On May 18, 1995, the Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services reported H.R. 1062 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-127, Part
    1). Referral of the bill to the Committee on Commerce was
    extended for a period ending not later than June 16, 1995. On
    June 13, 1995, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services
    filed a supplemental report on H.R. 1062 in the House (H. Rpt.
    104-127, Part 2).
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance on H.R. 1062 on June 6 and June
    8, 1995. Testimony on insurance related issues was received
    from Administration officials, insurance company associations,
    State financial officials, and other financial associations.
        On June 13, 1995, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1062
    and approved H.R. 1062, as reported by the Committee on Banking
    and Financial Services, for Full Committee consideration,
    without recommendation, by a voice vote. On June 14, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials met in
    open markup session to consider H.R. 1062 and approved H.R.
    1062, as reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services, for Full Committee consideration, without
    recommendation, by a voice vote.
        On June 16, 1995, referral of H.R. 1062 to the Committee on
    Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than June
    22, 1995. The Full Committee met in open markup session on June
    16, 1995, and ordered H.R. 1062 reported to the House, as
    reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services,
    without recommendation, by a voice vote. On June 22, 1995, the
    Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1062 to the House (H. Rpt.
    104-127, Part 3).
        No further action was taken in the House on H.R. 1062 in
    the 104th Congress.

        state and local government interstate waste control act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2323)

        To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize State
    and local governments to prohibit or restrict the receipt of
    out-of-State municipal solid waste, to authorize local
    governments to control and direct the movement of certain solid
    waste, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 2323 is a two title bill which amends the Solid Waste
    Disposal Act to (1) authorize State and local governments to
    prohibit or restrict the receipt of out-of-State municipal
    solid waste, and (2) authorize State and local governments to
    control and direct the movement of certain solid wastes
    generated within their jurisdiction.

    Title I--Interstate Waste

        Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States
    Constitution, the Federal government has the power ``[t]o
    regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.'' By negative
    implication, this means that States are limited in their
    ability to regulate interstate commerce, even in the absence of
    Federal regulation. Congress can immunize States' exercise of
    commerce clause power from court challenges by delegating its
    authority to the States. States are then deemed to be
    exercising the power granted under the Constitution to the
    Congress.
        Title I of H.R. 2323 provides a ban on out-of-State
    shipments of municipal solid waste after the date of enactment.
    Despite the ban, there are three exceptions under which a
    facility could receive out-of-State waste. First, if the owner
    or operator of a facility entered into a ``host community
    agreement'' with the affected local government whereby the
    local government specifically agreed to accept out-of-State
    waste, the facility could receive out-of-State waste according
    to the terms of the agreement. Second, if the owner or operator
    of a facility received a State permit authorizing the facility
    to receive out-of-State waste, the facility could receive waste
    according to the terms of the permit. Finally, if the facility
    received documented shipments of out-of-State waste in 1993,
    the facility may continue to receive waste subject to certain
    limitations. Waste received under this last exception could be
    further limited by additional authority for States contained in
    the bill.

    Title II--Flow Control

        On May 16, 1994, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance
    directing all waste generated within a town's borders to a
    local waste facility in C&A Carbone, Inc. v. City of
    Clarkstown, N.Y. The Court found that the ordinance violated
    the commerce clause by imposing an undue burden on interstate
    commerce. This ruling has affected local governments across the
    country which have invested in facilities with the expectation
    that their cost could be financed with revenues accumulated by
    directing local waste to those facilities.
        Local governments have requested legislation to allow
    communities that were exercising flow control prior to Carbone
    to exercise it at least until outstanding bond amounts for
    publicly financed waste facilities can be repaid. The waste
    disposal industry generally opposes flow control, but several
    major waste companies have agreed that flow control should be
    grandfathered for a limited period to pay off outstanding bond
    debt.
        Title II of H.R. 2323 authorizes flow control over
    municipal solid waste at facilities which had already exercised
    flow control for the repayment period for any outstanding bond
    issued prior to Carbone, for the life of any contract to
    exercise flow control prior to Carbone, or for the useful life
    of the facility. It also authorizes flow control in communities
    which had taken substantial steps toward exercising flow
    control, such as completing the permit process or beginning
    construction of a facility.

    Legislative History

        On March 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held two hearings. The first hearing dealt
    with Flow Control Measures for the Disposal of Solid Waste and
    focused on H.R. 1085, H.R. 1180, H.R. 225, and H.R. 342. The
    second hearing dealt with Interstate Transportation of Solid
    Waste and focused on H.R. 1180, H.R. 603, H.R. 1249, and H.R.
    225. Testimony at both hearings was received from Members of
    Congress, State and local governments, and representatives of
    the waste industry.
        On May 18, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials met in open markup session to consider a
    Committee Print entitled ``State and Local Government
    Interstate Waste Control Act of 1995'', and approved the
    introduction of a clean bill for Full Committee consideration,
    by a voice vote.
        The clean bill was introduced in the House as H.R. 2323 on
    September 13, 1995, by Representatives Oxley, Gillmor,
    Greenwood, Clinger, Hamilton, Portman, Kaptur, and Johnson of
    Connecticut. No further action was taken on H.R. 2323 during
    the 104th Congress.
        On March 23, 1995, the Senate Committee on Environment and
    Public Works reported S. 534, the Interstate Transportation of
    Municipal Solid Waste Act of 1995, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    52). The Senate considered S. 534 on May 10, May 11, May 12,
    and May 16, 1995; on May 16, 1995, the Senate passed S. 534,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 94 yeas to 6 nays. S. 534 was
    received in the House on May 18, 1995, and referred to the
    Committee on Commerce.

                        reform of superfund act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2500)

        To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

    Summary

        This legislation reauthorizes the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
    (CERCLA, or Superfund) for a period of 5 years. The bill also
    makes a number of significant changes in the Superfund program
    for cleanups and restorations, which are intended to do the
    following: speed their pace and quality; reduce their
    transaction and cleanup costs; increase fairness in Superfund
    liability; provide for program delegation to the States; expand
    public participation in the cleanup process; and protect human
    health and the environment.

    Title I--Remedy Selection and Community Participation

        Title I of H.R. 2500 establishes protocols for the conduct
    of risk assessments. It requires the President to review the
    health effect values for 25 carcinogens; makes a number of
    changes to the manner in which the President selects remedial
    alternatives and final remedies at Superfund sites; provides
    for the establishment of Community Assistance Groups; addresses
    the information to be maintained by the Agency for Toxic
    Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); provides for the
    distribution of information on hazardous substances to health
    professionals and medical centers; changes provisions related
    to cooperative agreements between the ATSDR and the States;
    increases dollar limits and time limits for removal actions;
    authorizes the President to acquire hazardous substance
    easements; amends provisions regarding judicial review of
    remedies; and provides transition rules and establishes the
    effective date of the title as the date of enactment.

    Title II--Liability

        This title clarifies liability for, provides exemptions
    from, and provides for reimbursements for costs relating to
    Superfund liability for various parties; sets forth procedures
    for allocating liability among parties; places limitations on
    contribution actions; modifies settlement authorities and the
    President's authority to provide final covenants; and sets
    forth confidentiality requirements.

    Title III--Brownfields and Voluntary Cleanups

        The title makes findings with respect to State voluntary
    response programs and provides for technical and other
    assistance to States for voluntary response programs; clarifies
    liability for lenders, fiduciaries, bona fide prospective
    purchasers and innocent landowners; and addresses Federal
    enforcement at sites cleaned up under EPA-approved State
    programs.

    Title IV--Natural Resource Damages

        This title makes various changes to liability for,
    determination of, and litigation of natural resource damages.

    Title V--State Role

        This title authorizes the EPA to delegate various Superfund
    authorities to the States for actions at facilities listed on
    the National Priorities List (NPL); requires States to follow
    Federal remedy selection criteria; alters the provisions for
    State cost share; and places a limit on the number of sites
    which may be added to the NPL.

    Title VI--Federal Facilities

        This title amends provisions with respect to the role of
    States at Federal facilities; authorizes the President to
    designate a facility for the use of innovative technologies;
    adds a factor to the criteria for listing Federal facilities on
    the NPL; and requires that an annual study be conducted to
    determine priorities among environmental priorities at NPL-
    listed Federal facilities.

    Title VII--Miscellaneous

        This title makes various definitional changes; amends
    response claim procedures; requires the EPA to establish a
    small business Superfund assistance office within the small
    business ombudsman office; requires the EPA to give higher
    priority to remedial actions for which State and local
    governments have made demonstrations of public benefit;
    requires that EPA report annually to governors on the progress
    of the program; and amends the authority of the President to
    dispose of real property acquired under subsection 104(j).

    Title IX--Remediation Waste Management

        This title adds a new subtitle to the Solid Waste Disposal
    Act pertaining to remediation waste management.

    Title X--Funding

        Title X reauthorizes the dedicated taxes, the Superfund
    Trust Fund, and appropriations from general revenues for Fiscal
    Years 1996 through 2000. It requires that funds collected from
    the dedicated Superfund taxes be used only for cleanup and
    remediation expenses.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held seven oversight hearings on the Reauthorization
    of the Superfund Program addressing major concerns with the
    program.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held an oversight hearing focusing on a general
    overview of the Superfund Program and reforms needed on March
    16, 1995. Testimony was received from the Administrator of the
    Environmental Protection Agency, as well as representatives of
    the U.S. Conference of Mayors, State environmental agencies,
    community groups, businesses, and the environmental community.
    The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials
    held an oversight hearing on Remedy Selection on May 23, 1995,
    receiving testimony from representatives from the Agency for
    Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Association of State
    and Territorial Waste Management Officials, community groups,
    businesses, environmental groups, and professional
    organizations. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on the State
    Role, Voluntary Cleanups, and Brownfields Redevelopment,
    receiving testimony from State and local government officials
    and representatives of industry, a community group, and the
    Administration on June 15, 1995. The Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on
    Natural Resource Damages, receiving testimony from
    representatives of the Administration, States, and industry, on
    June 20, 1995. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on Financing and
    Liability Issues, receiving testimony from representatives of
    State and local governments, industry, and the environmental
    community, on June 22, 1995. The Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a second oversight hearing
    on Financing and Liability Issues, receiving testimony from
    representatives of the Administration, on July 18, 1995. The
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials held
    an oversight hearing on the Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act (RCRA) and its relationship to Superfund, receiving
    testimony from representatives of the Administration, States,
    industry and environmentalists, on July 20, 1995. Finally, on
    September 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a field hearing in Bristol,
    Pennsylvania, on Federal Barriers to Environmental Cleanups.
    Witnesses included the Environmental Protection Agency Regional
    Administrator, representatives of the Governor of the
    Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Office, representatives of local
    government, owners of contaminated sites, and representatives
    of various local private entities.
        On October 18, 1995, Representatives Oxley, Bliley,
    Shuster, Boehlert, Tauzin, Upton, Gillmor, Roemer, Burr, Horn,
    Parker, Wamp, Duncan, Young of Alaska, Quinn, Petri, Bachus,
    and Crapo introduced H.R. 2500, the Reform of Superfund Act of
    1995. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2500, receiving testimony from
    Members of Congress and representatives of States, industry,
    and the environmental community on October 18, 1995. The
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials held a
    second hearing on H.R. 2500, receiving testimony from Members
    of Congress, the Administration, States, local governments,
    industry, small businesses, and environmentalists on October
    26, 1995.
        The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2500 on November 1, November 2, November 8, and November
    9, 1995. On November 9, 1995, H.R. 2500 was approved for Full
    Committee consideration, as amended, by a roll call vote of 15
    yeas to 11 nays.

        insurance state's and consumer's rights clarification and fair
                            competition act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1317)

        To ensure that sellers and underwriters of insurance are
    qualified and subject to State consumer protection
    requirements.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1317 is to clarify the appropriate role
    of the States and the Federal government in regulating
    insurance. The bill provides that any sale, underwriting, or
    solicitation of insurance in a State must be in accordance with
    the laws of that State. This reinforces the McCarran-Ferguson
    Act, granting the States full authority to license and regulate
    the business of insurance for all providers, brokers, and
    agents. H.R. 1317 applies to the insurance activities of
    insurance companies and agents, fraternal organizations, non-
    admitted insurance companies, banks, and foreign companies and
    brokers that do business in the United States. It is designed
    to protect the rights of the States against regulatory
    encroachment by Federal agencies, particularly the Office of
    the Comptroller of the Currency with respect to national bank
    insurance powers. It is also designed to strengthen the hand of
    State regulators in guarding against poorly regulated foreign
    and non-admitted insurance companies.

    Legislative History

        On March 24, 1995, Representatives Bliley, Dingell,
    Solomon, Mineta, Paxon, Pomeroy, Burton of Indiana, Saxton,
    Hayes, Kingston, Tanner, Upton, Davis, Gillmor, Schaefer,
    Bilbray, Kennelly, Meehan, Bass, and Lewis of California
    introduced H.R. 1317.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 1317 on May 22, 1995.
    Testimony was received from insurance agent associations,
    banking associations, land title agent associations, insurance
    company associations, and insurance regulators.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 1317 in the 104th
    Congress.

                     department of commerce dismantling act

                              (H.R. 1756, S. 929)

        To abolish the Department of Commerce.

    Summary

        H.R. 1756 replaces the Department of Commerce (DOC) with
    the Commerce Programs Resolution Agency (CPRA), which is given
    3 years to wind up and terminate the functions and obligations
    of the DOC before the CPRA itself is abolished. The bill
    terminates outright the Economic Development Administration,
    the Minority Business Development Administration, the United
    States Travel and Tourism Administration, the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration, the Advanced
    Technology Program, and the Manufacturing Extension Programs.
    Annual expenditures for any function not terminated by H.R.
    1756 are limited to 75 percent of their FY 1994 expenditures.
        H.R. 1756 renames the United States and Foreign Commercial
    Service as the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service. It transfers
    the authority to collect and evaluate information on
    international investment and trade services to the Secretary of
    the Treasury. The Patent and Trademark Office is transferred to
    the Department of Justice, with its activities required to be
    funded solely by fees. The DOC's Technology Administration and
    the Office of Technology Policy are terminated. The National
    Institute of Standards and Technology is transferred to the
    National Science Foundation, with its laboratories to be sold
    by the CPRA. Export control functions of the DOC are
    transferred primarily to the Secretary of State, with portions
    transferred to the Department of the Treasury and the U.S.
    Customs Service. The Office of Foreign Availability and the
    Office of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Export
    Administration are abolished. Specified DOC national security
    functions are transferred to the Secretary of Defense and the
    Secretary of the Treasury.
        H.R. 1756 eliminates the authorities for the National
    Technical Information Service, requiring the sale of its
    assets. The Bureau of the Census is transferred to the
    Department of the Treasury, while the Bureau of Economic
    Analysis is transferred to the Federal Reserve System with
    instructions to privatize as many of its functions as possible.
    All grants related to the Communications Act of 1934 are
    terminated, and the functions of the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration are
    transferred to the Federal Communications Commission.
        H.R. 1756 also terminates funding for various fisheries and
    fishing vessel programs and research projects. It eliminates
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    Corps and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research,
    conveying specified functions of both to the National Weather
    Service. The assets of the National Environmental Satellite,
    Data, and Information Service Data Centers are to be sold, with
    their responsibilities transferred to the National Weather
    Service. The National Weather Service is transferred to the
    Department of the Interior. Various functions of the National
    Marine Fisheries Services are reassigned to the Secretary of
    Transportation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    Secretary of Agriculture. The geodesy functions and marine and
    estuarine sanctuary functions of the National Ocean Service are
    transferred to the United States Geological Survey and the
    Secretary of the Interior, respectively. NOAA's environmental
    research laboratories are required to be sold.
        H.R. 1756 amends the North American Free Trade Agreement
    (NAFTA) Implementation Act to terminate certain staff of the
    NAFTA Secretariat established within the DOC, and to eliminate
    the U.S. contribution to the budget of the Border Environment
    Cooperation Commission. It further transfers many of the non-
    terminated trade related functions of the DOC to the United
    States Trade Representative (USTR), including the U.S. and
    Foreign Commercial Service, and many of the functions of the
    International Trade Administration (ITA). The Committee for the
    Implementation of Textile Agreements is terminated, with its
    responsibilities divided between the USTR and the International
    Trade Commission (ITC). The Foreign Trade Zones Act is amended
    to replace the Secretary of Commerce with the USTR, while
    making the Secretary of the Treasury the new Chairman and
    Executive Officer of the Foreign Trade Zones Board. The
    functions of the Secretary of Commerce under the International
    Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act, certain provisions
    of the Export Administration Act, and certain provisions of the
    Export Trading Company Act are transferred to the Secretary of
    the Treasury, while the Secretary of Commerce's functions under
    the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act are transferred to the ITC.
    The Trade and Development Agency is abolished. The U.S.
    Harmonized Tariff Schedule is amended to repeal special tariff
    treatment for watches imported from the U.S. insular
    possessions. Finally, the President is directed to submit to
    the Congress a comprehensive plan to consolidate Federal export
    promotion activities.

    Legislative History

        On June 7, 1995, Mr. Chrysler and 51 cosponsors introduced
    H.R. 1756 in the House. The bill was referred to the Committee
    on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure, the Committee on Banking and Financial
    Services, the Committee on International Relations, the
    Committee on National Security, the Committee on Agriculture,
    the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Government
    Reform and Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the
    Committee on Science, and the Committee on Resources.
        Within the Committee on Commerce, the bill was referred to
    both the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance held a joint hearing on H.R. 1756 on July 24, 1995.
    Testimony was received from Members of Congress,
    representatives of the Administration, State officials, and
    representatives of various industries.
        The Committee on Commerce took no further action on H.R.
    1756. However, on September 14 and 19, 1995, the Full Committee
    met in open markup session to consider a Committee Print
    entitled ``Department of Commerce Abolition''. On September 19,
    1995, the Full Committee approved the Committee Print, as
    amended, for transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for
    inclusion in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, by a roll call
    vote of 25 yeas to 19 nays. For the legislative history of that
    bill, see the discussion of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995
    (H.R. 2491) in this section.
        The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 1756 to the
    House on September 24, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-260, Part 1.) No
    further action was taken on H.R. 1756 in the House in 104th
    Congress.
        S. 929, an identical bill to H.R. 1756, was introduced in
    the Senate on June 15, 1995, by Senators Abraham, Dole,
    Faircloth, Nickles, Gramm, and Brown, and referred to the
    Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. On October 20, 1995,
    the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs reported S. 929 to
    the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-164). No further action was taken on S.
    929 in the 104th Congress.

                fan freedom and community protection act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2740)

        To protect sports fans and communities throughout the
    Nation, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2740 is to provide leverage to local
    communities to ensure that they are able to maintain or regain
    a professional sports franchise in the event of a proposed team
    relocation.
        H.R. 2740 provides that when a professional sports team
    relocates more than 60 miles away from its present community,
    the league may be required to grant such community an expansion
    team. The community losing the team has up to 3 years to
    present a qualified investor to the league subject to a
    franchise fee of no more than 85 percent of the cost of the
    most recently awarded expansion team. The league then has up to
    1 year to award the community a new replacement franchise. If a
    relocating team had resided within a community for over 10
    years, the community retains exclusive use of the team's
    trademark and name. Notice of an impending move must be
    provided at least 180 days before commencement of a new season.
        The bill also alters the leagues' antitrust exemptions to
    allow them to enforce their own relocation procedures,
    according to specific criteria related to financial factors,
    fan loyalty, good/bad faith bargaining and management efforts,
    and the existence of other teams in the existing and relocation
    regions.
        The Federal Trade Commission is given authority to enforce
    the Act, imposing penalties of three times the purchase price
    of a team and a loss of broadcasting antitrust exemptions to
    the sports league if an expansion team is not granted as
    required by this Act.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2740 was introduced in the House on December 7, 1995,
    by Representatives Hoke, Blute, Cremeans, Cubin, Flanagan,
    Gutknecht, Hastings of Florida, Hobson, Jones, Kelly, King,
    LaTourette, Lipinski, Meehan, Meek of Florida, Molinari, Ney,
    Oxley, Peterson of Minnesota, Portman, Pryce, Quinn,
    Scarborough, and Traficant. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on
    Commerce.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2740 on May 16, 1996.
    Testimony was received from Members of Congress, commissioners
    of national sports leagues, local elected officials,
    economists, and members of sports fan associations.
        On June 27, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
    H.R. 2740 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-656, Part 1). Referral of
    the bill to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a period
    ending not later than September 6, 1996. On September 6, 1996,
    referral of the bill to the Committee on Commerce was extended
    for a period ending not later than September 13, 1996. On
    September 12, 1996, referral of the bill to the Committee on
    Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than
    September 20, 1996. On September 20, 1996, referral of the bill
    to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a period ending
    not later than September 27, 1996. On September 27, 1996,
    referral of the bill to the Committee on Commerce was extended
    for a period ending not later than October 2, 1996. On October
    2, 1996, referral of the bill to the Committee on Commerce was
    extended for a period ending not later than October 4, 1996.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 2740 in the 104th
    Congress.

     national motor vehicle safety, anti-theft, title reform, and consumer
                                 protection act

                              (H.R. 2900, S. 2030)

        To establish nationally uniform requirements regarding the
    titling and registration of salvage, nonrepairable, and rebuilt
    vehicles.

    Summary

        H.R. 2900 essentially codifies most of the recommendations
    of the Motor Vehicle Titling, Registration, and Salvage
    Advisory Committee, which was established pursuant to
    provisions of the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-519).
        The legislation establishes national uniform definitions
    for the terms ``salvage vehicle,'' ``salvage title,'' ``rebuilt
    salvage vehicle,'' ``rebuilt salvage vehicle title,''
    ``nonrepairable vehicle,'' ``nonrepairable vehicle
    certificate'', and ``flood vehicle'' and preempts State laws to
    the extent that they are inconsistent. The bill also requires
    States, in licensing a passenger motor vehicle whose ownership
    has been transferred, to disclose on the certificate of title
    whenever records indicate that such vehicle was previously
    issued a title that contained a word or symbol signifying that
    it was ``salvage,'' ``unrebuildable,'' ``parts only,''
    ``scrap,'' ``junk,'' ``nonrepairable,'' ``reconstructed,''
    ``rebuilt,'' or that it has been damaged by flood.
        Further, it requires the Secretary of Transportation to
    establish national uniform standards for titles and title
    brands, including standards for anti-theft and safety
    inspections of rebuilt vehicles and permits the use of Federal
    highway safety funds made available to the States to be used to
    defray the costs of implementing the requirements of the Act.
    H.R. 2900 establishes civil and criminal penalties for
    violations of the Act. Finally, it establishes standards for
    the export of vehicles from the United States.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2900 was introduced in the House on January 25, 1996,
    by Representatives White, Schaefer, Brown of Ohio, and
    Richardson. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary and the
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
    and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2900. Witnesses
    included representatives from the States, automobile salvage
    dealers, automobile recyclers, independent service operators,
    automobile dealers, and the insurance industry. No further
    action was taken on H.R. 2900 in the 104th Congress.

                     Oversight or Investigative Activities

            trade implications of foreign ownership restrictions on
                          telecommunications companies

        On March 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing to explore the trade
    implications of foreign ownership restrictions on
    telecommunications companies and whether legislative action was
    needed to address this issue. Testimony was received from a
    Member of Congress, the Chairman of the Federal Communications
    Commission, the Director of the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration, and representatives of the affected
    industry.

           reauthorization of the superfund program: general overview

        On March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held the first of a series of hearings on
    the reauthorization of the Superfund program. Witnesses
    included the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
    Agency, as well as representatives of the U.S. Conference of
    Mayors, State environmental agencies, community groups,
    businesses, and the environmental community.

       reducing explosive characteristics of ammonium nitrate fertilizer

        On May 22, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
    Hazardous Materials, in response to the bombing of the Alfred
    R. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, held a hearing to
    explore the feasibility of reducing the explosive
    characteristics of ammonium nitrate fertilizer and whether
    legislative action was appropriate to address this issue.
    Witnesses included the inventor of a purported method to
    desensitize the explosive qualities of ammonium nitrate
    fertilizer and other experts from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
    and Firearms (ATF), and the Office of Technology Assistance. As
    a result of this hearing, the ATF is conducting a study of the
    feasibility of desensitizing fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate.

           reauthorization of the superfund program: remedy selection

        On May 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on remedy
    selection under the Superfund program. Witnesses included
    representatives from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
    Disease Registry, the Association of State and Territorial
    Waste Management Officials, community groups, businesses, the
    environmental community, and professional organizations.

        reauthorization of the superfund program: state role, voluntary
                    cleanups, and brownfields redevelopment

        On June 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the State role and
    voluntary cleanups under Superfund. The hearing addressed the
    problems surrounding redevelopment of abandoned industrial
    property, or brownfields. Witnesses included representatives
    from the Environmental Protection Agency, four State agencies,
    a State attorney general office, the Office of Technology
    Assessment, community groups, think tanks, and the regulated
    community.

       reauthorization of the superfund program: natural resource damages

        On June 20, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Natural Resource Damages
    (NRD) provisions under Superfund. Witnesses included the
    Assistant Secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration and representatives of State government, members
    of the scientific and economic communities, and representatives
    of businesses. The purpose of this hearing was to examine
    issues related to NRD provisions in preparation for subsequent
    legislative action.

       reauthorization of the superfund program: financing and liability
                                     issues

        On June 22, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the liability issues
    under the Superfund program. Witnesses included representatives
    of State governments, small and large businesses, private
    insurance companies, and the environmental community. The
    purpose of this hearing was to examine liability issues from
    the State government perspective and to gain an understanding
    of entities outside of the Federal government.
        On July 18, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a second hearing on liability issues
    under the Superfund program highlighting the Administration's
    position. Witnesses at this hearing were the Assistant Attorney
    General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at
    the U.S. Department of Justice and the Associate Administrator
    for Enforcement at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    The purpose of this hearing was to acquire information from
    Federal agencies about the Superfund liability structure.

       reauthorization of the superfund program: rcra corrective action
               cleanup program and its relationship to superfund

        On July 20, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the Corrective Action
    Site Remediation Program under Subtitle C of the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act. The Corrective Action program is
    the remediation program for facilities with active hazardous
    waste management units. The hearing also served as a
    legislative hearing for H.R. 2036, the Land Disposal
    Flexibility Act, which addresses land disposal restrictions
    under Subtitle C and monitoring requirements for certain
    municipal landfills, and H.R. 1696. For the legislative history
    of H.R. 2036, see the discussion on the Land Disposal Program
    Flexibility Act in this section. Witnesses included
    representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, State
    environmental agencies, the National Association of Counties,
    businesses, and the environmental community.

           reauthorization of the consumer product safety commission

        On March 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the Reauthorization of
    the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Witnesses
    included current and former CPSC Commissioners. The purpose of
    the hearing was to review the performance of the Commission in
    carrying out its mandate and to determine whether restructuring
    was necessary. The hearing also focused on which CPSC programs
    are the most cost-effective in improving consumer safety, areas
    on which the CPSC should focus in the future, and how the
    Commission's resources should be allocated.

                 international telecommunications trade issues

        On May 9, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the results of, and
    future for, international trade negotiations on basic
    telecommunications services. Witnesses included a Deputy U.S.
    Trade Representative and the Chairman of the Federal
    Communications Commission, as well as representatives of
    telecommunications and computer companies. The purpose of this
    hearing was to evaluate the Administration's international
    telecommunications policy, analyze the trade offers of other
    nations in the international telecommunications negotiations,
    and examine what further efforts are necessary to achieve a
    successful international telecommunications agreement.

                   federal barriers to environmental cleanups

        On September 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
    and Hazardous Materials held a field hearing on Federal
    Barriers to Environmental Cleanups. The hearing, held in the
    Auditorium of the Bristol Township Building, 2501 Bath Road,
    Bristol, Pennsylvania, focused on Federal legal barriers to
    cleaning up contaminated sites. Witnesses included the
    Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator,
    representatives of the Governor of the Commonwealth of
    Pennsylvania's Office, representatives of local government,
    owners of contaminated sites, and representatives of various
    local private entities.

     resource conservation and recovery act exemption for wood preserving
                                   solutions

        On April 26, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials sent a letter to the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting information on
    the status of the examination of removing certain wood
    preserving solutions from the definition of Solid Waste under
    the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Chairmen
    requested information regarding why a wood preserving solution,
    which is reused rather than immediately disposed after its
    initial use, is listed as a solid waste rather than as a
    recycled solution.
        On August 30, 1996, Mr. Michael Shapiro, Director of the
    EPA Office of Solid Waste, sent a letter to the Chairmen
    informing them that language modifying 40 CFR 261.4(a)(9)(iii)
    for solutions used in the wood preserving process is scheduled
    to be finished by the Spring of 1997.

                                 Hearings Held

        Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis for New
    Regulations.--Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment on Title III, Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit
    Analysis for New Regulations, of H.R. 9, the Job Creation and
    Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. Hearing held on February 1, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-3.
        Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis for New
    Regulations.--Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment on Title III, Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit
    Analysis for New Regulations, of H.R. 9, the Job Creation and
    Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. Hearing held on February 2, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-3.
        Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act.--Hearing on H.R.
    917, the Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act. Hearing
    held on February 21, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-7.
        Trade Implications of Foreign Ownership Restrictions on
    Telecommunications Companies.--Oversight Hearing on the Trade
    Implications of Foreign Ownership Restrictions on
    Telecommunications Companies. Hearing held on March 3, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-9.
        Superfund Reauthorization.--Oversight Hearing on a General
    Overview of the Superfund Program. Hearing held on March 16,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-12.
        Flow Control Measures and Interstate Transportation of
    Solid Waste (Morning Session--Flow Control Measures).--Hearing
    on H.R. 1085, H.R. 1180, H.R. 225, and H.R. 342. Hearing held
    on March 23, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-14.
        Flow Control Measures and Interstate Transportation of
    Solid Waste (Afternoon Session--Interstate transportation of
    Solid Waste).--Hearing on H.R. 1180, H.R. 603, H.R. 1249, and
    H.R. 225. Hearing held on March 23, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-14.
        Insurance State's and Consumer's Rights Clarification And
    Fair Competition Act.--Hearing on H.R. 1317, the Insurance
    State's and Consumer's Rights Clarification and Fair
    Competition Act of 1995. Hearing held on May 22, 1995. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-36.
        Reducing Explosive Characteristics of Ammonium Nitrate
    Fertilizer.--Oversight Hearing to explore the feasibility of
    reducing the explosive characteristics of ammonium nitrate
    fertilizer. Hearing held on May 22, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-20.
        Superfund Reauthorization (Part 2).--Oversight Hearing on
    Remedy Selection. Hearing held on May 23, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-30.
        The Financial Services Competitiveness Act of 1995.--Joint
    Hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
    on H.R. 1062, the Financial Services Competitiveness Act of
    1995. Hearing held on June 6, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    33.
        The Financial Services Competitiveness Act of 1995.--Joint
    Hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
    on H.R. 1062, the Financial Services Competitiveness Act of
    1995. Hearing held on June 8, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    33.
        Superfund Reauthorization (Part 2).--Oversight Hearing on
    State Role, Voluntary Cleanups, and Brownfields Redevelopment.
    Hearing held on June 15, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-30.
        Superfund Reauthorization (Part 2).--Oversight Hearing on
    Natural Resource Damages. Hearing held on June 20, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-30.
        Superfund Reauthorization.--Oversight Hearing on Financing
    and Liability Issues. Hearing held on June 22, 1995. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-54.
        Superfund Reauthorization.--Oversight Hearing on Financing
    and Liability Issues. Hearing held on July 18, 1995. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-54.
        RCRA Corrective Action Cleanup Program.--Oversight Hearing
    on RCRA Corrective Action Cleanup Program and its Relationship
    to Superfund. Hearing also focused on H.R. 2036, the Land
    Disposal Program Flexibility Act, and H.R. 1696, a bill to
    authorize the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
    Agency to exempt certain small landfills from the ground water
    monitoring requirements contained in landfill regulations
    promulgated by the Agency. Hearing held on July 20, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-39.
        Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of 1995.--Joint
    Hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
    on H.R. 1756, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act of
    1995. Hearing held on July 24, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-48.
        Reform of Superfund Act of 1995.--Hearing on H.R. 2500, the
    Reform of Superfund Act of 1995. Hearing held on October 18,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-59.
        Reform of Superfund Act of 1995.--Hearing on H.R. 2500, the
    Reform of Superfund Act of 1995. Hearing held on October 26,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-59.
        Travel and Tourism Partnership Act.--Joint Hearing with the
    Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on
    International Economic Policy and Trade on H.R. 2579, the
    Travel and Tourism Partnership Act. Hearing held on January 24,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-64.
        Rechargeable Battery Act.--Hearing on H.R. 2024, the
    Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, and
    S. 619, the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery
    Management Act. Hearing held on March 21, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-74.
        Reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission.--Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission. Hearing held on March 29,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-87.
        Future of International Telecommunications Trade Issues.--
    Oversight Hearing on International Telecommunications Trade
    Issues. Hearing held on May 9, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-89.
        Fan Freedom and Community Protection Act of 1995.--Hearing
    on H.R. 2740, the Fan Freedom and Community Protection Act of
    1995. Hearing held on May 16, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    104.
        Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Improvement Act of 1996.--
    Hearing on H.R. 3431, the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity
    Improvement Act of 1996. Hearing held on May 22, 1996. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-81.
        The Professional Boxing Safety Act.--Joint Hearing with the
    Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities
    Subcommittee on Workforce Protections on H.R. 1186, the
    Professional Boxing Safety Act, and S. 187, the Professional
    Boxing Safety Act of 1995. Hearing held on June 11, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-100.
         Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 1996 and
    Made in America Toll-Free Number.--Hearing on H.R. 447, a bill
    to establish a toll free number in the Department of Commerce
    to assist consumers in determining if products are American-
    made. Hearing held on July 11, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-86.
        Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 1996 and
    Made in America Toll-Free Number.--Hearing on H.R. 3553, the
    Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 1996. Hearing
    held on July 11, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-86.
        Amendments to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
    Program.--Hearing on H.R. 3391, a bill to amend the Solid Waste
    Disposal Act to require that at least 85 percent of funds
    appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency from the
    Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund to be distributed
    to States for cooperative agreements for undertaking corrective
    action and for enforcement of subtitle I of such Act. Hearing
    held on July 26, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-101.
        The National Motor Vehicle Safety, Anti-Theft, Title
    Reform, and Consumer Protection Act of 1996.--Hearing on H.R.
    2900, the National Motor Vehicle Safety, Anti-Theft, Title
    Reform, and Consumer Protection Act of 1996. Hearing held on
    September 12, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-112.
        Federal Barriers to Environmental Cleanups.--Field Hearing
    in the Auditorium of the Bristol Township Building, 2501 Bath
    Road, Bristol, Pennsylvania, on Federal legal barriers to
    cleaning up contaminated sites. Hearing held on September 16,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-109.
                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment
               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIR NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction;
    mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection
    in general, including Medicaid and national health insurance; foods and
    drugs; drug abuse; Clean Air Act and environmental protection in
    general, including the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                             Legislative Activities

    emergency supplemental appropriations and recessions for the department
       of defense to preserve and enhance military readiness act of 1995

                          Public Law 104-6 (H.R. 889)

        Making emergency supplemental appropriations and recessions
    to preserve and enhance the military readiness of the
    Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30,
    1995, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Chapter VII of Title II of Public Law 104-6 contains an
    Environmental Protection Agency administrative provision. This
    provision provides that the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air
    Act superseded prior requirements regarding attainment
    demonstrations for certain nonattainment areas within the State
    of California. The provision further provides that any Federal
    Implementation Plan promulgated by the Environmental Protection
    Agency under court order for the same nonattainment areas in
    California be rescinded and have no further force or effect.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 889 was introduced in the House on February 10, 1995,
    by Mr. Livingston and reported to the House on the same day by
    the Committee on Appropriations (H. Rpt. 104-29). The House
    considered H.R. 889 on February 22, 1995, and passed the bill,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 262 yeas to 165 nays.
        H.R. 889 was received in the Senate on February 23, 1995,
    read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on
    Appropriations. On March 2, 1995, the Senate Committee on
    Appropriations reported H.R. 889, amended, to the Senate (S.
    Rpt. 104-12). The Senate considered H.R. 889 on March 7, March
    8, March 9, March 10, March 13, March 14, March 15, and March
    16, 1995. On March 16, 1995, the Senate passed H.R. 889,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 97 yeas to 3 nays.
        The Senate insisted upon its amendments to H.R. 889,
    requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees
    on March 16, 1995. On March 28, 1995, the House disagreed to
    the Senate amendments to H.R. 889, agreed to a conference with
    the Senate, and appointed conferees. The conferees met on March
    29, April 4, and April 5, 1995.
        On February 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held an oversight hearing on the Implementation
    and Enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. At
    that hearing, testimony was received from California Governor
    Pete Wilson regarding difficulties which the State of
    California had experienced with respect to the promulgation of
    a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the State under the
    1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. The Committee on Commerce worked
    with the House and Senate conferees on H.R. 889 to develop
    legislative language in the conference report which would
    resolve the difficulties identified by Governor Wilson in an
    expeditious fashion.
        The conference report on H.R. 889 was filed in the House on
    April 5, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-101). The House agreed to the
    conference report by a roll call vote of 343 yeas to 80 nays on
    April 6, 1995. On April 6, 1995, the Senate, without objection,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of the conference
    report on H.R. 889, and, by unanimous consent, agreed to the
    conference report.
        H.R. 889 was presented to the President on April 7, 1995.
    On April 10, 1995, the President signed H.R. 889 into law (P.L.
    104-6).

                           medicare select extension

                    Public Law 104-18 (H.R. 483, H.R. 1391)

        To amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 to
    permit Medicare select policies to be offered in all States.

    Summary

        The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-
    508) established a demonstration program under which insurers
    could market a ``Medigap'' policy, known as Medicare Select.
    The demonstration program was limited to 15 States and expired
    on December 31, 1994. The demonstration program was extended to
    June 30, 1995, in the Social Security Act Amendments of 1994
    (P.L. 103-432).
        H.R. 483 extends the authority for this demonstration
    program for 3 years until June 30, 1998, and permits Medicare
    Select policies to be marketed and sold in all 50 States. The
    bill also requires the Secretary of the Department of Health
    and Human Services to conduct a study comparing the health care
    costs, quality of care, and access to services under Medicare
    Select policies with other Medigap policies. The Secretary is
    required to establish Medicare Select on a permanent basis
    unless the study finds that (1) Medicare Select has not
    resulted in savings to Medicare Select enrollees, (2) it has
    led to significant expenditures in the Medicare program, or (3)
    it has significantly diminished access to and quality of care.
    Finally, the bill requires the General Accounting Office to
    conduct a study and report to Congress by June 30, 1996, on the
    extent to which individuals who are continuously covered under
    Medigap policies are subject to medical underwriting if they
    switch plans and to identify options, if necessary, for
    modifying the Medigap market to address this issue.

    Legislative History

        On January 11, 1995, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut and 38
    cosponsors introduced H.R. 483 in the House. H.R. 483 was
    referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the
    Committee on Ways and Means.
        On February 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on Medicare Select and Issues
    Related to Medicare Managed Care. Witnesses at the hearing
    included Members of Congress and representatives of the Health
    Care Financing Administration, health associations, State
    insurance commissions, and various health plans. The
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 483 on March 22, 1995, and approved
    the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration by a
    voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 483 on April 3, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to the
    House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce
    reported H.R. 483 to the House on April 6, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-
    79, Part 2).
        The Committee on Ways and Means met on March 8, 1995, to
    mark up H.R. 483, and ordered the bill, as amended, reported to
    the House by a roll call vote of 31 yeas to 2 nays. The
    Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 483 to the House on
    March 15, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-79, Part 1).
        On April 4, 1995, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Bliley,
    and Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 1391 in the House. This bill
    represented a compromise agreement developed by the Committee
    on Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means with respect to
    their differing versions of H.R. 483.
        On April 6, 1995, the House passed H. Res. 130, the rule
    providing for consideration of H.R. 483. H. Res. 130 made in
    order an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of
    the text of H.R. 1391 as original text for the purposes of
    amendment on the House Floor. H.R. 483, as amended, passed the
    House on April 6, 1995, by a roll call vote of 408 yeas to 14
    nays.
        H.R. 483, as passed by the House, was received in the
    Senate and read for the first time on April 7, 1995. H.R. 483
    was read for a second time on April 24, 1995, and placed on the
    Senate Calendar. On May 17, 1995, the Senate, by unanimous
    consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 483
    and passed the bill, as amended.
        On May 25, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 483, requested a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. A motion to instruct the House
    conferees was defeated by a roll call vote of 197 yeas to 247
    nays. The Senate insisted on its amendment, agreed to a
    conference with the House, and appointed conferees on June 5,
    1995. The House and Senate conferees met to consider H.R. 483
    on June 22, 1995, and agreed to file a conference report. The
    conference report was filed in the House on June 22, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-157).
        On June 26, 1995, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of the conference
    report on H.R. 483 and agreed to the conference report. The
    House agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of
    350 yeas to 68 nays on June 30, 1995.
        On June 30, 1995, H.R. 483 was presented to the President.
    The President signed H.R. 483 into law on July 7, 1995 (P.L.
    104-18).

                        edible oil regulatory reform act

                         (Public Law 104-55, H.R. 436)

        To require the head of any Federal agency to differentiate
    between fats, oils, and greases of animal, marine, or vegetable
    origin, and other oils and greases, in issuing certain
    regulations, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 436 is to correct an unintended and
    burdensome problem created by certain Federal regulations
    issued to implement several environmental laws that contain
    definitions of the term ``oil.'' While the legislative history
    of each statute indicates that it was the intent of Congress
    that the term ``oil'' refer to petroleum and petroleum-related
    products, Federal regulators have taken the view that the term
    must be interpreted to include all types of oil, including
    vegetable oils and animal fats.
        H.R. 436 directs Federal agencies with regulatory
    responsibilities to differentiate between animal fats or
    vegetable oils and other types of oils and greases, including
    petroleum, in issuing regulations dealing with the
    transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or
    disposal of fats, oils or greases. H.R. 436 specifically
    provides that the requirements of this legislation do not apply
    to the Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and
    Inspection Service. Finally, the bill clarifies the financial
    responsibility requirements for tank vessels carrying vegetable
    oil or animal fat as cargo.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 436 was introduced in the House on January 9, 1995 by
    Mr. Ewing and Ms. Danner. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
    Agriculture. Within the Committee on Commerce, H.R. 436 was
    referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
        On September 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    436 by unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 436 and ordered the bill reported to the House, as
    amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce reported
    H.R. 436 to the House on September 27, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-262,
    Part 2).
        The Committee on Agriculture also reported H.R. 436 to the
    House on September 27, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-262, Part 1).
        On October 10, 1995, the House considered H.R. 436 on the
    Corrections Calendar and passed the bill, as amended, by a
    voice vote. H.R. 436, as passed by the House, was received in
    the Senate on October 11, 1995. On November 1, 1995, the bill
    was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Works. On November 2, 1995, the Senate,
    by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration
    of H.R. 436 and passed the bill, as amended. On November 7,
    1995, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a voice vote
    and cleared the measure for the President.
        On November 8, 1995, H.R. 436 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 436 into law on November
    20, 1995 (P.L. 104-55).

                national highway system designation act of 1995

                     Public Law 104-59 (S. 440, H.R. 2274)

                       (Clean Air Act Related Provisions)

        To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for the
    designation of the National Highway System, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-59 includes several provisions dealing with
    Clean Air Act related issues which fall within the jurisdiction
    of the Committee on Commerce. Members of the Committee on
    Commerce were appointed as conferees on these provisions and
    participated in the conference negotiations which lead to the
    agreements contained in S. 440. In each instance, the Committee
    on Commerce supported the inclusion of the legislative language
    in S. 440.
        Public Law 104-59 clarifies that conformity requirements
    should apply to nonattainment and maintenance areas only. Prior
    to this legislation, there was some question as to what areas
    were required to demonstrate conformity.
        The Act also provides States with more flexibility in
    implementing their enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance
    programs as required by the Clean Air Act. Prior to the passage
    of this legislation, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held several days of hearings on the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the
    Clean Air Act as it applied to enhanced vehicle inspection and
    maintenance. The Subcommittee generally found that the EPA was
    not providing the flexibility envisioned in the 1990 Clean Air
    Act Amendments. The Subcommittee also found that there remained
    serious questions about the factual basis for the Agency's
    discount by 50 percent of decentralized programs, as well as
    questions in general about the effectiveness of the EPA's model
    program Test-Only IM240.
        During the conference meetings on this bill, the conferees
    agreed that the EPA's automatic discount of test-and-repair or
    decentralized programs was not supported by the evidence.
    Consequently, Public Law 104-59 contains provisions to require
    EPA to stop applying such an automatic discount. In addition,
    because of concern about the effectiveness of inspection and
    maintenance programs, the Act gives States 18 months to
    demonstrate that their State programs equal or exceed the EPA's
    recommended program.

    Legislative History

        On February 16, 1995, S. 440 was introduced in the Senate
    by Senators Warner, Chafee, Baucus, Moynihan, Bond, Faircloth,
    Kempthorne, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Inhofe, Reid, Smith, Lugar,
    Boxer, Graham, and Pell. The bill was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Environment and Public Works. On May 22, 1995, the
    Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S.
    440 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-86). The Senate considered S.
    440 on June 16, June 19, June 20, June 21, and June 22, 1995;
    on June 22, 1995, the Senate passed S. 440, as amended, by a
    voice vote. S. 440 was received in the House on June 26, 1995,
    and held at the Speaker's desk.
        H.R. 2274, a companion bill to S. 440, was introduced in
    the House on September 7, 1995, by Representatives Shuster,
    Petri, Mineta, and Rahall. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On September
    14, 1995, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
    reported H.R. 2274 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-246).
        On September 20, 1995, the House passed H.R. 2274, amended,
    by a roll call vote of 419 yeas to 7 nays. By unanimous
    consent, the House then took S. 440 from the Speaker's desk and
    passed that bill amended with the text of H.R. 2274, as passed
    by the House. H.R. 2274 was then laid on the table. The House
    insisted on its amendments to S. 440, requested a conference
    with the Senate, and appointed conferees.
        On September 22, 1995, the Senate disagreed to the House
    amendments, agreed to a conference with the House, and
    appointed conferees. On September 29, 1995, the House appointed
    additional conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce were
    appointed as conferees for the consideration of Sections 105
    and 141 of the Senate bill and Section 320 of the House
    Amendment. On October 11, 1995, the House appointed Mr. Borski
    as a conferee in lieu of Mr. Mineta.
        The conference report on S. 440 was filed in the House on
    November 15, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-345). On November 17, 1995, the
    Senate agreed to the conference report by a roll call of 80
    yeas to 16 nays. On November 18, 1995, the House, by unanimous
    consent, considered and agreed to the conference report.
        On November 24, 1995, S. 440 was presented to President.
    The President signed S. 440 into law on November 28, 1995 (P.L.
    104-59).

                   employer trip reduction program amendments

                          Public Law 104-70 (H.R. 325)

        To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional
    provision for the reduction of work-related vehicle trips and
    miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas designated as
    severe, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 325 provides that the Employer Trip Reduction Program
    (ETRP), established in 1990 by Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the
    Clean Air Act, is a voluntary measure to be implemented only at
    the discretion of the individual States. The legislation amends
    Section 182(d)(1)(B) in its entirety and adds additional
    statutory language to allow States to remove ETRP requirements
    from their State Implementation Plan (SIP), or to withdraw
    their ETRP SIP submission for consideration for approval by the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), without submitting a SIP
    revision. The bill requires States that remove or withdraw ETRP
    requirements to have undertaken, or to undertake, alternative
    methods to achieve equivalent emission reductions.

    Legislative History

        On January 4, 1995, Mr. Manzullo and 18 cosponsors
    introduced H.R. 325 in the House.
        On March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held an oversight hearing on the Employer Trip
    Reduction Program. Testimony was received from EPA, the State
    of Illinois Department of Transportation, transportation
    planning experts, and employers subject to the statutory
    requirements of Section 182(d)(1)(B).
        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 325 on November 16, 1995, and
    approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. On November 29, 1995, the Full
    Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 325
    reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 325 to the House on December 6, 1995 (H. Rpt.
    104-387).
        On December 12, 1995, the House considered H.R. 325 on the
    Corrections Calendar and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
    December 12, 1995, the bill was received in the Senate. The
    Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 325 on December 13, 1995, and passed the
    bill, without amendment, by a voice vote, clearing the measure
    for the President.
        H.R. 325 was presented to the President on December 14,
    1995. The President signed H.R. 325 into law on December 23,
    1995 (P.L. 104-70).

           federally supported health centers assistance act of 1995

                         (Public Law 104-73, H.R. 1747)

        To amend the Public Health Service Act to permanently
    extend and clarify malpractice coverage for health centers, and
    for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1747 extends the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)
    coverage program for health centers. The bill also makes
    clarifications in the scope of coverage provided under the law.
    H.R. 1747 clarifies that malpractice coverage under the FTCA
    applies to all employees, officers, and governing board members
    of a health center, as well as to contractors of health centers
    who are licensed or certified health care practitioners. The
    bill codifies provisions of the final regulations which clarify
    the application of FTCA malpractice coverage to health services
    provided in certain situations when health care clinicians are
    treating patients who are not registered with the health
    center. For example, health center clinicians participating in
    a community-wide immunization fair will have FTCA coverage when
    providing immunizations. Finally, the bill provides for
    coverage under FTCA of part-time health center clinicians who
    practice in the primary care areas of family practice, general
    internal medicine, general pediatrics, and obstetrics and
    gynecology.
        H.R. 1747 also makes several procedural modifications to
    current law to improve the efficiency of the operation of the
    program. The bill establishes procedures for health centers to
    apply to the Department of Health and Human Services and
    receive approval for malpractice coverage under FTCA.
        Finally, the bill recognizes the movement of the health
    care market toward managed care and the increased participation
    by health centers as providers in managed care plans. H.R. 1747
    applies FTCA coverage to health services provided by centers to
    enrollees of managed care plans who have chosen the health
    center as their provider. The bill also establishes that FTCA
    coverage is to be accepted by managed care plans as meeting the
    requirements for malpractice coverage for health centers who
    contract to be providers for managed care plans.

    Legislative History

        On June 6, 1995, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Wyden,
    and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced H.R. 1747 in the
    House.
        On September 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1747 by unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 1747 and ordered the bill reported to the House, amended,
    by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 1747 to the House
    on December 12, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-398).
        On December 12, 1995, the House considered H.R. 1747 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, as amended, by a
    voice vote. On December 13, 1995, H.R. 1747 was received in the
    Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar. The
    Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 1747 on December 14, 1995, and passed the
    bill without amendment.
        H.R. 1747 was presented to the President on December 16,
    1995. The President signed H.R. 1747 into law on December 26,
    1995 (P.L. 104-73).

               dayton area health plan medicaid waiver extension

                         (Public Law 104-87, H.R. 1878)

        To extend for 4 years the period of applicability of
    enrollment mix requirement to certain health maintenance
    organizations providing services under the Dayton Area Health
    Plan.

    Summary

        The Dayton Area Health Plan is a Medicaid managed care
    demonstration project in Dayton Ohio. The Congressional Budget
    Office has estimated that the Dayton Area Health Plan saves
    taxpayers approximately $1 million per year.
        The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985
    (P.L. 99-272) contained a requirement that health maintenance
    organizations (HMOs) serving public recipients be able to
    attract at least 25 percent of their customers from commercial
    enrollees to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Two
    waivers from the enrollment mix requirement were granted for
    the Dayton Area Health Plan in previous Congresses (P.L. 102-
    276 and P.L. 103-66) and the current waiver expires on December
    31, 1995. Without an extension of the waiver, the Dayton Area
    Health Plan would be forced to stop providing service to over
    25,000 low-income beneficiaries.
        H.R. 1878 extends the waiver of the 75/25 percent
    enrollment mix requirement for 4 years until December 31, 1999.

    Legislative History

        On June 16, 1995, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Hall of Ohio
    introduced H.R. 1878 in the House.
        On December 18, 1995, the House considered H.R. 1878 under
    Suspension of the Rules, thereby discharging the Committee on
    Commerce from further consideration of H.R. 1878. The bill
    passed the House by a voice vote, amended. H.R. 1878 was
    received in the Senate on December 18, 1995, read twice, and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. On December 22,
    1995, by unanimous consent, the Senate Committee on Finance was
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1878. The Senate
    then proceeded, by unanimous consent, to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 1878 and passed the bill without
    amendment.
        H.R. 1878 was presented to the President on December 29,
    1995. The President signed H.R. 1878 into law on December 29,
    1995 (P.L. 104-87).

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

                    Public Law 104-106 (S. 1124, H.R. 1530)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, to reform acquisition laws and
    information technology management of the Federal government,
    and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-106 includes a number of provisions which
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    including several dealing with health related issues. Although
    Members of the Committee on Commerce were not appointed as
    conferees on S. 1124, they were appointed as conferees for
    these provisions of H.R. 1530, the predecessor legislation to
    S. 1124 which was vetoed by the President, and participated in
    the negotiations which led to the agreements ultimately
    contained in Public Law 104-106. In each instance, the
    Committee on Commerce supported the inclusion of the
    legislative language from H.R. 1530 in the law.
        These provisions include: (1) Section 601, which provides a
    pay raise of 2.4 percent for members of the uniformed services,
    including members of the Public Health Service Commissioned
    Corps, and (2) Section 713, which contains a Sense of Congress
    resolution regarding access to health care under the Department
    of Defense's TRICARE program for covered beneficiaries who are
    eligible for Medicare.

    Legislative History

        On August 7, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    reported S. 1124 to the Senate as an original measure (No
    Written Report).
        On September 6, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1530, and the Senate then passed H.R. 1530, amended with the
    text of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote
    of 64 yeas to 34 nays. Further action on S. 1026 was
    indefinitely postponed. Following the passage of H.R. 1530, the
    Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of S. 1124 and passed the bill amended with the
    text of Division A of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate. S.
    1124 was received in the House on September 14, 1995, and held
    at the Speaker's desk. For the legislative history of H.R.
    1530, see the discussion of that bill in this section.
        On December 30, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 1530. By a
    roll call vote of 240 yeas to 156 nays, the House failed to
    override the veto on January 3, 1996. On January 5, 1996, by
    unanimous consent, the House took S. 1124 from the Speaker's
    desk, and, by a voice vote, passed the bill amended with the
    text of H.R. 1530 as reported by the committee of conference on
    December 13, 1995, as contained in H. Rpt. 104-406. The House
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    Senate, and appointed conferees. Although Members of the
    Committee on Commerce had been appointed as conferees on H.R.
    1530, the predecessor legislation to S. 1124, they were not
    appointed conferees on S. 1124 because the issues within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce were resolved during
    the conference on H.R. 1530 and were not the subject of the
    President's veto of that bill.
        On January 5, 1996, the Senate disagreed to the House
    amendment to S. 1124, agreed to a conference with the House,
    and appointed conferees. Conference meetings were held on
    January 18 and January 19, 1996. On January 19, 1996, the
    conferees agreed to file a conference report. The conference
    report was filed in the House on January 22, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    450). The provisions of the conference report dealing with
    those issues under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Commerce were identical to those contained in the conference
    report on H.R. 1530.
        The House agreed to the conference report on January 24,
    1996, by a roll call vote of 287 yeas to 129 nays. The Senate
    agreed to the conference report on January 26, 1996, by a roll
    call vote of 56 yeas to 34 nays. On January 30, 1996, S. 1124
    was presented to the President. On February 10, 1996, the
    President signed S. 1124 into law (P.L. 104-106).

                 contract with america advancement act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-121 (H.R. 3136, H.R. 994)

        To provide for enactment of the Senior Citizens' Right to
    Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, and the Small
    Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide for a
    permanent increase in the public debt limit.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement
    Act of 1996, is a three-title bill which includes: (1)
    provisions concerning regulatory reform and Congressional
    review of rulemaking activities by Federal departments and
    agencies, including those under the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce; and (2) provisions relating to health
    issues.
        Title I of H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
    of 1996, amends Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA) to
    allow persons of retirement age to increase their earnings
    under the earnings limits set by the SSA.
        Title I includes a provision under the Commerce Committee's
    jurisdiction which directs the Commissioner of Social Security
    to: (1) ensure that funds made available for continuing
    disability reviews are used, to the greatest extent
    practicable, to maximize the combined savings in the Old-Age,
    Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), Supplemental
    Security Income (SSI), Medicare, and Medicaid programs; and (2)
    provide annually, at the conclusion of each of the 7 years from
    Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2002, a report to Congress
    on continuing disability reviews that includes the results of
    such reviews in terms of cessations of benefits or
    determinations of continuing eligibility, by program.
        Title II of H.R. 3136, the Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, provides regulatory reform
    for small businesses, as defined in Title II, and Congressional
    review of Federal agency rules. The major provisions of Title
    II are as follows:

    (1) requires agencies to provide increased compliance
            assistance to small businesses;
    (2) requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
            designate a ``Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
            Enforcement Ombudsman'' to provide a confidential
            channel for audited small businesses to comment on such
            procedures;
    (3) requires the SBA to establish regional ``Small Business
            Regulatory Fairness Boards'' to report to the
            Ombudsman;
    (4) allows administrative and judicial courts to award fees and
            costs to small businesses if the judgment demanded by
            an agency is substantially in excess of that awarded;
    (5) amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require an
            analysis by the promulgating agency of the effects of a
            rule on small businesses; and
    (6) lays out a framework for Congressional review of newly
            promulgated agency rules.
        This legislation will require the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment to review recently promulgated rules by the
    Federal agencies and departments within its jurisdiction,
    including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and
    Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human
    Services, and the Health Care Financing Administration.
        Title III of H.R. 3136, Public Debt Limit, raises the
    public debt limit to $5.5 trillion.

    Legislative History

        On February 21, 1995, H.R. 994, the Regulatory Sunset and
    Review Act of 1995, was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Chapman, Mica, DeLay, Deal of Georgia, and
    Geren of Texas. The bill was referred to the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the
    Committee on the Judiciary.
        On October 19, 1995, the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part
    1). The referral of the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary
    was extended for a period ending not later than November 3,
    1995. On October 26, 1995, H.R. 994, as reported by the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce, sequentially, for a period ending
    not later than November 3, 1995.
        On October 25, 1995, the Committee on Commerce scheduled a
    Full Committee hearing on H.R. 994. On October 30, 1995, the
    Full Committee hearing was canceled because of scheduling
    conflicts. In lieu of the Full Committee hearing, the Committee
    conducted a briefing on November 3, 1995, at which
    representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of
    Transportation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission, and the
    Food and Drug Administration presented the views of their
    respective departments and agencies on the impact of, and
    concerns with, the provisions of H.R. 994, as reported to the
    House by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
        On November 3, 1995, the referral of H.R. 994 to the
    Committee on the Judiciary was extended for a period ending not
    later than November 7, 1995. On November 3, 1995, the Committee
    on Commerce was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    994. On November 7, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary
    reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part 2). On
    February 29, 1996, the Rules Committee met and granted a rule
    providing for the consideration of H.R. 994. The rule was filed
    in the House as H. Res. 368 on February 29, 1996. H. Res. 368
    made in order, as an original bill for purposes of amendment,
    an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to be offered by Mr.
    Hyde and printed in the Congressional Record (Printed in the
    Congressional Record on February 29, 1996.) On April 17, 1996,
    H. Res. 368 was laid on the table by unanimous consent.
        On March 21, 1996, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 3136 in the
    House. H.R. 3136 contained language similar to H.R. 994. As
    introduced in the House, Title II, Subtitles A through D, of
    H.R. 3136 aimed to achieve the same goal as Sections 102 and
    103 of H.R. 994, as scheduled for consideration by the House
    under the provisions of H. Res. 368. The goal of Sections 102
    and 103, ``Rules Commented on by SBA Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy'' and ``Sense of Congress Regarding SBA Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy,'' respectively, was to achieve a streamlined and
    effective regulatory process for small businesses.
    Additionally, Subtitle E of Title II of H.R. 3136,
    ``Congressional Review,'' contains only one section, Section
    807, that differs from Title III of H.R. 994, as scheduled for
    consideration by the House.
        H.R. 3136 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, the Committee
    on Rules, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
    Small Business, and the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight.
        On March 27, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3136. The rule was
    filed in the House on March 27, 1996, as H. Res. 391 (H. Rpt.
    104-500). On March 28, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 391 by a
    roll call vote of 232 yeas to 177 nays. H. Res. 391 provided,
    among other things, that amendments printed in the Committee
    report on H. Res. 391 shall be considered as adopted.
        The House considered H.R. 3136 on March 28, 1996, and
    passed the bill, by a roll call vote of 328 yeas to 91 nays. On
    March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was received in the Senate. The
    Senate proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3136 on
    March 28, 1996, and passed the bill without amendment.
        On March 29, 1996, H.R. 3136 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 3136 into law on March 29,
    1996 (P.L. 104-121).

                      saccharin notice requirement repeal

                         Public Law 104-124 (H.R 1787)

        To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to repeal
    the saccharin notice requirement.

    Summary

        H.R. 1787 repeals the store warning notice requirement
    established as part of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act of
    1977. This Act prevented the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    from banning the use of the artificial sweetener saccharin in
    food products and required retail stores that sold such
    products not for immediate consumption to post a warning notice
    pursuant to regulations to be promulgated by FDA. The store
    warning notice is in addition to the requirement that the label
    of such products contain a saccharin warning.
        The store notice warning requirement was originally
    included in the law as a stop-gap measure to provide a warning
    prior to the time that warning labels would appear on foods
    containing saccharin. Because warning labels now appear on all
    products, the store notice warning requirement is no longer
    necessary. Eliminating the store warning notice requirement
    will reduce a burden on retail establishments, including ``mom
    and pop'' grocery stores, neighborhood supermarkets,
    pharmacies, and convenience stores.
        H.R. 1787 does not change the requirement for the warning
    label on such food products.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1787 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bilbray, Mr.
    Burr, and Mr. Cox on June 8, 1995.
        On November 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1787
    and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. On November 29, 1995, the Full
    Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1787
    reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 1787 to the House on December 6, 1995.
        On December 12, 1995, the House considered H.R. 1787 on the
    Corrections Calendar and passed the bill by a voice vote. H.R.
    1787 was received in the Senate on December 12, 1995. On
    February 27, 1996, H.R. 1787 was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
        On March 19, 1996, by unanimous consent, the Senate
    Committee on Labor and Human Resources was discharged from
    further consideration of H.R. 1787. The Senate then proceeded,
    by unanimous consent, to the immediate consideration of H.R.
    1787 and passed the bill without amendment.
        H.R. 1787 was presented to the President on March 21, 1996.
    The President signed H.R. 1878 into law on April 1, 1996 (P.L.
    104-87).

                     federal tea tasters repeal act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-128 (H.R. 2969, S. 1518)

        To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts by repealing the Tea
    Importation Act of 1897.

    Summary

        The Tea Importation Act of 1897 (1897 Act) established a
    program that governed the importation of tea by creating a
    Board of Tea Experts to set quality standards for tea offered
    for import into the United States and requiring that every lot
    of tea offered for import be inspected. The 1897 Act has been
    implemented by various Federal departments and agencies over
    time, including the Department of Treasury, the Department of
    Agriculture, the Department of Customs, and, most recently, the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
        The 1897 Act required that the Board of Tea Experts (Board)
    annually establish standards for purity, quality, and fitness
    for consumption of tea. Then, the Board would recommend these
    quality standards to the Secretary of Health and Human Services
    (HHS), who would approve the Board's recommendation and
    transmit it to the FDA. To comply with the 1897 Act, the FDA
    was required to inspect every lot of tea offered for import to
    determine whether it met the Board's quality standards. If the
    tea met the quality standards, the FDA would certify it for
    import. Without FDA certification, the tea could not be
    imported.
        To defray the cost of the program, the 1897 Act imposed a
    fee per hundredweight of tea, to be assessed upon its
    certification for import and collected by the Customs Service.
    The fee was deposited into the general fund. Although no funds
    have been appropriated to operate the Board since Fiscal Year
    1993, the Board has its operations with its expenses covered by
    the tea industry. The FDA remained obligated to administer the
    1897 Act, and continued to rely on the recommendation of the
    Board regarding quality standards.
        Because FDA regulates the safety of all food, including
    tea, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
    the 1897 Act was redundant with respect to assuring the safety
    of tea. Furthermore, only tea used for brewing was regulated by
    the 1897 Act. Both coffee and instant tea always have been
    regulated under the FFDCA. Repeal of the 1897 Act by Public Law
    104-128 ensures that imported tea is now regulated under the
    FFDCA in the same manner as other imported foods such as
    instant tea and coffee.

    Legislative History

        On January 5, 1996, Senators Brown and Reid introduced S.
    1518, the Federal Tea Tasters Repeal Act, in the Senate and the
    bill was read for the first time. On January 10, 1996, S. 1518
    was read for the second time and placed on the Senate Calendar.
    On February 1, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of S. 1518 and passed
    the bill.
        S. 1518 was received in the House on February 9, 1996, and
    held at the Speaker's desk. On March 21, 1996, the House
    passed, by a voice vote, H. Res. 387, a resolution returning S.
    1518 to the Senate because S. 1518 violated the first clause of
    the seventh section of the first article of the Constitution,
    which requires that all measures raising revenue originate in
    the House. Because repeal of the 1897 Act required termination
    of a user fee collected by the Customs Service, S. 1518 could
    not originate in the Senate. No further action was taken on S.
    1518 in the 104th Congress.
        On February 23, 1996, H.R. 2969, the Federal Tea Tasters
    Repeal Act, was introduced in the House by Mr. Klug and Mr.
    Kennedy of Massachusetts. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
    on Commerce.
        On February 28, 1996, the Committee on Ways and Means
    marked up H.R. 2969 and, by a voice vote, ordered the bill
    reported to the House. On February 29, 1996, the Committee on
    Ways and Means reported H.R. 2969 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-
    467, Part 1). Referral of the bill to the Committee on Commerce
    was extended for a period ending not later than March 11, 1996.
        On March 6, 1996, by unanimous consent, the Subcommittee on
    Health and Environment was discharged from further
    consideration of H.R. 2969. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 2969 in open markup session and ordered the bill reported
    to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    on Commerce reported H.R. 2969 to the House on March 8, 1996
    (H. Rpt. 104-467, Part 2).
        On March 21, 1996, H.R. 2969 was considered in the House by
    unanimous consent and passed without amendment. On March 25,
    1996, the measure was received in the Senate and read twice.
    The Senate, by unanimous consent, then proceeded to the
    immediate consideration of H.R. 2969 and passed the bill
    without amendment.
        On March 28, 1996, H.R. 2969 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 2969 into law on April 9,
    1996 (P.L. 104-128).

        omnibus consolidated rescissions and appropriations act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-134 (H.R. 3019)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        Making appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 to make a
    further downpayment toward a balanced budget, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3019 served as an omnibus continuing appropriations
    measure for those Federal agencies which did not have
    individual Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations measures enacted
    into law. Affected agencies and entities included the
    Departments of Justice, Commerce, State, Labor, Health and
    Human Services, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and
    Urban Development. Independent agencies such as the
    Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the District of
    Columbia, were also funded by the bill. Additionally, a number
    of legislative provisions, some affecting the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on Commerce, were included in H.R. 3019.
        Specifically, Public Law 104-134 contains provisions which:
    (1) amend the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 238 et sec.)
    to prohibit governmental discrimination against health
    professionals who refuse to be trained in the performance of
    elective abortions or against institutions that refuse to
    provide such training; (2) permit expenses from the public
    health and social services emergency fund to be used for
    clinical trials to apply imaging technology used for missile
    guidance and target recognition to new uses improving the early
    detection of breast cancer; (3) permit the Director of the
    Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health, in
    consultation with the Director of the National Institutes of
    Health, to transfer among Institutes up to 3 percent from the
    total amounts identified in each Institute for AIDS research;
    (4) provide for the reimbursement of certain claims where (a)
    payment has been made by a State to a State-operated
    psychiatric hospital for services provided directly by the
    hospital or by providers under contract or agreement with the
    hospital under the Medicaid Program, and (b) the Secretary of
    Health and Human Services (the Secretary) has notified the
    State that the Secretary intends to defer the determination of
    claims for reimbursement related to such payment; (5) provide
    for an optional, alternative Medicaid payment method; (6) grant
    a waiver of the Medicaid enrollment composition rules for the
    D.C. Chartered Health Plan, Inc. of the District of Columbia
    for all contract periods from October 1, 1991, through the
    current contract period of October 1, 1999; and (7) require the
    compilation of data concerning female genital mutilation.
        Finally, Public Law 104-134 amends the Federal Food, Drug,
    and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to revise requirements regarding the
    import and export of any component of a drug, biological
    product (including a partially processed biological product),
    device, food additive, color additive, or dietary supplement.
    The Committee on Commerce worked with the House and Senate
    conferees to develop the legislative language included in the
    law.
        These provisions allow pharmaceuticals and medical devices
    not approved in the United States to be exported to any country
    in the world if the products comply with the laws of the
    importing country and have valid marketing authorization in one
    of the following countries: Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan,
    New Zealand, Switzerland, South Africa, or a country in the
    European Union or in the European Economic Area. The Secretary
    of Health and Human Services is authorized to add countries to
    the list based on specified criteria. The provisions also set
    forth criteria upon which the Secretary may allow direct export
    of a drug not first approved in one of the listed countries.
        The provisions also provide for the export of an unapproved
    drug or device used for tropical diseases or other diseases not
    of significant prevalence in the United States; establish an
    option to request a certification from the Secretary that an
    export is legal and authorizes a fee of up to $175 for this
    certification; and authorizes the import of certain articles
    for use in the manufacture of drugs, biological products,
    devices, foods, food supplements, food additives, and color
    additives, if the finished products are then exported.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3019 was introduced in the House on March 5, 1996, by
    Mr. Livingston and referred to the Committee on Appropriations,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Budget. On March 7,
    1996, the House passed H. Res. 372, a rule providing for
    immediate consideration of H.R. 3019 in the House. The House
    then considered and passed H.R. 3019 by a roll call vote of 209
    yeas to 206 nays.
        On March 11, 1996, H.R. 3019 was received in the Senate,
    read twice, and laid before the Senate. The Senate considered
    H.R. 3019 on March 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19, 1996. On
    March 19, 1996, the Senate passed H.R. 3019, amended, by a roll
    call vote of 79 yeas to 21 nays. The Senate insisted on its
    amendment, requested a conference with the House, and appointed
    conferees.
        On March 21, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3019, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Conference meetings were held on March
    21, March 27, March 28, March 29, and April 24, 1996. On April
    24, 1996, the conferees agreed to file a conference report on
    H.R. 3019. The conference report was filed in the House on
    April 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-537). On that same date, the House
    agreed to the conference report by roll call vote of 399 yeas
    to 25 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report on April
    25, 1996, by a roll call vote of 88 yeas to 11 nays. On April
    25, 1996, H.R. 3019 was presented to the President. On April
    26, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3019 into law (P.L. 104-
    134).

                     ryan white care act amendments of 1996

                     Public Law 104-146 (S. 641, H.R. 1872)

        To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend
    programs established pursuant to the Ryan White Comprehensive
    AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1872 is to reauthorize and revise the
    Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, a
    program of grants for the provision of primary health care and
    support services for people infected with the human
    immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and for those who have acquired
    immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), the full-blown illness
    caused by HIV. Such services include outpatient health and
    medical services, as well as such ancillary services as
    continuation of private health insurance and home health care.
    H.R. 1872 extends the authority for this program for 5 years.
        The legislation makes changes in the formulas by which
    funds are allocated among cities eligible for assistance and
    among States (all of which are eligible for assistance). The
    legislation also clarifies the program by which AIDS research
    for women and children is facilitated through the provision of
    health and support services. In addition, the legislation makes
    minor changes to the program of early intervention services
    provided by Federally assisted primary care centers to require
    that certain services be provided and that a specified portion
    of funds be expended on site.

    Legislative History

        On April 3, 1995, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
    Resources reported S. 641, the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization
    Act of 1995, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-25). The Senate
    considered S. 641 on July 21 and July 26, 1995; on July 26,
    1995, the Senate passed S. 641, amended, by a roll call vote of
    97 yeas to 3 nays. On July 28, 1995, S. 641 was received in the
    House and held at the Speaker's desk.
        On April 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the Reauthorization of the Ryan
    White CARE Act. Witnesses included Members of Congress and
    representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services,
    the General Accounting Office, State Health Departments, and
    various AIDS organizations. On May 11, 1995, the Subcommittee
    on Health and Environment held a hearing on HIV Testing of
    Women and Infants, receiving testimony from representatives
    from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
    National Institutes of Health (NIH), the American College of
    Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of
    Pediatricians, and AIDS advocacy groups.
        On June 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment met in open markup session and considered a
    Subcommittee Print entitled the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments
    of 1995. The Subcommittee approved the introduction of a clean
    bill for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        On June 16, 1995, Representatives Bilirakis, Waxman,
    Bliley, Dingell, Hastert, Wyden, Upton, Manton, Klug, Towns,
    Greenwood, Studds, Bilbray, Brown of Ohio, Ganske, Furse,
    Moorhead, Deutsch, Rush, Eshoo, Stupak, Gunderson, and Pelosi
    introduced the clean bill in the House as H.R. 1872. On July
    13, 1995, the Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1872 and ordered the bill reported to the House, amended,
    by a roll call vote of 41 yeas to 0 nays. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1872 to the House on September 14, 1995 (H. Rpt.
    104-245).
        On September 18, 1995, the House considered H.R. 1872 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, as amended, by a
    voice vote. The House then took S. 641 from the Speaker's desk
    and passed that bill, amended with the text of H.R. 1872 as
    passed by the House. H.R. 1872 was then laid on the table.
        On October 13, 1995, the Senate disagreed to the House
    amendment to S. 641, requested a conference with the House, and
    appointed conferees. The House insisted on its amendment,
    agreed to a conference with the Senate, and appointed conferees
    on December 7, 1995. A conference meeting was held on March 27,
    1996. On April 10, 1996, the conference report was filed in the
    House (H. Rpt. 104-545). The House agreed to the conference
    report on May 1, 1996, by a roll call vote of 402 yeas to 4
    nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report on May 2,
    1996, by a voice vote.
        S. 641 was presented to the President on May 8, 1996. The
    President signed S. 641 into law on May 20, 1996 (P.L. 104-
    146).

                            traumatic brain injuries

                         Public Law 104-166 (H.R. 248)

        To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the
    conduct of expanded studies and the establishment of innovative
    programs with respect to traumatic brain injury, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 248 expands the efforts to identify methods of
    preventing traumatic brain injury; expands biomedical research
    efforts to prevent or minimize the severity of dysfunction
    resulting from such an injury; and improves the delivery and
    quality of services through State demonstration projects. To
    achieve these goals, H.R. 248 authorizes: (1) the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention to establish projects to prevent
    and reduce the incidence of traumatic brain injury; (2) the
    National Institutes of Health to award grants to conduct basic
    and applied research on developing new methods for more
    effective diagnosis, therapies, and continuum of care; and (3)
    the Health Resources and Services Administration to make grants
    to States to carry out demonstration programs to improve access
    to services regarding traumatic brain injury.

    Legislative History

        On January 4, 1995, H.R. 248 was introduced in the House by
    Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Pallone.
        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 248 on June 6, 1996, and
    approved the bill, amended, for Full Committee consideration,
    by a voice vote. On June 13, 1996, the Full Committee met in
    open markup session and ordered, H.R. 248, as amended, reported
    to the House by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 248
    to the House on June 27, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-652).
        On July 9, 1996, the House considered H.R. 248 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
    July 10, 1996, H.R. 248 was received in the Senate. The Senate,
    by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration
    of H.R. 248 on July 12, 1996, and passed the bill without
    amendment.
        H.R. 248 was presented to the President on July 17, 1996.
    The President signed H.R. 248 into law on July 29, 1996 (P.L.
    104-166).

                      food quality protection act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-170 (H.R. 1627)

        To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
    Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
    and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-170)
    amends both the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
    and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA) to provide a comprehensive and health-based regulatory
    scheme for pesticides. For over two decades, there have been
    major efforts to update and resolve inconsistencies in the two
    major statutes. This new law represents a major breakthrough by
    mandating a single, health-based standard for all pesticides in
    all foods. It provides special protection for children,
    expedites approval of safer pesticides, and requires periodic
    re-evaluation of pesticide registrations and tolerances to
    ensure that pesticide registrations will remain up-to-date.

    General Standards for Tolerances

        Previous law required the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) to establish tolerances that will protect the public
    health. The new law establishes a single, health-based standard
    for all pesticide residues in all types of foods. The new
    standard requires that tolerance be ``safe,'' defined as a
    ``reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
    exposure,'' including all exposure through the diet and other
    non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable data.
    The new law continues to distinguish between threshold and non-
    threshold effects. The new law provides for no differences in
    the standards applicable to tolerances set for raw and
    processed food.

    Resolution of the Delaney Paradox

        Under previous law, if a pesticide that causes cancer
    concentrated in a processed food at a greater level than the
    tolerance for the raw agricultural commodity, the Delaney
    Clause of the FFDCA prohibited the setting of a tolerance. This
    had a paradoxical effect in terms of food safety, since EPA
    could allow the same pesticide in other foods based on a
    determination that the pesticide did not concentrate on the
    processed food. P.L. 104-170 eliminates the application of the
    Delaney clause in setting any tolerance for pesticide residues
    in food. Rather, the EPA must determine that tolerances are
    ``safe,'' defined as a ``reasonable certainty that no harm will
    result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide.''

    Special Provisions for Infants and Children

        P.L. 104-170 explicitly requires the EPA to address risks
    to infants and children and to publish a scientific safety
    finding before a tolerance can be established. It also provides
    for an additional safety factor of up to tenfold, if necessary,
    to ensure that tolerances are safe for infants and children.
    The new law requires collection of better data on food
    consumption patterns and pesticide residue levels for products
    that children consume. Consequently, the potentially greater
    exposure and sensitivity of infants and children will be
    explicitly taken into account.

    Consideration of Pesticide Benefits

        Under the previous law, EPA was required to give
    appropriate consideration to the necessity for the production
    of an adequate, wholesome, and economical food supply. The new
    law allows tolerances to remain in effect that would not
    otherwise meet the safety standard, based on the benefits
    afforded by the pesticide. The use of benefits will only be
    available if: (1) the pesticide prevents even greater health
    risks to consumers, or (2) the lack of the pesticide would
    result in a significant disruption in domestic production of an
    adequate, wholesome, and economical food supply. Tolerances
    based on benefit considerations would be subject to the
    following limits on risk: (1) the yearly cancer risk may not
    exceed ten times the negligible risk level, and (2) the
    cumulative lifetime risk may never be greater than twice the
    negligible risk level. To the extent that the cumulative
    lifetime risk would exceed this level, the tolerance must be
    phased-out. These tolerances would also receive a more frequent
    review than other tolerances.

    Other Factors to be Considered in Setting Tolerances

        The new law requires EPA to consider the following factors:
    (1) the validity, completeness and reliability of the data; (2)
    the nature of the potential toxic effects; (3) dietary
    consumption patterns and variations in the sensitivities of
    major identifiable subpopulations; (4) cumulative and aggregate
    effects of exposure to the pesticide and other substances with
    common mechanisms of toxicity; and (5) effects on the endocrine
    system.
        In assessing potential risks, EPA may also consider
    exposure to actual residues expected on foods (which are often
    far lower than tolerances), and the percent of a crop treated
    with the pesticide.

    National Uniformity of Tolerances

        Under previous law, States were allowed to set tolerances
    that were stricter than EPA tolerances. Generally, the new law
    preempts States from establishing tolerances that differ from
    EPA Federal tolerances first established or reassessed after
    April 25, 1985. States may petition EPA for exemptions if there
    are compelling local conditions that justify the exemption.

    Endocrine Disruptors

        The new law requires the development and implementation of
    a comprehensive screening program for estrogenic and other
    endocrine effects within 3 years of enactment.

    Consumer Right to Know

        The new law requires the EPA to publish a pamphlet
    containing consumer information on the risks and benefits of
    pesticides, any tolerances that EPA has established based on
    benefits considerations, and recommendations for reducing
    exposure to pesticide residues and maintaining a healthy diet.
    This information would be distributed each year to large retail
    grocers for public display in a manner determined by the
    grocer.

    Re-Evaluation of Existing Tolerances

        The new law requires review of all tolerances on the
    following schedule: (1) 33 percent within 3 years; (2) 66
    percent within 6 years; and (3) 100 percent within 10 years.
    Therefore, within 10 years, all tolerances will be required to
    meet the new safety standard.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1627 was introduced in the House on May 12, 1995, by
    Mr. Bliley and 96 cosponsors. Titles I-III of the bill were
    referred to the Committee on Agriculture; Title IV was referred
    to the Committee on Commerce.
        The Subcommittee on Health and the Environment held 2 days
    of hearings on H.R. 1627 on June 7 and June 29, 1995. The
    second hearing also included testimony on H.R. 1771, the
    Pesticide Safety and Right-to-Know Act of 1995. On June 7,
    1995, witnesses included EPA officials and academic and
    industry representatives. On June 29, 1995, testimony was given
    by consumers and academic and industry representatives.
        On June 20, 1995, the House Committee on Agriculture began
    markup of H.R. 1627 and incorporated the provisions of H.R.
    1680, the Antimicrobial Pesticide Registration Reform Act of
    1995, into H.R. 1627, but did not complete action thereon. On
    June 19, 1996, the Committee on Agriculture ordered H.R. 1627
    reported to the House. The Committee on Agriculture reported
    H.R. 1627 to the House on July 11, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-669, Part
    1).
        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 1627 on July 11 and July 17,
    1996; on July 17, 1996, the Subcommittee approved H.R. 1627,
    amended, for Full Committee consideration, by a voice vote. The
    Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1627
    on July 17, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to the House,
    as amended, by a roll call vote of 45 yeas to 0 nays. The
    Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1627 to the House on July
    23, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-669, Part 2).
        On July 23, 1996, The House considered H.R. 1627 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by a roll call vote
    of 417 yeas to 0 nays. H.R. 1627 was received in the Senate on
    July 23, 1996, and read twice. On July 24, 1996, the Senate, by
    unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration of
    H.R. 1627 and passed the bill without amendment.
        H.R. 1627 was presented to the President on July 26, 1996.
    The President signed H.R. 1627 into law on August 3, 1996
    (Public Law No. 104-170).

                   safe drinking water act amendments of 1996

                    Public Law 104-182 (S. 1316, H.R. 3604)

        To reauthorize and amend Title XIV of the Public Health
    Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe Drinking Water
    Act''), and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 include
    comprehensive amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of
    1974, as well as a number of other provisions. Title I of
    Public Law 104-182 consists of amendments to the Safe Drinking
    Water Act itself. Title II consists of provisions concerning
    drinking water research. Title III addresses a number of
    miscellaneous provisions. Title IV pertains to additional
    assistance for water infrastructure and watersheds. Finally,
    Title V makes various clerical amendments.

    Title I--Amendments to Safe Drinking Water Act

        State Revolving Loan Funds (SRFs).--Public Law 104-182
    authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make
    grants to States to establish State revolving loan funds
    (SRFs). A State may use funds in its SRF to provide loans and
    other specified types of financial assistance to public water
    systems for capital improvements which are necessary to comply
    with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
        Selection of New Contaminants.--Public Law 104-182 gives
    EPA the authority to decide which contaminants to regulate
    based on whether: (1) the contaminant may have an adverse
    effect on health of persons; (2) the contaminant is known to
    occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the contaminant
    will occur in a public water system with a frequency and at a
    level of public health concern; and (3) the contaminant
    presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.
        Risk Assessment, Management and Communication.--Public Law
    104-182 requires that, when setting national drinking water
    standards, EPA must utilize the ``best available, peer-reviewed
    science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with
    sound and objective scientific practices,'' as well as use data
    collected by accepted or best available methods. In addition,
    when proposing any new drinking water regulation, the
    Administrator of EPA (the Administrator) must publish and seek
    public comment on quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk
    reduction benefits and costs for each alternative standard
    being considered.
        Standard-Setting.--Public Law 104-182 gives the
    Administrator the authority to set a Maximum Contaminant Level
    (MCL) at a level other than the ``feasible'' level in certain
    situations if the Administrator determines, based on the costs
    and benefits analyses conducted on the rule, that the benefits
    of a particular standard would not justify the costs. In
    addition, the Administrator is authorized to set a standard at
    a level other than the ``feasible'' level if the Administrator
    determines that the feasible level would increase the level of
    other contaminants or interfere with other treatment
    techniques.
        Treatment Technologies for Small Systems.--Public Law 104-
    182 requires the Administrator to list treatment technologies
    and techniques which meet MCLs and which the Administrator
    determines, in consultation with the States, are affordable for
    public water systems in different size categories.
        Certain Contaminants.--Public Law 104-182 contains separate
    provisions for the establishment of regulations with respect to
    arsenic, sulfate and radon.
        Enforcement.--Public Law 104-182 streamlines administrative
    enforcement of the Act and specifies which sections of the Act
    are ``applicable requirements'' subject to enforcement by EPA.
        Consumer Right-To-Know.--Public Law 104-182 requires each
    community water system to mail an annual report to consumers
    containing specified information. A Governor may decide not to
    apply the mailing requirement to systems serving under 10,000
    people, if alternative actions are taken. Additional
    flexibility is provided to public water systems serving fewer
    than 500 persons.
        Variances.--Public Law 104-182 provides that a State may
    grant a variance to a public water system serving fewer than
    3,300 persons--and to a public water system serving between
    3,300 and 10,000 persons with the approval of EPA--if the
    public water system meets certain conditions.
        Exemptions.--Public Law 104-182 provides that a public
    water system may obtain an exemption from a national primary
    drinking water regulation for not more than 3 years after the
    otherwise applicable compliance date for the regulation. A
    public water system serving fewer than 3,300 persons may obtain
    an exemption for one or more 2-year periods, not to exceed 6
    years.
        Capacity Development.--Public Law 104-182 adds a new
    Section 1420 to provide that a State will receive only 80
    percent of its SRF grant unless it takes certain actions to
    help public water systems develop and maintain the capacity to
    comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
        Operator Certification.--Public Law 104-182 adds new
    Section 1419 to the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish
    standards for the training and certification of operators of
    community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems.
    EPA must withhold 20 percent of a State's SRF grant unless the
    State has adopted and is implementing an operator certification
    program which meets the requirements of EPA's guidelines.
    However, EPA must allow a State to continue to implement its
    existing operator certification program unless EPA determines
    that the State's existing program is not substantially
    equivalent to EPA's guidelines.
        Public Water System Supervision Grants.--Public Law 104-182
    authorizes $100 million in Public Water System Supervision
    grants for each of Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003.
        Monitoring Flexibility.--Public Law 104-182 provides that
    each State, which has primary enforcement responsibility and an
    approved source water assessment program, may adopt tailored
    alternative monitoring requirements for public water systems.
        Health Effect Studies.--Public Law 104-182 authorizes EPA
    to reserve $10 million for each fiscal year from funds
    allocated to the SRF for health effects studies on drinking
    water contaminants. The Administrator is to give priority to
    studies concerning the health effects of cryptosporidium,
    disinfection byproducts, and arsenic.
        Source Water Assessment.--Public Law 104-182 creates a new
    program under which EPA is required to issue guidance for
    States to carry out an assessment of source waters within the
    State's boundaries. A State must have an approved source water
    assessment program in order to be eligible to provide permanent
    monitoring relief under new Section 1418(b).
        Source Water Petition Program.--Public law 104-182 adds a
    new Section 1454 which authorizes each State to establish a
    source water petition program under which an owner or operator
    of a community water system, or a municipal or local
    government, may submit a petition to the State requesting that
    the State assist in the local development of a voluntary,
    incentive-based partnership among the owner, operator, or
    government and other persons likely to be affected by the
    recommendations of the partnership.
        Estrogenic Substances Screening Program.--Section 136 of
    Public Law 104-182 expands the new estrogenic substances
    screening program which was included in the Food Quality
    Protection Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-170) to include substances
    that may be found in drinking water if EPA determines that a
    substantial population may be exposed to such substance.
        Drinking Water Studies.--Public Law 104-182 requires EPA to
    conduct a study to identify groups that may be at greater risk
    than the general population of adverse health effects from
    exposure to contaminants in drinking water. The Administrator
    is also required to conduct biomedical studies to understand
    the mechanisms by which contaminants are absorbed, distributed,
    metabolized, and eliminated from the human body.

    Title II--Drinking Water Research

        Title II of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
    authorizes drinking water research for Fiscal Years 1997
    through 2003. The annual total of sums authorized is not to
    exceed $26,593,000.

    Title III--Miscellaneous Provisions

        This Title repeals Section 3013 of the Energy Policy Act of
    1992 which encouraged the use of water in public water systems
    for energy conservation. This Title also contains provisions
    encouraging and granting consent to the customers of the
    Washington Aqueduct to establish a non-Federal public or
    private entity to receive title to the Washington Aqueduct and
    to operate, maintain and manage the aqueduct. The Title
    additionally authorizes the Administrator to provide technical
    and financial assistance to the State of Alaska for the purpose
    of developing and operating water and waste water systems for
    the benefit of rural and Alaskan Native villages. Additionally,
    Title III amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to
    require the Food and Drug Administration to issue standard of
    quality regulations for bottled water within a specified time
    after new regulations are issued for tap water under the Safe
    Drinking Water Act. Finally, Title III also contains amendments
    to the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control
    Act of 1990 respecting zebra mussels.

    Title IV--Additional Assistance

        Title IV authorizes $25,000,000 for each of Fiscal Years
    1997 through 2003 to provide technical and financial assistance
    to the States in the form of grants for the construction,
    rehabilitation, and improvement of water supply systems and to
    address pollutants in navigable waters. In addition, another
    $25,000,000 for each of Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003 is
    authorized provided that 75 percent of the funds authorized for
    the SRF are appropriated for such fiscal year. Grants are
    subject to a 50 percent cost share.

    Title V--Clerical Amendments

        Title V contains technical and clerical amendments to the
    Safe Drinking Water Act.

    Legislative History

        On October 12, 1995, S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act
    of 1996, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Kempthorne,
    Chafee, Baucus, Reid, Kerrey, Dole, Daschle, Warner, Smith,
    Faircloth, Inhofe, Thomas, McConnell, Jeffords, Hatch, Simpson,
    Domenici, Burns, Craig, Bennett, Exon, Conrad, Hatfield, and
    Lautenberg. On November 7, 1995, the Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Works reported S. 1316 to the Senate (S.
    Rpt. 104-169). On November 29, 1995, the Senate considered S.
    1316 and passed the bill, amended, by a roll call vote of 99
    yeas to 0 nays. S. 1316 was received in the House on December
    4, 1995, and held at the Speaker's desk.
        On January 31, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the Priorities for the
    Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Testimony was
    received from Members of Congress, the Assistant Administrator,
    Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and from
    representatives of the National Governors Association, the
    National League of Cities, the Association of State Drinking
    Water Administrators, the American Water Works Association, the
    Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National
    Association of Water Companies, the National Rural Water
    Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
        On June 6, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and the
    Environment met in open markup session and considered a
    Subcommittee Print entitled the ``Safe Drinking Water Act
    Amendments of 1996''. The Subcommittee approved the
    introduction of a clean bill for Full Committee consideration,
    by a roll call vote of 24 yeas to 0 nays.
        On June 10, 1996, Mr. Bliley and 37 cosponsors introduced
    the clean bill in the House as H.R. 3604. On June 11, 1996, the
    Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3604
    and ordered the bill reported to the House, amended, by a roll
    call vote of 42 yeas to 0 nays. The Committee reported H.R.
    3604 to the House on June 24, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-632, Part 1).
    The bill was referred sequentially to the Committee on Science
    for a period ending not later than July 24, 1996.
        On June 25, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3604 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, amended, by a
    voice vote. On July 17, 1996, the House, by unanimous consent,
    took S. 1316 from the Speaker's desk and passed the bill after
    striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu
    thereof the text of H.R. 3604, as passed by the House on June
    25, 1996. H.R. 3604 was then laid on the table. The House
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    Senate, and appointed conferees.
        On July 18, 1996, the Senate disagreed to the House
    amendment, agreed to a conference with the House, and appointed
    conferees. A conference meetings was held on July 26, 1996. On
    August 1, 1996, the conference report was filed in the House
    (H. Rpt. 104-741). The House agreed to the conference report on
    August 2, 1996, by a roll call vote of 392 yeas to 30 nays. The
    Senate also agreed to the conference report on August 2, 1996,
    by a roll call vote of 98 yeas to 0 nays.
        S. 1316 was presented to the President on August 2, 1996.
    The President signed S. 1316 into law on August 6, 1996 (P.L.
    104-182).

    developmental disabilities assistance and bill of rights act amendments
                                    of 1996

                    Public Law 104-183 (S. 1757, H.R. 3867)

        To amend the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights
    Act to extend the Act, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
    Rights Act (P.L. 94-103) was enacted in 1975 and has been
    extended and revised many times in past Congresses. This
    reauthorization expresses Congressional support for the
    developmental disabilities programs and permits the revisions
    passed in the last reauthorization to continue to be
    implemented. The authorization for these programs expires on
    September 30, 1996.
        Public Law 104-183 extends for 3 years the Developmental
    Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, a program that
    consists of four components: a basic State grant program; a
    protection and advocacy program; a university affiliated
    program; and projects of national significance.

    Legislative History

        S. 1757 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Frist and Mr.
    Harkin on May 14, 1996, and referred to the Senate Committee on
    Labor and Human Resources. On July 12, 1996, the Senate, by
    unanimous consent, discharged the Committee on Labor and Human
    Resources from further consideration of S. 1757. The Senate
    then proceeded to the immediate consideration of S. 1757 and
    passed the bill without amendment. S. 1757 was received in the
    House on July 16, 1996, and referred to the Committee on
    Commerce.
        On July 23, 1996, H.R. 3867, a companion bill to S. 1757,
    was introduced in the House by Representatives Frisa, Bliley,
    Dingell, Bilirakis, Towns, Greenwood, Studds, and Eshoo. On
    July 24, 1996, without objection, the Full Committee, in an
    open markup session, proceeded to the immediate consideration
    of H.R. 3867 and ordered the bill reported to the House,
    without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R.
    3867 to the House on July 30, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-719).
        On July 30, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3867 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, without amendment,
    by a voice vote. H.R. 3867 was received in the Senate on July
    30, 1996, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on
    Labor and Human Resources. No further action was taken on H.R.
    3867 in the 104th Congress.
        Following the passage of H.R. 3867 on July 30, 1996, the
    House, by unanimous consent, discharged the Committee on
    Commerce from further consideration of S. 1757 and passed that
    bill without amendment, clearing it for the President.
        S. 1757 was presented to the President on August 1, 1996.
    The President signed S. 1757 into law on August 6, 1996 (P.L.
    104-183).

          health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996

              Public Law 104-191 (H.R. 3103, H.R. 3070, H.R. 995)

        To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve
    portability and continuity of health insurance coverage in the
    group and individual markets, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse
    in health insurance and health care delivery, to promote the
    use of medical savings accounts, to improve access to long-term
    care services and coverage, to simplify the administration of
    health insurance, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3103 guarantees the availability and renewability of
    private health insurance coverage for certain individuals and
    limits the use of preexisting condition restrictions. The bill
    creates Federal standards for insurers, health maintenance
    organizations (HMOs), employer plans, and self-insured plans.
        H.R. 3103 limits the ability of group health plans and
    health insurance issuers to use preexisting condition
    restrictions in the group market. The bill permits restrictions
    for no more than 12 months for physical or mental conditions
    that have been diagnosed or treated within 6 months prior to
    the enrollment date. The bill does not limit the use of
    preexisting conditions in the individual market, except for
    certain eligible people who move from group to individual
    coverage. The bill does not limit the waiting periods that
    plans may impose before an individual is eligible to be covered
    under the terms of a health care plan.
        Limits on the use of preexisting conditions provide for
    portability of coverage and help solve the problem of ``job
    lock'' in which many employees are locked into their current
    jobs because a job change might subject them to a period
    without comprehensive health care coverage while preexisting
    condition restrictions are met. H.R. 3103 ensures portability
    for individuals moving within the group market. Any preexisting
    condition restrictions in the new group plan will be reduced by
    1 month for every month that the individual has creditable
    coverage under a previous plan, provided there is no break in
    previous coverage greater than 62 days.
        H.R. 3103 also requires a health insurance issuer to cover
    any group, or individual in the group who applies, without
    regard to health status or claims experience. It requires each
    issuer that offers general coverage in a State's small group
    market to offer coverage to every small employer (defined as 2
    to 50 employees) that applies.
        The Federal guarantee requirements also apply to insurance
    sold to certain qualified individuals in the individual
    insurance market. In States which do not have an access program
    for qualified individuals, all insurers in the individual
    market are required to offer individual coverage to all
    eligible individuals moving from group to individual coverage
    if the individuals meet the following criteria: (1) must have
    been covered for at least the past 18 months, and the most
    recent coverage must have been from group coverage; (2) must
    not be eligible for group health coverage, Medicare, or
    Medicaid; (3) if eligible for continuation coverage under the
    Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA)
    or similar State program, must have elected and exhausted this
    coverage; and (4) must not have lost coverage due to nonpayment
    of premiums or fraud.

    Legislative History

        On February 21, 1996, H.R. 995, the ERISA Targeted Health
    Insurance Reform Act of 1996, was introduced in the House by
    Mr. Fawell and 16 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce. On March 25, 1996, the
    Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities reported
    H.R. 995 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-498, Part 1). The referral
    of H.R. 995 to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a
    period ending not later than March 29, 1996. On March 29, 1996,
    the Committee on Commerce was discharged from further
    consideration of H.R. 995.
        On March 7, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on health care reform and the
    problems of the small business marketplace and the individual
    health insurance market. The purpose of this hearing was to
    focus on the national problem of the small business market and
    its concentration of uninsured workers and their families.
    Witnesses included officials from the health insurance industry
    and private sector businesses.
        On March 12, 1996, Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Bliley introduced
    H.R. 3070, the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability
    Act of 1996, in the House. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
    and Means, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on
    Economic and Educational Opportunities.
        On March 14, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3070,
    and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration by a
    voice vote. On March 20, 1996, the Full Committee met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 3070, and ordered the bill
    reported to the House, amended, by a roll call vote of 38 yeas
    to 0 nays. The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 3070 to the
    House on March 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-497, Part 1). The referral
    of H.R. 3070 to the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee
    on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities was extended for a period ending not later than
    March 29, 1996. On March 29, 1996, the Committee on Ways and
    Means, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on
    Economic and Educational Opportunities were discharged from
    further consideration of H.R. 3070.
        On March 18, 1996, Mr. Archer, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Bilirakis,
    Mr. Bliley, Mr. Hastert, Mr. Zimmer, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Lazio, Mr.
    Weller, and Mr. Castle introduced H.R. 3103. H.R. 3103 was
    referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
    the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the
    Committee on Commerce, and Committee on the Judiciary.
        On March 25, 1996, the Committee on Ways and Means reported
    H.R. 3103 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-496, Part 1). The referral
    of the bill to the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on
    Economic and Educational Opportunities, and the Committee on
    the Judiciary was extended for a period ending not later than
    March 29, 1996.
        On March 27, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3103 (H. Res.
    392). H. Res. 392 provided that an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3160, as amended by
    H. Rpt. 104-501, shall be considered as adopted, and that H.R.
    3103, as so amended, be considered as the original bill for
    purposes of further amendment. H.R. 3160 was based on the
    provisions of H.R. 995, H.R. 3070, and H.R. 3103, as reported
    by the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the
    Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Ways and Means,
    respectively.
        The House passed H.R. 3103 by a roll call vote of 267 yeas
    to 151 nays on March 28, 1996. H.R. 3103, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate and read for the first time
    on April 15, 1996. The Senate considered S. 1028, a companion
    bill, on April 18, 1996 and April 23, 1996. On April 23, 1996,
    the Senate passed H.R. 3103, as amended by striking all after
    the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the text of
    S. 1028, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote of 100
    yeas to 0 nays.
        On June 11, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendments to H.R. 3103 and requested a conference with the
    Senate. Members of the Committee on Commerce were appointed as
    conferees. On July 25, 1996, the Senate insisted upon its
    amendments to H.R. 3103, agreed to a conference with the House,
    and appointed conferees. The conferees met on July 26, 1996.
    The conference report was filed in the House on July 31, 1996
    (H. Rpt. 104-736). By unanimous consent, the House proceeded to
    the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 208, a resolution
    to correct the enrollment of H.R. 3103, and passed the
    resolution. The House agreed to the conference report, by a
    roll call vote of 421 yeas to 2 nays, on August 1, 1996. The
    Senate passed S. Con. Res. 68 and H. Con. Res. 208, resolutions
    to correct the enrollment of H.R. 3103, on August 2, 1996. The
    Senate agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote of
    98 yeas to 0 nays, on August 2, 1996.
        On August 9, 1996, H.R. 3103 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 3103 into law on August
    21, 1996 (P.L. 104-191).

    personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act of 1996

               Public Law 104-193 (H.R. 3734, H.R. 3829, S. 1956)

        To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(1)(a)
    of the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year
    1997.

    Summary

        The purpose of Public Law 104-193 is to make reforms in the
    Welfare and Medicaid Programs. Effective July 1, 1997, Public
    Law 104-193 will replace the Aid for Families with Dependent
    Children (AFDC) Program with block grants to States for
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Act allows
    each State to establish its own TANF eligibility standards and
    does not require automatic Medicaid coverage for those who
    receive TANF aid. Thus, Public Law 104-193 severs the link
    between cash assistance and Medicaid. Because of the delinking,
    Medicaid beneficiaries who fail to qualify under the TANF
    program are not at risk of losing Medicaid coverage.
        The Act amends the Medicaid statute to provide that current
    Medicaid eligibles and future applicants who meet a State's
    AFDC standards (including income and resource standards and
    methodologies) as in place as of July 16, 1996 will continue to
    receive Medicaid health care coverage. Therefore, Medicaid
    coverage will not be restricted by the rules of a State's new
    welfare program under TANF.
        Under the prior law, families who received AFDC cash
    assistance in at least 3 of the preceding 6 months, and became
    ineligible for cash assistance because of increased earnings,
    were guaranteed Medicaid coverage for an additional 6 months.
    Families covered during the entire 6 month period, and earning
    below 185 percent of poverty, qualified for a second 6-month
    period. Public Law 104-193 provides for identical continued
    coverage for such families. Prior law had provided for these
    extensions only until September 30, 1998. Public Law 104-193
    extends the sunset to September 30, 2001. Public Law 104-193
    also continues a current law requirement of an additional 4
    months of Medicaid coverage for families and individuals who
    had been covered in 3 of the preceeding 6 months and who would
    become ineligible as a result of the collection of child or
    spousal support.
        Public Law 104-193 makes significant changes to full
    Medicaid eligibility for legal aliens. For legal aliens who are
    currently Medicaid beneficiaries, coverage continues until
    January 1, 1997. Beginning on that date, States will have the
    option of denying Medicaid benefits except for certain
    individuals who meet specified criteria. Permanent resident
    aliens arriving in this country on or after August 22, 1996,
    are restricted from receipt of Medicaid benefits (other than
    emergency services) for their first 5 years in this country.
    States have the option of providing full Medicaid benefits 5
    years after entry, but there are new rules that deem a
    sponsor's assets available to a sponsored alien.
        Finally, Public Law 104-193 amends the Medicaid statute to
    permit a State to determine Medicaid eligibility through either
    its welfare agency or its Medicaid agency and specifies that a
    State may use a single application form for both TANF and
    Medicaid. For States that demonstrate additional administrative
    costs attributable to conducting dual eligibility
    determinations, the Act authorizes $500 million for Fiscal
    Years 1997 through 2002.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held six
    hearings in the 104th Congress on the Transformation of the
    Medicaid Program and related Medicaid issues, including the
    Vaccines for Children Program. The hearing dates were June 8,
    1995; June 15, 1995; June 21, 1995; June 22, 1995; July 26,
    1995; and August 1, 1995.
        Testimony at these hearings was received from 64 witnesses,
    including Governors, Members of Congress, representatives of
    the Administration, representatives of State health care
    administrations, representatives of health care professionals,
    representatives from the health care industry, and persons
    served by the Medicaid program.
        On June 8, 1995, the Subcommittee heard testimony from five
    State Governors concerning administration of the Medicaid
    Program.
        On June 15, 1995, testimony was received from
    representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, industry representatives, and health care providers
    on the subject of the Vaccines for Children Program.
        On June 21, 1995, representatives from the Health Care
    Financing Administration, the Congressional Budget Office, and
    academic groups testified before the Subcommittee on the
    subject of Medicaid.
        On June 22, 1995, testimony was received from a Health Care
    Financing Administration representative, representatives from
    State Medicaid bureaus, and local industry and academic
    representatives on the subject of Medicaid from the State
    perspective.
        Subcommittee testimony on July 26, 1995, focused on
    Medicaid from the State and local provider perspective, and was
    presented by elected State representatives and health plan
    officials. On August 1, 1995, health care providers and
    beneficiary representatives presented a variety of perspectives
    on impact of spending reductions on the Medicaid program.
        On February 6, 1996, the National Governors Association
    (NGA) unanimously adopted a bipartisan proposal to restructure
    the Medicaid Program. The NGA proposal would replace current
    Medicaid law with a new flexible program that would allow
    States a combination of increased Federal funding and enhanced
    operational and administrative flexibility to implement new
    ideas and management techniques providing those below the
    income poverty level with adequate and efficient health care.
        The Full Committee on Commerce held two oversight hearings
    on the NGA Medicaid Restructuring Proposal. The first hearing
    was held on February 21, 1996. Witnesses included Governors of
    the States of Michigan, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Wisconsin, and
    Colorado. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the process
    by which the Governors reached consensus and the manner in
    which their bipartisan proposal would enable them to improve
    the effectiveness and quality of their Medicaid programs.
        The Full Committee held a follow-up hearing on the NGA
    Medicaid Restructuring Proposal on March 6, 1996. Witnesses at
    the second hearing included the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, various health industry officials, and
    representatives of non-profit organizations. The purpose of
    this hearing was to receive testimony from the Administration
    and those in the health care industry concerning the NGA's
    Medicaid Restructuring Proposal.
        On May 22, 1996, H.R. 3507, the Personal Responsibility and
    Work Opportunity Act of 1996, was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Archer, Bliley, Roberts, Shaw, Bilirakis,
    Emerson, Camp, McCrery, Collins of Georgia, English of
    Pennsylvania, Nussle, Dunn of Washington, Ensign, Laughlin, and
    Deal of Georgia. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways
    and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, the
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on
    Commerce, the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities, the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
    National Security, the Committee on International Relations,
    and the Committee on the Budget.
        H.R. 3507 is a two-part bill providing for the reform and
    restructuring of the Welfare and Medicaid Programs. Division A
    deals with the nonmedical welfare provisions of current law.
    Division B, the Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996, deals with
    the Medicaid Program and includes some of the Medicaid
    restructuring recommendations contained in the Unanimous
    Bipartisan National Governors Association Medicaid
    Restructuring Proposal adopted on February 6, 1996.
        On June 11, 1996, the Committee on Commerce held a Full
    Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 3507. Witnesses at the
    hearing included the Secretary of Health and Human Services and
    representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the American
    Hospital Association, and the Long Term Care Campaign, a
    coalition of more than 140 national organizations representing
    long term care recipients and providers. No further action was
    taken on H.R. 3507 in the 104th Congress. For the legislative
    history of H.R. 3507, see the discussion of that bill in the
    Full Committee section of this report.
        On June 13, 1996, the Full Committee met in open markup
    session and considered and approved two Committee Prints
    pertaining to Medicaid Restructuring and Welfare Reform for
    transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in the
    FY 1997 Medicaid and Welfare Reform Act. These Committee Prints
    were largely based on the provisions of H.R. 3507 which fell
    within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
        The first Committee Print, entitled ``Title II, Subtitle
    A--Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996'' was ordered transmitted
    to the Committee on the Budget, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 26 yeas to 14 nays.
        The second Committee Print, entitled ``Title II, Subtitle
    B--Other Provisions'' was ordered transmitted to the Committee
    on the Budget, as amended, by a voice vote. The second
    Committee Print contained provisions dealing with: (1) energy
    assistance; (2) involvement of the Committee on Commerce in
    Federal government position reductions; and (3) restricting
    public benefits for aliens.
        The provisions of these two Committee Prints were included
    in the text of Title II of H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid
    Reform Act of 1996, as reported to the House by the Committee
    on the Budget on June 27, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-651; H. Rpt. 104-
    651, Errata Report).
        On July 17, 1996, the House agreed to a unanimous consent
    request providing for the consideration of H.R. 3734 and
    completed 2 hours of general debate on the measure. On that
    same day, the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule
    providing for further consideration of H.R. 3734. The rule was
    filed in the House on July 17, 1996, as H. Res. 482 (H. Rpt.
    104-686).
        On July 18, 1996, the House considered and passed H. Res.
    482 by a roll call vote of 358 yeas to 54 nays. H. Res. 482
    provided for an additional 2 hours of debate on H.R. 3734. H.
    Res. 482 also provided that an Amendment in the Nature of a
    Substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3829, as amended by
    the amendments contained in Part 1 of the Committee Report,
    shall be considered as adopted by the House, and that H.R.
    3734, as so amended, shall be considered as the original bill
    for purposes of amendment on the House Floor.
        The House then continued consideration of H.R. 3734 on July
    18, 1996, and passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 256 yeas to 170 nays. H.R. 3734 was received in the Senate
    on July 18, 1996, and held at the desk.
        On July 16, 1996, Mr. Domenici introduced in the Senate S.
    1956, a companion bill to H.R. 3734, as an original measure
    reported by the Senate Committee on the Budget on that date (No
    Written Report). The Senate considered S. 1956 on July 18, July
    19, July 22, and July 23, 1996. On July 23, 1996, the Senate
    took H.R. 3734 from the desk, and, by a roll call vote of 74
    yeas to 24 nays, passed the bill, amended with text of S. 1956,
    as amended by the Senate. The Senate insisted on its amendment,
    requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees.
    S. 1956 was returned to the Senate Calendar and no further
    action occurred on the bill in the 104th Congress.
        On July 24, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3734, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3734 was
    filed in the House on July 30, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-725). The
    House agreed to the conference report on July 31, 1996, by a
    roll call vote of 328 yeas to 101 nays. The Senate agreed to
    the conference report on August 1, 1996, by a roll call vote of
    78 yeas to 21 nays.
        H.R. 3734 was presented to the President on August 19,
    1996. On August 22, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3734 into
    law (P.L. 104-193.)

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1997

                    Public Law 104-201 (H.R. 3230, S. 1745)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-201 includes a number of provisions which
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    including several dealing with health-related issues. Members
    of the Committee on Commerce were appointed as conferees on
    these provisions and participated in the negotiations which led
    to the agreements reflected in the public law.
        Specifically, Public Law 104-201 includes a provision to
    create a special mechanism to allow generic drugs on the market
    during the patent extension created by the Uruguay Round
    Agreements Act. The Act contains various provisions relating to
    officers in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps,
    including provisions relating to their military pay raise,
    active duty service obligations under Armed Services Health
    Professions Scholarships, and exceptions to strength
    limitations for Public Health Service officers assigned to the
    Department of Defense (DOD).
        The Act also directs the Secretary of Defense and the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit jointly
    to the Congress and the President a report regarding: (1) the
    establishment of a demonstration program under which military
    retirees who are eligible for Medicare (Title XVIII of the
    Social Security Act) can be enrolled in the managed care option
    of TRICARE and the HHS Secretary will reimburse the DOD
    Secretary for the cost of providing such care; and (2) the
    feasibility and advisability of expanding the demonstration
    program to allow DOD reimbursement on a fee-for-service basis.
        The Committee on Commerce supported the inclusion of these
    provisions in the final bill.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3230 was introduced in the House on April 15, 1996, by
    Mr. Spence and Mr. Dellums and referred to the Committee on
    National Security. On May 7, 1996, the Committee on National
    Security reported H.R. 3230 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-563). The
    House considered H.R. 3230 on May 14 and 15, 1996, and on May
    15, 1996, passed the bill, amended, by a roll call vote of 272
    yeas to 153 nays. On May 17, 1996, H.R. 3230 was received in
    the Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On May 13, 1996, the Senate Committee on Armed Forces
    reported a companion bill, S. 1745, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    267). On May 15, 1996, S. 1745 was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Intelligence, which reported the bill to the
    Senate on June 11, 1996 (S. Rpt. 104-278). The Senate
    considered S. 1745 on June 18, June 19, June 20, June 24, June
    25, June 26, June 27, June 28, and July 10, 1996. On July 10,
    1996, the Senate passed S. 1745 by a roll call vote of 68 yeas
    to 31 nays. The Senate, by unanimous consent, then took H.R.
    3230 from the Senate Calendar and passed the bill, amended with
    the text of S. 1745 as passed by the Senate. The Senate
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    House, and appointed conferees.
        On July 17, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3230, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3230
    was filed in the House on July 30, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-724). The
    House agreed to the conference report on August 1, 1996, by a
    roll call vote of 285 yeas to 132 nays. The Senate considered
    the conference report on September 9 and September 10, 1996,
    and agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 73
    yeas to 26 nays on September 10, 1996.
        H.R. 3230 was presented to the President on September 13,
    1996. On September 23, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3230
    into law (P.L. 104-201.)

    departments of veterans affairs and housing and urban development, and
                 independent agencies appropriations act, 1997

                         Public Law 104-204 (H.R. 3666)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        Making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans
    Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry
    independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and
    offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for
    other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3666 provides appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 for
    the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
    Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards,
    commissions, corporations, and offices. Additionally, a number
    of legislative provisions, some affecting the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on Commerce, were included in H.R. 3666. The
    Committee on Commerce did not oppose the inclusion of these
    provisions in H.R. 3666.

    Title VI--Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996

        Title VI of Public Law 104-204 requires group health plans
    and issuers of health insurance plans to provide coverage for a
    minimum hospital length-of-stay of 48 hours for normal
    childbirth and 96 hours for caesarean deliveries. The minimum
    hospital length-of-stay requirements are inapplicable in cases
    where the decision to discharge the mother prior to the 48/96-
    hour requirement is made by the attending physician in
    consultation with the mother. Group health plans and health
    insurers selling in the group and individual market are
    prohibited from: (1) denying the mother and her newborn
    eligibility to enroll or to renew solely to avoid length-of-
    stay requirements; (2) providing monetary payments or rebates
    to mothers to encourage less than the minimum stay; (3)
    penalizing, reducing, or limiting the reimbursement of an
    attending provider; (4) providing incentives to providers to
    induce care in a manner inconsistent with the law; or (5)
    restricting benefits for any portion of a period within a
    hospital length-of-stay following childbirth in a manner that
    is less favorable than the benefits provided for any preceding
    portion of such stay. This law does not apply to any plan or
    insurance that does not provide benefits for hospital stays in
    connection with childbirth.
        A group health plan or issuer is not prevented from
    imposing deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing,
    except that such cost-sharing cannot be greater than any
    preceding portion of a hospital stay. State laws are not
    preempted if they: (1) require at least a 48/96 minimum hour
    length-of-stay; (2) require maternity care coverage to meet
    professional association guidelines; and (3) require that the
    length-of-stay decision is left to the attending provider in
    consultation with the mother. The Act requires compliance by
    health plans for plan years beginning on or after January 1,
    1998.

    Title VII--Parity in the Application of Certain Limits to Mental Health
            Benefits

        Title VII of Public Law 104-204, the Mental Health Parity
    Act of 1996, requires annual and aggregate lifetime dollar
    limits for mental health coverage to be the same as for
    physical health coverage. Group health plans or group health
    insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health
    plan that covers mental health and medical/surgical conditions
    must establish either (1) an inclusive limit for all benefits,
    or (2) separate limits for mental health services that are no
    more restrictive than those for medical/surgical services.
        The Act does not require that mental health benefits be
    offered as part of a health insurance package or that there be
    parity in copayments or deductibles for mental health services.
    The Act does not prohibit plans from limiting mental health
    coverage to medically necessary services, nor does it include
    coverage for substance abuse services. Medicare, Medicaid, and
    firms employing 50 or fewer employees are exempted from the
    provisions of the statute. The statutory requirements are to be
    waived if a plan's premiums increase by 1 percent or more due
    to its requirements.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3666 was introduced in the House on June 18, 1996, by
    Mr. Lewis of California, and reported to the House on the same
    day by the Committee on Appropriations (H. Rpt. 104-628). The
    House considered H.R. 3666 on June 25 and June 26, 1996; on
    June 26, 1996, the House passed H.R. 3666, amended, by a roll
    call vote of 269 yeas to 147 nays.
        H.R. 3666 was received in the Senate on June 27, 1996, read
    twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
    On July 11, 1996, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    reported H.R. 3666, amended, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-318).
    The Senate considered H.R. 3666 on September 3, September 4,
    and September 5, 1996. The provisions relating to newborns' and
    mothers' health protection and mental health parity were added
    during the Senate consideration of H.R. 3666. On September 5,
    1996, the Senate passed H.R. 3666, amended, by a roll call vote
    of 95 yeas to 2 nays.
        The Senate insisted on its amendments to H.R. 3666,
    requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees
    on September 5, 1996. On September 11, 1996, the House
    disagreed to the Senate amendments, agreed to a conference with
    the Senate, and appointed conferees.
        The conference report on H.R. 3666 was filed in the House
    on September 20, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-812). The House agreed to
    the conference report, by a roll call vote of 388 yeas to 25
    nays, on September 24, 1996. On September 25, 1996, the Senate,
    by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration
    of the conference report on H.R. 3666 and agreed to the
    conference report.
        H.R. 3666 was presented to the President on September 25,
    1996. On September 26, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3666
    into law (P.L. 104-204).

                 omnibus consolidated appropriations act, 1997

               Public Law 104-208 (H.R. 3610, S. 1894, H.R. 4278)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        Making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the Fiscal
    Year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3610 served as an omnibus continuing appropriations
    measure for those Federal agencies which did not have
    individual Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations measures enacted
    into law. Affected agencies and entities included the
    Departments of Justice, Commerce, State, Defense, Interior,
    Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and the Treasury,
    as well as the Post Office and the Judiciary. Independent
    agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission were also funded
    by the bill. Additionally, a number of legislative provisions,
    some affecting the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    were included in H.R. 3610. The Committee on Commerce did not
    oppose the inclusion of these provisions in the public law.
        Specifically, Public Law 104-208 contains provisions which:
    (1) express a ``Sense of Congress'' regarding the illegal
    importation of the drug Rohypnol; (2) permit the Secretary of
    Defense, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to adjust
    wage rates for civilian employees hired for certain health care
    occupations; (3) modify certain administrative provisions
    relating to the Indian Health Service; (4) modify certain
    administrative provisions relating to the Health Resources and
    Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for
    Health Care Policy and Research, and the Health Care Financing
    Administration; (5) prohibit the use of appropriated funds for
    sterile needle distribution unless the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services determines that certain conditions exist; (6)
    prohibit the use of appropriated funds for embryo research; (7)
    restrict disbursement of Title X funding to applicants who
    encourage family participation in the decision of a minor to
    seek family planning services; (8) restrict the use of
    appropriated funds for employee training when such training,
    among other conditions, is objected to by employees; (9) relate
    to reimbursement of State expenses incurred in the provision of
    emergency medical services provided to illegal aliens; (10)
    relate to reimbursement of State expenses incurred in the
    provision of emergency ambulance services provided to illegal
    aliens; and (11) extend the waiver program relating to the
    foreign residency requirements of international medical
    graduates from Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal Year 2002.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3610 was introduced in the House on June 11, 1996, by
    Mr. Young of Florida and reported to the House on the same day
    by the Committee on Appropriations (H. Rpt. 104-617). On June
    13, 1996, the House considered and passed H.R. 3610, amended,
    by a roll call vote of 278 yeas to 126 nays.
        On June 14, 1996, H.R. 3610 was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. On June 20,
    1996, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1894,
    a companion bill, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-286). The Senate
    considered S. 1894 on July 11, July 17, and July 18, 1996. On
    July 18, 1996, the Committee on Appropriations was discharged
    from further consideration of H.R. 3610, and the bill was
    passed, by a roll call vote of 72 yeas to 27 nays, as amended
    with the text of S. 1894, as amended by the Senate.
    Subsequently, S. 1894 was returned to the Senate Calendar and
    no further action was taken on that bill. The Senate then
    insisted on its amendment to H.R. 3610, requested a conference
    with the House, and appointed conferees on July 18, 1996.
        On July 30, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3610, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3610 was
    filed in the House on September 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-863). On
    September 28, 1996, the House agreed to the conference report
    on H.R. 3610 by roll call vote of 370 yeas to 37 nays. Pursuant
    to a unanimous consent agreement reached earlier that day, upon
    the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 3610, H.R. 4278,
    a bill making omnibus consolidated appropriations for the
    Fiscal Year ending September 30, 1997, was considered as
    passed. The text of H.R. 4278 was identical to the text
    contained in the conference report on H.R. 3610.
        On September 30, 1996, the Senate considered and passed
    H.R. 4278 by a roll call vote of 84 yeas to 15 nays. Then
    Senate then agreed to the conference report on H.R. 3610 by a
    voice vote. On September 30, 1996, H.R. 3610 was presented to
    the President. On September 30, 1996, the President signed H.R.
    3610 into law (P.L. 104-208).

         repeal of an unnecessary medical device reporting requirement

                         Public Law 104-224 (H.R. 2366)

        To repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting
    requirement.

    Summary

        H.R. 2366 repeals the Cardiac Pacemaker Registry,
    established in 1984 by Section 1862(h) of the Social Security
    Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(h)), that requires doctors and hospitals
    receiving Medicare funds to provide information upon
    implantation, removal, or replacement of pacemaker devices and
    pacemaker leads. These requirements became redundant in 1990
    with the enactment of amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and
    Cosmetic Act that established a more comprehensive system for
    reporting on medical devices. H.R. 2366 eliminates an
    unnecessary burden on the health care system, the Health Care
    Financing Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2366 was introduced in the House by Mrs. Vucanovich
    and Mr. Waxman on September 19, 1995. The bill was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
    Ways and Means.
        On October 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2366
    and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. On November 1, 1995, the Full
    Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2366 and
    ordered the bill reported to the House, without amendment, by a
    voice vote. The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 2366 to the
    House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-323, Part 1). The
    Committee on Ways and Means also reported H.R. 2366 to the
    House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-323, Part 2).
        On November 14, 1995, the House considered H.R. 2366 on the
    Corrections Calendar and passed the bill by a voice vote. H.R.
    2366 was received in the Senate on November 15, 1995, read
    twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. On
    September 25, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    discharged the Committee on Finance from further consideration
    of H.R. 2366. The Senate then proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 2366 and passed the bill without
    amendment.
        H.R. 2366 was presented to the President on September 26,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 2366 into law on October 2,
    1996 (P.L. 104-224).

                medicare and medicaid coverage data bank repeal

                         Public Law 104-226 (H.R. 2685)

        To repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank.

    Summary

        The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 created the
    Medicare and Medicaid Data Bank for the purposes of identifying
    and collecting health insurance information from third parties
    responsible for payment of health care services. Under these
    provisions, employers are required to report certain
    information concerning employee health coverage to the Data
    Bank on an annual basis.
        These provisions have been problematic from their
    inception. Employers have raised many concerns about the
    imposition of a reporting requirement regarding information
    that they normally do not collect. In May 1994, the General
    Accounting Office (GAO) released a report revealing the
    shortfalls of the Data Bank. The GAO concluded that it would
    increase record keeping for both the Health Care Financing
    Administration and employers, and pointed out that there is no
    evidence that the Data Bank would be more effective than the
    less costly data match program already in place.
        Public Law 104-226 repeals the Medicare and Medicaid
    Coverage Data Bank.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2685 was introduced in the House by Mr. Thomas and Mr.
    Bilirakis on November 29, 1995. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
    on Commerce. On December 11, 1995, the Committee on Ways and
    Means reported H.R. 2685 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-394, Part
    1).
        On December 21, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Speaker waiving the Commerce
    Committee's right to mark up H.R. 2685, without prejudicing its
    jurisdiction, in order to expedite consideration of this
    legislation by the House. The Chairman's letter noted that
    repeal of the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank was
    included in H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995,
    as reported to the House by the Committee on Commerce on
    October 16, 1995.
        On December 22, 1995, the referral of H.R. 2685 to the
    Committee on Commerce was extended for a period ending not
    later than December 22, 1995. On December 22, 1995, the
    Committee on Commerce was discharged from further consideration
    of H.R. 2685.
        On March 12, 1996, the House considered H.R. 2685 on the
    Corrections Calendar and passed the bill by a voice vote. H.R.
    2685 was received in the Senate on March 13, 1996, read twice,
    and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. On September
    25, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent, discharged the
    Committee on Finance from further consideration of H.R. 2685.
    The Senate then proceeded to the immediate consideration of
    H.R. 2685 and passed the bill without amendment.
        H.R. 2685 was presented to the President on September 26,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 2685 into law on October 2,
    1996 (P.L. 104-226).

               comprehensive methamphetamine control act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-237 (S. 1965, H.R. 3852)

        To prevent the illegal manufacturing and use of
    methamphetamine

    Summary

        Public Law 104-237 increases the penalties for trafficking
    and manufacturing methamphetamine substances or other materials
    used to produce methamphetamines. The Act also establishes an
    interagency task force to design, implement, and evaluate
    methamphetamine education, prevention, and treatment practices.

    Legislative History

        S. 1965 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Hatch on July
    17, 1996, and ordered held at the desk. On August 2, 1996, S.
    1965 was placed on the Senate Calendar. On September 17, 1996,
    the Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of S. 1965 and passed the bill, as amended. S.
    1965 was received in the House on September 18, 1996, and held
    at the Speaker's desk.
        On July 18, 1996, H.R. 3852, a companion bill to S. 1965,
    was introduced in the House by Mr. Heineman. The bill was
    referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to
    the Committee on Commerce. On September 25, 1996, the House
    began consideration of H.R. 3852 under Suspension of the Rules,
    thereby discharging the Committee on the Judiciary and the
    Committee on Commerce from further consideration of the
    legislation. On September 26, 1996, the House completed
    consideration of H.R. 3852 under Suspension of the Rules, and
    passed the bill by a roll call vote of 386 yeas to 34 nays.
    H.R. 3852 was received in the Senate on September 26, 1996. No
    further action was taken on H.R. 3852 in the 104th Congress.
        On September 28, 1996, the House, by unanimous consent,
    took S. 1965 from the Speaker's desk and passed the bill
    without amendment.
        S. 1965 was presented to the President on October 2, 1996.
    The President signed S. 1965 into law on October 3, 1996 (P.L.
    104-237).

                 county health organization medicaid exemption

                         Public Law 104-240 (H.R. 3056)

        To permit a county-operated health insuring organization to
    qualify as an organization exempt from certain requirements
    otherwise applicable to health insuring organizations under the
    Medicaid program notwithstanding that the organization enrolls
    Medicaid beneficiaries residing in another county.

    Summary

        H.R. 3056 amends Section 9517(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the
    Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, as
    added by Section 4734 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
    of 1990, to allow a health insuring organization to serve
    Medicaid beneficiaries residing in one or more counties.
    Existing statutory language concerning county organized health
    systems has been interpreted by the Health Care Financing
    Administration as limiting the number of counties in a State
    that may be served by such plans, rather than the number of
    plans that may operate within the State. The consequence of
    this interpretation has been to limit the coverage provided by
    a health insuring organization solely to the county in which it
    operates.
        The Act clarifies that the existing statutory language does
    not limit the number of counties in which a health insuring
    organization may operate by defining an eligible health
    insuring organization as one that enrolls Medicaid
    beneficiaries residing in the county or counties in which it
    operates.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3056 was introduced in the House by Mr. Riggs on March
    7, 1996.
        On July 24, 1996, without objection, the Full Committee
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3056, thereby
    discharging the Subcommittee on Health and Environment from
    further consideration, and ordered the bill reported to the
    House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 3056 to the House on August 2, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    751).
        On September 10, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3056 on
    the Corrections Calendar and passed the bill by a voice vote.
    H.R. 3056 was received in the Senate on September 11, 1996,
    read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. On
    September 25, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    discharged the Committee on Finance from further consideration
    of H.R. 3056. The Senate then proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 3056 and passed the bill without
    amendment.
        H.R. 3056 was presented to the President on September 26,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 3056 into law on October 8,
    1996 (P.L. 104-240).

        medicaid technical corrections relating to physicians' services

                         Public Law 104-248 (H.R. 1791)

        To amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to make
    certain technical corrections relating to physicians' services.

    Summary

        H.R. 1791 makes technical corrections to Title XIX of the
    Social Security Act relating to payments for physician services
    in the Medicaid Program. In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
    Act of 1990, because of an unintentional omission, osteopathic
    physicians certified by the boards recognized by the American
    Osteopathic Association were not included in provisions
    concerning Medicaid reimbursement for services furnished to
    children and pregnant women.
        This Act corrects this omission by adding two new sections.
    The first section provides that Medicaid can pay for services
    provided to children by physicians who are certified in family
    practice or pediatrics by a medical specialty board recognized
    by the American Osteopathic Association. The second section
    provides that Medicaid can pay for services provided to
    pregnant women by physicians certified in family practice or
    obstetrics by a medical specialty board recognized by the
    American Osteopathic Association.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1791 was introduced in the House on June 8, 1995, by
    Representatives Barton of Texas, Coleman, Greenwood, Ackerman,
    Pryce, Dingell, Leach, Levin, Emerson, Skelton, Upton, Jacobs,
    Kim, Rahall, Kildee, Deutsch, Smith of New Jersey, Bryant of
    Texas, Stupak, Barcia of Michigan, Frost, and Brown of Ohio.
        On September 19, 1996, by unanimous consent, the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment was discharged from
    further consideration of H.R. 1791. The Full Committee then
    considered H.R. 1791 in an open markup session and ordered the
    bill reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 1791 to the House on September 24, 1996
    (H. Rpt. 104-826).
        On September 24, 1996, the House considered H.R. 1791 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, as amended, by a
    voice vote. H.R. 1791 was received in the Senate on September
    25, 1996, and read twice. On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by
    unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration of
    H.R. 1791 and passed the bill without amendment.
        H.R. 1791 was presented to the President on September 30,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 1791 into law on October 9,
    1996 (P.L. 104-248).

                      animal drug availability act of 1996

                     Public Law 104-250 (H.R. 2508, S. 773)

        To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
    provide for improvements in the process of approving and using
    animal drugs, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2508 is to facilitate the approval and
    marketing of new animal drugs and medicated feeds. It builds
    needed flexibility into the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    animal drug review processes to enable more efficient approval
    and more expeditious marketing of safe and effective animal
    drugs. The Act accomplishes this without decreasing FDA's
    existing authority to ensure that animal drug products are safe
    for the animals that use them and for the humans who consume
    animal food products.
        By redefining ``substantial evidence,'' H.R. 2508 provides
    FDA with greater flexibility to determine what types of
    studies, including field investigations, are necessary and
    appropriate for demonstrating the effectiveness of any specific
    animal drug product. The Act requires FDA to issue regulations
    defining substantial evidence and the parameters of adequate
    and well-controlled field investigations. Such regulations must
    take into account the practical conditions that exist in the
    field. The Act also requires FDA to hold a presubmission
    conference at the request of a sponsor submitting a new animal
    drug application or a request for an investigational exemption.
        H.R. 2508 creates a streamlined process for the approval of
    combination animal drug products when the individual active
    ingredients or animal drugs used in combination have been
    approved previously for the particular uses and conditions of
    use for which they are intended for use in combination. It also
    authorizes FDA to establish a scientifically based safe
    tolerance for residues of new animal drugs.
        The Act creates a new class of animal drugs, veterinary
    feed directive drugs, intended for use in feed under the
    professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian. The Act
    eliminates the requirement for feed mills to submit individual
    medicated feed applications to manufacture certain medicated
    feeds and allows any medicated feed containing an approved new
    animal drug to be manufactured at a licensed facility. Finally,
    H.R. 2508 authorizes FDA to establish import tolerances for new
    animal drugs not approved in the United States.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2508 was introduced in the House on October 19, 1995,
    by Mr. Allard and 71 cosponsors and referred to the Committee
    on Commerce.
        On February 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on ``The Need for FDA Reform'' and
    received testimony relating to animal drugs from a veterinary
    expert and an industry representative. On May 1 and May 2,
    1996, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment held hearings
    on bills relating to FDA reform that contained legislative
    language substantially similar to H.R. 2508 and received
    testimony regarding these provisions from FDA officials and a
    representative of an animal health coalition.
        On September 19, 1996, the Full Committee met in open
    markup session and, by unanimous consent, discharged the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment from further
    consideration of H.R. 2508. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 2508 and ordered the bill reported to the House, as
    amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 2508 to
    the House on September 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-823).
        On September 24, 1996, the House considered H.R. 2508 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
    September 24, 1996, H.R. 2508 was received in the Senate.
        S. 773, a companion bill to H.R. 2508, was introduced in
    the Senate on May 9, 1995, by Senators Kassebaum, Gregg,
    Gorton, Coats, Jeffords, Frist, Harkin, Craig, Lugar, Inhofe,
    Grassley, McConnell, Kyl, Santorum, Heflin, Bond, Pryor,
    Kerrey, Bennett, and Helms, and referred to the Senate
    Committee on Labor and Human Resources. On September 24, 1996,
    the Senate, by unanimous consent, discharged the Committee on
    Labor and Human Resources from further consideration of S. 773.
    The Senate then proceeded to the immediate consideration of S.
    773 and passed the bill without amendment. S. 773 was received
    in the House on September 26, 1996, and held at the Speaker's
    desk. No further action was taken on S. 773 in the 104th
    Congress.
        On September 25, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2508 and
    passed the bill without amendment.
        H.R. 2508 was presented to the President on September 28,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 2508 into law on October 9,
    1996 (P.L. 104-250).

                         traffic signal synchronization

                         Public Law 104-260 (H.R. 2988)

        To amend the Clean Air Act to provide that traffic signal
    synchronization projects are exempt from certain requirements
    of Environmental Protection Agency Rules.

    Summary

         The Clean Air Act requires that nearly all transportation
    projects be reviewed to determine if they ``conform'' to a
    State's implementation plan for attaining or maintaining the
    national ambient air quality standards. These projects include
    traffic synchronization projects, even though most, if not all,
    synchronization projects typically result in fewer vehicle
    accelerations and decelerations and thus lower vehicle
    emissions. A State's review, or conformity determination, can,
    in some cases, take up to a year to complete, thus
    significantly delaying the implementation of a traffic signal
    synchronization project. Because synchronization often results
    in lower vehicle emissions, such a delay can result in higher
    vehicle emissions than would otherwise be the case if a
    synchronization project proceeds immediately.
        H.R. 2988 allows synchronization projects to proceed at the
    earliest opportunity, before conformity determinations are
    made. However, nothing in H.R. 2988 relieves a jurisdiction
    from its responsibility to subject the synchronization project
    to a regional emissions analysis at a later date, if such
    project would normally be subject to such an analysis.
    Consequently, the emissions impact of a synchronization
    project--whether the project increases or decreases emissions--
    will be considered in subsequent conformity determinations.

    Legislative History

        On February 28, 1996, Mr. McKeon introduced H.R. 2988 in
    the House.
        On September 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    2988 by unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 2988 in open markup session and ordered the bill reported
    to the House, as amended, by voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2988 to the House on the same day (H. Rpt. 104-807).
        On September 24, 1996, the House considered H.R. 2988 on
    the Corrections Day Calendar and passed the bill, as amended,
    by a voice vote. On September 24, 1996, H.R. 2988 was received
    in the Senate.
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2988 and
    passed the bill without amendment.
        H.R. 2988 was presented to the President on September 30,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 2988 into law on October 9,
    1996 (P.L. 104-260).

                  federal aviation reauthorization act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-264 (H.R. 3539, S. 1994)

                         (Aircraft Emission Standards)

        To amend Title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize
    programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-264, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization
    Act of 1996, reauthorized several Federal Aviation
    Administration (FAA) programs, including administrative
    operations, air navigation facilities, research and
    development, and the airport improvement program. The
    legislation also contains an extension of the Airport and
    Airway Trust Fund expenditure authority, provisions on
    commercial space transportation, the Air Traffic Management
    System, and aviation security and safety.
        Section 406 of Public Law 104-264 contains provisions
    dealing with the establishment of aircraft emission standards,
    which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Commerce. Aircraft emission standards are established under
    Section 231(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
    seq.).
        Section 406(b) of Public Law 104-264 amends Section
    231(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act to provide that the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    shall consult with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
    Administrator on aircraft emission standards and that the EPA
    Administrator shall not change such standards if such changes
    would significantly increase costs and adversely affect safety.

    Legislative History

        On May 29, 1996, H.R. 3539 was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Shuster, Duncan, Oberstar, and Lipinski. The
    bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and
    Means and the Committee on Rules.
        On July 26, 1996, the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure reported H.R. 3539 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-
    714, Part 1). On July 26, 1996, the Committee on Rules was
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3539. On that
    same date, the referral of H.R. 3539 to the Committee on Ways
    and Means was extended for a period ending not later than July
    29, 1996. On July 29, 1996, the referral of the bill to the
    Committee on Ways and Means was extended for a period ending
    not later than July 30, 1996. On July 30, 1996, the Committee
    on Ways and Means was discharged from further consideration.
        The House considered H.R. 3539 under Suspension of the
    Rules on September 10 and September 11, 1996; on September 11,
    1996, the House passed H.R. 3539 by a roll call vote of 398
    yeas to 17 nays. H.R. 3539 was received in the Senate on
    September 12, 1996, read twice, and placed on the Senate
    Calendar.
        On July 26, 1996, Mr. Pressler introduced S. 1994, a
    companion bill to H.R. 3539, in the Senate as an original
    measure reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
    and Transportation on that same date (S. Rpt. 104-333).
        The Senate considered S. 1994 on September 17 and September
    18, 1996. On September 18, 1996, the Senate took H.R. 3539 from
    the Senate Calendar and, by a roll call vote of 99 yeas to 0
    nays, passed H.R. 3539, as amended by striking all after the
    enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the text of S.
    1994 as amended by the Senate. S. 1994 was then returned to the
    Senate Calendar and no further action was taken on that bill in
    the 104th Congress.
        The Senate insisted on its amendment to H.R. 3539,
    requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees
    on September 18, 1996. On September 24, 1996, the House
    disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to a conference with
    the Senate, and appointed conferees.
        As passed by the Senate, Section 631 of H.R. 3539 would
    have conveyed to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
    Administration, within the Federal Aviation Administration Act
    (49 USC 1301 et seq.), certain new authority over aircraft
    emission standards. This provision was duplicative and
    potentially inconsistent with the Environmental Protection
    Agency's existing authority under section 231 of the Clean Air
    Act to establish aircraft engine emission standards (42 USC
    7401 et seq.). Since there was no comparable House provision
    within H.R. 3539, this item became an issue in disagreement
    between the House and the Senate conferees appointed to
    consider H.R. 3539.
        Following Senate approval of H.R. 3539, the Chairman of the
    Committee on Commerce sent a letter to the Speaker on September
    24, 1996, asserting the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction with
    respect to Section 631. The Committee on Commerce then worked
    with House conferees to make changes to Section 631 reflecting
    the Committee's jurisdictional and legislative interests. These
    changes were incorporated into Section 406 of the conference
    report on H.R. 3539 (H. Rpt. 104-848).
        The conference report on H.R. 3539 was filed in the House
    on September 26, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-848). The House agreed to
    the conference report on H.R. 3539 on September 27, 1996, by a
    roll call vote of 218 yeas to 198 nays. The Senate considered
    the conference report on H.R. 3539 on September 30, October 1,
    October 2, and October 3, 1996. On October 3, 1996, the Senate
    agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 92 yeas
    to 2 nays.
        H.R. 3539 was presented to the President on October 4,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 3539 into law on October 9,
    1996 (P.L. 104-264).

       waiver of 75/25 medicaid enrollment rule for certain managed care
                                 organizations

                         Public Law 104-267 (H.R. 3871)

        To waive temporarily the Medicaid enrollment composition
    rule for certain health maintenance organizations.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-267 extends three existing waivers of
    Section 1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act. Section
    1903(m)(2)(A)(ii) requires that Medicaid beneficiaries
    constitute less than 75 percent of the membership of any
    prepaid health maintenance organization. This requirement,
    designed to serve as a proxy for a plan's quality of care, can
    be a difficult problem for some health plans that operate in
    low-income communities and serve Medicaid recipients. Although
    such plans have achieved success in enhancing the quality of
    care received by Medicaid beneficiaries, they have been less
    successful in attracting commercial clients from outlying
    areas. The requirement that one-quarter of their enrolled
    population consist of such customers, therefore, often places
    them in the difficult position of having to choose between
    devoting resources to their Medicaid-funded enrollees or to the
    expense of competing against broader-based firms for commercial
    clients.
        In light of these problems, a number of similarly situated
    health plans are currently operating under Federally approved
    waivers of this section. Three of these plans--Health Partners
    of Philadelphia, Inc.; Fidelis Health Plan of New York; and
    Managed Healthcare Systems of New York, Inc.--are granted
    extensions of the waiver of the so-called ``75-25 rule'' by
    this Act.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3871 was introduced in the House by Representatives
    Towns, Greenwood, and Franks of Connecticut on July 23, 1996.
        On July 24, 1996, without objection, the Full Committee, in
    an open markup session, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of H.R. 3871 and ordered the bill reported to the
    House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 3871 to the House on August 2, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    752).
        On September 4, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3871 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, without amendment,
    by a voice vote. H.R. 3871 was received in the Senate on
    September 5, 1996, read twice, and referred to the Senate
    Committee on Finance. On September 28 1996, the Senate, by
    unanimous consent, discharged the Committee on Finance from
    further consideration of H.R. 3871. The Senate then proceeded
    to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3871 and passed the bill
    without amendment.
        H.R. 3871 was presented to the President on September 30,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 3871 into law on October 9,
    1996 (P.L. 104-267).

                    health centers consolidation act of 1996

                          Public Law 104-299 (S. 1044)

        To amend Title III of the Public Health Service Act to
    consolidate and reauthorize provisions relating to health
    centers, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        S. 1044 consolidates the authority for four health centers
    programs--community, migrant, homeless, and public housing--and
    authorizes it through Fiscal Year 2001. Funding for Fiscal Year
    1997 is authorized at $802 million, the amount provided in the
    FY 1997 House passed Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
    Consolidating these program eliminates duplication while
    maintaining their unique functions.

    Legislative History

        On July 17, 1995, S. 1044 was introduced in the Senate by
    Senators Kassebaum, Kennedy, Jeffords, Pell, and Simon, and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
    On December 15, 1995, the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
    Resources reported S. 1044 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-186).
        On August 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the Reauthorization of Existing
    Public Health Service Act Programs. Programs examined were
    Community Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care
    for the Homeless, Health Services for Residents of Public
    Housing, and programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
    Services Administration (SAMHSA). Witnesses included
    representatives from the Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS), health networks, community groups, and State
    directors of alcohol/drug abuse and mental health programs.
        On September 20, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of S. 1044 and passed
    the bill, as amended. S. 1044 was received in the House on
    September 24, 1996, and held at the Speaker's desk. On
    September 27, 1996, the House considered S. 1044 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, without amendment,
    by a voice vote.
        On October 2, 1996, S. 1044 was presented to the President.
    The President signed S. 1044 into law on October 11, 1996 (P.L.
    104-299).

            drug-induced rape prevention and punishment act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-305 (H.R. 4137)

        To combat drug-facilitated crimes of violence, including
    sexual assaults.

    Summary

        H.R. 4137 amends the Controlled Substances Act to impose
    stiff penalties for the unlawful distribution and trafficking
    of flunitrazepam, commonly known as Rohypnol. H.R. 4137 also
    directs the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
    Administration to: (1) conduct a thorough study on the
    appropriateness and desirability of rescheduling flunitrazepam
    as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled
    Substances Act and (2) report the results of such study, and
    any recommendations, to Congress, within 180 days after the
    date of enactment.

    Legislative History

        On September 24, 1996, H.R. 4137 was introduced in the
    House by Mr. Solomon and 31 cosponsors. The bill was referred
    to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
    Committee on Commerce.
        On September 25, 1996, the House began consideration of
    H.R. 4137 under Suspension of the Rules, thereby discharging
    the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Commerce
    from further consideration of the legislation. On September 26,
    1996, the House completed consideration of H.R. 4137 under
    Suspension of the Rules, and passed the bill by a roll call
    vote of 421 yeas to 1 nay. H.R. 4137 was received in the Senate
    on September 26, 1996, and held at the desk.
        On October 3, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent, took
    H.R. 4137 from the desk, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of the bill, and passed H.R. 4137, as amended.
        On October 4, 1996, the House, by unanimous consent, agreed
    to H.R. 4137 as amended by the Senate.
        H.R. 4137 was presented to the President on October 10,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 4137 into law on October 13,
    1996 (P.L. 104-305).

                 indian health care improvement act amendments

                         Public Law 104-313 (H.R. 3378)

        To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend
    the demonstration program for direct billing of Medicare,
    Medicaid, and other third party payors.

    Summary

        H.R. 3378 amends the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to
    extend the existing demonstration program for direct billing of
    Medicare, Medicaid, and other third party payors. This program,
    which was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1996, is
    extended by this measure to September 30, 1998. The Act also
    makes technical corrections to the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act, including a clarification with respect to the
    Indian Health Scholarship Program. Finally, H.R. 3871
    reauthorizes several demonstration programs through the year
    2000.

    Legislative History

        On May 1, 1996, H.R. 3378 was introduced in the House by
    Mr. Young of Alaska. The bill was referred to the Committee on
    Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. On
    June 19, 1996, the Committee on Resources ordered H.R. 3378
    reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        On August 1, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Resources indicating concerns with moving H.R. 3378 separately
    instead of dealing with the issues contained therein in a
    comprehensive Medicaid reform bill. The Chairman further
    stated, however, that the Committee on Commerce had reviewed
    the action taken by the Resources Committee, and in order to
    expedite consideration of this measure by the House, the
    Committee on Commerce would agree to be discharged from further
    consideration of H.R. 3378, provided such action would not
    prejudice the Commerce Committee's future jurisdictional
    interests in the legislation.
        On August 1, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Resources sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
    concerns with respect to H.R. 3378 and the Commerce Committee's
    prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        On August 1, 1996, the Committee on Resources reported H.R.
    3378 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-742, Part 1). On that same day,
    the Committee on Commerce was discharged from further
    consideration of the bill.
        The House considered H.R. 3378 under Suspension of the
    Rules on September 4, 1996, and passed the bill, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. H.R. 3378 was received in the
    Senate on September 5, 1996, read twice, and placed on the
    Senate Calendar.
        On September 19, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3378, and
    passed the bill, as amended.
        On September 27, 1996, the House considered H. Res. 544, a
    resolution providing for the concurrence of the House to the
    Senate amendment to H.R. 3378 with an amendment, under
    Suspension of the Rules, and passed the resolution by a voice
    vote. The amendment adopted by the House in H. Res. 544
    represented a consensus agreement that was reached by the
    Committee on Commerce, the House Committee on Resources, and
    the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
        On October 3, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    agreed to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R.
    3378 and cleared the bill for the President.
        On October 10, 1996, H.R. 3378 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 3378 into law on October
    19, 1996 (P.L. 104-313).

        change in medicaid nursing facility resident review requirements

                         Public Law 104-315 (H.R. 3632)

        To amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to repeal the
    requirement for annual resident review for nursing facilities
    under the Medicaid program and to require resident reviews for
    mentally ill or mentally retarded residents when there is a
    significant change in physical or mental condition.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-315 repeals the requirement for an annual
    resident review for residents in nursing facilities in Title
    XIX of the Social Security Act. Instead, it requires that a
    nursing facility notify the State mental health or mental
    retardation authority of a significant change in a resident's
    mental or physical condition. It also requires a review and
    assessment of the resident promptly after the State authority
    has been notified.

    Legislative History

        On June 12, 1996, H.R. 3632 was introduced in the House by
    Mr. Ehrlich.
        On September 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    3632 by unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 3632 in open markup session and ordered the bill reported
    to the House, by voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 3632
    to the House on September 23, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-817).
        On September 28, 1996, the House considered H.R. 3632 under
    Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill, by a voice vote.
    On September 28, 1996, H.R. 3632 was received in the Senate. On
    October 3, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to
    the immediate consideration of H.R. 3632 and passed the bill
    without amendment.
        H.R. 3632 was presented to the President on October 10,
    1996. The President signed H.R. 3632 into law on October 19,
    1996 (P.L. 104-315).

                          balanced budget act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2491)

              (Title VII--Transformation of the Medicaid Program)

                    (Title VIII--Medicare Preservation Act)

        To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of
    the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 1996.

    Summary

        Title VII of H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as
    presented to the President, contains provisions relating to the
    Medicaid Program, which fall within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce. Title VIII of H.R. 2491, as presented to
    the President, contains provisions which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce with respect to the
    Medicare Program.

    Title VII--Transformation of the Medicaid Program

        Title VII of H.R. 2491 amends the Social Security Act by
    repealing Title XIX and creating a new Title XXI to provide
    block grants to the States to enable them to provide medical
    assistance to low-income individuals and families.
        The purpose of Title VII is to provide matching block
    grants to the States to enable them to provide medical
    assistance to low-income individuals and families in a manner
    some believe will be more effective, efficient, and responsive.
    Title VII replaces the financing and operational structure of
    the Medicaid program (Title XIX) with the MediGrant program
    (Title XXI), which provides block grants and administrative
    flexibility to the States.
        In addition to establishing appropriations authority, the
    legislation sets forth the following provisions:

     Requires that the Secretary of Health and Human
            Services issue regulations establishing State
            enforceable procedures governing State eligibility,
            receipt and use of funds, audit and review, and quality
            assurance;
     Requires submission, review, and subsequent approval
            of any changes sought by States to their medical
            assistance plans;
     Requires the States to set aside funding for the
            benefit of low-income families, elderly, qualified
            Medicare beneficiaries, the disabled, and certain
            health centers;
     Requires the States to provide medical assistance
            coverage to pregnant women and children under age 13
            whose family income does not exceed the poverty line
            and to the disabled (as defined by the States);
     Requires the States to include childhood immunization
            coverage and prepregnancy planning services and
            supplies in the benefits provided to eligible
            recipients;
     Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
            distribute all available funds to the States and
            territories through a specified funding formula
            reflecting demographic and health care service delivery
            conditions in the States;
     Requires consultation by the Secretary of Health and
            Human Services with the General Accounting Office in
            the preparation of annual updates to the block grant
            funding formula; and
     Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
            conduct demonstration projects with participating
            States that will enable States to develop cost-
            effective mechanisms for the delivery of services to
            chronically ill elderly and disabled beneficiaries.

    Title VIII--Medicare Preservation Act

        In addition to proposing new approaches to financing for
    Medicare, Title VIII of H.R. 2491 provides Medicare
    beneficiaries with the new options with respect to purchasing
    or obtaining health insurance. Those options are related to
    approaches now taken by some employers in providing employee
    health benefits. Medicare enrollees may remain in traditional
    fee-for-service Medicare, or choose health products such as the
    following: (a) Physician-Hospital Sponsored Organizations; (b)
    Preferred Provider Networks; (c) Health Maintenance
    Organizations with and without Point of Service options; (d)
    Medical Savings Accounts; and (e) new private Indemnity
    Insurance products.
        H.R. 2491 revises the payment policies for items and
    services covered under Medicare including hospitals, skilled
    nursing facilities, graduate medical education, physicians, and
    durable medical equipment. In addition, the legislation would
    establish a prospective payment system for home health
    services. The bill also would set the Part B premium
    permanently at 31.5 percent of program costs, beginning in
    1996.
        The legislation includes several provisions related to
    fraud and abuse. For example, the bill increases Medicare's
    ability to prevent payments for fraudulent, abusive, or
    erroneous claims, and to identify billing schemes early to
    avoid large losses, through the establishment of the ``Medicare
    Integrity Program.'' Increased funding is authorized for anti-
    fraud and abuse activities for the FBI and the Department of
    Health and Human Services Inspector General. Fraud and abuse
    activities will be coordinated through a national health care
    fraud and abuse control program. The bill also creates new
    health care fraud offenses and clarifies existing statutes.
        The bill provides an exemption from Federal and State
    antitrust laws for certain health care service activities.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held six
    hearings in the 104th Congress on the Transformation of the
    Medicaid Program and related Medicaid issues, including the
    Vaccines for Children Program. The hearing dates were June 8,
    1995; June 15, 1995; June 21, 1995; June 22, 1995; July 26,
    1995; and August 1, 1995.
        Testimony at these hearings was received from 64 witnesses,
    including Governors, Members of Congress and representatives of
    the Administration, State health care administrations, health
    care professionals, the health care industry, and persons
    served by the Medicaid program.
        On June 8, 1995, the Subcommittee heard testimony from five
    State Governors concerning administration of the Medicaid
    Program.
        On June 15, 1995, testimony was received from
    representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, industry representatives, and health care providers
    on the subject of the Vaccines for Children Program.
        On June 21, 1995, the Subcommittee received testimony from
    representatives of the Health Care Financing Administration,
    the Congressional Budget Office, and academic groups on the
    subject of Medicaid.
        On June 22, 1995, a Health Care Financing Administration
    representative, representatives from State Medicaid bureaus,
    and local industry and academic representatives testified on
    the subject of Medicaid from the State perspective.
        Subcommittee testimony on July 26, 1995, focused on
    Medicaid from the State and local provider perspective, and was
    presented by elected State representatives and health plan
    officials.
        On August 1, 1995, health care providers and beneficiary
    representatives presented a variety of perspectives on the
    Medicaid program.
        On September 20, September 21, and September 22, 1995, the
    Full Committee considered a Committee Print entitled
    ``Transformation of the Medicaid Program.'' On September 22,
    1995, the Full Committee approved the Committee Print, as
    amended, for transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for
    inclusion in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, by a roll call
    vote of 27 yeas to 18 nays.
        The provisions of this Committee Print were included in the
    text of Title XVI of H.R. 2491 as reported to the House by the
    Committee on the Budget on October 17, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-280,
    Volumes I and II). Title XV of H.R. 2491 as reported to the
    House by the Committee on the Budget also included the
    provisions of H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995,
    as reported by the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on
    Ways and Means. For the legislative history of that bill, see
    the discussion of the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 (H.R.
    2425) in this section.
        The House considered H.R. 2491 on October 25 and October
    26, 1995, and passed the bill on October 26, 1995, by a roll
    call vote of 227 yeas to 203 nays. H.R. 2491 was received in
    the Senate on October 27, 1995, read twice, and placed on the
    Senate Calendar. The Senate passed H.R. 2491, as amended, by a
    roll call vote of 52 yeas to 47 nays, on October 28, 1995. On
    October 30, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate amendments,
    requested a conference with the Senate, and appointed
    conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce were appointed
    as conferees. The Senate insisted on its amendments, agreed to
    a conference with the House, and appointed conferees on
    November 13, 1995.
        On November 15, 1995, the conference report was filed in
    the House (H. Rpt. 104-347). On November 17, 1995, the House
    passed H. Res. 272 which vacated the proceedings with respect
    to H. Rpt. 104-347, and the conference report was refiled in
    the House as H. Rpt. 104-350. Certain provisions were deleted
    from the final legislation because of assertions by the Senate
    conferees that consideration of these provisions was prohibited
    by Section 313(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
        The House agreed to the conference report on November 17,
    1995, by a roll call vote of 237 yeas to 189 nays. On November
    17, 1995, the Senate sustained a point of order against the
    conference report, as being in violation of the Congressional
    Budget Act with respect to consideration of Section 1853(f) of
    the Social Security Act as added by Section 8001 of the
    conference report and Section 13301 of Subtitle M of Title XIII
    of the conference report. The Senate then, by a roll call vote
    of 52 yeas to 47 nays, receded from its amendment to H.R. 2491
    and concurred therein with a further amendment consisting of
    the text of the conference report (H. Rpt. 104-350), excluding
    the provisions stricken on the point of order. On November 20,
    1995, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a roll call
    vote of 235 yeas to 192 nays and cleared the measure for the
    President.
        H.R. 2491 was presented to the President on November 30,
    1995. On December 6, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 2491 and
    returned the bill to the House (H. Doc. 104-141). The veto
    message and the accompanying bill were referred to the
    Committee on the Budget on December 6, 1995.

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

                              (H.R. 1530, S. 1026)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1530 as presented to the President included a number
    of provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce, including several dealing with health
    related issues. Members of the Committee on Commerce were
    appointed as conferees on these provisions and participated in
    the conference negotiations which led to the agreements
    contained in H.R. 1530.
        These provisions include: (1) Section 601, which provides a
    pay raise of 2.4 percent for members of the uniformed services,
    including members of the Public Health Service Commissioned
    Corps; and (2) Section 718, which contains a ``Sense of
    Congress'' resolution regarding access to health care under the
    Department of Defense's TRICARE program for covered
    beneficiaries eligible for Medicare. The Committee on Commerce
    supported the inclusion of both of these provisions in the
    legislation.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1530 was introduced in the House by Mr. Spence and Mr.
    Dellums on May 2, 1995, and referred to the Committee on
    National Security. The Committee on National Security reported
    the bill to the House on June 1, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-131).
        The House considered H.R. 1530 on June 13, June 14, and
    June 15, 1995; on June 15, 1995, the House passed H.R. 1530, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 300 yeas to 126 nays. H.R.
    1530, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 20,
    1995.
        On July 12, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    reported a companion bill, S. 1026, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    112). The Senate considered S. 1026 on August 2, August 3,
    August 4, August 5, August 9, September 5, and September 6,
    1995. On September 6, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1530, and the Senate then passed H.R. 1530, amended with the
    text of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote
    of 64 yeas to 34 nays. Further action on S. 1026 was
    indefinitely postponed. The Senate insisted on its amendment to
    H.R. 1530 and requested a conference with the House. Senate
    conferees were appointed on September 8, 1995.
        On September 21, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 1530, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. The conference report on H.R. 1530
    was filed in the House on December 13, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-406).
    The House agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote
    of 267 yeas to 149 nays, on December 15, 1995. The Senate
    agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote of 51 yeas
    to 43 nays on December 19, 1995. The bill was presented to the
    President on December 22, 1995.
        On December 28, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 1530. On
    January 3, 1996, the veto message on H.R. 1530 was received and
    read in the House (H. Doc. 104-155). The House then considered
    H.R. 1530 and failed to pass the bill, the objections of the
    President to the contrary notwithstanding, by a roll call vote
    of 240 yeas to 156 nays. The veto message and the accompanying
    bill were referred to the Committee on National Security on
    January 3, 1996.
        Subsequently, the House and Senate passed S. 1124, which
    was signed into law by the President on February 10, 1996
    (Public Law 104-106). For the legislative history of S. 1124,
    see the discussion of that bill in this section.

            personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1995

                              (H.R. 4, H.R. 1214)

                          (Health Related Provisions)

        To restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy,
    control welfare spending and reduce welfare dependence.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 4 is to restore the American family,
    reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending, and reduce
    welfare dependence. As presented to the President, H.R. 4
    included a number of provisions which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, including several
    dealing with health related issues. Members of the Committee on
    Commerce were appointed as conferees on these provisions and
    participated in the conference negotiations which led to the
    agreements contained in H.R. 4.
        Specifically, H.R. 4 converts the current Aid to Families
    with Dependent Children (AFDC) program into a block grant
    program with specified work, job search, and education and
    training requirements designed to increase State flexibility in
    providing time-limited assistance and support services
    (including birth control and child care services) to needy
    families to enable them to leave the program and become self-
    sufficient. The bill allows States maximum flexibility in
    developing child care programs and policies to address the
    needs of children and parents within each State. It also
    restricts welfare and public benefits for aliens in accordance
    with national immigration policy.
        H.R. 4 also includes provisions to: (1) amend the Food
    Stamp program and the process for food assistance commodity
    distribution; (2) amend the Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    program to deny SSI by reason of disability to drug addicts and
    alcoholics; (3) revise the provision of cash benefits for
    children with disabilities; (4) reform the maintenance of
    effort requirements applicable to optional State programs for
    supplementation of SSI benefits; and (5) strengthen child
    support and paternity establishment program requirements.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 4 was introduced in the House on January 4, 1995, by
    Representatives Shaw, Talent, and LaTourette (for themselves)
    and 109 cosponsors. H.R. 4 was referred, by title, to the
    following Committees: the Committee on Agriculture; the
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on
    the Budget; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on
    Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on the
    Judiciary; the Committee on Rules; and the Committee on Ways
    and Means. Titles IV and VIII of H.R. 4 were referred to the
    Committee on Commerce and other Committees.
        On January 13, 1995, H.R. 4 was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment for a period ending not later than February 17,
    1995. On February 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment were
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4.
        On March 15, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Speaker waiving the Commerce
    Committee's right to mark up H.R. 4 and H.R. 1214, a similar
    bill, without prejudicing its jurisdiction, in order to
    expedite consideration of this legislation by the House.
        On March 21, 1995, the House adopted H. Res. 117, which
    provided for general debate in the House on H.R. 4. On March
    22, 1995, the House passed H. Res. 119, which provided that an
    amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
    of H.R. 1214 be considered as adopted, and that H.R. 4, as so
    amended, be considered as the original bill for purposes of
    further amendment. Pursuant to the provisions of these two
    resolutions, the House considered H.R. 4 on March 21, March 22,
    March 23, and March 24, 1995. On March 24, 1995, the House
    passed H.R. 4 by a roll call vote of 234 yeas to 199 nays.
        H.R. 4, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance on March 29,
    1995. On June 9, 1995, the Committee on Finance reported H.R. 4
    to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-96). The Senate considered H.R. 4 on
    August 5, August 7, August 8, August 11, September 6, September
    7, September 8, September 11, September 12, September 13,
    September 14, September 15, and September 19, 1995. On
    September 19, 1995, the Senate passed H.R. 4, as amended, by a
    roll call vote of 87 yeas to 12 nays. The Senate insisted on
    its amendments and requested a conference with the House.
        On September 29, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendments to H.R. 4, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. On October 17, 1995, the Senate
    appointed conferees. The House appointed additional conferees
    on October 24, 1995.
        The conference report on H.R. 4 was filed in the House on
    December 20, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-430). The House agreed to the
    conference report, by a roll call vote of 245 yeas to 178 nays,
    on December 21, 1995. The Senate agreed to the conference
    report, by a roll call vote of 52 yeas to 47 nays, on December
    22, 1995. The bill was presented to the President on December
    29, 1995.
        On January 9, 1996, the President vetoed H.R. 4. On January
    22, 1996, the veto message on H.R. 4 was received in the House
    (H. Doc. 104-164). The veto message and the accompanying bill
    were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 22,
    1996.

                  risk assessment and cost benefit act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1022)

        To provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic
    resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and
    the environment through scientifically objective and unbiased
    risk assessments and through the consideration of costs and
    benefits in major rules, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1022 addresses the Federal risk assessment and
    regulatory decisions in programs designed to protect human
    health, safety, or the environment. Title I of the Risk
    Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act provides for minimum standards
    of disclosure, objectivity, and informativeness for the
    assessment and presentation of risk information in significant
    Federal risk assessment and risk characterization documents.
    Title II requires analysis and consideration of costs,
    benefits, and flexibility among regulatory options when
    promulgating new major rules. The bill specifically requires
    heads of Federal agencies to certify that the incremental
    benefits of new major regulations are justified and reasonably
    related to the incremental costs. Costs and benefits may be
    both quantifiable and non-quantifiable. To the extent
    provisions of existing law preclude the head of the Federal
    agency from certifying that the incremental benefits are
    justified and reasonably related to the incremental costs, the
    authority of H.R. 1022 supersedes the standards in existing law
    in order to provide regulatory options which can meet the
    certification requirement. Notwithstanding other provisions of
    law, certifications must be supported by substantial evidence
    of the rulemaking record. Title III requires independent peer
    review of certain major risk or economic assessments. Title IV
    clarifies the mechanism for judicial review. Title V requires
    covered Federal agencies to provide an additional plan
    outlining any additional processes for receiving new
    information and setting priorities for revising prior risk
    assessments. Finally, Title VI requires the President to
    identify and report the priorities among Federal regulatory
    programs to protect human health, to consider a number of
    criteria to provide for recommendations to Congress, and to
    incorporate such priorities into strategic planning.

    Legislative History

        On February 23, 1995, Mr. Walker and Mr. Bliley introduced
    H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
    This bill represented a compromise agreement developed by the
    Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Science with respect
    to their differing versions of Title III of H.R. 9.
        H.R. 1022 was referred to the Committee on Science, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce. On February 27, 1995,
    the House passed H. Res. 96 providing for the consideration of
    H.R. 1022 by the House. The House considered H.R. 1022 on
    February 27 and February 28, 1995. On February 28, 1995, the
    House passed H.R. 1022, as amended, by a roll call vote of 286
    yeas to 141 nays.
        H.R. 1022, as passed by the House, was received in the
    Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental
    Affairs on March 2, 1995. No further action was taken in the
    Senate on the legislation in the 104th Congress.
        On March 3, 1995, the House considered H.R. 9, and struck
    all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the
    provisions of a text composed of four divisions: H.R. 830, H.R.
    925, H.R. 926, and H.R. 1022, as each bill passed the House
    previously. The House then passed H.R. 9, as amended, by a roll
    call vote of 277 yeas to 141 nays. For the legislative history
    of H.R. 9, see the discussion of the Job Creation and Wage
    Enhancement Act of 1995 in this section.

                 job creation and wage enhancement act of 1995

          (Division D of H.R. 9--Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act)

        To create jobs, enhance wages, strengthen property rights,
    maintain certain economic liberties, decentralize and reduce
    the power of the Federal Government with respect to the States,
    localities, and citizens of the United States, and to increase
    the accountability of Federal officials.

    Summary

        As passed by the House, Division D of H.R. 9 contains the
    text of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of
    1995, which passed the House on February 28, 1995. Division D
    of H.R. 9 addresses the Federal risk assessment and regulatory
    decisions in programs designed to protect human health, safety
    or the environment. First, Division D provides for minimum
    standards of disclosure, objectivity, and informativeness for
    the assessment and presentation of risk information in
    significant Federal risk assessment and risk characterization
    documents. Second, it requires analysis and consideration of
    costs, benefits, and flexibility among regulatory options when
    promulgating major rules. The bill specifically requires heads
    of Federal agencies to certify that the incremental benefits of
    new major regulations are justified and reasonably related to
    the incremental costs. Costs and benefits may be both
    quantifiable and non-quantifiable. To the extent provisions of
    existing law preclude the head of the Federal agency from
    certifying that the incremental benefits are justified and
    reasonably related to the incremental costs, the authority of
    Division D of H.R. 9 supersedes the standards in existing law
    in order to provide regulatory options which can meet the
    certification requirement. Notwithstanding other provisions of
    law, certifications must be supported by substantial evidence
    of the rulemaking record. Third, it requires independent peer
    review of certain major risk or economic assessments. Fourth,
    it clarifies the mechanism for judicial review. Fifth, it
    requires covered Federal agencies to provide an additional plan
    outlining any additional processes for receiving new
    information and setting priorities for revising prior risk
    assessments. Finally, it requires the President to identify and
    report the priorities among Federal regulatory programs to
    protect human health, to consider a number of criteria to
    provide for recommendations to Congress, and to incorporate
    such priorities into strategic planning.

    Legislative History

        On January 4, 1995, Representatives Archer, DeLay, Saxton,
    Smith of Washington, Tauzin, and 107 cosponsors introduced H.R.
    9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. H.R. 9
    was referred, by title, to the following Committees: the
    Committee on Ways and Means; the Committee on Science; the
    Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight; the Committee on the Budget; the Committee on Rules;
    the Committee on the Judiciary; and the Committee on Small
    Business.
        Title III of H.R. 9, Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit
    Analysis for New Regulations, was referred to the Committee on
    Science, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce and the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Within the
    Committee on Commerce, Title III of H.R. 9 was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials and
    the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, and in addition
    to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for a period ending
    not later than February 3, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment held
    joint hearings on H.R. 9 on February 1 and February 2, 1995.
    The hearing included 25 witnesses from a broad range of
    interests, including representatives of Federal agencies, State
    governments, local governments, school boards, scientific
    organizations, the environmental community, labor unions, and
    the regulated community. On February 3, 1995, the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, the Subcommittee
    on Health and Environment, and the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 9 on February 7 and February 8, 1995. On February 8, 1995,
    the Full Committee ordered H.R. 9 reported to the House, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 27 yeas to 16 nays. The
    Committee reported H.R. 9 to the House on February 15, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-33, Pt. 1).
        The Committee on Science also reported H.R. 9 to the House
    on February 15, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-33, Pt. 2).
        On March 3, 1995, the House considered H.R. 9, and struck
    all after Section 1 and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions
    of a text composed of four divisions: H.R. 830, H.R. 925, H.R.
    926, and H.R. 1022, as each bill passed the House previously.
    The House then passed H.R. 9, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 277 yeas to 141 nays. For the legislative history of H.R.
    1022, see the discussion of the Risk Assessment and Cost-
    Benefit Act of 1995 in this section.
        H.R. 9, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    and referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on
    March 9, 1995. No further action was taken in the Senate on the
    legislation in the 104th Congress.

                 tax fairness and deficit reduction act of 1995

                             (H.R. 1215, H.R. 1327)

      (Medicare Parts B and C Administration Budget Savings Extension Act)

        To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strengthen
    the American family and create jobs.

    Summary

        Title V of H.R. 1215 incorporates the text of H.R. 1217,
    the Medicare Parts B and C Administration Budget Savings
    Extension Act of 1995. The purpose of Title V is to extend
    specific savings provisions under the Medicare Program, as
    proposed in the budget submitted by the President for Fiscal
    Year 1996. These policies concern the beneficiary premium under
    the Part B program, payments to home health agencies, and the
    Medicare Secondary Payer Program.

    Legislative History

        On March 13, 1995, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 1215 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
    Means. On March 21, 1995, the Committee on Ways and Means
    reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 104-84). On April 5,
    1995, the House considered H.R. 1215 and agreed to an amendment
    in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
    1327, a bill introduced by Representatives Kasich, Archer, and
    Bliley. The House passed H.R. 1215, as amended, by a roll call
    vote of 246 yeas to 188 nays. Included within the text of H.R.
    1327 were the provisions of H.R. 1217, the Medicare Parts B and
    C Administration Budget Savings Extension Act of 1995, as
    reported to the House on March 23, 1995. For the legislative
    history of that bill, see the discussion of the Medicare Parts
    B and C Administration Budget Savings Extension Act of 1995
    (H.R. 1217) in this section.
        On April 6, 1995, H.R. 1215 was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No further action
    was taken in the Senate on the legislation in the 104th
    Congress.

                       medicare preservation act of 1995

                       (H.R. 2425, H.R. 2485, H.R. 2491)

        To amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve
    and reform the Medicare program.

    Summary

        To address the financial crisis facing Medicare, the
    provisions of this measure falling within the Committee's
    jurisdiction propose approaches to place Part B of Medicare on
    a long-term sustainable growth path, achieve a sustainable
    financial base for the Medicare program, and provide Medicare
    beneficiaries with new options for purchasing or obtaining
    health insurance. Under H.R. 2425, Medicare enrollees may
    remain in traditional fee-for-service Medicare or obtain
    coverage from physician-hospital sponsored organizations,
    preferred provider networks, health maintenance organizations
    with and without point of service options, medical savings
    accounts, or private indemnity insurance products.
        H.R. 2425 revises the payment policies for items and
    services covered under Medicare including hospitals, skilled
    nursing facilities, graduate medical education, physicians, and
    durable medical equipment. In addition, the legislation would
    establish a prospective payment system for home health
    services.
        The legislation includes several provisions related to
    fraud and abuse. For example, the bill increases Medicare's
    ability to prevent payments for fraudulent, abusive, or
    erroneous claims, and to identify billing schemes early to
    avoid large losses through the establishment of the ``Medicare
    Integrity Program.'' Increased funding is authorized for anti-
    fraud and abuse activities for the FBI and the Department of
    Health and Human Services Inspector General. Fraud and abuse
    activities will be coordinated through a national health care
    fraud and abuse control program. The bill also creates new
    health care fraud offenses and clarifies existing statutes.
        Finally, H.R. 2425 provides an exemption from Federal and
    State antitrust laws for certain health care service
    activities.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held 4 days of
    hearings on the Future of the Medicare Program and related
    issues during the 104th Congress. The focus of these hearings
    was to review the performance of the Medicare program, discuss
    alleged problems, and examine options for reform.
        The first hearing, on June 28, 1995, focused on the growth
    of spending in the portions of the Medicare program under the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. Witnesses included
    representatives from the General Accounting Office, health
    commissions and associations, and policy institutes.
        A July 12, 1995, hearing focused on Medicare's payment
    policies for risk-based maintenance organizations (HMOs).
    Witnesses included representatives from the Health Care
    Financing Administration (HCFA), the General Accounting Office
    (GAO), health care commissions, and private organizations.
        The third hearing on July 18, 1995, focused on proposals to
    reform the Medicare program. Witnesses included representatives
    from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), health
    associations, and Medicare coalitions.
        On August 3, 1995, the Subcommittee's fourth hearing
    focused on proposals to reform the Medicare program, as well as
    Medicare issues in reconciliation. Witnesses included
    representatives from health associations, community groups,
    policy institutes, and medical laboratories.
        In addition, on July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment held a joint hearing with the Ways and Means
    Committee Subcommittee on Health on standards for health plans
    providing coverage in the Medicare Program. The purpose of the
    hearing was to examine the full range of standards currently
    applied in the health care system, both public and private,
    with an emphasis on the unique needs and requirements of the
    Medicare Program, and whether additional health plans might
    seek to participate in the Medicare Program if additional
    options were provided. Witnesses included representatives from
    the General Accounting Office (GAO), hospital and physician
    networks, and private organizations.
        On September 29, 1995, Representatives Archer, Bliley,
    Bilirakis, Thomas, Hyde, Greenwood, Hastert, Johnson of
    Connecticut, and McCrery introduced H.R. 2425 in the House. The
    bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on the
    Judiciary, and the Committee on Rules.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2425 on October 2, October 10, October 11, and October 12,
    1995. On October 12, 1995, the Full Committee ordered H.R. 2425
    reported to the House, amended, by a roll call vote of 27 yeas
    to 22 nays.
        The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 2425 to the
    House on October 16, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-276, Part 1). The
    Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 2425 to the House on
    October 16, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-276, Part 2). The referral of
    H.R. 2425 to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee
    on Rules was extended for a period ending not later than
    October 16, 1995. On October 16, 1995, the Committee on the
    Judiciary and the Committee on Rules were discharged from
    further consideration of H.R. 2425.
        On October 18, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted
    a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2425. The rule
    was filed in the House as H. Res. 238 (H. Rpt. 104-282). On
    October 19, 1995, the House passed H. Res. 238 by a roll call
    vote of 227 yeas to 192 nays. H. Res. 238 provided that an
    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute consisting of the text
    of H.R. 2485, as amended by the amendments contained in H. Rpt.
    104-282, be considered as adopted by the House, and that H.R.
    2425, as so amended, be considered as the original bill for
    purposes of amendment on the House Floor.
        On October 19, 1995, the House considered H.R. 2425 and
    passed the bill, amended, by a roll call vote of 231 yeas to
    201 nays. On October 20, 1995, H.R. 2425 was received in the
    Senate, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on
    Finance.
        No further action occurred on H.R. 2425 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 2425 were included in
    Title VIII of H.R. 2491, as presented to the President. For the
    legislative history of H.R. 2491, see the discussion of the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1995 in this section.

                   ``wisconsin works'' demonstration project

                                  (H.R. 3562)

        A bill to authorize the State of Wisconsin to implement the
    demonstration project known as ``Welfare Works.''

    Summary

        H.R. 3562 provides that, upon presentation by the State of
    Wisconsin to the appropriate Federal official, of its plan for
    the ``Wisconsin Works'' (welfare reform) demonstration project,
    for any Federal entitlement program specified in the plan: (1)
    such Federal official is deemed to have waived compliance with
    the requirements of Federal law with respect to such program,
    to the extent and for the period necessary to enable the State
    to carry out the demonstration project; and (2) the costs of
    carrying out the project, which would not otherwise be included
    as program expenditures, shall be regarded as program
    expenditures, except to the extent that the sum of such costs
    and the expenditures of the State under all such projects
    during any demonstration period exceeds the total amount that
    would be expended under such programs during such period in the
    absence of the demonstration project. The bill also provides
    for the recapture of excess amounts under certain conditions.
        With specific regard to the Medicaid program, H.R. 3562
    specifically would not have any effect on certain other waivers
    granted to Wisconsin before enactment of this Act (e.g.,
    waivers under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act) and that
    the current waivers are considered a precondition and can be
    subsumed as part of the Wisconsin Works demonstration project.

    Legislative History

        On June 4, 1996, Representatives Neumann, Klug, Gunderson,
    Petri, Roth, and Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3562 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
    Means, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, the
    Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and the
    Committee on Commerce.
        On June 5, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3562. The rule was
    filed in the House as H. Res. 446.
        On June 6, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 446 by a roll
    call vote of 363 yeas to 59 nays. The House then considered
    H.R. 3562, and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 289 yeas
    to 136 nays.
        On June 7, 1996, H.R. 3562 was received in the Senate. On
    June 19, 1996, H.R. 3562 was read twice and placed on the
    Senate Calendar. No further action was taken on H.R. 3562 in
    the 104th Congress.

     medicare parts b and c administration budget savings extension act of
                                      1995

                             (H.R. 1217, H.R. 1134)

        To amend Parts B and C of Title XVIII of the Social
    Security Act to extend certain savings provisions under the
    Medicare Program, as incorporated in the budget submitted by
    the President for Fiscal Year 1996.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1217 is to extend provisions under the
    Medicare program, as proposed in the budget submitted by the
    President for Fiscal Year 1996. These programs concern: (1) the
    beneficiary premium under the Part B program; (2) payments to
    home health agencies; and (3) the Medicare Secondary Payer
    Program.
        Medicare beneficiaries pay a percentage of the premium for
    Part B (medical) insurance. Premiums represented about 25
    percent of Part B costs until 1995, when the premium was
    calculated to approximately 31 percent of program costs. Under
    current law, the Part B premium is calculated based on actual
    program costs. This provision of law expires in 1998, however,
    and the method for calculating the Part B premium reverts to a
    formula in which the premium increase is limited to the
    percentage by which cash benefits are increased under the Cost
    of Living Adjustment (COLA) provisions of the Social Security
    program. H.R. 1217 sets the premium permanently at 25 percent
    of the program costs.
        The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93)
    froze reimbursement limits during Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 on
    home health agency (HHA) reimbursement calculations. The
    Administration proposal did not continue the freeze; rather, it
    provided that in calculating future updates to the per-visit
    limits for health agencies, the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services must adjust the relevant data to disregard increases
    in HHA costs that would have occurred in FY 1994 and 1995 if
    the freeze had not been in place. H.R. 1217 has the effect of
    extending some savings by not allowing for inflation during the
    freeze years (or readjusting the baseline for cost calculation)
    when future updates are calculated.
        Finally, H.R. 1217 extends permanently the OBRA 93
    requirement, which otherwise expires in 1998, that Medicare be
    a secondary payer. Generally, Medicare is the first and primary
    payer of health insurance claims for its beneficiaries, with
    private or other insurance policies filling in the gaps.
    However, some beneficiaries have policies which require the
    non-Medicare insurance to be the primary payer, and Medicare to
    be the secondary payer. H.R. 1217 requires Medicare to pay
    secondary to other insurers and facilitate identification of
    primary payers.

    Legislative History

        On March 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the extension of certain Medicare
    programs in the President's FY 96 budget. The sole witness was
    the Associate Administrator for Policy of the Health Care
    Financing Administration.
        On March 13, 1995, Mr. Bliley introduced H.R. 1217 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and
    in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means.
        On March 15, 1995, a request that H.R. 1217 be considered
    directly by the Full Committee was agreed to by unanimous
    consent. The Full Committee then considered H.R. 1217 and
    ordered the bill reported to the House by a voice vote. The
    Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1217 to the House on March
    23, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-87, Part 1). The Committee on Ways and
    Means reported its own version of Medicare extender
    legislation, H.R. 1134, to the House on March 15, 1995 (H. Rpt.
    104-80, Part 1). No further action was taken on either H.R.
    1217 or H.R. 1134 in the 104th Congress.
        The provisions of H.R. 1217 were incorporated into the text
    of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of
    1995, which passed the House on April 5, 1995. For the
    legislative history of that bill, see the discussion of the Tax
    Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995 (H.R. 1215) in this
    section.

                       patient right to know act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 2976)

        To prohibit health plans from interfering with health care
    provider communications with their patients.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2976 is to prevent health plans from
    interfering in medical communications between patients and
    their health care providers. The bill provides that a health
    plan may not include--in any written contract with a provider,
    written statement to a provider, or oral communication with a
    provider--any provision that prohibits or restricts any medical
    communication. The bill declares such provisions null and void.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 2976 was introduced in the House on February 27, 1996,
    by Mr. Ganske and 23 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways
    and Means, the Committee on Economic and Educational
    Opportunities, and the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight.
        On May 30, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    held a hearing on Contract Issues and Quality Standards for
    Managed Care, receiving testimony from representatives of
    insurance groups, medical associations, health care
    organizations, and individuals. On June 27, 1996, the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 2976 and approved the bill for Full
    Committee consideration, amended, by a roll call vote of 22
    yeas to 0 nays.
        On July 24, 1996, the Full Committee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 2976 and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on
    Commerce reported H.R. 2976 to the House on September 28, 1996
    (H. Rpt. 104-865, Part 1). Referral of H.R. 2976 to the
    Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Economic and
    Educational Opportunities, and the Committee on Government
    Reform and Oversight was extended for a period ending not later
    than October 2, 1996. On October 2, 1996, the referral of H.R.
    2976 to the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on
    Economic and Educational Opportunities, and the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight was extended for a period
    ending not later than October 4, 1996.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 2976 in the 104th
    Congress.

       medicare and medicaid waiver for nurse aide training programs in
                               certain facilities

                                  (H.R. 3633)

        To amend Title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to
    permit a waiver of the prohibition of offering nurse aide
    training and competency evaluation programs in certain nursing
    facilities.

    Summary

        H.R. 3633 amends Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social
    Security Act to permit a waiver of the prohibition of offering
    nurse aide training and competency evaluation programs in
    certain facilities. A State can waive the prohibition if the
    State: (1) determines that there is no other such program
    offered within a reasonable distance of the facility; (2)
    assures, through an oversight effort, than an adequate
    environment exists for operating the program in the facility;
    and (3) provides notice of such determination to the State
    long-term-care ombudsman.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3633 was introduced in the House on June 12, 1996 by
    Mr. Ehrlich. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
    Means, and in addition to the Commerce on Commerce.
        On September 18, 1996, the Full Committee met in open
    markup session and, by unanimous consent, discharged the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment from further
    consideration of H.R. 3633. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 3633 and ordered the bill reported to the House, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 3633 to
    the House on September 23, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-818, Part 1).
        No further action was taken on H.R. 3633 in the 104th
    Congress.

              wellness plan medicare enrollment composition waiver

                                  (H.R. 4012)

        To waive temporarily the Medicare enrollment composition
    rules for The Wellness Plan.

    Summary

        Under Section 1876(f) of the Social Security Act, Medicare
    risk-contracting plans (managed care plans) are subject to
    rules regarding the enrollment of beneficiaries. One of these
    rules, commonly known as the 50/50 rule, requires that Medicare
    and Medicaid enrollees may not exceed 50 percent of plan
    enrollment. One of the main reasons for the establishment of
    this rule was that it could serve as a proxy for a plan's
    quality of care.
        H.R. 4012 provides a waiver of this section of the Social
    Security Act to The Wellness Plan of Michigan through December
    31, 1999. The Wellness Plan (TWP) is a State-licensed and
    Federally-qualified health maintenance organization serving
    several counties in Michigan, including the Detroit
    Metropolitan Statistical Area. TWP currently has approximately
    155,000 enrollees consisting of: 141,000 Medicaid enrollees;
    12,000 commercial enrollees, and 2,000 Medicare enrollees. TWP
    has had a Health Care Prepayment Plan (HCPP) contract, a
    Medicare Part B-only cost contract, with Medicare since 1993.
        As of January 1, 1996, HCPP enrollment and establishment of
    new HCPP contracts were effectively frozen as a result of the
    Social Security Technical Corrections Act of 1994. Therefore,
    TWP cannot enroll any more Medicare beneficiaries. Many HCPP
    contractors are converting to a Medicare risk contract. TWP is
    ineligible for this option because of the 50/50 rule. As noted
    above, TWP's Medicaid enrollment is well over the 50 percent
    limit. Also, the Health Care Financing Administration does not
    have the authority to grant TWP an administrative waiver. This
    bill enables TWP to continue to serve Medicare beneficiaries.

    Legislative History

        On August 2, 1996, H.R. 4012 was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Upton, Dingell, Camp, Levin, and Conyers. The
    bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition
    to the Committee on Ways and Means.
        On September 18, 1996, the Full Committee met in open
    markup session and, by unanimous consent, discharged the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment from further
    consideration of H.R. 4012. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 4012 and ordered the bill reported to the House, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 4012 to
    the House on September 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-845, Part 1).
    Referral of the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means was
    extended for a period ending not later than October 2, 1996. On
    October 2, 1996, the referral of the bill to the Committee on
    Ways and Means was extended for a period ending not later than
    October 4, 1996.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 4012 in the 104th
    Congress.

        watts health foundation medicare enrollment composition waiver
                                   extension

                                  (H.R. 2923)

        To extend for 4 additional years the waiver granted to the
    Watts Health Foundation from the membership mix requirement for
    health maintenance organizations participating in the Medicare
    program.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2923 is to extend a waiver of Section
    1876(f) of the Social Security Act (regarding the 50/50 rule)
    through January 1, 2000, for the Watts Health Foundation. The
    waiver extended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA)
    of 1993 expired on January 1, 1996.
        Under Section 1876(f) of the Social Security Act, Medicare
    risk-contracting plans (managed care plans) are subject to
    rules regarding the enrollment of beneficiaries. One of these
    rules, commonly known as the 50/50 rule, requires that Medicare
    and Medicaid enrollees may not exceed 50 percent of plan
    enrollment. One of the main reasons for the establishment of
    this rule was to serve as a proxy for a plan's quality of care.
        On March 25, 1985, the Health Care Financing Administration
    granted Watts a temporary waiver from the 50/50 rule. Congress
    granted Watts another temporary waiver until January 1, 1990 as
    part of OBRA 1987. This was extended to January 1, 1994 by OBRA
    1989 and to January 1, 1996, by OBRA 1993. Watt's waiver
    expired at the end of calendar year 1995. To allow Watts to
    continue to provide care to its Medicare enrollees, its waiver
    must be extended.

    Legislative History

        On January 31, 1996, Ms. Waters introduced H.R. 2923 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and
    in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means.
        On September 18, 1996, the Full Committee met in open
    markup session and, by unanimous consent, discharged the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment from further
    consideration of H.R. 2923. The Full Committee then considered
    H.R. 2923 and ordered the bill reported to the House, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 2923 to
    the House on September 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-844, Part 1).
    Referral of the bill to the Committee on Ways and Means was
    extended for a period ending not later than October 2, 1996. On
    October 2, 1996, the referral of the bill to the Committee on
    Ways and Means was extended for a period ending not later than
    October 4, 1996.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 2923 in the 104th
    Congress.

                drug and biological products reform act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3199)

        To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the
    Public Health Service Act to facilitate the development and
    approval of new drugs and biological products, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3199 makes a series of changes to strengthen the
    operation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It
    establishes a clear FDA mission, an annual report to Congress,
    and an internal dispute resolution mechanism.
        The bill streamlines review of applications for clinical
    investigations on new drugs by clarifying the information
    needed for a research investigation application, the criteria
    for FDA to issue a clinical hold on an investigation, and how
    FDA may accredit certain research institutions to approve phase
    I and phase II research. The bill also streamlines the review
    of new drug applications by specifying that the information
    necessary for review must include certified accurate and
    adequate reports of clinical and preclinical investigations on
    safety and effectiveness, tables of the relevant data, and data
    on deaths and dropouts due to adverse reactions. FDA may
    request primary data tabulations or case report forms or
    tabulations. The bill requires FDA to establish standards for
    the review of applications and meet with sponsors to reach
    agreement on clinical trials. In order to establish clear lines
    of responsibility, review decisions on scientific and medical
    matters on a new drug will be binding for field and compliance
    staff. Other than under extraordinary circumstances, action on
    a new drug marketing should not be delayed by unavailability of
    information from, or action by, field personnel.
        The bill establishes that the effectiveness of a drug may
    be met by one or more clinical investigations, and a well-
    controlled investigation must use methods of control
    appropriate to the intended use of the drug and the disease.
    FDA may waive the requirement for a well-controlled clinical
    investigation. A standard is established to speed the approval
    of a new drug for a serious or life-threatening condition. The
    bill provides FDA with an option for the approval of
    supplemental indications for drugs already approved when the
    common use represents reasonable clinical practice. The bill
    makes clear that effectiveness does not include relative
    effectiveness, cost effectiveness, or potential uses unless
    claimed in the drug's labeling. The bill strengthens the FDA
    scientific review panels.
        The bill establishes the option for the use of FDA
    accredited persons to review applications for new drugs,
    biologics, or supplemental applications under the standards and
    requirements of the law applicable to FDA. FDA shall approve or
    deny an application after review of an accredited person's
    report. The bill also authorizes FDA to accredit persons to
    conduct good manufacturing practice inspections. Strict
    requirements are established to protect public health. FDA is
    to establish regulations for the accreditation of third
    parties. The bill requires the highest standards for the
    accreditation to ensure that there will be no conflicts of
    interest and to provide a high degree of integrity. Criminal
    and civil penalties are established for violations, false or
    misleading information, bribery or corrupt acts, or release of
    confidential information or trade secrets.
        The bill seeks to clarify the responsibility for regulatory
    action relating to the review of good manufacturing practice
    (GMP) for reviews of chemistry, manufacturing, or controls.
    Unless there is an actual imminent harm to public health, FDA
    may not take action to delay or prevent the marketing of a drug
    because of GMP issues without an informal hearing on specific
    factors that relate to a drug's safety or effectiveness. The
    bill permits any new drug manufactured in a pilot or other
    small facility to be used to demonstrate the safety and
    effectiveness of the drug and to obtain approval prior to
    scaling-up to a larger facility, unless FDA requests otherwise.
    The bill eliminates FDA case-by-case approval of slight
    manufacturing changes that do not affect the characteristics of
    a drug product and places the burden of validating such
    manufacturing methods on the manufacturer. Changes for other
    products must be reported to FDA through a supplement or
    amendment submitted at the time the change is made. Special
    rules apply to biotechnology products to distinguish those that
    do and do not require prior FDA approval.
        The bill eliminates outdated requirements for batch
    certification of insulin and certain antibiotic products.
    Applications or petitions to switch a drug from prescription to
    over-the-counter shall be reviewed and acted upon solely by a
    single office in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or
    a successor entity. Also, the bill clarifies that routine
    pharmaceutical compounding (which includes radiopharmaceutical
    compounding) is not manufacturing.
        The bill requires FDA to participate in meetings with other
    countries to reduce the burden of regulation, harmonize
    regulatory requirements, seek appropriate reciprocal
    arrangements, and establish a framework for mutual recognition
    of good manufacturing practices. FDA is also to report to
    Congress before executing any of these agreements.
        The dissemination of certain scientific and medical
    information is permitted only if it is not used to encourage
    the unapproved use of a legally marketed drug or device through
    any means of promotion. The bill prohibits FDA from relying on
    informal agency statements to require any action to satisfy
    regulatory obligations under the Act.
        The bill encourages the conduct of education and training
    programs for employees, including programs for scientific
    training, administrative processes, and integrity issues. FDA
    research is limited to that directly related to the
    implementation of the Act. The bill confirms that FDA does not
    regulate the practice of medicine or other health disciplines.
    The bill designates that particular officials may not delegate
    certain identified responsibilities and clarifies the judicial
    review provision in the Act.
        Finally, the bill revises and establishes the regulation of
    biologics and defines three distinct product categories:
    biological products, blood and blood components, and tissue. It
    moves the regulation of these products into the text of the
    Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from their current
    regulation under Section 351 of the Public Health Service Act,
    thus adding administrative convenience and simplicity to their
    regulation.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on February 27, 1996, on The Need for FDA Reform. Testimony was
    received from patients, medical experts, and industry
    representatives on a range of concerns including: problems of
    slow access to new products, restrictions on access to
    information about certain medical treatments, and the loss of
    U.S. technology and jobs to other countries. Witnesses claimed
    that FDA is inefficient in the way it conducts its activities
    because of unnecessary statutory requirements, problems with
    agency management, and unnecessary caution.
        As a result of the testimony received at that hearing, H.R.
    3199 was introduced in the House on March 29, 1996, by Mr. Burr
    and 42 cosponsors. The Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    held hearings on H.R. 3199 on May 1 and May 2, 1996. Testimony
    was received from Administration officials, patients, medical
    experts, and industry representatives.
         In response to concerns raised in these hearings,
    Committee Members and staff met with Administration and
    industry representatives in an effort to develop consensus
    legislation, but were unable to reach agreement before the
    adjournment of the 104th Congress.

            food amendments and animal drug availability act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3200)

        To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
    increase access to nutritional information about foods, to
    increase availability of safe food products, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3200 makes changes to streamline the regulation of
    foods and veterinary medicines by the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA). It establishes a clear FDA mission and an
    annual report to Congress.
        The bill addresses several issues concerning the labeling
    of foods. It amends the health claim requirement to permit
    information prepared by a Federal agency or the National
    Academy of Sciences to be considered evidence for meeting the
    standard for the authorization of a health claim. It clarifies
    that significant scientific agreement on health claims does not
    necessarily require consensus or unanimity. The bill permits
    the use of certain synonyms for nutrient descriptors. The bill
    prohibits FDA from requiring labeling to disclose the method of
    production, or an ingredient not otherwise required to be
    listed in the ingredient label, unless necessary to protect
    public health. The bill also eliminates certain requirements
    related to colored margarine.
        The bill authorizes FDA accredited persons to review food
    and color additive petitions and health claim petitions and to
    conduct ``good manufacturing practices'' (GMPs) inspections.
    The bill requires the highest standards for accredited
    organizations to ensure that there will be no conflicts of
    interest and to provide a high degree of integrity. Criminal
    and civil penalties are established for violations of false or
    misleading information, bribery or corrupt acts, or release of
    confidential information or trade secrets.
        The bill replaces the Delaney Clause's zero risk standard
    for food additives, color additives, and animal drugs with a
    negligible or insignificant risk standard. FDA is required,
    within 180 days of enactment, to establish criteria for the
    standard and the proposed regulation is to become final unless
    FDA issues a final regulation within 18 months after enactment
    of this bill.
        The bill requires FDA to establish an internal, informal
    information system to track all applications and filings. Each
    applicant must have access to the system to determine the
    status of its application.
        The bill requires FDA to participate in meetings with other
    countries to reduce the burden of regulation, harmonize
    regulatory requirements, seek appropriate reciprocal
    arrangements, and establish a framework for mutual recognition
    of good manufacturing practices. FDA is also to report to
    Congress before executing any of these agreements.
        Finally, the bill streamlines the regulation of animal
    drugs by modernizing requirements for determining the
    effectiveness of animal drugs. The time frame for approval is
    shortened from 180 days to 90 days. The provision requires the
    denial of approval if there is information that, under the
    labeled conditions of use, a residue exceeds FDA's safety
    tolerance for the drug. In addition, the bill provides for the
    regulation of certain drugs through a ``veterinary feed
    directive'' regulation for medicated feeds to be issued by a
    veterinarian.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on February 27, 1996, on The Need for FDA Reform. Testimony was
    received from animal health experts, nutrition experts, and
    industry representatives on a range of concerns including
    problems of slow access to new products and the loss of U.S.
    technology and jobs to other countries. Witnesses claimed that
    FDA is inefficient in the way it conducts its activities
    because of unnecessary statutory requirements, problems with
    agency management, and unnecessary caution.
        As a result of the testimony received at that hearing, H.R.
    3200 was introduced in the House on March 29, 1996, by Mr. Klug
    and 40 cosponsors. H.R. 3200 incorporated provisions similar to
    those contained in H.R. 2508, relating to animal drugs. The
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment held hearings on H.R.
    3200 on May 1 and May 2, 1996. Testimony was received from
    Administration officials, consumers, animal health experts, and
    industry representatives.
         In response to concerns raised in these hearings,
    Committee Members and staff met with Administration and
    industry representatives in an effort to develop consensus
    legislation. An agreement was reached with respect to the
    animal drug provisions, and the agreement was offered as an
    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute during Full Committee
    consideration of H.R. 2508 on September 19, 1996, and adopted
    by a voice vote. H.R. 2508, as amended, passed the House on
    September 24, 1996. The Senate passed H.R. 3508 on September
    25, 1996 by unanimous consent. On October 9, 1996, the
    President signed H.R. 2508 into public law (P.L. 104-250). For
    the legislative history of H.R. 2508, see the discussion of the
    Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996 in this section.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 3200 in the 104th
    Congress.

                       medical device reform act of 1996

                                  (H.R. 3201)

        To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
    facilitate the development, clearance, and use of devices to
    maintain and improve the public health and quality of life of
    the citizens of the United States.

    Summary

        H.R. 3201 makes a series of changes to strengthen the
    operation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It
    establishes a clear FDA mission, an annual report to Congress,
    and an internal dispute resolution mechanism.
        FDA is required to publish regulations, within 120 days of
    enactment, updating procedures for increasing public access to
    investigational devices. If an FDA decision is disputed, the
    device sponsor has the right to appear before an advisory
    committee that would be constituted under requirements of this
    bill.
        For those devices representing breakthrough technologies,
    or the best interest of the public health, FDA must propose
    regulations creating a system for priority review within 6
    months of enactment. Within 60 days of the proposed
    regulations, the FDA must publish final regulations. The bill
    makes streamlining changes to the humanitarian device
    provisions of the current law.
        Premarket notification provisions are modified to ensure
    devices are initially classified in a timely and fair manner.
    Certain class I and II devices would be exempt from premarket
    notification within 30 days of enactment. Petitioners may
    request exemption of other class II devices from 510(k)
    notification, and the agency would be required to respond
    within 120 days. Failure of the agency to respond would result
    in automatic exemption. Sponsors may request a classification
    panel, established under Section 513 of existing law, to
    determine whether a substantially equivalent device should be
    placed in class I, II, or III. The panel will have 60 days to
    make a classification recommendation; and thereafter, the FDA
    will have 10 days to classify the device. FDA-accredited
    persons (see below) will have 90 days to complete a substantial
    equivalence review. Reviews by accredited persons will be final
    unless a person seeks FDA review. The FDA will have 30 days to
    determine the appropriate device classification, and if the FDA
    fails to issue classification, the device will remain in class
    III. For products substantially equivalent to class III
    devices, accredited persons have 60 days to review a device and
    make a recommendation. The FDA has 30 days to agree or disagree
    with this recommendation. If it disagrees, the agency must
    provide a detailed explanation and justification for its view.
    If the FDA fails to provide this information, the decision of
    the third party review becomes FDA's classification
    determination, and the agency would be prohibited from
    reclassifying a product because of its failure to act in a
    timely manner. Device sponsors will not be subject to premarket
    notification requirements provided minor changes or
    modifications do not adversely affect the safety or
    effectiveness of the device.
        Timely reviews are the focus of amendments to Section 515,
    which governs the review of premarket approval for class III
    devices. Responsibilities for accredited person review of
    premarket approval applications are defined. Time limits are
    established through all phases of review for both the FDA and
    third party reviewers. Such actions as initial receipt of an
    application, preliminary review, referral to an advisory
    committee, direct meetings with and written correspondence to
    the sponsor, and approval or denial of a submission are subject
    to statutory deadlines. Failure of the FDA to act on the 180-
    day premarket approval application (PMA) review deadline
    necessitates filing a report with the Commissioner of the FDA
    explaining the cause for delay.
        Within 180 days of enactment, FDA must specify procedures
    for accrediting accredited persons. Accredited persons may be
    authorized by FDA to review premarket notifications and
    premarket approval applications, and conduct good manufacturing
    practices inspections. Within 6 months of enactment, FDA must
    implement the accreditation program.
        Within 18 months of enactment, FDA must publish a
    regulation establishing the appropriate classification of each
    preamendment class III device awaiting reclassification.
    Following a 60-day comment period, the FDA must finalize its
    regulation.
        Accredited persons would be able to complete most
    inspection tasks with the FDA as an overseer. If accredited
    person inspectors encounter specified good manufacturing
    practice (GMP) violations, the FDA must be notified. To the
    extent practical, good manufacturing practice regulation should
    conform to International Standard Organization requirements
    which define quality systems for devices.
        The bill also requires FDA to participate in meetings with
    other countries to reduce the burden of regulation, harmonize
    regulatory requirements and seek appropriate reciprocal
    arrangements, and establish a framework for mutual recognition
    of good manufacturing practices. FDA is also to report to
    Congress before executing any of these agreements.
        Mandatory device tracking is eliminated and any necessary
    tracking requirements are to assigned at the FDA's discretion
    and apply only to the certain class II and III devices.
    Mandatory postmarket surveillance is eliminated, with necessary
    inspections limited to certain class II or III devices.
    Requirements for distributor reports, user reports, medical
    device report certifications, and reports of removals and
    corrections are eliminated. Under certain conditions,
    individuals are immunized from strict criminal liability. The
    FDA is specifically encouraged to apply international standards
    in its GMP regulations and is required to participate in
    international meetings to discuss ways to reduce international
    regulatory burdens. Medical and scientific information
    disseminated through various media will not be construed as a
    basis for filing for premarket review unless the information
    encourages the unapproved use of a legally marketed device
    through labeling or advertising. Individuals subject to civil
    penalties may apply the monetary amount of the penalty to
    correct violations. The FDA is prohibited from relying on
    informal agency statements (e.g., memoranda and guidance
    documents) to satisfy obligations under the Act.

    Legislative History

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on February 27, 1996, on The Need for FDA Reform. Testimony was
    received from patients, medical experts, and industry
    representatives on a range of concerns including: problems of
    slow access to new products, restrictions on access to
    information about certain medical treatments, and the loss of
    U.S. technology and jobs to other countries. Witnesses claimed
    that FDA is inefficient in the way it conducts its activities
    because of unnecessary statutory requirements, problems with
    agency management, and unnecessary caution.
        As a result of the testimony received at that hearing, H.R.
    3201 was introduced in the House on March 29, 1996, by Mr.
    Barton of Texas and 41 cosponsors. The Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment held hearings on H.R. 3201 on May 1 and May 2,
    1996. Testimony was received from Administration officials,
    patients, medical experts, and industry representatives.
         In response to concerns raised in these hearings,
    Committee Members and staff met with Administration and
    industry representatives in an effort to develop consensus
    legislation, but were unable to reach agreement before the
    adjournment of the 104th Congress.

        uniformed services medicare subvention demonstration project act

                                  (H.R. 3142)

        To establish a demonstration project to provide that the
    Department of Defense may receive Medicare reimbursement for
    health care services provided to certain Medicare-eligible
    covered military beneficiaries.

    Summary

        H.R. 3142 establishes a demonstration program to provide
    Medicare subvention or reimbursement to the Department of
    Defense (DOD) for health care services provided to certain
    Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries. The goal of the
    demonstration program is to improve access to needed health
    care services for these military beneficiaries while
    determining whether subvention can be accomplished in a manner
    that does not increase costs to the Federal government or the
    Medicare Trust Fund.
        Presently, there are about 1.2 million Medicare-eligible
    military beneficiaries. Although these beneficiaries are
    eligible to use military medical facilities on a space-
    available basis, they are not eligible to enroll in, or
    participate in, the DOD's TRICARE managed health care program.
    With bases being closed and realigned throughout the country,
    access to military medical facilities is becoming increasing
    difficult for these beneficiaries. Exacerbating the situation
    is the fact that the TRICARE program is designed to maximize
    use of military medical facilities by TRICARE program
    enrollees.
        The Department of Defense estimates that about 25 percent
    of military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries currently rely on
    military facilities for the majority of their health care
    needs. Supporting this population, which is projected to grow
    29 percent by the year 2001, costs DOD about $1.4 billion a
    year. Continuing to meet the medical needs of this growing
    military beneficiary population is an extremely difficult
    challenge, particularly in today's budget-constrained
    environment.
        H.R. 3142 establishes a subvention demonstration program to
    be conducted in two TRICARE regions over a 3-year period. Under
    the program, Medicare-eligible retirees who chose to
    participate in the demonstration would be required to enroll in
    the TRICARE HMO option--TRICARE Prime--and would receive all
    their medical care through the military health services system.
    As TRICARE enrollees, program participants would have a higher
    priority for receiving medical care in military facilities than
    non-enrollees and would be guaranteed access to treatment
    within a specific amount of time.

    Legislative History

        On March 21, 1996, Mr. Hefley introduced H.R. 3142 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
    Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce and the
    Committee on National Security.
        On September 19, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on H.R. 3142, the Uniformed Services
    Medicare Subvention Demonstration Project Act. The hearing also
    focused on the ``Military Beneficiaries Medicare Reimbursement
    Model Project Act of 1996,'' a draft bill submitted to Congress
    on September 13, 1996, by the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services. Testimony was received from representatives of the
    Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and the Department
    of Defense (DOD), who discussed an agreement between HCFA and
    DOD to conduct a Medicare demonstration of military managed
    care.
        On September 25, 1996, the Committee on National Security
    reported H.R. 3142 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-837, Part 1).
        No further action occurred on this legislation in the 104th
    Congress.

                     Oversight or Investigative Activities

          medicare select and issues related to medicare managed care

        On February 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the Medicare Select Program and
    issues related to managed care. Witnesses included Members of
    Congress and representatives of the Health Care Financing
    Administration, health associations, State insurance
    commissions, and various health plans. Testimony received at
    the hearing assisted the Committee in the development and
    enactment of legislation to extend the Medicare Select Program
    to all 50 States (H.R. 483; P.L. 104-18). For the legislative
    history of H.R. 483, see the discussion of that bill in this
    section.

         medicare extenders in the president's fiscal year 1996 budget

        On March 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the extension of certain Medicare
    programs in the President's FY 96 budget. The sole witness was
    the Associate Administrator for Policy of the Health Care
    Financing Administration. Testimony received at the hearing
    assisted the Committee in the development of H.R. 1217, the
    Medicare Parts B and C Administration Budget Savings Extension
    Act of 1995, which was reported to the House on March 23, 1995.
    For the legislative history of H.R. 1217, see the discussion of
    that bill in this section.

          budgetary effects of the growth of health care entitlements

        On March 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on the budgetary effects of the
    growth of health care entitlements, specifically Medicare and
    Medicaid. Witnesses included Members of Congress and
    representatives of health policy institutes and health care
    associations. Testimony received at the hearing assisted the
    Committee in the development of both H.R. 2425, the Medicare
    Preservation Act of 1995, which passed the House on October 19,
    1995, and the legislative language included in H.R. 2491, the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as it related to the restructuring
    of the Medicaid Program. For the legislative history of H.R.
    2425 and H.R. 2491, see the discussions of those bills in this
    section.

                   reauthorization of the ryan white care act

        On April 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on proposals to reuthorize the Ryan
    White CARE Act. Witnesses included Members of Congress and
    representatives of the Department of Health and Human Services,
    the General Accounting Office, State Health Departments, and
    various AIDS organizations. Testimony received at the hearing
    assisted the Committee in the development and enactment of
    legislation to reauthorize and amend the Ryan White CARE Act
    (H.R. 1872; P.L. 104-146). For the legislative history of H.R.
    1872, see the discussion of that bill in this section.

                        hiv testing in women and infants

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on May 11, 1995, on HIV testing of pregnant women and infants.
    Witnesses included representatives from the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health
    (NIH), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
    the American Academy of Pediatricians, and AIDS advocacy
    groups. The witnesses provided the Subcommittee with their
    recommendations regarding HIV testing for women and infants and
    the use of AZT in pregnant women to prevent HIV transmission.
    As a result of the hearing, provisions were included in H.R.
    1872, the Ryan White Care Act reauthorization, regarding HIV
    testing of newborns. For the legislative history of H.R. 1872,
    see the discussion of that bill in this section.

                waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare program

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held 2 days of
    joint hearings with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations on waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare
    Program. The first hearing was held on May 16, 1995. Witnesses
    on the first panel testified to the extent waste, fraud, and
    abuse are prevalent in the program and cited specific examples.
    The second panel included representatives from the Department
    of Health and Human Services Inspector General's Office, the
    General Accounting Office, and the Federal Bureau of
    Investigations. Each witness testified to the efforts being
    conducted to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, but also stated
    why the Medicare Program is so vulnerable to waste, fraud, and
    abuse.
        The second hearing was held on July 19, 1995. The first
    witness had previously pled guilty to defrauding the Medicare
    Program. He testified to his particular crime, how he
    accomplished it, and how the system has numerous
    vulnerabilities that allow such fraud to occur. The second
    panel consisted of the Inspector General for the Department of
    Health and Human Services, and representatives from the General
    Accounting Office. The Inspector General (IG) testified to
    specific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse and also explained
    how the Medicare Program could save money if the Health Care
    Financing Administration implemented the annual cost saving
    suggestions that the IG's office proposed. Representatives from
    the General Accounting Office testified to the Health Care
    Financing Administration's inherent vulnerabilities for
    combating fraud. Also, the results of an investigation of fraud
    by a specific company were reported. The Senior Advisor to the
    Administrator for Program Integrity, Health Care Financing
    Administration, sat on the last panel. The Senior Advisor
    testified to the efforts that the Health Care Financing
    Administration is undertaking to combat waste, fraud, and abuse
    in the Medicare Program.
        As a result of Congressional concerns expressed in these
    and other hearings, provisions were included in both H.R. 2425,
    the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1995, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
    These provisions are intended to establish a comprehensive
    approach to the control of waste, fraud, and abuse in the
    health care arena. An account is established that dedicates
    funds generated from health care fraud fines and penalties to
    fund the investigation and prosecution of these matters.
    Sanctions available to be imposed against persons convicted of
    health care fraud are clarified and increased, as are civil
    monetary penalties available to prosecutors.
        Additionally, amendments to the criminal code expand the
    reach of Federal authority to attack a broader range of
    fraudulent activity and specifically allow criminal forfeiture
    in heath care fraud cases. Federal law is also expanded to
    include the following health care crimes: false statements,
    obstruction of criminal investigations, theft, and money
    laundering. Administrative subpoena authority is expanded to
    allow the Attorney General greater flexibility in obtaining
    documents sought during the investigative process. The State
    health care fraud control units' authority is also expanded.
    Moreover, a beneficiary incentive system is established to
    increase the collection of information from beneficiaries
    concerning fraud and abuse being perpetrated.
        Procedures are established for the publication of safe
    harbors, special fraud alerts, and interpretive rulings.
    Individuals convicted of health care related felonies and
    substance abuse felonies are mandatorily excluded from
    participation in the Medicare and State health care programs.
    Permissive exclusion, as well as intermediate sanctions, are
    also expanded. Finally, the conversion of assets for the
    purpose of becoming eligible for health care benefits is made a
    felony.
        For the legislative history of H.R. 2425 and H.R. 2491, see
    the discussions of the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 (H.R.
    2425) and the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491) in this
    section.

                     transformation of the medicaid program

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held 6 days of
    hearings on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program and
    related issues during the 104th Congress. The focus of these
    hearings was to review the performance and alleged problems
    associated with the Medicaid Program and examine options for
    reform.
        The Subcommittee's June 8, 1995, hearing focused on the
    fiscal impact of the Medicaid Program on the States. The
    hearing explored how State budgets have been affected by the
    Medicaid program's expenditure growth and how States have
    sought to respond to the resulting fiscal pressures. Offering
    testimony at the hearing were Governor Jim Edgar of Illinois,
    Governor Don Sundquist of Tennessee, Governor John Engler of
    Michigan, Governor Mike Leavitt of Utah, and Governor Lawton
    Chiles of Florida.
        A June 15, 1995, hearing focused on the Vaccines for
    Children (VFC) program. The hearing explored the history of the
    program, including its ability to increase the number of
    children vaccinated, the costs associated with this effort, and
    the manner in which the objective of universal childhood
    vaccination was undertaken. Testimony offered by
    representatives of the General Accounting Office focused on a
    recently published report calling the efficacy and efficiency
    of VFC into question. Other witnesses, including some State
    health officials, supported the program.
        On June 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a third hearing which focused on the recent
    past history of the Medicaid Program. The hearing explored the
    evolution of expanded coverage provided by the program, the
    growth in costs associated with that expansion and other
    factors, and the Federal government's efforts to stem the
    growth in Medicaid expenditures, including the expedited
    approval of Section 1115 waiver applications submitted by
    States. Testimony was offered by current and former
    Administrators of the Health Care Financing Administration
    (HCFA), as well as by the Congressional Budget Office.
        The Subcommittee's June 22, 1995, hearing continued the
    focus on Medicaid financing, the Section 1115 waiver process,
    and State experiences with Medicaid expenditure growth.
    Testimony relating to these issues was offered by the HCFA
    Director of the Medicaid Bureau and Health and Human Services
    Secretaries or Medicaid Directors representing the States of
    California, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin. In
    addition, testimony was received from the General Accounting
    Office relating to its study of State responses to Medicaid
    cost pressure.
        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a fifth
    hearing on July 26, 1995, which focused on State efforts to
    improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the
    medical assistance programs they administer. The hearing
    explored Medicaid innovations undertaken by a number of States
    and health plans, as well as the program changes that would be
    necessary to expand the scope of such efforts nationwide.
    Testimony was received from Governor Fife Symington of Arizona,
    Attorney General Charles Condon of South Carolina, Health and
    Human Resources Secretary Kay James of Virginia, and other
    State and health plan officials. The Administration's
    perspective was offered by Mr. Bruce Vladeck, the Administrator
    of HCFA.
        The Subcommittee's August 1, 1995, hearing focused on a
    variety of perspectives on the Medicaid program and its reform.
    Testimony was received from advocacy organizations representing
    children, the disabled, the elderly, and health care providers.
    Testimony was also offered by policy experts representing the
    American Public Welfare Association and the Henry J. Kaiser
    Family Foundation.
        Testimony received at these hearings assisted the Committee
    in the development of the legislative language included in H.R.
    2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as it related to the
    restructuring of the Medicaid Program. For the legislative
    history of H.R. 2491, see the discussions of that bill in this
    section.

                       the future of the medicare program

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held 4 days of
    hearings on the Future of the Medicare Program and related
    issues during the 104th Congress. The focus of these hearings
    was to review the performance and alleged problems associated
    with the Medicare program and examine options for reform.
        On June 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held the first hearing, which focused on the growth
    of Medicare spending in the portions of the Medicare Program
    under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. Witnesses
    included representatives from the General Accounting Office,
    health commissions and associations, and policy institutes.
        On July 12, 1995, the Subcommittee's second hearing focused
    on Medicare's payment policies for risk-based health
    maintenance organizations (HMOs). Witnesses included
    representatives from the Health Care Financing Administration
    (HCFA), the General Accounting Office (GAO), Health Care
    Commissions, and private organizations.
        The Subcommittee held the third hearing on July 18, 1995,
    focusing on proposals to reform the Medicare Program. Witnesses
    included representatives from the Department of Health and
    Human Services (HHS), health associations, and Medicare
    coalitions.
        On August 3, 1995, the Subcommittee held the fourth hearing
    focusing on proposals to reform the Medicare Program, as well
    as Medicare issues in reconciliation. Witnesses included
    representatives from health associations, community groups,
    policy institutes, and medical laboratories.
        Testimony received at these hearings assisted the Committee
    in the development of both H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation
    Act of 1995, which passed the House on October 19, 1995, and
    the legislative language included in H.R. 2491, the Balanced
    Budget Act of 1995, as it related to the reforming the Medicare
    Program. For the legislative history of H.R. 2425 and H.R.
    2491, see the discussions of those bills in this section.

      research efforts with respect to combating parkinson's disease and
                          other neurological disorders

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on July 21, 1995, on research efforts on Parkinson's Disease
    and other neurological disorders. The purpose of the hearing
    was to receive testimony on research on Parkinson's Disease,
    Alzheimer's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Amyotrophic Lateral
    Sclerosis, and stroke. Witnesses included representatives from
    the National Institutes of Health, renowned scientists in each
    of the diseases, and individuals who suffer from these
    diseases.

     standards for health plans providing coverage in the medicare program

        On July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a joint hearing with the Ways and Means
    Committee Subcommittee on Health on standards for health plans
    providing coverage in the Medicare Program. The purpose of the
    hearing was to examine the full range of standards currently
    applied in the health care system, both public and private,
    with an emphasis on the unique needs and requirements of the
    Medicare Program, and whether additional health plans might
    seek to participate in the Medicare Program if additional
    options were provided. Witnesses included representatives from
    the General Accounting Office (GAO), hospital and physician
    networks, and private organizations. Testimony received at the
    hearing assisted the Committee in the development of both H.R.
    2425, the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, which passed the
    House on October 19, 1995, and the legislative language
    included in H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as it
    related to the reforming the Medicare Program. For the
    legislative history of H.R. 2425 and H.R. 2491, see the
    discussions of those bills in this section.

    implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990:
                 title i--air quality and emission limitations

        On November 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations on the implementation and
    enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This
    hearing focused on the setting of the form and level of the
    National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone contained in
    Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments. Testimony was received
    from the Environmental Protection Agency, the States of
    Michigan and Texas, an economist, a medical and a scientific
    expert.
        In examining the level of the standard, the Subcommittees
    heard testimony about possible alternative levels of the
    standard. These alternative levels ranged from .07 ppm to .09
    ppm averaged over an 8 hour period, as opposed to the present
    standard of .12 ppm averaged over a 1 hour period. The
    Subcommittees also examined whether cost/benefit analysis
    should explicitly be part of the setting of the level of the
    standard. In addition, the Subcommittees heard testimony as to
    whether the form of the standard accurately reflects the
    concentration of ozone in a given nonattainment area.

    title vi of the clean air act and the impact of the seventh meeting of
                      the parties to the montreal protocol

        On January 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing to assess the impact of the December
    1995, Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in
    Vienna, Austria. The Subcommittee received testimony from Rafe
    Pomerance, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and
    Development, Department of State; Lawrence Ellworth, Special
    Assistant, Pesticide Policy, Natural Resources and Environment,
    Department of Agriculture; and Mary D. Nichols, Assistant
    Administrator for Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        The Montreal Protocol is the international agreement
    providing for the phaseout of production and consumption of
    substances which are thought to deplete the stratospheric ozone
    layer. At the December 1995, Meeting of the Parties to the
    Montreal Protocol, several decisions were undertaken to provide
    for an acceleration of the developed nation phaseout date for
    hydrochloroflourocarbons (HCFCs) and for a decrease in the
    ``cap'' on allowable consumption of HCFCs and for a developed
    nation phaseout schedule for methyl bromide, along with a
    developing nation prospective ``freeze'' on production and
    consumption of methyl bromide.
        The Subcommittee examined several issues during its hearing
    including representations that had been made to the Committee
    prior to the December 1995, meeting by the Department of State
    and the Environmental Protection Agency that the U.S.
    delegation would work to preserve the ``status quo'' regarding
    HCFCs. In addition, Members of the Subcommittee questioned
    Administration witnesses on the content and balance of the
    agreements reached on methyl bromide. In particular, Members of
    the Subcommittee noted that most developing countries were not
    bound to any prospective freeze on methyl bromide since most
    developing countries had failed to ratify the 1992 Copenhagen
    Amendments to the Protocol. In addition, the disparity in
    commitments between developed countries (subject to a 25
    percent reduction in methyl bromide production and consumption
    in 2001, a 50 percent reduction in 2005 and a 100 percent
    reduction in 2010) and developing countries (who are only
    subject to a freeze, implemented in 2002, based on 1995-1998
    levels) was criticized since such disparity could have an
    adverse impact on U.S. agricultural trade.

         priorities for reauthorization of the safe drinking water act

        On January 31, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on priorities for reauthorization of
    the Safe Drinking Water Act. Testimony was received from
    Members of Congress; the Assistant Administrator, Office of
    Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and from
    representatives of the National Governors Association, the
    National League of Cities, the Association of State Drinking
    Water Administrators, the American Water Works Association, the
    Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National
    Association of Water Companies, the National Rural Water
    Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
        Testimony received at the hearing assisted the Committee in
    the development and enactment of legislation to reauthorize and
    amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (H.R. 3604; P.L. 104-182).
    For the legislative history of H.R. 3604, see the discussion of
    that bill in this section.

                            the need for fda reform

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on February 27, 1996, on The Need for FDA Reform. Testimony was
    received from patients, medical experts, animal health experts,
    nutrition experts, and industry representatives on a range of
    concerns including: problems of slow access to new products,
    restrictions on access to information about certain medical
    treatments, and the loss of U.S. technology and jobs to other
    countries. Witnesses claimed that FDA is inefficient in the way
    it conducts its activities because of unnecessary statutory
    requirements, problems with agency management, and unnecessary
    caution.
        As a result of the testimony received at that hearing,
    three bills were introduced in the House: (1) H.R. 3199, the
    Drug and Biological Products Reform Act of 1996; (2) H.R. 3200,
    the Food Amendments and Animal Drugs Availability Act of 1996;
    and (3) H.R. 3201, the Medical Device Reform Act of 1996. The
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment held legislative
    hearings on these three bills on May 1 and May 2, 1996. For the
    legislative history of the H.R. 3199, H.R. 3200, and H.R. 3201,
    see the discussion of those bills in this section.

     health care reform: reforming the small business marketplace and the
                       individual health insurance market

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held an
    oversight hearing on March 7, 1996, on health care reform and
    the problems of the small business marketplace and the
    individual health insurance market. The purpose of this hearing
    was to focus on the national problem of the small business
    market and its concentration of uninsured workers and their
    families. Witnesses included officials from the health
    insurance industry and private sector businesses.
        Forty-eight percent of uncovered workers are employed by
    businesses with fewer than 25 employees. Over the past decade,
    the small business group market for health insurance has
    evolved gradually away from cross-subsidization of the costs of
    health insurance coverage. For many years, health insurers used
    community rating systems for small businesses in which low-risk
    individuals and groups subsidized the costs of higher risk
    segments. Therefore, with community rating, everyone paid the
    same price for insurance coverage. Today, due to competitive
    pressures in the marketplace, community rating, is being
    replaced by experience rating, in which a group or individual
    pays according to risk determined by medical underwriting. With
    experience rating, some groups and individuals pay higher rates
    or cannot find coverage at all. Consequently, classifications
    of risk have reduced the degree of cross-subsidy in the cost of
    health insurance.
        Testimony received at the hearing assisted the Committee in
    the development of both H.R. 3070, the Health Coverage
    Availability and Affordability Act of 1996, which was reported
    to the House on March 25, 1996, and H.R. 3103, the Health
    Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which was
    enacted into law (P.L. 104-191). For the legislative history of
    H.R. 3070 and H.R. 3101, see the discussions of the Health
    Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 in this
    section.

             contract issues and quality standards for managed care

        On May 30, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    held a hearing on contract provisions that providers claim
    restrict their ability to communicate openly with their
    patients regarding medical treatment, commonly known as ``gag
    clauses.'' Witnesses included representatives from insurance
    groups, medical associations, health care organizations, and
    individuals.
        Testimony received at the hearing assisted the Committee
    during its consideration of H.R. 2976, the Patient Right to
    Know Act of 1996, which was reported to the House on September
    28, 1996. For the legislative history of H.R. 2976, see the
    discussion of the Patient Right to Know Act of 1996 in this
    section.

         reauthorization of existing public health service act programs

        On August 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on reauthorization of programs under
    the Public Health Service Act. Programs examined were Community
    Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the
    Homeless, Health Services for Residents of Public Housing, and
    programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration (SAMHSA). Witnesses included representatives
    from Health and Human Services (HHS), health networks,
    community groups, and State directors for alcohol/drug abuse
    and mental health.
        Testimony received at the hearing provided the Committee
    with valuable information during House consideration of S.
    1044, the Health Centers Consolidation Act of 1996, which was
    enacted into law as P.L. 104-299. For the legislative history
    of S. 1044, see the discussions of the Health Centers
    Consolidation Act of 1996 in this section.

                                 Hearings Held

        Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis for New
    Regulations.--Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials on Title III, Risk Assessment
    and Cost/Benefit Analysis for New Regulations, of H.R. 9, the
    Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. Hearing held on
    February 1, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-3.
        Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis for New
    Regulations.--Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Trade, and Hazardous Materials on Title III, Risk Assessment
    and Cost/Benefit Analysis for New Regulations, of H.R. 9, the
    Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. Hearing held on
    February 2, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-3.
        Medicare Select and Medicare Managed Care Issues.--
    Oversight Hearing on the Medicare Select Program and Issues
    Related to Managed Care. Hearing held on February 15, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-6.
        Medicare Extenders in the President's Fiscal Year 1996
    Budget.--Oversight Hearing on Medicare Extenders in the
    President's Fiscal Year 1996 Budget. Hearing held on March 14,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-11.
        Budgetary Effects of the Growth of Health Care
    Entitlements.--Oversight Hearing on the Budgetary Effects of
    the Growth of Health Care Entitlements. Hearing held on March
    28, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-17.
        Reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act.
    Hearing held on April 5, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-19.
        HIV Testing of Women and Infants.--Oversight Hearing on HIV
    testing of Women and Infants. Hearing held on May 11, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-22.
        Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Medicare Program.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Medicare
    Program. Hearing held on May 16, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-21.
        Food Quality Protection Act of 1995.--Hearing on H.R. 1627,
    the Food Quality Protection Act of 1995. Hearing held on June
    7, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-76.
        Transformation of the Medicaid Program--Part 1.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program. Hearing
    held on June 8, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-106.
        Transformation of the Medicaid Program--Part 1.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program. Hearing
    held on June 15, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-106.
        Transformation of the Medicaid Program--Part 2.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program. Hearing
    held on June 21, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-107.
        Transformation of the Medicaid Program--Part 2.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program. Hearing
    held on June 22, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-107.
        The Future of the Medicare Program.--Oversight Hearing on
    The Future of the Medicare Program. Hearing held on June 28,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-72.
        Food Quality Protection Act of 1995.--Hearing on H.R. 1627,
    the Food Quality Protection Act of 1995. Hearing held on June
    29, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-76.
        The Future of the Medicare Program.--Oversight Hearing on
    The Future of the Medicare Program. Hearing held on July 12,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-72.
        The Future of the Medicare Program.--Oversight Hearing on
    The Future of the Medicare Program. Hearing held on July 18,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-72.
        Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Medicare Program.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations on Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Medicare
    Program. Hearing held on July 19, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-26.
        Research Efforts with Respect to Combating Parkinson's
    Disease and Other Neurological Disorders.--Oversight Hearing on
    Research Efforts with Respect to Combating Parkinson's Disease
    and Other Neurological Disorders. Hearing held on July 21,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-68.
        Transformation of the Medicaid Program--Part 3.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program. Hearing
    held on July 26, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-108.
        Standards for Health Plans Providing Coverage in the
    Medicare Program.--Joint Oversight Hearing with the Committee
    on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health on Standards for
    Health Plans Providing Coverage in the Medicare Program.
    Hearing held on July 27, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-71.
        Transformation of the Medicaid Program--Part 3.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Transformation of the Medicaid Program. Hearing
    held on August 1, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-107.
        The Future of the Medicare Program.--Oversight Hearing on
    The Future of the Medicare Program. Hearing held on August 3,
    1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-72.
        Clean Air Act Amendments.--Joint Oversight Hearing with the
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the
    Implementation and Enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments
    of 1990, focusing on Title I, National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards. Hearing held on November 9, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-55.
        Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Impact of the
    Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.--
    Oversight Hearing held on Title VI of the Clean Air Act and the
    Impact of the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal
    Protocol. Hearing held on January 25, 1996. PRINTED Serial
    Number 104-69.
        Priorities for the Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking
    Water Act.--Oversight Hearing held on the Priorities for
    Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Hearing held on
    January 31, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-57.
        The Need for FDA Reform.--Oversight Hearing on the Need for
    FDA Reform. Hearing held on February 27, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-77.
        Health Care Reform: Reforming the Small Business
    Marketplace and the Individual Health Insurance Market.--
    Oversight Hearing on Health Care Reform: Reforming the Small
    Business Marketplace and the Individual Health Insurance
    Market. Hearing held on March 7, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-79.
        FDA Reform Legislation.--Hearing on H.R. 3199, the Drug and
    Biological Products Reform Act of 1996; H.R. 3200, the Food
    Amendments and Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996; and H.R.
    3201, the Medical Device Reform Act of 1996. Hearing held on
    May 1, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-99.
        FDA Reform Legislation.--Hearing on H.R. 3199, the Drug and
    Biological Products Reform Act of 1996; H.R. 3200, the Food
    Amendments and Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996; and H.R.
    3201, the Medical Device Reform Act of 1996. Hearing held on
    May 2, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-99.
        Contract Issues and Quality Standards for Managed Care.--
    Oversight Hearing on Contract Issues and Quality Standards for
    Managed Care. Hearing held on May 30, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-110.
        Reauthorization of Existing Public Health Service Act
    Programs.--Oversight Hearing on the Reauthorization of Existing
    Public Health Services Act Programs. Hearing held on August 1,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-116.
        The Uniformed Services Medicare Subvention Demonstration
    Project Act.--Hearing on H.R. 3142, the Uniformed Services
    Medicare Subvention Demonstration Project Act, and the Military
    Beneficiaries Medicare Reimbursement Model Project Act of 1996.
    Hearing held on September 19, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    115.
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power
               (Ratio 14-11)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia                 Vice Chairman
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRED UPTON, Michigan
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy,
    renewable energy resources and synthetic fuels; energy conservation;
    energy regulation and utilization; utility issues and regulation of
    nuclear facilities; nuclear energy and waste; mining, oil, gas, and
    coal combustion wastes; all laws, programs, and government activities
    affecting such matters.

                             Legislative Activities

           alaska power administration asset sale and termination act

                 Public Law 104-58 (S. 395, H.R. 70, H.R. 1122)

        To authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the
    Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of
    Alaskan North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of S. 395 is to authorize and direct the
    Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration and
    authorize exports of Alaskan North Slope crude oil.

    Title I--Alaska Power Administration Asset Sale and Termination Act

        S. 395 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to
    sell and transfer two hydroelectric projects in Alaska pursuant
    to a Purchase Agreement entered into between the Alaska Power
    Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy and the State
    of Alaska and a Purchase Agreement entered into between the
    Alaska Power Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy
    and the Eklutna Purchasers. S. 395 provides an exemption from
    the Federal Power Act for the two projects. S. 395 creates an
    enforcement mechanism for the Memorandum of Understanding
    regarding the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife.
    S. 395 provides for termination of the Alaska Power
    Administration of the Department of Energy.

    Title II--Exports of Alaskan North Slope Oil

        S. 395 also amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    and the Export Administration Act to allow crude oil
    transported through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to be exported.

    Legislative History

        On April 27, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported S. 395 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    78). The Senate considered S. 395 on May 15 and May 16, 1995,
    and passed the bill on May 16, 1995, by a roll call vote of 74
    yeas to 25 nays. S. 395 was received in the House and held at
    the Speaker's desk on May 18, 1995. As passed by the Senate, S.
    395 included provisions dealing with both the export of Alaskan
    North Slope oil and the sale of the Alaska Power
    Administration.
        H.R. 70 was introduced in the House on January 5, 1995, by
    Mr. Thomas, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Rohrbacher, Mr. Doolittle,
    Mr. Dooley, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. Archer. The purpose of the
    bill was to permit exports of certain domestically produced
    crude oil. H.R. 70 was referred to the Committee on Resources,
    and in addition to the Committee on International Relations. On
    June 15, 1995, the Committee on Resources reported H.R. 70 to
    the House (H. Rpt. 104-139, Part 1). Referral of the bill to
    the Committee on International Relations was extended for a
    period ending not later than June 15, 1995. On June 15, 1995,
    the Committee on International Relations was discharged from
    further consideration of H.R. 70.
        The Committee on Resources also reported to the House H.R.
    1122, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act, on July 13,
    1995 (H. Rpt. 104-187, Part 1). This bill was introduced in the
    House on March 3, 1995, and referred to the Committee on
    Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. For
    the legislative history of H.R. 1122, see the discussion of the
    Alaska Power Administration Sale Act in this section.
        During the Resources Committee's consideration of H.R. 70,
    the Committee on Commerce worked with the Resources Committee
    to develop legislative language to address concerns about
    provisions of the bill that fell within the Committee on
    Commerce's jurisdiction. As a result of these negotiations, an
    agreement was reached on changes which would be offered as a
    Floor amendment to H.R. 70. On June 14, 1995, the Chairman of
    the Committee on Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of the
    Committee on Resources indicating that, based on the agreement
    reached between the two Committees and in order to expedite
    consideration, the Commerce Committee would not seek a
    sequential referral of H.R. 70. On June 20, 1995, the Chairman
    of the Committee on Commerce sent a letter to the Chairman of
    the Rules Committee supporting the request for a rule on H.R.
    70 and a link-up provision with S. 395 that would allow its
    passage following House action on H.R. 70.
        The Chairman of the Committee on Resources, in response,
    sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction and
    pledging to support the Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives
    as H.R. 70 and S. 395 proceeded through the legislative
    process.
        On July 24, 1995, the House passed H.R. 70, as amended, by
    a roll call vote of 324 yeas to 77 nays. On July 25, the House,
    by a voice vote, passed S. 395, amended with the text of H.R.
    70, as passed by the House. The House insisted upon its
    amendments, requested a conference with the Senate, and
    appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce were
    appointed as conferees. The Senate disagreed to the House
    amendments, agreed to a conference with the House, and
    appointed conferees on August 5, 1995.
        Conference meetings were held on September 29, 1995, and
    November 6, 1995. The conferees agreed to file a conference
    report on November 6, 1995, and the conference report was filed
    in the House that day (H. Rpt. 104-312). In addition to
    amendments to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act, the conference
    report included provisions relating to the sale of assets of
    the Alaska Power Administration, which were similar to those
    contained in H.R. 1122, the Alaska Power Administration Sale
    Act, which had been referred to the Committee on Resources, and
    in addition to the Committee on Commerce. The House agreed to
    the conference report on November 8, 1995, by a roll call vote
    of 289 yeas to 134 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference
    report on November 14, 1995, by a roll call vote of 69 yeas to
    29 nays. S. 395 was presented to the President on November 16,
    1995. The President signed S. 395 into law on November 28, 1995
    (P.L. 104-58).

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

                    Public Law 104-106 (S. 1124, H.R. 1530)

                          (Energy Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, to reform acquisition laws and
    information technology management of the Federal government,
    and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-106 includes a number of provisions which
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    including several dealing with energy related issues. Although
    Members of the Committee on Commerce were not appointed as
    conferees on S. 1124, they were appointed as conferees on H.R.
    1530, the predecessor legislation to S. 1124 which was vetoed
    by the President, for these provisions and participated in the
    negotiations which led to the agreements ultimately contained
    in Public Law 104-106.
        Section 4304 of Public Law 104-106 affects provisions of
    the Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91, as
    amended) and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-
    163, as amended) under the jurisdiction of the Committee. The
    section repeals certain ethics reporting requirements made
    obsolete by the Ethics in Government Act (P.L. 95-521, as
    amended).
        Section 3157 of Public Law 104-106 includes a ``Sense of
    Congress'' resolution that individuals should not be personally
    subject to a civil or criminal sanction for failure to comply
    with an environmental cleanup requirement under the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 89-272, as amended) or the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act (P.L. 96-510, as amended) where the failure to
    comply is due to lack of funds requested or appropriated to
    carry out such requirement. This section clearly involves
    statutes under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
        Section 3161 of Public Law 104-106 was added during Senate
    consideration and extends the authorization for assistance
    payments to the Los Alamos School Board and Los Alamos County
    in New Mexico under the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955
    (chap. 543, 69 stat. 471), a statute under the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on Commerce.
        Sections 3401 through 3416 of Public Law 104-106 contain a
    provision to sell, to the highest bidder above the minimum
    acceptable bid, the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 1 located at
    Elk Hills, California, by the end of Fiscal Year 1996. This
    language is similar to the language agreed to by the Committee
    on Commerce as part of the Committee Print entitled ``Naval
    Petroleum Reserve'' on September 13, 1995.

    Legislative History

        On August 7, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    reported S. 1124 to the Senate as an original measure (No
    Written Report).
        On September 6, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1530, and the Senate then passed H.R. 1530, amended with the
    text of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote
    of 64 yeas to 34 nays. Further action on S. 1026 was
    indefinitely postponed. Following the passage of H.R. 1530, the
    Senate, by unanimous consent, proceeded to the immediate
    consideration of S. 1124 and passed the bill amended with the
    text of Division A of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate. S.
    1124 was received in the House on September 14, 1995, and held
    at the Speaker's desk. For the legislative history of H.R.
    1530, see the discussion of that bill in this section.
        On December 30, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 1530. The
    House failed to override the veto on January 3, 1996, by a roll
    call vote of 240 yeas to 156 nays. On January 5, 1996, the
    House then took S. 1124 from the Speaker's desk by unanimous
    consent, and, by a voice vote, passed the bill amended with the
    text of H.R. 1530 as reported by the committee of conference on
    December 13, 1995, as contained in H. Rpt. 104-406. The House
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    Senate, and appointed conferees. Although Members of the
    Committee on Commerce had been appointed as conferees on H.R.
    1530, the predecessor legislation to S. 1124, they were not
    appointed conferees on S. 1124 because the issues within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce were resolved during
    the conference on H.R. 1530 and were not the subject of the
    President's veto of that bill.
        On January 5, 1996, the Senate disagreed to the House
    amendment to S. 1124, agreed to a conference with the House,
    and appointed conferees. Conference meetings were held on
    January 18 and January 19, 1996. On January 19, 1996, the
    conferees agreed to file a conference report. The conference
    report was filed in the House on January 22, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    450). The provisions of the conference report dealing with
    those issues under the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Commerce were identical to those contained in the conference
    report on H.R. 1530.
        The House agreed to the conference report on January 24,
    1996, by a roll call vote of 287 yeas to 129 nays. The Senate
    agreed to the conference report on January 26, 1996, by a roll
    call vote of 56 yeas to 34 nays. On January 30, 1996, S. 1124
    was presented to the President. On February 10, 1996, the
    President signed S. 1124 into law (P.L. 104-106).

                 contract with america advancement act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-121 (H.R. 3136, H.R. 994)

        To provide for enactment of the Senior Citizens' Right to
    Work Act of 1996, the Line Item Veto Act, and the Small
    Business Growth and Fairness Act of 1996, and to provide for a
    permanent increase in the public debt limit.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement
    Act of 1996, is a three-title bill which includes: (1)
    provisions concerning regulatory reform and Congressional
    review of rulemaking activities by Federal departments and
    agencies, including those under the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce; and (2) provisions relating to health
    issues.
        Title I of H.R. 3136, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act
    of 1996, amends Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA) to
    allow persons of retirement age to increase their earnings
    under the earnings limits set by the SSA.
        Title I includes a provision under the Commerce Committee's
    jurisdiction which directs the Commissioner of Social Security
    to: (1) ensure that funds made available for continuing
    disability reviews are used, to the greatest extent
    practicable, to maximize the combined savings in the Old-Age,
    Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI), Supplemental
    Security Income (SSI), Medicare, and Medicaid programs; and (2)
    provide annually, at the conclusion of each of the 7 years from
    Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2002, a report to Congress
    on continuing disability reviews that includes the results of
    such reviews in terms of cessations of benefits or
    determinations of continuing eligibility, by program.
        Title II of H.R. 3136, the Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, provides regulatory reform
    for small businesses, as defined in Title II, and Congressional
    review of Federal agency rules. The major provisions of Title
    II are as follows:

    (1) requires agencies to provide increased compliance
            assistance to small businesses;
    (2) requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to
            designate a ``Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
            Enforcement Ombudsman'' to provide a confidential
            channel for audited small businesses to comment on such
            procedures;
    (3) requires the SBA to establish regional ``Small Business
            Regulatory Fairness Boards'' to report to the
            Ombudsman;
    (4) allows administrative and judicial courts to award fees and
            costs to small businesses if the judgment demanded by
            an agency is substantially in excess of that awarded;
    (5) amends the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require an
            analysis by the promulgating agency of the effects of a
            rule on small businesses; and
    (6) lays out a framework for Congressional review of newly
            promulgated agency rules.
        This legislation will require the Subcommittee on Energy
    and Power to review recently promulgated rules by the Federal
    agencies and departments within its jurisdiction, including the
    Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
    and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
        Title III of H.R. 3136, Public Debt Limit, raises the
    public debt limit to $5.5 trillion.

    Legislative History

        On February 21, 1995, H.R. 994, the Regulatory Sunset and
    Review Act of 1995, was introduced in the House by
    Representatives Chapman, Mica, DeLay, Deal of Georgia, and
    Geren of Texas. The bill was referred to the Committee on
    Government Reform and Oversight, and in addition to the
    Committee on the Judiciary.
        On October 19, 1995, the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part
    1). The referral of the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary
    was extended for a period ending not later than November 3,
    1995. On October 26, 1995, H.R. 994, as reported by the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce, sequentially, for a period ending
    not later than November 3, 1995.
        On October 25, 1995, the Committee on Commerce scheduled a
    Full Committee hearing on H.R. 994. On October 30, 1995, the
    Full Committee hearing was cancelled because of scheduling
    conflicts. In lieu of the Full Committee hearing, the Committee
    conducted a briefing on November 3, 1995, at which
    representatives of the Office of Management and Budget, the
    Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission, the Department of Energy, the Department of
    Transportation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission, and the
    Food and Drug Administration presented the views of their
    respective departments and agencies on the impact of, and
    concerns with, the provisions of H.R. 994, as reported to the
    House by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
        On November 3, 1995, the referral of H.R. 994 to the
    Committee on the Judiciary was extended for a period ending not
    later than November 7, 1995. On November 3, 1995, the Committee
    on Commerce was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    994. On November 7, 1995, the Committee on the Judiciary
    reported H.R. 994 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-284, Part 2). On
    February 29, 1996, the Rules Committee met and granted a rule
    providing for the consideration of H.R. 994. The rule was filed
    in the House as H. Res. 368 on February 29, 1996. H. Res. 368
    made in order, as an original bill for purposes of amendment,
    an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to be offered by Mr.
    Hyde and printed in the Congressional Record (Printed in the
    Congressional Record on February 29, 1996.) On April 17, 1996,
    H. Res. 368 was laid on the table by unanimous consent.
        On March 21, 1996, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 3136 in the
    House. H.R. 3136 contained language similar to H.R. 994. As
    introduced in the House, Title II, Subtitles A through D, of
    H.R. 3136 aimed to achieve the same goal as Sections 102 and
    103 of H.R. 994, as scheduled for consideration by the House
    under the provisions of H. Res. 368. The goal of Sections 102
    and 103, ``Rules Commented on by SBA Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy'' and ``Sense of Congress Regarding SBA Chief Counsel
    for Advocacy,'' respectively, was to achieve a streamlined and
    effective regulatory process for small businesses.
    Additionally, Subtitle E of Title II of H.R. 3136,
    ``Congressional Review,'' contains only one section, Section
    807, that differs from Title III of H.R. 994, as scheduled for
    consideration by the House.
        H.R. 3136 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, the Committee
    on Rules, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
    Small Business, and the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight.
        On March 27, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3136. The rule was
    filed in the House on March 27, 1996 as H. Res. 391 (H. Rpt.
    104-500). On March 28, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 391 by a
    roll call vote of 232 yeas to 177 nays. H. Res. 391 provided,
    among other things, that amendments printed in the Committee
    report on H. Res. 391 shall be considered as adopted.
        The House considered H.R. 3136 on March 28, 1996, and
    passed the bill, by a roll call vote of 328 yeas to 91 nays. On
    March 28, 1996, H.R. 3136 was received in the Senate. The
    Senate proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3136 on
    March 28, 1996, and passed the bill without amendment.
        On March 29, 1996, H.R. 3136 was presented to the
    President. The President signed H.R. 3136 into law on March 29,
    1996 (P.L. 104-121).

        omnibus consolidated rescissions and appropriations act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-134 (H.R. 3019)

                          (Energy Related Provisions)

        Making appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 to make a
    further downpayment toward a balanced budget, and for other
    purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 3019 served as an omnibus continuing appropriations
    measure for those Federal agencies which did not have
    individual Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations measures enacted
    into law. Affected agencies and entities included the
    Departments of Justice, Commerce, State, Labor, Health and
    Human Services, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and
    Urban Development. Independent agencies such as the
    Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the District of
    Columbia, were also funded by the bill. Additionally, a number
    of legislative provisions, some affecting the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on Commerce, were included in H.R. 3019. The
    Committee on Commerce supported the inclusion of these
    provisions in H.R. 3019.
        Specifically, Public Law 104-134 includes provisions (Title
    III--Rescissions and Offsets, Chapter 1--Energy and Water
    Development, Subchapter A--United States Enrichment Corporation
    Privatization) relating to the privatization of the United
    States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). These provisions are
    similar to legislative language reported by the Committee on
    Commerce in H.R. 1216 and included in both H.R. 1215 and H.R.
    2491 as passed by the House. For the legislative history of
    those bills, see the discussions of H.R. 1216, H.R. 1215, and
    H.R. 2491 in this section.
        Section 3101 of Public Law 104-134 contains the short title
    of the subchapter. Section 3102 provides definitions for the
    purposes of USEC privatization. Section 3103 contains
    provisions authorizing the sale of the corporation, and
    directing that proceeds from the sale of the corporation be
    deposited in the U.S. Treasury.
        Section 3104 provides specific direction on the method of
    the sale of the corporation, ensuring that U.S. securities laws
    apply to the sale and allowing the Department of Treasury to
    block the sale if it determines that the sale will not provide
    maximum proceeds to the Treasury. Section 3105 contains
    provisions providing for the establishment of the private
    corporation. Section 3106 provides for the transfer of certain
    assets of USEC to the privatized corporation, including USEC
    monies currently held by the U.S. Treasury.
        Section 3107 contains provisions relating to the transfer
    of leases for DOE's gaseous diffusion facilities, including the
    division of responsibility for environmental remediation.
    Section 3108 provides for the transfer of contracts from USEC
    to the privatized corporation, including contracts for uranium
    enrichment activities and power purchase.
        Section 3109 contains provisions relating to the
    liabilities of the United States and the corporation upon
    privatization. Section 3110 provides for certain employee
    protections as USEC workers are moved to the privatized
    corporation. Section 3111 contains provisions on ownership
    limitations to ensure that current USEC employees do not
    unfairly benefit from their involvement in privatization
    activities.
        Section 3112 provides the conditions under which the DOE
    may engage in uranium activities, and establishes the framework
    for operation of the U.S.-Russian HEU Agreement under the
    privatized corporation. Section 3113 contains provisions
    reasserting the Federal government's ownership of low-level
    radioactive wastes associated with uranium enrichment
    activities. Section 3114 provides for USEC to have exclusive
    rights to commercialize its Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope
    Separation technology.
        Section 3115 provides for the application of certain laws,
    including the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Atomic
    Energy Act, the Energy Reorganization Act, and the Nation's
    antitrust laws. Section 3116 contains various amendments to the
    Atomic Energy Act. Section 3117 provides for conforming changes
    to other laws for the purposes of implementing the USEC
    Privatization Act.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3019 was introduced in the House on March 5, 1996, by
    Mr. Livingston and referred to the Committee on Appropriations,
    and in addition to the Committee on the Budget. On March 7,
    1996, the House passed H. Res. 372, a rule providing for
    immediate consideration of H.R. 3019 in the House. The House
    then considered and passed H.R. 3019 by a roll call vote of 209
    yeas to 206 nays.
        On March 11, 1996, H.R. 3019 was received in the Senate,
    read twice, and laid before the Senate. The Senate considered
    H.R. 3019 on March 11, March 12, March 13, March 14, March 15,
    March 18, and March 19, 1996. During Senate consideration, an
    amendment was adopted to incorporate USEC privatization
    provisions. On March 19, 1996, the Senate passed H.R. 3019,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 79 yeas to 21 nays. The Senate
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    House, and appointed conferees.
        On March 21, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3019, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Conference meetings were held on March
    21, March 27, March 28, March 29, and April 24, 1996; and on
    April 24, 1996, the conferees agreed to file a conference
    report. The conference report on H.R. 3019 was filed in the
    House on April 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-537). On that same date,
    the House agreed to the conference report by roll call vote of
    399 yeas to 25 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report
    on April 25, 1996 by a roll call vote of 88 yeas to 11 nays. On
    April 25, 1996, H.R. 3019 was presented to the President. On
    April 26, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3019 into law (P.L.
    104-134).

      extension of certain hydroelectric projects located in the state of
                                 west virginia

                 Public Law 104-173 (H.R. 1051, S. 359, S. 737)

        To provide for the extension of certain hydroelectric
    projects located in the State of West Virginia.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1051 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of two
    hydroelectric projects in West Virginia.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 1051 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for two projects for 6 years. According to project
    sponsors, construction has not commenced for lack of a power
    sales contract. A power sales contract is needed in order to
    secure project financing. H.R. 1051 does not ease the
    requirements of a license, but merely extends the period for
    commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On February 24, 1995, Mr. Mollohan introduced H.R. 1051.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
    1051 on October 18, 1995. Testimony was received from the
    General Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R.
    1051 on October 18, 1995, and the bill was approved for Full
    Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1051 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported,
    without amendment, by a voice vote, to the House. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1051 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-319).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 1051 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995. H.R. 1051, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on November 14, 1995, read
    twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On April 27, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 359, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-71). Similar legislative language was also
    included in S. 737, which was also reported to the Senate by
    the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 27, 1995
    (S. Rpt. 104-77).
        On July 25, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1051 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1051 was presented to
    the President on August 1, 1996. The President signed H.R. 1051
    into law on August 6, 1996 (P.L. 104-173).

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1997

                    Public Law 104-201 (H.R. 3230, S. 1745)

                          (Energy Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        Public Law 104-201 includes a number of provisions which
    fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
    including several dealing with energy related issues. Members
    of the Committee on Commerce were appointed as conferees on
    these provisions and participated in the negotiations which led
    to the agreements reflected in the public law.
        Section 2863 of Public Law 104-201 allows the Secretary of
    the Air Force to conduct an electricity distribution
    demonstration project at the Youngstown Air Reserve Station in
    Ohio. Specifically, this section allows a utility or other
    company to purchase or operate the base's electric distribution
    facilities consistent with existing State and Federal rates and
    regulations.
        Section 3173 of Public Law 104-201 gives the site managers
    at certain Department of Energy (DOE) facilities greater
    operational flexibility, and affects the implementation of
    environmental restoration at Department of Energy sites. These
    provisions implicate both the Department of Energy Organization
    Act (P.L. 95-91, as amended) and the various environmental
    statutes, including the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation and Liability Act (P.L. 96-510, as amended) under
    the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction. During original House
    consideration, as well as through conference negotiations, the
    Committee on Commerce worked to ensure responsible legislative
    language in the bill.
        Section 3174 of Public Law 104-201 relates to Department of
    Energy orders at DOE sites, and seeks to limit the negative
    bureaucratic and time-consuming effect such orders have on site
    operations. During original House consideration, as well as
    throughout conference negotiations, the Committee on Commerce
    supported inclusion of this language.
        Sections 3181-3191 (Division C--Department of Energy
    National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations,
    Title XXXI--Department of Energy National Security Programs,
    Subtitle F--Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act
    Amendments) of Public Law 104-201 were added during Senate
    consideration of the bill, and relate to the Waste Isolation
    Pilot Plant. The provisions are nearly identical to legislation
    reported to the House by the Committee on Commerce (H.R. 1663)
    on April 25, 1996, and seek to eliminate duplicative and
    outdated statutory language in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    Land Withdrawal Act (P.L. 102-579). During conference
    negotiations, the Committee worked to ensure that the language
    comported with the legislation already approved by the
    Committee on Commerce, and supported the inclusion of the final
    language in the conference report. For the legislative history
    of H.R. 1663, see the discussion of that bill in this section.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3230 was introduced in the House on April 15, 1996, by
    Mr. Spence and Mr. Dellums and referred to the Committee on
    National Security. On May 7, 1996, the Committee on National
    Security reported H.R. 3230 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-563). The
    House considered H.R. 3230 on May 14 and 15, 1996, and on May
    15, 1996, passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of
    272 yeas to 153 nays. On May 17, 1996, H.R. 3230 was received
    in the Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On May 13, 1996, the Senate Committee on Armed Forces
    reported a companion bill, S. 1745, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    267). On May 15, 1996, S. 1745 was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Intelligence, which reported the bill to the
    Senate on June 11, 1996 (S. Rpt. 104-278). The Senate
    considered S. 1745 on June 18, June 19, June 20, June 24, June
    25, June 26, June 27, June 28, and July 10, 1996. On July 10,
    1996, the Senate passed S. 1745 by a roll call vote of 68 yeas
    to 31 nays. The Senate, by unanimous consent, then took H.R.
    3230 from the Senate Calendar and passed the bill, amended with
    the text of S. 1745 as passed by the Senate. The Senate
    insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the
    House, and appointed conferees.
        On July 17, 1996, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 3230, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. The conference report on H.R. 3230
    was filed in the House on July 30, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-724). The
    House agreed to the conference report on August 1, 1996, by a
    roll call vote of 285 yeas to 132 nays. The Senate considered
    the conference report on September 9 and September 10, 1996,
    and agreed to the conference by a roll call vote of 73 yeas to
    26 nays on September 10, 1996.
        H.R. 3230 was presented to the President on September 13,
    1996. On September 23, 1996, the President signed H.R. 3230
    into law (P.L. 104-201.)

     construction of three hydroelectric projects in the state of arkansas

                 Public Law 104-241 (H.R. 657, S. 549, S. 737)

        To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects
    in the State of Arkansas.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 657 is to extend the statutory deadline
    for the commencement of construction of three hydroelectric
    projects in Arkansas.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 657 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for three projects for up to a maximum of three
    consecutive 2-year periods. According to project sponsors,
    construction has not commenced for lack of a power sales
    contract. A power sales contract is needed in order to secure
    project financing. H.R. 657 does not ease the requirements of a
    license, but merely extends the period for commencement of
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On January 24, 1995, Mrs. Lincoln introduced H.R. 657. The
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R. 657 on
    October 18, 1995. Testimony was received from the General
    Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The
    Subcommittee met in open markup session on October 18, 1995,
    and approved H.R. 657, without amendment, for Full Committee
    consideration by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 657 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 657 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-315).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 657 under Suspension
    of the Rules by a roll call vote of 404 yeas to 0 nays on
    November 13, 1995. H.R. 657, as passed by the House, was
    received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate
    Calendar on November 14, 1995. On April 27, 1995, the Senate
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported similar
    legislation, S. 549, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-76). Similar
    legislative language was also included in S. 737, which was
    also reported to the Senate by the Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources on April 27, 1995 (S. Rpt. 104-77).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 657 and passed
    the bill without amendment. H.R. 657 was presented to the
    President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R. 657
    into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-241).

      to extend the time for construction of certain ferc licensed hydro
                                    projects

                     Public Law 104-242 (H.R. 680, S. 1012)

        To extend the time for construction of certain FERC
    licensed hydro projects.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 680 is to extend the statutory deadline
    for the commencement of construction of two hydroelectric
    projects in New York.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 680 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for two projects for up to a maximum of three
    consecutive 2-year periods. According to project sponsors,
    construction has not commenced for lack of a power sales
    contract. A power sales contract is needed in order to secure
    project financing. H.R. 680 does not ease the requirements of a
    license, but merely extends the period for commencement of
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On January 25, 1995, Mr. Solomon and Mr. McNulty introduced
    H.R. 680 in the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on H.R. 680 on October 18, 1995. Testimony was
    received from the General Counsel of the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission. The Subcommittee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 680 on October 18, 1995, and approved
    the bill, without amendment, for Full Committee consideration
    by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 680 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported, by
    a voice vote, to the House, without amendment. The Committee
    reported H.R. 680 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-316).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 680 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995, by a voice vote. H.R. 680,
    as passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on November 14, 1995.
        On October 19, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 1012, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-162).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 680 and passed
    the bill without amendment. H.R. 680 was presented to the
    President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R. 680
    into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-242).

          construction of a hydroelectric project in the state of ohio

                     Public Law 104-243 (H.R. 1011, S. 468)

        To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in
    the State of Ohio.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1011 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in Ohio.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 1011 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for a project in Ohio for up to a maximum of three
    consecutive 2-year periods. According to project sponsors,
    construction has not commenced for lack of a power sales
    contract. A power sales contract is needed in order to secure
    project financing. H.R. 1011 does not ease the requirements of
    a license, but merely extends the period for commencement of
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On February 22, 1995, Mr. Sawyer introduced H.R. 1011. The
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R. 1011 on
    October 18, 1995. Testimony was received from the General
    Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The
    Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1011
    on October 18, 1995, and the bill was approved for Full
    Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1011 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1011 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-317).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 1011 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995, by a voice vote. H.R. 1011,
    as passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on November 14, 1995.
        On July 11, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 468, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-104).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1011 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1011 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    1011 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-243).

          to authorize extension of time limitation for a ferc-issued
                             hydroelectric license

                 Public Law 104-244 (H.R. 1014, S. 461, S. 737)

        To authorize extension of time limitation for a FERC-issued
    hydroelectric license.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1014 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in Washington.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 1014 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for a project in Washington for up to a maximum of
    three consecutive 2-year periods. According to project
    sponsors, construction has not commenced for lack of a power
    sales contract. A power sales contract is needed in order to
    secure project financing. H.R. 1014 does not ease the
    requirements of a license, but merely extends the period for
    commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On February 22, 1995, Mr. Hastings of Washington introduced
    H.R. 1014 in the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on H.R. 1014 on October 18, 1995. Testimony was
    received from the General Counsel of the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission. The Subcommittee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 1014 on October 18, 1995, and approved
    the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration by a
    voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1014 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 1014 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept. 104-318).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 1014 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995. H.R. 1014, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on November 15, 1995, and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
    Resources.
        On April 27, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 461, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-73). Similar legislative language was also
    included in S. 737, which was also reported to the Senate by
    the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 27, 1995
    (S. Rpt. 104-77).
        On June 28, 1996, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported H.R. 1014 to the Senate (S. Rpt,
    104-313). On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous
    consent, proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1014
    and passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1014 was presented
    to the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed
    H.R. 1014 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-244).

               construction of a hydroelectric project in oregon

                 Public Law 104-245 (H.R. 1290, S. 538, S. 737)

        To reinstate the permit for, and extend the deadline under
    the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a
    hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1290 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in Oregon.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 1290 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for a project in Oregon for 6 years. According to
    project sponsors, construction has not commenced for lack of a
    power sales contract. A power sales contract is needed in order
    to secure project financing. H.R. 1290 does not ease the
    requirements of a license, but merely extends the period for
    commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On March 22, 1995, Mr. Cooley introduced H.R. 1290 in the
    House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on
    H.R. 1290 on October 18, 1995. Testimony was received from the
    General Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R.
    1290 on October 18, 1995, and the bill was approved, as
    amended, for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1290 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported,
    as amended, to the House by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1290 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-320).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 1290 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995. H.R. 1290, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on November 14, 1995, read
    twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On April 27, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 538, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-75). Similar legislative language was also
    included in S. 737, which was also reported to the Senate by
    the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 27, 1995
    (S. Rpt. 104-77).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1290 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1290 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    1290 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-245).

       extension of a hydroelectric project located in the state of west
                                    virginia

                     Public Law 104-246 (H.R. 1335, S. 595)

        To provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project
    located in the State of West Virginia.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1335 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in West Virginia.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 1335 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for a project in West Virginia for 6 years.
    According to project sponsors, construction has not commenced
    for lack of a power sales contract. A power sales contract is
    needed in order to secure project financing. H.R. 1335 does not
    ease the requirements of a license, but merely extends the
    period for commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On March 28, 1995, Mr. Mollohan introduced H.R. 1335 in the
    House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on
    H.R. 1335 on October 18, 1995. Testimony was received from the
    General Counsel of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider H.R.
    1335 on October 18, 1995, and the bill was approved for Full
    Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1335 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1335 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-321).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 1335 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995. H.R. 1335, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on November 14, 1995, read
    twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On July 11, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 595, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-108).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1335 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1335 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    1335 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-246).

    extension of time limitation for the ferc-issued hydroelectric license
                      for the mt. hope waterpower project

                     Public Law 104-247 (H.R. 1366, S. 611)

        To authorize the extension of time limitation for the FERC-
    issued hydroelectric license for the Mt. Hope Waterpower
    Project.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1366 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in New Jersey.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 1366 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction for the Mt. Hope Waterpower Project for 3 years.
    According to project sponsors, construction has not commenced
    for lack of a power sales contract. A power sales contract is
    needed in order to secure project financing. H.R. 1366 does not
    ease the requirements of a license, but merely extends the
    period for commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On March 30, 1995, Mr. Frelinghuysen introduced H.R. 1366
    in the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a
    hearing on H.R. 1366 on October 18, 1995. Testimony was
    received from the General Counsel of the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission. The Subcommittee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 1366 on October 18, 1995, and the bill
    was approved for Full Committee consideration, without
    amendment, by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1366 on October 25, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1366 to the House on November 7, 1995 (H. Rept.
    104-322).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 1366 under Suspension
    of the Rules on November 13, 1995. H.R. 1366, as passed by the
    House, was received in the Senate on November 14, 1995, read
    twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On July 11, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 611, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-109).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1366 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1366 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    1366 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-247).

     extension of the federal power act deadline for the construction of a
                       hydroelectric project in kentucky

                 Public Law 104-249 (H.R. 2501, S. 421, S. 737)

        To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in
    the State of Kentucky.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2501 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 2501 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Kentucky for up to a
    maximum of three consecutive 2-year periods. According to
    project sponsors, construction has not commenced for lack of a
    power sales contract. A power sales contract is needed in order
    to secure project financing. H.R. 2501 does not ease the
    requirements of a license, but merely extends the period for
    commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On October 18, 1995, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky introduced H.R.
    2501 in the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in
    open markup session to consider H.R. 2501 on March 5, 1996, and
    approved the bill, amended, for Full Committee consideration by
    a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2501 on March 13, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2501 to the House on March 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-507).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 2501 under Suspension
    of the Rules on April 16, 1996, by a voice vote. H.R. 2501, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on April 17, 1996.
        On April 27, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 421, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-72). Similar legislative language was also
    included in S. 737, which was also reported to the Senate by
    the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on April 27, 1995
    (S. Rpt. 104-77).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2501 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2501 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2501 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-249).

     extension of the federal power act deadline for the construction of a
                       hydroelectric project in illinois

                         Public Law 104-252 (H.R. 2630)

        To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
    a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2630 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 2630 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Illinois until
    October 15, 1997. H.R. 2630 does not ease the requirements of a
    license, but merely extends the period for commencement of
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On November 14, 1995, Mr. Costello introduced H.R. 2630 in
    the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 2630 on March 5, 1996, and
    approved the bill, amended, for Full Committee consideration by
    a voice vote. The Full Committee met in open markup session to
    consider H.R. 2630 on March 13, 1996, and ordered the bill
    reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 2630 to the House on March 28, 1996 (H.
    Rpt. 104-508).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 2630 under Suspension
    of the Rules on April 16, 1996, by a voice vote. H.R. 2630, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on April 17, 1996.
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2630 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2630 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2630 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-252).

      extension of the federal power act deadline for the construction of
                     hydroelectric projects in pennsylvania

                         Public Law 104-254 (H.R. 2695)

        To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of certain hydroelectric
    projects in the State of Pennsylvania.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2695 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of two
    hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 2695 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction of two hydroelectric projects until September 26,
    1999. According to project sponsors, construction has not
    commenced for lack of a power sales contract. A power sales
    contract is needed in order to secure project financing. H.R.
    2695 does not ease the requirements of the licenses, but merely
    extends the period for commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On November 30, 1995, Mr. Klink introduced H.R. 2695 in the
    House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 2695 on March 5, 1996, and approved
    the bill, amended, for Full Committee consideration by a voice
    vote. The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2695 on March 13, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2695 to the House on March 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-509).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 2695 under Suspension
    of the Rules on April 16, 1996, by a voice vote. H.R. 2695, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on April 17, 1996.
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2695 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2695 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2695 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-254).

      extension of the federal power act deadline for the construction of
                    hydroelectric projects in north carolina

                     Public Law 104-256 (H.R. 2773, S. 801)

        To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of 2 hydroelectric projects in
    North Carolina, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2773 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of two
    hydroelectric projects in the State of North Carolina.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 2773 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction of two hydroelectric projects for up to a maximum
    of three consecutive 2-year periods. H.R. 2773 does not ease
    the requirements of the licenses, but merely extends the period
    for commencement of construction.

    Legislative History

        On December 13, 1995, Mrs. Myrick introduced H.R. 2773 in
    the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 2773 on March 5, 1996, and
    approved the bill, amended, for Full Committee consideration by
    a voice vote. The Full Committee met in open markup session to
    consider H.R. 2773 on March 13, 1996, and ordered the bill
    reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The
    Committee reported H.R. 2773 to the House on March 28, 1996 (H.
    Rpt. 104-510).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 2773 under Suspension
    of the Rules on April 16, 1996, by a voice vote. H.R. 2773, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on April 17, 1996.
        On July 11, 1995, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported similar legislation, S. 801, to the
    Senate (S. Rpt. 104-110).
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2773 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2773 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2773 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-256).

     extension of the federal power act deadline for the construction of a
                         hydroelectric project in ohio

                         Public Law 104-257 (H.R. 2816)

        To reinstate the license for, and extend the deadline under
    the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of, a
    hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2816 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in the State of Ohio.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 2816 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio until September
    24, 1999. H.R. 2816 does not ease the requirements of a
    license, but merely extends the period for commencement of
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On December 20, 1995, Mr. Ney and Mr. Regula introduced
    H.R. 2816 in the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2816 on March 5,
    1996, and approved the bill, without amendment, for Full
    Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2816 on March 13, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 2816 to the House on March 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    511).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 2816 under Suspension
    of the Rules on April 16, 1996, by a voice vote. H.R. 2816, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on April 17, 1996.
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2816 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2816 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2816 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-257).

     extension of the federal power act deadline for the construction of a
                       hydroelectric project in kentucky

                         Public Law 104-258 (H.R. 2869)

        To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
    a hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2869 is to extend the statutory
    deadline for the commencement of construction of a
    hydroelectric project in the State of Kentucky.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
    for commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects once
    the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a
    license. The licensee must begin construction not more than 2
    years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC extends
    the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one 2-year
    extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is subject to
    termination if a licensee fails to begin construction within 4
    years.
        H.R. 2869 extends the deadline for the commencement of
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Kentucky until June
    15, 1998. H.R. 2869 does not ease the requirements of a
    license, but merely extends the period for commencement of
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On January 23, 1996, Mr. Whitfield introduced H.R. 2869 in
    the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open
    markup session to consider H.R. 2869 on March 5, 1996, and
    approved the bill, amended, for Full Committee consideration by
    a voice vote.
         The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 2869 on March 13, 1996, and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2869 to the House on March 28, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-512).
        The House considered and passed H.R. 2869 under Suspension
    of the Rules on April 16, 1996, by a voice vote. H.R. 2869, as
    passed by the House, was received in the Senate, read twice,
    and placed on the Senate Calendar on April 17, 1996.
        On September 27, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2869 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2869 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2869 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-258).

          uranium mill tailings radiation control act reauthorization

                         Public Law 104-259 (H.R. 2967)

        To extend the authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings
    Radiation Control Act of 1978, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 2967 is to extend the authorization for
    activities at uranium mill sites owned by the Department of
    Energy (DOE), and to make certain legislative changes to
    uranium mill site cleanup at sites owned by the Department and
    at sites owned and operated by private entities.
        Specifically, the measure extends the remedial action
    authority for DOE from September 30, 1996, to September 30,
    1998. It also allows DOE to continue the operation of a
    disposal cell at the Grand Junction, Colorado, Title I site for
    the continued acceptance of tailings from Title I sites. For
    Title II sites, which are owned by private entities but at
    which a significant portion of the cleanup costs can be
    attributed to Federal activities, the measure expands the
    Secretary's authorization for reimbursement for the Federal
    government's share of remediation costs. Finally, the measure
    clarifies that the Secretary may dispose of Title I tailings at
    licensed Title II sites and allows DOE to waive the Federal
    deed annotation requirement if the affected State already has a
    suitable potential purchaser notification requirement.

    Legislative History

        On February 23, 1996, Mr. Schaefer introduced H.R. 2967 in
    the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a
    legislative hearing on the measure on February 28, 1996.
    Witnesses included representatives from the Department of
    Energy and the U.S. General Accounting Office, State officials,
    and industry representatives.
        On March 5, 1996, the Subcommittee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 2967 and approved the bill, amended,
    for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session on March 13,
    1996, to consider H.R. 2967 and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 2967 to the House on April 24, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-536).
        The House considered H.R. 2967 under Suspension of the
    Rules on May 14, 1996, and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
    May 15, 1996, H.R. 2967, as passed by the House, was received
    in the Senate, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee
    on Energy and Natural Resources.
        On June 27, 1996, the Senate Committee on Energy and
    Natural Resources reported H.R. 2967 to the Senate (S. Rpt.
    104-301).
        On September 28, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2967 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 2967 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    2967 into law on October 9, 1996 (P.L. 104-259).

                   propane education and research act of 1996

                         Public Law 104-284 (H.R. 1514)

        To authorize and facilitate a program to enhance safety,
    training, research and development, and safety education in the
    propane gas industry for the benefit of propane consumers and
    the public, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1514 allows the Secretary of Energy to establish a
    propane check-off program similar to the agriculture check-off
    programs. The purpose of the check-off program is to create and
    provide funding for the Propane Education and Research Council
    (PERC). Under the Act, PERC is authorized to spend the money on
    propane education, research and development of propane
    utilization equipment, and programs to inform and educate the
    public about safety and other issues associated with the use of
    propane. The initial amount of fees to be collected is \1/10\
    of 1 cent per gallon. However, this amount can rise \1/10\ of 1
    cent per year until the fee collects up to \1/2\ cent per
    gallon.
        The bill requires that not less than 5 percent of the funds
    collected shall be used for programs designed to benefit the
    agriculture industry. In addition, funds for projects relating
    to use of propane as an alternative motor vehicle fuel shall
    not exceed the percentage of total market for odorized propane
    that is used as a motor vehicle fuel for the prior 3 years.
        No funds collected through the fee can be used to lobby
    Congress. The bill also prohibits use of the funds for
    advertising if the price of propane goes up a disproportionate
    amount relative to other energy sources. The Secretary of
    Commerce is directed to prepare a report for Congress every 2
    years examining the effect the operation of the Council is
    having on propane consumers. Finally, the Council may bring
    suit in Federal court to compel compliance with the Act.

    Legislative History

        On April 7, 1995, Representatives Tauzin, Hall of Texas,
    Cramer, Roemer, Blute, Gillmor, Stump, Emerson, Hancock,
    Gejdenson, Ming, Callahan, Gene Green of Texas, Baesler,
    Collins of Georgia, Bishop, Everett, Bevill, Taylor of North
    Carolina, Bachus, Klug, Hilliard, Parker, Jefferson, Lewis of
    Kentucky, Paxon, Bonilla, McIntosh, Traficant, Oxley, Talent,
    Browder, and Jacobs introduced H.R. 1514 in the House. The bill
    was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to
    the Committee on Science.
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
    1514 on October 26, 1995. Testimony was received from
    representatives of propane marketers and users. On March 5,
    1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 1514 and approved the bill for Full
    Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        On April 16, 1996, the Full Committee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 1514 and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee reported
    H.R. 1514 to the House on June 27, 1996 (H. Rpt. 105-655, Part
    1). Referral of H.R. 1514 to the Committee on Science was
    extended for a period ending not later than July 26, 1996. On
    July 10, 1996, the Committee on Science was discharged from
    further consideration of H.R. 1514.
        The House considered H.R. 1514 under Suspension of the
    Rules on September 4, 1996, and passed the bill by a voice
    vote. On September 5, 1996, H.R. 1514 was received in the
    Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On September 28, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1514 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 1514 was presented to
    the President on September 30, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    1514 into law on October 11, 1996 (P.L. 104-284).

            accountable pipeline safety and partnership act of 1996

                    Public Law 104-304 (S. 1505, H.R. 1323)

        To reduce risk to public safety and the environment
    associated with pipeline transportation of natural gas and
    hazardous liquids, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        S. 1505 reauthorizes the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
    and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act by changing the
    way natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines are regulated.
    Under the Act, the Department of Transportation (DOT) is
    required to conduct a risk assessment for new pipeline safety
    regulations. The risk assessment provisions in S. 1505 are
    based on the provisions contained in H.R. 1022 as passed by the
    House and Executive Order #12866, but tailored to fit the
    Department of Transportation. The Act also establishes a
    voluntary, 4-year risk management demonstration project at
    DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety.
        In addition, S. 1505 makes a number of smaller and
    technical changes. Among other things, pipeline operators must
    now be qualified, rather than certified, to operate a pipeline;
    the definition of environmentally sensitive areas is changed;
    and DOT is given authority to enter into agreements with States
    and other entities to promote pipeline safety. Finally, S.
    1505, sets the authorization for these programs through Fiscal
    Year 2000.

    Legislative History

        On March 9, 1995, the Energy and Power Subcommittee held an
    oversight hearing on the Reauthorization of the Natural Gas
    Pipeline Safety Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
    Act. Witnesses included representatives of the Administration,
    State officials, and representatives of the oil and natural gas
    industries.
        On March 24, 1995, Representatives Shuster, Petri, Laughin,
    and Brewster introduced H.R. 1323 in the House. The bill was
    referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    and in addition to the Committee on Commerce. On May 1, 1995,
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported
    H.R. 1323 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-110, Part 1). Referral of
    H.R. 1323 to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a
    period ending not later than June 1, 1995.
        On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met
    in open markup session to consider H.R. 1323 and approved the
    bill for Full Committee consideration, amended, by a voice
    vote. On May 24, 1995, the Full Committee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 1323 and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, amended, by a roll call vote of 29 yeas to 13 nays.
    The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1323 to the House on
    June 1, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-110, Part 2). No further action was
    taken on H.R. 1323 in the 104th Congress.
        On July 26, 1996, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
    Science, and Transportation reported a companion bill, S. 1505,
    to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-334). The Senate considered S. 1505
    on September 19 and September 26, 1996, and on September 26,
    1996, by unanimous consent, passed S. 1505, as amended. On
    September 27, 1996, S. 1505 was received in the House,
    considered under Suspension of the Rules, and passed by a roll
    call vote of 276 yeas to 125 nays.
        S. 1505 was presented to the President on October 2, 1996.
    The President signed S. 1505 into law on October 12, 1996 (P.L.
    104-304).

          energy policy and conservation act one year reauthorization

                         Public Law 104-306 (H.R. 4083)

        To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act through September 30, 1997.

    Summary

        H.R. 4083 reauthorizes through September 30, 1997, two
    expiring Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) programs,
    the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the
    International Energy Agreement. These programs expired at the
    end of Fiscal Year 1996.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 4083 was introduced in the House by Mr. Schaefer on
    September 17, 1996. On September 18, 1996, a request that H.R.
    4083 be considered directly by the Full Committee was agreed to
    by unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered H.R.
    4083 and ordered the bill reported to the House, without
    amendment, by a voice vote. Prior to this action, the Committee
    on Commerce also took action on two other measures
    reauthorizing the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, H.R. 3868
    and H.R. 2596. For the legislative history of those bills, see
    the discussions of H.R. 3868 and H.R. 2596 in this section.
        The Committee reported H.R. 4083 to the House on September
    20, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-814). On September 24, 1996, the House
    considered H.R. 4083 under Suspension of the Rules and passed
    the bill by a voice vote. On September 25, 1996, H.R. 4083 was
    received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate
    Calendar.
        On October 3, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4083 and
    passed the bill without amendment. H.R. 4083 was presented to
    the President on October 10, 1996. The President signed H.R.
    4083 into law on October 14, 1996 (P.L. 104-306).

                          balanced budget act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2491)

               (Title V--Energy and Natural Resources Provisions)

        To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 105 of
    the concurrent resolution on the budget for Fiscal Year 1996.

    Summary

        Title V of H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, as
    presented to the President, contains provisions relating to
    Energy and Natural Resources, several of which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
        Subtitle A of Title V, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annual
    Charges, extends the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's)
    authority to collect up to 100 percent of its budget from user
    fees through Fiscal Year 2002. The NRC is responsible for
    ensuring the safety of civilian uses of nuclear materials.
    Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as
    amended, the NRC is currently authorized to collect user fees
    through Fiscal Year 1998. Absent Congressional action extending
    this period, the NRC's authority to collect 100 percent of its
    costs through fees and annual charges would expire after Fiscal
    Year 1998. Thereafter, the NRC permanent authority to collect
    33 percent of its budget authority through fees and annual
    charges would take effect.
        Chapter 1 of Subtitle B of Title V, United States
    Enrichment Corporation, facilitates the privatization of the
    United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), as provided by
    Title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-
    486). The legislation contains provisions to increase the
    return to the taxpayers from the sale of the corporation to
    potential purchasers or shareholders, and eliminates burdensome
    statutory requirements for the privatized corporation. It also
    contains language designed to promote an orderly transition
    from government ownership to the private sector for USEC,
    including transition requirements for Federal employees
    affected by the sale, as well as protections for Federal
    contract employees at the corporation's enrichment facilities.
    While seeking to maximize the return of monies to the U.S.
    Treasury from the sale, the legislation also attempts to ensure
    that the corporation will be a viable business venture in order
    to retain the important national security benefits of a
    domestic uranium enrichment capability. Chapter 1 of Subtitle B
    of Title V differs from the language adopted by the Committee
    in H.R. 1216 and considered by the House in H.R. 1215 in that
    several technical amendments were adopted, and language was
    included to address concerns about the effect of privatization
    on the U.S.-Russian Highly-Enriched Uranium Agreement to
    purchase former weapons-related uranium from the former Soviet
    Union.
        Chapter 2 of Subtitle B of Title V, Department of Energy,
    contains several provisions relating to the sale of Department
    of Energy (DOE) assets which fall within the jurisdiction of
    the Committee on Commerce. First, Section 5221 directs the
    Department of Energy (DOE) to sell $225 million in assets by
    October 1, 2000. DOE is directed to conduct an inventory of the
    assets in the care of the agency and its contractors and
    dispose of minimum quantities of fuel, chemicals and industrial
    gases, scrap metal, radiation sources, major equipment,
    precious metals, and base metals. Second, Section 5222 directs
    DOE to sell 32 million barrels of oil contained in the Weeks
    Island Strategic Petroleum Reserve Facility. Third, Section
    5223 grants DOE the authority to lease storage capacity in
    underutilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve facilities for
    petroleum products owned by foreign governments or their
    representatives.
        Subchapter B of Chapter 7 of Subtitle C of Title V, Alaska
    Power Marketing Administration Sale, also contains provisions
    which fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
    Commerce. Section 5413 authorizes and directs DOE to sell and
    transfer two hydroelectric projects in Alaska pursuant to a
    Purchase Agreement entered into between the Alaska Power
    Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy and the State
    of Alaska and a Purchase Agreement entered into between the
    Alaska Power Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy
    and the Eklutna Purchasers. Section 5414 provides an exemption
    from the Federal Power Act for the two projects, unless the
    projects are subsequently transferred to parties in a manner
    not provided for in the two purchase agreements. Section 5414
    also provides for termination of the Alaska Power
    Administration of the Department of Energy.
        Chapter 9 of Subtitle C of Title V, Exports of Alaska North
    Slope Oil, amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and
    the Export Administration Act to allow crude oil transported
    through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to be exported.

    Legislative History

        On September 13, 1995, the Full Committee considered and
    approved four Committee Prints pertaining to energy issues for
    transmittal to the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1995 as follows.
        A Committee Print entitled ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission
    Annual Charge'' was approved by a roll call vote of 29 yeas to
    11 nays. Prior to this action, on July 28, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power approved the Committee Print
    for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        A Committee Print entitled ``Naval Petroleum Reserves'' was
    approved by a voice vote. Prior to this action, on September 8,
    1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on
    Legislation to Privatize the Naval Petroleum Reserve.
        A Committee Print entitled ``United States Enrichment
    Corporation'' was approved by a voice vote. Prior to this
    action, on February 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power held a hearing on the Privatization of the United States
    Enrichment Corporation. On March 15, 1995, the Full Committee
    considered H.R. 1216, the USEC Privatization Act, and ordered
    the bill reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote.
    The Committee reported H.R. 1216 to the House on March 23, 1995
    (H. Rpt. 104-86). The provisions of H.R. 1216 were also
    incorporated into the text of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and
    Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which passed the House on April
    5, 1995. The Committee Print adopted by the Full Committee on
    September 13, 1995, was a modified version of H.R. 1216, as
    reported to the House. For the legislative history of that
    bill, see the discussion of the USEC Privatization Act (H.R.
    1216) in this section.
        A Committee Print entitled ``Waste Isolation Pilot
    Project'' was approved by a roll call vote of 24 yeas to 12
    nays. Prior to this action, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power held a hearing on H.R. 1663 on July 21, 1995, and
    approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, without
    amendment, by a voice vote, on July 28, 1995. The Committee
    Print adopted by the Full Committee on September 13, 1995,
    contained the text of H.R. 1663 as approved by the Subcommittee
    on Energy and Power on July 28, 1995. For the legislative
    history of that bill, see the discussion of the Waste Isolation
    Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act (H.R. 1663) in this
    section.
        The provisions of these four Committee Prints were included
    in the text of Title III of H.R. 2491 as reported to the House
    by the Committee on the Budget on October 17, 1995 (H. Rpt.
    104-280, Volumes I and II). The House considered H.R. 2491 on
    October 25 and October 26, 1995, and passed the bill on October
    26, 1995, by a roll call vote of 227 yeas to 203 nays. H.R.
    2491 was received in the Senate on October 27, 1995, read
    twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar. The Senate passed
    H.R. 2491 on October 28, 1995, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 52 yeas to 47 nays. On October 30, 1995, the House disagreed
    to the Senate amendments, requested a conference with the
    Senate, and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on
    Commerce were appointed as conferees. The Senate insisted on
    its amendments, agreed to a conference with the House, and
    appointed conferees on November 13, 1995.
        On November 15, 1995, the conference report was filed in
    the House (H. Rpt. 104-347). On November 17, 1995, the House
    passed H. Res. 272 which vacated the proceedings with respect
    to H. Rpt. 104-347, and the conference report was refiled in
    the House as H. Rpt. 104-350. The provisions dealing with the
    Waste Isolation Pilot Project and the Naval Petroleum Reserve
    were deleted from the final legislation because of assertions
    by the Senate conferees that consideration of these provisions
    was prohibited by Section 313(b) of the Congressional Budget
    Act.
        The House agreed to the conference report on November 17,
    1995, by a roll call vote of 237 yeas to 189 nays. The Senate
    sustained a point of order against the conference report on
    November 17, 1995 as being in violation of the Congressional
    Budget Act with respect to consideration of Section 1853(f) of
    the Social Security Act as added by Section 8001 of the
    conference report and Section 13301 of Subtitle M of Title XIII
    of the conference report. The Senate then, by a roll call vote
    of 52 yeas to 47 nays, receded from its amendment to H.R. 2491
    and concurred therein with a further amendment consisting of
    the text of the conference report (H. Rpt. 104-350) excluding
    the provisions stricken on the point of order. On November 20,
    1995, the House agreed to the Senate amendment by a roll call
    vote of 235 yeas to 192 nays, and cleared the measure for the
    President. H.R. 2491 was presented to the President on November
    30, 1995. On December 6, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 2491
    and returned the bill to the House (H. Doc. 104-141). The veto
    message and the accompanying bill were referred to the
    Committee on the Budget on December 6, 1995.

            national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

                              (H.R. 1530, S. 1026)

                          (Energy Related Provisions)

        To authorize appropriations for Fiscal Year 1996 for
    military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
    construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
    Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
    for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1530 as presented to the President included a number
    of provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of the
    Committee on Commerce, including several dealing with energy
    related issues. Members of the Committee on Commerce were
    appointed as conferees on these provisions and participated in
    the conference negotiations which led to the agreements
    contained in H.R. 1530.
        Section 4304 of H.R. 1530 affects provisions of the
    Department of Energy Organization Act (P.L. 95-91, as amended)
    and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163, as
    amended) under the jurisdiction of the Committee. The section
    repeals certain ethics reporting requirements made obsolete by
    the Ethics in Government Act (P.L. 95-521, as amended). During
    original House consideration of the measure, as well as
    throughout conference negotiations, the Committee on Commerce
    supported the inclusion of this language.
        Section 3157 of H.R. 1530 includes a ``Sense of Congress''
    resolution that individuals should not be personally subject to
    a civil or criminal sanction for failure to comply with an
    environmental cleanup requirement under the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act (P.L. 89-272, as amended) or the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act (P.L. 96-510, as amended) where the failure to
    comply is due to lack of funds requested or appropriated to
    carry out such requirement. This section was added during Floor
    consideration in the Senate, and clearly involved statutes
    under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. During
    conference negotiations, the Committee on Commerce worked with
    other conferees to modify the applicability of the ``Sense of
    Congress'' resolution, and ultimately did not object to the
    inclusion of a more narrow version of the Senate-passed
    language.
        Section 3161 of H.R. 1530 was added during Senate
    consideration of the measure and extends the authorization for
    assistance payments to the Los Alamos School Board and Los
    Alamos County in New Mexico under the Atomic Energy Community
    Act of 1955 (chap. 543, 69 stat. 471), a statute under the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. The Committee
    supported the statute change during conference negotiations on
    the bill.
        Sections 3401 through 3416 of H.R. 1530 contain a provision
    to sell, to the highest bidder above the minimum acceptable
    bid, the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 1 located at Elk Hills,
    California, by the end of Fiscal Year 1996. During original
    House consideration of the measure, as well as throughout
    conference negotiations, the Committee on Commerce supported
    the inclusion of this language. This language is similar to the
    language agreed to by the Committee on Commerce as part of the
    Committee Print entitled ``Naval Petroleum Reserve'' on
    September 13, 1995.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 1530 was introduced in the House by Mr. Spence and Mr.
    Dellums on May 2, 1995, and referred to the Committee on
    National Security. The Committee on National Security reported
    the bill to the House on June 1, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-131).
        The House considered H.R. 1530 on June 13, June 14, and
    June 15, 1995; on June 15, 1995, the House passed H.R. 1530, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 300 yeas to 126 nays. H.R.
    1530, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on June 20,
    1995.
        On July 12, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed Services
    reported a companion bill, S. 1026, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-
    112). The Senate considered S. 1026 on August 2, August 3,
    August 4, August 5, August 9, September 5, and September 6,
    1995. On September 6, 1995, the Senate Committee on Armed
    Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R.
    1530, and the Senate then passed H.R. 1530, amended with the
    text of S. 1026, as amended by the Senate, by a roll call vote
    of 64 yeas to 34 nays. Further action on S. 1026 was
    indefinitely postponed. The Senate insisted on its amendment to
    H.R. 1530 and requested a conference with the House. Senate
    conferees were appointed on September 8, 1995.
        On September 21, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendment to H.R. 1530, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. The conference report on H.R. 1530
    was filed in the House on December 13, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-406).
    The House agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote
    of 267 yeas to 149 nays, on December 15, 1995. The Senate
    agreed to the conference report, by a roll call vote of 51 yeas
    to 43 nays on December 19, 1995. The bill was presented to the
    President on December 22, 1995.
        On December 28, 1995, the President vetoed H.R. 1530. On
    January 3, 1996, the veto message on H.R. 1530 was received and
    read in the House (H. Doc. 104-155). The House then considered
    H.R. 1530 and failed to pass the bill, the objections of the
    President to the contrary notwithstanding, by a roll call vote
    of 240 yeas to 156 nays. The veto message and the accompanying
    bill were referred to the Committee on National Security on
    January 3, 1996.
        Subsequently, the House and Senate passed S. 1124, which
    was signed into law by the President on February 10, 1996
    (Public Law 104-106). For the legislative history of S. 1124,
    see the discussion of that bill in this section.

            personal responsibility and work opportunity act of 1995

                              (H.R. 4, H.R. 1214)

    (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and Weatherization Benefits)

        To restore the American family, reduce illegitimacy,
    control welfare spending and reduce welfare dependence.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 4 is to restore the American family,
    reduce illegitimacy, control welfare spending and reduce
    welfare dependence. As presented to the President, H.R. 4
    included a number of provisions which fall within the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, including several
    dealing with energy related issues. Members of the Committee on
    Commerce were appointed as conferees on these provisions and
    participated in the conference negotiations which led to the
    agreements contained in H.R. 4.
        At the beginning of the 104th Congress, provisions of the
    Food Stamp Act (Sections 5(d)(11), 5(e), and 5(k)) and the Low
    Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Section 2605(f)) dictated
    the following treatment of various forms of energy assistance
    for purposes of the Food Stamp program:

     Federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
            (LIHEAP) benefits were disregarded as income;
     Payments or allowances for Federal weatherization
            assistance were disregarded;
     Utility allowances and reimbursements paid under
            certain Department of Housing and Urban Development
            (HUD) housing programs were disregarded;
     Payments or allowances for energy assistance provided
            by State or local law were, under special rules set by
            the Department of Agriculture, disregarded; and
     Households could claim income deductions (further
            reducing their counted income) for utility costs
            covered by disregarded LIHEAP benefits, but could not
            claim them in the case of other disregarded energy
            assistance.
        As presented to the President, H.R. 4 provided for the
    following treatment of energy assistance for purposes of the
    Food Stamp program:

     Federal LIHEAP benefits were required to be counted as
            income;
     One-time payments or allowances under a Federal or
            State law for costs of weatherization or emergency
            repair or replacement of unsafe or inoperative furnaces
            or other heating or cooling devices were required to be
            disregarded;
     HUD utility allowances and reimbursements were
            required to be counted as income;
     State and local energy assistance was required to be
            counted; and
     Households were to be allowed to claim income
            deductions for utility costs covered directly or
            indirectly by LIHEAP or any other counted energy
            assistance.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 4 was introduced in the House on January 4, 1995, by
    Representatives Shaw, Talent, and LaTourette (for themselves)
    and 109 cosponsors. H.R. 4 was referred, by title, to the
    following Committees: the Committee on Agriculture; the
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on
    the Budget; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on
    Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on the
    Judiciary; the Committee on Rules; and the Committee on Ways
    and Means. Titles IV and VIII of H.R. 4 were referred to the
    Committee on Commerce and other Committees.
        On January 13, 1995, H.R. 4 was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment for a period ending not later than February 17,
    1995. On February 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment were
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4.
        On March 15, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce sent a letter to the Speaker waiving the Commerce
    Committee's right to mark up H.R. 4 and H.R. 1214, a similar
    bill, without prejudicing its jurisdiction, in order to
    expedite consideration of this legislation by the House.
        On March 21, 1995, the House adopted H. Res. 117, which
    provided for general debate in the House on H.R. 4. On March
    22, 1995, the House passed H. Res. 119, which provided that an
    amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
    of H.R. 1214 be considered as adopted, and that H.R. 4, as so
    amended, be considered as the original bill for purposes of
    further amendment. Pursuant to the provisions of these two
    resolutions, the House considered H.R. 4 on March 21, March 22,
    March 23, and March 24, 1995. On March 24, 1995, the House
    passed H.R. 4 by a roll call vote of 234 yeas to 199 nays.
        H.R. 4, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance on March 29,
    1995. On June 9, 1995, the Committee on Finance reported H.R. 4
    to the Senate (S. Rpt. 104-96). The Senate considered H.R. 4 on
    August 5, August 7, August 8, August 11, September 6, September
    7, September 8, September 11, September 12, September 13,
    September 14, September 15, and September 19, 1995. On
    September 19, 1995, the Senate passed H.R. 4, as amended, by a
    roll call vote of 87 yeas to 12 nays. The Senate insisted on
    its amendments and requested a conference with the House.
        On September 29, 1995, the House disagreed to the Senate
    amendments to H.R. 4, agreed to a conference with the Senate,
    and appointed conferees. Members of the Committee on Commerce
    were appointed as conferees. On October 17, 1995, the Senate
    appointed conferees. The House appointed additional conferees
    on October 24, 1995.
        The conference report on H.R. 4 was filed in the House on
    December 20, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-430). The House agreed to the
    conference report, by a roll call vote of 245 yeas to 178 nays,
    on December 21, 1995. The Senate agreed to the conference
    report, by a roll call vote of 52 yeas to 47 nays, on December
    22, 1995. The bill was presented to the President on December
    29, 1995.
        On January 9, 1996, the President vetoed H.R. 4. On January
    22, 1996, the veto message on H.R. 4 was received in the House
    (H. Doc. 104-164). The veto message and the accompanying bill
    were referred to the Committee on Ways and Means on January 22,
    1996.

            energy policy and conservation act short term extension

                                  (H.R. 3868)

        To extend certain programs under the Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act through September 30, 1996.

    Summary

        H.R. 3868 reauthorizes through September 30, 1996, two
    expiring Energy Policy and Conservation Act programs, the
    Strategic Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the
    International Energy Agreement. These programs expired at the
    end of Fiscal Year 1996 and this bill would have preserved the
    President's authority to drawdown the Reserve in the event an
    energy emergency occurred during the August recess.

    Legislative History

        H.R. 3868 was introduced in the House by Mr. Schaefer on
    July 23, 1996. On July 24, 1996, without objection, the Full
    Committee proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3868
    and ordered the bill reported to the House, without amendment,
    by a voice vote.
        The Committee reported H.R. 3868 to the House on July 26,
    1996 (H. Rpt. 104-712). On July 30, 1996, the House considered
    H.R. 3868 under Suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by
    a voice vote. On July 31, 1996, H.R. 3868 was received in the
    Senate, read twice, and placed on the Senate Calendar.
        On September 28, 1996, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
    proceeded to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3868 and
    passed the bill amended. On September 30, 1996, H.R. 3868 was
    returned to the House and held at the Speaker's desk. No
    further action was taken on H.R. 3868 in the 104th Congress.
        The Committee on Commerce also took action on two other
    measures reauthorizing the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
    H.R. 4083 and H.R. 2596. For the legislative history of those
    bills, see the discussions of H.R. 4083 and H.R. 2596 in this
    section.

                  risk assessment and cost-benefit act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1022)

        To provide regulatory reform and to focus national economic
    resources on the greatest risks to human health, safety, and
    the environment through scientifically objective and unbiased
    risk assessments and through the consideration of costs and
    benefits in major rules, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1022 addresses the Federal risk assessment and
    regulatory decisions in programs designed to protect human
    health, safety, or the environment. Title I of the Risk
    Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act provides for minimum standards
    of disclosure, objectivity, and informativeness for the
    assessment and presentation of risk information in significant
    Federal risk assessment and risk characterization documents.
    Title II requires analysis and consideration of costs,
    benefits, and flexibility among regulatory options when
    promulgating new major rules. The bill specifically requires
    heads of Federal agencies to certify that the incremental
    benefits of new major regulations are justified and reasonably
    related to the incremental costs. Costs and benefits may be
    both quantifiable and non-quantifiable. To the extent
    provisions of existing law preclude the head of the Federal
    agency from certifying that the incremental benefits are
    justified and reasonably related to the incremental costs, the
    authority of H.R. 1022 supersedes the standards in existing law
    in order to provide regulatory options which can meet the
    certification requirement. Notwithstanding other provisions of
    law, certifications must be supported by substantial evidence
    of the rulemaking record. Title III requires independent peer
    review of certain major risk or economic assessments. Title IV
    clarifies the mechanism for judicial review. Title V requires
    covered Federal agencies to provide an additional plan
    outlining any additional processes for receiving new
    information and setting priorities for revising prior risk
    assessments. Finally, Title VI requires the President to
    identify and report the priorities among Federal regulatory
    programs to protect human health, to consider a number of
    criteria to provide for recommendations to Congress, and to
    incorporate such priorities into strategic planning.

    Legislative History

        On February 23, 1995, Mr. Walker and Mr. Bliley introduced
    H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995.
    This bill represented a compromise agreement developed by the
    Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Science with respect
    to their differing versions of Title III of H.R. 9.
        H.R. 1022 was referred to the Committee on Science, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce. On February 27, 1995,
    the House passed H. Res. 96 providing for the consideration of
    H.R. 1022 by the House. The House considered H.R. 1022 on
    February 27 and February 28, 1995. On February 28, 1995, the
    House passed H.R. 1022, as amended, by a roll call vote of 286
    yeas to 141 nays.
        H.R. 1022, as passed by the House, was received in the
    Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental
    Affairs on March 2, 1995. No further action was taken in the
    Senate on the legislation in the 104th Congress.
        On March 3, 1995, the House considered H.R. 9, and struck
    all after the enacting clause and inserted in lieu thereof the
    provisions of a text composed of four divisions: H.R. 830, H.R.
    925, H.R. 926, and H.R. 1022, as each bill passed the House
    previously. The House then passed H.R. 9, as amended, by a roll
    call vote of 277 yeas to 141 nays. For the legislative history
    of H.R. 9, see the discussion of the Job Creation and Wage
    Enhancement Act of 1995 in this section.

                 job creation and wage enhancement act of 1995

          (Division D of H.R. 9--Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act)

        To create jobs, enhance wages, strengthen property rights,
    maintain certain economic liberties, decentralize and reduce
    the power of the Federal Government with respect to the States,
    localities, and citizens of the United States, and to increase
    the accountability of Federal officials.

    Summary

        As passed by the House, Division D of H.R. 9 contains the
    text of H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of
    1995, which passed the House on February 28, 1995. Division D
    of H.R. 9 addresses the Federal risk assessment and regulatory
    decisions in programs designed to protect human health, safety
    or the environment. First, Division D provides for minimum
    standards of disclosure, objectivity, and informativeness for
    the assessment and presentation of risk information in
    significant Federal risk assessment and risk characterization
    documents. Second, it requires analysis and consideration of
    costs, benefits, and flexibility among regulatory options when
    promulgating major rules. The bill specifically requires heads
    of Federal agencies to certify that the incremental benefits of
    new major regulations are justified and reasonably related to
    the incremental costs. Costs and benefits may be both
    quantifiable and non-quantifiable. To the extent provisions of
    existing law preclude the head of the Federal agency from
    certifying that the incremental benefits are justified and
    reasonably related to the incremental costs, the authority of
    Division D of H.R. 9 supersedes the standards in existing law
    in order to provide regulatory options which can meet the
    certification requirement. Notwithstanding other provisions of
    law, certifications must be supported by substantial evidence
    of the rulemaking record. Third, it requires independent peer
    review of certain major risk or economic assessments. Fourth,
    it clarifies the mechanism for judicial review. Fifth, it
    requires covered Federal agencies to provide an additional plan
    outlining any additional processes for receiving new
    information and setting priorities for revising prior risk
    assessments. Finally, it requires the President to identify and
    report the priorities among Federal regulatory programs to
    protect human health, to consider a number of criteria to
    provide for recommendations to Congress, and to incorporate
    such priorities into strategic planning.

    Legislative History

        On January 4, 1995, Representatives Archer, DeLay, Saxton,
    Smith of Washington, Tauzin, and 107 cosponsors introduced H.R.
    9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995. H.R. 9
    was referred, by title, to the following Committees: the
    Committee on Ways and Means; the Committee on Science; the
    Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight; the Committee on the Budget; the Committee on Rules;
    the Committee on the Judiciary; and the Committee on Small
    Business.
        Title III of H.R. 9, Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit
    Analysis for New Regulations, was referred to the Committee on
    Science, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce and the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Within the
    Committee on Commerce, Title III of H.R. 9 was referred to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials and
    the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, and in addition
    to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, for a period ending
    not later than February 3, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment held
    joint hearings on H.R. 9 on February 1 and February 2, 1995.
    The hearing included twenty-five witnesses from a broad range
    of interests, including representatives of Federal agencies,
    State governments, local governments, school boards, scientific
    organizations, the environmental community, labor unions, and
    the regulated community. On February 3, 1995, the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, the Subcommittee
    on Health and Environment, and the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 9.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 9 on February 7 and February 8, 1995. On February 8, 1995,
    the Full Committee ordered H.R. 9 reported to the House, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 27 yeas to 16 nays. The
    Committee reported H.R. 9 to the House on February 15, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-33, Pt. 1).
        The Committee on Science also reported H.R. 9 to the House
    on February 15, 1995 (H. Rpt. 104-33, Pt. 2).
        On March 3, 1995, the House considered H.R. 9, and struck
    all after Section 1 and inserted in lieu thereof the provisions
    of a text composed of four divisions: H.R. 830, H.R. 925, H.R.
    926, and H.R. 1022, as each bill passed the House previously.
    The House then passed H.R. 9, as amended, by a roll call vote
    of 277 yeas to 141 nays. For the legislative history of H.R.
    1022, see the discussion of the Risk Assessment and Cost-
    Benefit Act of 1995 in this section.
        H.R. 9, as passed by the House, was received in the Senate
    and referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs on
    March 9, 1995. No further action was taken in the Senate on the
    legislation in the 104th Congress.

                 tax fairness and deficit reduction act of 1995

                             (H.R. 1215, H.R. 1327)

                            (USEC Privatization Act)

        To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strengthen
    the American family and create jobs.

    Summary

        Title III of H.R. 1215 incorporates the text of H.R. 1216,
    the USEC Privatization Act. The purpose of Title III is to
    facilitate the privatization of the United States Enrichment
    Corporation (USEC), as provided by Title IX of the Energy
    Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-486). The legislation
    contains provisions to increase the return to the taxpayers
    from the sale of the corporation to potential purchasers or
    shareholders, and eliminates burdensome statutory requirements
    for the privatized corporation.
        The title also contains language designed to promote an
    orderly transition from government ownership to the private
    sector for USEC, including transition requirements for Federal
    employees affected by the sale, as well as protections for
    Federal contract employees at the corporation's enrichment
    facilities. While seeking to maximize the return of monies to
    the U.S. Treasury from the sale, the title also attempts to
    ensure that the corporation will be a viable business venture
    in order to retain the important national security benefits of
    a domestic uranium enrichment capability.

    Legislative History

        On March 13, 1995, Mr. Archer introduced H.R. 1215 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and
    Means. On March 21, 1995, the Committee on Ways and Means
    reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 104-84). On April 5,
    1995, the House considered H.R. 1215 and agreed to an amendment
    in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R.
    1327, a bill introduced by Representatives Kasich, Archer, and
    Bliley. The House passed H.R. 1215, as amended, by a roll call
    vote of 246 yeas to 188 nays. Included within the text of H.R.
    1327 were the provisions of H.R. 1216, the USEC Privatization
    Act, as reported to the House on March 23, 1995. For the
    legislative history of that bill, see the discussion of the
    USEC Privatization Act (H.R. 1216) in this section.
        On April 6, 1995, H.R. 1215 was received in the Senate and
    referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. No further action
    was taken in the Senate on the legislation in the 104th
    Congress.

           repeal of 4.3-cent increase in transportation fuels taxes

                                  (H.R. 3415)

                           (Energy Related Provision)

        To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the
    4.3-cent increase in the transportation motor fuels excise tax
    rates enacted by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
    and dedicated to the general fund of the Treasury.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 3415 is to provide for a temporary
    repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon General Fund excise tax on
    transportation motor fuels, effective during the period
    beginning seven days after enactment through December 31, 1996.
    The bill also includes a ``Sense of Congress'' that the full
    benefit of the repeal be passed through to consumers, and
    directs the General Accounting Office to study the impact of
    the repeal of the 4.3-cents-per gallon transportation motor
    fuels excise tax on consumers, and to report its findings to
    Congress by January 3, 1997. Finally, H.R. 3415 includes two
    budgetary offset provisions which fall within the jurisdiction
    of the Committee on Commerce, Section 6 and Section 7.
        Section 6 of H.R. 3415 modifies Section 660 of the
    Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7270). The
    provision authorizes expenditures for salaries and expenses for
    the administrative activities of the Department of Energy from
    Fiscal Year 1997 through Fiscal Year 2002. The authorization is
    limited only to administrative functions and would have no
    effect on funding of the ongoing management responsibilities of
    the Department, including environmental restoration and
    national security functions. The Congressional Budget Office
    estimates that this portion of the bill would result in outlays
    of $542 million over the Fiscal Year 1997-2002 period.

    Legislative History

        On May 8, 1996, Representatives Seastrand, Riggs, Royce,
    and Zimmer introduced H.R. 3415 in the House. The bill was
    referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
    the Committee on Commerce. On May 8, 1996, the Committee on
    Ways and Means ordered H.R. 3415 reported to the House,
    amended, by a roll call vote of 23 yeas to 13 nays.
        On May 15, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
    Means indicating that H.R. 3415 included provisions within the
    jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. The Chairman further
    stated that the Committee on Commerce had reviewed the action
    taken by the Ways and Means Committee and in order to expedite
    consideration of this measure by the House, the Committee on
    Commerce would not insist on its right to a sequential referral
    of H.R. 3415 provided that: (1) based on an agreement between
    the two Committees, certain clarifications would be made to
    Section 6 and Section 7; and (2) the waiver of its right to a
    sequential referral would not prejudice the Commerce
    Committee's future jurisdictional interests in the legislation.
        On May 15, 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
    Means sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce acknowledging the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional
    concerns with respect to H.R. 3415 and the Commerce Committee's
    prerogatives with respect to this bill.
        The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 3415 to the
    House on May 15, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-576, Part 1). Referral of
    H.R. 3415 to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a
    period ending not later than May 15, 1996. The Committee on
    Commerce was subsequently discharged from further consideration
    of H.R. 3415 on May 15, 1996.
        On May 16, 1996, the Committee on Rules met and granted a
    rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3415. The rule was
    filed in the House as H. Res. 436 (H. Rpt. 104-580).
        On May 21, 1996, the House passed H. Res. 436 by a voice
    vote. H. Res. 436 provided, among other things, that an
    amendment to Section 7 offered by the Chairman of the Commerce
    Committee and printed in H. Rpt. 104-580 shall be considered as
    adopted upon the adoption of H. Res. 436. The House then
    considered H.R. 3415, and passed the bill, amended, by a roll
    call vote of 301 yeas to 108 nays.
        On May 22, 1996, H.R. 3415 was received in the Senate. On
    June 25, 1996, H.R. 3415 was read twice and referred to the
    Senate Committee on Finance. No further action was taken on
    H.R. 3415 in the 104th Congress.

             texas low-level radioactive waste compact consent act

                               (H.R. 558, S. 419)

        To grant the consent of the Congress to the Texas Low-Level
    Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.

    Summary

        H.R. 558 grants the consent of the Congress to the Texas
    Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, which is
    comprised of the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. These
    States have entered into the Compact in fulfillment of their
    responsibilities under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy
    Act (P.L. 96-573) to develop facilities for the disposal of
    low-level radioactive waste generated within their borders. The
    measure is a free-standing piece of legislation and does not
    amend any existing Federal statute.
        The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact has
    been approved by the State legislatures and Governors of Texas,
    Maine, and Vermont. The compact specifies that the State of
    Texas will host the disposal facility, and provides that no
    low-level radioactive waste may be exported from or imported to
    the regional facility except with approval of the governing
    commission of the compact. As allowed under the Low-Level
    Radioactive Waste Policy Act, the Compact permits the State of
    Texas to limit access to the disposal facility to those States
    involved in the Texas Compact after such time as Congress by
    law consents to the Compact.

    Legislative History

        On January 18, 1995, Representatives Fields of Texas,
    DeLay, Laughin, and Hall of Texas introduced H.R. 558 in the
    House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on
    H.R. 558 on May 11, 1995. Witnesses included Members of
    Congress from the State of Texas, as well as representatives
    from the State of Texas and local citizen groups.
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open markup
    session on May 16, 1995, and approved H.R. 558, without
    amendment, for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 558 on May 24, 1995, and ordered the bill reported to the
    House, without amendment, by a roll call vote of 41 yeas to 2
    nays. The Committee reported H.R. 558 to the House on June 20,
    1995 (H. Rpt. 104-148).
        The House considered H.R. 558 under Suspension of the Rules
    on September 18 and September 19, 1995; on September 19, 1995,
    the House failed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 558 by a
    roll call vote of 176 yeas to 243 nays.
        On December 20, 1995, the House, by a voice vote, passed H.
    Res. 313, a resolution providing for the consideration of H.R.
    558 in the House under a 1 hour, open rule. No further action
    was taken in the House on the measure in the 104th Congress.
        On May 18, 1995, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
    reported similar legislation, S. 419, to the Senate (No Written
    Report). No further action was taken in the Senate on that
    legislation in the 104th Congress.

                             usec privatization act

                  (H.R. 1216, H.R. 1215, H.R. 2491, H.R. 3019)

        To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to provide for the
    privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1216 is to facilitate the privatization
    of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), as provided
    by Title IX of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, P.L. 102-
    486). The legislation contains provisions to increase the
    return to the taxpayers from the sale of the corporation to
    potential purchasers or shareholders, and eliminates burdensome
    statutory requirements for the privatized corporation.
        The legislation also contains language designed to promote
    an orderly transition from government ownership to the private
    sector for USEC, including transition requirements for Federal
    employees affected by the sale, as well as protections for
    Federal contract employees at the corporation's enrichment
    facilities. While seeking to maximize the return of monies to
    the U.S. Treasury from the sale, the legislation also attempts
    to ensure that the corporation will be a viable business
    venture in order to retain the important national security
    benefits of a domestic uranium enrichment capability.

    Legislative History

        On March 13, 1995, Mr. Bliley introduced H.R. 1216 in the
    House. On March 15, 1995, a request that H.R. 1216 be
    considered directly by the Full Committee was agreed to by
    unanimous consent. The Full Committee then considered H.R.
    1216, and ordered the bill reported to the House, as amended,
    by a voice vote. Prior to this action, on February 24, 1995,
    the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the
    Privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation. The
    Committee reported H.R. 1216 to the House on March 23, 1995 (H.
    Rpt. 104-86). No further action was taken on H.R. 1216 in the
    104th Congress.
        The provisions of H.R. 1216 were incorporated into the text
    of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of
    1995, which passed the House on April 5, 1995.
        For the legislative history of that bill, see the
    discussion of the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of
    1995 (H.R. 1215) in this section.
        A modified version of H.R. 1216 was also adopted by the
    Committee on September 13, 1995, as a Committee Print entitled
    ``United States Enrichment Corporation'' and transmitted to the
    Committee on the Budget by a voice vote. Legislative language
    concerning the privatization of USEC was included in the
    conference report on the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R.
    2491), which was vetoed by the President on December 6, 1995.
    For the legislative history of that bill, see the discussion of
    the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491) in this section.
        The Committee also supported the inclusion of legislative
    language to privatize the United States Uranium Enrichment
    Corporation in H.R. 3019, which was enacted into law (P.L. 104-
    134). For the legislation history of H.R. 3019, see the
    discussion of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
    Appropriations Act of 1996 in this section.

                        nuclear waste policy act of 1995

                              (H.R. 1020, S. 1936)

        To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1020 is to revamp the nation's current
    nuclear waste disposal policy. This is accomplished by
    establishing an integrated management system for the
    transportation, storage and disposal of high-level radioactive
    waste and spent nuclear fuel.
        H.R. 1020 replaces the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
    (P.L. 97-425, and amendments of P.L. 100-202 and P.L. 100-203),
    and seeks to achieve three primary goals: (1) maintenance of a
    strong commitment to the permanent repository program, which
    would provide a site for final disposal of U.S. spent nuclear
    fuel and high-level radioactive defense waste; (2) construction
    of an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel near the
    Yucca Mountain site, in order to fulfill the Department of
    Energy's obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel in
    1998; and (3) replacement of the current Nuclear Waste Fund
    financing mechanism with an annual fee based on the level of
    spending for waste disposal activities, to eliminate further
    diversions of the current Fund for non-nuclear waste disposal
    policy activities.

    Legislative History

        On February 23, 1995, Representatives Upton, Towns,
    Bilirakis, Manton, Stearns, Hall of Texas, Norwood, Gordon,
    Burr, Thurman, Hastert, Gillmor, Moorhead, Graham, and Franks
    of Connecticut introduced H.R. 1020. The bill was referred to
    the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
    Resources, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
    and the Committee on the Budget.
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a number of
    hearings on the status of the nuclear waste disposal program
    and the current Nuclear Waste Policy Act. On June 28, 1995, the
    Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the status of current
    interim storage practice and policy. On June 30, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power held an oversight hearing on
    the status of the permanent repository program and site
    characterization at the proposed permanent repository at Yucca
    Mountain, Nevada. Finally, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
    July 12, 1995, to examine various legislative proposals to
    revise the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The hearing included the
    following legislation: H.R. 1020, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
    of 1995; H.R. 496, the Nuclear Waste Policy Reassessment Act;
    H.R. 1032, the Electric Consumers and Environmental Protection
    Act; H.R. 1174, the Nuclear Waste Disposal Funding Act; and
    H.R. 1924, the Interim Waste Act. Witnesses at these hearings
    included representatives from the Nevada Congressional
    delegation, the Administration, State and local government
    groups in the State of Nevada, State public utility
    commissions, utilities, and the environmental community.
        The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1020 on July 28, 1995, and approved H.R. 1020 for Full
    Committee consideration, with an amendment in the nature of a
    substitute, by a roll call vote of 18 yeas to 2 nays.
        The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
    H.R. 1020 on August 2, 1995, and ordered the bill reported, as
    amended, by a roll call vote of 30 yeas to 4 nays. The
    Committee reported H.R. 1020 to the House on September 20, 1995
    (H. Rpt. 104-254, Part 1).
        On September 20, 1995, the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure was discharged from further consideration of
    H.R. 1020. On September 20, 1995, the referral of the bill to
    the Committee on Resources and the Committee on the Budget was
    extended for a period ending not later than October 20, 1995;
    on October 19, 1995, the referral of H.R. 1020 was extended
    until October 24, 1995. On October 24, 1995, both the Committee
    on Resources and the Committee on the Budget were discharged
    from further consideration of H.R. 1020.
        A companion bill, S. 1936, was introduced in the Senate on
    July 9, 1996, by Mr. Craig and Mr. Murkowski and read the first
    time. On July 10, 1996, the bill was read for the second time
    and placed on the Senate calendar. The Senate considered S.
    1936 on July 16 and July 31, 1996; on July 31, 1996, the Senate
    passed S. 1936, amended, by a roll call vote of 63 yeas to 37
    nays. On August 1, 1996, S. 1936 was received in the House and
    held at the Speaker's desk. On October 4, 1996, the measure was
    referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the
    Committee on Resources.
        No further action was taken on either H.R. 1020 or S. 1936
    in the 104th Congress.

           waste isolation pilot plant land withdrawal amendment act

                       (H.R. 1663, H.R. 2491, H.R. 3230)

        To amend the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal
    Act.

    Summary

        H.R. 1663 eliminates outdated statutory requirements for,
    and expedites the commencement of, operations at the Waste
    Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The WIPP is the nation's first
    repository for the permanent disposal of transuranic materials,
    and construction of the facility was completed in 1991. Several
    factors, including the testing of waste characteristics and
    certification for compliance with applicable environmental
    regulations, have resulted in delays in opening the WIPP. H.R.
    1663 amends portions of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
    Withdrawal Act (P.L. 102-579) to eliminate unnecessary ``in-
    situ'' testing requirements at the facility and streamline the
    environmental compliance certification process.

    Legislative History

        On May 17, 1995, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Schaefer, and Mr. Crapo
    introduced H.R. 1663 in the House. The bill was referred to the
    Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
    National Security.
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
    1663 on July 21, 1995. Witnesses at the hearing included
    representatives of the New Mexico Congressional delegation, the
    Administration, the State of New Mexico, local government,
    Federal contractors, and environmental groups.
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 1663, on July 28, 1995, and approved
    the bill, without amendment, for Full Committee consideration
    by a voice vote. On March 13, 1996, the Full Committee met in
    open markup session to consider H.R. 1663 and ordered the bill
    reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. The Committee
    reported H.R. 1663 to the House on April 25, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-
    540, Part 1). Referral of the bill to the Committee on National
    Security was extended for a period ending not later than June
    14, 1996. On June 14, 1996, the Committee on National Security
    was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1663. No
    further action was taken on H.R. 1663 in the 104th Congress.
        On September 13, 1995, the Full Committee considered a
    Committee Print entitled ``Waste Isolation Pilot Project,''
    which consisted of the text of H.R. 1663 as approved by the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and ordered the Committee
    Print transmitted to the Committee on the Budget for inclusion
    in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. For the legislative history
    of that bill, see the discussion of the Balanced Budget Act of
    1995 (H.R. 2491) in this section.
        The Committee also supported the inclusion of legislative
    language to amend the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
    Withdrawal Amendment Act in H.R. 3230, which was enacted into
    law (Public Law 104-201). For the legislation history of H.R.
    3230, see the discussion of the National Defense Authorization
    Act for Fiscal Year 1997 in this section.

           energy policy and conservation reauthorization act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 2596)

        To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy
    Policy and Conservation Act through Fiscal Year 1999, and for
    other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 2596 reauthorizes expiring Energy Policy and
    Conservation Act (EPCA) programs such as the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve and U.S. participation in the International
    Energy Agreement. These programs expired at the end of Fiscal
    Year 1996. It also reauthorizes the following programs: the
    State Energy Conservation Program and the Institutional
    Conservation Program, which expired at the end of Fiscal Year
    1993; the Weatherization Assistance Program, which expired at
    the end of Fiscal Year 1994; and the Committee on Renewable
    Energy Commerce and Trade, and the Committee on Energy
    Efficiency Commerce and Trade which expired at the end of
    Fiscal Year 1995. The bill reauthorizes these programs through
    Fiscal Year 1999 for such sums as may be necessary.

    Legislative History

        On November 8, 1995, Mr. Schaefer introduced H.R. 2596 in
    the House. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing
    on H.R. 2596 on November 9, 1995. Witnesses from the
    Administration and private industry testified at the hearing.
    On March 5, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in
    open markup session to consider H.R. 2596 and approved the bill
    for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote.
        On March 13, 1996, the Full Committee met in open markup
    session to consider H.R. 2596 and ordered the bill reported to
    the House, without amendment, by a voice vote.
        No further action was taken on the legislation in the 104th
    Congress.

                  alaska power administration sale act of 1995

                              (H.R. 1122, S. 395)

        To authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the
    Alaska Power Administration and for other purposes.

    Summary

        H.R. 1122 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to
    sell and transfer two hydroelectric projects in Alaska pursuant
    to a Purchase Agreement entered into between the Alaska Power
    Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy and the State
    of Alaska and a Purchase Agreement entered into between the
    Alaska Power Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy
    and the Eklutna Purchasers. H.R. 1122 also grants jurisdiction
    to the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska to review
    decisions made under the Memorandum of Agreement entered into
    between the State of Alaska, the Eklutna Purchasers, and
    Federal fish and wildlife agencies regarding the protection,
    mitigation of damages to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife.
    H.R. 1122 provides that any action seeking review of the fish
    and wildlife program under the Memorandum of Agreement must be
    brought within 90 days of the date of adoption of the program.
    H.R. 1122 provides for termination of the Alaska Power
    Administration of the Department of Energy.

    Legislative History

        On March 3, 1995, Mr. Young of Alaska introduced H.R. 1122.
    The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in
    addition to the Committee on Commerce.
        On July 13, 1995, the Committee on Resources reported H.R.
    1122 to the House (H. Rpt. 104-187, Part 1). The referral of
    the bill to the Committee on Commerce was extended for a period
    ending not later than October 16, 1995; on October 16, 1995,
    the referral of the bill was extended until November 24, 1995.
        The Subcommittee Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
    1122 on July 19, 1995. Witnesses included the Chair of the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the General Counsel of
    the Department of Energy, and the president of a trade
    association that represents investor-owned electric utilities.
         On November 24, 1995, the Committee on Commerce was
    discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1122.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 1122 in the 104th
    Congress. However, provisions of H.R. 1122 were included in the
    conference agreement on S. 395 which was signed into law on
    November 28, 1995. For the legislative history of that bill,
    see the discussion of the Alaska Power Administration Asset
    Sale and Termination Act (Public Law 104-58) in this section.

                 federal power asset privatization act of 1995

                                  (H.R. 1801)

        To privatize certain Federal power generation and
    transmission assets, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of this bill is to privatize certain Federal
    electric power generation and transmission assets. H.R. 1801
    directs the Department of Energy to sell all electric power
    generation and transmission facilities administered or
    coordinated by Federal Power Marketing Administrations at the
    highest possible price. The bill establishes a deadline for the
    completion of sales, provides for termination of the agencies
    upon sale of the facilities, limits annual rate increases to 10
    percent, and directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
    to issue a license to the purchasers of the hydroelectric
    projects.

    Legislative History

        On June 8, 1995, Mr. Foley introduced H.R. 1801 in the
    House. The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources, and
    in addition to the Committee on Commerce.
        On July 19, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on H.R. 1801. Witnesses included the Chair of the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the General Counsel of
    the Department of Energy, and the president of a trade
    association that represents investor-owned electric utilities.
        No further action was taken on H.R. 1801 in the 104th
    Congress.

     to extend the deadline under the federal power act applicable to the
                construction of a hydroelectric plant in oregon

                                  (H.R. 1835)

        To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in
    Oregon, and for other purposes.

    Summary

        The purpose of H.R. 1835 is to extend the nonstatutory
    deadline for construction of a hydroelectric project in Oregon.
        Section 13 of the Federal Power Act grants the Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) discretion to set deadlines
    for the completion of hydroelectric project construction, while
    permitting FERC to extend the deadline ``when not incompatible
    with the public interests.'' As a general rule, FERC believes
    it is not in the public interest to significantly extend the
    deadline by which a licensee must complete construction of its
    project. In the case of the Oregon project, construction has
    begun, but cannot be completed until the Army Corps of
    Engineers installs water temperature control structures at the
    site. H.R. 1835 extends the deadline for completion of project
    construction.

    Legislative History

        On June 14, 1995, Representatives DeFazio, Furse, and Wyden
    introduced H.R. 1835 in the House. The Subcommittee on Energy
    and Power held a hearing on H.R. 1835 on October 18, 1995. The
    sole witness was the General Counsel of the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission. Subsequent to the hearing, FERC granted
    an administrative extension of the deadline for the completion
    of construction of the project.
         No further action was taken on H.R. 1835 in the 104th
    Congress.

                     Oversight or Investigative Activities

          the department of energy budget request for fiscal year 1996

        On February 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE)
    budget request for Fiscal Year 1996. The purpose of the hearing
    was to examine the shifting funding priorities within DOE as
    work moves from nuclear weapons production into environmental
    remediation of its facilities. Specifically, the hearing
    focused on DOE's plans to initiate a 5-year program to reduce
    departmental spending by $14.1 billion. Information presented
    at the hearing assisted the Committee in subsequent action on
    the Administration's budget proposals, including activity on
    the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491).

           privatization of the united states enrichment corporation

        On February 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on privatization of the United States Enrichment
    Corporation (USEC). The hearing focused on the potential
    benefits and drawbacks of selling the USEC, how best to
    structure a sale in order to maximize the return to the Federal
    Treasury, and the importance of maintaining a strong domestic
    uranium enrichment capability. Witnesses included
    representatives from USEC, the Administration, investment
    groups, and the environmental community.

        reauthorization of the natural gas pipeline safety act and the
                      hazardous liquid pipeline safety act

        On March 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on reauthorization of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety
    Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act. The purpose of the
    hearing was to inform the Subcommittee of reauthorization
    options in preparation for subsequent legislative action.
    Administration, State, and gas pipeline witnesses testified to
    the continuing need for pipeline safety legislation and
    recommended some changes to the existing legislation.

           status of international global climate change negotiations

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held four hearings on
    global climate change during the 104th Congress. The focus of
    these hearings was to review Administration policy in
    international global climate change treaty negotiations.
        The Subcommittee's March 21, 1995, climate change hearing
    focused on the Administration's plans for the final meeting of
    the International Negotiating Committee for a Framework
    Convention on Global Climate Change. The hearing explored the
    status of international climate change negotiations and their
    impact on the U.S. economy. Administration and private industry
    witnesses discussed climate change policy issues such as the
    adequacy of current treaty commitments, joint implementation
    activities, and plans for the first meeting of the climate
    change treaty signatories.
        On May 19, 1995, the Subcommittee held its second climate
    change hearing to explore what commitments the U.S. entered
    into at the First Conference of the Parties to the Framework
    Convention on Global Climate Change. Administration witnesses
    from the Department of State and other relevant agencies
    testified as to their interpretation of the ``Berlin Mandate'',
    the differing burdens it placed on developed and developing
    nations, and how those differing burdens would impact the U.S.
    economy and its global trade competitiveness.
        The Subcommittee's third hearing on international global
    climate change negotiations was held on June 19, 1996. The
    hearing focused on the Administration's expected outcome for
    the Second Conference of the Parties to a Framework Convention
    on Climate Change (FCCC). Administration witnesses from the
    Department of State, the Department of Energy, and the
    Environmental Protection Agency outlined the Administration's
    position with respect to climate change.
        On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held its final global climate change hearing for the 104th
    Congress. This hearing focused on the Ministerial Statement
    adopted at the Second Conference of the Parties and its impact
    on the United States. Witnesses from the Department of State,
    the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the
    Environmental Protection Agency testified regarding the impact
    a future climate change agreement might have on the economy of
    the United States and the global environment.

                          future of alternative fuels

        On June 6, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on the Future of Alternative Fuels. The
    hearing focused on the Administration's implementation of the
    alternative fuels provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
    1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. Witnesses included
    Administration representatives, as well as representatives from
    the oil and gas and automobile fleet management industries.

                   reorganization of the department of energy

        On June 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on reorganization of the Department of
    Energy (DOE). A Member of Congress explained his proposal to
    abolish the agency and transfer certain functions to other
    agencies. The Secretary of Energy opposed terminating DOE,
    instead favoring an internal reorganization plan to improve
    performance and produce savings. Other witnesses included
    representatives from the General Accounting Office, the
    Department of Defense, industry, and an environmental group, a
    former DOE official, and a DOE contractor.

     interim storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel

        On June 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing focusing on the status of current interim
    storage practices and policies. The purpose of the hearing was
    to examine the safety implications of present-day storage
    techniques for spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear
    operations and high-level radioactive waste from U.S. nuclear
    defense activities. Information gathered at this hearing was
    instrumental during the Committee's later consideration of
    legislation to overhaul the nation's current nuclear waste
    disposal program. Witnesses included representatives from the
    Nevada Congressional delegation, the Administration, State
    public utility commissions, utilities, and the environmental
    community.

       status of high-level radioactive waste repository characterization

        On June 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on the status of the permanent repository
    program and site characterization at the proposed permanent
    repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The purpose of the
    hearing was to examine the progress of work to characterize
    Yucca Mountain as a suitable repository for high-level
    radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, and to evaluate the
    need for statutory and regulatory changes to expedite work at
    the proposed site. The testimony and information gathered at
    this hearing was instrumental during the Committee's
    deliberations on H.R. 1020, legislation amending the Nuclear
    Waste Policy Act of 1982. Witnesses included representatives
    from the Administration, State and local government groups in
    the State of Nevada, and the environmental community.

     implementation of corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards and
                                 related issues

        On July 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on the implementation of the Corporate Average Fuel
    Economy (CAFE) standards. The hearing focused on the purposes
    for such standards, their success in achieving those purposes,
    and proposed changes for the program to better achieve its
    purposes. Witnesses included Administration representatives, as
    well as representatives from automobile manufacturers,
    consumers, and insurers.

     securities and exchange commission's report: the regulation of public-
                           utility holding companies

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held two days of joint
    hearings with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance on the repeal or reform of the Public Utility Holding
    Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). At the hearings held on August 4,
    1995, and October 13, 1995, witnesses from the Securities and
    Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC) and State and private organizations focused
    on the SEC's report on PUHCA, its recommendations, and how
    PUHCA reform or repeal impacts the issue of electric utility
    industry restructuring.

                  privatization of the naval petroleum reserve

        On September 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on proposals to privatize the Naval Petroleum
    Reserve. The purpose of the hearing was to inform the
    Subcommittee of the current status of the reserves and the
    various privatization proposals in preparation for subsequent
    legislative action, including the Balanced Budget Act of 1995
    and the National Department of Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 1996. Witnesses included a Department of Energy
    representative, as well as representatives from the oil and gas
    industries and consumer groups.

      state of environmental remediation at department of energy nuclear
                                   facilities

        On October 31, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE) management
    of environmental remediation and compliance requirements at its
    facilities. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
    current state of DOE's environmental management program,
    focusing on the impact that contractor reforms, State-Federal
    relationships, and programmatic changes have had on cleanup
    activities at DOE sites. Witnesses included Members of
    Congress, representatives of the Administration, State
    governments, the environmental community, and economic
    development groups.

      federal energy regulatory commission's proposed rules affecting the
                              electricity industry

        On November 2, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
    (FERC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Open Access
    Transmission. Government and private industry witnesses
    testifying at the hearing discussed how the rulemaking will
    affect competition in wholesale electricity markets and what it
    means for electric utilities, their customers, and State
    regulators.

      development of tritium production sources for department of energy
                           defense nuclear activities

        On November 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on Department of Energy (DOE)
    proposals to secure a stable source of tritium for U.S. atomic
    defense activities and the Report of the Speaker's Task Force
    on Nuclear Cleanup and Tritium Production entitled Getting on
    with Tritium Production. The purpose of the hearing was to
    examine the different options available to DOE for tritium
    production and to determine what effects these options may have
    on nuclear power generation within the utility market. In
    addition, the Subcommittee considered the various options'
    impact on the health and safety of nuclear workers and
    surrounding communities. Witnesses included Members of Congress
    and representatives from the Administration, industry, and the
    environmental community.

                 department of energy: misuse of federal funds

        On November 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations on misuse of Federal funds by the Department of
    Energy (DOE). The hearing focused on a DOE contract with a
    public affairs firm to rate the favorability and unfavorability
    of journalists and others toward the agency and how these
    ratings were used by DOE. Additionally, the hearing encompassed
    allegations of misuse of Federal funds by DOE in other areas,
    such as public relations and foreign travel. The sole witness
    was the Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary.

                         pacific northwest power system

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held two oversight
    hearings in the 104th Congress which focused on the Pacific
    Northwest Power System.
        On December 6, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing to examine the role of the Bonneville
    Power Administration in a competitive electric power market and
    to determine whether changes to the statutes governing
    Bonneville are necessary. The Administrator of the Bonneville
    Power Administration testified, as did representatives of
    Bonneville's customers, publicly-owned utilities and direct
    service industries, and Bonneville's competitors, publicly-
    owned and investor-owned utilities.
        On June 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on the impact of the Army Corps of Engineers'
    management and operation of main-stem hydropower projects on
    the Snake and Columbia Rivers on fish mitigation and electric
    generation in the Pacific Northwest. The purpose of the hearing
    was to examine the impact of operation of these projects on
    fish mitigation costs. Because of its dependence on hydropower,
    electric generation and fish mitigation have long been
    intertwined in the Pacific Northwest, and fish mitigation costs
    impair the competitive position of the Bonneville Power
    Administration. The Subcommittee heard testimony from a range
    of witnesses on the Corps' operation of these facilities.

       public utility regulatory policies act and its role in increasing
                        competitive electricity markets

        On February 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on the Public Utility Regulatory
    Policies Act (PURPA) and its role in increasingly competitive
    electricity markets. This hearing was a continuation of the
    Subcommittee's comprehensive examination of the electric
    utility industry. The hearing focused on the role PURPA played
    in introducing competition in the electric utility industry and
    other means to ensure competition in the future.

                        electricity: state of the states

        On February 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing focusing on State activities to restructure the
    electric utility industry. State legislators and State utility
    regulators testified about activities being undertaken in their
    States to increase retail competition in the electric utility
    industry. Witnesses also addressed the need for Federal
    electric restructuring legislation.

          the department of energy budget request for fiscal year 1997

        On March 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE)
    budget request for Fiscal Year 1997. The purpose of the hearing
    was to examine the shifting funding priorities of DOE missions
    at a time of flat budgets. The hearing focused largely on
    concerns regarding DOE's management of the Environmental
    Management program, the progress of the high-level nuclear
    waste program, DOE's nuclear nonproliferation programs, and the
    future of the national laboratories. The Subcommittee heard
    testimony from a panel of DOE witnesses, led by DOE Under
    Secretary Thomas P. Grumbly.

    technological, environmental and financial issues raised by increasing
                        competitive electricity markets

        On March 28, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    continued its comprehensive review of the electric utility
    industry with a hearing focused on technological, environmental
    and financial issues raised by increasingly competitive
    electricity markets. The hearing addressed the impact retail
    competition in the electric industry would have on a broad
    range of issues, including the environment, reliability,
    development of new technology, low-income electric consumers,
    and the financial integrity of utility companies. Witnesses
    included representatives from environmental, financial and
    technology firms, consumer advocates, and utilities.

      federal energy regulatory  commission's final  rule on open access
           transmission and the future of electric utility regulation

        On May 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a
    hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC)
    Final Rule on Open Access Transmission (Order 888) and the
    Future of Electric Utility Regulation. Order 888 mandates that
    utilities provide open access wholesale transmission services
    on interstate transmission lines. All five FERC Commissioners
    testified regarding the rule and the impact it will have on
    wholesale electricity markets.

                   future of the strategic petroleum reserve

        On May 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a
    hearing on the future of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The
    hearing focused on the impact recent sales of oil from the
    Reserve for budgetary purposes will have on U.S. energy
    security. Witnesses included representatives from the
    Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration,
    the Congressional Budget Office, as well as oil and gas
    industry experts.

                electricity regulation: a vision for the future

        On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    completed its comprehensive review of the electric utility
    industry with a hearing on the future of electricity
    regulation. Witnesses from all sectors of the electric utility
    industry, as well as large and small electric consumers,
    regulators, and marketers testified about their vision of the
    future of the electric utility industry, the role of retail
    competition in that future, and the need for Federal
    electricity legislation.

        progress of the department of energy's strategic alignment and
                             downsizing initiative

        On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on the General Accounting Office's May
    1996 report on the progress of the Department of Energy's (DOE)
    Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative. The purpose of
    the hearing was to examine the progress of DOE's efforts to
    implement its internal program to reduce layers of management,
    eliminate redundancies, and responsibly integrate operational
    activities where possible. Witnesses included representatives
    of the General Accounting Office and the Department of Energy.

                         one-call notification program

        On June 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on one-call notification programs. The Subcommittee
    considered issues related to the establishment of one-call
    notification programs to protect natural gas and hazardous
    liquid pipelines and other underground facilities from being
    damaged by excavations, including whether Federal legislation
    is necessary to promote establishment of these programs and the
    necessary elements of any such legislation. Witnesses included
    officials from Federal agencies and representatives of
    underground facility owners and contractors.

           federal energy efficiency standards for consumer products

        On July 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE) management of the
    energy efficiency standards program for various consumer
    products. DOE's management of the appliance standards program
    has been criticized for inadequate consideration of consumer
    impacts and anticompetitive effects, limited involvement of
    stakeholders, and reliance on poor technical expertise. These
    concerns led Congress to include a moratorium on promulgation
    of new standards in the Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996. In response,
    DOE promulgated a rule to govern the consideration of new or
    revised energy efficiency standards for consumer products. The
    hearing examined whether this rule corrects the problems in
    DOE's management of the program. Witnesses included
    representatives from DOE, industry associations, and the
    environmental community.

             general oversight of the nuclear regulatory commission

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held an oversight
    hearing on September 5, 1996, on general oversight of the U.S.
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The purpose of the hearing
    was to examine the efforts of the agency to adequately regulate
    those industries and Federal activities which utilize
    radioactive materials. Issues covered ranged from nuclear power
    plant safety, to progress of the proposed permanent high-level
    radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to
    whistleblower protection and medical device regulation. The
    five members of the Commission were the only witnesses.

                                 Hearings Held

        DOE Proposed FY 1996 Budget.--Oversight Hearing on the
    Department of Energy's Budget Request for Fiscal Year 1996.
    Hearing held on February 8, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-4.
        Privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation.--Hearing
    on the Privatization of the United States Enrichment
    Corporation. Hearing held on February 24, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-8.
        Reauthorization of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and
    the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act.--Hearing on the
    Reauthorization of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the
    Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Sec. 60101 et
    seq.) Hearing held on March 9, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-10.
        International Global Climate Change Negotiations.--
    Oversight Hearing on the Status of the International Global
    Climate Change Negotiations. Hearing held on March 21, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-13.
        The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact.--
    Hearing on H.R. 558, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste
    Disposal Compact Consent Act. Hearing held on May 11, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-15.
        International Global Climate Change Negotiations.--
    Oversight Hearing on the Status of the International Global
    Climate Change Negotiations. Hearing held on May 19, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-13.
        Future of Alternative Fuels.--Oversight Hearing on the
    Future of Alternative Fuels. Hearing held on June 6, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-29.
        Reorganization of the Department of Energy.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Reorganization of the Department of Energy.
    Hearing held on June 21, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-27.
        High-Level Nuclear Waste Policy.--Oversight Hearing on
    Interim Storage. Hearing held on June 28, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-24.
        High-Level Nuclear Waste Policy.--Oversight Hearing on the
    Proposed Permanent Repository at Yucca Mountain. Hearing held
    on June 30, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-24.
        High-Level Nuclear Waste Policy.--Hearing on H.R. 1020,
    Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1995; H.R. 496, Nuclear Waste
    Policy Reassessment Act; H.R. 1032, Electric Consumers and
    Environmental Protection Act of 1995; H.R. 1174, Nuclear Waste
    Disposal Funding Act; and H.R. 1924, Interim Waste Act. Hearing
    held on July 12, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-24.
        Privatization of the Federal Power Marketing
    Administrations.--Hearing on H.R. 1801, Federal Power Asset
    Privatization Act of 1995, and H.R. 1122, Alaska Power
    Administration Sale Act. Hearing held on July 19, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-46.
        Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Amendments
    Act.--Hearing on H.R. 1663, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    Land Withdrawal Amendment Act. Hearing held on July 21, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-31.
        Implementation of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
    Standards.--Oversight Hearing on the Implementation of
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Hearing held
    on July 24, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-42.
        The Securities and Exchange Commission Report Entitled: The
    Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies.--Joint Hearing
    with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance on the
    Securities and Exchange Commission's Report, entitled ``The
    Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies.'' Hearing held
    on August 4, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-62.
        Legislation to Privatize the Naval Petroleum Reserve.--
    Hearing on legislation to privatize the Naval Petroleum
    Reserve. Hearing held on September 8, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-44.
        The Securities and Exchange Commission's Report, ``The
    Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies.''--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance on the Securities and Exchange Commission's Report,
    entitled ``The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding
    Companies.'' Hearing held on October 13, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-62.
        Hydroelectric License Extensions.--Hearing on H.R. 657, a
    bill to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects
    in the State of Arkansas; H.R. 680, a bill to extend the time
    for construction of FERC licensed hydro projects; H.R. 1011, a
    bill to extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act
    applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in
    the State of Ohio; H.R. 1014, a bill to authorize extension of
    time limitation for a FERC-issued hydroelectric license; H.R.
    1051, a bill to provide for the extension of certain
    hydroelectric projects located in the State of West Virginia;
    H.R. 1290, a bill to reinstate the permit for, and extend the
    deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the
    construction of, a hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for
    other purposes; H.R. 1335, a bill to provide for the extension
    of a hydroelectric project located in the State of West
    Virginia; H.R. 1366, a bill to authorize the extension of time
    limitation for the FERC-issued hydroelectric license for the
    Mt. Hope Waterpower Project; and H.R. 1835, a bill to extend
    the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the
    construction of a hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for
    other purposes. Hearing held on October 18, 1995. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-40.
        The Propane Education and Research Act of 1995.--Hearing on
    H.R. 1514, the Propane Education and Research Act of 1995.
    Hearing held on October 26, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    63.
        Oversight Hearing on Environmental Remediation at DOE
    Facilities.--Oversight Hearing on the State of Environmental
    Remediation at Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities. Hearing
    held on October 31, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-45.
        The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rules
    Affecting the Electric Industry.--Oversight Hearing on the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Proposed Rules Affecting
    the Electric Industry. Hearing held on November 2, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-70.
        Reauthorization of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
    of 1995.--Hearing on H.R. 2596, a bill to extend energy
    conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation
    Act through Fiscal Year 1999, and for other purposes. Hearing
    held on November 9, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-49.
        Oversight Hearing on Tritium Production.--Oversight Hearing
    on Tritium Production and the Report of the Speaker's Task
    Force entitled Getting on with Tritium Production. Hearing held
    on November 15, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-47.
        Department of Energy: Misuse of Federal Funds.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations on the Misuse of Federal Funds by the Department
    of Energy. Hearing held on November 17, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-56.
        Oversight Hearing on the Pacific Northwest Power System.--
    Oversight Hearing on the Pacific Northwest Power System.
    Hearing held on December 6, 1995. PRINTED. Serial Number 104-
    67.
        Oversight Hearing on the Public Utility Regulatory Policies
    Act and its Role in Increasingly Competitive Electricity
    Markets.--Oversight Hearing on the Public Utility Regulatory
    Policies Act and its Role in Increasingly Competitive
    Electricity Markets. Hearing held on February 1, 1996. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-65.
        Electricity: State of the States.--Oversight Hearing on
    Electricity: State of the States. Hearing held on February 27,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-91.
        Authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
    Control Act.--Hearing on H.R. 2967, a bill to extend the
    authorization of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
    Act of 1978, and for other purposes. Hearing held on February
    28, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-66.
        Department of Energy's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year
    1997.--Oversight Hearing on the Department of Energy's Budget
    Request for Fiscal Year 1997. Hearing held on March 22, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-85.
        Technological, Environmental, and Financial Issues Raised
    by Increasingly Competitive Electricity Markets.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Technological, Environmental, and Financial
    Issues Raised by Increasingly Competitive Electricity Markets.
    Hearing held on March 28, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-94.
        Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Final Rule on Open
    Access Transmission and the Future of Electric Utility
    Regulation.--Oversight Hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission's Final Rule on Open Access Transmission and the
    Future of Electric Utility Regulation. Hearing held on May 1,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-92.
        The Future of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.--Oversight
    Hearing on the Future of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
    Hearing held on May 8, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-90.
        Electricity: A Vision for the Future.--Oversight Hearing on
    Electricity Regulation: A Vision for the Future. Hearing held
    on May 15, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-95.
        Progress of the Department of Energy's Strategic Alignment
    and Downsizing Initiative.--Oversight Hearing on the General
    Accounting Office Report on the Department of Energy's
    Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative. Hearing held on
    June 12, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-96.
        Oversight Hearing of the Pacific Northwest Power System.--
    Oversight Hearing on the Pacific Northwest Power System.
    Hearing held on June 18, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-88.
        Status of the International Global Climate Change
    Negotiations.--Oversight Hearing on the Status of the
    International Global Climate Change Negotiations. Hearing held
    on June 19, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-119.
        Oversight Hearing of the One-Call Notification Program.--
    Oversight Hearing on the One-Call Notification Program. Hearing
    held on June 27, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-84.
        Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer
    Products.--Oversight Hearing on Federal Energy Efficiency
    Standards for Consumer Products. Hearing held on July 25, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-118.
        Oversight Hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.--
    Oversight Hearing held on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Hearing held on September 5, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    114.
        Status of the International Global Climate Change
    Negotiations.--Oversight Hearing on the Status of the
    International Global Climate Change Negotiations. Hearing held
    on September 26, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-119.
                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

    Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments and
    all programs within the jurisdiction of the full committee, and for
    conducting investigations within such jurisdiction.

                                  Introduction

        During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations initiated several major inquiries which
    included comprehensive oversight of the activities of the Food
    and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human
    Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
    Department of Energy. Some of these investigations have
    provided the basis for enactment of corrective legislation in
    the 104th Congress, and some will provide the foundation for
    legislative action in the 105th Congress. In addition, some of
    the Subcommittee's inquiries also have resulted in meaningful
    changes in the Executive Branch's implementation and
    enforcement of current laws and the establishment of cost-
    saving measures in the operations of the various departments
    and agencies.
        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held nine hearings on matters pertaining to the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Six of these hearings dealt
    specifically with the day-to-day operation of the FDA. The
    Subcommittee focused on serious questions concerning the FDA
    process for reviewing and approving drugs, medical devices, and
    biologics. The Subcommittee evaluated concerns that delays in
    these processes were impeding patient access to beneficial new
    treatments and, in the long term, chilling innovation. The
    Subcommittee examined the approval process for medical devices,
    drugs, and biologics, the FDA's performance, actual impacts,
    and possible improvements to be undertaken.
        The Subcommittee also heard testimony from witnesses about
    what they viewed as burdensome FDA regulations as well as
    testimony from FDA officials defending their policies. The
    Subcommittee examined allegations of structural problems in the
    approval process, areas said to be creating inefficiencies, and
    allegedly unnecessary burdens for biotechnology research and
    products.
        Finally, the Subcommittee reviewed concerns centered on
    what witnesses perceived as inconsistencies in the
    implementation of FDA's enforcement policy.
        Witnesses at these hearings testified about their beliefs
    that a number of problems exist with the day-to-day operation
    of the FDA and that legislation is needed to address these
    problems. On March 29, 1996, three bills were introduced in the
    House: (1) H.R. 3199, the Drug and Biological Products Reform
    Act of 1996; (2) H.R. 3200, the Food Amendments and Animal Drug
    Availability Act of 1996; and (3) H.R. 3201, the Medical Device
    Reform Act of 1996. The Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    held legislative hearings on these bills on May 1 and May 2,
    1996. For the legislative history of H.R. 3199, H.R. 3200, and
    H.R. 3201, see the discussions of those bills in the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment section of this report.
        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also held
    three hearings which focused on FDA policies in three specific
    areas. The first hearing dealt with cancer patient access to
    unapproved treatments. The hearing focused on what
    alternatives, including possible FDA action, are available to
    cancer patients with life-threatening illnesses whose access to
    an unapproved treatment is interrupted or threatened as a
    result of Federal food and drug law investigations or
    prosecutions, where there is credible evidence of risk to the
    patient from cutoff of that treatment.
        The second of these hearings dealt with FDA integrity
    issues, including management and review practices at FDA.
    Specifically witnesses discussed a disclosure of documents
    relating to one firm's application to a competing applicant.
    The hearing also examined the operations of the FDA's Office of
    Internal Affairs and the adequacy of FDA's self-investigation
    of allegations of FDA employee misconduct.
        The third hearing focused on FDA's policies with respect to
    home testing services and devices. In particular, the
    Subcommittee examined two regulatory issues relating to FDA's
    regulation of home-testing services and devices. The hearing
    dealt with the review of a non-invasive transcutaneous glucose
    monitor intended for the quantitative determination of blood
    glucose in diabetics, including some allegations of possible
    conflicts of interest on FDA advisory committees. This hearing
    also focused on parental access to drug-testing services and
    the FDA's policy position in this area. Currently, two firms
    are known to be marketing collection kits for home drug-testing
    services for parental use. FDA has asserted regulatory
    jurisdiction in this area on the basis that the specimen
    collection envelopes or cups mailed to the drug-testing
    laboratories are medical devices. Furthermore, FDA had opposed
    over-the-counter access to such products because test results
    might be incorrectly interpreted and improperly used, citing,
    in part, social and ethical concerns. The Subcommittee intends
    to closely monitor the FDA policies and actions in this area.
        During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations held 2 days of joint hearings with the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment dealing with waste,
    fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program. Medicare is the
    second largest social benefit program in the Federal budget,
    exceeded only by Social Security, and covers over 37 million
    aged and disabled Americans. The General Accounting Office
    estimated that the loss of funds resulting from Medicare waste,
    fraud, and abuse averages 10 percent a year, or $19.8 billion
    in taxpayer funds in Fiscal Year 1996. Those funds lost to
    waste, fraud, and abuse exact a high cost from current Medicare
    beneficiaries in terms of the level and quality of the services
    they receive.
        The Subcommittee's investigation focused on the
    vulnerabilities of the Medicare program to fraud, waste, and
    abuse. As a result of Congressional concerns reflected in the
    Subcommittee's investigation and other hearings, provisions
    were included in both H.R. 2425, the Medicare Preservation Act
    of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, to
    combat waste, fraud and abuse.
        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held ten
    hearings which focused specifically on the implementation and
    enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. These
    hearings provided a detailed review of the Environmental
    Protection Agency's (EPA's) interpretation and implementation
    of the 1990 Amendments covering issues within Titles I, II,
    III, V, and VI of the 1990 Amendments. In addition, the
    Subcommittee sent numerous written inquiries to the Agency and
    reviewed Agency operations in a number of different areas.
        The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments made substantial changes
    and additions to previous law, establishing new provisions
    regarding permit programs, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone,
    and substantially revising existing provisions governing mobile
    source controls, hazardous air pollutants, ground level ozone,
    major stationary source controls, and other matters. As part of
    those changes, the 1990 Amendments directed EPA to take
    specific administrative actions and issue numerous rulemakings
    according to specific statutory deadlines; the November 1995
    Update of the Implementation Strategy for The Clean Air Act
    Amendments of 1990 lists 174 such deadlines. The 1990
    Amendments contemplated these administrative actions to take
    place throughout the 1990s and, in some cases, beyond the year
    2000.
        The Subcommittee sought to assess the present status of
    these efforts, including the Agency's adherence to the
    statutory provisions and regulatory schedule signed into law in
    1990. The Subcommittee also endeavored to uncover provisions
    enacted in 1990 which were not achieving the intended result or
    which presented difficulties in implementation and to identify
    legislative corrections which may be required to address these
    difficulties.
        Since the Clean Air Act is enforced primarily at the State
    level, the Subcommittee began its hearings with a general
    overview of the 1990 Amendments, receiving testimony from the
    Administrator of EPA, Carol M. Browner, and three of our
    Nation's governors. The Subcommittee then proceeded to examine
    various areas of the 1990 Amendments which had been subject to
    widespread criticism, including the Employer Trip Reduction
    Program, centralized Inspection and Maintenance of vehicles,
    the Title V permit program, Title III hazardous air pollutants,
    Title VI stratospheric ozone provisions, and Title I provisions
    respecting ambient air quality standards.
        As a result of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigation's aggressive schedule of hearings, legislative
    activity resulted in three specific instances during the First
    Session and a hearing record was established which will provide
    guidance in the 105th Congress if legislative action is
    necessary.
        Specifically, on February 9, 1995, the Subcommittee held a
    hearing which outlined serious problems in the State of
    California regarding promulgation of a Federal Implementation
    Plan under the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments. At the hearing,
    EPA Administrator Carol Browner expressed support for certain
    changes to the law which would correct this situation. These
    changes were later incorporated into Public Law 104-6.
        After a March 16, 1995, Subcommittee hearing on the
    Employer Trip Reduction Program, EPA conducted a thorough
    review of options for altering the statutory Clean Air Act
    requirement by administrative means. In response to the
    Subcommittee's hearing, the Agency assembled a Clean Air Act
    Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Working Group. This group met twice
    and forwarded its recommendations to the full CAAAC. Although
    these recommendations were fully adopted by the Agency,
    concerns remained that the changes were insufficient to
    eliminate employer liability under the Clean Air Act. Based on
    these concerns and the hearing record, the Committee on
    Commerce proceeded to mark up H.R. 325 and report the bill to
    the House. H.R. 325 passed the House and Senate and was signed
    into law by the President on December 23, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Oversight and investigations held two
    hearings on Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) on March 23 and
    March 24, 1995. Those hearings raised questions as to the
    degree of effectiveness of centralized testing and of IM240
    testing equipment. Specifically, several witnesses questioned
    whether EPA had enough information to support the 50 percent
    discount for decentralized or test-and-repair programs.
    Testimony was also received as to the effectiveness and
    reliability of IM240 testing equipment. As a result of the
    groundwork laid during these hearings, the Committee on
    Commerce negotiated language which was included in the National
    Highway System Designation Act of 1995 that eliminated EPA's
    automatic 50 percent discount for decentralized or test-and-
    repair programs, and set up an 18 month demonstration period
    for States to gather information on the effectiveness of
    alternative network designs and equipment types. That bill was
    signed into law by the President on November 28, 1995.
        In addition, on August 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations conducted a hearing to review
    Title VI of the 1990 Amendments. During this hearing, the
    Subcommittee received testimony regarding the negative
    consequences to the competitive position of American
    agriculture if the United States retains a 2001 phase-out date
    for methyl bromide. The Subcommittee also solicited the written
    views of EPA and the Department of State regarding the U.S.
    negotiating position in upcoming meetings of the Parties to the
    Montreal Protocol. In addition, the ability of EPA to grant
    ``essential use exemptions'' for methyl bromide past the year
    2001 was rejected by both the Department of Agriculture at the
    hearing and, later, by a December 1995 General Accounting
    Office report requested by the Ranking Minority Member of the
    Full Commerce Committee.
        Issues concerning Title VI and the Seventh Meeting of the
    Parties to the Montreal Protocol in Vienna, Austria, in
    December 1995, were further explored in the Subcommittee on
    Health and Environment during a hearing held on January 25,
    1996. This hearing, along with the record established in the
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, will provide a
    framework for assessing the implementation of Title VI, the
    impact of Title VI on international trade and the U.S. economy,
    the projected benefits to public health and the costs
    associated with such benefits, as well as the need for
    amendments to the Clean Air Act in this area.
        At the end of the First Session, the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations began an extensive investigation
    of the Department of Energy (DOE) and its handling of Federal
    funds. In November 1995, numerous reports appeared in the press
    that the Department of Energy had used Federal funds to pay for
    a contract with CARMA International to monitor and analyze
    media coverage of the Secretary of Energy and the Department.
    In response to these reports, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a joint oversight hearing with the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power to determine if, in fact, the
    Department had used taxpayer dollars for the purpose of
    compiling information on reporters and Members of Congress and
    to examine the motivations behind the CARMA International
    contract and the use of the data received by the Department of
    Energy.
        The hearing also revealed allegations of inappropriate
    expenses and undocumented spending incurred by the Office of
    the Secretary in connection with several international DOE
    trips. As a result of these allegations, and as part of the
    Subcommittee's commitment to closely examine all aspects of
    DOE's budget to ascertain if it is spending taxpayer dollars in
    the most cost-effective manner, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations held a series of five hearings in the Second
    Session examining the Department of Energy's travel
    expenditures and related issues.
        The first hearing focused on a General Accounting Office
    (GAO) Report issued on December 28, 1995, entitled Energy
    Management: Unsubstantiated DOE Travel Payments, which analyzed
    2 of the 16 foreign trips taken by the Secretary. The trips in
    question were foreign trade missions to India and South Africa
    in July 1994 and August 1995, respectively.
        The GAO testimony highlighted four major areas of concern.
    The first was the level of undocumented spending by the
    Department on both the India and South Africa trips--costs
    authorized by DOE, incurred by the U.S. Embassy, and reimbursed
    by DOE without records, receipts, or vouchers, which were in
    the Department of State. After examining the documents, DOE
    protested $117,000. Second, the GAO testimony revealed that the
    cost of aircraft acquisition was high and the processes for
    acquiring such had administrative problems. Third, the GAO
    testimony revealed a dispute over DOE reprogramming of defense
    funds to support foreign travel. GAO testified that DOE
    reprogrammed $400,000 from the defense-related appropriations
    account to pay expenses associated with foreign trade missions,
    an action that GAO said violated a long-standing principle of
    appropriations accounting. Finally, the GAO testimony revealed
    delays by DOE in seeking reimbursement of travel costs for
    persons who were not government employees.
        The second hearing focused on recommendations made by the
    DOE Inspector General in 1994 to establish adequate controls
    over the acquisition and financing of air services used by the
    Department for international travel, and the Department's
    failure to implement those recommendations in a timely manner.
    At the hearing, the Inspector General testified that, as of
    March 8, 1996, the Department had addressed adequately only one
    of his 1994 recommendations.
        In response to this hearing, the Subcommittee received a
    March 13, 1996, letter from Secretary O'Leary expressing her
    concern that all the reforms identified by the Inspector
    General had not been implemented. In addition, the Secretary
    promised not to go on any more trade missions until the
    Inspector General and the General Accounting Office agreed that
    DOE has implemented reforms to the acquisition of aircraft for
    trade missions, which was the bulk of the cost of the trade
    missions. DOE implemented these reform procedures on July 31,
    1996.
        Later Subcommittee hearings also examined DOE's assertions
    of trade mission-related exports and the relative value of the
    contracts signed as a result of the DOE trade missions, the
    benefits of the trade missions, and DOE's implementation of the
    changes.
        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is
    committed to maintaining a vigilant watch in the 105th Congress
    on the expenditure of Federal funds by all of the departments
    and agencies under its jurisdiction. The Subcommittee also
    intends to continue monitoring closely the implementation and
    enforcement of the various laws under the Committee's
    jurisdiction to determine where reforms may be needed to
    eliminate unnecessary or burdensome regulations.

     HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
                               PROTECTION AGENCY

                                    Hearings

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                               (General Overview)

        On February 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a general oversight hearing on the
    implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments
    of 1990. At the hearing, the Administrator of the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) testified, along with the Governors
    from the Commonwealth of Virginia and the States of California
    and Michigan.
        The EPA Administrator presented testimony regarding the
    current status of efforts to control air pollution as well as
    the results of a Clean Air Act Conference co-sponsored by the
    National Governors Association and the Environmental Council of
    States. The Governors indicated what progress had been made
    under the 1990 Act and what problems remained in their
    individual States.
        Problem areas cited by the Governors included: (1)
    centralized inspection and maintenance for vehicles; (2)
    transportation conformity; (3) calculation of Federal ozone
    standards; (4) the Title V permit program; (5) the Federal
    Implementation Plan for California; (6) redesignation of
    certain areas into attainment with Federal ambient air quality
    standards; (7) Federal Clean Air Act sanctions; (8)
    modifications under Sections 112(g) and 112(j) of the Act; (9)
    ``enhanced monitoring;'' and (10) minor new source review.

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                       (Employer Trip Reduction Program)

        On March 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued its hearings on the implementation and
    enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This
    hearing focused on the Employer Trip Reduction Program (ETRP)
    and its effect on private employers, employees, and State and
    local governments. ETRP requires employers of over 100
    employees in areas of the country that are classified as being
    in ``severe'' and ``extreme'' nonattainment with Federal ozone
    standards to implement measures to increase the average vehicle
    occupancy of their employees by 25 percent. ETRP is based on
    the theory that a reduction in the number of employee trips to
    and from work will result in reduced air emissions from mobile
    sources.
        Witnesses at the hearing were the Assistant Administrator
    for Air and Radiation of the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency, a representative from the Illinois Department of
    Transportation, the President of the Association for Commuter
    Transportation, the President of the Urban Mobility
    Corporation, and an expert legal witness. In addition, the
    Subcommittee heard testimony from three witnesses representing
    corporations subject to ETRP requirements in the Philadelphia,
    Houston and Chicago urban, suburban, and outlying areas.
        The Subcommittee examined the Environmental Protection
    Agency's implementation of the program, the liability of
    individual employers, the expected environmental benefits, and
    the relative costs of obtaining compliance. Testimony at the
    hearing indicated that full implementation of the ETRP program
    could result in substantial costs to the economy ($1.2 to $1.4
    billion per year according to one EPA estimate) with
    questionable environmental benefits. In addition, it was
    established that roughly 28,000 employers nationwide could be
    potentially subject to citizen suits and liability if they were
    not in compliance with the statutory requirement to achieve a
    25 percent increase in average vehicle occupancy of their
    employees. Subsequent Subcommittee correspondence directed to
    EPA further established that Project XL, a new initiative
    designed to promote alternative compliance with environmental
    mandates, would not insulate employers from citizen suit
    liability in instances where a State submitted and received
    approval of a final State Implementation Plan (SIP)
    implementing the ETRP program.
        The investigative record of the Subcommittee served as the
    basis for subsequent legislative activity by the Committee on
    Commerce on H.R. 325, which was enacted into law on December
    23, 1995. For the legislative history of H.R. 325, see the
    discussion of Employer Trip Reduction Program Amendments
    (Public Law 104-70) in the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment section of this report.

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                      (Inspection and Maintenance Program)

        On March 23 and March 24, 1995, the Subcommittee held 2
    days of hearings on the implementation and enforcement of the
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, focusing on the enhanced
    vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program (I&M) Program,
    including the effectiveness of alternative technologies,
    consumer acceptance, and the relationship of I&M to other air
    pollution control strategies.
        Sections 182, 184, and 187 of the Clean Air Act require
    certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas and
    certain other areas in an ozone transport region to implement
    an ``enhanced'' inspection and maintenance program. In its 1992
    I&M rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined
    that only centralized or test-only I&M programs would fully
    satisfy this requirement. The 1992 rule automatically
    discounted decentralized or test-and-repair programs by 50
    percent.
        The purpose of the hearing was for the Subcommittee to hear
    evidence as to whether such a discount was appropriate
    considering the language of the Clean Air Act and whether it
    was supported by available data. The Subcommittee also heard
    evidence as to whether EPA was providing appropriate
    flexibility in working with States in developing an appropriate
    I&M program. Finally, the Subcommittee heard evidence as to the
    effectiveness of alternative or supplementary testing methods,
    such as infrared remote sensing. Testimony was received from
    several sources including the Environmental Protection Agency,
    the California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee,
    various scientific experts, interest groups, and State
    representatives and officials.
        The hearing cast doubt on whether EPA had sufficient
    evidence to justify discounting decentralized test programs by
    50 percent. In addition, various experts testified that they
    could observe little if any difference between decentralized
    and centralized testing systems when examining ambient air
    quality and other real world data. Several States testified
    that EPA was demonstrating very little flexibility in its
    implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
    Finally, several States and experts testified to the
    effectiveness of utilizing infrared remote sensing in
    identifying gross polluting vehicles for repair.
        As a result of the record established at this hearing,
    Members of the Committee on Commerce took part in negotiations
    with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on
    provisions making corrections to the enhanced vehicle
    Inspection and Maintenance Program which were included in the
    conference report on the National Highway System Designation
    Act of 1995. That Act was signed into law by the President on
    November 28, 1995 (P.L. 104-59). For the legislative history of
    that bill, see the discussion of the National Highway System
    Designation Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-59) included in the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment section of this report.
        Among other things, Public Law 104-59 removed the 50
    percent discount applied to decentralized or test-and-repair
    inspection and maintenance programs and instead allows States
    to receive whatever credit they demonstrate their program
    should receive. In addition, the Act allowed States an 18-month
    period to experiment with various network designs and equipment
    types in order to improve the identification and repair of
    polluting vehicles.

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                               (Title V--Permits)

        On May 18, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing focusing on Title V of the Clean
    Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Title V of the 1990 CAAA
    requires major stationary sources to obtain permits in order to
    be able to continue to operate. Each permit is required to
    contain all of the applicable requirements found elsewhere in
    the Clean Air Act for that source.
        Witnesses at the hearing included the EPA Assistant
    Administrator for Air and Radiation, State officials from Texas
    and Oregon responsible for implementation of the permit program
    in their States, witnesses from affected industries, and a
    citizen from the State of Texas. Testimony focused on the
    status of regulations implementing the Title V program, the
    cost of Title V permits, and the permit revision process.
        The Subcommittee's hearing on Title V confirmed concerns
    that the permit program is a regulatory ``moving target.''
    Although EPA issued a final rule to implement Title V in July
    1992, various elements of this rule were legally challenged by
    over 20 entities. EPA then published both an interim rule
    affecting approval of State permit programs and a rule setting
    out a four track system for revising permits on August 29,
    1994. After much criticism, however, this rule was withdrawn,
    and on January 26, 1995, EPA announced it would begin working
    on another proposal. On April 10, 1995, EPA issued a
    predecisional draft outlining new procedures for revising
    operating permits.
        A major concern of witnesses at the hearing was the ability
    of industrial facilities to make changes under a Title V permit
    without filing a formal revision to the underlying operating
    permit. Such revisions could cause significant delays in the
    time needed to obtain approval of permit changes. Witnesses
    complained that such delays could seriously affect their
    ability to compete in a dynamic international marketplace with
    no resulting benefit to the environment. An estimated 34,324
    facilities are affected by Title V requirements nationwide.
        In addition, testimony received at the hearing questioned
    the proper Federal/State relationship in administration of the
    Title V program. Many States had successful permit programs in
    place before the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The State of
    Texas questioned whether Federal permit rules could interfere
    with the efficient implementation of their State program. In
    specific, the State advocated that EPA should implement Title V
    so as to provide ``broad guidance rather than prescriptive
    requirements.''
        The hearing also served to outline the impact of Section
    505(a) of the Clean Air Act, added by the 1990 Amendments. This
    provision provides for the transmittal of each permit
    application to EPA. According to testimony presented by
    Assistant Administrator Nichols, ``I don't think that that is
    something that, if we were writing it today, we would have
    written it that way. I would like to find a way to burden less
    of a transfer of paper.''
        The hearing also focused on the administrative delays
    created by the Title V program. Under present law, it is
    possible for a permit application or revisions to a permit to
    be subject not only to public notice and hearings when
    initiated (a minimum of 30 days) but also to further delay due
    to the EPA review period (45 days) and the possibility of a
    public petition to request EPA to object to a permit
    application or revision (60 days following the end of the 45
    day review period).
        Finally, some witnesses questioned cost estimates
    associated with the Title V program. In 1992, EPA estimated the
    cost of the Title V program at $526 million per year, however,
    anecdotal evidence received by the Subcommittee suggests that
    some larger facility permits may experience substantial cost
    burdens, ranging in excess of several hundred thousand dollars.
    Since 9,160 larger facilities are estimated to exist in the
    United States, costs of this magnitude for individual permits
    could result in a significant overall burden on economic
    activity.
        Following the Subcommittee's hearing, the Environmental
    Protection Agency took several administrative actions with
    respect to Title V. First, on July 10, 1995, EPA issued the
    ``White Paper for Streamlined Development of Part 70 Permit
    Applications.'' The intent of this guidance was to reduce the
    amount of information which industry must submit as part of a
    Title V application. Second, on March 5, 1996, the EPA
    published ``White Paper Number 2 for Improved Implementation of
    The Part 70 Operating Permits Program.'' This guidance sought
    to streamline multiple applicable requirements on the same
    emission unit or units, account for changing SIP requirements
    and their impact on permit applications, address
    ``insignificant'' emission units, provide for stipulation of
    major source status, and allow for cross-referencing of
    information in both permits and applications. Additionally, on
    July 1, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations concerning the
    Federal Operating Permits Program (61 Fed.Reg. 34202-342249).

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                   (Title II--Reformulated Gasoline Program)

        On June 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held an oversight hearing on the implementation
    and enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA),
    focusing on the Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Program under Title
    II of the Clean Air Act. The purpose of the hearing was to hear
    testimony on the success of the program and to examine any
    implementation problems associated with the program, including
    any supply shortages, price fluctuations, and ``opt-out''
    procedures for those nonattainment areas that have voluntarily
    ``opted-in'' the RFG program. The Subcommittee also received
    testimony on Phase II of the RFG program which may be more
    costly to implement than Phase I. Testimony was received from
    representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    and various business interest groups.
        The Subcommittee hearing indicated that price increases
    associated with the introduction of RFG fuels in January 1995
    were in the range of 3 to 5 cents per gallon and that the first
    wintertime experience with the program had not resulted in fuel
    shortages. In addition, results from a study of RFG in
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, did not indicate any association between
    use of RFG and reports of adverse health effects. The hearing
    also outlined the substantial air pollution control benefits
    associated with RFG usage. In its prepared testimony, EPA
    estimated that between 1995 and 1999, RFG will result in a 15
    percent reduction in volatile organic compounds, considered to
    be precursors to the formation of ozone in the lower
    atmosphere.

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                     (Title III--Hazardous Air Pollutants)

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held 2
    days of hearings on the implementation and enforcement of the
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, focusing on the regulation of
    Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under Title III. Title III of
    the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 substantially rewrote and
    expanded existing law governing the regulation of HAPs by
    establishing a new standard based on ``Maximum Achievable
    Control Technology'' (MACT).
        The first hearing was held on June 29, 1995. Testimony
    covered the structure and operation of Title III of the Clean
    Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the promulgation of MACT
    standards under Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act. Witnesses
    at the hearing were the Assistant Administrator for Air and
    Radiation of the Environmental Protection Agency,
    representatives of affected industries, a citizen living near
    an oil refinery, academic experts on risk assessment and cost
    benefit analysis, and a representative of the United
    Steelworkers of America.
        The hearing demonstrated that considerable regulatory
    uncertainty still pervades the implementation of certain
    portions of Title III. Concerns were raised during the hearing
    regarding the definition of a major source for purposes of
    Section 112, how EPA calculates the MACT floor for both new and
    existing sources, the prospect that different MACT standards
    may be applied to an affected source under different provisions
    of Section 112, and the prospect of applying different MACT
    standards to the same facility resulting in regulation on the
    basis of an entirely theoretical ``superfacility.''
        On July 21, 1995, the Subcommittee continued its hearings
    on the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Air Act
    Amendments of 1990, focusing on the regulation of Hazardous Air
    Pollutants (HAPs) under Title III and Sections 112(g), 112(j),
    and 112(r) of the Clean Air Act. Section 112(g) concerns
    requirements applicable to a source which undergoes a
    modification, construction or reconstruction activity prior to
    the issuance of a Federal Maximum Achievable Control Technology
    (MACT) standard. Section 112(j) requires ``case-by-case'' MACT
    standards, implemented in each State, in the event EPA does not
    meet its statutory schedule for the promulgation of Section
    112(d) standards. Section 112(r) established a Federal
    accidental release program for hazardous air pollutants.
    Witnesses included representatives from the Environmental
    Protection Agency, industry representatives, and a State
    official responsible for implementation of the Title III
    provisions. Testimony focused on the status of EPA regulations
    with respect to Section 112(g), the ability of a source to make
    changes to its operations without ``triggering'' Section
    112(g), the overall purpose of the goals of Title III, and the
    present status of Section 112(r) regulations.
        The July 21 hearing further examined problems in the
    implementation of Section 112, particularly with respect to
    Section 112(g). Witnesses at the hearing questioned the need
    for this statutory provision and the interrelationship between
    Section 112(d) and 112(g) and 112(j). Specifically, concern was
    expressed that differing MACT standards could be issued under
    Section 112(g) and 112(d) and that an affected source might
    need to comply with both standards. Concern was also expressed
    that Section 112(g) could inhibit certain innovations since
    changes in a method of operation could result in new emission
    standards being applied to a facility prior to the promulgation
    of a relevant Section 112(d) standard. In addition, the
    Subcommittee explored several detailed questions with EPA
    concerning its schedule for promulgating regulations under
    Sections 112(d) and 112(g), the Agency's view of public
    policies furthered by Section 112(g), and the costs associated
    with implementing Sections 112(d), 112(g) and 112(j).
        In response to written inquiries from the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations, EPA indicated that it would adopt
    a ``new approach'' to Section 112(g) and publish a new draft
    proposal, with a final rule promulgated by the Spring of 1996.
    On March 18, 1996, EPA issued a draft final regulation on
    Section 112(g), limiting application of this section to the
    construction of new facilities and the reconstruction of major
    sources. The draft rule proposed to eliminate Section 112(g)
    requirements respecting modifications to existing facilities.
    On December 13, 1996, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
    with respect to Section 112(g).

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                   (Title VI--Stratospheric Ozone Protection)

        On August 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on the implementation and
    enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, focusing
    on Title VI. Title VI contains a schedule and a petition
    process to provide for the phase-out of certain substances
    thought to contribute to the destruction of ozone in the upper
    atmosphere as well as other measures to provide for the
    regulation of the production and use of such substances.
    Substances regulated under Title VI include chlorofluorocarbons
    (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons, carbon
    tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, and methyl bromide.
        Witnesses at the hearing included representatives from the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of State,
    the Department of Agriculture, and the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy. In addition, the Subcommittee
    heard testimony from an academic and ozone policy expert,
    agricultural users of methyl bromide, including an organic
    farmer, and the President of the Maritime Exchange for the
    Delaware River and Bay. Testimony centered on implementation of
    Title VI and the provisions of the Montreal Protocol (the
    international treaty regulating substances considered to
    possess an ozone depletion potential), the effect on U.S.
    agriculture and trade of a ban on methyl bromide, and upcoming
    meetings in Geneva, Switzerland regarding the Montreal
    Protocol.
        The Subcommittee hearing explored several issues of concern
    with regard to the implementation of Title VI, including the
    state of scientific evidence underlying EPA regulatory efforts,
    the costs and benefits of such regulations, and the anticipated
    schedule for the phase-out of methyl bromide, an agricultural
    fumigant. With regard to methyl bromide, the Subcommittee
    specifically explored whether EPA had legal authority to grant
    essential use exemptions under Title VI and whether the phase-
    out schedule being implemented under Title VI was appropriate
    and in the competitive interest of American agriculture given
    the lack of international agreement on any phase-out schedule
    for the substance.
        The August 1, 1995, hearing also prompted follow-up
    correspondence from the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations to EPA, the Department of State, and the
    Department of Agriculture concerning U.S. negotiating positions
    in the upcoming meetings of the Parties to the Montreal
    Protocol (the international agreement which controls the
    production and consumption of substances thought to deplete
    ozone in the upper atmosphere). The Subcommittee's hearing and
    subsequent correspondence explored whether legislative changes
    to the Clean Air Act were required to allow continued
    production and consumption of methyl bromide in the United
    States if no acceptable substitute could be discovered before
    its contemplated phase-out date, and what position the United
    States would take with respect to accelerated phase-out of
    other substances, specifically, hydrochlorofluorocarbons
    (HCFCs).
        Additionally, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    held a hearing on January 25, 1996, which explored many of the
    same concerns raised in the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations' August 1, 1995, hearing in light of subsequent
    agreements made during the Seventh Meeting of the Parties to
    the Montreal Protocol in December 1995.

     implementation and enforcement of the clean air act amendments of 1990

                (Title I--Air Quality and Emission Limitations)

        On November 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued its hearings on the implementation and
    enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 with a
    joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
    This hearing focused on the setting of the form and level of
    the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone contained
    in Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments. In examining the
    level of the standard, the Subcommittee heard testimony about
    possible alternative levels of the standard. These alternative
    levels ranged from .07 ppm to .09 ppm averaged over an 8 hour
    period, as opposed to the present standard of .12 ppm averaged
    over a 1 hour period.
        The Subcommittee also examined whether cost/benefit
    analysis should explicitly be part of the setting of the level
    of the standard. In addition, the Subcommittee heard testimony
    as to whether the form of the standard accurately reflects the
    concentration of ozone in a given nonattainment area. Testimony
    was received from the Assistant Administrator for Air and
    Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
    representatives of the States of Michigan and Texas, an
    economist, a medical expert, and a scientific expert.
        All of the witnesses (including EPA) agreed that air
    quality throughout the United States is improving. One witness
    testified that peak ozone levels had decreased by 27 percent in
    California, and by 50 percent outside of California. Many of
    the witnesses questioned the ``robustness'' of the current
    standard, noting that if any one monitor exceeded the National
    Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for more than 4 hours over
    a 3 year period the area was deemed in nonattainment. Thus,
    many felt the ozone NAAQS was skewed towards episodic events,
    such as episodes of hot stagnant air that contribute to ozone
    production. Many of the witnesses, except EPA, agreed that some
    sort of cost/benefit analysis would be helpful in determining
    an appropriate ozone NAAQS, because at present, no bright line
    could be drawn between the health effects present at various
    levels of the standard. Some witnesses believed that because of
    this, EPA was already de facto considering cost in developing a
    standard, although EPA denied such was the case.

             environmental compliance problems facing dry cleaners

        On September 13, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigation held a hearing on problems facing the dry-
    cleaning industry in complying with environmental laws.
    Specifically, the hearing focused on the costs to industry of
    cleanup efforts associated with the use of perchloroethylene
    (perc), the primary solvent used in the dry-cleaning process,
    pursuant to the cleanup standards and liability provisions
    imposed by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) and existing State
    statutes. Most State cleanup statutes are substantially
    patterned after the Federal statute, and may even incorporate
    the Federal cleanup standards by reference.
        The owners of four dry cleaners testified at the hearing,
    as well as a witness representing the International Council of
    Shopping Centers. All four dry cleaners testified that they
    were being held responsible for perchloroethylene contamination
    of soil surrounding the dry cleaning establishment. All four
    dry cleaners also maintained that they were not the cause of
    the contamination. Problems identified during the hearing
    included: (1) Superfund and comparable State liability policies
    that are not fault-based and, therefore, appear unfair; (2)
    inappropriate cleanup standards that are not risk-based
    (cleanup standards for perc are based on stringent Safe
    Drinking Water Act standards, even though the contamination may
    have no risk of contaminating drinking water); and (3)
    ineffective use of money (a large percentage of the costs borne
    by these dry cleaners in cleanup was not spent on cleanup but
    on legal fees).
        The witness for the International Council of Shopping
    Centers generally agreed with the above concerns, but added
    that dry cleaners should not receive relief at the expense of
    the shopping center industry because shopping centers are held
    strictly liable even though they may have had no knowledge of
    the contamination caused by a current or previous tenant.

                            Investigative Activities

    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Policies and
            Practices

        On May 24, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request
    concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
    practices and policies generally with respect to handling
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and more
    specifically, concerning the handling of a FOIA request
    submitted by an outside organization. The Subcommittee was
    concerned that an EPA official may have abused the FOIA process
    by: (1) giving preferential treatment in responding to this
    FOIA requestor before responding to other pending FOIA
    requests; and (2) pressuring a company to disclose, in response
    to this FOIA request, proprietary information. The EPA
    submitted a written response to the Subcommittee on June 18,
    1996, and provided several boxes of documentation. The EPA
    denied any preferential treatment had been accorded the subject
    FOIA request and denied that the EPA employee had acted
    inappropriately in connection with the FOIA request.
        On July 31, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to the Administrator
    of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning a 1995
    inquiry to EPA by Representative Tauzin concerning EPA's
    disclosure of certain confidential information to the Sierra
    Club Legal Defense Fund in response to the Sierra Club Freedom
    of Information Act (FOIA) request on August 15, 1994.
    Representative Tauzin had written to the EPA on May 9, 1995, to
    express his concerns about the apparent improper disclosure of
    certain law enforcement information regarding a wetlands
    enforcement case. On June 19, 1995, EPA sent a letter to Mr.
    Tauzin to respond to his concerns. The EPA conceded that
    ``while [EPA's] existing policies address the general need to
    protect the integrity of enforcement investigations and cases,
    they do not squarely consider the private citizen privacy
    issues you have identified. Furthermore, EPA's review of the
    factual circumstances has highlighted deficiencies in FOIA and
    Privacy Act training at the Agency that we will move quickly to
    improve.'' The EPA further conceded that EPA's policies did not
    adequately protect the privacy interests of individuals and the
    Agency's letter clearly indicated that the Agency took these
    matters seriously and would move quickly to address them.
        On July 31, 1996, more than 1 year after the Agency's
    assurances, the Subcommittee Chairman wrote to the Agency to
    inquire about the progress of EPA's efforts to correct the FOIA
    and Privacy Act deficiencies acknowledged in the Agency's June
    19, 1995 letter. The EPA provided written responses and
    documents, including a memorandum, dated August 15, 1996,
    entitled Public Release of EPA Enforcement Information, which
    is more than 1 full year after the date EPA assured
    Representative Tauzin that EPA would act promptly on this
    matter.
        The Subcommittee will continue to monitor EPA's handling of
    FOIA requests and its treatment of privacy issues in the 105th
    Congress.

    American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
            Engineers (ASHRAE)

        By letter, dated May 25, 1995, to the Administrator of the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations initiated an investigation into
    EPA's relationship with the American Society of Heating,
    Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), a
    private standards setting organization. The Subcommittee was
    concerned about: (1) EPA's funding of the revision of ASHRAE
    Standard 62, ``Ventilation of Acceptable Indoor Air Quality,''
    which would establish new standards for acceptable indoor air
    quality, and (2) EPA's decision to permit an EPA employee to be
    appointed as chairman of ASHRAE's Standard 62 Committee (SSPC-
    62). This arrangement appeared to give EPA an inappropriate
    amount of influence over the revision of a standard in an area
    for which EPA had no authority to regulate. In response to the
    Subcommittee's letter, the EPA Administrator requested the EPA
    Inspector General to investigate this matter.
        The Subcommittee received a copy of the Inspector General's
    Report, dated August 14, 1996 (Audit Report No. E1FAI5-13-0075-
    6100228). The Inspector General's report confirmed many of the
    concerns the Subcommittee had with respect to EPA's
    relationship with ASHRAE. Specifically, the Report stated
    ``Because EPA lacks authority to regulate indoor air, allowing
    the [EPA] employee to chair an ASHRAE committee that is
    responsible for revising standard 62 is inappropriate . . . We
    believe that EPA's involvement in SSPC-62 can be interpreted as
    an attempt to do indirectly that which it has no authority to
    do directly.'' The Inspector General's Report also stated that
    EPA ``put the ASHRAE work in the [EPA] employee's position
    description, allowed him to spend up to 20 percent of his
    official duty time on SSPC-62, and has funded ASHRAE-related
    travel.''
        The Subcommittee will continue to monitor the EPA's
    decisions to enter into this type of relationship, EPA's
    approval of Agency personnel to participate in private groups,
    and EPA's involvement in areas for which it has no statutory
    authority to regulate.

    Hydrofluorocarbons

        On May 31, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to Mary Nichols, the
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) requesting information about a proposed
    EPA rulemaking that might restrict sale of hydrofluorocarbon
    (HFC) 134a to only certified technicians. The Subcommittee
    submitted a number of questions concerning the proposed
    replacement in motor vehicle air-conditioning systems of CFC-12
    refrigerant with HFC-134a refrigerant, and the possibility that
    such retrofitting of automotive air-conditioning systems may
    result in refrigerant contamination. On July 22, 1996, Ms.
    Nichols' responded to the Subcommittee inquiry, stating that it
    would be premature for EPA to definitively address many of the
    issues the Subcommittee raised because EPA was still gathering
    information on which to base this rulemaking. However, Ms.
    Nichols assured the Subcommittee that when the time came for
    EPA to propose the rule, the Agency would request public
    comment on both the proposed requirements and the underlying
    technical and legal bases for them. EPA assured the
    Subcommittee that it would discuss fully all issues in the
    rulemaking.

    Tulalip

        On July 24, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations initiated an inquiry and document
    request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
    respect to the cleanup, under the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response, Compensation and Liability Act, of the Tulalip
    landfill site located on an island within the Tulalip Indian
    Reservation in Marysville, Washington. In particular, the
    Subcommittee requested information concerning the cleanup of
    this site and EPA's decision, in naming Potentially Responsible
    Parties (PRPs) that will share in the cleanup costs, to not
    name the Tulalip Tribe and/or the Tribe's corporate entity as
    PRPs, since the Tribe had an ownership interest in the site and
    specifically leased the site for dumping purposes. EPA has
    submitted several sets of documents in response to the
    Subcommittee's request. The Subcommittee intends to pursue this
    matter in the 105th Congress.

    National Violator Program/National Law Enforcement Screening Program

        In October 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry into the Environmental
    Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Violator Program,
    currently named the National Law Enforcement Screening Program,
    a law enforcement initiative intended to synthesize agency data
    to target companies that have the worst compliance records. The
    Subcommittee requested information about the development of the
    program, the nature and purpose of the program, and the
    maintenance of law enforcement information generated by the
    program. In response to the Subcommittee's inquiry, EPA
    officials briefed Committee staff on the program. The
    Subcommittee intends to monitor this program to ensure that EPA
    implements its enforcement responsibilities in a manner that is
    both effective and consistent with its statutory authority.

    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

        In October 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated a review of the Environmental
    Protection Agency's (EPA's) pilot project reports produced
    pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
    of 1993. The GPRA requires all Federal agencies to develop 5-
    year strategic plans, prepare annual performance plans that set
    out the agency's goals, and report annually on actual
    performance compared to these goals. GPRA enhances the ability
    of Congress to examine what works and what doesn't, by
    highlighting programs that are ineffective and redundant. The
    Subcommittee intends to work closely with EPA in the
    development of its GPRA plans and budgets.

     HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
                           HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                                    Hearings

                waste, fraud, and abuse in the medicare program

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held 2
    days of joint hearings with the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment on waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program.
    The first hearing was held on May 16, 1995. Witnesses on the
    first panel testified to the extent waste, fraud, and abuse are
    prevalent in the program and cited specific examples. The
    second panel included representatives from the Department of
    Health and Human Services Inspector General's Office, the
    General Accounting Office, and the Federal Bureau of
    Investigations. Each witness testified to the efforts being
    conducted to combat waste, fraud, and abuse, but also stated
    why the Medicare Program is so vulnerable to waste, fraud, and
    abuse.
        The second hearing was held on July 19, 1995. The first
    witness had previously pled guilty to defrauding the Medicare
    Program. He testified to his particular crime, how he
    accomplished it, and how the system has numerous
    vulnerabilities that allow such fraud to occur. The second
    panel consisted of the Inspector General for the Department of
    Health and Human Services, and representatives from the General
    Accounting Offices. The Inspector General (IG) testified to
    specific examples of waste, fraud, and abuse and also explained
    how the Medicare Program could save money if the Health Care
    Financing Administration implemented the annual cost saving
    suggestions that the IG's office proposed. Representatives from
    the General Accounting Office testified to the Health Care
    Financing Administration's inherent vulnerabilities for
    combating fraud. Also, the results of an investigation of fraud
    by a specific company were reported. The Senior Advisor to the
    Administrator for Program Integrity, Health Care Financing
    Administration, sat on the last panel. The Senior Advisor
    testified to the efforts that the Health Care Financing
    Administration is undertaking to combat waste, fraud, and abuse
    in the Medicare Program.
        As a result of Congressional concerns reflected in these
    and other hearings, provisions were included in both H.R. 2425,
    the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, and H.R. 2491, the
    Balanced Budget Act of 1995, to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
    These provisions are intended to establish a comprehensive
    approach to the control of waste, fraud, and abuse in the
    health care arena. An account is established that dedicates
    funds generated from health care fraud fines and penalties to
    fund the investigation and prosecution of these matters.
    Sanctions available to be imposed against persons convicted of
    health care fraud are clarified and increased, as are civil
    monetary penalties available to prosecutors.
        Additionally, amendments to the criminal code expand the
    reach of Federal authority to attack a broader range of
    fraudulent activity and specifically allow criminal forfeiture
    in heath care fraud cases. Federal law is also expanded to
    include the following health care crimes: false statements,
    obstruction of criminal investigations, theft, and money
    laundering. Administrative subpoena authority is expanded to
    allow the Attorney General greater flexibility in obtaining
    documents sought during the investigative process. The State
    health care fraud control units' authority is also expanded.
    Moreover, a beneficiary incentive system is established to
    increase the collection of information from beneficiaries
    concerning fraud and abuse being perpetrated. Procedures are
    established for the publication of safe harbors, special fraud
    alerts, and interpretive rulings. Individuals convicted of
    health care related felonies and substance abuse felonies are
    mandatorily excluded from participation in the Medicare and
    State health care programs. Permissive exclusion, as well as
    intermediate sanctions, are also expanded. Finally, the
    conversion of assets for the purpose of becoming eligible for
    health care benefits is made a felony.
        For the legislative history of H.R. 2425 and H.R. 2491, see
    the discussions of the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995 (H.R.
    2425) and the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491) in the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment section of this report.

                perspectives in pharmaceutical pricing practices

        On September 19, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing that focused on the prices paid
    for pharmaceuticals by retail pharmacies versus large
    institutional buyers such as managed care organizations,
    hospitals and mail order pharmacies. Witnesses included
    representatives of the General Accounting Office, pharmacists,
    a managed care provider, and a representative of a small drug
    store chain.
        Testimony was received regarding the pricing of
    pharmaceuticals and differential pricing reflecting volume
    discounts, ability to affect market share, and other possible
    factors. Existing remedies for potential improper pricing
    practices appeared to obviate the need for legislative action
    at this time.

                            Investigative Activities

    Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR)--Possible Conflict
            of Interest

        On May 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested the Office of Inspector General of the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct an
    inquiry concerning documentation that raised the possibility of
    an appearance, or even an actual, conflict of interest
    involving the relationship between the Agency for Health Care
    Policy and Research (AHCPR) and a private physician who was
    involved in one of the Agency's advisory panels. On July 20,
    1995, HHS Inspector General June Gibbs Brown reported to the
    Chairman of the Subcommittee that the inquiry found no evidence
    to support conflict of interest charges against the subject
    physician. A few days later in July 1995, the Subcommittee
    requested and received documentation from the Office of
    Inspector General that the HHS IG said supported its finding.

    National Institutes of Health--Allegation of Abuse of Authority

        On June 29, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations presented evidence to the Director of the
    National Institutes of Health (NIH) that an NIH official
    transmitted a communication via electronic mail to a
    representative of a non-renewed NIH grant recipient. In that
    letter, the NIH official stated that the representative, by
    seeking certain historical information about the funding
    practices of the relevant NIH office and Advisory Council, had
    engaged in ``inappropriate'' actions and that as a result, this
    NIH official would not permit the grant applications of the
    representative's institution to be reviewed by a specific study
    section for a period of 4 years. The Subcommittee's inquiry
    resulted in a letter of explanation from the Director of NIH to
    the Subcommittee Chairman and a written apology and
    confirmation of the rescinded action from the NIH official to
    the relevant parties.

    National Institutes of Health--Allegation of Scientific Misconduct

        On August 11, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations received allegations of scientific misconduct
    concerning a senior official at the National Institutes of
    Health. The allegations principally concerned the publication
    of results that may not have represented the information
    available in the laboratory at the time of publication. After
    reviewing scientific articles and photographs that were
    produced in support of the allegations, the Committee staff
    concluded that the allegations, while technically accurate, did
    not meet the definition of scientific misconduct and did not
    conclusively show deception because the results were obvious to
    the reader and nothing would be gained from the
    misrepresentation.

    Office of Research Integrity

        On May 15, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and documentation from the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of
    Research Integrity (ORI) about its activities. The ORI, among
    other things, (1) reviews completed ``investigations'' (as that
    term is defined at 42 CFR Sec. 50.102) conducted by awardee
    institutions (e.g., universities, biomedical research
    facilities) and may make findings after such a review, and (2)
    conducts investigations where the awardee institution is
    unwilling or unable to perform an investigation or where the
    target of the investigation is, for example, an NIH employee.
    In particular, the Subcommittee requested information about
    ORI's review of investigations conducted by awardee
    institutions, investigations conducted by ORI, certain matters
    initiated before January 1, 1992, certain miscellaneous
    matters, and ORI personnel.

    Health Care Financing Administration

        On June 6, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations sent four separate letters to the
    Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration
    (HCFA), as a follow-up to the 1995 Subcommittee hearings on
    waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare Program and the health
    care industry. The first letter addressed fraudulent and
    abusive practices in home health agencies. The Subcommittee
    posed several questions with respect to what actions, if any,
    HCFA has taken in response to this growing problem.
        The second letter requested information about HCFA task
    groups, which are responsible for reviewing the Medicare
    Program and proposing recommendations to prevent or eliminate
    waste, fraud, and abuse. Pursuant to its oversight
    responsibilities in the Medicare Program, the Subcommittee
    requested a number of documents relating to these task groups,
    and asked HCFA for a status report on task group
    recommendations.
        The third letter inquired about potential cost-saving
    measures for general and administrative costs, and similar
    cost-saving measures for national policy reimbursement for
    prescriptions when administered through an external infusion
    pump. The Subcommittee is concerned that HCFA has not
    instituted these cost-saving measures despite recent
    projections that the Medicare Trust Fund will become insolvent
    in the year 2001. The letter posed several questions to HCFA
    regarding this matter.
        The fourth and final letter of June 6, 1996, focused on the
    status of the Medicare Transaction System (MTS) and the use of
    over-the-counter software programs to save the Medicare Program
    money. The Subcommittee inquired about the time line for
    implementing these viable money-saving resources.
        Responses to these letters were received in late July. In
    the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee intends to monitor HCFA,
    particularly in the area of waste, fraud, and abuse in home
    health care.

     HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE FOOD AND DRUG
                                 ADMINISTRATION

                                    Hearings

                  a consumer's perspective on medical devices

        On March 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations began a series of hearings to examine the
    regulatory impact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has on
    the safety, health, and economic well-being of Americans and
    the adequacy of the governing statute, the Federal Food, Drug,
    and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended. The first hearing focused
    on a consumer's perspective on medical devices, and dealt with
    conditions in the medical device market and how the regulatory
    process impacts patients, physicians, and the businesses that
    provide the technological advances on which all health and
    health care consumers depend. Testimony was received from a
    patient's father, the director of a nonprofit health research
    agency, physicians, and presidents of startup medical devices
    companies.
        The March 30 hearing addressed the alleged connection
    between the FDA medical device regulatory system and delays in
    the availability of new products in the United States and the
    movement of U.S. medical device industry activities overseas.

                a consumer's perspective on drugs and biologics

        On May 25, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued its hearings examining the regulatory
    impact of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The hearing
    focused on the nature and effect of the drug and biologic
    approval processes. In particular, the hearing examined both
    the length and cost of these approval processes. Industry
    surveys, company testimony, patient testimony, and FDA's views
    were presented.
        The hearing addressed some apparent statistical
    improvements in FDA's review of new drug applications, but
    testimony also discussed concerns that some FDA regulatory
    practices were unnecessarily increasing the time and cost of
    the drug and biologic development process.

     examination of the food and drug administration's drug and biologics
                                 review process

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
    hearing on June 19, 1995. to continue its review of the impact
    of the drug and biologic approval processes at the Food and
    Drug Administration (FDA) on the American consumer. Testimony
    from noted academics, a cancer survivor representing a patient
    group, and a biotech company were presented at the hearing.
        Witnesses at the hearing addressed the time and cost of the
    drug and biologic development process in the U.S. and cited
    their concerns about an adverse impact on both patients and the
    drug and biologics industry. The hearing also identified
    particular FDA policies and practices that witnesses thought
    could be improved.

                    fda: allegations of abuses of authority

        On July 25, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on allegations of Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA) abuses of authority. The hearing focused
    on FDA operations and procedures, and especially on allegations
    of abuses of power brought forward by witnesses on behalf of
    entities that are currently, or possibly, subject to FDA
    regulation. Patients who believed they benefited from the
    products of 3 of the 5 entities represented also testified at
    the hearing about the consumer impact from the alleged acts.
        On November 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued its hearings on allegations of FDA
    abuses of authority. The hearing focused on FDA's responses to
    the allegations presented at the July 25, 1995, hearing. David
    Kessler, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and several
    senior FDA officials, presented testimony.
        On December 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued the hearing started on November 15,
    1995, on allegations of FDA abuses of authority. The hearing
    again focused on FDA's responses to the allegations presented
    at the July 25, 1995, hearing. David Kessler, M.D.,
    Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and several senior FDA
    officials, presented testimony.
        The hearings focused on questions raised about the
    effectiveness, thoroughness, and fairness of FDA's current
    self-investigation system of industry complaints about alleged
    FDA employee misconduct.

                 cancer patient access to unapproved treatments

        On February 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on cancer patient access to
    unapproved treatments. The hearing focused on what
    alternatives, including possible FDA action, are available to
    cancer patients with life-threatening illnesses whose access to
    an unapproved treatment is interrupted or threatened as a
    result of Federal food and drug law investigations or
    prosecutions, where there is credible evidence of risk to the
    patient from cutoff of that treatment.
        The Subcommittee received testimony from patients of Dr.
    Stanislaw Burzynski who faced the prospect of losing treatment
    as a result of a government-requested court order entered as a
    pretrial release condition of Dr. Burzynski in a pending
    prosecution. The Subcommittee also received testimony from
    patients who were using an experimental drug called LK-200 and
    have lost access to this treatment resulting from or as an
    effect from a pending Federal investigation of the drug firm
    that manufactured the drug. The hearing addressed whether FDA
    needed to develop and implement contingency measures in these
    situations.

       fda integrity issues raised by the visx, inc. document disclosure

        After sending letters to the Food and Drug Administration
    (FDA) in May and June of 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations held a July 31, 1996, hearing on FDA's
    handling of Premarket Approval Applications (PMA's) for laser
    surgery devices to correct vision problems, and examined FDA
    integrity issues raised by the Agency's handling of competing
    applications for laser devices to correct vision problems as
    well as the issue of FDA self-investigations. The competing
    applications were filed by Summit Technology, Inc. of Waltham,
    Massachusetts, and Visx of Santa Clara, California. The most
    serious issue reviewed in the hearing concerned allegations
    that an FDA employee or employees gave confidential,
    proprietary information of a pending premarket application to a
    competing company. Specifically, the Chairman of Summit
    Technology received in the mail, at his private residence, a
    package of internal FDA material relating to the premarket
    application of Visx, Inc.
        The Subcommittee received testimony from two witnesses: Dr.
    Mark Stern, a former FDA reviewer who had serious concerns
    about the integrity and confidentiality of the FDA review
    process; and Mr. Mark Logan, Chairman and CEO of Visx, who was
    concerned that sensitive information from his company's pending
    Premarket Application was mailed to his competitor.

              consumer access to home testing services and devices

        On May 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request to the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concerning statements
    brought to the Subcommittee Chairman's attention that suggested
    that FDA or high-level FDA officials may have adopted a policy
    against home drug testing because it could result in part in
    ``coercion and family discord.''
        On May 30, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigation requested information from the FDA on matters
    relating to a premarket notification submission 510(k)
    sponsored by Biocontrol Technology Inc., on Diasensor 1000 non-
    invasive transcutaneous glucose monitor intended for the
    quantitative determination of blood glucose in diabetics. The
    Subcommittee was interested in how this submission that was
    filed with FDA in January 1994 and given expedited review in
    April 1995, was not only not approved but withdrawn. In
    addition, the Subcommittee was interested in why FDA used the
    Medical Devices Advisory Committee for a 510(k) submission and
    whether conflict of interest waivers were properly granted to
    some participants on the Advisory Panel.
        On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on Consumer Access to Home
    Testing Services and Devices to review FDA's policies with
    respect to both of the issues identified above. The
    Subcommittee received testimony from parents, children, and
    company representatives regarding the FDA's attempts to
    regulate home drug-testing services. These witnesses spoke in
    support of home drug-testing services and in opposition to the
    FDA's regulatory position. The Subcommittee also received
    testimony from Dr. Bruce Burlington, the FDA's Director of the
    Center for Devices and Radiological Health and other FDA
    officials. The FDA officials explained and defended FDA's
    regulatory actions with respect to both home drug-testing
    services and the Diasensor 1000 glucose monitor. The
    Subcommittee also received testimony from the President of
    Biocontrol Technology, a father and his diabetic son, and the
    Chairman of the FDA's Advisory Panel that reviewed the
    Diasensor 1000 glucose monitor. These witnesses provided their
    opinions about the FDA's actions regarding the Diasensor 1000
    glucose monitor.
        Following the hearing, the Full Committee Chairman, on
    September 27, 1996, sent letters to the President, the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of
    the Food and Drug Administration with follow-up questions
    concerning the Administration's position with respect to home
    drug-testing. Responses were received on October 2 and October
    3, 1996. The Full Committee Chairman sent follow-up letters on
    October 7 and 23, 1996. FDA responded on October 31, 1996.

                            Investigative Activities

    Allocation of Resources and Medical Device Review Times

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated
    a March 16, 1995, inquiry to determine the extent to which the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is effectively implementing
    and enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
    in conformance with the explicit requirements of the statute,
    and the intent of Congress in enacting the FFDCA as amended. In
    particular, the Subcommittee requested, and the FDA furnished,
    information on allocation of personnel and resources. In
    addition, the Subcommittee requested information on FDA's
    review of medical devices. This in turn generated a General
    Accounting Office (GAO) investigation at the request of the
    Subcommittee and resulted in the publication of the GAO Report,
    Medical Devices: FDA Review Time, in October 1995. Although the
    report did not find clear trends in review times, it confirmed
    substantial delays in the review process.

    Foreign Inspections

        In conjunction with concerns brought to the Subcommittee's
    attention by Representative Klug, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations initiated an investigation and requested
    information and documents related to the Food and Drug
    Administration's (FDA's) foreign inspection program on May 4,
    1995. Subsequent requests were made about specific foreign
    inspections.
        On June 30, 1995, and September 6, 1995, the Subcommittee
    on Oversight and Investigations requested documentation and
    information from FDA related to past inspections and a 1995
    reinspection of the HaiMen Pharmaceutical Factory located in a
    remote part of China.
        On July 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and documents from FDA
    relating to foreign inspections involving a Canadian drug
    manufacturing firm called Novopharm Ltd.
        On October 20, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and documents from FDA
    about foreign inspections involving a foreign drug
    manufacturing firm called Fisons.
        On October 31, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested additional information and documents
    from FDA related to foreign inspections involving a foreign
    drug manufacturing firm called Finorga.
        On April 10, 1996, as part of the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations' investigation of FDA's foreign inspection
    program, the Subcommittee Chairman requested the General
    Accounting Office's (GAO's) assistance in obtaining additional
    information on foreign inspections in preparation for future
    hearings. In particular, GAO was asked to obtain and examine
    information about how FDA foreign inspections are conducted,
    managed, and supported.

    Proposed Downclassification--Pedicle Screws

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated
    an inquiry and document request on May 8, 1995, concerning
    information surrounding the circumstances of the Food and Drug
    Administration's (FDA's) delay in publishing a pending
    regulatory proposal to downclassify bone screws for use in the
    pedicles of the spine during spine surgery. On July 17, 1995,
    the Subcommittee requested interviews with certain FDA
    employees involved in the proposed downclassification process.
    On August 17, 1995, the Subcommittee requested additional
    information and documentation. On October 3, 1995, Mr. Mitch
    Zeller of the FDA Deputy Commissioner's Office of Policy and
    Dr. Bruce Burlington, Director of FDA's Center for Devices and
    Radiological Health, briefed Committee staff on issues relating
    to the proposed downclassification rule. Based on new
    information from that briefing, the Subcommittee requested
    additional information and documentation.
        The Subcommittee received testimony about FDA actions
    related to pedicle screws at the Subcommittee's hearings on
    November 15 and December 5, 1995. On March 30, 1996, the
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Majority staff
    issued a report to advise the Subcommittee of facts that the
    staff believed supported a conclusion that in his sworn
    testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr. Mitch Zeller of the FDA
    may have violated Sec. 1621 of Title 18 of the United States
    Code regarding perjury. The Subcommittee Chairman referred this
    matter to the Justice Department for further investigation. On
    August 1, 1996, the Department of Justice notified the
    Subcommittee Chairman that there was insufficient evidence to
    support criminal charges.

    Office of Criminal Investigations

        On May 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested documents and information from the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pertaining to the Office of
    Criminal Investigations. On June 15, 1995, the Committee staff
    met with FDA officials about its inquiry into the Office of
    Criminal Investigations. Based on the review of documents
    provided and from information received at the briefing, the
    Subcommittee requested further information and documents.

    Integrity of FDA Enforcement Statistics: ``Mock docs''

        On June 14, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an investigation of the alleged ``mock
    doc'' procedure used by Food and Drug Administration employees
    over the past few years. ``Mock docs'' refer to a procedure for
    inflating import activity numbers and generating enforcement
    statistics that will be used as a basis for allocation of field
    resources. On July 13, 1995, FDA responded to the information
    and document requests.

    Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority: Inventive Products, Inc.

        On June 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested materials and employee interviews from
    the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to allegations
    of FDA abuses of authority in matters involving the Sensor Pad
    and Inventive Products, Inc. These allegations were presented
    by an official of Inventive Products at the Subcommittee's July
    25, 1995, hearing. FDA presented its response to the
    allegations at the November 15, 1995, and December 5, 1995,
    hearings as well as in FDA employee interviews.

    Bioequivalence of Generic Megestrol Acetate Tablets

        On June 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and documents about the
    Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) handling of a matter
    involving the bioequivalence of generic megestrol acetate
    tablets from one manufacturer as compared to the pioneer drug,
    Megace. Megace is an anticancer agent approved for use in
    treating advanced cancer of the breast or uterus. The
    Subcommittee was interested in why there had been a lack of FDA
    action without any explanation in the nearly 3 years that had
    elapsed since the FDA was made aware of the bioequivalence
    issue. On September 12, 1995, the Subcommittee submitted
    follow-up questions resulting from its review of materials
    submitted by FDA. On January 4, 1996, FDA informed the
    Subcommittee that FDA concluded that the pioneer manufacturer
    ``failed to provide adequate scientific evidence that the
    [generic manufacturer] product is not bioequivalent to the
    [pioneer manufacturer] product. The FDA also stated: ``We agree
    that this particular issue should have been resolved more
    expeditiously.''

    Potential Conflicts of Interest

        On July 12, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and materials from the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to potential
    conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of
    interest, on the parts of a current FDA official and two former
    FDA employees. Follow-up requests for additional information
    were made with respect to the current FDA official on August 3,
    1995.

    Etoposide

        On July 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry into reports of deaths at a
    cancer clinic from an abstract that suggested a possible
    connection between an increase of deaths and the clinic's
    switch from the pioneer version to the generic version of
    etoposide, an injectable cancer drug used for treating lung
    cancer and testicular tumors. In particular, the Subcommittee
    received and reviewed information and documentation related to
    the manufacturers, adverse reaction reports, and other
    materials. On September 28, 1995, the Subcommittee requested
    additional information and materials.

    Color Lakes

        On July 31, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry about the Food and Drug
    Administration's (FDA's) delay in providing rules for permanent
    listing of color lakes that have been under consideration by
    FDA since 1965. Color lakes are color additives used in foods,
    drugs, and cosmetics that FDA has acknowledged as serving a
    necessary public health function because ``it permits drugs of
    identical size and shape to be distinguished.'' In particular,
    the Subcommittee requested that FDA provide an expected date of
    the rule's publication in the Federal Register and that the
    FDA's General Counsel provide an explanation for the delay in
    publication of the rule. Committee staff was informed by FDA
    staff that the rule would be published in the Federal Register
    in late January or early February 1996. On February 4, 1996,
    the FDA published the rule in the Federal Register.

    Credibility of a Former FDA Official

        On August 4, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information about a former high-level
    Food and Drug Administration official, in order for the
    Subcommittee to evaluate the official's credibility and the
    information he provided.

    Commissioner's Contingency Fund

        On August 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and documentation from the
    Food and Drug Administration concerning the use of the
    Commissioner's contingency fund.

    Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority

        On August 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information, documentation, and Food
    and Drug Administration (FDA) employee interviews with respect
    to testimony received at the July 25, 1995, Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations hearing on allegations of FDA
    abuses of authority and other issues with respect to the
    following: Myo-Tronics, Inc.; Biomet, Inc.; Dr. Watkins and Dr.
    Michelson; and RS Medical.

    Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority: Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski

        On August 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations also requested information and documentation
    from FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services
    related to allegations of FDA abuses of authority involving Dr.
    Stanislaw Burzynski and the Burzynski Research Institute.

    Department of Justice--Conduct of U.S. Attorney's Office in FDA-Related
            Probe

        On September 7, 1995, the Subcommittee Chairman requested
    Attorney General Janet Reno to initiate an internal Department
    of Justice investigation into allegations of prosecutorial
    abuse related to the Food and Drug Administration and grand
    jury investigations of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and the
    Burzynski Research Institute. This request was a follow-up to
    information and documentation stemming from testimony received
    at the July 25, 1995, hearing. In a September 28, 1995, letter
    to the Subcommittee Chairman, the Assistant Attorney General
    for Legislative Affairs confirmed that the Department's Office
    of Professional Responsibility had initiated an inquiry. This
    inquiry is still ongoing.

    Caffeine Regulatory Initiative

        On September 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information on the nature and status
    of a caffeine regulatory initiative underway in the Food and
    Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied
    Nutrition. FDA provided information and documents in October
    1995.

    FDA Management

        On October 23, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested records related to the Food and Drug
    Administration's management practices. FDA provided information
    and documents in November 1995.

    Food Imports

        On December 19, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information about the Food and Drug
    Administration's regulatory standards for determining whether
    food imports contain objectionable amounts of filth, or have
    been held under unsanitary conditions, within the meaning of
    Sections 402 and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
    Act. FDA provided information and documents in January 1996.

    Possible FDA Retaliation

        On January 23, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA) concerning a November 17, 1995, letter
    from the Director of the FDA Office of Human Resources and
    Management Services, to a former FDA employee. In the second
    paragraph of the November 17 letter, the Director wrote: ``Nor
    am I in a position to comment on any decision you might make to
    contact the press regarding your past employment with the Food
    and Drug Administration except to say that this Agency will
    reserve the right to correct any misinformation or incorrect
    information by releasing documents that reflect accurate
    information to the appropriate media.'' The Subcommittee
    Chairman was concerned that the statement appeared to threaten
    the discharged employee with release of documents that, given
    the dispute, could only refer to personnel records or
    investigative reports relating to such records. The FDA
    conducted an investigation and reported its findings to the
    Subcommittee on November 12, 1996.

    FDA Disclosure of Confidential Information to Short Sellers

        On January 30, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an investigation into whether Food and
    Drug Administration employees made unauthorized disclosures of
    confidential inside information to stock brokers and a
    financial correspondent in furtherance of insider trading or
    market manipulation. The Subcommittee will continue this
    investigation in the 105th Congress.

    FDA Commissioner Travel Practices

        On February 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested that the United States General
    Accounting Office examine the travel practices of Food and Drug
    Administration Commissioner David Kessler from January 1, 1991
    to the present.

    Halcion

        On February 16, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request
    concerning the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) actions
    pertaining to a drug called Halcion, and the actions of the
    Halcion Task Force. On March 20, 1996, Deputy Commissioner
    Sharon Smith Holston responded to that letter, stating that the
    FDA was unable to provide the requested documents because the
    Task Force's deliberative documents are inextricably linked to
    the Task Force's investigation, but that the FDA would brief
    Committee staff in lieu of providing the documents. On May 2,
    1996, the FDA staff briefed Committee staff. On May 14, 1996,
    the Subcommittee Chairman sent a letter to the Secretary of
    Health and Human Services citing serious concerns about Halcion
    and the FDA's actions with respect to Halcion and reiterating
    his February 16, 1996 request for documents concerning this
    matter. The Subcommittee Chairman further asked that all
    requested material be provided by May 31, 1996, in order to
    avoid resorting to compulsory process. On May 31, 1996, the FDA
    provided documents as well as the Halcion Task Force Report.

    Kidney Dialysis Regulation

        On February 21, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an investigation into the
    responsiveness of Federal agencies to alleged abuses in the
    kidney dialysis industry which were detailed on the front page
    of the New York Times for 3 consecutive days, commencing
    December 4, 1995. These articles described a series of problems
    centering around the kidney dialysis industry. In particular,
    the articles focused on National Medical Care, Inc., a
    subsidiary of the W.R. Grace Company, indicating that several
    inquiries and investigations were under way involving the U.S.
    Attorney in Boston, the Department of Justice, and the Food and
    Drug Administration (FDA). The Subcommittee requested certain
    information and documentation from the FDA about its
    inspections and audits of dialysis companies. FDA responded
    with information and documents on April 19, 1996.

    Delinquent Rulemaking

        During the Spring of 1996, the Subcommittee Chairman sent a
    series of letters to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    concerning delayed rulemakings in the following areas: (1)
    clinical investigator conflict-of-interest; (2) medical foods;
    (3) exports; (4) small business exemption for the Nutrition
    Labeling and Education Act (NLEA); (5) dental amalgam
    ingredient labeling; (6) adverse reaction reports on drugs and
    biologics; (7) hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP)
    regulations; and (8) blood safety. For each of the delayed
    rulemakings, the Subcommittee requested from FDA the following:
    a report on the reasons for the delays in initiating this
    rulemaking, as well as the reasons for FDA's apparent
    determination to postpone initiation of this rulemaking
    indefinitely; FDA's plans for completion of this rulemaking as
    well as an estimate of the Agency resources, by year, that will
    be dedicated to the development and implementation of the
    rulemaking; and an explanation of how public health concerns
    associated with this rulemaking are being addressed pending
    completion of this rulemaking. Over the course of the Spring
    and Summer of 1996, FDA responded to these letters.

    FDA Regulation of Drug Advertising

        On April 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations, in examining the Food and Drug Administration's
    Division of Drug Marketing and Advertising (DDMAC), Center for
    Drug Evaluation and Research enforcement strategy on
    prescription drug information, requested copies of 163 Notice
    of Violation letters issued during Fiscal Year 1995. On May 10,
    1996, FDA provided these letters.

    Use of Civil Money Penalties

        On April 17, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information relating to concerns that
    the Food and Drug Administration may have been unfairly using
    its authority to impose civil money penalties against medical
    device manufacturers under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990
    (SMDA). On June 7, 1996, FDA responded.

    Universal Technology Systems

        On May 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request
    concerning whether Food and Drug Administration (FDA) field
    offices are acting in compliance with the Federal Food Drug and
    Cosmetic Act and Federal regulations. In particular, the
    Subcommittee requested information and documents about a matter
    related to the FDA's Orlando, Florida, field office enforcement
    actions in connection with Universal Technology Systems, Inc.
    The FDA responded in June 1996.

    RU-486

        On May 23, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations began an investigation of the Food and Drug
    Administration's (FDA's) handling of data integrity issues
    related to clinical trials of RU-486 and requested certain
    materials. On July 11, 1996, and September 17, 1996, the
    Subcommittee Chairman sent a letter to FDA requesting follow-up
    information relating to the integrity of the clinical trials
    and ethical questions connected to the approval process.

    Freedom of Information Act Requests

        On June 6, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request
    concerning the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) practices
    and policies generally with respect to Freedom of Information
    Act (``FOIA'') requests, and more specifically, to questions
    raised by evidence suggesting that the FDA may be giving
    preferential treatment to certain FOIA requestors in connection
    with pedicle screws.

    Disclosure of Confidential Information

        On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information from the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA) concerning allegations received from a
    firm, with a pending Investigational New Drug (IND) application
    before FDA, about improper disclosures of confidential
    information. The firm had filed complaints on some of these
    allegations with the FDA for investigation. FDA responded in
    August 1996.

    FDA's Office of Internal Affairs

        On June 14, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations, as part of its effort to investigate the
    effectiveness of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's)
    internal investigations, requested information and
    documentation on investigations conducted by the Office of
    Internal Affairs (OIA), activities in support of the Office of
    Inspector General's investigations conducted by OIA, special
    assignments conducted by OIA, certain matters initiated prior
    to January 1, 1995, and certain miscellaneous matters. FDA
    responded on July 12, 1996.

    Misbranding Case

        On June 20, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations began an investigation of the Food and Drug
    Administration's (FDA's) action and responsiveness with respect
    to misbranding of food imports. In particular, the Subcommittee
    was concerned about what appeared to be inaction by FDA to
    enforce against misbranding of an imported food ingredient to
    the commercial detriment of a domestic distributor of the
    legitimate ingredient. The Subcommittee requested a report
    explaining FDA's handling of the matter. On October 17, 1996,
    FDA responded with its written report.

    Conjugated Estrogens

        On July 11, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested that the Department of Health and
    Human Services Office of Inspector General conduct a thorough
    investigation of the Food and Drug Administration's handling of
    issues related to conjugated estrogens and provide the
    Subcommittee with a complete report.

    FDA Employee Involvement with Outside Publication

        On October 25, 1996, the Subcommittee Chairman sent an
    inquiry to the Food and Drug Administration based on
    information that raised ethical questions about whether the
    publication and marketing of the Medical Devices Guidebook (and
    possibly the videotapes) involved a misuse of public office for
    private gain of either an FDA employee or an outside party.

     HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
                                     ENERGY

                                    Hearings

          department of energy: travel expenditures and related issues

        On November 17, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
    Energy and Power on an allegedly inappropriate use of Federal
    funds by the Department of Energy (DOE). The hearing focused on
    a DOE contract with a public affairs firm to rate the
    favorability and unfavorability of opinions of journalists and
    others toward the Department (so-called ``media content
    analysis'') and how these ratings were used by DOE.
    Additionally, the hearing encompassed allegations of
    inappropriate use of Federal funds by DOE in other areas, such
    as public relations and foreign travel by the Secretary. The
    sole witness was Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary.
        As a result of the allegations set forth at this hearing,
    the Subcommittee held a series of five hearings in 1996
    examining the Department of Energy's travel expenditures and
    related issues. These hearings were held on January 4, 1996;
    March 8, 1996; April 24, 1996; June 12, 1996; and June 13,
    1996.

    January 4, 1996

        On January 4, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing to examine issues surrounding
    foreign travel by Secretary of Energy O'Leary. The witness at
    the hearing was Mr. Victor Rezendes, Director--Energy,
    Resources, and Science Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office
    (GAO). The hearing focused on 2 of the 16 foreign trips taken
    by the Secretary, which were the subject of a GAO Report on
    December 28, 1995, entitled Energy Management: Unsubstantiated
    DOE Travel Payments. The trips in question were foreign trade
    missions to India and South Africa in July 1994 and August
    1995, respectively.
        The GAO testimony focused on a number of issues. First, the
    level of undocumented spending by the Department came under
    scrutiny. Significant costs were authorized by DOE, incurred by
    the U.S. Embassy, and reimbursed by DOE without records,
    receipts, or vouchers (which were with the State Department but
    not seen by DOE). GAO concluded that DOE itself did not
    maintain sufficient documentation to provide a reasonable
    assurance as to the accuracy and propriety of the charges. This
    was consistent with prior DOE practice, but DOE had never
    undertaken foreign trips of this magnitude and cost before.
    After examining the documents, the DOE protested $117,000.
        Second, the GAO discussed the high cost of aircraft
    acquisition--which accounted for most of the total cost of the
    DOE trade missions. The GAO testified about administrative
    problems in how these services were acquired, noting that the
    administrative processes traditionally used by DOE were
    inadequate to handle the trade missions.
        Third, the GAO testimony revealed a dispute over DOE
    reprogramming of defense funds to support foreign travel. GAO
    testified that DOE reprogrammed $400,000 from the defense-
    related appropriations account to pay expenses associated with
    foreign trade missions. According to GAO, this action ignored a
    long-standing principle of appropriations accounting. Congress
    then included specific language in the conference report (H.
    Rpt. 104-293) on H.R. 1905, the Energy and Water Development
    Appropriations Act, 1996, to assure DOE compliance with this
    long-standing principle.
        Fourth, the hearing addressed the delays by DOE in seeking
    reimbursement of travel costs for persons who are not
    government employees. GAO noted the inadequacies in DOE's
    handling of reimbursement issues.

    March 8, 1996

        On March 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held its second hearing on the Department of
    Energy's travel expenditures and related issues. The sole
    witness was Mr. John C. Layton, Inspector General for the
    Department of Energy. The hearing focused on the implementation
    of the Inspector General's recommendations to establish
    adequate controls over the acquisition and financing of air
    services used by the Department for international travel. The
    hearing also outlined the increased travel costs, the bulk of
    which stemmed from the cost of aircraft, associated with the
    trade missions.
        In 1994, the Office of Inspector General had reviewed trade
    missions to India and Pakistan. Recommendations had included
    formal procedures for the acquisition of international air
    services, full cost recovery for non-Federal employees, and
    tightening of collection of such fares. Mr. Layton had advised
    the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary in December, 1994 that
    ``the Department should ensure that all of its processes and
    procedures covering international travel have been addressed
    before any additional trips are contemplated.'' But the
    Inspector General testified that, as of the hearing, only one
    of the four recommendations had been addressed adequately.
        In response to this hearing, the Subcommittee received a
    March 13, 1996, letter from Secretary O'Leary expressing her
    concern that all the reforms identified by the Inspector
    General had not been implemented. In addition, the Secretary
    promised not to go on any more trade missions until the
    Inspector General and the GAO agreed that DOE had implemented
    reforms concerning the acquisition of aircraft for trade
    missions. DOE formally implemented new procedures on July 31,
    1996.

    April 24, 1996

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued
    its hearings on the Department of Energy's travel expenditures
    and related issues on April 24, 1996. Witnesses at the hearing
    included: Ms. JayEtta Hecker, Associate Director, International
    Relations and Trade Issues, General Accounting Office; Mr. Dirk
    Forrister, Assistant Secretary for Congressional, Public, and
    Intergovernmental Affairs, Department of Energy; and Mr. Steven
    Lee, Economist, Office of Energy Exports, Department of Energy.
    This hearing focused on DOE's claims about the benefits of the
    trade missions, including the value of contracts signed on the
    missions and the extent to which the trade missions contributed
    to those and other business agreements. The Subcommittee also
    examined whether the missions were pursued in a cost-effective
    manner.
        The GAO testimony focused on several points: (1) DOE's
    authority and role in conducting trade missions; (2) the
    difficulties inherent in trying to quantify the value of trade
    missions, including a review of DOE's reports of the results of
    the four trade missions; and (3) DOE management weaknesses with
    respect to those missions. GAO said that the Department had
    statutory authority to conduct such missions. GAO also said
    that it was not possible to link any particular deal signed on
    the missions to the missions themselves, and that estimating
    the benefits of such deals was extremely difficult. Finally,
    GAO pointed out that the potential value of the emerging energy
    market could be substantial.
        The Departmental witnesses acknowledged that DOE had a
    steep learning curve with respect to these new missions, and
    that the Department had relied on initial estimates from
    corporate representatives in stating the value of deals signed
    during the missions. But they also said that the missions were
    important in helping American firms compete for energy
    infrastructure business in ``big emerging markets,''
    particularly given the governmental trade missions undertaken
    by foreign countries.
        Subsequent to this hearing, DOE promised to change the way
    it reported on the claimed benefits from trade missions.

    June 12, 1996

        On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee continued its hearings
    on the Department of Energy's travel expenditures and related
    issues. Eight witnesses, representing corporations which
    participated in one or more of the four international trade
    missions, testified at the request of the Minority. In general,
    the witnesses testified that the missions were helpful in
    moving forward stalled contracts, in otherwise accelerating the
    timetable for the contracts, in match-making between potential
    exporters and international clients, and in helping overcome
    political barriers that were associated with substantial
    foreign governmental involvement in the energy sector. They
    also expressed appreciation for the hard work done by DOE in
    connection with these missions and denied that the trips were
    junkets.

    June 13, 1996

        On June 13, 1996, the Subcommittee held its final hearing
    in the 104th Congress on DOE's travel expenditures and related
    issues. Secretary Hazel O'Leary testified, accompanied by Mr.
    Eric J. Fygi, Deputy General Counsel, and Mr. Donald W.
    Pearlman, Acting Chief Financial Officer. Secretary O'Leary
    testified on a wide range of issues related to her foreign
    travel, with particular attention to the four trade missions to
    promote U.S. exports. Issues included the cost of the missions,
    the administrative problems in handling of financial aspects of
    the missions, the inadequate administration of invitational
    travel, whether laws and regulations were adhered to, and
    whether some of the Department's statements regarding the
    economic benefits of the missions were correct.
        The Secretary accepted full responsibility for DOE's
    management problems in conducting the trade missions and made a
    commitment to fix them. She noted that she had already
    initiated several actions to fix these problems, including
    asking the Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive review
    of her international travel and related management procedures
    and processes, and asking the GAO for assistance as well. She
    also noted her commitment not to take additional trade missions
    until reforms were put in place, said that substantial progress
    had been made, and committed to complete action on the 29
    recommendations made by the Inspector General's draft report on
    her international travel. The Secretary acknowledged the
    difficulty in quantifying the economic benefits of the
    missions, and said that she regretted any perception that DOE's
    efforts were the sole factor that caused any business agreement
    signed in connection with the missions.

            department of energy: furloughs and financial management

        On March 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on furloughs and financial
    management at the Department of Energy (DOE). The hearing dealt
    with the decision to furlough DOE Departmental Administration
    employees across-the-board, which merely delays decisions that
    must be made to realign DOE's structure in the post-Cold War
    environment. Focus was also directed at measures to avoid the
    furlough, such as conserving funds used for leadership training
    and international travel, that were not taken. The Subcommittee
    heard testimony from DOE's Chief Financial Officer, furloughed
    employees, and non-furloughed union leaders.
        As a result of the testimony received at the hearing, the
    Subcommittee Chairman sent a letter on April 23, 1996, to the
    Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development asking that the Secretary of
    Energy be given permission to reprogram funds from within the
    Departmental Administration account and DOE travel funds so
    that civil servant employees need not be furloughed.

          federal government's role in promoting natural gas vehicles

        On May 30, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on what the role of the Federal
    government should be in promoting natural gas vehicles. The
    Subcommittee was joined by members of the Speaker's Natural Gas
    Vehicle Task Force. Testimony was received from representatives
    of the Department of Energy and from various businesses which
    either voluntarily use natural gas vehicles or use them to
    fulfill fleet mandates contained in the Clean Air Act and the
    Energy Policy Act. Testimony was received from representatives
    testifying on behalf of the American Automotive Leasing
    Association, the United Parcel Service, Cummins Engine Company,
    Inc., Equitable Resources, Inc., and Jack B. Kelly, Inc. All of
    the witnesses agreed that incentives were appropriate in
    encouraging the use of natural gas vehicles, although some
    thought that incentives should replace the mandates that are
    currently in the Clean Air Act and Energy Policy Act. Written
    comments supplied by the Natural Gas Supply Association
    questioned the need for any incentives. There was general
    agreement that the tax treatment on liquid natural gas and
    compressed natural gas should be equalized (currently, liquid
    natural gas is taxed at a higher rate as compared to compressed
    natural gas). There was also testimony about how to better
    encourage the use of natural gas in the nation's bus fleet.
        As a result of the testimony presented at this hearing,
    H.R. 4288, the Natural Gas Vehicle Incentives Act of 1996, was
    introduced in the House on September 28, 1996, by
    Representatives Barton, Bilbray, Bono, Combest, Gingrich,
    McCrery, Regula, Tauzin, Thornberry, and Wise. The bill was
    referred to the Committee on Commerce, and in addition to the
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee
    on Ways and Means, the Committee on National Security, and the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. H.R. 4288
    contains a combination of new legislative incentives and
    refinements to existing laws which, together, will create
    market conditions that will stimulate the use of liquefied
    natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG). It is
    anticipated that the legislation will be reintroduced in the
    105th Congress and form the basis for legislative action in the
    appropriate committees of jurisdiction.

                            Investigative Activities

    Hanford

        On February 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request
    concerning the activities of the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
    Office of Environmental Management with respect to the Tank
    Waste Remediation System (TWRS) program at the Hanford Nuclear
    Reservation. The Subcommittee was interested in learning
    whether DOE is adequately managing and safely maintaining the
    storage and ultimate disposal of radioactive wastes in 177
    underground tanks. The Subcommittee subsequently requested
    additional information and documentation on March 4 and July
    17, 1996. DOE responded to the Subcommittee's inquiry by
    letters dated July 23, 1996, and August 8, 1996.
        Due to the budgetary and public health significance of the
    approaches DOE is considering for long term management and
    disposal of the tank wastes, the Subcommittee Chairman, on
    March 28, 1996, requested that the General Accounting Office
    (GAO) investigate DOE's management experience and plans for
    privatization of tank waste cleanup. In a letter report,
    entitled Hanford Waste Privatization (GAO/RCED-96-213R),
    completed on August 2, 1996, GAO found that the DOE has
    mismanaged $628 million on three failed efforts to dispose of
    the tank wastes, and raised several questions about the
    feasibility of the Department's plan for privatization of tank
    waste cleanup. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
    will continue to pursue this matter in the 105th Congress.

    Department of Energy Environmental Restoration Activities

        On May 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry into the Department of
    Energy's (DOE's) environmental restoration activities conducted
    by the Office of Environmental Management, based on findings of
    a National Research Council report published in 1995, entitled
    Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental
    Management Program. According to the report, DOE has
    significant management problems in properly utilizing its $6
    billion budget allocated for environmental cleanup.
        The Subcommittee intends to evaluate the Department's claim
    that environmental restoration activities have improved
    dramatically and have entered a phase where on-the-ground
    cleanup costs exceed assessment costs. DOE responded to the
    Subcommittee's May 1, 1996, inquiry, which, in turn, resulted
    in additional requests to DOE on July 17 and September 27,
    1996, for detailed cost information for six DOE sites managed
    under the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation, Response,
    and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act (RCRA), or the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). This
    investigation is ongoing and the Subcommittee anticipates
    further action on this matter in the 105th Congress.

    Yucca Mountain

        On May 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an investigation into the Department
    of Energy's (DOE's) management of the proposed repository for
    high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. On that
    date, the Subcommittee Chairman sent a letter to the Secretary
    of Energy concerning a General Accounting Office (GAO) report
    issued on March 20, 1996, entitled Nuclear Waste: Nevada's Use
    of Nuclear Waste Grant Funds. Because the GAO report indicated
    that many serious issues were still outstanding regarding the
    State of Nevada's misuse of DOE grant funds, the Subcommittee
    posed several questions to the Department regarding DOE's
    response, or lack thereof, to the problems identified in the
    GAO report. On July 25, 1996, DOE responded to the
    Subcommittee's inquiry, but was unable to answer all of the
    questions. The Subcommittee will continue to closely monitor,
    in the 105th Congress, DOE's stewardship of the Nuclear Waste
    Fund under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, especially as it
    relates to the Yucca Mountain.

    Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities

        On June 4, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to Department of
    Defense Secretary Perry requesting, among other things, a copy
    of a letter sent by then-Deputy Defense Secretary John Deutch
    to Secretary O'Leary in May 1994 expressing concern that the
    Department of Energy was failing to maintain nuclear weapons
    production facilities. After a follow-up letter from the
    Subcommittee Chairman on July 30, 1996, and numerous phone
    calls were made insisting that the Department be responsive to
    the Subcommittee's document request, the letter was provided to
    the Subcommittee on October 28, 1996.

    Allegations of Improper Conduct by DOE Employees

        In October 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations received information relating to the possible
    use of Department of Energy (DOE) resources to influence the
    outcome of Federal elections, and allegations that Federal
    contractors were intimidated for their contributions to a
    conservative non-profit group.
        On October 10, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee sent
    a letter to Secretary of Energy O'Leary concerning pre-election
    appearances by the Secretary at a ``Mid-Atlantic/Northeast
    regional public meeting,'' to which Republican Members of the
    New Jersey Congressional delegation in adjacent districts told
    the Subcommittee that they were not even notified of this
    event. The letter sought documents relating to the planning and
    funding for this event.
        On October 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry and document request with
    respect to a DOE employee who was reported to be actively
    working for the campaign of the opponent of an incumbent
    Congressman, who was one of the Secretary's chief critics in
    Congress.
        Also on October 29, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee
    on Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to Secretary of
    Energy O'Leary requesting that she respond to allegations
    printed in the Wall Street Journal that she told a donor to the
    Western Journalism Center that ``his company's government
    business would be in jeopardy if he continued to support'' the
    foundation.
        DOE responded to these letters and denied any wrong doing.
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will continue
    to review these allegations in the 105th Congress to determine
    if any action is warranted.

    HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS
                                     ISSUES

                                    Hearings

             competition in the cellular telephone service industry

        On October 12, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on competition in the cellular
    telephone service industry. The purpose of the hearing was to
    determine the extent of competition in the mobile voice
    services market, and whether any further action by Congress was
    necessary to encourage increased competition. This hearing
    included an examination of whether mandated and unbundled
    interconnection should be required as a method to spur
    competition. Finally, the Subcommittee received testimony as to
    why the wireless industry should receive disparate treatment
    from other sectors of the telecommunications industry as
    applied by proposed telecommunications reform legislation.
        Testimony was received from representatives of the Federal
    Communications Commission, the Department of Justice, and the
    General Accounting Office, telecommunications experts, and
    representatives of several business associations.
        Generally, these witnesses noted that the present wireless
    voice communications market was a duopoly, and that duopolies
    are not as competitive as a free and open market. Most of the
    witnesses agreed that prices for cellular service were higher
    than they would be if more competitors were participating in
    the market. However, a majority of the witnesses believed that
    the recent Personal Communications Systems (PCS) auctions,
    which would add as many as six new competitors in each market,
    would result in increased, perhaps robust competition,
    resulting in substantially lower prices. Therefore, a majority
    of the witnesses believed that no additional Congressional
    action was required to improve price competition at this time.

     HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
                                    COMMERCE

                            Investigative Activities

    Anti-Lobbying Act Inquiry to the Department of Commerce

        On September 29, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations requested information and materials from the
    Department of Commerce related to possible violations of the
    Anti-Lobbying Act by employees of the Department of Commerce.
    On October 31, 1995, the Department responded. The Subcommittee
    will continue to monitor the activities of the Department in
    this area.

    American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
            Engineers (ASHRAE)

        On May 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations initiated an inquiry regarding the
    appropriateness of a Department of Commerce (DOC) official
    participating in a working committee of the American Society of
    Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers
    (ASHRAE), a private standard-setting organization, and
    specifically whether such participation was consistent with the
    Federal government's rules and policies concerning a government
    employee's participation in private organizations.
        On June 7, 1996, the Department of Commerce responded to
    the Subcommittee inquiry, and provided an adequate explanation
    to support DOC's decision to continue to permit the DOC
    employee's participation in ASHRAE, including the statutory
    basis to justify this participation. The Subcommittee will
    continue to monitor the relationships of Federal employees with
    ASHRAE and other private organizations to ensure that such
    relationships are consistent with the Federal government's
    rules and policies relating to Federal employees' participation
    in outside groups.

        HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO TRADE ISSUES

                            Investigative Activities

    Canadian Government's Ban on Importation of U.S. Produced Commodity

        On May 15, 1996, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to Charlene
    Barshefsky, Acting United States Trade Representative (USTR),
    concerning the USTR's intended course of action with respect to
    a bill introduced in the Canadian Parliament. The bill, ``C-
    94,'' would appear to violate Canada's obligations under the
    World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North America Free Trade
    Agreement (NAFTA) by banning the importation of the fuel
    additive known as MMT. In North America, MMT is currently
    produced only in the United States and is imported into Canada.
    The Subcommittee was concerned that such a ban would have a
    substantial and direct impact on MMT export sales from the
    United States. USTR officials briefed the Subcommittee on the
    matter and sent a formal written response on June 25, 1996.

                                 Hearings Held

        Implementation and Enforcement of Clean Air Act Amendments
    of 1990.--Hearing on a General Overview of the Implementation
    and Enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
    Hearing held on February 9, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-5.
        Implementation and Enforcement of Clean Air Act Amendments
    of 1990.--Hearing on the Employer Trip Reduction Program.
    Hearing held on March 16, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-5.
        Clean Air Act.--Hearing on the Inspection and Maintenance
    Program. Hearing held on March 23, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-16.
        Clean Air Act.--Hearing on the Inspection and Maintenance
    Program. Hearing held on March 24, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-16.
        A Consumer's Perspective on Medical Devices.--Hearing on
    FDA's Regulatory Impact focusing on A Consumer's Perspective on
    Medical Devices. Hearing held on March 30, 1995. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-18.
        Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Medicare Program.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Medicare Program.
    Hearing held on May 16, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-21.
         Clean Air Act.--Hearing on Title V, Permits. Hearing held
    on May 18, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-32.
        A Consumer's Perspective on Drugs and Biologics.--Hearing
    on FDA's Regulatory Impact focusing on A Consumer's Perspective
    on Drugs and Biologics. Hearing held on May 25, 1995. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-23.
        Clean Air Act.--Hearing on Title II, Reformulated Gasoline
    Program. Hearing held on June 7, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number
    104-25.
        Drug and Biologics Review.--Hearing on FDA's Drug and
    Biologics Review Process. Hearing held on June 19, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-23.
         Clean Air Act.--Hearing on Title III, Hazardous Air
    Pollutants. Hearing held on June 29, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-53.
        Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Medicare Program (Part 2).--
    Joint Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in the Medicare Program.
    Hearing held on July 19, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-26.
         Clean Air Act.--Hearing on Title III, Hazardous Air
    Pollutants. Hearing held on July 21, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-53.
        Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority.--Hearing on
    Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority. Hearing held on July
    25, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-51.
        Clean Air Act.--Hearing on Title VI, Stratospheric Ozone
    Protection. Hearing held on August 1, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-52.
        Competition in the Cellular Telephone Service Industry.--
    Hearing on Competition in the Cellular Telephone Service
    Industry. Hearing held on October 12, 1995. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-43.
        Clean Air Act.--Joint Oversight Hearing with the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment on Title I, Air Quality
    and Emission Limitations. Hearing held on November 9, 1995.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-55.
        Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority.--Hearing on
    Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority. Hearing held on
    November 15, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-51.
        Department of Energy: Misuse of Federal Funds.--Joint
    Oversight Hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on
    the Misuse of Federal Funds by the Department of Energy.
    Hearing held on November 17, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-
    56.
        Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority.--Hearing on
    Allegations of FDA Abuses of Authority. Hearing held on
    December 5, 1995. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-51.
        Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures and Related
    Issues.--Hearing on Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures
    and Related Issues. Hearing held on January 4, 1996. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-73.
        Cancer Patient Access to Unapproved Treatments.--Hearing on
    Cancer Patient Access to Unapproved Treatments. Hearing held on
    February 29, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-60.
        Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures and Related
    Issues.--Hearing on Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures
    and Related Issues. Hearing held on March 8, 1996. PRINTED,
    Serial Number 104-73.
        Department of Energy: Furloughs and Financial Management.--
    Hearing on Department of Energy: Furloughs and Financial
    Management. Hearing held on March 27, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-78.
        Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures and Related
    Issues (Part 2).--Hearing on Department of Energy: Travel
    Expenditures and Related Issues. Hearing held on April 24,
    1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-80.
        Federal Government's Role in Promoting Natural Gas
    Vehicles.--Hearing on the Federal Government's Role in
    Promoting Natural Gas Vehicles. Hearing held on May 30, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-83.
        Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures and Related
    Issues (Part 3).--Hearing on Department of Energy: Travel
    Expenditures and Related Issues. Hearing held on June 12, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-97.
        Department of Energy: Travel Expenditures and Related
    Issues (Part 3).--Hearing on Department of Energy: Travel
    Expenditures and Related Issues. Hearing held on June 13, 1996.
    PRINTED, Serial Number 104-97.
        FDA Integrity Issues.--Hearing on FDA Integrity Issues
    Raised by the Visx, Inc. Document Disclosure. Hearing held on
    July 31, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-93.
        Environmental Compliance Problems Facing Dry Cleaners.--
    Hearing on Environmental Compliance Problems Facing Dry
    Cleaners. Hearing held on September 13, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-105.
        Perspectives on Pharmaceutical Pricing Practices.--Hearing
    on Perspectives on Pharmaceutical Pricing Practices. Hearing
    held on September 19, 1996. PRINTED, Serial Number 104-113.
        Consumer Access to Home Testing Services and Devices.--
    Hearing on Consumer Access to Home Testing Services and
    Devices. Hearing held on September 26, 1996. PRINTED, Serial
    Number 104-117.
          Committee on Commerce Oversight Plan for the 104th Congress

        Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the House of
    Representatives for the 104th Congress requires each standing
    Committee in the first session of a Congress to adopt an
    oversight plan for the 2-year period of the Congress and to
    submit the plan to the Committee on Government Reform and
    Oversight and the Committee on House Oversight.
        Rule XI, clause 1(2)(d)(1) requires each Committee to
    submit to the House not later than January 2 of each odd-
    numbered year, a report on the activities of that Committee
    under Rule X and Rule XI during the Congress ending on January
    3 of such year. Clause 1(2)(d)(3) of Rule XI also requires that
    such report shall include a summary of the oversight plans
    submitted by the Committee pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule X; a
    summary of the actions taken and recommendations made with
    respect to each such plan; and a summary of any additional
    oversight activities undertaken by the Committee, and any
    recommendations made or actions taken thereon.
        Part A of this section contains the Committee on Commerce
    Oversight Plan for the 104th Congress which the Full Committee
    considered and adopted by a voice vote on February 22, 1995, a
    quorum being present.
        Part B of this section contains a summary of the actions
    taken by the Committee on Commerce to implement the Oversight
    Plan for the 104th Congress and the recommendations made with
    respect to this plan. Part B also contains a summary of the
    additional oversight activities undertaken by the Committee,
    and the recommendations made or actions taken thereon.
                                     PART A

                      Committee on Commerce Oversight Plan

                         u.s. house of representatives
                                 104th congress
                      hon. thomas j. bliley, jr., chairman

        Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the House requires each
    standing Committee to adopt an oversight plan for the 2-year
    period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committees
    on Government Reform and Oversight and House Oversight not
    later than February 15 of the first session of the Congress.
        This is the oversight plan of the Committee on Commerce for
    the 104th Congress. It includes the areas in which the
    Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 104th
    Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of
    additional matters as the need arises. Indeed, the need to
    include other matters may well arise after a full examination
    of investigations pending at the end of the 103d Congress is
    completed.

                                  ----------

                            ENERGY AND POWER ISSUES

            I. Oversight Activities within the Committee on Commerce

                        nuclear waste policy act of 1982

        Since 1982 the Department of Energy (DOE) collected
    approximately $8 billion from nuclear utilities in order to
    characterize and build a permanent high level nuclear waste
    repository. The Act mandates DOE to accept spent commercial
    reactor fuel beginning in 1998. As of today, DOE has spent
    approximately $4 billion of that money and is yet to accept the
    waste. Even so, DOE requests more money for this program. This
    Committee will evaluate the program, the reasons behind the
    delay in opening the facility, and methods to expedite
    placement of waste in the repository. (Summer 1995).

                          waste isolation pilot plant

        Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is DOE's proposed
    permanent repository for transuranic waste (high level nuclear
    weapons waste from plutonium processing operations). Originally
    proposed to be opened by 1998, DOE's current timeline will not
    allow for an opening before 2000. Fully constructed and fully
    staffed, the plant is merely awaiting final testing before
    operations may begin. More than $1.8 billion has been spent on
    the facility but no nuclear waste has been transferred to the
    site yet. The Committee will explore the reasons behind the
    delay in opening the facility and methods to expedite placement
    of waste in the repository. (Spring 1995).

                           energy policy act (epact)

    Electricity Provisions
        In 1992, EPAct began the process of enhancing competition
    in the electricity sector. Since then, some segments of the
    industry are of the opinion further reforms are necessary to
    make it completely competitive. This Committee will explore
    what is happening in the electricity industry, if EPAct is
    being implemented properly, and if further legislation is
    needed. (Fall 1995).
    Alternative Fuels Provisions
        The Clean Air Act and the Energy Policy Act (Acts) contain
    both private and public sector alternative fuel programs. Many
    questions have been raised about the implementation. Hearings
    will address the costs of the programs, the regulations being
    promulgated by the agencies to comply with the Acts, and other
    burdens the Acts place on the private sector. Also being
    addressed is how DOE chooses and ranks alternative fuels.
    (Summer 1995).
    Energy Efficiency Standards
        EPAct also directs DOE to set national energy efficiency
    standards for a variety of products. The appliance
    manufacturing industry requested one Federal standard for
    consistency throughout the 50 States. However, in implementing
    these provisions, DOE set standards which exclude certain types
    of products from the marketplace. For example, DOE's proposed
    standard for televisions would prevent the introduction of high
    definition television in the United States. This Committee will
    consider whether DOE interfered with the free operation of the
    market by setting overly-stringent appliance standards. (Summer
    1995).
    Uranium Enrichment Corporation
        The Energy Policy Act of 1992 established the United States
    Enrichment Corporation (USEC) and authorized the transfer of
    DOE's uranium enrichment program to the new government
    corporation. DOE transferred to USEC assets worth $2.2 billion,
    including uranium inventories and equipment, and utilities
    contracts for the supply of uranium fuel for commercial
    reactors. USEC and DOE investigated the possibility of
    privatization of USEC. While no reason exists for government
    control of uranium fuel production, the low prevailing uranium
    world-wide prices make it difficult to find a buyer willing to
    pay USEC's ``book'' value. This Committee will examine USEC's
    salability. (February 1995).

          resource conservation and recovery act (rcra/bevill wastes)

        EPA recently indicated it will regulate cement kiln dust as
    a hazardous material under RCRA despite the fact a recent EPA
    study determined the risk posed by cement kiln dust is small.
    The Committee will explore the propriety of EPA's proposed
    cement kiln dust regulations in light of its own findings.
    (Spring 1995).

                       federal facilities compliance act

        DOE intends to reduce its budget by $10.6 billion over the
    next 5 years. Most of the savings are expected to come from
    DOE's environmental restoration budget. This Committee will
    review whether DOE can continue to meet legally binding cleanup
    obligations under its budget proposals. (Fall 1995).

     public utility holding company act/public utility regulatory policies
                               act (puhca/purpa)

        Since the enactment of the EPAct, certain segments of the
    electric utility industry argue PUHCA/PURPA are inconsistent
    with the new competitive environment in which utilities
    operate. This Committee will explore how best to enhance
    competition in the electricity sector so consumers can receive
    reliable service at the lowest possible rates. (Fall 1996).

         public utility holding company act (telecommunications reform)

        The gas and electric utility industries recognize the
    telecommunications field as an area for future business
    investment. Utilities which are not registered holding
    companies under PUHCA freely invest in the communications
    sector with approval from their State public service
    commissions. PUHCA, however, prevents registered holding
    companies from making similar investments. This Committee will
    explore whether this ban on investment should be lifted and how
    lifting the ban would affect the utilities' traditional
    customers. (Fall 1995).

                               doe fy '96 budget

        DOE released its budget on February 6, 1995. The
    approximately $18 billion annual budget includes significant
    spending cuts in the areas of renewable and fossil energy
    research and environmental cleanup. The Committee is most
    concerned about the Administration's proposal to amend the
    Federal Facilities Compliance Act to relieve it from some of
    its cleanup responsibilities at various sites across the
    country. This Committee will closely examine all aspects of
    DOE's budget to verify that it is complying with all applicable
    laws and spending the taxpayer money allotted to it in the most
    cost-effective manner. (Spring 1995).

                             global climate change

        The United States signed the Framework Convention on
    Climate Change (Rio Treaty) in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. It
    was ratified by the Senate and entered into force on March 21,
    1994. In the next 3 months, two significant international
    meetings on climate change will occur. At those meetings, the
    Administration is expected to seek a Declaration by the
    signatories of the treaty to begin negotiating the ``next
    step,'' i.e., greater commitments by developing countries.
    Currently, the Rio Treaty provides goals for Annex I countries
    (primarily developed countries) to return to their 1990 levels
    emissions of greenhouse gases by the year 2000. Through its
    voluntary Climate Change Action Plan, the United States began
    the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Developing
    countries have no corresponding aim to reduce their emissions
    of greenhouse gases. Historically, Congress generally opposed
    United States agreements to increased international commitments
    with respect to climate change on the basis that: (1) the
    Science does not yet warrant further steps; (2) Congress is
    uncertain whether the United States or other developed
    countries can meet existing commitments; and (3) the United
    States should not agree to further greenhouse gas reductions
    until some or all developing countries agree to begin
    stabilizing or reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.
    This Committee will examine the Administration's policy to
    ensure that it does not agree to more than Congress believes
    appropriate. (March 1995).

                          strategic petroleum reserve

        The Administration intends to spend nearly $500 million in
    the next few years repairing and maintaining the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This includes over $100 million to
    move oil from the Weeks Island, Louisiana, site and then close
    the site. None of the money will be used to buy new oil to
    store in SPR. This Committee will examine why maintenance and
    repair costs are so astronomical and determine whether all
    activities planned for the SPR are necessary. (Spring 1995).

                                oil overcharges

        DOE is still involved in a number of lawsuits arising from
    the Crude Oil Entitlements Program. That program was terminated
    more than a decade ago, yet DOE's attorneys continue to pursue
    alleged violations of the statute. This Committee will explore
    whether continuing the lawsuits is cost effective given the
    cost of litigation and what DOE actually expects to recover.
    (Summer 1996).

                       department of energy organization

        Over the past several years, there have been several
    proposals to abolish DOE. DOE also employs approximately
    130,000 contractor employees and is prone to contractor abuse.
    This Committee will examine DOE's organization, mission, and
    relationship with its contractors. (Summer 1995).

                the administration's national energy policy plan

        Over the past several years, DOE held stakeholder meetings
    around the country to develop a national energy policy plan.
    The plan is likely to be far-reaching, including energy
    conservation and efficiency goals, environmental cleanup plans,
    and energy research goals. DOE has not yet reported its
    findings concerning the plan. Once the plan is announced, the
    Committee will examine the plan and DOE's findings. (Fall
    1996).

                                sale of uranium

        As the Cold War came to a close, United States' supplies of
    excess highly enriched (weapons-grade) uranium (HEU) exceeded
    the needs of the military. In addition, the United States
    agreed to purchase 500 metric tons of HEU from the former
    Soviet Union (representing the uranium from approximately
    20,000 warheads). HEU can be ``blended down'' by USEC and sold
    as fuel to utilities for use in commercial reactors and the
    Administration estimates it can raise $400 million through such
    sales. This figure is questionable because the amount of HEU
    available to be sold is unclear. In addition, dumping such a
    large amount of uranium on the world market could adversely
    impact already depressed uranium prices. The Committee will
    explore the possibility and proceeds of HEU sales. (February
    1995).

                         hydroelectric licensing reform

        Although hydroelectric licensing was addressed in EPAct,
    almost everyone, from industry to environmental groups, remains
    critical of the licensing process. The often conflicting
    jurisdictions and agendas of various agencies, including FERC,
    Fish and Wildlife, and EPA, has led to a 20 year--and extremely
    expensive--licensing process. With a large number of dams up
    for relicensing, many environmental groups hope to force
    licensees to abandon relicensing. However, even if dams are not
    relicensed, their destruction is in reality not an option. This
    Committee will consider streamlining the licensing process.
    (Fall/Winter 1996).

                 II. Oversight Activities with Other Committees

        On Energy issues, the Committee on Commerce shares or
    overlaps jurisdiction with several Committees. Some of the
    joint oversight hearings in which this Committee will
    participate include:

                         alaska north slope oil exports

        Currently, a ban exists on exporting crude oil from the
    Alaska North Slope. Consequently, all North Slope oil produced
    is shipped to California where oil prices are depressed. The
    United States could generate more money for this oil by selling
    it to Pacific Rim countries. This Committee will explore the
    costs of maintaining the export ban and the revenue potential
    of lifting it. The International Relations Committee shares
    jurisdiction. (1995)

                         north korea nuclear agreement

        The North Korea nuclear agreement requires the United
    States to assist with the construction and operation of a
    nuclear power plant in North Korea. In exchange, North Korea
    agreed to dismantle its nuclear reactors which produce weapons
    fuel. Significant energy issues and United States national
    security issues are implicated by this agreement and this
    Committee will consider them. The Committee on International
    Relations and/or the National Security Committee share
    jurisdiction. (1995/1996).

                      sale of the naval petroleum reserve

        The government should sell the Naval Petroleum Reserve
    (NPR). The NPR is an oil field located at Elk Hills,
    California, which is 78 percent owned by the U.S. government.
    Chevron owns the remaining 22 percent. It was established in
    the early 1900s to ensure fuel supplies for the military, was
    first tapped during the 1973 oil embargo, and has never
    supplied oil to the military. The NPR is the seventh largest
    oil field in the lower 48 States, producing approximately
    41,000 barrels of oil per day, and generating oil sale revenues
    of $327 million in 1992. The NPR does not function as an
    emergency petroleum supply like the Strategic Petroleum
    Reserve. Thus, there is no policy reason for these U.S. owned
    oil fields. An outright sale would generate some $1.6 billion
    if scoring procedures are changed to accurately reflect
    revenues from the sale. This Committee will explore the sale of
    the NPR. The National Security Committee shares jurisdiction.
    (1995).

                COMMERCE, TRADE, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES

       evaluation of consumer product safety commission (cpsc) rulemaking

        This hearing will be held in connection with the
    reauthorization of the CPSC and will review current and past
    rulemaking activities. It will also evaluate CPSC procedures
    for the public release of sensitive and trade secret material.
    Have those procedures unnecessarily compromised the
    corporations overseen? Has the CPSC resorted to ``corporate
    trial by press release'' as a regulatory strategy? (Summer
    1995).

             national association of insurance commissioners (naic)

        Hearings will oversee the NAIC Financial Standards
    Accreditation program, uniform agent licensing and efforts by
    several Midwestern States to establish a multi-state insurance
    compact governing liquidation, rehabilitation, and guaranty
    funds. NAIC efforts to establish an anti-fraud database and its
    recommendations on establishing an international gatekeeper to
    assess foreign reinsurance solvency will also be considered.
    (Spring 1996).

                      liability risk retention act (lrra)

        The Committee will review the impact of the LRRA for
    benefits realized as well as any unintended consequences.
    (Spring 1996).

                           foreign barriers to trade

        The Committee will consider technical and other barriers to
    trade in products, including financial products, particularly
    insurance. Some countries have used technical barriers to trade
    (TBTs) in order to restrict imports without resorting to
    tariffs which might lead to retaliation and trade wars. (Fall
    1995).

                    american automobile labeling act (aala)

        The overall effectiveness of this statute will be reviewed.
    What have been its costs, benefits and unforeseen consequences?
    (Summer 1995).

                        foreign investment restrictions

        The Committee will review the following: what restrictions
    should be placed upon foreign investment in U.S.
    telecommunications and R&D; how have current restrictions
    affected U.S. industries and global competitiveness? The repeal
    of Section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 will also
    be considered in this investigation. (Fall 1995).

                                 nafta and gatt

        The effectiveness of trilateral and multilateral trade
    agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
    and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) will be
    considered, as will the question of extending NAFTA to Chile.
    (Fall 1995).

                                   superfund

        This Committee will consider risk assessment practices of
    EPA and the EPA's evaluation of the toxic agents and disease
    registry. (Summer 1995).

                         HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

                             clean air act of 1990

        At a February 9, 1995, hearing, EPA Administrator Carol
    Browner and three governors testified on the current
    implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA).
    Additional hearings will examine: Enhanced Inspection and
    Maintenance Programs, Employer Trip Reduction requirements,
    alternative fuels vehicles, Permitting, SIP review process, and
    reformulated gasoline. (1995).

                                     radon

        Numerous reports on radon have stated widely divergent
    levels as harmful to humans. Hearings will consider the science
    of radon exposure and, in particular, the effects of low level
    radon exposure over varying periods of time and cost-effective
    approaches to radon reduction in homes. (1995).

                            safe drinking water act

        H.R. 226 pertains to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Legislative hearings will be held in preparation for markup of
    H.R. 226. (Spring 1995).

                                      lead

        This Committee will examine the efforts to reduce airborne
    lead and the results. The resulting benefits of lead reduction
    in urban communities and relative risks of different exposure
    pathways will be considered. (Winter 1995).

     the federal drug administration's approval process for medical devices

        Have Federal Drug Administration (FDA) delays in reviewing
    devices unnecessarily impeded patient access to beneficial new
    treatments and in the long term chilled innovation? This
    Committee will examine the process, FDA's performance, actual
    impacts, and possible improvements. (Spring/Summer 1995).

                    review fda's approval process for drugs

        Do FDA delays in reviewing drugs unnecessarily impede
    patient access to beneficial new treatments and in the long
    term chill innovation? An examination of the process, the FDA's
    performance, actual impacts, and possible improvements will be
    undertaken. (Spring/Summer 1995).

                  review fda's approval process for biologics

        FDA delays in reviewing biologics have unnecessarily
    impeded patient access to beneficial new treatments and, in the
    long term, could impede innovation. This Committee will review
    the process, FDA's performance, actual impacts, and consider
    improvements where necessary. (Spring/Summer 1995).

                  review fda's food additives approval process

        The Committee will examine the FDA food additives approval
    process and recommend improvements where necessary. (Spring/
    Summer 1995).

      review fda's efforts to minimize the danger of arbitrary and unfair
                             enforcement practices

        Concerns have centered on apparent inconsistencies in the
    implementation of the FDA's ``get tough'' enforcement policy. A
    hearing will address these concerns and review the agency's
    policymaking procedures. (Spring/Summer 1995).

      evaluate fda programs affecting biotechnology medical research and
                                    products

        Questions have been raised about unnecessarily burdensome
    FDA regulation. Various proposals have been made or are
    currently under development to speed up the drug, biologic, and
    device approval processes. This Committee will examine
    structural problems in the approval process, areas creating
    inefficiencies, and unnecessary burdens for biotechnology
    research and products. (1995).

        evaluate fda programs affecting biotechnology food research and
                                    products

        FDA has had conflicting policies concerning biotechnology
    related foods and foods with biotechnologically enhanced
    properties. FDA routinely takes a very long time to approve
    products and FDA problems remain long after approval. This
    Committee will examine the need for, structure of, and
    unnecessary burdens related to FDA's past, present, and
    proposed food biotechnology regulation. (Spring 1995)

          evaluate national institutes of health programs to approve
                biotechnology-related research and its diffusion

        National Institutes of Health (NIH) not only fund basic
    biomedical research, NIH committees also approve the conduct of
    such biotechnology research as human gene therapy, and impose
    requirements in contracts and grants. Given the need to
    stimulate medical innovation in new biotechnology-related
    therapies and other proposals to speed up the drug approval
    process, this Committee will address the need for, structure
    of, and problems related to NIH's approval and diffusion of
    biotechnology research. (Fall 1995).

     evaluate environmental protection agency (epa) biotechnology-related
                        regulatory and research programs

        Biotechnology holds great promise for environmentally-
    friendly new pesticides, disease resistant plants, efficient
    industrial processes, clean-up technologies (bioremediation),
    and other applications. EPA has targeted biotechnology research
    and products for special regulation. This oversight will review
    EPA's biotechnology regulation. (Spring/Summer/Fall 1995).

      evaluation of the department of agriculture's biotechnology research

        The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), EPA and
    FDA share jurisdiction for regulation of biotechnology research
    and product related crops, pesticides, and biocontrol agents.
    Scientifically-based regulation is essential to minimize
    unnecessary burden. This Committee will review USDA's
    regulation of biotechnology research and products. (Summer
    1995).

                     TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCE ISSUES

                 oversight of the derivative financial markets

        On May 18, 1994, in response to this Committee's 1992
    request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) submitted a report
    entitled Financial Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the
    Financial System. GAO's specific recommendations to Congress
    include: extending Federal authority over currently unregulated
    dealers; improving coordination of derivatives regulation; and
    restructuring the financial regulatory system. In response to
    the GAO report, the Committee held five oversight hearings in
    1994. This Committee will continue the hearings in response to
    the GAO report. (Fall 1995).

                 oversight of the municipal securities markets

        In past hearings, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
    (MSRB) testified that the self-regulatory structure governing
    the municipal markets, which splits rulemaking and enforcement
    responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission
    (SEC), MSRB, NASD and bank regulators, has worked well enough
    over the years that there was no need to change the basic
    structure. The Committee will continue oversight of the
    Municipal Securities Market in the 104th Congress. (Spring
    1996).

                    oversight of the implementation of t + 3

        Beginning in June 1995, SEC's regulation will require the
    settlement of securities transactions in 3 days instead of 5
    days. This hearing will monitor the regulation and SEC's
    enforcement of the rule. (Summer 1995).

      oversight of the sec capacity to perform market technology oversight

        SEC is involved in the Central Registration Depository
    (CRD) and EDGAR, which involves security registration of
    individuals and securities. SEC has no ability to independently
    evaluate computer systems. This Committee will consider SEC's
    ability to evaluate computer systems and EDGAR. (Fall 1995).

     hearings on phase ii of the national market system (future structural
                  change of the over-the-counter stock market)

        In 1975, Congress enacted the Securities Act Amendments,
    which directed SEC to facilitate the establishment of a
    National Market System for securities. The SEC has conducted
    studies with recommendations for the restructuring the stock
    exchanges and Over-The-Counter Stock Markets. This hearing will
    continue oversight and review of the National Market System.

          hearings on sec efforts concerning small investor protection

        As pension plan definitions have changed from a benefit
    plan to a contribution plan, small investors' decisions are not
    regulated by SEC. This Committee will examine what need, if
    any, exists for SEC to become involved in this area. (Winter
    1995).

                        personal communications services

        On September 23, 1993, the Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) issued its decision on the PCS rules
    announcing that licenses would be awarded using MTA and BTA
    zones, consisting of seven PCS licenses in each location
    ranging in size from 10MHz to 30MHz. This spectrum was freed up
    in response to the Spectrum Reform Act passed as part of the
    Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. (P.L. 103-66) In
    1994, the FCC began the first phase of auctions expected to
    continue into 1995. This Committee will closely monitor
    auctions to ensure they are conducted so as to maximize fees
    while reaching those best able to productively use the
    spectrum. (1995)

    implementation of the cable consumer protection and competition act of
                                   1992 (act)

        The Act was passed October 5, 1992 and FCC implementation
    occurred throughout the 103d Congress. The primary purpose of
    the Act was to regulate basic cable rates and mandate improved
    customer service standards. The Act also contained requirements
    relating to the carriage of commercial and noncommercial
    television stations, as well as retransmission consent
    provisions. A series of hearings will review whether
    implementation of the Act has achieved the purpose of greater
    programming diversity, increased competition, and lower cable
    rates. (Winter 1995).

            authorization of the corporation for public broadcasting

        Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
    (CPB) through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.
    Historically, the Committee has been charged with monitoring
    the activities of the CPB and authorizing appropriations.
    Presently, the CPB is authorized through Fiscal Year 1996. This
    Committee will investigate to what extent Federal funding is
    necessary for the continued survival of the CPB. (1995).
                                     PART B

      Implementation of the Committee on Commerce Oversight Plan for the
                                 104th Congress

                                  ----------

                            ENERGY AND POWER ISSUES

            I. Oversight Activities within the Committee on Commerce

                        nuclear waste policy act of 1982

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held two oversight hearings focusing on High-Level Radioactive
    Waste Disposal. On June 28, 1995, the Subcommittee held an
    oversight hearing focusing on the status of current interim
    storage practices and policies. On June 30, 1995, the
    Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the status of the
    permanent repository program and site characterization at the
    proposed permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The
    testimony and information presented at both of these oversight
    hearings assisted the Committee during its later consideration
    of legislation to overhaul the nation's current nuclear waste
    disposal program.
        On July 12, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing to examine various legislative proposals to revise
    the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The hearing included the
    following legislation: H.R. 1020, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
    of 1995; H.R. 496, the Nuclear Waste Policy Reassessment Act;
    H.R. 1032, the Electric Consumers and Environmental Protection
    Act; H.R. 1174, the Nuclear Waste Disposal Funding Act; and
    H.R. 1924, the Interim Waste Act.
        As a result of these oversight and legislative hearings,
    the Commerce Committee reported H.R. 1020, the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1995, to the House. H.R. 1020 replaces the
    Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425, and
    amendments of Public Law 100-202 and Public Law 100-203), and
    sought to achieve three primary goals: (1) maintenance of a
    strong commitment to the permanent repository program, which
    would provide a site for final disposal of U.S. spent nuclear
    fuel and high-level radioactive defense waste; (2) construction
    of an interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel near the
    Yucca Mountain site, in order to fulfill the Department of
    Energy's obligation to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel in
    1998; and (3) replacement of the current Nuclear Waste Fund
    financing mechanism with an annual fee based on the level of
    spending for waste disposal activities, to eliminate further
    diversions of the current Fund for non-nuclear waste disposal
    policy activities.
        H.R. 1020 was also referred to the following Committees:
    the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; the
    Committee on Resources; and the Committee on the Budget.
    Efforts to resolve the differences among the four House
    Committees and with the Senate-passed companion bill, S. 1936,
    were unsuccessful before the adjournment of the 104th Congress.

                          waste isolation pilot plant

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a legislative
    hearing on July 21, 1995, which examined the progress of
    activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan (WIPP) and focused
    on legislation (H.R. 1663) to amend the WIPP Land Withdrawal
    Act (Public Law 102-579). The hearing was instrumental in
    discovering outdated statutory requirements and regulatory
    hurdles which prevented the certification of the site by the
    Environmental Protection Agency. As a result of information
    gained from this hearing, the Committee on Commerce approved a
    Committee Print, entitled ``Waste Isolation Pilot Project,''
    and transmitted it to the Committee on the Budget for inclusion
    in the H.R. 2491, the Seven Year Balanced Budget Act of 1995,
    which passed the House on October 26, 1995. After the WIPP
    provisions were stricken from the bill during the House-Senate
    conference, the Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1663 to the
    House. Amendments to WIPP were finally enacted into law as part
    of H.R. 3230, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201).

                           energy policy act (epact)

    Electricity Provisions
        During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power held eight hearings on further enhancing competition in
    the electric utility industry in light of wholesale competition
    begun by EPAct. These hearings examined a range of topics
    including the impact that restructuring the electric utility
    industry to make it more competitive would have on the
    environment, technology, reliability, small and large
    consumers, and the financial integrity of utilities. Two of
    these hearings focused on the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission's implementation of electric utility reforms in the
    Energy Policy Act of 1992. In the course of these hearings, the
    Subcommittee explored the pros and cons of retail customer
    choice and the benefits of taking a comprehensive versus
    piecemeal approach to future legislation related to electric
    utilities. The Committee on Commerce will continue its in-depth
    look at the electric utility industry in the 105th Congress and
    work towards the development of consensus legislation that will
    provide all retail electric consumers with a choice among
    competitive electricity suppliers.
    Alternative Fuels Provisions
        On June 6, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on the Future of Alternative Fuels. The
    hearing focused on the Administration's implementation of the
    alternative fuels provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
    1990 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Subcommittee
    received testimony from witnesses regarding the purposes for
    alternative fuels mandates, their success in achieving their
    purposes, and proposals to change alternative fuel programs so
    that they can better achieve their purposes.
    Energy Efficiency Standards
        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on Federal Energy Efficiency
    Standards for Consumer Products on July 25, 1996. The hearing
    focused on the Department of Energy's (DOE's) management of the
    energy efficiency standards program for various consumer
    products. DOE's management of the appliance standards program
    has been criticized for inadequate consideration of consumer
    impacts and anticompetitive effects, limited involvement of
    stakeholders, and reliance on poor technical expertise. These
    concerns led Congress to include a moratorium on promulgation
    of new standards in the Department of the Interior and Related
    Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996. In response,
    DOE promulgated a rule to govern the consideration of new or
    revised energy efficiency standards for consumer products. This
    oversight hearing examined whether this DOE rule corrects the
    problems in DOE's management of the program.
    Uranium Enrichment Corporation
        On February 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on the privatization of the United States
    Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The hearing focused on the
    potential benefits and drawbacks of selling the USEC, how best
    to structure a sale in order to maximize the return to the
    Federal Treasury, and the importance of maintaining a strong
    domestic uranium enrichment capability.
        As a result of this hearing, legislation was introduced in
    the House (H.R. 1216) to facilitate the privatization of USEC.
    H.R. 1216 contained provisions to increase the return to the
    taxpayers from the sale of the corporation to potential
    purchasers or shareholders, and to eliminate burdensome
    statutory requirements for the privatized corporation. It also
    contained language designed to promote an orderly transition
    from government ownership to the private sector for USEC,
    including transition requirements for Federal employees
    affected by the sale.
        H.R. 1216 was reported to the House by the Committee on
    Commerce on March 23, 1995, and the provisions of the bill were
    incorporated into the text of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and
    Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which passed the House on April
    5, 1995.
        A modified version of H.R. 1216 was also approved by the
    Committee on Commerce and transmitted to the Committee on the
    Budget for inclusion in H.R. 2491. The USEC provisions were
    retained during the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2491 and
    included in the bill vetoed by the President on December 6,
    1995.
        Legislative language to privatize USEC was finally enacted
    into law as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
    Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134).

          resource conservation and recovery act (rcra/bevill wastes)

        The Environmental Protection Agency has not yet made a
    final determination on the treatment of cement kiln dust,
    however, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power has informally
    probed the Agency on proposed regulatory actions. Additionally,
    it was anticipated that legislative language addressing Bevill
    and Bentsen wastes would be addressed during the Committee on
    Commerce's consideration of the reauthorization of the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
    Liability Act (Superfund). Although the Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials completed action on
    Superfund reauthorizing legislation (H.R. 2500), efforts to
    reach a consensus on Superfund legislation for Full Committee
    consideration were unsuccessful. Consequently, the Subcommittee
    on Energy and Power was preempted from taking action. This
    matter has significant implications for the treatment of other
    similarly classified wastes under the Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act, and the Subcommittee will continue to monitor
    developments in this area.

                       federal facilities compliance act

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a number of
    hearings which examined the issue of Federal facilities
    compliance with environmental statutes. On February 8, 1995,
    the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held an oversight hearing
    on the Department of Energy's (DOE's) budget request for Fiscal
    Year 1996. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the shift
    of funding priorities within DOE as work moves from nuclear
    weapons production into environmental remediation of its
    facilities. The specific issue of environmental management
    funding was addressed at the hearing. On February 24, 1995, the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the
    privatization of the United States Enrichment Corporation
    (USEC). The hearing focused on the potential benefits and
    drawbacks of selling the USEC, how best to structure a sale in
    order to maximize the return to the Federal treasury, and the
    importance of maintaining a strong domestic uranium enrichment
    capability. One specific area of interest involved the
    liability for environmental restoration of the uranium
    enrichment facilities USEC utilizes, and this matter was
    addressed at the hearing.
        At the June 21, 1995, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    hearing on the reorganization of the Department of Energy, the
    issue of environmental responsibilities was addressed in the
    context of proposals to abolish the agency and transfer certain
    functions to other agencies. On June 30, 1995, the Subcommittee
    on Energy and Power held an oversight hearing on the status of
    the permanent high-level radioactive waste repository program.
    The issue of environmental standards at the site and
    implications for the cleanup of facilities throughout the DOE
    weapons complex was discussed at the hearing.
        On July 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on H.R. 1663, a bill which amends the Waste Isolation
    Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act. WIPP, the world's first
    permanent repository for radioactive waste, has been completed
    since 1991, and remains unopened due to bureaucratic hurdles.
    Certification of the facility is subject to the Federal
    Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA), and presently many Federal
    facilities with radioactive contamination are not in compliance
    with FFCA requirements. A certified WIPP facility would be able
    to begin accepting this waste from other facilities,
    facilitating their ability to comply with these requirements.
        On October 31, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on the DOE's management of environmental
    remediation and compliance requirements at its facilities. The
    purpose of the hearing was to examine the current state of
    DOE's environmental management program, focusing on the impact
    that contractor reforms, State-Federal relationships, and
    programmatic changes have had on cleanup activities at DOE
    sites.

     public utility holding company act/public utility regulatory policies
                               act (puhca/purpa)

        During the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and
    Power and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance
    held two joint oversight hearings focusing on the need to
    repeal or reform the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA)
    on August 4 and October 13, 1995. The Subcommittee on Energy
    and Power held an oversight hearing on the Public Utility
    Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) on February 1, 1996. PUHCA,
    enacted in 1935, was designed to protect consumers of multi-
    State holding companies from abuses that State regulators would
    lack authority to remedy. PURPA was enacted in 1978 as one
    response to the energy crisis. The hearings on both statutes
    focused on the continuing need for them in an increasingly
    competitive electric utility industry. No consensus was reached
    on repealing or reforming either statute on a stand-alone
    basis. The Subcommittee will again examine these statutes in
    the 105th Congress as part of the effort to enact legislation
    to restructure the electric utility industry.

         public utility holding company act (telecommunications reform)

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held two
    joint oversight hearings focusing on the need to repeal or
    reform the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) on August
    4 and October 13, 1995. The hearings specifically focused on a
    June 1995, report prepared by the staff of the Securities and
    Exchange Commission Division of Investment Management entitled
    The Regulation of Public-Utility Holding Companies.
        Testimony and information gathered at these hearings
    provided a variety of positions on the necessity for repeal or
    reform of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This
    information provided the basis for the partial reform of PUHCA
    in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104). The
    Telecommunications Act of 1996 amends PUHCA to permit
    registered public utility holding companies to diversify into
    telecommunications, information, and related services and
    products. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 imposes certain
    conditions upon the holding companies that seek to so
    diversify, including the requirement that a company obtain
    approval from its State public service commission.

                                doe fy 96 budget

        On February 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE's)
    budget request for Fiscal Year 1996. The purpose of the hearing
    was to examine the shifting funding priorities within DOE as
    work moves from nuclear weapons production into environmental
    remediation of its facilities. Specifically, the hearing
    focused on DOE's plans to initiate a 5-year program to reduce
    departmental spending by $14.1 billion. Information presented
    at the hearing assisted the Committee in subsequent action on
    the Administration's budget proposals, including activity on
    the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 (H.R. 2491).
        On March 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's (DOE)
    budget request for Fiscal Year 1997. The purpose of the hearing
    was to examine the shifting funding priorities of DOE missions
    at a time of flat budgets. The hearing focused largely on
    concerns regarding DOE's management of the Environmental
    Management program, the progress of the high-level nuclear
    waste program, DOE's nuclear nonproliferation programs, and the
    future of the national laboratories.

                             global climate change

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held four oversight
    hearings in the 104th Congress on international global climate
    change negotiations and their impact on the U.S. economy. These
    hearings were held on March 21, 1995; May 19, 1995; June 19,
    1996; and September 26, 1996. The hearings focused on the
    negotiations leading up to and beyond the agreement signed by
    the United States in Berlin, Germany, in March 1995 (the
    ``Berlin Mandate''). This ``mandate'' provided the basis for
    the signatories to the climate change treaty to begin
    negotiating a new greenhouse gas emission agreement applicable
    to the post-2000 timeframe. Such an agreement is expected to be
    concluded in December 1997. The Subcommittee is continuing to
    monitor the Administration's progress in negotiating this post-
    2000 agreement. Of particular concern to the Subcommittee is
    the lack of information about the impact such an agreement
    would have on the global trade competitiveness of the United
    States, particularly in light of the fact that developing
    countries will not be required to undertake any specific
    activities for the foreseeable future.

                          strategic petroleum reserve

        On May 8, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a
    hearing on the future of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The
    Reserve is the U.S.'s first line of defense in an energy
    emergency. During the 104th Congress, three separate sales of
    oil were made from the Reserve to pay for operations at the
    Reserve. The hearing focused on the impact the sales of oil
    from the Reserve for budgetary purposes will have on U.S.
    energy security. The Subcommittee also examined the future cost
    of operating the Reserve and how it will be funded in the
    future. As a result of this hearing, and in light of the
    uncertainty that surrounds future funding for the Strategic
    Petroleum Reserve, only a 1 year reauthorization was enacted
    into law in the 104th Congress (Public Law 104-306).

                       department of energy organization

        On June 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on reorganization of the Department of
    Energy (DOE). A Member of Congress explained his proposal to
    abolish the agency and transfer certain functions to other
    agencies. The Secretary of Energy opposed terminating DOE,
    instead favoring an internal reorganization plan to improve
    performance and produce savings. Other witnesses included
    representatives from a Federal agency, industry, the
    environmental community, a former DOE official, a DOE
    contractor, and the General Accounting Office.
        On June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    an oversight hearing on the General Accounting Office's May
    1996 report on the progress of the Department of Energy's
    Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative. The purpose of
    the hearing was to examine the progress of DOE's efforts to
    implement its internal program to reduce layers of management,
    eliminate redundancies and responsibly integrate operational
    activities where possible. Witnesses included representatives
    of the General Accounting Office and the Department of Energy.

                the administration's national energy policy plan

        The Subcommittee on Energy and Power did not hold hearings
    on the National Energy Policy Plan itself, but instead held
    hearings on many of the specific topics contained within the
    Plan. Most notably, the Subcommittee held hearings on energy
    security, global climate change and sustainable development,
    automobile fuel economy standards, and appliance energy
    efficiency standards. The Subcommittee will continue to monitor
    the development of energy policy by the Department of Energy to
    assure that it is consistent with Congressional priorities.

                                sale of uranium

        On February 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on privatization of the United States Enrichment
    Corporation (USEC). The hearing focused the potential benefits
    and drawbacks of selling the USEC, how best to structure a sale
    in order to maximize the return to the Federal treasury, and
    the importance of maintaining a strong domestic uranium
    enrichment capability. An integral part of the hearing, and
    subsequent work on legislation, included the inter-relationship
    of the U.S.-Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU) agreement
    with USEC privatization, the effects of the agreement on
    domestic uranium production, and the non-proliferation benefits
    of the arrangement.
        As a result of this hearing, legislation was introduced in
    the House (H.R. 1216) to facilitate the privatization of USEC.
    H.R. 1216 was reported to the House by the Committee on
    Commerce on March 23, 1995, and the provisions of the bill were
    incorporated into the text of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and
    Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which passed the House on April
    5, 1995.
        A modified version of H.R. 1216 was also approved by the
    Committee on Commerce and transmitted to the Committee on the
    Budget for inclusion in H.R. 2491. The USEC provisions were
    retained during the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2491 and
    included in the bill vetoed by the President on December 6,
    1995.
        Legislative language to privatize USEC was finally enacted
    into law as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
    Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134), and a
    significant portion of the language addressed issues concerning
    the operation of the U.S.-Russian HEU agreement.

                         hydroelectric licensing reform

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on October 18, 1995, on a number of bills to
    extend the construction deadline for hydroelectric projects.
    This hearing explored issues related to the licensing of
    hydroelectric projects, including the conflicting jurisdictions
    of State and Federal agencies. In addition, the Chairman of the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power exchanged correspondence with
    the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the
    progress of the Commission on reforming the hydroelectric
    licensing process.

                 II. Oversight Activities with Other Committees

                         alaska north slope oil exports

        The 104th Congress passed the Alaska Power Administration
    Asset Sale and Termination Act (Public Law 104-58) which
    authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to export Alaska
    North Slope crude oil. The Committee on Commerce worked with
    the Committee on Resources during the development of this
    legislation and participated in the House-Senate conference
    meetings on this legislation.

                         north korea nuclear agreement

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    continued to monitor progress of the North Korea nuclear
    agreement, especially as it implicates areas under the
    jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. Specifically, this
    includes matters involving the transport of spent nuclear fuel,
    the use of nuclear energy, decontamination and decommissioning
    of reactor sites, and periodic inspections by the International
    Atomic Energy Agency. Legislatively, the only activity in this
    area was the passage of House Joint Resolution 83, which
    expresses the Sense of Congress regarding U.S. involvement in
    the North Korea agreement, reaffirming that North Korea must
    abide by the strictures of the agreement. That resolution
    passed the House on September 18, 1995, and was referred to the
    Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which took no action on
    the resolution.

                      sale of the naval petroleum reserve

        On September 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held a hearing on proposals to privatize the Naval Petroleum
    Reserve No. 1 located at Elk Hills, California. As a result of
    information gained from this hearing, on September 13, 1995,
    the Committee on Commerce approved a Committee Print entitled,
    ``Naval Petroleum Reserves,'' and transmitted it to the
    Committee on the Budget for inclusion in H.R. 2491, the Seven
    Year Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which passed the House on
    October 26, 1995. The Naval Petroleum Reserve provisions were
    stricken during the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2491.
        Legislative language to privatize the Naval Petroleum
    Reserve was finally enacted into law as part of the National
    Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (P.L. 104-106).

                  Additional Oversight Hearings and Activities

              doe travel expenditures and related financial issues

        In the 104th Congress, the Committee on Commerce held seven
    oversight hearings on the Department of Energy's (DOE's) travel
    expenditures and related financial issues.
        In November 1995, numerous reports appeared in the press
    that the Department of Energy had used Federal funds to pay for
    a contract with CARMA International to monitor and analyze
    media coverage of the Secretary of Energy and the Department.
    In response to these reports, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a joint oversight hearing with the
    Subcommittee on Energy and Power to determine if, in fact, the
    Department had used taxpayer dollars for the purpose of
    compiling information on reporters and Members of Congress and
    to examine the motivations behind the CARMA International
    contract and the use of the data received by the Department of
    Energy.
        The hearing also revealed allegations of inappropriate
    expenses and undocumented spending incurred by the Office of
    the Secretary in connection with several international DOE
    trips. As a result of these allegations, and as part of the
    Subcommittee's commitment to closely examine all aspects of
    DOE's budget to ascertain if it is spending taxpayer dollars in
    the most cost-effective manner, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations held a series of five hearings in the Second
    Session examining the Department of Energy's travel
    expenditures and related issues. These hearings were held on
    January 4, 1996; March 8, 1996; April 24, 1996; June 12, 1996;
    and June 13, 1996.
        The first hearing on January 4, 1996, focused on a General
    Accounting Office (GAO) Report issued on December 28, 1995,
    entitled Energy Management: Unsubstantiated DOE Travel
    Payments, which analyzed two of the sixteen foreign trips taken
    by the Secretary. The trips in question were foreign trade
    missions to India and South Africa in July 1994 and August
    1995, respectively.
        The GAO testimony highlighted four major areas of concern.
    The first was the level of undocumented spending by the
    Department on both the India and South Africa trips--costs
    authorized by DOE, incurred by the U.S. Embassy, and reimbursed
    by DOE without records, receipts, or vouchers, which were in
    the Department of State. After examining the documents, DOE
    protested $117,000. Second, the GAO testimony revealed that the
    cost of aircraft acquisition was high and the processes for
    acquiring such had administrative problems. Third, the GAO
    testimony revealed a dispute over DOE reprogramming of defense
    funds to support foreign travel. GAO testified that DOE
    reprogrammed $400,000 from the defense-related appropriations
    account to pay expenses associated with foreign trade missions,
    an action that GAO said violated a long-standing principle of
    appropriations accounting. Finally, GAO testimony revealed
    delays by DOE in seeking reimbursement of travel costs for
    persons who were not government employees.
        The second Subcommittee hearing on March 8, 1996, focused
    on recommendations made by the DOE Inspector General in 1994 to
    establish adequate controls over the acquisition and financing
    of air services used by the Department for international
    travel, and the Department's failure to implement those
    recommendations in a timely manner. At the hearing, the
    Inspector General testified that, as of March 8, 1996, the
    Department had addressed adequately only one of his 1994
    recommendations.
        In response to this hearing, the Subcommittee received a
    March 13, 1996, letter from Secretary O'Leary expressing her
    concern that all the reforms identified by the Inspector
    General had not been implemented. In addition, the Secretary
    promised not to go on any more trade missions until the
    Inspector General and the General Accounting Office agreed that
    DOE has implemented reforms to the acquisition of aircraft for
    trade missions, which was the bulk of the cost of the trade
    missions. DOE implemented these reform procedures on July 31,
    1996.
        The Subcommittee hearings on April 24, June 12, and June
    13, 1996, examined DOE's assertions of trade mission-related
    exports and the relative value of the contracts signed as a
    result of the DOE trade missions, the benefits of the trade
    missions, and DOE's implementation of the changes.
        On a separate issue, on March 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on furloughs and
    financial management at the Department of Energy (DOE). The
    hearing dealt with the decision to furlough DOE Departmental
    Administration employees across-the-board, which merely delays
    decisions that must be made to realign DOE's structure in the
    post-Cold War environment. Focus was also directed at measures
    to avoid the furlough, such as conserving funds used for
    leadership training and international travel, that were not
    taken.
        As a result of the testimony received at the hearing, the
    Subcommittee Chairman sent a letter on April 23, 1996, to the
    Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Energy and Water Development asking that the Secretary of
    Energy be given permission to reprogram funds from within the
    Departmental Administration account and DOE travel funds so
    that civil servant employees need not be furloughed.

     implementation of corporate average fuel economy (cafe) standards and
                                 related issues

        On July 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
    a hearing on the implementation of the Corporate Average Fuel
    Economy (CAFE) standards. The hearing focused on the purposes
    for such standards, their success in achieving those purposes,
    and proposed changes for the program to better achieve its
    purposes.

      development of tritium production sources for department of energy
                           defense nuclear activities

        On November 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    held an oversight hearing on Department of Energy (DOE)
    proposals to secure a stable source of tritium for U.S. atomic
    defense activities and the Report of the Speaker's Task Force
    on Nuclear Cleanup and Tritium Production entitled Getting on
    with Tritium Production. The purpose of the hearing was to
    examine the different options available to DOE for tritium
    production and to determine what effects these options may have
    on nuclear power generation within the utility market. In
    addition, the Subcommittee considered the various options'
    impact on the health and safety of nuclear workers and
    surrounding communities.

                COMMERCE, TRADE, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES

       evaluation of consumer product safety commission (cpsc) rulemaking

        On March 29, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the reauthorization of
    the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The hearing
    focused on the CPSC's current and past rulemaking and
    information dissemination activities, as well as its proposed
    budgets, press policies, and proposals for restructuring the
    Agency in the future. This hearing created the foundation for
    subsequent proposals by the CPSC, the National Association of
    Manufacturers, and various other private business and consumer
    association recommendations for legislative restructuring of
    the CPSC, which the Subcommittee is currently examining.
        In addition to the CPSC reauthorization hearings, the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials
    submitted two document requests to the CPSC on July 18, 1995,
    and February 21, 1996, requesting comprehensive information on
    the CPSC's past and present policies, structure, and
    activities. A more narrow investigation of the CPSC is
    currently underway by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as a
    result of a Subcommittee request on July 23, 1996.

             national association of insurance commissioners (naic)

        On March 22, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations, held a joint briefing to receive information
    from Ms. Linda S. Kaiser, the Pennsylvania Insurance
    Commissioner. Ms. Kaiser discussed her specific decision to
    approve the restructuring of CIGNA Corporation's insurance
    operations. She also reviewed and discussed the general ability
    of State insurance commissioners to regulate proposed divisions
    of company insurance operations, and agreed to help develop
    future multi-State guidelines to govern such proposals in the
    future. In response, the National Association of Insurance
    Commissioners (NAIC) has formed a task force to develop
    guidelines for review of insurance company proposals for
    liability restructuring.
        Clarifying legislation for agent licensing and, in
    particular, the appropriate regulatory roles of the States and
    Federal government, were reviewed by the Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials in its May 22, 1995,
    hearing on H.R. 1317, the Insurance State's and Consumer's
    Rights Clarification and Fair Competition Act of 1995.
    Testimony was received by insurance agent associations, banking
    associations, land title agent associations, insurance company
    associations, and insurance regulators.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance also considered insurance regulation and licensing
    issues during the two joint hearings that were held on June 6
    and June 8, 1995 on H.R. 1062, the Financial Services
    Competitiveness Act of 1995. Testimony was received from
    Administration officials, insurance company associations, State
    financial officials, and other financial associations.

                           foreign barriers to trade

        On May 9, 1996, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on international
    telecommunications and insurance trade barriers. Specific
    inquiries were made by the Subcommittee into the ongoing US-
    Japan dispute over the 1994 Insurance Agreement. The
    Subcommittee also reviewed the failure by the United States
    Trade Representative to achieve an international
    telecommunications agreement, and discussed the possibilities
    for other opportunities to open up foreign telecommunications
    markets.

                        foreign investment restrictions

        On March 3, 1995, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to examine the
    trade implications of foreign ownership restrictions on
    telecommunications companies and whether legislative action was
    needed to address this issue.
        H.R. 514, a bill to repeal the foreign ownership
    restrictions under Section 310(b) of the Communications Act of
    1934, was the subject of legislative hearings by the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance during its
    consideration of comprehensive telecommunications reform
    legislation. Provisions of H.R. 514 were included in H.R. 1555,
    as passed by the House, but were deleted during the House-
    Senate conference on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of
    1996.

                          superfund (risk assessment)

        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials, and the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
    held two joint hearings on February 1 and February 2, 1995, on
    Title III, Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis Act, of
    H.R. 9, the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act of 1995.
    These hearings addressed risk assessment and cost-benefit
    analysis in Federal agencies. Superfund was among the programs
    covered. Testimony and information presented at these hearings
    assisted the Committee in the development of H.R. 1022, the
    Risk Assessment and Cost/Benefit Act of 1995, which passed the
    House twice; once on February 28, 1995, and again on March 3,
    1995, as Division D of H.R. 9.
        Hearings involving risk assessment practices were held on
    March 16, 1995 and May 23, 1995, both as part of an overview of
    the Superfund program and, specifically to address the
    selection of remedies at Superfund sites. Testimony was
    received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), State
    officials, the regulated community, and the environmental
    community. The specific relationship of the work of ATSDR and
    EPA risk assessments was addressed in the second hearing. Risk
    assessment reform was part of H.R. 2500, the Reform of
    Superfund Act, which was approved for Full Committee
    consideration by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials on November 9, 1995.

                  Additional Oversight Hearings and Activities

                               superfund program

        In addition to examining the Superfund program in
    connection with the Committee's consideration of the risk
    assessment legislation, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
    and Hazardous Materials held eight oversight hearings on the
    Reauthorization of the Superfund Program addressing major
    concerns with the program.
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
    Materials held an oversight hearing on March 16, 1995, focusing
    on a general overview of the Superfund Program and reforms
    needed. The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Remedy
    Selection on May 23, 1995. A third Subcommittee hearing was
    held on June 15, 1995, on the State Role, Voluntary Cleanups,
    and Brownfields Redevelopment. The fourth Subcommittee hearing
    was held on June 20, 1995, and focused on Natural Resource
    Damages. The Subcommittee held two oversight hearings on
    Financing and Liability Issues on June 22, 1995, and July 18,
    1995. On July 20, 1995, the Subcommittee held its seventh
    oversight hearing, focusing on the Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act (RCRA) and its relationship to Superfund. Finally,
    on September 16, 1996, the Subcommittee held a field hearing in
    Bristol, Pennsylvania, on Federal Barriers to Environmental
    Cleanups.
        The information learned from the first seven oversight
    hearings assisted in the development and introduction of H.R.
    2500, the Reform of Superfund Act. The Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, held two legislative
    hearings on October 18 and October 26, 1995, on that bill, and
    4 days of legislative markups on November 1, November 2,
    November 8, and November 9, 1995. On November 9, 1995, H.R.
    2500 was approved for Full Committee consideration.
        Bipartisan discussions including the Administration took
    place in the Second Session of the 104th Congress. No further
    action was taken on the legislation.

                         HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

                             clean air act of 1990

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a combined
    total of eleven oversight hearings on the implementation and
    enforcement of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Hearings
    were held beginning on February 9, 1995, and continued until
    January 26, 1996. In addition, both Subcommittees sent numerous
    written inquiries to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    regarding its past interpretation of the statutory provisions
    of the Act and plans for further rulemakings.
        This extensive review of the 1990 Amendments began with an
    overview hearing held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations on February 9, 1995, at which three Governors
    testified concerning implementation problems experienced in
    their States. The Governors cited such areas as enhanced
    inspection and maintenance of automobiles, the Title V permit
    program, State Implementation Plan Demonstrations, Ozone
    Transport Control requirements, redesignation requirements,
    Reformulated Gas and Oxygenated Fuel requirements,
    transportation conformity, the Employee Commute Option program,
    development of Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards,
    and Clean Air Act sanctions.
        Oversight of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 continued
    on March 16, 1996 with a hearing by the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations concerning the Employee Commute
    Options (ECO) program. This hearing received testimony from
    individual companies who were subject to the ECO requirement
    and, thus, needed to achieve a 25 percent increase in the
    vehicle occupancy of employee vehicles traveling to and from
    their worksites. This hearing provided the necessary
    information and record for the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment and the Full Commerce Committee to report
    legislation to the House (H.R. 325), which was enacted into law
    (Public Law 104-70). This Act makes the ECO program a voluntary
    element of State Implementation Plans and repeals the
    prescriptive requirements of the 1990 Amendments.
        On March 23, and March 24, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Oversight and Investigations held two hearings regarding
    vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. Those hearings
    raised questions as to the degree of effectiveness of
    centralized testing and of the IM240 testing equipment. As a
    result of the groundwork laid during these hearings, the
    Committee on Commerce negotiated language which was included in
    the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 that
    eliminated EPA's automatic 50 percent discount for
    decentralized or test-and-repair programs, and set up an 18-
    month demonstration period for States to gather information on
    the effectiveness of alternative network designs and equipment
    types. That bill was signed into law on November 28, 1995
    (Public Law 104-59).
        On May 18, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on Title V of the Clean Air Act.
    This title contains provisions, added by the 1990 Amendments,
    concerning permits. The Subcommittee received testimony
    concerning the complexity of Title V requirements and the
    substantial burden and uncertainty placed on facilities
    attempting to comply with changing regulatory requirements.
    While EPA promulgated a final rule to implement Title V on July
    21, 1992, legal actions, which were initiated in response to
    this rule, resulted in the Agency proposing modifications to
    the rule on August 24, 1994, and a further announcement in
    January 1995, that EPA would begin work on an entirely new
    proposal. The Subcommittee received testimony from several
    different industries subject to Title V requirements as well as
    from the Environmental Protection Agency on the status of Title
    V implementation.
        Following this hearing, EPA issued two ``White Papers''
    designed to streamline the permit process and reduce
    implementation requirements and costs. The first White Paper
    was issued on July 10, 1995, in order to reduce the amount of
    information which industry must submit as part of a Title V
    permit. The second White Paper was issued on March 5, 1996, and
    sought to streamline multiple applicable permit requirements on
    the same emission unit or units, account for changing State
    Implementation Plan requirements, address insignificant
    emission units, provide for stipulation of major source status,
    and allow for cross-referencing of information in both permits
    and applications.
        On June 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on the Reformulated Gasoline
    program and implementation of Title II of the 1990 Clean Air
    Act Amendments. This hearing examined issues of the
    environmental benefits, price and health effects of
    reformulated gasoline as well as the ability of areas to ``opt-
    out'' of the program under the Clean Air Act.
        On June 29 and July 21, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight
    and Investigations held 2 days of hearings on the
    implementation of Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act
    Amendments, provisions concerning hazardous air pollutants. The
    Subcommittee received considerable testimony concerning the
    establishment of Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
    standards. The Subcommittee also reviewed and sent
    correspondence to EPA on multiple issues surrounding the
    implementation of Section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act, added by
    the 1990 Amendments. Significant concern was expressed by
    Members of the Subcommittee regarding the implementation of
    Section 112(g) and the possibility that individual facilities
    would be subject to differing control requirements under this
    section and other provisions of Title III.
        In response to written inquiries from the Subcommittee, the
    Environmental Protection Agency indicated it would adopt a
    ``new approach'' to Section 112(g) and publish a new draft
    proposal. On March 18, 1996, EPA issued a draft final
    regulation on Section 112(g), limiting application of this
    section to the construction of new facilities and the
    reconstruction of major sources. The draft rule proposed to
    eliminate Section 112(g) requirements with respect to
    modifications to existing facilities. On December 13, 1996, the
    EPA Administrator signed a final rule on Section 112(g).
        On August 1, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on the implementation of Title VI
    of the Clean Air Act, provisions concerning the stratospheric
    ozone layer. On January 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment held an additional hearing on the
    implementation of Title VI and the Impact of the Seventh
    Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Both hearings
    examined issues regarding the phaseout schedules for production
    and consumption of various substances considered to be ``ozone
    depleters.'' In particular, both hearings devoted significant
    time to examining issues regarding the impending phaseout of
    methyl bromide, an agricultural fumigant used in the
    production, export and importation of a hundred different
    commodities.
        On November 9, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a joint hearing concerning Title I of the
    1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and provisions respecting the
    establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
    Subcommittees received testimony concerning possible
    alternative levels for setting the ozone standard and examined
    whether cost/benefit analysis should be explicitly part of the
    setting of the level of the standard. The Subcommittees
    continued their review of this issue through correspondence
    with the Agency. On May 31, 1996, EPA issued an Advanced Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking on National Ambient Air Quality
    Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter. On November 27,
    1996, EPA announced its proposed rulemakings on ozone and
    particulate matter, and the proposals were published in the
    Federal Register on December 13, 1996. The Committee on
    Commerce plans to continue oversight of this matter as the
    regulatory process moves forward.

                            safe drinking water act

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
    on Priorities for the Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking
    Water Act on January 31, 1996. Following this hearing, the
    Subcommittee engaged in bipartisan negotiations on legislation
    to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act, resulting in an
    open markup session of the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment on June 6, 1996, to consider a Subcommittee Print
    entitled the ``Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.''
    The Subcommittee approved the introduction of a clean bill for
    Full Committee consideration and H.R. 3604 was introduced in
    the House on June 10, 1996. The Committee on Commerce reported
    H.R. 3604 to the House on June 24, 1996, and the bill passed
    the House on June 25, 1996. The provisions of H.R. 3604 were
    added to the Senate passed-companion bill, S. 1316, and
    following a conference with the Senate, the Safe Drinking Water
    Act Amendments of 1996 were enacted into law (Public Law 104-
    182).
        The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 are the
    result of years of oversight by the Committee on Commerce, as
    well as specific hearings to examine implementation problems
    occurring under the previous 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act
    Amendments. Over the years, the Committee received numerous
    reports and voluminous testimony supporting the need for: a
    more streamlined and flexible approach to controlling drinking
    water contamination consistent with continued protection of the
    public health; flexibility in the monitoring of contaminants;
    new financial assistance to help State and local governments
    comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act;
    better training of water system operators; and attention to
    whether public water systems have the capacity to operate in
    compliance with the Act. The 1996 Amendments reflect a
    culmination of this oversight activity and are designed to make
    major changes to the method by which drinking water standards
    are established by the Environmental Protection Agency.

     the federal drug administration's approval process for medical devices

        On March 30, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations began a series of hearings to examine the
    regulatory impact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has on
    the safety, health, and economic well-being of Americans and
    the adequacy of the governing statute, the Federal Food, Drug,
    and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended. This first hearing
    focused on a consumer's perspective on medical devices, and
    dealt with conditions in the medical device market and how the
    regulatory process impacts patients, physicians, and the
    businesses that provide the technological advances on which all
    health and health care consumers depend. The hearing addressed
    the alleged connection between the FDA medical device
    regulatory system and delays in the availability of new
    products in the United States and the movement of U.S. medical
    device industry activities overseas.
        On September 26, 1996, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on Consumer Access to Home
    Testing Services and Devices to review FDA's policies with
    respect to home testing services and devices. In particular,
    the Subcommittee examined two regulatory issues relating to
    FDA's regulation of home-testing services and devices. The
    hearing dealt with the review of a non-invasive transcutaneous
    glucose monitor intended for the quantitative determination of
    blood glucose in diabetics, including some allegations of
    possible conflicts of interest on FDA advisory committees. The
    hearing also focused on parental access to drug-testing
    services and FDA's policy position in this area. FDA has
    asserted regulatory jurisdiction in this area on the basis that
    the specimen collection envelopes or cups mailed to the drug-
    testing laboratories are medical devices. Furthermore, FDA had
    opposed over-the-counter access to such products because test
    results might be incorrectly interpreted and improperly used,
    citing, in part, social and ethical concerns. Following the
    hearing, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, on
    September 27, 1996, sent letters to the President, the
    Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Commissioner of
    the Food and Drug Administration with follow-up questions
    concerning the Administration's position with respect to home
    drug-testing. Responses were received on October 2 and October
    3, 1996. The Full Committee Chairman sent follow-up letters on
    October 7 and 23, 1996. FDA responded on October 31, 1996.
        In addition, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations sent numerous written inquiries and document
    requests to FDA during the 104th Congress regarding its
    regulation of specific devices.
        On February 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held an oversight hearing on the need for FDA
    reform. Testimony was received from patients, medical experts,
    and industry representatives on a broad range of concerns
    including: problems of slow access to new products;
    restrictions on access to information about certain medical
    treatments; and the loss of U.S. technology and jobs to other
    countries. Witnesses claimed that FDA is inefficient in the way
    it conducts its activities because of unnecessary statutory
    requirements, problems with agency management, and unnecessary
    caution.
        As a result of the testimony and information presented at
    these hearings, H.R. 3201, the Medical Device Reform Act of
    1996, was developed and introduced in the House. H.R. 3201 was
    the subject of two Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    legislative hearings on May 1 and May 2, 1996. In response to
    the concerns raised at these hearings, Committee Members and
    staff met with Administration and industry representatives in
    an effort to develop consensus legislation, but were unable to
    reach agreement before the adjournment of the 104th Congress.

                    review fda's approval process for drugs

                  review fda's approval process for biologics

        On May 25, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued its hearings examining the regulatory
    impact of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This hearing
    focused on a consumer's perspective on drugs and biologics. In
    particular, the hearing examined both the length and cost of
    these approval processes. The hearing addressed some apparent
    statistical improvements in FDA's review of new drug
    applications, but testimony also discussed concerns that some
    FDA regulatory practices were unnecessarily increasing the time
    and cost of the drug and biologic development process.
        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
    hearing on June 19, 1995. to continue its review of the impact
    of the drug and biologic approval processes at the FDA on the
    American consumer. Witnesses at the hearing addressed the time
    and cost of the drug and biologic development process in the
    U.S. and cited their concerns about an adverse impact on both
    patients and the drug and biologics industry. The hearing also
    identified particular FDA policies and practices that witnesses
    thought could be improved.
        In addition, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations sent numerous written inquiries and document
    requests to FDA during the 104th Congress regarding its
    regulation of drugs and biologics.
        On February 27, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held an oversight hearing on the need for FDA
    reform. Testimony was received from patients, medical experts,
    and industry representatives on a broad range of concerns
    including: problems of slow access to new products;
    restrictions on access to information about certain medical
    treatments; and the loss of U.S. technology and jobs to other
    countries. Witnesses claimed that FDA is inefficient in the way
    it conducts its activities because of unnecessary statutory
    requirements, problems with agency management, and unnecessary
    caution.
        As a result of the testimony and information presented at
    these hearings, H.R. 3199, the Drug and Biological Products
    Reform Act of 1996, was developed and introduced in the House.
    H.R. 3199 was the subject of two Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment legislative hearings on May 1 and May 2, 1996. In
    response to the concerns raised at these hearings, Committee
    Members and staff met with Administration and industry
    representatives in an effort to develop consensus legislation,
    but were unable to reach agreement before the adjournment of
    the 104th Congress.

                  review fda's food additives approval process

        The General Accounting Office (GAO), at the request of the
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, prepared a draft
    analysis on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data on
    petitions to market both direct and indirect food additives and
    color additives, as well as petitions for FDA affirmation that
    certain substances used in food are generally recognized as
    safe. The GAO analysis confirmed the concerns of the food
    industry and others that a large inventory of petitions, either
    under review or pending review, has existed for many years and
    that getting food additives into the marketplace takes
    considerable time. In addition, GAO found that the time it
    takes for a petition to complete review remains lengthy.
        In addition, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations sent several written inquiries and document
    requests to FDA during the 104th Congress regarding its
    regulation of specific food additives.
        The FDA's food additive approval process was also one of
    the subjects considered during the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment's February 27, 1996, hearing on the need for FDA
    reform. Food additives were also addressed in H.R. 3200, the
    Food Amendments and Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996, which
    was introduced in the House as a result of the testimony and
    information presented at these hearings. H.R. 3200 was the
    subject of two Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    legislative hearings on May 1 and May 2, 1996.

      review fda's efforts to minimize the danger of arbitrary and unfair
                             enforcement Practices

        On July 25, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held a hearing on allegations of Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA) abuses of authority. The hearing focused
    on FDA operations and procedures, and especially on allegations
    of abuses of power brought forward by witnesses on behalf of
    entities that are currently, or possibly, subject to FDA
    regulation. Patients who believed they benefited from the
    products of three of the five entities represented also
    testified at the hearing about the consumer impact from the
    alleged acts.
        On November 15, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued its hearings on allegations of FDA
    abuses of authority. The hearing focused on FDA's responses to
    the allegations presented at the July 25, 1995, hearing. David
    Kessler, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and several
    senior FDA officials, presented testimony.
        On December 5, 1995, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations continued the hearing begun on November 15,
    1995, on allegations of FDA abuses of authority. The hearing
    again focused on FDA's responses to the allegations presented
    at the July 25, 1995, hearing. David Kessler, M.D.,
    Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and several senior FDA
    officials, presented testimony.
        The hearings focused on questions raised about the
    effectiveness, thoroughness, and fairness of FDA's current
    self-investigation system of industry complaints about alleged
    FDA employee misconduct.
        In addition, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations sent numerous written inquiries and document
    requests to FDA during the 104th Congress concerning
    allegations of abuses of FDA's authority and FDA employee
    misconduct.

      evaluate fda programs affecting biotechnology medical research and
                                    products

        During the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations'
    two hearings on May 25 and June 19, 1995, on the Food and Drug
    Administration's (FDA's) approval process for drugs and
    biologics and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment's
    February 27, 1996, hearing on the need for FDA reform, the
    Subcommittees evaluated FDA programs and policies affecting
    biotechnology medical research and products. As a result of the
    testimony and information presented at those hearings, specific
    legislative provisions were incorporated into H.R. 3199, the
    Drug and Biological Products Reform Act of 1996, to reduce
    unnecessarily burdensome FDA regulations affecting
    biotechnology medical research and products. H.R. 3199 was the
    subject of two Subcommittee on Health and Environment
    legislative hearings on May 1 and May 2, 1996. In response to
    the concerns raised at these hearings, Committee Members and
    staff met with Administration and industry representatives in
    an effort to develop consensus legislation, but were unable to
    reach agreement before the adjournment of the 104th Congress.

        evaluate fda programs affecting biotechnology food research and
                                    products

        The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations closely
    monitored the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of
    biotechnology food products in the 104th Congress and has
    sought to maintain an appropriate risk-based regulatory policy
    for these products. The Committee will continue to review this
    issue in the 105th Congress.

          evaluate national institutes of health programs to approve
                biotechnology-related research and its diffusion

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations reviewed the regulation of certain new
    biotechnology research by the National Institutes of Health
    Recombinant Advisory Committee and worked with the Subcommittee
    on Health and Environment to draft language for inclusion in
    H.R. 3199, the Drug and Biological Products Reform Act of 1996,
    that would eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed by
    this advisory committee. H.R. 3199 was the subject of two
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment legislative hearings on
    May 1 and May 2, 1996. In response to the concerns raised at
    these hearings, Committee Members and staff met with
    Administration and industry representatives in an effort to
    develop consensus legislation, but were unable to reach
    agreement before the adjournment of the 104th Congress. The
    Committee will continue to review this issue in the 105th
    Congress.

     evaluate environmental protection agency (epa) biotechnology-related
                        regulatory and research programs

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations followed the regulation of environmental
    products emerging from new biotechnology. The Subcommittee
    plans to conduct investigations, as appropriate, in the 105th
    Congress to ascertain if unnecessarily burdensome regulations
    of particular research and products exist and, if necessary, to
    work toward corrective Agency action or legislative remedies.

      evaluation of the department of agriculture's biotechnology research

        In the 104th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations followed the regulation of environmental
    products emerging from new biotechnology. The Subcommittee
    plans to conduct investigations, as appropriate, in the 105th
    Congress to ascertain if unnecessarily burdensome regulations
    of particular research and products exist and, if necessary, to
    work toward corrective departmental action or legislative
    remedies.

                  Additional Oversight Hearings and Activities

                     transformation of the medicaid program

        One of the major efforts of the Committee on Commerce in
    the 104th Congress was restructuring the Medicaid Program into
    a new program that would give States enhanced operational and
    administrative flexibility to implement new ideas and
    management techniques to better provide adequate and efficient
    health care to low-income individuals and families.
        In the First Session of the 104th Congress, the
    Subcommittee on Health and Environment held six hearings, and
    received testimony from 64 witnesses, on the Transformation of
    the Medicaid Program and related Medicaid issues, including the
    Vaccines for Children Program. The focus of these hearings was
    to review the performance and alleged problems associated with
    the Medicaid Program and examine options for reform. The
    hearing dates were June 8, 1995; June 15, 1995; June 21, 1995;
    June 22, 1995; July 26, 1995; and August 1, 1995.
        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment's June 8, 1995,
    hearing focused on the fiscal impact of the Medicaid Program on
    the States. The hearing explored how State budgets have been
    impacted by the Medicaid Program's expenditure growth and how
    States have sought to respond to the resulting fiscal
    pressures.
        The Subcommittee's June 15, 1995, hearing focused on the
    Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. The hearing explored the
    history of the program, including its ability to increase the
    number of children vaccinated, the costs associated with this
    effort, and the manner in which the objective of universal
    childhood vaccination was undertaken. Testimony offered by
    representatives of the General Accounting Office focused on a
    recently published report calling the efficacy and efficiency
    of VFC into question.
        On June 23, 1995, the Subcommittee held a third hearing
    which focused on the recent past history of the Medicaid
    Program. The hearing explored the evolution of expanded
    coverage provided by the program, the growth in costs
    associated with that expansion and other factors, and the
    Federal government's efforts to stem the growth in Medicaid
    expenditures, including the expedited approval of Section 1115
    waiver applications submitted by States.
        The Subcommittee's June 22, 1995, hearing continued the
    focus on Medicaid financing, the Section 1115 waiver process,
    and State experiences with Medicaid expenditure growth.
        The Subcommittee held a fifth hearing on July 26, 1995,
    which focused on State efforts to improve the quality,
    effectiveness, and efficiency of the medical assistance
    programs they administer. The hearing explored Medicaid
    innovations undertaken by a number of States and health plans,
    as well as the program changes that would be necessary to
    expand the scope of such efforts nationwide.
        Finally, the Subcommittee's August 1, 1995, hearing focused
    on a variety of perspectives on the Medicaid Program and its
    reform.
        The information presented at these hearings formed the
    basis for a Committee Print, entitled ``Transformation of the
    Medicaid Program,'' which was approved by the Full Committee on
    September 22, 1995, and transmitted to the Committee on the
    Budget for inclusion in H.R. 2491. The Medicaid provisions were
    retained in the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2491 and
    included in the bill vetoed by the President on December 6,
    1995.
        At the beginning of the Second Session, the National
    Governors Association (NGA) unanimously adopted a bipartisan
    proposal to restructure the Medicaid Program. The NGA proposal,
    adopted on February 6, 1996, replaces current Medicaid law with
    a new flexible program that allows States a combination of
    increased Federal funding and enhanced operational and
    administrative flexibility to implement new ideas and
    management techniques for providing those below the income
    poverty level with adequate and efficient health care.
        The Full Committee on Commerce held two oversight hearings
    on the NGA Medicaid Restructuring Proposal. The first hearing
    was held on February 21, 1996. Witnesses included Governors of
    the States of Michigan, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Wisconsin, and
    Colorado. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the process
    by which the Governors reached consensus and the manner in
    which their bipartisan proposal would enable them to improve
    the effectiveness and quality of their Medicaid programs.
        The Full Committee held a follow-up hearing on the NGA
    Medicaid Restructuring Proposal on March 6, 1996. Witnesses at
    the second hearing included the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, various health industry officials, and
    representatives of non-profit organizations. The purpose of
    this hearing was to receive testimony from the Administration
    and those in the health care industry concerning the NGA's
    Medicaid Restructuring Proposal.
        On May 22, 1996, H.R. 3507, the Personal Responsibility and
    Work Opportunity Act of 1996, was introduced in the House. The
    bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
    addition to the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on
    Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Commerce, the
    Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Committee on
    the Judiciary, the Committee on National Security, the
    Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on the
    Budget.
        H.R. 3507 is a two-part bill providing for the reform and
    restructuring of the Welfare and Medicaid Programs. Division A
    deals with the nonmedical welfare provisions of current law.
    Division B, the Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996, deals with
    the Medicaid Program and includes some of the Medicaid
    restructuring recommendations contained in the Unanimous
    Bipartisan National Governors Association Medicaid
    Restructuring Proposal adopted on February 6, 1996.
        On June 11, 1996, the Committee on Commerce held a Full
    Committee legislative hearing on H.R. 3507. Witnesses at the
    hearing included the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
    and representatives of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
    American Hospital Association, and the Long Term Care Campaign,
    a coalition of more than 140 national organizations
    representing long term care recipients and providers.
        On June 13, 1996, the Full Committee approved and
    transmitted two Committee Prints pertaining to Medicaid
    Restructuring and Welfare Reform to the Committee on the Budget
    for inclusion in the FY 1997 Medicaid and Welfare Reform Act.
    These Committee Prints were largely based on the provisions of
    H.R. 3507 which fell within the jurisdiction of the Committee
    on Commerce.
        The provisions of these two Committee Prints were included
    in the text of Title II of H.R. 3734, the Welfare and Medicaid
    Reform Act of 1996, as reported to the House by the Committee
    on the Budget on June 27, 1996 (H. Rpt. 104-651; H. Rpt. 104-
    651, Errata Report), but were greatly modified during House
    consideration and passage of H.R. 3734. H.R. 3734, renamed the
    Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
    of 1996, was eventually enacted into law on August 22, 1996
    (Public Law 104-193).

                       the future of the medicare program

        The future of the Medicare Program and a method to provide
    sustainable funding for Medicare were also a top priority of
    the Committee on Commerce in the 104th Congress.
        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a total of
    ten oversight hearings in the 104th Congress on the Medicare
    Program and Medicare-related issues. At the first hearing, held
    on February 15, 1995, the Subcommittee examined the Medicare
    Select Program and issues related to managed care. Testimony
    received at the hearing assisted the Committee in the
    development and enactment of legislation to extend the Medicare
    Select Program to all 50 States (H.R. 483; Public Law 104-18).
        On March 14, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
    extension of certain Medicare programs in the President's FY 96
    budget. Testimony received at the hearing assisted the
    Committee in the development of H.R. 1217, the Medicare Parts B
    and C Administration Budget Savings Extension Act of 1995,
    which was reported to the House on March 23, 1995. The
    provisions of H.R. 1217 were incorporated into the text of H.R.
    1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which
    passed the House on April 5, 1995.
        On March 28, 1995, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
    budgetary effects of the growth of health care entitlements,
    specifically Medicare and Medicaid.
        On June 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held the first in a series of four hearings on the
    Future of the Medicare Program. The focus of these hearings was
    to review the performance and alleged problems associated with
    the Medicare Program and examine options for reform. At the
    first hearing, the Subcommittee focused on the growth of
    Medicare spending in the portions of the Medicare Program under
    the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. On July 12,
    1995, the Subcommittee held the second hearing on the Medicare
    Program. The hearing focused on Medicare's payment policies for
    risk based maintenance organizations (HMOs). The Subcommittee
    held the third hearing on July 18, 1995, on the Medicare
    Program. The hearing focused on proposals to reform the
    Medicare Program. On August 3, 1995, the Subcommittee held the
    fourth hearing on the Future of the Medicare Program. The
    hearing focused on proposals to reform the Medicare Program, as
    well as Medicare issues in reconciliation.
        In addition to these hearings, the Subcommittee on Health
    and Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
    Investigations held 2 days of joint hearings on waste, fraud,
    and abuse in the Medicare Program on May 16, 1995, and July 19,
    1995. Witnesses testified to the extent waste, fraud, and abuse
    are prevalent in the program and cited specific examples.
    Witnesses also addressed efforts being taken by the Federal
    government to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Finally, on July 27, 1995, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a joint hearing with the Committee on Ways and
    Means Subcommittee on Health on standards for health plans
    providing coverage in the Medicare Program. The purpose of the
    hearing was to examine the full range of standards currently
    applied in the health care system, both public and private,
    with an emphasis on the unique needs and requirements of the
    Medicare Program, and whether additional health plans might
    seek to participate in the Medicare Program if additional
    options were provided.
        Testimony received at these hearings assisted the Committee
    on Commerce in the development of H.R. 2425, the Medicare
    Preservation Act of 1995, which passed the House on October 19,
    1995. The provisions of H.R. 2425 were also passed by the House
    as part of H.R. 2491 and included in the bill vetoed by the
    President on December 6, 1995.

     health care reform: reforming the small business marketplace and the
                       individual health insurance market

        The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held an
    oversight hearing on March 7, 1996, on health care reform and
    the problems of the small business marketplace and the
    individual health insurance market. The purpose of this hearing
    was to focus on the national problem of the small business
    market and its concentration of uninsured workers and their
    families.
        Testimony received at the hearing assisted the Committee in
    the development of both H.R. 3070, the Health Coverage
    Availability and Affordability Act of 1996, which was reported
    to the House on March 25, 1996, and H.R. 3103, the Health
    Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which was
    enacted into law (Public Law 104-191).

         reauthorization of existing public health service act programs

        On August 1, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment held a hearing on reauthorization of programs under
    the Public Health Service Act. Programs examined were Community
    Health Centers, Migrant Health Centers, Health Care for the
    Homeless, Health Services for Residents of Public Housing, and
    programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration (SAMHSA).
        Testimony received at the hearing provided the Committee
    with valuable information during House consideration of S.
    1044, the Health Centers Consolidation Act of 1996, which was
    enacted into law as Public Law 104-299.

                     TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FINANCE ISSUES

                 oversight of the derivative financial markets

        In the 103d Congress, the then-Chairman of the Subcommittee
    on Telecommunications and Finance requested the General
    Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a survey of users of
    derivative products, specifically focusing on the sales
    practices used by dealers in the derivatives markets. On May
    18, 1994, GAO submitted a report entitled Financial
    Derivatives: Actions Needed to Protect the Financial System.
    Because of concerns that the GAO study (1) failed to take into
    account changes made by the voluntary sales guidelines adopted
    by industry and (2) was constructed in such a way that an
    objective and balanced outcome was unlikely, and in order to
    obtain more balanced and complete information that would be
    useful to the Committee, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce, in October 1995, requested that the GAO conduct a
    supplemental study to determine what benefits and business
    objectives users sought to achieve by purchasing derivative
    products. The Chairman also requested that the additional
    survey determine the effects of the voluntary sales guidelines
    adopted by the industry, and avoid using terms in the survey
    that would predetermine the outcome.
        On a separate issue, in October of 1995, the Commodity
    Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued an order in the
    Metalgesellschaft case. Commission statements in the order
    appeared to remove existing exemptions for swaps from
    provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. That decision
    imperiled the validity and enforceability of swaps contracts
    issued by U.S. dealers. Some observers suggested that the CFTC
    was attempting to sweep all privately negotiated swap contracts
    under its regulatory jurisdiction. There are currently some $12
    trillion in notional principal amount of swaps contracts issued
    by U.S. dealers. If these privately negotiated contracts were
    to be brought under the ambit of the securities or commodities
    regulators, the incidental regulatory costs would drive most of
    the business offshore.
        On December 15, 1995, the Chairman of the Committee on
    Commerce and the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture sent
    a joint letter to the CFTC and asked them to clarify the intent
    of the order in the Metalgesellschaft case. Specifically, they
    asked if the CFTC had intended to articulate all of the
    elements of a futures contract. On January 19, 1996, the CFTC
    responded, and indicated that it had not intended to articulate
    all the elements of a futures contract. The CFTC further stated
    that any uncertainty in the swaps market created by the order
    was unintentional. This clarification served to end the
    confusion in the markets that had resulted from the order, and
    also served to reassure dealers that they could continue to
    enter into these agreements without the fear of excessive
    regulatory cost.
        The Committee on Commerce will continue to monitor the
    derivative financial markets in the 105th Congress.

                 oversight of the municipal securities markets

        The Committee on Commerce held a Full Committee oversight
    hearing on January 12, 1995, on Developments in Municipal
    Finance Disclosure. On December 8, 1994, Orange County,
    California, and the ``Orange County Investment Pools,'' a
    common fund of county monies maintained for investment, filed
    for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.
    These filings began the largest municipal bankruptcy in the
    nation's history.
        The purpose of the Full Committee hearing was to examine
    (1) the adequacy of disclosure by municipal securities issuers
    of material events that impact the value of their securities,
    and (2) the development of rules and systems to avoid
    situations similar to the events in Orange County, California,
    in the future. The hearing focused on the current state of
    municipal securities disclosure regulation and whether
    regulatory or legislative action was necessary to improve
    investor protection.

      oversight of the sec capacity to perform market technology oversight

        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on H.R. 2131, the Capital Markets Deregulation
    and Liberalization Act of 1995, on November 14, November 30,
    and December 5, 1995. Testimony was presented at those hearings
    on the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) Electronic
    Data Gathering and Retrieval (EDGAR) system and the need to
    privatize all or a portion of that system. In addition,
    Representative Frisa prepared a report on the EDGAR system for
    the Subcommittee, analyzing possible approaches to privatizing
    the system.
        The testimony and information presented at the hearings
    assisted the Committee in the development of legislative
    language which was incorporated into H.R. 3005, the National
    Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, and enacted into
    law (Public Law 104-290). Specifically, that Act includes a
    provision directing the SEC to examine proposals for the
    privatization of the EDGAR system to promote competition in the
    automation and rapid collection and dissemination of
    information required to be disclosed. The Act also requires the
    SEC to submit to Congress a report on this examination no later
    than 180 days after the date of enactment.

     hearings on phase ii of the national market system (future structural
                  change of the over-the-counter stock market)

        On April 23, 1996, and June 23, 1996, the Chairman of the
    Committee on Commerce sent letters to the Chairman of the
    Securities and Exchange Commission requesting information about
    two rulemaking proposals published by the Commission on
    September 29, 1995 (Order Execution Obligations) containing
    four separate rules. These rulemaking proposals would have
    dramatically altered the over-the-counter stock market by
    imposing new requirements and restrictions on the way in which
    brokers execute stock transaction orders. On June 5, 1996, the
    SEC responded to the Committee's April 23, 1996, inquiry.
        On August 28, 1996, the Securities and Exchange Commission
    adopted one of the proposals, the Display Rule, and amended the
    second rule proposal, the Quote Rule, to eliminate certain
    provisions that were highly controversial within the brokerage
    community. A third proposal, the Naqcess Rules, remains
    outstanding, not yet having been adopted by the Commission.

               personal communications services (spectrum policy)

        The Committee is abundantly aware of the importance that
    sound spectrum policy, including the use of competitive bidding
    (spectrum auctions) to award licenses, has on the
    telecommunications industry, and unfortunately, on the
    budgetary considerations of the Congress. The Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance spent a considerable amount of
    time this Congress analyzing general Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) auction policy and specific FCC actions. The
    specific issue of Personal Communications Services (PCS) and
    the related PCS spectrum auctions repeatedly came up throughout
    the Subcommittee's oversight process.
        The success of the PCS and other spectrum auctions, in
    terms of efficiency and revenue returns to the Federal
    government, provided valuable information to the Subcommittee
    as it designed future spectrum auction authority and oversaw
    the FCC'S implementation of its authority to conduct spectrum
    auctions. Consequently, early in the 104th Congress, the
    Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1218, a bill to extend the
    FCC's competitive bidding authority for an additional 2 years,
    to the House for consideration. The provisions of that bill
    were incorporated into the text of H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness
    and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, which passed the House on
    April 5, 1995.
        On September 7, 1995, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held an oversight hearing on the
    use of the radio spectrum by the Federal government, focusing
    on the Federal spectrum management activities of the Department
    of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA). This hearing provided useful information
    to the Committee with respect to the difficulty the Federal
    government has in releasing spectrum primarily used by the
    Federal government to the public sector. Such information is
    helpful as the Committee studies the amount of spectrum
    available in the marketplace and the impact of the PCS and
    other auctions held since 1994. Witnesses at the hearing also
    discussed the spectrum needs of the Federal government in
    relation to its current allocation of spectrum.
        As a result of this hearing, on September 13, 1995, the
    Committee on Commerce approved a Committee Print, entitled
    ``Communications: Spectrum Auctions,'' and transmitted it to
    the Committee on the Budget for inclusion in H.R. 2491. The
    spectrum auction provisions have three main goals: (1) extend
    current FCC auction authority to the year 2002; (2) release an
    additional 20 MHz of federal government spectrum to the private
    sector; and (3) require the FCC to reallocate 100 MHz of
    spectrum located below 3 gigahertz not previously designated
    for auction or for reallocation by the NTIA for more efficient
    purposes. The spectrum auction provisions were retained during
    the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2491 and included in the
    bill vetoed by the President on December 6, 1995.
        During the consideration of Telecommunications Act of 1996
    (Public Law 104-104), the Committee on Conference could not
    reach a resolution on provisions setting guidelines for
    awarding digital television licenses by the FCC. As a result,
    the provisions were included in the law with the understanding
    that the Committee on Commerce would hold a hearing to review
    the appropriateness of the provisions and a corresponding
    letter would be sent to the Chairman of the Federal
    Communications Commission expressing interest in reviewing
    these provisions before the FCC took final action. Accordingly,
    on January 31, 1996, such a letter was sent to Chairman Hundt.
        On March 21, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance held an oversight hearing on the use and management
    of the electromagnetic spectrum as it relates to awarding
    licenses for advanced television services (ATV). Subsequently,
    a majority of the signatories from the January 31, 1996, letter
    sent an additional letter to Chairman Hundt on June 19, 1996,
    to inform the FCC of the March 21, 1996, hearing and to express
    their collective view that the FCC should move forward as
    expeditiously as possible on its plan to award a second license
    to television broadcasters for the transition to digital
    television.
        In addition, the Committee on Commerce sent numerous
    letters to the Chairman and Commissioners of the FCC seeking
    clarification and expressing views regarding FCC policy in
    certain circumstances.

    implementation of the cable consumer protection and competition act of
                                      1992

        The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held 3
    days of hearings on May 10, May 11, and May 12, 1995, on
    legislation to reform and amend the Nation's telecommunications
    laws. Witnesses at the hearing testified with respect to
    problems that existed with respect to the implementation of the
    Cable and Consumer Protection Act of 1992 that they believed
    needed to be addressed.
        The testimony and information presented at the hearings
    assisted the Committee in the development of legislative
    language which was incorporated into the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996 and enacted into law (Public Law 104-104).
    Specifically, Title III of Public Law 104-104, entitled ``Cable
    Services,'' implements numerous reforms and modifications to
    the provisions contained in the 1992 Cable Act. For example,
    the Act sunsets FCC regulation of the upper-tier of cable
    systems, often referred to as the cable programming services
    tier, on March 31, 1999. In addition, the Act broadens the
    definition of when a cable system has ``effective competition''
    to include competition created by local telephone companies
    providing video programming services.

            authorization of the corporation for public broadcasting

        On September 12, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held an oversight hearing on the
    future of public broadcasting. The hearing focused on how to
    accomplish the goal of ending Federal appropriations for public
    broadcasting while ensuring its ability to fulfill its
    traditional missions. The hearing also considered what level of
    Federal funding is necessary to maintain viability and how long
    that funding should continue; problems within the public
    broadcasting community; legislative and regulatory restrictions
    that require change; and ways of promoting efficiencies on all
    levels of public broadcasting.
        The hearing was the basis for the introduction of H.R.
    2979, the Public Broadcasting Self-Sufficiency Act of 1996, in
    the House on February 28, 1996. On February 29, 1996, the
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance held a
    legislative hearing on H.R. 2979. The bill's main goal is to
    provide public broadcasters with more flexibility in their
    operations, including additional ways of raising revenue
    through earned income opportunities, while moving the public
    broadcasting system towards financial self-sufficiency. The
    bill also eliminates many statutory restrictions imposed on the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and establishes a
    national trust fund to replace Federal appropriations by Fiscal
    Year 2000.
        No further action was taken on the legislation in the 104th
    Congress.

                  Additional Oversight Hearings and Activities

                    federal communications commission reform

        On March 27 and 28, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held 2 days of oversight
    hearings on reform of the Federal Communications Commission
    (FCC). The hearing provided Members with the opportunity to
    examine the broad issue of the Commission's role and structure
    in the future and whether or not the Commission is currently
    operating at maximum efficiency. Testimony received at these
    hearings assisted the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance during its consideration of H.R. 3957, the FCC
    Modernization Act of 1996, which it approved for Full Committee
    consideration on September 12, 1996.

              implementation of the telecommunications act of 1996

        On July 18, 1996, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
    and Finance held an oversight hearing on Federal Communications
    Commission (FCC) implementation of the Telecommunications Act
    of 1996, signed into law on February 8, 1996. The purpose of
    the hearing was to determine if the FCC is meeting the
    deadlines imposed by the Act and if the FCC is adhering to the
    statute.

             restructuring of international satellite organizations

        In May of 1996, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
    requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a
    study and report on the competitive impact of: (1) possible
    alternative approaches to reforming INTELSAT and Inmarsat; (2)
    an Inmarsat affiliate company, formed in 1994 to provide new
    services; and (3) proposals for restructuring INTELSAT. On July
    8, 1996, the GAO submitted a report to the Committee on
    Commerce entitled Competitive Impact of Restructuring the
    International Satellite Organizations.
        On September 25, 1996, the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance held an oversight hearing on the
    restructuring of international satellite organizations (ISOs),
    INTELSAT and Inmarsat. Witnesses included representatives from
    the Federal Government, private satellite telecommunications
    providers, and Comsat, the U.S. signatory to both Inmarsat and
    INTELSAT. The focus of this hearing was to hear testimony on
    the proposals and efforts to restructure INTELSAT and Inmarsat,
    and on how competition can be brought to international
    satellite communications.
        The Committee on Commerce plans to continue its examination
    of international satellite organizations in the 105th Congress
    and whether legislation is necessary to promote competition in
    this area.

                                    SUMMARY

                         104th congress oversight plan

        Of the 52 issues listed in the Committee on Commerce's
    Oversight Plan, the Committee addressed more than 80 percent in
    the 104th Congress. Thirty-six were addressed through one or
    more specific oversight or legislative hearings. Two were the
    subject of document or information requests to the General
    Accounting Office or the pertinent agencies. Department or
    agency action on four of these issues is currently being
    monitored by the Committee and will continue to be reviewed to
    ascertain if unnecessarily burdensome regulations exist and if
    legislative remedies are warranted. In addition, the Committee
    on Commerce worked directly with the Committee on Resources to
    develop and expedite the legislation that was enacted into law
    to provide for the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil.
        For a more detailed description and the legislative history
    of each of these items, see the discussions contained in the
    individual Subcommittee sections of this report.

                        additional oversight activities

        In addition to the issues identified in Oversight Plan, the
    Committee on Commerce also conducted oversight hearings in the
    104th Congress on a number of major issues that were not
    identified in the Oversight Plan when it was adopted in
    February of 1995.
        In the environmental area, eight oversight hearings were
    held addressing specific areas of the Superfund Program. These
    hearings led to the introduction of legislation, two
    legislative hearings, and 4 days of Subcommittee markup
    resulting in the approval of legislation for Full Committee
    consideration.
        In the health area, the Committee focused its attention on:
    (1) protecting the health care needs of the Nation's senior
    citizens by ensuring that the Medicare Program was fiscally
    sound, and (2) restructuring the Medicaid Program to give
    States flexibility to implement new ideas and management
    techniques to better provide adequate and efficient health care
    to low-income individuals and families. A total of ten
    oversight hearings was held on the Medicare Program and
    Medicare-related issues. These hearings led to House passage of
    the Medicare Preservation Act of 1995, which was vetoed by the
    President. Eight oversight hearings and one legislative hearing
    were held on the Medicaid Program, resulting in the inclusion
    of Medicaid reforms in Public Law 104-193, the Personal
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
        In the telecommunications area, the Committee held two
    oversight hearings on the need for reform and modernization of
    the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which resulted in
    the introduction of legislation that was subsequently marked up
    by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance and
    approved for Full Committee consideration. An oversight hearing
    was also held on the implementation of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996, the most sweeping reform of telecommunications law
    in over 60 years, to ensure that the FCC was implementing the
    law in a manner that was consistent with Congressional intent.
    In response to a report prepared by the General Accounting
    Office at the Committee's request, an oversight hearing was
    held on restructuring of international satellite organizations.
        In the energy area, in response to press accounts and
    allegations of inappropriate expenses and undocumented spending
    incurred by the Office of the Secretary of the Department of
    Energy (DOE) in connection with several international DOE trade
    missions, the Committee held seven oversight hearings focusing
    on the Department of Energy. These hearings revealed that
    serious financial management problems, in fact, did exist at
    DOE. As a result of these hearings, DOE re-examined $523,000 in
    undocumented spending charges from the trade missions, and is
    now protesting $117,000 in charges. In addition, the Secretary
    promised not to go on any more trade missions until the
    Inspector General and the General Accounting Office agreed that
    DOE has implemented needed reforms to the acquisition of
    aircraft for trade missions, which was the bulk of the cost of
    the trade missions. DOE implemented these reform procedures on
    July 31, 1996.
        Additional oversight hearings were also held in the energy
    area on the implementation of the Corporate Average Fuel
    Economy (CAFE) standards and the development of tritium
    production sources for the Department of Energy defense nuclear
    facilities.
        For a more detailed description and the legislative history
    of each of these items, see the discussions contained in the
    individual Subcommittee sections of this report.

                                   conclusion

        In conclusion, as a result of the actions taken pursuant to
    the Committee on Commerce's oversight agenda for the 104th
    Congress, the Committee made great strides towards achieving
    its goal of creating a more effective, less expensive, and more
    accountable government that better serves all Americans.
                                   APPENDIX I

                             Legislative Activities

                             committee on commerce

    Summary of Committee Activities

    Total Bills Referred to Committee.............................       810
    Public Laws...................................................        65
    Bills Reported to the House...................................        65

    Hearings Held:
        Days of Hearings..........................................       167
            Full Committee........................................         4
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
              Materials...........................................        33
            Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................        40
            Subcommittee on Health and Environment................        33
            Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance........        25
            Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..........        32

        Hours of Sitting..........................................       617
            Full Committee........................................        15
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
              Materials...........................................       101
            Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................       122
            Subcommittee on Health and Environment................       144
            Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance........       129
            Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..........       106

    Legislative Markups:
        Days of Markups...........................................        70
            Full Committee........................................        39
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
              Materials...........................................        11
            Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................         4
            Subcommittee on Health and Environment................         9
            Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance........         7

        Hours of Sitting..........................................       200
            Full Committee........................................       144
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous
              Materials...........................................        28
            Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................         5
            Subcommittee on Health and Environment................         6
            Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance........        17

    Executive Sessions:
        Number of Meetings........................................         0
        Hours of Sitting..........................................         0
                                  APPENDIX II

                       Full Committee Membership Changes

        During the 104th Congress, the size and the membership of
    the Committee on Commerce changed a number of times. This
    Appendix sets forth those changes.
        When the 104th Congress convened on January 4, 1995, the
    House of Representatives passed, by voice votes, three
    resolutions (H. Res. 11, H. Res. 12, and H. Res. 13)
    designating the membership of the standing Committees. Pursuant
    to the adoption of these resolutions, the size of the Committee
    on Commerce was set at 46 Members, 25 Republicans and 21
    Democrats, as follows:

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JACK FIELDS, Texas
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   JOE BARTON, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           FRED UPTON, Michigan
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BILL PAXON, New York
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

        In addition, Representative Steve Largent of Oklahoma was
    assigned by the Republican Conference to the Committee on
    Commerce for seniority purposes (after Mr. Cox) but served on
    the Committee on the Budget for 104th Congress.
        The Democratic Caucus placed Representative Cardiss Collins
    of Illinois and Representative Bill Richardson of New Mexico on
    sabbatical leave from the Committee on Commerce for 104th
    Congress, or until such time as a vacancy occurred.
        On May 10, 1995, the House of Representatives passed H.
    Res. 143 by a voice vote. This resolution elected
    Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia to the Committee on
    Commerce, and reflected Representative Deal's switch to the
    Republican Party. The election of Representative Deal to the
    Committee on Commerce also increased the size of the Committee
    to 47 Members, 26 Republicans and 21 Democrats, as follows:

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JACK FIELDS, Texas
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   JOE BARTON, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           FRED UPTON, Michigan
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BILL PAXON, New York
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

        When Representative Deal was elected to the Committee on
    Commerce, Representative Largent's listing for seniority
    purposes was changed to after Mr. Deal rather than after Mr.
    Cox.
        On September 12, 1995, the House of Representatives passed
    H. Res. 217 by a voice vote. This resolution elected
    Representative W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin of Louisiana as a
    Republican Member of the Committee on Commerce, and reflected
    Representative Tauzin's switch to the Republican Party. The
    election of Representative Tauzin to the Committee on Commerce
    as a Republican Member also increased the size of the Committee
    to 48 Members, 27 Republicans and 21 Democrats, as follows:

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JACK FIELDS, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  BILL PAXON, New York
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Vacancy)                          BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
                                         ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
        On September 27, 1995, the House of Representatives passed
    H. Res. 229 by a voice vote. This resolution elected
    Representative Cardiss Collins of Illinois and Representative
    Bill Richardson of New Mexico to the Committee on Commerce.
    Both Representative Collins and Representative Richardson had
    served on the Committee previously and had been on sabbatical
    leave from the Committee on Commerce since the beginning of the
    104th Congress. The election of Representative Collins and
    Representative Richardson to the Committee on Commerce
    increased the size of the Committee to 49 Members, 27
    Republicans and 22 Democrats, as follows:

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            JACK FIELDS, Texas
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   JOE BARTON, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           FRED UPTON, Michigan
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BILL PAXON, New York
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
        On February 6, 1996, Representative Ron Wyden of Oregon
    resigned as a Member of the House of Representatives and was
    subsequently sworn in as a United States Senator on that same
    date. Representative Wyden's resignation from the House
    resulted in a vacancy in the Democratic membership of the
    Committee on Commerce. The size of the Committee on Commerce
    was not affected, and the membership of the Committee remained
    at 27 Republicans and 22 Democrats, as follows:

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            JACK FIELDS, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               JOE BARTON, Texas
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BILL PAXON, New York
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
      (Vacancy)                          ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
        Finally, on April 22, 1996, the House of Representatives
    passed H. Res. 408 by a voice vote. This resolution elected
    Representative Eliot L. Engel of New York to the Committee on
    Commerce. The election of Representative Engel to the Committee
    on Commerce filled the vacancy created by the resignation of
    Representative Wyden. The size of the Committee remained at 49
    Members, 27 Republicans and 22 Democrats, as follows:

     THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia,
                 Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California,
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            JACK FIELDS, Texas
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               JOE BARTON, Texas
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BILL PAXON, New York
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                         GREG GANSKE, Iowa
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma

        The changes in the size and membership of the Committee on
    Commerce in the 104th Congress resulted in corresponding
    changes in the size and membership of the Committee's five
    subcommittees. For a complete listing of the subcommittee
    changes in the 104th Congress, see Appendix III of this report.
                                  APPENDIX III

                        Subcommittee Membership Changes

        During the 104th Congress, the size, ratios, and
    memberships of the Committee on Commerce's five standing
    subcommittees changed a number of times. This Appendix sets
    forth those changes.
        At the Committee on Commerce Organizational Meeting for the
    104th Congress on January 10, 1995, the Committee adopted, by
    voice votes, five committee resolutions designating the
    jurisdiction, chairmen, vice chairmen, ratios, and membership
    of the Committee's five standing subcommittees, as follows:

                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 15-12)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                      Vice Chairman
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               JOE BARTON, Texas
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BILL PAXON, New York
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 12-10)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     JACK FIELDS, Texas
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon                Vice Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    GREG GANSKE, Iowa
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment

               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

               (Ratio 12-10)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana       Vice Chairman
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      FRED UPTON, Michigan
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
      (Ex Officio)                       TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon                Vice Chairman
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
                                         DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)
        On February 7, 1995, the Committee on Commerce, by a voice
    vote, adopted a committee resolution offered by Mr. Dingell to
    amend the Democratic membership of the standing subcommittees
    of the Committee on Commerce for the 104th Congress. This
    resolution reflected a ruling of the House Democratic Caucus
    that a Full Committee Ranking Minority Member may not also
    serve as the Ranking Minority Member of a subcommittee and made
    changes in the Democratic subcommittee assignments.
        The adoption of this committee resolution changed the
    membership of the Committee's five standing subcommittees, as
    follows:

                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 15-12)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               BILL PAXON, New York
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 12-10)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     JACK FIELDS, Texas
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon                Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      FRED UPTON, Michigan
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                GREG GANSKE, Iowa
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment

               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

               (Ratio 12-10)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana       Vice Chairman
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRED UPTON, Michigan
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
      (Ex Officio)                       TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)
        On May 16, 1995, the Committee on Commerce adopted, by
    voice votes, two committee resolutions. The first resolution,
    offered by Mr. Fields, amended the size and ratios of the
    standing subcommittees of the Committee on Commerce for the
    104th Congress. The second resolution, offered by Mr. Schaefer,
    amended the membership of the standing subcommittees of the
    Committee on Commerce for the 104th Congress. Both resolutions
    reflected the election of Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia
    to the Committee on Commerce, pursuant to H. Res. 143, which
    passed the House on May 10, 1995.
        On May 16, 1995, the Committee on Commerce also agreed to a
    unanimous consent request by Mr. Dingell to amend the Schaefer
    committee resolution to assign Ms. Furse as a temporary member
    to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance and to
    assign Mr. Rush as a temporary member to the Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials.
         The adoption of these two committee resolutions and the
    unanimous consent request changed the size, ratios, and
    membership of the Committee's five standing subcommittees, as
    follows:

                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 16-13)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JOE BARTON, Texas
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               BILL PAXON, New York
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 14-11)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana     JACK FIELDS, Texas
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon                Vice Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      FRED UPTON, Michigan
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               BILL PAXON, New York
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG GANSKE, Iowa
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment

               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

               (Ratio 13-10)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana       Vice Chairman
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRED UPTON, Michigan
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

        On June 16, 1995, the Committee on Commerce agreed to a
    unanimous consent request by Mr. Dingell to make the temporary
    assignments of Ms. Furse to the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance and Mr. Rush to the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, agreed to on May
    16, 1995, permanent for the remainder of the 104th Congress.
        On October 25, 1995, the Committee on Commerce adopted, by
    voice votes, two committee resolutions offered by Mr. Moorhead.
    The first resolution amended the size and ratios of the
    standing subcommittees of the Committee on Commerce for the
    104th Congress. The second resolution amended the membership of
    the standing subcommittees of the Committee on Commerce for the
    104th Congress. Both resolutions reflected the election of
    Representative W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin of Louisiana as a
    Republican Member of the Committee on Commerce, pursuant to H.
    Res. 217, which passed the House on September 12, 1995; the
    election of Representatives Cardiss Collins and Bill Richardson
    to the Committee on Commerce, pursuant to H. Res. 229, which
    passed the House on September 27, 1995; and the change in the
    Full Committee ratio.
        In addition, the second resolution designated Mr. Crapo as
    the Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power in
    lieu of Mr. Franks.
        The adoption of these two committee resolutions changed the
    size, ratios, and membership of the Committee's five standing
    subcommittees, as follows:

                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 17-14)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       JOE BARTON, Texas
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              BILL PAXON, New York
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 15-12)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JACK FIELDS, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  BILL PAXON, New York
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               GREG GANSKE, Iowa
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment

               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

               (Ratio 14-11)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia                 Vice Chairman
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRED UPTON, Michigan
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)
        On February 6, 1996, Representative Ron Wyden of Oregon
    resigned as a Member of the House of Representatives and was
    subsequently sworn in as a United States Senator on that same
    date. Representative Wyden's resignation from the House
    resulted in a vacancy in the Democratic membership of the
    Committee on Commerce, and consequently, vacancies in the
    Democratic membership of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
    and Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on Health and
    Environment. These subcommittee vacancies existed until May 16,
    1996.

        On March 20, 1996, the Committee on Commerce adopted, by a
    voice vote, a committee resolution offered by Mr. Oxley to
    amend the membership of the standing subcommittees of the
    Committee on Commerce for the 104th Congress. The resolution
    made a change in the assignment of Republican Members to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials, by
    assigning Representative Nathan Deal to a seat on that
    subcommittee in lieu of the seat previously held by
    Representative Charlie Norwood.
        The adoption of this committee resolution changed the
    membership of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
    Hazardous Materials, as follows:

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 15-12)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    (Vacant)                             JACK FIELDS, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       FRED UPTON, Michigan
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  BILL PAXON, New York
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)
        On May 15, 1996, the Committee on Commerce, by a voice
    vote, adopted a committee resolution offered by Mr. Dingell to
    amend the Democratic membership of the standing subcommittees
    of the Committee on Commerce for the 104th Congress. This
    resolution reflected the election of Representative Eliot L.
    Engel of New York to the Committee on Commerce, pursuant to H.
    Res. 408, which passed the House on April 22, 1996, and filled
    the Subcommittee vacancies created by the resignation of
    Representative Ron Wyden on February 6, 1996.
        The adoption of this committee resolution changed the
    membership of the Committee's five standing subcommittees, as
    follows:

                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 17-14)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               JOE BARTON, Texas
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BILL PAXON, New York
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

            Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous Materials

               (Ratio 15-12)

     MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           JACK FIELDS, Texas
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               BILL PAXON, New York
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                     Subcommittee on Health and Environment

               (Ratio 15-12)

       MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida,
                 Chairman
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                    Vice Chairman
    BLANCHE LAMBERT LINCOLN, Arkansas    JOE BARTON, Texas
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               FRED UPTON, Michigan
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    JOHN BRYANT, Texas                   RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            GREG GANSKE, Iowa
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

               (Ratio 14-11)

     DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado, Chairman
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia                 Vice Chairman
    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 FRED UPTON, Michigan
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    PETER DEUTSCH, Florida               NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    BART STUPAK, Michigan                RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
      (Ex Officio)                       CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)

                  Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

                (Ratio 8-6)

        JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            GARY A. FRANKS, Connecticut
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
      (Ex Officio)                       DAN FRISA, New York
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)
        On September 19, 1996, the Committee on Commerce agreed to
    a unanimous consent request by Mr. Dingell to amend the
    membership of the standing subcommittees of the Committee on
    Commerce for the 104th Congress. The resolution made a change
    in the assignment of Democratic Members to the Subcommittee on
    Telecommunications and Finance, by assigning Representative
    Thomas J. Manton to a seat on that subcommittee in lieu of the
    seat previously held by Representative John Bryant.
        The adoption of this committee resolution changed the
    membership of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
    Finance, as follows:

                 Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance

               (Ratio 17-14)

       JACK FIELDS, Texas, Chairman
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio
    RALPH M. HALL, Texas                   Vice Chairman
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California
    GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts       W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
    BART GORDON, Tennessee               DAN SCHAEFER, Colorado
    ELIZABETH FURSE, Oregon              JOE BARTON, Texas
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
    RON KLINK, Pennsylvania              BILL PAXON, New York
    CARDISS COLLINS, Illinois            PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
    BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico          SCOTT L. KLUG, Wisconsin
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             CHRISTOPHER COX, California
    THOMAS J. MANTON, New York           NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
    JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            DAN FRISA, New York
      (Ex Officio)                       RICK WHITE, Washington
                                         TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
                                         THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia
                                           (Ex Officio)
                                  APPENDIX IV

        This list includes: (1) legislation on which the Commerce
    Committee acted directly; (2) legislation developed through
    Commerce Committee participation in House-Senate conferences;
    and (3) legislation which included provisions within the
    Committee's jurisdiction that resulted from prior Commerce
    Committee action.

                                                     Public Laws: 65
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Public Law                    Date Approved                 Bill                    Title
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    104-6                                  4/10/95                  H.R. 889                 Emergency Supplemental
                                                                                              Appropriations and
                                                                                              Recessions for the
                                                                                              Department of Defense
                                                                                              to Preserve and
                                                                                              Enhance Military
                                                                                              Readiness Act of 1995.
                                                                                              (Includes provisions
                                                                                              amending the Clean Air
                                                                                              Act with respect to
                                                                                              Federal Implementation
                                                                                              Plans required under
                                                                                              the Act.)
    104-18                                 7/7/95                   H.R. 483                 An Act to amend the
                                                                                              Omnibus Budget
                                                                                              Reconciliation Act of
                                                                                              1990 to permit
                                                                                              Medicare select
                                                                                              policies to be offered
                                                                                              in all States.
    104-55                                 11/20/95                 H.R. 436                 Edible Oil Regulatory
                                                                                              Reform Act.
    104-58                                 11/28/95                 S. 395                   Alaska Power
                                                                                              Administration Asset
                                                                                              Sale and Termination
                                                                                              Act.
    104-59                                 11/28/95                 S. 440                   National Highway System
                                                                                              Designation Act of
                                                                                              1995. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions amending
                                                                                              the Clean Air Act with
                                                                                              respect to the
                                                                                              Inspection and
                                                                                              Maintenance Program.)
    104-62                                 12/8/95                  H.R. 2519                Philanthropy Protection
                                                                                              Act of 1995.
    104-67                                 Veto overridden.         H.R. 1058                Private Securities
                                             12/22/95                                         Litigation Reform Act
                                                                                              of 1995.
    104-70                                 12/23/95                 H.R. 325                 An Act to amend the
                                                                                              Clean Air Act to
                                                                                              provide for an
                                                                                              optional provision for
                                                                                              the reduction of work-
                                                                                              related vehicle trips
                                                                                              and miles travelled in
                                                                                              ozone nonattainment
                                                                                              areas designated as
                                                                                              severe, and for other
                                                                                              purposes.
    104-73                                 12/26/95                 H.R. 1747                Federally Supported
                                                                                              Health Centers
                                                                                              Assistance Act of
                                                                                              1995.
    104-87                                 12/29/95                 H.R. 1878                An Act to extend for 4
                                                                                              years the period of
                                                                                              applicability of
                                                                                              enrollment mix
                                                                                              requirement to certain
                                                                                              health maintenance
                                                                                              organizations
                                                                                              providing services
                                                                                              under Dayton Area
                                                                                              Health Plan.
    104-104                                2/8/96                   S. 652                   Telecommunications Act
                                                                                              of 1996.
    104-106                                2/10/96                  S. 1124                  National Defense
                                                                                              Authorization Act for
                                                                                              Fiscal Year 1996.
                                                                                              (Includes provisions
                                                                                              relating to
                                                                                              miscellaneous energy
                                                                                              issues, health issues,
                                                                                              and environmental
                                                                                              issues.)
    104-113                                3/07/96                  H.R. 2196                National Technology
                                                                                              Transfer and
                                                                                              Advancement Act of
                                                                                              1995. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions amending
                                                                                              the Fastener Quality
                                                                                              Act.)
    104-119                                3/26/96                  H.R. 2036                Land Disposal Program
                                                                                              Flexibility Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-121                                3/29/96                  H.R. 3136                Contract with America
                                                                                              Advancement Act of
                                                                                              1996. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions providing
                                                                                              regulatory reform and
                                                                                              Congressional review
                                                                                              with respect to
                                                                                              departments and
                                                                                              agencies under the
                                                                                              Committee's
                                                                                              jurisdiction, and
                                                                                              provisions relating to
                                                                                              miscellaneous health
                                                                                              issues.)
    104-124                                4/1/96                   H.R. 1787                An Act to amend the
                                                                                              Federal Food, Drug,
                                                                                              and Cosmetic Act to
                                                                                              repeal the saccharin
                                                                                              notice requirement.
    104-128                                4/9/96                   H.R. 2969                Federal Tea Tasters
                                                                                              Repeal Act of 1996.
    104-134                                4/26/96                  H.R. 3019                Omnibus Consolidated
                                                                                              Rescissions and
                                                                                              Appropriations Act of
                                                                                              1996. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions relating to
                                                                                              the privatization of
                                                                                              the United States
                                                                                              Enrichment Corporation
                                                                                              and miscellaneous
                                                                                              health issues.)
    104-142                                5/13/96                  H.R. 2024                Mercury-Containing and
                                                                                              Rechargeable Battery
                                                                                              Management Act.
    104-146                                5/20/96                  S. 641                   Ryan White CARE Act
                                                                                              Amendments of 1996.
    104-152                                7/2/96                   H.R. 2803                Anti-Car Theft
                                                                                              Improvements Act of
                                                                                              1996. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions amending
                                                                                              the Anti-Car Theft Act
                                                                                              of 1992.)
    104-166                                7/29/96                  H.R. 248                 An Act to amend the
                                                                                              Public Health Service
                                                                                              Act to provide for the
                                                                                              conduct of expanded
                                                                                              studies and the
                                                                                              establishment of
                                                                                              innovative programs
                                                                                              with respect to
                                                                                              traumatic brain
                                                                                              injury, and for other
                                                                                              purposes.
    104-170                                8/3/96                   H.R. 1627                Food Quality Protection
                                                                                              Act of 1996.
    104-173                                8/6/96                   H.R. 1051                An Act to provide for
                                                                                              the extension of
                                                                                              certain hydroelectric
                                                                                              projects located in
                                                                                              the State of West
                                                                                              Virginia.
    104-182                                8/6/96                   S. 1316                  Safe Drinking Water Act
                                                                                              Amendments of 1996.
    104-183                                8/6/96                   S. 1757                  Developmental
                                                                                              Disabilities
                                                                                              Assistance and Bill of
                                                                                              Rights Act Amendments
                                                                                              of 1996.
    104-191                                8/21/96                  H.R. 3103                Health Insurance
                                                                                              Portability and
                                                                                              Accountability Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-193                                8/22/96                  H.R. 3734                Personal Responsibility
                                                                                              and Work Opportunity
                                                                                              Reconciliation Act of
                                                                                              1996. (Includes
                                                                                              welfare-related issues
                                                                                              under the Committee's
                                                                                              jurisdiction.)
    104-201                                9/23/96                  H.R. 3230                National Defense
                                                                                              Authorization Act for
                                                                                              Fiscal Year 1997.
                                                                                              (Includes provisions
                                                                                              relating to the Waste
                                                                                              Isolation Pilot Plant
                                                                                              Land Withdrawal Act;
                                                                                              the Comprehensive
                                                                                              Environmental
                                                                                              Response,
                                                                                              Compensation, and
                                                                                              Liability Act
                                                                                              (Superfund); the
                                                                                              National Petroleum
                                                                                              Reserve; electricity
                                                                                              demonstration
                                                                                              projects; and
                                                                                              miscellaneous health
                                                                                              issues.)
    104-204                                9/26/96                  H.R. 3666                Departments of Veterans
                                                                                              Affairs and Housing
                                                                                              and Urban Development,
                                                                                              and Independent
                                                                                              Agencies
                                                                                              Appropriations Act,
                                                                                              1997. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions relating to
                                                                                              Mental Health Parity
                                                                                              and Newborns' and
                                                                                              Mothers' Health
                                                                                              Protection.)
    104-208                                9/30/96                  H.R. 3610                Omnibus Consolidated
                                                                                              Appropriations Act,
                                                                                              1997. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions relating to
                                                                                              miscellaneous
                                                                                              communications,
                                                                                              energy, health, and
                                                                                              securities issues.)
    104-216                                10/1/96                  H.R. 3553                Federal Trade
                                                                                              Commission
                                                                                              Reauthorization Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-224                                10/2/96                  H.R. 2366                An Act to repeal an
                                                                                              unnecessary medical
                                                                                              device reporting
                                                                                              requirement.
    104-226                                10/2/96                  H.R. 2685                An Act to repeal the
                                                                                              Medicare and Medicaid
                                                                                              Coverage Data Bank.
    104-237                                10/3/96                  S. 1965                  Comprehensive
                                                                                              Methamphetamine
                                                                                              Control Act of 1996.
    104-240                                10/8/96                  H.R. 3056                An Act to permit a
                                                                                              county-operated health
                                                                                              insuring organization
                                                                                              to qualify as an
                                                                                              organization exempt
                                                                                              from certain
                                                                                              requirements otherwise
                                                                                              applicable to health
                                                                                              insuring organizations
                                                                                              under the Medicaid
                                                                                              program
                                                                                              notwithstanding that
                                                                                              the organization
                                                                                              enrolls Medicaid
                                                                                              beneficiaries residing
                                                                                              in another county.
    104-241                                10/9/96                  H.R. 657                 An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline under the
                                                                                              Federal Power Act
                                                                                              applicable to the
                                                                                              construction of three
                                                                                              hydroelectric projects
                                                                                              in the State of
                                                                                              Arkansas.
    104-242                                10/9/96                  H.R. 680                 An Act to extend the
                                                                                              time for construction
                                                                                              of certain FERC
                                                                                              licensed hydro
                                                                                              projects.
    104-243                                10/9/96                  H.R. 1011                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline under the
                                                                                              Federal Power Act
                                                                                              applicable to the
                                                                                              construction of a
                                                                                              hydroelectric project
                                                                                              in the State of Ohio.
    104-244                                10/9/96                  H.R. 1014                An Act to authorize
                                                                                              extension of time
                                                                                              limitation for a FERC-
                                                                                              issued hydroelectric
                                                                                              license.
    104-245                                10/9/96                  H.R. 1290                An Act to reinstate the
                                                                                              permit for, and extend
                                                                                              the deadline under the
                                                                                              Federal Power Act
                                                                                              applicable to the
                                                                                              construction of, a
                                                                                              hydroelectric project
                                                                                              in Oregon, and for
                                                                                              other purposes.
    104-246                                10/9/96                  H.R. 1335                An Act to provide for
                                                                                              the extension of a
                                                                                              hydroelectric project
                                                                                              located in the State
                                                                                              of West Virginia.
    104-247                                10/9/96                  H.R. 1366                An Act to authorize the
                                                                                              extension of time
                                                                                              limitation for the
                                                                                              FERC-issued
                                                                                              hydroelectric license
                                                                                              for the Mt. Hope
                                                                                              Waterpower Project.
    104-248                                10/9/96                  H.R. 1791                An Act to amend title
                                                                                              XIX of the Social
                                                                                              Security Act to make
                                                                                              certain technical
                                                                                              corrections relating
                                                                                              to physicians'
                                                                                              services.
    104-249                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2501                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline under the
                                                                                              Federal Power Act
                                                                                              applicable to the
                                                                                              construction of a
                                                                                              hydroelectric project
                                                                                              in Kentucky, and for
                                                                                              other purposes.
    104-250                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2508                Animal Drug
                                                                                              Availability Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-252                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2630                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline for
                                                                                              commencement of
                                                                                              construction of a
                                                                                              hydroelectric project
                                                                                              in the State of
                                                                                              Illinois.
    104-254                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2695                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline under the
                                                                                              Federal Power Act
                                                                                              applicable to the
                                                                                              construction of
                                                                                              certain hydroelectric
                                                                                              projects in the State
                                                                                              of Pennsylvania.
    104-256                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2773                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline under the
                                                                                              Federal Power Act
                                                                                              applicable to the
                                                                                              construction of 2
                                                                                              hydroelectric projects
                                                                                              in North Carolina, and
                                                                                              for other purposes.
    104-257                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2816                An Act to reinstate the
                                                                                              license for, and
                                                                                              extend the deadline
                                                                                              under the Federal
                                                                                              Power Act applicable
                                                                                              to the construction
                                                                                              of, a hydroelectric
                                                                                              project in Ohio, and
                                                                                              for other purposes.
    104-258                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2869                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              deadline for
                                                                                              commencement of
                                                                                              construction of a
                                                                                              hydroelectric project
                                                                                              in the State of
                                                                                              Kentucky.
    104-259                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2967                An Act to extend the
                                                                                              authorization of the
                                                                                              Uranium Mill Tailings
                                                                                              Radiation Control Act
                                                                                              of 1978, and for other
                                                                                              purposes.
    104-260                                10/9/96                  H.R. 2988                An Act to amend the
                                                                                              Clean Air Act to
                                                                                              provide that traffic
                                                                                              signal synchronization
                                                                                              projects are exempt
                                                                                              from certain
                                                                                              requirements of
                                                                                              Environmental
                                                                                              Protection Agency
                                                                                              Rules.
    104-264                                10/9/96                  H.R. 3539                Federal Aviation
                                                                                              Reauthorization Act of
                                                                                              1996. (Includes
                                                                                              provisions amending
                                                                                              the Clean Air Act and
                                                                                              the Noise Control
                                                                                              Act.)
    104-267                                10/9/96                  H.R. 3871                An Act to waive
                                                                                              temporarily the
                                                                                              Medicaid enrollment
                                                                                              composition rule for
                                                                                              certain health
                                                                                              maintenance
                                                                                              organizations.
    104-272                                10/9/96                  H.R. 4167                Professional Boxing
                                                                                              Safety Act of 1996.
    104-284                                10/11/96                 H.R. 1514                Propane Education and
                                                                                              Research Act of 1996.
    104-288                                10/11/96                 H.R. 2579                United States National
                                                                                              Tourism Organization
                                                                                              Act of 1996.
    104-290                                10/11/96                 H.R. 3005                National Securities
                                                                                              Markets Improvement
                                                                                              Act of 1996.
    104-299                                10/11/96                 S. 1044                  Health Centers
                                                                                              Consolidation Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-304                                10/12/96                 S. 1505                  Accountable Pipeline
                                                                                              Safety and Partnership
                                                                                              Act of 1996.
    104-305                                10/13/96                 H.R. 4137                Drug-Induced Rape
                                                                                              Prevention and
                                                                                              Punishment Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-306                                10/14/96                 H.R. 4083                An Act to extend
                                                                                              certain programs under
                                                                                              the Energy Policy and
                                                                                              Conservation Act
                                                                                              through September 30,
                                                                                              1997.
    104-313                                10/19/96                 H.R. 3378                Indian Health Care
                                                                                              Improvement Technical
                                                                                              Corrections Act of
                                                                                              1996.
    104-315                                10/19/96                 H.R. 3632                An Act to amend title
                                                                                              XIX of the Social
                                                                                              Security Act to repeal
                                                                                              the requirement for
                                                                                              annual resident review
                                                                                              for nursing facilities
                                                                                              under the Medicaid
                                                                                              program and to require
                                                                                              resident reviews for
                                                                                              mentally ill or
                                                                                              mentally retarded
                                                                                              residents when there
                                                                                              is a significant
                                                                                              change in physical or
                                                                                              mental condition.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   APPENDIX V

                                     part a

                  Printed Hearings of the Committee on Commerce
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Serial No.                Hearing title      Hearing date(s)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    104-1                             Developments in     January 12, 1995
                                       Municipal Finance
                                       Disclosure. (Full
                                       Committee.).
    104-2                             February 10, 1995   January 19, 1995
                                       Common Sense
                                       Legal Reform Act.
                                       (H.R. 10, Title
                                       II.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-3                             Risk Assessment     February 1, 1995,
                                       and Cost/Benefit     February 2, 1995
                                       Analysis for New
                                       Regulations. H.R.
                                       9, Title III.
                                       (Joint Hearing
                                       Held by the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials and the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-4                             DOE Proposed FY     February 8, 1995
                                       1996 Budget.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-5                             Implementation and  February 9, 1995,
                                       Enforcement of       March 16, 1995
                                       Clean Air Act
                                       Amendments of
                                       1990.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-6                             Medicare Select     February 15, 1995
                                       and Medicare
                                       Managed Care
                                       Issues.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-7                             Common Sense        February 21, 1995
                                       Product Liability
                                       Reform Act. (H.R.
                                       917.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-8                             Privatization of    February 24, 1995
                                       the U.S.
                                       Enrichment
                                       Corporation.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-9                             Trade Implication   March 3, 1995
                                       of Foreign
                                       Ownership
                                       Restrictions on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s Companies.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-10                            Reauthorization of  March 9, 1995
                                       the Natural Gas
                                       Pipeline Safety
                                       Act and the
                                       Hazardous Liquid
                                       Pipeline Safety
                                       Act.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-11                            Medicare Extenders  March 14, 1995
                                       in the
                                       President's
                                       Fiscal Year 1996
                                       Budget.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-12                            Superfund           March 16, 1995
                                       Reauthorization.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-13                            International       March 21, 1995,
                                       Global Climate       May 19, 1995
                                       Change
                                       Negotiations.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-14                            Flow Control        March 23, 1995
                                       Measures and
                                       Interstate
                                       Transportation of
                                       Solid Waste. Flow
                                       Control Measures.
                                       (H.R. 1085, H.R.
                                       1180, H.R. 225,
                                       and H.R. 342.)
                                       Interstate
                                       Transportation of
                                       Solid Waste.
                                       (H.R. 1180, H.R.
                                       603, H.R. 1249,
                                       and H.R. 225.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-15                            The Texas Low-      May 11, 1995
                                       Level Radioactive
                                       Waste Disposal
                                       Compact. (H.R.
                                       558.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-16                            Clean Air Act       March 23, 1995,
                                       Amendments.          March 24, 1995
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-17                            Budgetary Effects   March 28, 1995
                                       of the Growth of
                                       Health Care
                                       Entitlements.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-18                            A Consumer's        March 30, 1995
                                       Perspective on
                                       Medical Devices.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-19                            Reauthorization of  April 5, 1995
                                       the Ryan White
                                       CARE Act.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-20                            Reducing Explosive  May 22, 1995
                                       Characteristics
                                       of Ammonium
                                       Nitrate
                                       Fertilizer.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-21                            Waste, Fraud and    May 16, 1995
                                       Abuse in the
                                       Medicare Program.
                                       (Joint Hearing
                                       held by the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment and
                                       the Subcommittee
                                       on Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-22                            HIV Testing of      May 11, 1995
                                       Women and
                                       Infants.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-23                            Drugs and           May 25, 1995,
                                       Biologics.           June 19, 1995
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-24                            High-Level Nuclear  June 28, 1995,
                                       Waste Policy.        June 30, 1995,
                                       (H.R. 1020, H.R.     July 12, 1995
                                       496, H.R. 1032,
                                       H.R. 1174, and
                                       H.R. 1924.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-25                            Clean Air Act       June 7, 1995
                                       Amendments.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.)
                                       Title II--
                                       Reformulated
                                       Gasoline Program..
    104-26                            Waste, Fraud and    July 19, 1995
                                       Abuse in the
                                       Medicare Program
                                       (Part 2). (Joint
                                       Hearing held by
                                       the Subcommittee
                                       on Health and
                                       Environment and
                                       the Subcommittee
                                       on Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-27                            Reorganization of   June 21, 1995
                                       the Department of
                                       Energy.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-28                            Reauthorization of  June 19, 1995
                                       the Federal
                                       Communications
                                       Commission. (H.R.
                                       1869.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-29                            Future of           June 6, 1995
                                       Alternative
                                       Fuels.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-30                            Superfund           May 23, 1995,
                                       Reauthorization      June 15, 1995,
                                       (Part 2). Remedy     June 20, 1995
                                       Selection; State
                                       Role, Voluntary
                                       Cleanups, and
                                       Brownfields
                                       Redevelopment;
                                       and Natural
                                       Resource Damages.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-31                            Waste Isolation     July 21, 1995
                                       Pilot Plant Land
                                       Withdrawal
                                       Amendments Act.
                                       (H.R. 1663.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-32                            Clean Air Act       May 18, 1995
                                       Amendments. Title
                                       V--Permits.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-33                            The Financial       June 6, 1995,
                                       Services             June 8, 1995
                                       Competitiveness
                                       Act of 1995.
                                       (H.R. 1062.)
                                       (Joint Hearing
                                       held by the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance and
                                       the Subcommittee
                                       on Commerce,
                                       Trade, and
                                       Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-34                            Communications Law  May 10, 1995,
                                       Reform. (H.R.        May 11, 1995,
                                       1555, H.R. 514,      May 12, 1995
                                       H.R. 912, and
                                       H.R. 1556.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-35                            Federal Management  September 7, 1995
                                       of the Radio
                                       Spectrum.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-36                            Insurance State's   May 22, 1995
                                       and Consumer's
                                       Rights
                                       Clarification and
                                       Fair Competition
                                       Act. H.R. 1317.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-37                            The Future of       September 12, 1995
                                       Public
                                       Broadcasting.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-38                            The Philanthropy    October 31, 1995
                                       Protection Act of
                                       1995. H.R. 2519.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-39                            RCRA Corrective     July 20, 1995
                                       Action Cleanup
                                       Program. H.R.
                                       1696 and H.R.
                                       2036.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-40                            Hydroelectric       October 18, 1995
                                       License
                                       Extensions. (H.R.
                                       657, H.R. 680,
                                       H.R. 1011, H.R.
                                       1014, H.R. 1051,
                                       H.R. 1290, H.R.
                                       1335, H.R. 1366,
                                       and H.R. 1835.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-41                            The Investment      October 31, 1995
                                       Company Act
                                       Amendments of
                                       1995. H.R. 1495.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-42                            Implementation of   July 24, 1995
                                       Corporate Average
                                       Fuel Economy
                                       (CAFE) Standards.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-43                            Competition in the  October 12, 1995
                                       Cellular
                                       Telephone Service
                                       Industry.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-44                            Privatization of    September 8, 1995
                                       the Naval
                                       Petroleum
                                       Reserve.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-45                            Oversight Hearing   October 31, 1995
                                       on Environmental
                                       Remediation at
                                       DOE Facilities.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-46                            Privatization of    July 19, 1995
                                       the Federal Power
                                       Marketing
                                       Administrations.
                                       (H.R. 1801 and
                                       H.R. 1122.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-47                            Oversight Hearing   November 15, 1995
                                       on Tritium
                                       Production.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-48                            Department of       July 24, 1995
                                       Commerce
                                       Dismantling Act
                                       of 1995. H.R.
                                       1756 (Joint
                                       Hearing held by
                                       the Subcommittee
                                       on Commerce,
                                       Trade, and
                                       Hazardous
                                       Materials and the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-49                            Reauthorization of  November 9, 1995
                                       the Energy Policy
                                       and Conservation
                                       Act of 1995.
                                       (H.R. 2596.)
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-50                            Capital Markets     November 14, 1995,
                                       Deregulation and     November 30,
                                       Liberalization      1995,
                                       Act of 1995. H.R.    December 5, 1995
                                       2131.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-51                            Allegations of FDA  July 25, 1995,
                                       Abuses of            November 15,
                                       Authority.          1995,
                                       (Subcommittee on     December 5, 1995
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-52                            Clean Air Act       August 1, 1995
                                       Amendments. Title
                                       VI--Ozone
                                       Depleting
                                       Substances.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-53                            Clean Air Act       June 29, 1995,
                                       Amendments. Title    July 21, 1995
                                       III--Hazardous
                                       Air Pollutants.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-54                            Superfund           June 22, 1995,
                                       Reauthorization.     July 18, 1995
                                       (Part 3)
                                       Financing and
                                       Liability Issues.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-55                            Clean Air Act       November 9, 1995
                                       Amendments. Title
                                       I--National
                                       Ambient Air
                                       Quality
                                       Standards. (Joint
                                       Hearing Held by
                                       the Subcommittee
                                       on Oversight and
                                       Investigations
                                       and the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-56                            Department of       November 17, 1995
                                       Energy: Misuse of
                                       Federal Funds.
                                       (Joint Hearing
                                       held by the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations
                                       and the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-57                            Priorities for the  January 31, 1996
                                       Reauthorization
                                       of the Safe
                                       Drinking Water
                                       Act.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-58                            The Public          February 29, 1996
                                       Broadcasting Self-
                                       Sufficiency Act
                                       of 1996. H.R.
                                       2979.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-59                            Reform of           October 18, 1995,
                                       Superfund Act of     October 26, 1995
                                       1995. H.R. 2500.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-60                            Cancer Patient      February 29, 1996
                                       Access to
                                       Unapproved
                                       Treatments.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-61                            The Securities and  February 28, 1996
                                       Exchange
                                       Commission
                                       Reauthorization
                                       Act of 1996. H.R.
                                       2972.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-62                            The Securities and  August 4, 1995,
                                       Exchange             October 13, 1995
                                       Commission Report
                                       Entitled: The
                                       Regulation of
                                       Public Utility
                                       Holding
                                       Companies.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and Power
                                       and the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-63                            The Propane         October 26, 1995
                                       Education and
                                       Research Act of
                                       1995. H.R. 1514.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-64                            Travel and Tourism  January 24, 1996
                                       Partnership Act.
                                       H.R. 2579. (Joint
                                       Hearing with the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials and the
                                       Committee on
                                       International
                                       Relations
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       International
                                       Economic Policy
                                       and Trade.).
    104-65                            Oversight Hearing   February 1, 1996
                                       on the Public
                                       Utility
                                       Regulatory
                                       Policies Act and
                                       Its Role in
                                       Increasingly
                                       Competitive
                                       Electricity
                                       Markets.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-66                            Authorization of    February 28, 1996
                                       the Uranium Mill
                                       Tailings
                                       Radiation Control
                                       Act. H.R. 2967.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-67                            Oversight Hearing   December 6, 1995
                                       on the Pacific
                                       Northwest Power
                                       System.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-68                            Research Efforts    July 21, 1995
                                       with Respect to
                                       Combating
                                       Parkinson's
                                       Disease and Other
                                       Neurological
                                       Disorders.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-69                            Clean Air Act       January 25, 1996
                                       Amendments of
                                       1990 and the
                                       Impact of the
                                       Seventh Meeting
                                       of the Parties to
                                       the Montreal
                                       Protocol.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-70                            The Federal Energy  November 2, 1995
                                       Regulatory
                                       Commission's
                                       Proposed Rules
                                       Affecting the
                                       Electricity
                                       Industry.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-71                            Standards for       July 27, 1995
                                       Health Plans
                                       Providing
                                       Coverage in the
                                       Medicare Program.
                                       (Joint Hearing
                                       with the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment and
                                       the Committee on
                                       Ways and Means
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Health.).
    104-72                            The Future of the   June 28, 1995,
                                       Medicare Program.    July 12, 1995,
                                       (Subcommittee on     July 18, 1995,
                                       Health and           August 3, 1995
                                       Environment.).
    104-73                            Department of       January 4, 1996,
                                       Energy: Travel       March 8, 1996
                                       Expenditures and
                                       Related Issues.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-74                            Rechargeable        March 21, 1996
                                       Battery Act. H.R.
                                       2024 and S. 619.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-75                            Federal Management  March 21, 1996
                                       of the Radio
                                       Spectrum:
                                       Advanced
                                       Television
                                       Services.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-76                            Food Quality        June 7, 1995,
                                       Protection Act of    June 29, 1995
                                       1995. H.R. 1627.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-77                            The Need for FDA    February 27, 1996
                                       Reform.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-78                            Department of       March 27, 1996
                                       Energy: Furloughs
                                       and Financial
                                       Management.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-79                            Health Care         March 7, 1996
                                       Reform: Reforming
                                       the Small
                                       Business
                                       Marketplace and
                                       the Individual
                                       Health Insurance
                                       Market.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-80                            Department of       April 24, 1996
                                       Energy: Travel
                                       Expenditures and
                                       Related Issues
                                       (Part 2).
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-81                            Armored Car         May 22, 1996
                                       Industry
                                       Reciprocity
                                       Improvement Act
                                       of 1996. H.R.
                                       3431.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-82                            Reform of the       March 27, 1996,
                                       Federal              March 28, 1996
                                       Communications
                                       Commission.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-83                            The Federal         May 30, 1996
                                       Government's Role
                                       in Promoting
                                       Natural Gas
                                       Vehicles.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-84                            Oversight Hearing   June 27, 1996
                                       on the One-Call
                                       Notification
                                       Program.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-85                            Department of       March 22, 1996
                                       Energy's Proposed
                                       Budget for Fiscal
                                       Year 1997.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-86                            Federal Trade       July 11, 1996
                                       Commission
                                       Reauthorization
                                       Act of 1996 and
                                       Made in America
                                       Toll-Free Number.
                                       H.R. 3553 and
                                       H.R. 447.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-87                            Reauthorization of  March 29, 1996
                                       the Consumer
                                       Product Safety
                                       Commission.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-88                            Oversight Hearing   June 18, 1996
                                       on the Pacific
                                       Northwest Power
                                       System.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-89                            Future of           May 9, 1996
                                       International
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s Trade Issues.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-90                            The Future of the   May 8, 1996
                                       Strategic
                                       Petroleum
                                       Reserve.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-91                            Electricity: State  February 27, 1996
                                       of the States.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-92                            Federal Energy      May 1, 1996
                                       Regulatory
                                       Commission's
                                       Final Rule on
                                       Open Access
                                       Transmission and
                                       the Future of
                                       Electric Utility
                                       Regulation.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-93                            FDA Integrity       July 31, 1966
                                       Issues.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-94                            Technological,      March 28, 1996
                                       Environmental and
                                       Financial Issues
                                       Raised by
                                       Increasingly
                                       Competitive
                                       Electricity
                                       Markets.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-95                            Electricity         May 15, 1996
                                       Regulation: A
                                       Vision for the
                                       Future.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-96                            Progress of the     June 12, 1996
                                       Department of
                                       Energy's
                                       Strategic
                                       Alignment and
                                       Downsizing
                                       Initiative.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-97                            Department of       June 12, 1996,
                                       Energy: Travel       June 13, 1996
                                       Expenditures and
                                       Related Issues
                                       (Part 3).
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-98                            Implementation of   July 18, 1996
                                       the
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s Act of 1996.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-99                            FDA Reform          May 1, 1996,
                                       Legislation. H.R.    May 2, 1996
                                       3199, H.R. 3200
                                       and H.R. 3201.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-100                           The Professional    June 11, 1996
                                       Boxing Safety
                                       Act. H.R. 1186
                                       and S. 187.
                                       (Joint Hearing
                                       held by the
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials and the
                                       Committee on
                                       Economic and
                                       Educational
                                       Opportunities
                                       Subcommittee on
                                       Workforce
                                       Protections.).
    104-101                           Amendments to the   July 26, 1996
                                       Leaking
                                       Underground
                                       Storage Tank
                                       Program. H.R.
                                       3391.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-102                           The Personal        June 11, 1996
                                       Responsibility
                                       and Work
                                       Opportunity Act
                                       of 1996. H.R.
                                       3507. (Full
                                       Committee.).
    104-103                           The Unanimous       February 21, 1996,
                                       Bipartisan           March 6, 1996
                                       National
                                       Governors
                                       Association
                                       Agreement on
                                       Medicaid. (Full
                                       Committee.).
    104-104                           Fan Freedom and     May 16, 1996
                                       Community
                                       Protection Act of
                                       1995. H.R. 2740.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-105                           Environmental       September 13, 1996
                                       Compliance
                                       Problems Facing
                                       Dry Cleaners.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-106                           Transformation of   June 8, 1995,
                                       the Medicaid         June 15, 1995
                                       Program--Part 1.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-107                           Transformation of   June 21, 1995,
                                       the Medicaid         June 22, 1995
                                       Program--Part 2.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.
    104-108                           Transformation of   July 26, 1995,
                                       the Medicaid         August 1, 1995
                                       Program--Part 3.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.
    104-109                           Federal Barriers    September 16, 1996
                                       to Environmental
                                       Cleanups.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-110                           Contract Issues     May 30, 1996
                                       and Quality
                                       Standards for
                                       Managed Care.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-111                           Restructuring of    September 25, 1996
                                       International
                                       Satellite
                                       Organizations.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Telecommunication
                                       s and Finance.).
    104-112                           The National Motor  September 12, 1996
                                       Vehicle Safety,
                                       Anti-Theft, Title
                                       Reform and
                                       Consumer
                                       Protection Act of
                                       1995. H.R. 2900.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Commerce, Trade,
                                       and Hazardous
                                       Materials.).
    104-113                           Perspectives on     September 19, 1996
                                       Pharmaceutical
                                       Pricing
                                       Practices.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-114                           Oversight Hearing   September 5, 1996
                                       on the Nuclear
                                       Regulatory
                                       Commission.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-115                           The Uniformed       September 19, 1996
                                       Services Medicare
                                       Subvention
                                       Demonstration
                                       Project Act. H.R.
                                       3412.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-116                           Reauthorization of  August 1, 1996
                                       Existing Public
                                       Health Service
                                       Act Programs.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Health and
                                       Environment.).
    104-117                           Consumer Access to  September 26, 1996
                                       Home Testing
                                       Services and
                                       Devices.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Oversight and
                                       Investigations.).
    104-118                           Federal Energy      July 25, 1996
                                       Efficiency
                                       Standards for
                                       Consumer
                                       Products.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    104-119                           Status of the       June 19, 1996,
                                       International        September 26,
                                       Global Climate      1996
                                       Change
                                       Negotiations.
                                       (Subcommittee on
                                       Energy and
                                       Power.).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     part b

                                Committee Prints
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Serial No.                              Title
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    104-A                                     Compilation of Selected Acts
                                               Within the Jurisdiction of
                                               the Committee on Commerce--
                                               Consumer Protection Law.
                                               (Full Committee.)
    104-B                                     Compilation of Selected Acts
                                               Within the Jurisdiction of
                                               the Committee on Commerce--
                                               Food, Drug, and Related Law.
                                               (Full Committee.)
    104-C                                     Compilation of Selected Acts
                                               Within the Jurisdiction of
                                               the Committee on Commerce--
                                               Communications Law. (Full
                                               Committee.)
    104-D                                     Compilation of Securities Laws
                                               Within the Jurisdiction of
                                               the Committee on Commerce.
                                               (Full Committee.)
    104-E                                     Compilation of Selected Acts
                                               Within the Jurisdiction of
                                               the Committee on Commerce--
                                               Health Law. (Full Committee.)
    104-F                                     Compilation of Selected Acts
                                               Within the Jurisdiction of
                                               the Committee on Commerce--
                                               Environmental Law. (Full
                                               Committee.)
    104-G                                     Compilation of Selected Energy
                                               Related Legislation--
                                               Electricity. (Full
                                               Committee.)
    104-L                                     Communications Act of 1934, As
                                               Amended by the
                                               Telecommunications Act of
                                               1996. (Full Committee.)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------