[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.)      
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                
