House Report 104-882 - REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE FOR THE 104th CONG.

[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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Summary

(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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Summary

(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)

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

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

national defense authorization act for fiscal year 1996

(H.R. 1530, S. 1026)

(Health Related Provisions)

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

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)

Summary

Legislative History

job creation and wage enhancement act of 1995

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

Summary

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

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)

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)

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)

Summary

(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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Summary

Legislative History

job creation and wage enhancement act of 1995

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

Summary

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

reauthorization of existing public health service act programs

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------