[House Report 106-1047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 609
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-1047
_______________________________________________________________________
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
January 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006 WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
One Hundred Sixth Congress
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2001.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl
Clerk,
House of Representatives
H-154 The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Trandahl: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith a
report on the activity of the Committee on Commerce for the
106th Congress, including the Committee's review and study of
legislation within its jurisdiction and the oversight
activities undertaken by the Committee.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley, Chairman,
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Jurisdiction................................................. 1
Rules for the Committee...................................... 2
Members and Organization..................................... 20
Legislative and Oversight Activity........................... 27
Full Committee............................................... 29
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection................................................. 35
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.............. 95
Subcommittee on Health and Environment....................... 121
Subcommittee on Energy and Power............................. 169
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations................. 205
Oversight Plan for the 106th Congress........................ 281
Appendix I--Legislative Summary.............................. 351
Appendix II--Public Laws..................................... 353
Appendix III--Publications of the Committee.................. 355
Union Calendar No. 609
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-1047
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE FOR THE 106TH
CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 2001.--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 jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce, as
prescribed by Clause 1(f) of Rule X of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, is as follows:
(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) 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) Conservation of energy resources.
(8) Energy information generally.
(9) The generation and marketing of power (except by federally
chartered or Federal regional power marketing
authorities); reliability and interstate transmission
of, and ratemaking for, all power; siting of generation
facilities (except the installation of interconnections
between Government waterpower projects).
(10) 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, clause 3(c) of Rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives provides that the Committee on
Commerce shall review and study on a continuing basis laws,
programs, and Government activities relating to nuclear and
other energy research and development including the disposal of
nuclear waste.
Rules for the Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives,
106th 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, is nondebatable
and privileged 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) 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.
(c) Vice Chairmen; 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. Except as provided by the
Rules of the House, 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.
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 at least 36 hours in advance of
such meeting.
Rule 4. Procedure.
(a)(1) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter
of any hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees
shall be announced at least one week in advance of the
commencement of such hearing, unless the Committee or
subcommittee determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of
Rule XI of the Rules of the House that there is good cause to
begin the hearing sooner.
(2)(A) Meetings. 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 except when the House is in session
on such days) in advance of the commencement of such meeting.
(B) Other Meetings. 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)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to
appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with
the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in
advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as
determined by the chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee,
of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to
provide to members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee,
the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to
the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such
written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the
chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation
to a brief summary of the argument. The chairman of the
Committee or of a subcommittee, or the presiding member, may
waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof.
(2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest
extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness
appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a
curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by
agency and program) of any federal grant (or subgrant thereof)
or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the
current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years
by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness.
(c) Questioning Witnesses. 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) Explanation of Subcommittee Action. 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. Opening statements by members at
the beginning of any hearing or markup 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. A majority of the
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the
purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a
subpoena, or of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause
2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided
in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)). For the purposes of taking any
action other than those specified in the preceding sentence,
one-third of the members of the Committee or subcommittee shall
constitute a quorum.
Rule 7. Official Committee Records.
(a)(1) Journal. 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 vote
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.
(2) Record Votes. 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 record vote 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
record 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 VII 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 8. 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 9. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees.
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive testimony, markup 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
whenever possible.
Rule 10. Reference of Legislation and Other Matters.
All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee
shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate
jurisdiction within two weeks of the date of receipt by the
Committee unless action is taken by the full committee within
those two weeks, or by majority vote of the members of the
Committee, 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 subcommittee having legislative or
oversight jurisdiction.
Rule 11. 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 12. Subcommittee Membership.
(a) Selection of Subcommittee Members. Prior to any
organizational meeting held by the Committee, the majority and
minority caucuses shall select their respective members of the
standing subcommittees.
(b) Ex Officio Members. 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 and may be counted for purposes of establishing a
quorum in such subcommittees.
Rule 13. Managing Legislation on the House Floor.
The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which
member shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to
the House.
Rule 14. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff Appointments.
(a) Delegation of Staff. Whenever the chairman of the
Committee determines that any professional staff member
appointed pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X 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 subcommittee chairmen and with the
approval of the subcommittee chairman or chairmen involved.
(b) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members
appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of
Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority
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) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the
professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X 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) Sufficient Staff. 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) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of
Committee Staff. The chairman shall ensure that the minority
members of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of
Committee staff.
(f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services. Any
contract for the temporary services or intermittent service 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 15. Supervision, Duties of Staff.
(a) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and
clerical staff of the Committee not assigned 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) Supervision of Minority Staff. 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 16. Committee Budget.
(a) Preparation of Committee Budget. The chairman of the
Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member
of the Committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall
for the 106th 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) Approval of the Committee Budget. 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 Committee on
House Administration 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) Monthly Expenditures Report. Committee members shall be
furnished a copy of each monthly report, prepared by the
chairman for the Committee on House Administration, 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 17. 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 clause 4 of Rule XI
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 such member in accordance with the Rules of the
House.
Rule 18. 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 19. Subpoenas.
The Committee, or any subcommittee, may authorize and issue
a subpoena under clause 2(m)(2)(A) of Rule XI of the House, if
authorized by a majority of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee (as the case may be) voting, a quorum being
present. Authorized subpoenas may be issued over the signature
of the chairman of the Committee or any member designated by
the Committee, and may be served by any person designated by
such chairman or member. 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. 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 one week after service
of such subpoena.
Rule 20. Travel of Members and Staff.
(a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense
resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have
been approved, 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) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In the
case of travel by minority party members and minority party
professional staff for the purpose set out in (a), the prior
approval, not only of the chairman but also of the ranking
minority member, shall be required. Such prior authorization
shall be given by the chairman only upon the representation by
the ranking minority member in writing setting forth those
items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (a).
Clauses 2 and 4 of Rule XI and Clauses 2 and 3 of Rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives for the 106th Congress
January 6, 1999
RULE XI: PROCEDURES OF COMMITTEES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Clause 2: Committee Rules
Adoption of written rules
2. (a)(1) Each standing committee shall adopt written rules
governing its procedure. Such rules--
(A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the
public unless the committee, in open session and with a
quorum present, determines by record vote that all or
part of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the
public;
(B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the
House or with those provisions of law having the force
and effect of Rules of the House; and
(C) shall in any event incorporate all of the
succeeding provisions of this clause to the extent
applicable.
(2) Each committee shall submit its rules for publication
in the Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the
committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
Regular meeting days
(b) Each standing committee shall establish regular
meeting days for the conduct of its business, which shall be
not less frequent than monthly. Each such committee shall meet
for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before
the committee or the transaction of other committee business on
all regular meeting days fixed by the committee unless
otherwise provided by written rule adopted by the committee.
Additional and special meetings
(c)(1) The chairman of each standing committee may call
and convene, as he considers necessary, additional and special
meetings of the committee for the consideration of a bill or
resolution pending before the committee or for the conduct of
other committee business, subject to such rules as the
committee may adopt. The committee shall meet for such purpose
under that call of the chairman.
(2) Three or more members of a standing committee may file
in the offices of the committee a written request that the
chairman call a special meeting of the committee. 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 of the filing of the
request. If the chairman does not call the requested special
meeting within three calendar days after the filing of the
request (to be held within seven calendar days after the filing
of the request) a majority of the members of the committee may
file in the offices of the committee their written notice that
a special meeting of the committee will be held. The written
notice shall specify the date and hour of the special meeting
and the measure or matter to be considered. The committee 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 that such special meeting will be held and inform
them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be
considered. Only the measure or matter specified in that notice
may be considered at that special meeting.
Temporary absence of chairman
(d) A member of the majority party on each standing
committee or subcommittee thereof shall be designated by the
chairman of the full committee as the vice chairman of the
committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, and shall
preside during the absence of the chairman from any meeting. If
the chairman and vice chairman of a committee or subcommittee
are not present at any meeting of the committee or
subcommittee, the ranking majority member who is present shall
preside at that meeting.
Committee records
(e)(1)(A) Each committee shall keep a complete record of
all committee action which shall include--
(i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript,
a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually
made during the proceedings, subject only to technical,
grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized
by the person making the remarks involved; and
(ii) a record of the votes on any question on which
a record vote is demanded.
(B)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (B)(ii) and
subject to paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such record
vote shall be made available by the committee for inspection by
the public at reasonable times in its offices. Information so
available for public inspection shall include a description of
the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the name of
each member voting for and each member voting against such
amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of
those members of the committee present but not voting.
(ii) The result of any record vote taken in executive
session in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may
not be made available for inspection by the public without an
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), all committee
hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept
separate and distinct from the congressional office records of
the member serving as its chairman. Such records shall be the
property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the
Resident Commissioner shall have access thereto.
(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other
than members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
may not have access to the records of that committee respecting
the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner,
officer, or employee of the House without the specific prior
permission of that committee.
(3) Each committee shall include in its rules standards for
availability of records of the committee delivered to the
Archivist of the United States under rule VII. Such standards
shall specify procedures for orders of the committee under
clause 3(b)(3) and clause 4(b) of rule VII, including a
requirement that nonavailability of a record for a period
longer than the period otherwise applicable under that rule
shall be approved by vote of the committee.
(4) Each committee shall make its publications available in
electronic form to the maximum extent feasible.
Prohibition against proxy voting
(f) A vote by a member of a committee or subcommittee with
respect to any measure or matter may not be cast by proxy.
Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business,
including the markup of legislation, by a standing committee or
subcommittee thereof (other than the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct or its subcommittee) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography
coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open
session and with a majority present, determines by record vote
that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day
shall be in executive session because disclosure of matters to
be considered would endanger national security, would
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would
violate a law or rule of the House. Persons, other than members
of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates,
Resident Commissioner, congressional staff, or departmental
representatives as the committee may authorize, may not be
present at a business or markup session that is held in
executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to open
committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of
rule X or by subparagraph (2).
(2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or
subcommittee (other than the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct or its subcommittees) shall be open to the public,
including to radio, television, and still photography coverage,
except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and
with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or
part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be
closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence,
or other matters to be considered would endanger national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate a law or rule of the House.
(B) Notwithstanding the requirements of subdivision (A), in
the presence of the number of members required under the rules
of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, a
majority of those present may--
(i) agree to close the hearing for the sole purpose
of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be
received would endanger national security, would
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or
would violate clause 2(k)(5); or
(ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in clause
2(k)(5).
(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be
excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at a hearing of a
committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct or its subcommittees) unless the
House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee or
subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings
on a particular article of legislation or on a particular
subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same procedures
specified in this subparagraph for closing hearings to the
public.
(D) The committee or subcommittee may vote by the same
procedure described in this subparagraph to close one
subsequent day of hearing, except that the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
subcommittees thereof, may vote by the same procedure to close
up to five additional, consecutive days of hearings.
(3) The chairman of each committee (other than the
Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the date,
place, and subject matter of a committee hearing at least one
week before the commencement of the hearing. If the chairman of
the committee, with the concurrence of the ranking minority
member, determines that there is good cause to begin a hearing
sooner, or if the committee so determines by majority vote in
the presence of the number of members required under the rules
of the committee for the transaction of business, the chairman
shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. An
announcement made under this subparagraph shall be published
promptly in the Daily Digest and made available in electronic
form.
(4) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent
practicable, require witnesses who appear before it to submit
in advance written statements of proposed testimony and to
limit their initial presentations to the committee to brief
summaries thereof. In the case of a witness appearing in a
nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed
testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of
the amount and source (by agency and program) of each Federal
grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract
thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of
the two previous fiscal years by the witness or by an entity
represented by the witness.
(5)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a point of
order does not lie with respect to a measure reported by a
committee on the ground that hearings on such measure were not
conducted in accordance with this clause.
(B) A point of order on the ground described in subdivision
(A) may be made by a member of the committee that reported the
measure if such point of order was timely made and improperly
disposed of in the committee.
(6) This paragraph does not apply to hearings of the
Committee on Appropriations under clause 4(a)(1) of rule X.
Quorum requirements
(h)(1) A measure or recommendation may not be reported by a
committee unless a majority of the committee is actually
present.
(2) Each committee may fix the number of its members to
constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving
evidence, which may not be less than two.
(3) Each committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee
on Ways and Means) may fix the number of its members to
constitute a quorum for taking any action other than the
reporting of a measure or recommendation, which may not be less
than one-third of the members.
Limitation on committee sittings
(i) A committee may not sit during a joint session of the
House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of the
House and Senate is in progress.
Calling and questioning of witnesses
(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a
measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall
be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them
before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses
selected by the minority to testify with respect to that
measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee
shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of
witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the
committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question
each witness.
(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a
specified number of its members to question a witness for
longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of
a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the
majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one
hour in the aggregate.
(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting
committee staff for its majority and minority party members to
question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for
extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall
be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may
not exceed one hour in the aggregate.
Investigative hearing procedures
(k)(1) The chairman at an investigative hearing shall
announce in an opening statement the subject of the
investigation.
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall
be made available to each witness.
(3) Witnesses at investigative hearings may be accompanied
by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them
concerning their constitutional rights.
(4) The chairman may punish breaches of order and decorum,
and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure
and exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite the
offender to the House for contempt.
(5) Whenever it is asserted that the evidence or testimony
at an investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person--
(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony
or evidence shall be presented in executive session if,
in the presence of the number of members required under
the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking
testimony, the committee determines by vote of a
majority of those present that such evidence or
testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person; and
(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such
testimony in open session only if the committee, a
majority being present, determines that such evidence
or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person.
In either case the committee shall afford such person an
opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive and
dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional
witnesses.
(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chairman
shall receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to
subpoena additional witnesses.
(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and
proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or
used in public sessions only when authorized by the committee,
a majority being present.
(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may
submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for
inclusion in the record. The committee is the sole judge of the
pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.
(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of his testimony
given at a public session or, if given at an executive session,
when authorized by the committee.
Supplemental, minority, or additional views
(l) If at the time of approval of a measure or matter by a
committee (other than the Committee on Rules) a member of the
committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental,
minority, or additional views for inclusion in the report to
the House thereon, that member shall be entitled to not less
than two additional calendar days after the day of such notice
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) to file such views, in
writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the
committee.
Power to sit and act; subpoena power
(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters
referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or
subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (2)(A))--
(A) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings
as it considers necessary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers
necessary.
(2) The chairman of the committee, or a member designated
by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses.
(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a
subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an
investigation or series of investigations or activities only
when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority
being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under
subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chairman of the
committee under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed
by the chairman of the committee or by a member designated by
the committee.
(ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on
Standards of Official Conduct, a subpoena may be authorized and
issued only by an affirmative vote of a majority of its
members.
(B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return
other than at a meeting or hearing of the committee or
subcommittee authorizing the subpoena.
(C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as
authorized or directed by the House.
* * * * *
Clause 4: Audio and visual coverage of committee proceedings
4. (a) The purpose of this clause is to provide a means, in
conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and
decorum, by which committee hearings or committee meetings that
are open to the public may be covered by audio and visual
means--
(1) for the education, enlightenment, and information
of the general public, on the basis of accurate and
impartial news coverage, regarding the operations,
procedures, and practices of the House as a legislative
and representative body, and regarding the measures,
public issues, and other matters before the House and
its committees, the consideration thereof, and the
action taken thereon; and
(2) for the development of the perspective and
understanding of the general public with respect to the
role and function of the House under the Constitution
as an institution of the Federal Government.
(b) In addition, it is the intent of this clause that
radio and television tapes and television film of any coverage
under this clause may not be used, or made available for use,
as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose
the candidacy of any person for elective public office.
(c) It is, further, the intent of this clause that the
general conduct of each meeting (whether of a hearing or
otherwise) covered under authority of this clause by audio or
visual means, and the personal behavior of the committee
members and staff, other Government officials and personnel,
witnesses, television, radio, and press media personnel, and
the general public at the hearing or other meeting, shall be in
strict conformity with and observance of the acceptable
standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum
traditionally observed by the House in its operations, and may
not be such as to--
(1) distort the objects and purposes of the hearing
or other meeting or the activities of committee members
in connection with that hearing or meeting or in
connection with the general work of the committee or of
the House; or
(2) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the
committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner or bring the House, the committee, or a
Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into
disrepute.
(d) The coverage of committee hearings and meetings by
audio and visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in
strict conformity with the purposes, provisions, and
requirements of this clause.
(e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee
or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall
be open to coverage by audio and visual means. A committee or
subcommittee chairman may not limit the number of television or
still cameras to fewer than two representatives from each
medium (except for legitimate space or safety considerations,
in which case pool coverage shall be authorized).
(f) Each committee shall adopt written rules to govern its
implementation of this clause. Such rules shall contain
provisions to the following effect:
(1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or meeting
is to be presented to the public as live coverage, that
coverage shall be conducted and presented without commercial
sponsorship.
(2) The allocation among the television media of the
positions or the number of television cameras permitted by a
committee or subcommittee chairman in a hearing or meeting room
shall be in accordance with fair and equitable procedures
devised by the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television
Correspondents' Galleries.
(3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to
obstruct in any way the space between a witness giving evidence
or testimony and any member of the committee or the visibility
of that witness and that member to each other.
(4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions
but may not be placed in positions that obstruct unnecessarily
the coverage of the hearing or meeting by the other media.
(5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and
radio media may not be installed in, or removed from, the
hearing or meeting room while the committee is in session.
(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights,
spotlights, strobelights, and flashguns may not be used in
providing any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting.
(B) The television media may install additional lighting in
a hearing or meeting room, without cost to the Government, in
order to raise the ambient lighting level in a hearing or
meeting room to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate
television coverage of a hearing or meeting at the current
state of the art of television coverage.
(7) In the allocation of the number of still photographers
permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman in a hearing
or meeting room, preference shall be given to photographers
from Associated Press Photos and United Press International
Newspictures. If requests are made by more of the media than
will be permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman for
coverage of a hearing or meeting by still photography, that
coverage shall be permitted on the basis of a fair and
equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of
Press Photographers.
(8) Photographers may not position themselves between the
witness table and the members of the committee at any time
during the course of a hearing or meeting.
(9) Photographers may not place themselves in positions
that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the
other media.
(10) Personnel providing coverage by the television and
radio media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and
Television Correspondents' Galleries.
(11) Personnel providing coverage by still photography
shall be currently accredited to the Press Photographers'
Gallery.
(12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and
radio media and by still photography shall conduct themselves
and their coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive
manner.
* * * * *
RULE XIII: CALENDARS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Clause 2: Filing and printing of reports
2. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), all
reports of committees (other than those filed from the floor as
privileged) shall be delivered to the Clerk for printing and
reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the
Speaker in accordance with clause 1. The title or subject of
each report shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the
Congressional Record.
(2) A bill or resolution reported adversely shall be laid
on the table unless a committee to which the bill or resolution
was referred requests at the time of the report its referral to
an appropriate calendar under clause 1 or unless, within three
days thereafter, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
makes such a request.
(b)(1) It shall be the duty of the chairman of each
committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the
House a measure or matter approved by the committee and to take
or cause to be taken steps necessary to bring the measure or
matter to a vote.
(2) In any event, the report of a committee on a measure
that has been approved by the committee shall be filed within
seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is
not in session) after the day on which a written request for
the filing of the report, signed by a majority of the members
of the committee, has been filed with the clerk of the
committee. The clerk of the committee shall immediately notify
the chairman of the filing of such a request. This subparagraph
does not apply to a report of the Committee on Rules with
respect to a rule, joint rule, or order of business of the
House, or to the reporting of a resolution of inquiry addressed
to the head of an executive department.
(c) All supplemental, minority, or additional views filed
under clause 2(l) of rule XI by one or more members of a
committee shall be included in, and shall be a part of, the
report filed by the committee with respect to a measure or
matter. When time guaranteed by clause 2(l) of rule XI has
expired (or, if sooner, when all separate views have been
received), the committee may arrange to file its report with
the Clerk not later than one hour after the expiration of such
time. This clause and provisions of clause 2(l) of rule XI do
not preclude the immediate filing or printing of a committee
report in the absence of a timely request for the opportunity
to file supplemental, minority, or additional views as provided
in clause 2(l) of rule XI.
Clause 3: Content of reports
3. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the
report of a committee on a measure or matter shall be printed
in a single volume that--
(A) shall include all supplemental, minority, or
additional views that have been submitted by the time
of the filing of the report; and
(B) shall bear on its cover a recital that any such
supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any
material submitted under paragraph (c)(3) or (4)) are
included as part of the report.
(2) A committee may file a supplemental report for the
correction of a technical error in its previous report on a
measure or matter.
(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report
a measure or matter of a public nature, and on any amendment
offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes
cast for and against, and the names of members voting for and
against, shall be included in the committee report. The
preceding sentence does not apply to votes taken in executive
session by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
(c) The report of a committee on a measure that has been
approved by the committee shall include, separately set out and
clearly identified, the following:
(1) Oversight findings and recommendations under
clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
(2) The statement required by section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except that an
estimate of new budget authority shall include, when
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated
funding level for the relevant programs to the
appropriate levels under current law.
(3) An estimate and comparison prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office under
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if
timely submitted to the committee before the filing of
the report.
(4) A summary of oversight findings and
recommendations by the Committee on Government Reform
under clause 4(c)(2) of rule X if such findings and
recommendations have been submitted to the reporting
committee in time to allow it to consider such findings
and recommendations during its deliberations on the
measure.
(d) Each report of a committee on a public bill or public
joint resolution shall contain the following:
(1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
(2)(A) An estimate by the committee of the costs that
would be incurred in carrying out the bill or joint
resolution in the fiscal year in which it is reported
and in each of the five fiscal years following that
fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of any
program authorized by the bill or joint resolution if
less than five years);
(B) A comparison of the estimate of costs described
in subdivision (A) made by the committee with any
estimate of such costs made by a Government agency and
submitted to such committee; and
(C) When practicable, a comparison of the total
estimated funding level for the relevant programs with
the appropriate levels under current law.
(3)(A) In subparagraph (2) the term `Government
agency' includes any department, agency, establishment,
wholly owned Government corporation, or instrumentality
of the Federal Government or the government of the
District of Columbia.
(B) Subparagraph (2) does not apply to the Committee
on Appropriations, the Committee on House
Administration, the Committee on Rules, or the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and does
not apply when a cost estimate and comparison prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been included in the report under paragraph
(c)(3).
(e)(1) Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint
resolution proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part
thereof, it shall include in its report or in an accompanying
document--
(A) the text of a statute or part thereof that is
proposed to be repealed; and
(B) a comparative print of any part of the bill or
joint resolution proposing to amend the statute and of
the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended,
showing by appropriate typographical devices the
omissions and insertions proposed.
(2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution
proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof with a
recommendation that the bill or joint resolution be amended,
the comparative print required by subparagraph (1) shall
reflect the changes in existing law proposed to be made by the
bill or joint resolution as proposed to be amended.
MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
(Ratio: 29-24)
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(Ratio: 16-13)
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, 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; interstate
and foreign commerce, including trade matters within the jurisdiction
of the full committee, regulation of commercial practices (the FTC);
consumer affairs and consumer protection in general; consumer product
safety (the CPSC); product liability; and motor vehicle safety.
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials
(Ratio: 16-13)
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BART STUPAK, Michigan
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
GREG GANSKE, Iowa LOIS CAPPS, California
RICK LAZIO, New York EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
VITO FOSSELLA, New York JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri (Ex Officio)
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Securities, exchanges, and finance; solid waste,
hazardous waste and toxic substances, including Superfund and RCRA
(excluding mining, oil, gas, and coal combustion wastes); noise
pollution control; insurance, except health insurance; and regulation
of travel, tourism, and time.
Subcommittee on Health and Environment
(Ratio: 17-14)
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, (Ex Officio)
Mississippi
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
TOM BLILEY, 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; food and
drugs; drug abuse; and Clean Air Act and environmental protection in
general, including the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
(Ratio: 17-14)
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas \1\
Vice Chairman KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma TOM SAWYER, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma BART GORDON, Tennessee
JAMES E. ROGAN, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy,
renewable energy resources, and synthetic fuels; energy conservation;
energy information; energy regulation and utilization; utility issues
and regulation of nuclear facilities; interstate energy compacts;
nuclear energy and waste; mining, oil, gas, and coal combustion wastes;
and all laws, programs, and government activities affecting such
matters.
\1\ Mr. Hall served as the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Power during the first session of the 106th Congress.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(Ratio: 10-8)
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER COX, California HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ED BRYANT, Tennessee (Ex Officio)
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments,
and programs within the jurisdiction of the full committee, and for
conducting investigations within such jurisdiction.
Committee Staff
James E. Derderian, Chief of Staff
Curry Ann Hagerty, Deputy Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Mark A. Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations
Stephen Schmidt, Director of Communications
Hugh Nathanial Halpern, Parliamentarian
Karine Alemian, Professional Staff Member
Jason R. Bentley, Counsel
Ramsen Vincent Betfarhad, Counsel, Economic Advisor
Linda Bloss-Baum, Counsel
Marie Burns, Administrative Coordinator
William Carty, Staff Assistant
Dwight Cates, Investigator
David L. Cavicke, Counsel
Yong Choe, Legislative Clerk
Charles M. Clapton, Counsel
John Clocker, Systems Administrator
Kevin V. Cook, Counsel
Julie Corcoran, Counsel
Brent A. Del Monte, Counsel
Thomas DiLenge, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations
A. Elizabeth Eichberger, Legislative Clerk
Miriam Swydan Erickson, Counsel
Janice O. Faiks, Counsel
Carrie Gavora, Professional Staff Member
Thomas Giles, Counsel
Kristi Gillis, Legislative Clerk
Gabriele A. Glynn, Human Resources Director
Mary Ann Martinez Gomez, Assistant to the Administrative Coordinator
Robert Gordon, Counsel
Joseph Greenman, Legislative Analyst
Anthony B. Habib, Legislative Clerk
Carolyn Hern, Staff Assistant
Nandan Kenkeremath, Senior Counsel
Peter E. Kielty, Legislative Clerk
Brian Mccullough, Professional Staff Member
Robert J. Meyers, Counsel
Patrick Morrisey, Counsel
Michael O'Rielly, Professional Staff Member
Joseph P. Patterson, Jr., Printer
Clifford M. Riccio, Jr., Legislative Analyst
Linda Dallas Rich, Counsel
Amit Sachdev, Environmental Counsel
Paul G. Scolese, Professional Staff Member
Peter V. Sheffield, Deputy Director of Communnications
Jerome Sikorski, Archivist
Robert E. Simison, Legislative Clerk
Alan Michael Slobodin, Senior Oversight Counsel
Joseph C. Stanko, Jr., Counsel
Destiny S. Stone, Staff Assistant
Anthony M. Sullivan, Comptroller
Charles Symington, Counsel
Jonathan Tripp, Deputy Communications Director
David A. Umphlett, Staff Assistant
Catherine Van Way, Counsel
Shannon Vildostegui, Professional Staff Member
Ann Washington, Professional Staff Member
Mark Joseph Washko, Counsel for Special Projects
John Marc Wheat, Counsel
Brendan E. Williams, Staff Assistant
Kelly Zerzan, Counsel
Minority Staff
Reid P. F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David R. Schooler, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Minority Clerk
Candace E. Butler, Assistant Minority Clerk / LAN Administrator
Amy Droskoski, Minority Professional Staff Member
John P. Ford, Minority Counsel
Richard A. Frandsen, Minority Counsel
M. Bruce Gwinn, Minority Professional Staff Member
Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel
Carla R.V. Hultberg, Minority Senior Secretary / Assistant LAN
Administrator
Courtney L. Johnson, Minority Staff Assistant
Brendan C. Kelsay, Minority Research Assistant
Nicole B. Kenner, Minority Staff Assistant
Raymond R. Kent, Jr., Minority Finance Assistant
Rick Kessler, Minority Professional Staff Member
Christopher Knauer, Minority Investigator
Andrew W. Levin, Minority Counsel
D. Elaine Sheets, Minority Senior Secretary
Sue D. Sheridan, Minority Counsel
Alison L. Taylor, Minority Counsel
Bridgett E. Taylor, Minority Professional Staff Member
Consuela M. Washington, Minority Counsel
Legislative and Oversight Activity of the Committee
During the 106th Congress, 1,198 bills and resolutions were
referred to the Committee on Commerce. The Full Committee
reported 58 measures to the House (not including conference
reports). Fifty measures regarding issues within the
Committee's jurisdiction were enacted into law. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A number of these measures were enacted by reference as part of
other legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In areas as diverse as health, telecommunications,
securities, and the environment, the Committee made great
strides toward the goal of creating a more effective, less
expensive, and more accountable government that better serves
all Americans.
The following is a summary of the legislative and oversight
activities of the Committee on Commerce during the 106th
Congress, including a summary of the activities taken by the
Committee to implement its Oversight Plan for the 106th
Congress.
Committee on Commerce
FULL COMMITTEE
(Ratio: 29-24)
TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona LOIS CAPPS, California
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
Legislative Activities
THE MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND SCHIP BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION
ACT OF 2000
Public Law 106-554 (H.R. 4577, H.R. 2614, H.R. 5543, H.R. 5291)
To amend the Social Security Act to provide benefits
improvements and beneficiary protections in the Medicare and
Medicaid programs and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program.
Summary
H.R. 5543 improves and protects patient access to Federal
health care programs. The legislation restores more than $30
billion over five years to Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP. The
savings achieved through changes to the Medicare and Medicaid
programs enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
were integral to balancing the budget. However, since passage
of that legislation, the Congressional Budget Office has
estimated that the savings from the Medicare and Medicaid
programs has exceeded the original targets, and there is
concern that beneficiaries in these programs may experience
difficulty in accessing health services. This legislation seeks
to address many of these access concerns.
Most notably, the legislation improves and expands the
preventive benefits Medicare will pay for, including coverage
of colonoscopies for average risk individuals and medical
nutrition therapy services for beneficiaries with diabetes or a
renal disease. In addition, this legislation preserves coverage
of drugs and biologicals under Medicare Part B and removes the
36 month time limitation on coverage of immunosuppressive drugs
and waives the 24-month waiting period (otherwise required for
an individual to establish Medicare eligibility on the basis of
a disability) for persons medically determined to have
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
Legislative History
On September 26, 2000, the Full Committee met in open
markup session to consider a committee print entitled the
``Beneficiary Improvement and Protection Act of 2000,'' which
was introduced later that day by Mr. Bliley and 45 bipartisan
cosponsors as H.R. 5291. The bill was ordered reported, with an
amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 5291 to
the House, with an amendment, on October 30, 2000 (H. Rept.
106-1019, Part 1). The Committee on Ways and Means was granted
an extension of its referral of the bill through December 15,
2000.
H.R. 5543, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, was introduced by Mr.
Thomas and 2 cosponsors on October 25, 2000. The text of this
bill consisted of the text of H.R. 5291, and text developed by
the Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on
Finance.
The text of H.R. 5543 was incorporated into the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2614, the Certified Development
Company Program Improvements Act of 2000 (H. Rept. 106-1004).
On October 26, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2641 (H.Res. 652). H.Res. 652 was passed by the
House by a record vote of 207 yeas and 200 nays. The House
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 237 yeas
and 174 nays, 1 voting present.
On October 26, 2000, the Senate agreed to a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the conference report by a roll
call vote of 55 yeas and 25 nays. The Senate considered the
conference report on October 26 and 31, 2000.
The provisions of H.R. 5543 were introduced as a new bill,
H.R. 5661 on December 15, 2000, and incorporated by reference
into the conference report to accompany H.R. 4577 (H. Rept.
106-1033), which was filed in the House on December 15, 2000.
On December 15, 2000, the conference report was considered
pursuant to a previous order of the House and agreed to by a
record vote of 292 yeas and 60 nays. On December 15, 2000, the
Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent.
H.R. 4577 was presented to the President on December 15,
2000, and was signed into law on December 21, 2000 (Public law
106-554).
PATIENT PROTECTION ACT
(H.R. 5122)
To amend the Health Quality Improvement Act of 1986 to
provide for the availability to the public of information
reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank under such Act,
to establish additional reporting requirements, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5122, the Patient Protection Act of 2000, would allow
the public free Internet access to information in the NPDB
concerning physicians (doctors and dentists). The NPDB
disciplinary information, which consists of adverse actions
taken against physician licenses and hospital privileges, would
be disclosed in its current form with minor changes. Medical
malpractice payment information, which consists of verdicts and
settlements, would be disclosed with additional contextual
information to compare physicians within a particular specialty
and within a given State. H.R. 5122 would also expand the NPDB
to include all felony and certain misdemeanor convictions of
physicians. Additionally, each disclosure would be required to
include a physician statement, if so submitted, in which the
subject physician would be given an opportunity to explain the
report and the facts underlying the report.
Legislative History
On September 7, 2000, Mr. Bliley introduced H.R. 5122 and
the bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce. On
September 20, 2000, the Full Committee held a legislative
hearing on H.R. 5122 to examine the Patient Protection Act of
2000. The Committee heard from a diverse group of witnesses who
expressed their views on the legislation.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5122 in the 106th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
GLOBAL NEED FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER
On October 12, 2000, the Commerce Committee held a hearing
entitled ``The Global Need for Access to Safe Drinking Water.''
At this hearing, the Full Committee received testimony from a
variety of private and public sector witnesses.
The hearing provided the Committee with information and
expert testimony concerning a substantial public health threat.
Specifically, the hearing examined current problems and future
prospects for access to safe drinking water and sanitation
around the world, the specific problems of lack of access to
safe drinking water and sanitation associated with disasters
and other emergency situations, the relationship of access to
safe drinking water and sanitation to disease, and the
possibility of conflict stemming from access to drinking water
and other water resources.
SUMMER ENERGY CONCERNS FOR THE AMERICAN CONSUMER
On June 28, 2000, the Commerce Committee held a hearing on
Summer Energy Concerns for the American Consumer. During the
summer of 2000 serious questions regarding the availability and
price of oil, gasoline, natural gas, and electricity were
raised. Energy prices, especially gasoline prices in the
Midwest, began to rise significantly. Witnesses attributed this
price rise to a number of factors, including inconsistent
environmental regulations requiring seasonal fuels, pipeline
and refinery outages, high crude oil prices, and the fact that
a late cold snap meant refineries did not switch to refining
gasoline until later than usual. This hearing took a closer
look at some of these causes of the price spikes and measures
the government and consumers could take to address these high
prices. Witnesses included Administration representatives,
refiners, electricity suppliers, and energy consumers.
THE RUDMAN REPORT: SCIENCE AT ITS BEST, SECURITY AT ITS WORST
On June 15, 1999, the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board issued a report--prepared at the President's
request after a series of high-profile security lapses at the
Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapons laboratories--that
was highly critical of DOE's management of the labs on security
matters. The report, called the Rudman Report after the Board's
chairman, former U.S. Senator Warren Rudman, condemned DOE as
responsible for ``the worst security record on secrecy that
members of this panel have ever encountered.'' The panel found
that security at DOE sites has been lacking in many critical
areas for the last 20 years, and that many of these
deficiencies ``still exist today.'' These deficiencies--
particularly in personnel assurance, information security, and
counterintelligence--``invite attack by foreign intelligence
services.'' The panel also found that these problems had been
``blatantly and repeatedly ignored,'' and placed the blame on
``organizational disarray, managerial neglect, and a culture of
arrogance--both at DOE headquarters and the labs themselves.''
The panel criticized DOE for taking over a year to order the
implementation of counterintelligence measures mandated by a
Presidential Decision Directive from February 1998 (PDD-61),
and found that DOE had yet to fully implement those or other
corrective actions ordered by the President and Secretary.
Accordingly, the panel's report concluded that Secretary
Richardson ``has overstated the case when he asserts, as he did
several weeks ago, that `Americans can be reassured: our
nation's secrets are, today, safe and secure.''' The panel also
expressed its view that Secretary Richardson's announced
reforms ``simply do not go far enough,'' and that DOE was
``incapable of reforming itself.'' The report's key
recommendation was that DOE's weapons research and stockpile
management functions should be placed within a new semi-
autonomous agency within DOE, with a clear mission, streamlined
bureaucracy, and simplified lines of authority.
On June 22, 1999, the Full Committee held a hearing on the
Rudman Report, at which Senator Rudman testified about the
report's findings and his recommendations for reform. Secretary
Richardson testified on the same panel, and was questioned
about his prior public statements, criticizing the Rudman
Report and attesting to adequate security at the weapons labs.
At the hearing, however, the Secretary accepted the key
findings of the Rudman Report and acknowledged DOE's need to
further improve security. But Secretary Richardson rejected
calls for a new independent or semi-autonomous agency within
DOE to manage these labs. Notwithstanding such opposition,
Congress eventually ordered the creation of a semi-autonomous
agency for this purpose, known as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), in the Defense Authorization Act of
2000.
Hearings Held
The Rudman Report: Science at its Best, Security at its
Worst.--Oversight hearing on the Rudman Report: Science at its
Best, Security at its Worst. Hearing held on June 22, 1999.
PRINTED, Serial Number 106-57.
Summer Energy Concerns for the American Consumer.--
Oversight Hearing on Summer Energy Concerns for the American
Consumer. Hearing held on June 28, 2000. PRINTED, Serial Number
106-136.
Patient Protection Act of 2000.--Hearing on H.R. 5122, the
Patient Protection Act of 2000. Hearing held on September 20,
2000.
Global Need for Access to Safe Drinking Water.--Oversight
hearing on the Global Need for Access to Safe Drinking Water.
Hearing held on October 12, 2000.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(Ratio: 16-13)
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Vice Chairman RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART GORDON, Tennessee
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHRISTOPHER COX, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JAMES E. ROGAN, California RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, 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; interstate
and foreign commerce, including trade matters within the jurisdiction
of the full committee, regulation of commercial practices (the FTC);
consumer affairs and consumer protection in general; consumer product
safety (the CPSC); product liability; and motor vehicle safety.
Legislative Activities
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT
Public Law 106-81 (H.R. 438, S. 800)
To promote and enhance public safety through use of 9-1-1
as the universal emergency assistance number, further
deployment of wireless 9-1-1 service, support of States in
upgrading 9-1-1 capabilities and related functions,
encouragement of construction and operation of seamless,
ubiquitous, and reliable networks for personal wireless
services, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 438 requires that the FCC designate ``911'' as the
universal emergency telephone number for both wireline and
wireless telephone calls. H.R. 438 also requires the FCC to
provide support to the States in the development of State-wide
coordinated plans for the deployment of end-to-end
communications infrastructure for emergency services, and
provides incentives for greater deployment and use of wireless
telecommunications services. To encourage the rapid deployment
of wireless telecommunications facilities, the bill provides
the same degree of protection from liability for emergency
telephone and other services to wireless carriers in each State
as provided in that State to a wireline carrier. The bill also
encourages the provision and use of wireless services by
providing protection to users' location information by
specifying the conditions under which such information may be
disclosed to third parties.
Legislative History
On February 2, 1999, Mr. Shimkus and six cosponsors
introduced H.R. 438. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. On February 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
legislative hearing on the bill. Testimony was received from
the Federal regulators, and representatives from industry trade
groups, telecommunications companies and privacy advocates.
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session and approved the bill, as amended, for Full
Committee consideration by a voice vote. On February 11, 1999,
the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R.
438 reported to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote.
The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 438 to the House on
February 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-25).
The Committee on Rules met on February 23, 1999 and granted
a rule for the consideration of H.R. 438 (H.Res. 76). On
February 24, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 76 by a voice vote.
The House considered H.R. 438 on February 24, 1999 pursuant to
the rule, and passed the bill, as amended, by a record vote of
415 yeas and 2 nays.
On February 25, 1999, the bill was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. No further action was taken by the
Senate on H.R. 438 in the 106th Congress.
S. 800, the Senate companion bill, was introduced in the
Senate by Mr. Burns and three cosponsors on April 14, 1999,
read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation. On June 23, 1999, the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ordered S.
800 reported to the Senate, as amended. The Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported S. 800 to the
Senate on August 4, 1999 (S. Rpt. 106-138).
On August 5, 1999, by unanimous consent, the Senate
proceeded to the immediate consideration of S. 800 and passed
the bill, as amended, by voice vote. S. 800 was received in the
House and held at the desk on September 8, 1999.
The House considered S. 800 under suspension of the rules
on October 12, 1999. On October 12, 1999, the House passed S.
800 by a record vote of 424 to 2.
On October 14, 1999, S. 800 was presented to the President.
The President signed S. 800 into law on October 26, 1999
(Public Law 106-81).
OPEN-MARKET REORGANIZATION FOR THE BETTERMENT OF INTERNATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (ORBIT) ACT
Public Law 106-180 (S. 376, H.R. 3261)
To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to
promote competition and privatization in satellite
communications, and for other purposes.
Summary
The fundamental purposes of the bill are to encourage
privatization of the intergovernmental satellite organizations
(IGOs) that dominate international satellite communications and
to promote a robustly competitive satellite communications
marketplace. The bill eliminates the provision of commercial
satellite communications by intergovernmental organizations.
The bill also ensures that the privatized entities be
independent of the IGO ``signatories.'' By privatizing INTELSAT
and Inmarsat as outlined in S. 376, the advantages now enjoyed
by these organizations are eliminated, in favor of a level
playing field for all competitors.
The bill promotes the privatization of INTELSAT and
Inmarsat by using the incentive of access to the U.S.
marketplace if the IGOs privatize in an expeditious and pro-
competitive manner. The bill is also designed to eliminate any
unfair advantages of IGOs or their spin-offs or successors over
their competitors gained through their intergovernmental
status. Pro-competitive privatization is sought by requiring
the FCC to determine that the IGOs and their privatized
``successor'' or ``separated'' follow-ons have been privatized
in a manner that will not harm competition in the U.S. prior to
authorizing the provision of advanced services in the U.S.
market.
The primary incentive in the bill for INTELSAT and Inmarsat
to privatize is to limit their access to the U.S. market if
they do not privatize in a pro-competitive manner by a date
certain. In order to provide these organizations with a
reasonable transition period in which to accomplish a full
privatization, the bill provides INTELSAT until April 1, 2001,
and Inmarsat until April 1, 2000. If privatization does not
occur by the dates provided, the bill requires the FCC to
limit, deny, or revoke authority for the provision of ``non-
core services'' to the U.S. market. Furthermore, the bill
prohibits separated entities from being authorized to provide
services in the United States if they are not structured in a
pro-competitive manner.
Another key part of the bill is the possibility of
restrictions on additional services during the pendency of
privatization. INTELSAT and Inmarsat cannot provide additional
services under new contracts unless the FCC annually determines
that: (1) substantial and material progress is being made
towards privatization; and (2) INTELSAT and Inmarsat are not
hindering competitors' access to foreign markets.
The bill explicitly eliminates COMSAT's monopoly for the
provision of IGO services in the United States by permitting
other service providers direct access to the IGOs' satellites.
Lastly, the bill includes a number of additional
deregulatory measures designed to ensure that all U.S.
satellite service providers can compete as efficiently as
possible within the U.S. satellite marketplace. The bill also
prohibits the FCC from auctioning orbital slots or spectrum
assignments for global satellite systems and requires the
Administration to oppose such spectrum auctions in
international fora.
Legislative History
On February 2, 1999, S. 376 was introduced in the Senate by
Mr. Burns and five cosponsors. The bill was read twice and
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation met to consider S. 376 on May 5, 1999, and
ordered the bill reported to the Senate, as amended. On June
30, 1999, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation reported S. 376 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 106-100).
On July 1, 1999, by unanimous consent, the Senate proceeded
to the immediate consideration of S. 376 and passed the bill,
as amended. S. 376 was received in the House and referred to
the Committee on Commerce.
The House companion bill, H.R. 3261, was introduced on
November 9, 1999, by Mr. Bliley and 16 cosponsors. H.R. 3261
was referred to the Committee on Commerce. The House considered
H.R. 3261 on November 10, 1999 under suspension of the rules
and passed the bill by a voice vote.
On November 10, 1999, the Commerce Committee was discharged
from the further consideration of S. 376. On the same day, the
House, by unanimous consent, considered and passed S. 376, as
amended, with the text of H..R. 3261 as passed by the House.
The House then insisted on its amendment to S. 376, requested a
conference with the Senate, and appointed conferees. H.R. 3261
was laid upon the table.
On November 19, 1999, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to S. 376, requested a conference, and appointed
conferees. On January 24, 2000, the Senate withdrew its request
for a conference and agreed to the request of the House. On
February 29, 2000, the Committee of Conference met, the Senate
chairing. The conference report on S. 376 was filed in the
House on March 2, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-509).
On March 2, 2000, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
proceeded to the immediate consideration of the conference
report to accompany S. 376, and agreed to the conference
report.
On March 8, 2000, the House Committee on the Rules met and
granted a rule for the consideration of the conference report
to accompany S. 376 (H.Res. 432). The House considered the
conference report on March 9, 2000, and agreed to the
conference report by a voice vote.
S. 376 was presented to the President on March 10, 2000.
The President signed S. 376 into law on March 17, 2000 (Public
Law 106-180).
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Public Law 106-65 (S. 1059, H.R. 1401)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 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
Section 1062 of S. 1059 prevents the surrender of
frequencies where the Department of Defense (DoD) currently has
the primary assignment, unless the Secretary of Defense, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of
Commerce jointly certify to Congress that the surrender of such
portions of the spectrum will not degrade essential military
capability. Alternative frequencies, with the necessary
comparable technical characteristics, would have to be
identified and made available to the DoD, if necessary, to
restore the essential military capability that will be lost as
a result of the surrender of the original spectrum.
In addition, the provision would require that 8 MHz that
were identified for auction in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
be reassigned to the Federal Government for primary use by the
DoD.
S. 1062 provides for an interagency review, and assessment
and report to Congress and the President on the progress made
in implementation of national spectrum planning, the
reallocation of Federal Government spectrum to non-Federal use,
and the implications of such reallocations to the affected
Federal agencies, which would include the effects of the
reallocation on critical military and intelligence
capabilities, civil space programs, and other Federal
Government systems used to protect public safety.
Legislative History
H.R. 1401 was introduced by request by Mr. Spence and Mr.
Skelton on April 14, 1999. The Committee on Armed Services met
in open markup session and ordered the bill reported, with an
amendment, on May 19, 1999 by a record vote of 55 yeas and 1
nay. On May 24, 1999, the bill was reported by the Committee on
Armed Services to the House, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-
162).
On June 9 and 10, 1999, the House considered H.R. 1401
pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 200. The House passed the
bill by a record vote of 365 yeas and 58 nays.
S. 1059, the Senate companion legislation, was passed by
the Senate on May 27, 1999 by a roll call vote of 92 yeas and 3
nays and received in the House on June 7, 1999 and held at the
desk. On June 14, 1999, the House considered S. 1059, struck
all after the enacting clause and amended the bill with the
text of H.R. 1401 as it passed the House, and passed the bill
by unanimous consent. On June 16, 1999, the Senate disagreed to
the House amendment, requested a conference, and appointed
conferees.
On July 1, 1999, House insisted upon its amendment and
agreed to the conference requested by the Senate. The Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Commerce for
consideration of matters contained in the Senate bill and the
House amendment falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee of Conference met on July 13 and 15, 1999.
The conference report on S. 1059 was filed on August 6,
1999. The House considered and agreed to the conference report,
pursuant to H.Res. 288, on September 15, 2000. Mr. Dingell
offered a motion to recommit with instructions, addressing the
role of the NNSA with respect to certain authorities previously
delegated to the Secretary of Energy. The motion to recommit
failed by a record vote of 139 yeas and 281 nays. The House
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 375 yeas
and 45 nays.
The Senate considered the conference report on September 21
and 22, 1999. The Senate agreed to the conference report on
September 22, 1999 by a roll call vote of 93 yeas and 5 nays.
The bill was presented to the President on September 23, 1999,
and signed into law on October 5, 1999 (Public Law 106-65).
THE FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2001
(H.R. 4205, H.R. 5408, S. 2549)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 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
Section 1705 of the Conference report to H.R. 4205, which
incorporates by reference the content of H.R. 5408, requires
the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Commerce, to conduct of an
engineering study to identify: (1) any portion of the 138 to
144 megahertz band that the Department of Defense can share in
various geographic regions with public safety radio services;
(2) any measures required to prevent harmful interference
between Department of Defense systems and the public safety
systems proposed for operation on those frequencies; and (3) a
reasonable schedule for implementation of such sharing of
frequencies. An interim report prepared by the Secretary of
Defense on the progress of the study is required to be
submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and
the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
within one year from date of enactment. The completed final
report of the Secretary of Defense and the FCC is required to
be submitted not later than January 1, 2002.
Legislative History
H.R. 4205 was introduced in the House by Mr. Spence and Mr.
Skelton by request on April 6, 2000. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services. The Committee on Armed
Services reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on
May 12, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-616).
A rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4205, H.Res.
503, passed the House by a record vote of 220 yeas and 201
nays. The House considered H.R. 4205 on May 17 and 18, 2000. On
May 18, 1999, the House passed the bill, as amended, by a
record vote of 353 yeas and 63 nays. H.R. 4205 was received in
the Senate on May 22, 2000.
S. 2549, the Senate companion legislation, was considered
by the Senate on June 6 through 8, June 14, June 19 through 20,
June 29 through 30, and July 11 through 13, 2000. The Senate
amended the text of H.R. 4205 with S. 2549, as amended by the
Senate, and passed H.R. 4205 by a roll call vote of 97 yeas and
3 nays on July 13, 2000 by a roll call vote of 92 yeas and 3
nays. The Senate also insisted on its amendment, requested a
conference with the House, and appointed conferees. On July 26,
2000, the House disagreed to the amendment of the Senate, and
agreed to the conference requested by the Senate by unanimous
consent.
On July 27, 2000, the Speaker appointed conferees. The
Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Commerce for
consideration of matters contained in the House bill and the
Senate amendment falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
As a result, certain provisions were accepted without
significant change, certain provisions were modified
substantially, and certain provisions were deleted outright .
The conference report on H.R. 4205 was filed in the House
on October 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-945). The House adopted a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report,
H.Res. 616, by a voice vote. The House agreed to the conference
report by a record vote of 382 yeas and 31 nays on October 11,
2000. The Senate agreed to the conference report by a roll call
vote of 90 yeas and 3 nays on October 12, 2000. The bill was
presented to the President on October 19, 2000, and signed into
law on October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-398).
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT
Public Law 106-229 (H.R. 1714, S. 761)
To facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures
in interstate or foreign commerce.
Summary
H.R. 1714 is intended to facilitate the use and acceptance
of electronic signatures and records in interstate and foreign
commerce. The legislation is narrowly drawn so as to remove
barriers to the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and
records without establishing a regulatory framework that would
hinder the growth of electronic commerce. The bill adds greater
legal certainty and predictability to electronic commerce by
according the same legal effect, validity, and enforceability
to electronic signatures and records as are accorded written
signatures and records. Such certainty, in turn, will further
contribute to the growth of electronic commerce.
H.R. 1714 provides that with respect to any transaction in
or affecting interstate commerce, the legal effect, validity,
and enforceability of a signature, contract or other record may
not be denied on the ground that it is in electronic form or
that an electronic signature or electronic record was used in
its formation. H.R. 1714 provides authority to the States to
modify, limit, or supersede this law provided that any
modification complies with certain minimum standards and
principles appropriate for interstate commerce. H.R. 1714 also
provides for the creation, control and transfer of certain
notes secured by real property.
In addition, the bill directs the Secretary of Commerce to
promote the acceptance internationally of electronic signatures
and electronic signature products.
H.R. 1714 also contains important consumer protection
provisions. Electronic transactions using electronic signatures
must be voluntarily undertaken and consumers will enjoy the
same protections and rights as they would in any paper-based
transaction. Businesses engaging in electronic commerce
transactions must take steps to ensure that consumers have the
technological ability to receive, print, and save any
electronic records as part of the transactions. Finally, H.R.
1714 leaves important Federal and State consumer protection
laws intact.
Legislative History
H.R. 1714 was introduced by Mr. Bliley and five cosponsors
on May 16, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1714 on June 9,
1999. The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held
a legislative hearing on H.R. 1714 on June 24, 1999. Witnesses
for both hearings included a representative of the Department
of Commerce, representatives of the States, and industry
representatives.
On July 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials met in open markup session and approved H.R. 1714 for
Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. On
July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade,
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 1714 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
voice vote. On August 5, 1999, the Full Committee met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 1714 reported to the House,
with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Commerce Committee filed the report to H.R. 1714 on September
27, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-341, Part 1).
On September 27, 1999, H.R. 1714 was sequentially referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee on Courts
and Intellectual Property held a legislative hearing on H.R.
1714 on September 30, 1999. On October 7, 1999 the Subcommittee
met to consider H.R. 1714 and to forward the bill, as amended,
to the Full committee. The Committee on the Judiciary met on
October 13, 1999 to consider H.R. 1714 and ordered the bill
reported by a voice vote. The Committee on the Judiciary filed
the report to H.R. 1714 on October 15, 1999 (H. Rpt 106-341,
Part 2).
The House considered H.R. 1714 under suspension of the
rules on November 1, 1999, and failed to pass the bill by a
record vote of 234 yeas and 122 nays.
On November 18, 1999, the House Committee on the Rules met
and approved a resolution providing for the consideration of
H.R. 1714 (H.Res. 366). On November 19, 1999, the House
approved H.Res. 366 by a voice vote. Pursuant to H.Res. 366,
the House reconsidered H.R. 1714 on November 9, 1999, and
passed the bill by a record vote of 356 yeas and 66 nays. On
November 10, 1999, H.R. 1714 was received in the Senate and
read twice. On November 19, 1999 the Senate passed a companion
bill, S. 761 by unanimous consent.
On February 16, 2000, the House, by unanimous consent,
passed S. 761 with an amendment consisting of the text of H.R.
1714, as passed by the House. By unanimous consent the House
insisted upon its amendments, requested a conference and
appointed conferees.
On March 29, 2000, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to S. 761 and agreed to a conference. On May 18,
2000, the Conferees met, the House chairing. The conference
report on S. 761 was filed in the House on June 8, 2000 (H.
Rept. 106-661). On June 14, 2000 the House considered the
conference report pursuant to a rule (H.Res. 523) and agreed to
the conference report by a record vote of 426 yeas and 4 nays.
On June 15, 2000 the Senate began consideration of the
conference report and on June 16, 2000, agreed to the
conference report by a record vote of 87 yeas and no nays.
S. 761 was presented to the President on June 20, 2000. The
President signed S. 761 into law on June 30, 2000 (Public Law
106-229).
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGULATIONS
REGARDING USE OF CITIZENS BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT
Public Law 106-521 (H.R. 2346)
To authorize the enforcement by State and local governments
of certain Federal Communications Commission regulations
regarding use of citizens band radio equipment.
Summary
H.R. 2346 amends section 302 of the Communications Act to
allow State or local governments to enact, and enforce, an
ordinance or statute that prohibits a person from violating
Commission rules prohibiting: (1) the use of unauthorized CB
radio equipment, or (2) unauthorized operation of CB equipment
on a frequency between 24 megahertz and 35 megahertz. In
exercising this authority the State or locality must identify
that they are taking such action pursuant to this new section
of the Communications Act. H.R. 2346 also requires the
Commission to provide such technical assistance to the State
and local governments on this matter to the extent practicable.
A person affected by a decision of a State or local government
ordinance or statute may file an appeal, within 30 days, of the
decision to the FCC. The Commission is given 180 days to rule
on the appeal and can preempt the decision of a State or local
government agency if it determines that a State or local
government acted outside its authority granted by H.R. 2346.
H.R. 2346 clarifies that: (1) the bill does not preclude
the FCC from taking enforcement action notwithstanding action
taken by a State or local government, and (2) the FCC's
authority over matters involving the interference of radio
devises is not altered. Lastly, the bill requires that a State
or local government must have probable cause to find that a
commercial mobile vehicle with CB radio equipment on board is
in violation of Commission rules before taking enforcement
action.
Legislative History
On June 24, 1999, H.R. 2346 was introduced in the House by
Mr. Ehlers and seven cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection was
discharged from further consideration of the bill.
On September 14, 2000, the Committee on Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2346 reported by a voice
vote, a quorum being present. The Committee on Commerce
reported the bill to the House on September 22, 2000 (H. Rept.
106-883).
On September 27, 2000, considered H.R. 2346 under
suspension of the rules, and passed the bill by a voice vote.
On September 28, 2000, the bill was received in the Senate
and read twice. On October 31, 2000, the Senate considered and
passed the bill, with an amendment, by unanimous consent.
On November 13, 2000, the House considered the Senate
amendment under suspension of the rules. The House concurred in
the Senate amendment by a voice vote, clearing the bill for the
White House.
The bill was presented to the President on November 14,
2000. The President signed the bill on November 22, 2000
(Public Law 106-521).
TRADEMARK CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION ACT
Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 3028, S. 1255, S. 1948, H.R. 3194)
To amend certain trademark laws to prevent the
misappropriation of marks.
Summary
S. 1255 prohibits the registration of an Internet domain
name with the bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of
the trademark of another party if the registered domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark or
dilutive of a famous mark.
The bill further authorizes a court to order the forfeiture
or cancellation of the domain name or its transfer to the mark
owner and provides for statutory damages.
Legislative History
S. 1255 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Abraham and
three cosponsors on June 21, 1999. The bill was read twice and
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 3028, a
companion bill, was introduced by Mr. Rogan and three
cosponsors on October 6, 1999 and referred to the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary met to consider S.
1255 on July 29, 1999, and ordered the bill reported to the
Senate, as amended. On August 5, 1999, by unanimous consent,
the Senate passed the bill, amended. S. 1255 was received in
the House on September 8, 1999 and held at the desk.
The House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property
met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3028 on October 7,
1999 and forwarded the bill to the Full Committee on the
Judiciary by voice vote. The House Committee on the Judiciary
met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3028 on October 13,
1999 and ordered the bill reported to the House, with an
amendment. On October 25, 1999 the House Committee on the
Judiciary reported H.R. 3028 to the House (H. Rept. 106-412).
On October 26, 1999 the House approved H.R. 3028 under
suspension of the rules, by voice vote. On the same day the
House took up S. 1255, struck all after the enacting clause and
inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 3028.
On October 28, 1999, Mr. Bliley sent a letter to the
Speaker of the House indicating that H.R. 3028, as passed by
the House, included provisions within the jurisdiction of the
House Committee on Commerce, particularly a provision directing
the Secretary of Commerce to establish a ``.us'' Internet
domain.
The text of H.R. 3028 was included in S. 1948, introduced
by Senator Lott and incorporated by reference in section
1000(a)(5) of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3194, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (H. Rept. 106-479). On November
18, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for
the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
3194 (H.Res. 386) which passed the House by a voice vote, with
an amendment. The House considered the conference report on
November 18, 1999 and approved the conference report by a
record vote of 296 yeas and 135 nays.
On November 18, 1999, the Senate agreed to consider the
conference report by a roll call vote of 80 yeas and 8 nays and
a cloture motion was filed. On November 19, 1999, the Senate
invoked cloture by a roll call vote of 87 yeas and 9 nays and
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 74 yeas
and 24 nays, and the bill was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3194 was presented to the President on November 22,
1999 signed into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-113).
SATELLITE COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 851, H.R. 1554, S.247, S. 1948, H.R. 3194)
To amend the provisions of title 17, United States Code,
and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to copyright
licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite.
Summary
H.R. 851, as enacted, permits satellite companies to
immediately offer local-into-local television service and
directs the FCC to establish rules applying must-carry,
retransmission consent, syndicated exclusivity, sports
blackout, and network nonduplication rules to satellite
carriers. The must-carry requirements become effective January
1, 2002, allowing a 3-year phase-in period, allows satellite
carriers 6 months to obtain retransmission consent agreements
from broadcasters for local-into-local service; prohibits
broadcasters from engaging in discriminatory practices
regarding retransmission consent through January 1, 2006 and
allows subscribers who do not receive a Grade A intensity
signal and whose distant network signals were earlier
terminated, or who were receiving them on October 31, 1999, to
receive distant network signals until December 31, 2004.
H.R. 851 retains the Grade B signal intensity standard as
the determining factor for who may receive distant network
signals, but requires a one-year FCC study of signal intensity
standards. Subscribers who do not receive a Grade B intensity
signal, as well as recreational vehicles and commercial trucks
that are not fixed dwellings, to receive no more than two
distant network signals of each television network on a single
day. A formal process for consumers was created to seek waivers
if signal strength is in doubt. H.R. 85 allows existing C-band
satellite customers to continue receiving the distant network
TV signals they have been receiving and extends the existing
satellite copyright compulsory license for distant network
signals until December 31, 2004. The bill creates a new
compulsory license for local network signals with no sunset
date and reduces the rate increase for copyright royalty
payments satellite companies must pay by 45% for distant
network signals and 30% for distant superstation signals and
eliminates the 90-day waiting period for cable subscribers,
with special rules for the Public Broadcasting Service.
The 6-month phase-in period for retransmission consent and
3-year phase-in period for must-carry may mean that consumers
once again could face losing television signals received via
satellite. If satellite companies and broadcasters cannot reach
agreement on retransmission consent for local-into-local within
6 months, signals will be discontinued. When must-carry
provisions go into effect on January 1, 2002, satellite
carriers may have to reassign satellite channels to meet those
requirements.
The bill also made a number of perfecting changes to
section 1405 of the Child Online Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 231
note) in order to allow the Commission to operate more
efficiently.
Legislative History
H.R. 851 was introduced in the House on February 25, 1999
by Mr. Tauzin and 18 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and additionally, to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
On March 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and
approved H.R. 851, as amended, by voice vote. On March 25,
1999, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered
H.R. 851 reported to the House, with an amendment, by a voice
vote. The Committee on Commerce filed the report to H.R. 851
(H. Rept. 106-79, Part 1) on April 4, 1999.
On March 10, 1999, H.R. 851 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the
Committee on the Judiciary. On April 7, 1999, the Committee on
the Judiciary was granted an extension for further
consideration until April 16, 1999. On April 16, 1999, the
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from the further
consideration H.R. 851.
The text of H.R. 851 was incorporated into H.R. 1554, which
was introduced in the House by Mr. Coble on April 26, 1999.
H.R. 1554 was considered by the House, under suspension of the
rules, on April 27, 1999 and passed by a record vote of 422
yeas and 1 nay.
On April 28, 1999, H.R. 1554 was received in the Senate and
read twice. On May 20, 1999, H.R. 1554 was laid before the
Senate by unanimous consent, where the Senate struck all after
the enacting clause and substituted the language of S. 247, as
amended. H.R. 1554 was passed in the Senate on May 20, 1999 by
unanimous consent.
On June 8, 1999, the Senate insisted on its amendment,
asked for a conference, and appointed conferees. On June 23,
1999, the House disagreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1554
and agreed to a conference with the Senate, and appointed
conferees. The Committee of Conference met on September 28,
1999, the Senate chairing.The conference report to accompany
H.R. 1554 was filed in the House on November 9, 1999 (H. Rept.
106-464).
On November 9, 1999, under suspension of the rules, the
House passed the conference report by a record vote of 411 yeas
and 8 nays.
A revised version of H.R. 1554 was introduced in the Senate
as S. 1948 on November 17, 1999 and incorporated by cross-
reference in the conference report to accompany H.R. 3194, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (H. Rept. 106-479). On November
18, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for
the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
3194 (H.Res. 386) which passed the House by a voice vote, with
an amendment. The House considered the conference report on
November 18, 1999 and approved the conference report by a
record vote of 296 yeas and 135 nays.
On November 18, 1999, the Senate agreed to consider the
conference report by a roll call vote of 80 yeas and 8 nays and
a cloture motion was filed. On November 19, 1999, the Senate
invoked cloture by a roll call vote of 87 yeas and 9 nays and
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 74 yeas
and 24 nays, and the bill was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3028 was presented to the President on November 22,
1999. The President signed H.R. 3194 into law on November 29,
1999 (Public Law 106-113).
CORRECTING ERRORS IN THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Public Law 106-39 (H.R. 2035, S. 1248)
To correct errors in the authorizations of certain programs
administered by the National Highway Traffic Administration.
Summary
H.R. 2035, a bill to correct errors in the authorizations
of certain programs administered by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, is intended to correct mistakes
made in the authorizations for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) motor vehicle safety and
information programs during consideration of H.R. 2691, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Act of 1998, in
the 105th Congress, when the Administration failed to inform
the Committee of changes in their budget request for those
programs. For fiscal years 1999-2001, the bill provides annual
authorizations for motor vehicle safety programs in the amount
of $98,313,500 and for motor vehicle information programs in
the amount of $9,562,500.
Legislative History
H.R. 2035 was introduced in the House on June 8, 1999 by
Mr. Tauzin. On June 10, 1999, the Full Committee met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 2035 reported to the House,
without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Committee reported the bill on June 25, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-
200).
On July 12, 1999, the House considered H.R. 2035 under
suspension of the rules. The House approved the bill by a voice
vote.
On June 21, 1999, Senator McCain introduced companion
legislation, S. 1248, in the Senate for himself and Senator
Hollings. On July 14, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation reported the bill, without
amendment, by a voice vote (S. Rpt. 106-107).
On July 15, 1999, the Senate passed H.R. 2035 by unanimous
consent and laid S. 1248 on the table, clearing the bill for
the White House. The bill was presented to the President on
July 20, 1999, and approved on July 28, 1999 (Public Law 106-
39).
TRANSPORTATION RECALL ENHANCEMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DOCUMENTATION
(TREAD) ACT
Public Law 106-414 (H.R. 5164, S. 3059, H. Con. Res. 428)
To amend title 49, United States Code, to require reports
concerning defects in motor vehicles or tires or other motor
vehicle equipment in foreign countries, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5164, the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act, is a bill to
require reports concerning defects in motor vehicles or tires
or other motor vehicle equipment, both domestically and in
foreign countries.
The bill requires that manufacturers report to the
Secretary of Transportation regarding defects occurring in
foreign countries, and certain other data. The legislation also
lengthens the period in which a motor vehicle equipment or tire
manufacturer must provide a defect remedy at no charge,
strengthens the statute's civil penalty structure, imposes a
criminal penalty for falsifying or withholding information, and
requires the Secretary to update the motor vehicle safety
standards applicable to tires and improve tire labeling
standards. Further, the legislation addresses the availability
of parts during a recall, reimbursement for parts replaced
immediately prior to a recall, and the resale of replaced
equipment. Finally, the legislation authorizes appropriations
for the activities authorized by the bill and addresses a
number of other public information and standard setting
rulemakings.
Legislative History
H.R. 5164 was introduced in the House on September 13, 2000
by Mr. Upton, for himself and 15 other Members. The
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection began to markup the legislation on September 21,
2000 and completed consideration on September 27, 2000,
approving the bill for Full Committee consideration, amended,
by a record vote of 23 yeas and no nays. The Full Committee
marked up the legislation on October 5, 2000, and ordered the
bill reported, with an amendment, by a record vote of 42 yeas
and no nays. The bill was reported to the House on October 10,
2000 (H. Rept. 106-954).
On October 10, the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
indicating that, although provisions of the bill fell within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on the Judiciary would not seek a sequential referral
of the bill. On October 12, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee
on Commerce responded that the Judiciary Committee's decision
would not prejudice the Judiciary Committee with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on the bill.
On October 10, 2000, the bill was considered under
suspension of the rules. On October 11, 2000 (legislative day
of October 10), the House passed H.R. 5164, with an amendment,
by a voice vote.
On September 15, 2000 Senator McCain introduced S. 3059,
the Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment Defect
Notification Improvement Act. The Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation ordered the bill reported on
September 20, 2000, and reported the bill to the Senate, with
an amendment, on September 27, 2000 (S. Rpt. 106-423). The
Senate passed H.R. 5164 by unanimous consent on October 11,
2000.
Due to a drafting error, a provision approved by the
Committee was not included in H.R. 5164 as it was reported and
passed by the House. Accordingly, on October 12, 2000, Mr.
Upton introduced H. Con. Res. 428, to correct the enrollment of
H.R. 5164, and the House passed the measure by unanimous
consent that same day. The concurrent resolution was received
by the Senate on October 13, 2000, and passed by unanimous
consent on October 17.
On October 20, 2000, the bill was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on November 1, 2000
(Public Law 106-414).
CHILD PASSENGER PROTECTION ACT OF 2000
Public Law 106-414 (H.R. 5164, H.R. 4145, S. 2070)
To improve safety standards for child restraints in motor
vehicles.
Summary
The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to update
and improve crash test standards and conditions for child
restraints in motor vehicles. It also sets forth certain child
restraint testing requirements and authorizes appropriations.
The bill also directs the Secretary to develop and
implement a safety rating program for child restraints to
provide practicable, understandable, and timely information to
parents and caretakers for use in making informed purchases of
child restraints.
Legislative History
H.R. 4145 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus and 16 cosponsors
on March 30, 2000. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
On May 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing entitled
``Consumer Safety Initiatives: Protecting the Vulnerable''
which focused, in part, on H.R. 4145. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, industry representatives, and consumer
advocates.
S. 2070, the Senate companion bill, was introduced by
Senator Fitzgerald on February 10, 2000. On September 20, 2000,
the Senate Committee on Commerce ordered S. 2070 reported, with
an amendment.
An amendment to H.R. 5164, the TREAD Act, consisting of the
text of S. 2070 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Commerce, was approved at the Full Committee markup of that
legislation. The Full Committee marked up the legislation on
October 5, 2000, and ordered the bill reported, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 42 yeas and no nays. The bill
was reported to the House on October 10, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-
954).
On October 10, the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
indicating that, although provisions of the bill fell within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
Committee on the Judiciary would not seek a sequential referral
of the bill. On October 12, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee
on Commerce responded that the Judiciary Committee's decision
would not prejudice the Judiciary Committee with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on the bill.
On October 10, 2000, the bill was considered under
suspension of the rules. On October 11, 2000 (legislative day
of October 10), the House passed H.R. 5164, with an amendment,
by a voice vote.
On September 15, 2000 Senator McCain introduced S. 3059,
the Motor Vehicle and Motor Vehicle Equipment Defect
Notification Improvement Act. The Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation ordered the bill reported on
September 20, 2000, and reported the bill to the Senate, with
an amendment, on September 27, 2000 (S. Rpt. 106-423). The
Senate passed H.R. 5164 by unanimous consent on October 11,
2000.
Due to a drafting error, a provision approved by the
Committee was not included in H.R. 5164 as it was reported and
passed by the House. Accordingly, on October 12, 2000, Mr.
Upton introduced H. Con. Res. 428, to correct the enrollment of
H.R. 5164, and the House passed the measure by unanimous
consent that same day. The concurrent resolution was received
by the Senate on October 13, 2000, and passed by unanimous
consent on October 17.
On October 20, 2000, the bill was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on November 1, 2000
(Public Law 106-414).
MUHAMMAD ALI BOXING REFORM ACT
Public Law 106-210 (S. 305, H.R. 1832)
Summary
H.R. 1832, the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act, protects the
rights and welfare of professional boxers on an interstate
basis by preventing certain exploitive, oppressive, and
unethical business practices. It assists State boxing
commissions in their efforts to provide more effective public
oversight of the sport, promotes honorable competition in
professional boxing, and enhances the overall integrity of the
industry.
The Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act amends the Professional
Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) to establish
certain minimum requirements for contracts between boxers and
their promoters and managers. In particular, it limits
exclusive promotional rights to a maximum of 12 months and
prohibits a promoter or a sanctioning organization from
requiring a boxer to grant further promotional rights in order
to fight a match that is a mandatory bout. The bill also
prohibits promoters from having a financial interest in the
management of a boxer, and vice versa, although only for boxers
who fight over 10 rounds. It requires the establishment of
objective and consistent written criteria for the ratings of
professional boxers and requires a publishing of any change in
a top ten boxer's rankings.
Sanctioning organizations are required to submit to the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC), or post on the Internet, a
complete description of their ratings criteria, policies,
general sanctioning fee schedule, bylaws, and appeals
procedure. Officers and employees of sanctioning organizations
are prohibited from receiving any non-deminimis compensation or
gifts from a promoter, boxer, or manager, other than their
published fees for sanctioning a match and any reasonable
expenses. Sanctioning organizations are required to provide to
a State's boxing commission before a fight a statement of all
charges, fees, and costs the organization will assess any boxer
participating in that match, and all payments the organization
will receive for its affiliation with the event from all
sources.
Promoters are required to provide to the appropriate State
boxing commission copies of any agreements they have with a
boxer, a statement of all expenses that will be assessed the
boxer, any benefits the promoter is providing to sanctioning
organizations affiliated with the event, and any reduction in a
boxer's purse contrary to previous agreements, as well as
disclosing other sources of revenue. These disclosures are
protected by a confidentiality provision.
Judges and referees are required to be certified and
approved by State boxing commissions, and are also required to
disclose their sources of compensation for participating in a
fight. Unsportsmanlike conduct is added to the list of
suspendible offenses under the Act. The Association of Boxing
Commissions (ABC) is directed to develop and approve guidelines
on boxing contract requirements, uniform rules, and rating
criteria. The record keeping burden on the States is reduced by
extending boxing licenses from two years to four years.
Legislative History
H.R. 1832 was introduced in the House by Mr. Oxley and
three cosponsors on May 17, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and additionally to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1832 on June 29,
1999. The Subcommittee received testimony from the a boxing
trade association, representatives of boxing sanctioning
bodies, boxing promoters, boxing managers, and from a
professional boxer.
On September 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session to consider H.R. 1832 and approved the bill for
Full Committee consideration, amended, by a record vote of 15
yeas and 1 nay. On September 29, 1999, the Full Committee met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1832 reported to the
House, with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On November 4, 1999, the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce was granted an extension for further
consideration ending not later than November 4, 1999 and
discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
On November 8, 1999, H.R. 1832 was considered under
suspension of the rules. The motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. A motion to
reconsider was laid on the table and agreed to without
objection.
On November 9, 1999, H.R. 1832 was received in the Senate.
On November 19, 1999, the bill was read twice and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar. On April 7, 2000, the measure was
laid before Senate and passed with an amendment by unanimous
consent.
On May 22, 2000, the House considered the Senate amendment
under suspension of the rules and agreed to the Senate
amendment by a voice vote, clearing the bill for the White
House. On May 23, 2000, the bill was presented to the
President. The President signed H.R. 1832 into law on May 26,
2000 (Public Law No: 106-210).
YEAR 2000 READINESS AND RESPONSIBILITY ACT
Public Law 106-37 (H.R.775; H.Res.166, H.Res.234, S.96, S.461)
To establish certain procedures for civil actions brought
for damages relating to the failure of any device or system to
process or otherwise deal with the transition from the year
1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes.
Summary
The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act (Y2K Act)
protects businesses from liability relating to certain failures
because of the so-called Y2K problem, which jeopardized
computer software and systems with year 2000 date-related data.
It establishes an affirmative defense of ``Y2K upset,'' i.e.,
an exceptional incident involving temporary noncompliance with
applicable Federally enforceable measurement or reporting
requirements because of factors related to a Y2K failure that
are beyond the reasonable control of the defendant charged with
compliance. The Act also sets forth provisions regarding
consumer protection from Y2K failures. The legislation further
contains extensive alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
for Y2K actions and special protections for small business Y2K
failures.
Legislative History
H.R. 775 was introduced on February 23, 1999 by Mr. Davis
of Virginia and 5 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and additionally to the Committee
on Small Business.
On April 29 and May 4, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary
met in open markup session and on May 4, 1999, ordered H.R. 775
reported with an amendment by a record vote of 15 yeas and 14
nays. On May 7, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
the bill to the House (H. Rept. 106-131, Part 1) and the
Committee on the Small Business was discharged from the further
consideration of the bill.
On May 7, 1999, the Committee on Commerce was granted a
sequential referral of the introduced bill through May 11,
1999. On May 10, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary indicating that the Committee on Commerce would not
exercise its right to consider the legislation, and requesting
his support for the appointment of conferees from the Committee
on Commerce if the bill was the subject of a House-Senate
conference. On May 11, 1999, the Committee on Commerce was
discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
On May 11, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 775 (H.Res. 166). On
May 12, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 166 by a record vote of
236 yeas and 188 nays and considered H.R. 775. The House passed
H.R. 775, as amended, by a record vote of 236 yeas and 190 nays
on May 12, 1999.
The Senate received the bill on May 13, 1999. On June 15,
1999, the Senate considered and passed H.R. 775 with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text
of S. 96, as amended by the Senate. On June 16, 1999, the
Senate insisted on its amendment, asked for a conference, and
appointed conferees.
On June 24, 1999, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and agreed to the conference by unanimous consent.
Conferees were appointed from the Committees on the Judiciary
and Commerce.
On June 24, 1999, the Conference met. On June 29, 1999, the
conference report to accompany H.R. 775 was filed in the House
(H. Rept. 106-212). On June 30, 1999, the Committee on Rules
reported a rule providing for the consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 775 (H.Res. 234). On July
1, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 234 by a record vote of 423
yeas and 1 nay and considered the conference report pursuant to
the rule. The House passed the conference report on July 1,
1999, by a record vote of 404 yeas and 24 nays.On July 1, 1999,
the Senate considered and passed the conference report by a
roll call vote of 81 yeas and 18 nays, clearing the measure for
the White House. The bill was presented to the President on
July 16, 1999 and signed on July 20, 1999 (Public Law 106-37).
WIRELESS PRIVACY ENHANCEMENT ACT
(H.R. 514)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to strengthen and
clarify prohibitions on electronic eavesdropping, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 514 has four main components. First, the bill extends
current scanning receiver manufacturing restrictions to prevent
the manufacture of scanners that are capable of intercepting
communications in frequencies allocated to new wireless
communications, namely personal communications services, and
protected paging and specialized mobile radio services. Second,
the bill prohibits the modification of scanners and requires
the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission or FCC)
to strengthen its rules to prevent the modification of scanning
receivers, including through the adoption of additional
requirements to prevent the tampering of scanning receivers.
Third, the bill makes it illegal to intentionally intercept or
divulge the content of radio communications. Lastly, the bill
improves the enforcement of privacy law by increasing the
penalties available for violators and requires the Commission
to move expeditiously on investigations of potential
violations.
Legislative History
On February 3, 1999, Mrs. Wilson and 12 cosponsors
introduced H.R. 514. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. On the same day, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
hearing on the bill. Testimony was received from the Federal
regulators, and representatives from industry trade groups,
telecommunications companies and privacy advocates.
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session and approved the bill for Full Committee
consideration by a voice vote. On February 11, 1999, the Full
Committee met in open session and ordered H.R. 514 reported to
the House by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce reported
H.R. 514 to the House on February 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-24).
The Committee on Rules met on February 23, 1999, and
granted a rule for the consideration of H.R. 514 (H.Res. 77).
On February 25, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 77 by a voice
vote. The House considered H.R. 514 on February 25, 1999
pursuant to the rule, and passed the bill, as amended, by a
record vote of 403 yeas and 3 nays.
On March 3, 1999, the bill was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
No further action was taken by the Senate on H.R. 514 in
the 106th Congress.
SECURITY AND FREEDOM THROUGH ENCRYPTION (SAFE) ACT
(H.R. 850)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to affirm the rights
of United States persons to use and sell encryption and to
relax export controls on encryption.
Summary
H.R. 850, as amended by the Committee on Commerce,
clarifies U.S. policy regarding the domestic use of encryption
products, including prohibiting the Federal government or State
governments from requiring key recovery or a similar technique
in most circumstances and adding criminal penalties for the use
of encryption products in the cover-up of felonious activity.
H.R. 850 also relaxes U.S. export policies by permitting mass-
market encryption products to be exported under a general
license exception. It also permits other custom-made computer
hardware and software encryption products to be exported on an
expedited basis. The bill includes a specified role for the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) in the consideration of the export of certain encryption
products. H.R. 850 establishes a National Electronic
Technologies Center (NET Center) to help Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies obtain access to encrypted
communications. The NET Center will aid law enforcement in
accessing encrypted communications and information by promoting
a positive relationship with the related industry. H.R. 850
also requires: an annual in-depth analysis of the relationship
between network reliability, network security, and data
security and the conduct of transactions in interstate
commerce; an examination of foreign barriers to the importation
of U.S. encryption products and positive steps to be taken to
remove these barriers; and that the Attorney General compile
information regarding instances when law enforcement's efforts
have been stymied because of the use of strong encryption
products.
Legislative History
H.R. 800 was introduced in the House by Mr. Goodlatte and
204 cosponsors on February 25, 1999. The bill was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition, to the
Committee on International Relations.
The Committee on the Judiciary met on March 24, 1999, to
consider H.R. 850 and ordered the bill reported to the House by
a voice vote. On April 27, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 695 to the House (H. Rept. 106-117, Part 1). On
April 27, 1999, the referral of H.R. 850 to the Committee on
International Relations was extended for a period ending not
later than July 2, 1999 and the bill was sequentially referred
to the Committees on Commerce and Armed Services, and the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for a period ending
not later than July 2, 1999.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 850 on May 25,
1999. The Subcommittee received testimony from government
experts and representatives of private industry.
On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and
approved the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration
by a voice vote. On June 23, 1999, the Full Committee on
Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 850
reported to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote. On
July 2, 1999, the Committee reported H.R. 850 to the House (H.
Rept. 106-117, Part 2).
On July 2, 1999, the referral of H.R. 850 to the Committee
on International Relations was extended for a period ending not
later than July 16, 1999 and the referral to the Committee on
Armed Services was extended for a period ending not later than
July 23, 1999. The Committee on International Relations met on
July 13, 1999 to consider H.R. 850, and ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended, by a record vote of 33 yeas
and 5 nays. On July 16, 1999, the referral of H.R. 850 to the
Committee on International Relations was extended for a period
not later than July 19, 1999. On July 19, 1999, the Committee
on International Relations reported H.R. 850 to the House (H.
Rept. 106-117, Part 3).
The Committee on Armed Services met on July 21, 1999, and
ordered H.R. 850 reported to the House, as amended, by a record
vote of 47 yeas and 6 nays. On July 23, 1999, the Committee on
Armed Services reported H.R. 850 to the House (H. Rept. 106-
117, Part 4).
The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence met in an
open session on July 15, 1999, and ordered H.R. 850 reported to
the House, as amended, by voice vote. On July 23, 1999, the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reported H.R. 850 to
the House (H. Rept. 106-117, Part 5).
No further action was taken on H.R. 850 in the 106th
Congress.
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOURCING AND PRIVACY ACT
(H.R. 3489)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate
interstate commerce in the use of mobile telephones and to
strengthen and clarify prohibitions on electronic
eavesdropping, and for other purposes.
Summary
The purpose of the bill is to address three interrelated
issues relevant to the provision of wireless services to the
American people: taxation of wireless telephone calls by States
and localities; regulatory fees paid by wireless
telecommunications companies to the FCC; and the privacy
protections afforded users of wireless telecommunications
services. Together, these provisions affect the overall service
that wireless telecommunications providers are able to offer
consumers. The bill provides a uniform national rule for
determining the location from which mobile telecommunications
services are provided in order to properly apply State and
local taxes, charges, and fees. Additionally the bill
establishes a GAO report to determine whether the FCC has
correctly imposed fees on wireless providers. Section 5 and 6
of the bill enhance the privacy of users of cellular and other
mobile communications services. Further, the bill prohibits
modification of currently available scanners and to prevent the
development of a market for new digital scanners capable of
intercepting digital communications.
Legislative History
On November 18, 1999, H.R. 3489 was introduced by Mr.
Pickering and four cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce and additionally referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
On April 6, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on the
bill. Testimony was received from representatives of industry
trade groups and representatives of associations for State and
local governments.
On May 12, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and
approved the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration
by a voice vote. On May 17, 2000, the Full Committee on
Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3489
reported to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote.
On May 24, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary met and
ordered H.R. 3489 reported to the House, as amended, by a voice
vote.
On July 11, 2000, the Committee on Commerce reported H.R.
3489 to the House (H. Rept. 106-725, Part 1). On July 11, 2000,
the Committee on Judiciary reported H.R. 3489 to the House (H.
Rept. 106-725, Part 2) by a voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3489 in the 106th
Congress.
FAMILY FRIENDLY PROGRAMMING FORUM
(H. Con. Res. 184)
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the importance
of ``family friendly'' programming on television.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 184 recognizes and honors the efforts of the
Family Friendly Programming Forum and other entities supporting
family friendly programming, expresses support for efforts of
the television network and production community to produce more
quality family friendly programming, as well as the Family
Friendly Programming Awards, development fund, and
scholarships, encourages the media and American advertisers to
further a family friendly television environment with
appropriate advertisements accompanying the programming.
Legislative History
On September 9, 1999, Mr. Portman and ten cosponsors
introduced H. Con. Res. 184. The House considered H. Con. Res.
184 on September 13, 1999 under suspension of the rules. On
September 13, 1999, the House passed H. Con. Res. 184 by a
record vote of 396 yeas and no nays.
On September 14, 1999, the resolution was received in the
Senate, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
No further action was taken by the Senate on H. Con. Res.
184 in the 106th Congress.
NTIA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 2630)
To reauthorize the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2630 authorizes the NTIA salaries and expenses at
$10.940 million for FY 2000 and FY 2001 (the same as the
appropriation level for FY 1999); requires the NTIA to receive
reimbursement for all spectrum management functions conducted
for other Federal agencies. The bill requires the GAO to
conduct and conclude, within 180 days, a study of the fair
market value of the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences
(ITS), the laboratories owned and operated by the NTIA that are
located in Boulder, Colorado. H.R. 2630 amends current law to
provide the GAO and the Department of Commerce's Inspector
General to conduct an extensive review of the NTIA, and submit
appropriate recommendations to Congress and the NTIA on areas
and recommendations for improvement, and requires the Secretary
of Commerce to complete an analysis on the effect of previous
spectrum reallocations, done pursuant to Congressional action,
that have taken spectrum from Federal agencies to make it
available for commercial purposes. NTIA is given the authority
to combine the submissions of various reports required by the
statute into a single submission in order to save time and
money if doing so would not delay the submission of any report.
The Secretary of Commerce within 180 days must revise its
spectrum management process to remove the U.S. Postal Service
from the coordination process of managing and assigning
spectrum for Federal government spectrum users (known as the
Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee or IRAC). NTIA is
given new statutory authority for the Telecommunications and
Information Infrastructure Assistance Program, which has
received appropriations since FY1994 but has never been
formally authorized by the Committee on Commerce.
Legislative History
On May 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on an
unintroduced bill entitled, ``H.R. ------, NTIA Reauthorization
Act of 1999.'' Testimony was received by NTIA, other Federal
regulators, and representatives of the telecommunications
industry.
On July 29, 1999, Representative Tauzin introduced H.R.
2630. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On September 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session and approved the bill, as amended, for Full
Committee consideration by a voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2630 in the 106th
Congress.
SPECTRUM RESOURCE ASSURANCE ACT
(H.R. 4758)
To permit wireless carriers to obtain sufficient spectrum
to meet the growing demand for existing services and ensure
that such carriers have the spectrum they need to deploy fixed
and advanced services, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4758 prevents the FCC from imposing any spectrum
aggregation limit when approving the license, authorization,
transfer, or assignment for a commercial mobile radio service
granted by competitive bidding after January 1, 2000.
Legislative History
On June 26, 2000, Mr. Stearns and five cosponsors
introduced H.R. 4758. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. On July 19, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 4578. Testimony was received from
industry representatives and government officials.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4758 in the 106th
Congress.
JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT
Public Law 106-554 (H.R. 4577, H.R. 5656, H.R. 1501, S. 254)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 to provide grants to ensure increased accountability for
juvenile offenders; to amend the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to provide quality
prevention programs and accountability programs relating to
juvenile delinquency; and for other purposes.
Summary
Title XIV of the House bill is also known as the Children's
Internet Protection Act. Title XIV prevents a school or library
from using any funding from Universal Service programs pursuant
to section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934. This program
is also known as ``E-Rate.'' The bill prevents access to the
Internet unless the school or library receives a certification
by the FCC that it filters or blocks access to child
pornographic material, obscene material, or material harmful to
minors. The bill establishes a mechanism to determine
certification but makes clear that what material must be
filtered or blocked is determined by the local community. A
school or library that has failed to obtain a certification is
required to repay any E-rate funding used for accessing the
Internet after failing to comply with the provisions of this
title. The provisions of title XIV become effective four months
after the date of enactment.
Section 1515 of the Senate amendment amends the
Communications Act of 1934 to include caller identification
services within the list of services that schools and libraries
receive discounts under the E-Rate program. This section also
requires the FCC to notify schools and libraries of the
availability of caller identification services and how to apply
to receive funding under the E-Rate.
Section 1504 of the Senate amendment requires the Office of
Juvenile Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to
conduct annual surveys for three years to determine which
Internet service providers (ISPs) are offering filtering
technologies to prevent access by minors to harmful material.
If the annual surveys shows that ISPs are not meeting annual
thresholds for voluntarily offering such technologies to
residential consumers, then section 1504 mandates that all ISPs
offer, at the time of starting the subscription, each
residential customer filtering technology to prevent access to
harmful material by minors. The section establishes that an
ISPs may not charge a residential consumer for such filtering
technology more than its cost for obtaining and offering such
technology.
Legislative History
H.R. 1501 was introduced in the House by Mr. McCollum and
18 cosponsors on April 21, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
On April 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 1501 for consideration of the
Full Committee by a voice vote.
On June 16, 1999, the House Committee on Rules met and
approved a resolution for the consideration of H.R. 1501
(H.Res. 209). On June 16, 1999, the House approved H.Res. 209
by a record vote of 240 yeas and 189 nays. Pursuant to H.Res.
209, the House considered H.R. 1501 on June 17, 1999. The House
passed H.R. 1501, as amended, by a record vote of 287 yeas and
139 nays. A motion to recommit was defeated by a record vote of
191 yeas and 233 nays.
On June 18, 1999, the bill was received in the Senate, read
twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
On July 22, 1999, the Senate proceeded to consider H.R.
1501 under a cloture motion. This motion was withdrawn. On July
26, the bill was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent.
On July 28, 1999, the Senate invoked cloture by a roll call
vote of 77 yeas and 22 nays. On July 28, 1999, the Senate
passed an amendment in the nature of substitute.
On July 28, 1999, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous
consent, insisted on its amendment, requested a conference, and
appointed conferences.
On July 30, 1999, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, agreed to a conference, and appointed conferees.
Members of the Committee on Commerce were appointed as
conferees on H.R. 1501 for consideration of matters committed
to conference within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
On July 30, 1999, a motion to instruct conferees by Mr.
Conyers was agreed to by a vote of 305 yeas and 84 nays. On
September 22, 1999, a motion to instruct conferees by Ms.
Lofgren was agreed to by a record vote of 305 yeas and 117
nays. On September 23, 1999, the House debated a motion to
instruct conferees by Ms. McCarthy. On September 24, 199, the
House defeated the motion by Ms. McCarthy to instruct conferees
by a record vote of 190 yeas and 218 nays. On September 24,
1999, a motion to instruct conferees by Mr. Doolittle was
agreed to by a record vote of 337 yeas and 73 nays. On
September 24, 1999, a motion to instruct conferees by Ms.
Lofgren was agreed to by a record vote of 241 yeas and 67 nays.
On October 14, 1999, a motion to instruct conferees by Ms.
Jackson-Lee was defeated by a record vote of 174 yeas and 249
nays. On March 15, 200, a motion to instruct conferees by Ms.
Lofgren was agreed to by a record vote of 218 yeas and 205
nays. On April 11, 2000, a motion to instruct conferees by Mr.
Conyers was agreed to by a record vote of 406 yeas and 22 nays.
These provisions were later included in H.R. 5656, a new
bill containing the Departments of Labor and Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2001, which was incorporated by reference into the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4577 (H. Rept. 106-1033),
which was filed in the House on December 15, 2000. On December
15, 2000, the conference report was considered pursuant to a
previous order of the House and agreed to by a record vote of
292 yeas and 60 nays. On December 15, 2000, the Senate agreed
to the conference report by unanimous consent.
H.R. 4577 was presented to the President on December 15,
2000, and was signed into law on December 21, 2000 (Public law
106-554).
INTERNET ACCESS CHARGES
(H.R. 1291, H.R. 4202)
To prohibit the imposition of access charges on Internet
service providers, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1291, the Internet Access Charge Prohibition Act,
amends the Communications Act of 1934 to preclude the FCC from
imposing on any information service provider (including
Internet Service Providers) any access charge that is intended
for the support of universal service based on the amount of
time a consumer spends on-line.
Legislative History
H.R. 1291 was introduced in the House on March 25, 1999 by
Mr. Upton along with 141 cosponsors and was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
A similar bill, H.R. 4202, the Internet Services Promotion
Act of 2000, was introduced in the House by Mr. Ehrlich and
nine cosponsors on April 6, 2000. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and additionally to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
On May 3, 2000 the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 1291 and H.R. 4202. Testifying before the Subcommittee was
a Member of Congress and industry representatives.
On May 10, 2000 the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and
approved the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration
by a voice vote. On May 12, 2000, the Full Committee met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1291 reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce
reported H.R. 1291 to the House (H. Rept. 106-615) on May 12,
2000.
The House considered H.R. 1291 under suspension of the
rules, on May 16, 2000 and passed H.R. 1291 by a voice vote.
On May 17, 2000, H.R. 1291 was received in the Senate. On
May 24, 2000 H.R. 1291 was read the first time and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar. On May 25, 2000 H.R. 1291 was read
the second time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1291 or H.R. 4202
during the 106th Congress.
UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL
(H.R. 3113)
To protect individuals, families, and Internet service
providers from unsolicited and unwanted electronic mail.
Summary
The intent of H.R. 3113 is to protect individuals,
families, and Internet service providers from unsolicited and
unwanted electronic mail. The bill prohibits any person from
sending an unsolicited commercial electronic mail (e-mail)
message unless the message contains a valid e-mail address,
conspicuously displayed, to which a recipient may send notice
of a desire not to receive further messages. This notice
further prohibits a person from sending other unsolicited
commercial e-mail messages after a reasonable period of time,
and considers such notice as termination of any pre-existing
business relationship between the parties.
H.R. 3113 prohibits any person who sends such messages from
taking an action that causes any Internet routing information
contained in or accompanying such message to: (1) be inaccurate
or invalid; or (2) fail to accurately reflect the routing of
such information. The bill also requires any such message to
include information that: (1) identifies the message as
unsolicited commercial e-mail; and (2) contains notice of the
opportunity for the recipient to request to not receive further
messages.
H.R. 3113 also allows a provider of Internet access service
(provider) to enforce a policy regarding unsolicited commercial
e-mail messages that complies with specified requirements,
including requirements for notice and public availability of
such policy and for an opportunity for subscribers to opt not
to receive such messages. The bill also protects a provider
against liability for: (1) blocking the transmission or receipt
of such messages; or (2) retransmitting unsolicited bulk
commercial mail messages unless such provider has knowledge
that a transmission is prohibited.
H.R. 3113 directs the FTC to notify violators, to prohibit
further initiation of such messages, and to require the
initiator to delete the names and e-mail addresses of the
recipients and providers from all mailing lists. The bill
requires the names and e-mail addresses of any children of the
recipient to be included in such notification. H.R. 3113
authorizes the FTC: (1) to serve a complaint upon an initiator
who fails to comply; and (2) after an opportunity for a
hearing, to order such initiator to comply, and grants U.S.
district courts jurisdiction to order compliance. The bill also
provides a right of action by a recipient or provider against
e-mail initiators who violate the above requirements and
requires the FTC to report to Congress on the effectiveness and
enforcement of this legislation.
Legislative History
H.R. 3113 was introduced by Mrs. Wilson and 13 cosponsors
on October20, 1999, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On November 11, 1999 the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail
entitled, ``Spam: the E-Mail You Want to Can.'' At the hearing
the Subcommittee heard from Members of Congress with
legislation pending on the issue as well as government and
industry representatives.
On March 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and
approved the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration
by a voice vote. On June 14, 2000, the Full Committee met in
open session and ordered H.R. 3113 reported to the House, with
an amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce
reported H.R. 3113 to the House on June 26, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-
700).
The House considered H.R. 3113 under suspension of the
rules on July 18, 2000. On July 18, 2000 the House passed H.R.
3113 by a record vote of 427 yeas and 1 nay.
On July 19, 2000 H.R. 3113 was received in the Senate, and
read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3113 during the 106th
Congress.
REGULATION OF CONSUMER AND INVESTOR DATABASES
(H.R. 1858, H.R. 354)
To promote electronic commerce through improved access for
consumers to electronic databases, including securities market
information databases.
Summary
Title I of H.R. 1858, the Consumer and Investor Access to
Information Act, prohibits a person from selling or
distributing a duplicate of a database collected and organized
by another person that competes in commerce with the original
database. The legislation defines a duplicate of a database as
a database which is substantially the same as the first
database. Further, a discrete section of a database may also be
treated as a database. Thus, H.R. 1858 prevents the
distribution of pirated databases which could threaten
investment in database creation. At the same time, it does not
prevent reuse of information for purposes of creating a new
database.
Title I sets forth a variety of permitted acts, such as
those related to news reporting, law enforcement, and academic
research. Title I also excludes certain databases from any
protection altogether, such as government databases, databases
related to Internet communications, and computer programs. In
addition, title I of H.R. 1858 limits the liability of a
provider of telecommunications or information services, so long
as the such provider did not initially place a pirated database
on its network. Title I authorizes the FTC to take appropriate
actions under the Federal Trade Commission Act to prevent
violations of title I.
Title II addresses issues within the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
Legislative History
H.R. 354 was introduced in the House by Mr. Coble on
January 19, 1999. H.R. 354 was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property
held a hearing on March 18, 1999. Witnesses included
government, industry and academic representatives. The
Subcommittee reported the bill to the full Judiciary Committee,
as amended, by a voice vote, on May 20, 2000.
On May 19, 1999 H.R. 1858 was introduced by Mr. Bliley and
five cosponsors. H.R. 1858 was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on title I of
H.R. 1858 on June 15, 1999. Testimony was received from
government and industry representatives.
The Committee on the Judiciary met in open markup session
on May 26, 1999, and ordered H.R. 354 to be reported, with an
amendment, by a voice vote.
On July 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials met in open markup session and approved H.R. 1858 for
Full Committee Consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. On
July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade,
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 1858 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
voice vote.
The Committee on Commerce met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 1858 reported to the House, with an amendment, on
August 5, 1999.
On September 30, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 354 to the House (H. Rept. 106-349, Part 1) and
the bill was referred sequentially to the House Committee on
Commerce for a period ending not later than October 8, 1999.
Also on September 30, 1999, the Committee on Commerce reported
H.R. 1858 to the House (H. Rept. 106-350, Part 1) and the bill
was referred sequentially to the House Committee on the
Judiciary for a period ending not later than October 8, 1999.
The Committee on Commerce and the Committee on the
Judiciary were discharged from the further consideration of
H.R. 354 and H.R. 1858, respectively, on October 8, 1999.
No further action was taken on H.R. 354 or H.R. 1858 during
the 106th Congress.
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT
(H.R. 3125)
To prohibit Internet gambling, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3125 prohibits any person engaged in a gambling
business from using the Internet to place, receive, or
otherwise make a bet or wager, or to send, receive, or invite
information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager, and
establishes mechanisms tailored to the Internet to enforce that
prohibition. The bill provides criminal penalties for
violations, authorize civil enforcement proceedings by Federal
and State authorities, establishes mechanisms for requiring
Internet service providers to terminate or block access to
material or activity that violates the prohibition, and
authorizes other relief.
Legislative History
On October 21, 1999, H.R. 3125 was introduced in the House
by Mr. Goodlatte and 34 cosponsors. It was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. On November 3, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Crime met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 3125 for consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary,
as amended, by a record vote of 5 yeas and 3 nays. On March 10,
2000 the Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing on H.R. 3125.
On April 5 and 6, 2000 the Committee on the Judiciary met
in open markup session to consider H.R. 3125. On April 6, 2000,
the Committee ordered H.R. 3113 reported to the House, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 21 yeas and 8 nays. The
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 3125 to the House (H.
Rept. 106-655, Part 1) on June 7, 2000.
On June 7, 2000, H.R. 3125 was sequentially referred to the
Committee on Commerce for a period ending not later than June
23, 2000.
On June 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3125. Testifying before the Subcommittee was a Member of
Congress and government and industry representatives.
On June 23, 2000, the Committee on Commerce was discharged
from the further consideration of H.R. 3125. The House
considered H.R. 3125 under suspension of the rules on July 17,
2000. Passage of H.R. 3125 failed by a record vote of 245 yeas
and 159 nays.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3125 in the 106th
Congress.
COMMUNITY BROADCASTERS PROTECTION ACT
Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 3194, S. 1948, H.R. 486)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the
Federal Communications Commission to preserve low-power
television stations that provide community broadcasting, and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 486 requires the FCC to provide ``qualified'' low
power stations with a ``Class A'' television license that would
put low power licensees on par with full power broadcast
stations. To qualify for a Class A license under the bill, low
power stations have to meet certain criteria, including
broadcasting at least 18 hours a day, broadcasting at least 3
hours of local programming, and operating outside certain
frequencies designated to be used for the digital conversion of
full power stations and other purposes. In addition,
prospective low power stations cannot qualify if the station
will cause interference to other licensees. H.R. 486 also
provides an exemption for Class A low power licenses from the
general requirement that the FCC use competitive bidding
process to award licenses. The bill requires the FCC to design
a new mechanism to award Class A low power licenses if more
than one applicant applies for an available license.
Legislative History
H.R. 486 was introduced in the House by Mr. Norwood and
eight cosponsors on February 2, 1999. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held an oversight hearing on April 13, 1999
addressing the regulatory classification of low power
television licensees. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the FCC, television broadcasters, and
organizations representing broadcasters.
On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session to
consider H.R. 486 which was approved for Full Committee
consideration, as amended, by a record vote of 18 yeas and 3
nays.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
the bill on August 5, 1999. The Committee approved the bill, as
amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
The text of H.R. 486 was included in S. 1948, introduced by
Senator Lott and incorporated by reference in section
1000(a)(5) of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3194, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (H. Rept. 106-479). On November
18, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for
the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
3194 (H.Res. 386) which passed the House by a voice vote, with
an amendment. The House considered the conference report on
November 18, 1999 and approved the conference report by a
record vote of 296 yeas and 135 nays.
On November 18, 1999, the Senate agreed to consider the
conference report by a roll call vote of 80 yeas and 8 nays and
a cloture motion was filed. On November 19, 1999, the Senate
invoked cloture by a roll call vote of 87 yeas and 9 nays and
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 74 yeas
and 24 nays, and the bill was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3194 was presented to the President on November 22,
1999 signed into law on November 29, 1999 (Public Law 106-
113)..
RURAL LOCAL BROADCAST SIGNAL ACT
Public Law 106-553 (H.R. 4942, H.R. 3615, S. 2097)
To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to ensure
improved access to the signals of local television stations by
multichannel video providers to all households which desire
such service in unserved and underserved rural areas by
December 31, 2006.
Summary
H.R. 3615 amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to
authorize the Rural Utility Service (RUS), upon certification
from the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), to guarantee $1.25 billion in loans for
the construction of subscription-based multi-video programming
distribution (MVPD) systems (e.g., cable, satellite, wireless
cable) that can deliver local broadcast signals to rural areas.
Borrowers would be permitted to use guaranteed loans to enter
the MVPD market by any means. Specifically, under new section
602(c)(3), a borrower can use a guaranteed loan ``to finance
the acquisition, improvement, enhancement, construction,
deployment, launch, or rehabilitation of the means, including
spectrum rights, by which local television broadcast signals
will be delivered'' to consumers who currently do not have
satellite-based access to local broadcast signals. Moreover,
upon entry into the MVPD market, and to the extent system
capacity is available, a borrower is not be precluded from
offering its subscribers non-broadcast services, such as high-
speed data services.
The RUS is authorized to guarantee a single loan up to $625
million; all other guaranteed loans have to be $100 million or
less. RUS borrowers have to pay their loans in full within the
lesser of 25 years or the useful life of the assets purchased.
The bill imposes a variety of underwriting requirements on
borrowers (e.g., insurance, collateral, perfected security
interests), and also allows the Federal government's guarantee
to be subordinate to any private-sector financing. The bill
also gives the RUS broad authority to modify the terms and
conditions of loans. The RUS' authority to guarantee loans
would be contingent upon future appropriations and sunsets on
December 31, 2006.
The bill also makes clear that the RUS, in deciding which
loans to guarantee, should give priority to borrowers that plan
to serve the unserved and underserved rural markets, taking
into account such factors as feasibility, population, terrain,
prevailing market conditions, and projected costs to consumers.
Priority borrowers are required to agree to performance
schedules, subject to penalties. The RUS is also authorized to
require a borrower to indemnify the Federal government for any
losses it incurs as a result of a judgment against the
borrower, or any breach of the borrower's obligations. Finally,
the bill makes clear that RUS borrowers have the same
intellectual property rights and carriage obligations that
currently apply to other MVPDs (e.g., compulsory licensing,
must carry, retransmission consent).
Legislative History
On February 10, 2000, Mr. Goodlatte and 104 cosponsors
introduced H.R. 3615 in the House. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Agriculture, and additionally, the Committees on
Commerce and the Judiciary.
On February 16, 2000, the Agriculture Committee met in open
markup session to consider H.R. 3615, and ordered the bill to
be reported, as amended, by a record vote of 41 yeas and no
nays. (H. Rept. 106-508, Part 1). The Committees on Commerce
and the Judiciary were granted an extension for the further
consideration of the bill for a period ending not later than
March 31, 2000.
On March 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3615. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Members of
Congress, Federal agencies, and industry representatives.
On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session to
consider H.R. 3615. The Subcommittee reported the bill, as
amended, to the Full Committee by a voice vote. On March 29,
2000, the Full Committee ordered H.R. 3615 reported to the
House, with an amendment, by a voice vote. On March 31, 2000,
the Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from the further
consideration of the bill. The referral of the Committee on
Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than April
6, 2000.The Committee reported the bill to the House, with an
amendment on April 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-508, Part 2).On April
12, the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 3615 (H.Res. 475). On April 13, 2000, the
House agreed to procedures for the consideration of H.R. 3615
(substantially similar to those of H.Res. 475) by unanimous
consent, and laid H.Res. 475 on the table. The House proceeded
to consider H.R. 3615 pursuant to the order of the House and
passed the bill, as amended, a record vote of 375 yeas and 37
nays. On May 2, 2000, H.R. 3615 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
A modified version of H.R. 3615 is contained in the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4942, a bill making
appropriations for the District of Columbia and the Departments
of Commerce, Justice, and State for FY 2001 (H. Rept. 106-
1005), which was filed on October 26, 2000.
The Committee on Rules reported a resolution providing for
consideration of the conference report on October 26, 2000
(H.Res. 653). The House passed the rule by a record vote of 212
yeas and 192 nays. On October 26, 2000, the House considered
the conference report pursuant to the rule, and agreed to the
conference report by a record vote of 206 yeas and 198 nays.
The Senate agreed to the conference report on October 27, 2000,
by a roll call vote of 48 yeas and 43 nays, clearing the bill
for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on December 15,
2000 and signed into law on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-
553).
RADIO BROADCASTING PRESERVATION ACT
Public Law 106-553 (H.R. 4942, H.R. 3439, S. 2068)
To require the Federal Communications Commission to revise
its regulations authorizing the operation of new, low-power FM
radio stations.
Summary
H.R. 3439 prohibits the FCC from prescribing any rules
authorizing the operation of new low power FM radio stations,
or establishing a low power radio service, as proposed in FCC
MM Docket No. 99-25 (final rule issued January 20, 2000), and
terminates any rules prescribed by the FCC before the date of
enactment that would violate such a prohibition and voids any
low power radio licenses previously issued.
Legislative History
H.R. 3439 was introduced in the House by Mr. Oxley and four
cosponsors on November 17, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
On February 17, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 3439. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the FCC, industry and academic representatives.
On March 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session to
consider H.R. 3439. H.R. 3439 was approved for Full Committee
consideration by a voice vote.
On March 29, 2000, the Full Committee met in open markup
session to consider H.R. 3439 and ordered the bill reported, as
amended, to the House by a voice vote. On April 10, 2000, the
Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 3439 to the House on April
10, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-567).
The Committee on Rules met on April 12, 2000 and granted a
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3436 (H.Res. 472).
After H.Res. 472 was reported, the House agreed by unanimous
consent to provide for consideration of H.R. 3439 in a manner
substantially similar to H.Res. 472.
The House considered H.R. 3439 on April 13, 2000, and
passed the bill by a record vote of 274 yeas and 110 nays. On
May 2, 2000, H.R. 3436 was received in the Senate and on May
16, 2000, the bill was read twice and referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
A modified version of H.R. 3439 is contained in the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4942, a bill making
appropriations for the District of Columbia and the Departments
of Commerce, Justice, and State for FY 2001 (H. Rept. 106-
1005), which was filed on October 26, 2000.
The Committee on Rules reported a resolution providing for
consideration of the conference report on October 26, 2000
(H.Res. 653). The House passed the rule by a record vote of 212
yeas and 192 nays. On October 26, 2000, the House considered
the conference report pursuant to the rule, and agreed to the
conference report by a record vote of 206 yeas and 198 nays.
The Senate agreed to the conference report on October 27, 2000,
by a roll call vote of 48 yeas and 43 nays, clearing the bill
for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on December 15,
2000 and signed into law on December 21, 2000 (Public Law 106-
553).
RELIGIOUS BROADCASTING
(H.R. 4201, H.R. 3525)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the
service obligations of noncommercial educational broadcast
stations.
Summary
H.R. 4201 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to allow a
nonprofit organization to hold a noncommercial educational
(NCE) radio or television license if the station is used
primarily to broadcast material that such organization or
entity determines serves an educational, instructional,
cultural, or religious purpose in that community, unless such
determination is arbitrary or unreasonable.
The bill also prohibits the FCC from imposing any
quantitative requirements for such educational programming. The
FCC may not prevent an organization from determining that
religious programming, including religious services, qualifies
as educational, instructional or cultural. The bill also
prohibits the FCC from imposing any additional content
requirements on a noncommercial licensee that are not imposed
on a commercial licensee. The FCC must make the aforementioned
revisions to its regulations within 270 days after enactment.
The bill requires a rulemaking to modify any requirements
relating to the service obligations of NCE stations.
Legislative History
H.R. 3525 was introduced in the House by Mr. Oxley and 125
cosponsors on January 24, 2000. On April 6, 2000, H.R. 4201 was
introduced in the House by Mr. Pickering and four cosponsors.
Both bills were referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On April 13, 2000 the Subcommittee held a legislative
hearing and on H.R. 4201 and H.R. 3525. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from FCC Commissioners, industry and family
organization representatives.
On May 10, 2000, the Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection Subcommittee met in open markup session on
H.R. 4201. The Subcommittee approved the bill for Full
Committee consideration, as amended, by a record vote of 11 to
5. The Full Committee on Commerce ordered the bill reported, as
amended, by voice vote on May 17, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-662). On
June 9, the bill was placed on the Union Calendar.
The Committee on Rules met on June 19, 2000 and granted a
rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4201 on June 20, 2000.
The rule was filed in the House as H.Res. 527.
The House considered H.R. 4201 on June 20, 2000 under the
provisions of H.Res. 527. The House passed the bill, as
amended, by record vote of 264 to 159. On June 21, 2000, the
bill was received in the Senate. On July 27, 2000, the bill was
read for the first time. On September 5, 2000, the bill was
read the second time.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4201 or H.R. 3525 in
the 106th Congress.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS MERGER REVIEW ACT
(H.R. 4019)
To place certain constraints and limitations on the
authority of the Federal Communications Commission to review
mergers and to impose conditions on licenses and other
authorizations assigned or transferred in the course of mergers
or other transactions.
Summary
H.R. 4019 creates a new section 417 of the Communications
Act of 1934. The bill precludes the FCC from denying a
transfer-of-control application, unless the transfer of control
would result in a violation of FCC rules or regulations in
effect at the time the application is filed, and such violation
cannot be cured through a conditional approval of the
application. The bill also precludes the FCC from conditionally
approving a transfer-of-control application, except to the
extent necessary to ensure that a transferee is in compliance
with FCC rules and regulations in effect at the time the
application is approved, or to permit the orderly disposition
of assets to comply with FCC rules and regulations.
H.R. 4019 gives the FCC 90 days to complete all action on
transfer-of-control applications, unless the applicant requests
an extension and gives the FCC 60 days to complete all action
on transfer-of-control applications involving local exchange
carriers that, upon consummation of the proposed merger, would
control no more than two percent of local telephone lines in
the United States, unless, the applicant requests an extension.
H.R. 4019 applies to any transfer-of-control application that
is pending on, or submitted to the FCC, on or after, the date
of enactment. With regard to any applications pending before
the FCC for more than 30 days as of the date of enactment, the
FCC would have 60 days to complete all action on transfer-of-
control applications without a request of extension.
Legislative History
H.R. 4019 was introduced in the House by Rep. Pickering and
11 cosponsors on March 16, 2000. H.R. 4019 was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
On March 17, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 4019. The Subcommittee received testimony from the FCC and
industry representatives.
On June 27, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session, and
approved the bill, as amended, for Full Committee consideration
by a voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4019 during the 106th
Congress.
SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES INTERNET ACCESS ACT
(H.R. 1746)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to reduce telephone
rates, provide advanced telecommunications services to schools,
libraries, and certain health care facilities, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1746 replaces the FCC's existing schools and libraries
program with a clearly defined system administered by the
States to ensure that discounted telecommunications services
are provided to organizations that most need assistance. The
bill first reduces the existing telephone excise tax from three
percent to one percent, effective January 1, 2000. The one
percent excise tax would remain in effect until October 1,
2003, and would be repealed altogether on October 1, 2004.
The bill directs that all telephone excise tax proceeds be
deposited into the ``Technology Trust Fund,'' which would be
administered by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) for the provision of telecommunications
services to qualified schools, libraries and rural health care
providers. Specifically, NTIA allocates funds among the 50
States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico based on each
State's school-age population (ages 5-17), as well as its
participation in the Federal school lunch program. No State can
receive less than one-half of one percent of the total fund. To
be eligible for funding, each State is required to submit a
plan for disbursing funds to schools, libraries and rural
health care providers. NTIA is authorized to direct the States
to take into account the relative economic condition of the
entities that apply for funding. The bill prohibits the
subsidization of schools with endowments larger than $50
million. Likewise, to prevent misallocation of funds, the bill
requires States to keep their administrative expenses to a
minimum, permitting them to use no more than two percent of
their grant towards administrative costs. The fund sunsets on
October 1, 2004, when the remaining one percent excise tax is
repealed.
The bill also sets parameters to ensure that spending does
not exceed the amount of available funds. For the first year,
spending is capped at $1.7 billion. In subsequent years,
administrators are not permitted to spend more than was
received the previous year from the excise tax. Any balance in
excess of the needs of the program is paid to the general
Treasury. If needs continue to exist after the excise tax is
repealed in 2004, the bill authorizes Treasury allocations (not
to exceed $500 million) to continue furnishing assistance to
entities in need.
Legislative History
On May 11, 2000, Mr. Tauzin and 10 cosponsors introduced
H.R. 1746. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
and additionally to the Committee on Ways and Means.
On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 1746. Testimony was received from
Members of Congress, Federal agencies, and industry
representatives.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1746 in the 106th
Congress.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
(H.R. 2384)
To reauthorize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB).
Summary
H.R. 2384 authorizes the CPB for the FY 2000 through FY
2006. The bill allots an amount equal to 40 percent of the
total amount of non-Federal financial support received by
public broadcasting entities during the fiscal year, except
that the amount so appropriated shall not exceed $475 million
for the fiscal year 2002. In addition, the bill also
authorizes, for the transition to digital broadcasting, $15
million for fiscal year 1999 and $100 million dollars for each
of the fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 for the costs
associated with the transition of public broadcasting to
provide digital broadcasting services, including for the
support of digital program production, development and
distribution. Finally, H.R. 2384 authorizes funds for the
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration in the amount
of $35 million for fiscal year 2000, $110 million for fiscal
year 2001, $100 million for fiscal year 2002, $89 million for
fiscal year 2003 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal
year 2004, to be used by the Secretary of Commerce to assist in
the planning and construction of public telecommunications
facilities, including analog and digital broadcast facilities.
Legislative History
H.R. 2384 was introduced in the House by Mr. Tauzin and two
cosponsors on June 29, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
On June 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 2384. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the public broadcasting industry.
On July 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a second legislative
hearing on H.R. 2384. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the public broadcasting industry and
industry trade associations.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2384 in the 106th
Congress.
THE INTERNET FREEDOM AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT
(H.R. 2420)
To deregulate the Internet and high speed data services,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2420 preempts the FCC and the States from regulating
the rates, charges, terms or conditions for, or entry into the
provision of, any high-speed data service or Internet access
service, and the facilities used to provide either service.
H.R. 2420 also preserves the authority of the States to
regulate voice telephone exchange services, and also preserves
the rights of local cable franchising authorities to establish
requirements that are otherwise consistent with the
Communications Act. H.R. 2420 permits the FCC to retain or
modify both its interstate access charge exemption for so-
called ``enhanced service providers,'' and its existing
universal service rules.
H.R. 2420 exempts the incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILECs) from their obligation to provide competitive local
exchange carriers (CLECs) with unbundled access to any network
element that is used in the provision of broadband services
(unless the FCC required such element to be unbundled as of
January 1, 1999). H.R. 2420 further exempts the incumbent local
exchange carriers (ILECs) from their obligation to make their
broadband services available for resale by CLECs at wholesale
rates. H.R. 2420 authorizes the FCC to reduce (but not
increase) the number of network elements that would be subject
to an unbundling requirement, and expand the FCC's authority to
forbear from enforcing its unbundling rules.
H.R. 2420 requires the ILECs to permit: (1) Internet users
to have access to any Internet Service Provider (ISP) that
interconnects with the ILEC's broadband service; (2) ISPs to
acquire facilities and services necessary to interconnect with
the ILEC's broadband service for the provision of Internet
access service; and (3) ISPs to co-locate their equipment at
the ILEC's offices.
H.R. 2420 provides interLATA relief for the ILECs by
classifying their broadband services as an ``incidental''
service, thereby enabling the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs)
to bypass compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act's
competitive checklist as a pre-condition to offering in-region
broadband services on an interLATA basis. In addition, H.R.
2420 bars the ILECs from ``marketing'' or ``billing'' in-region
Internet telephony services until they satisfy the checklist.
H.R. 2420 also repeals the requirement that an ILEC offer its
interLATA information services through a structurally separate
subsidiary.
Legislative History
On July 1, 1999, Mr. Tauzin, and 31 cosponsors introduced
H.R. 2420 in the House. The bill was referred to the Committee
on Commerce.
On July 27, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 2420. Testimony was received from telecommunications
industry representatives.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2420 in the 106th
Congress.
TRUTH IN TELEPHONE BILLING
(H.R. 3011, H.R. 3022)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to improve the
disclosure of information concerning telephone charges, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3011, the Truth in Telephone Billing Act, adds a new
section 258(c) to the Communications Act of 1934 that requires
each telecommunications carrier to identify (in plain language
and not longer than one line on the bill) on each subscriber's
monthly statement: (1) the government program for which the
carrier is being taxed, and the government entity imposing the
tax; (2) the form in which the tax is assessed (e.g., per
subscriber, per line, percentage of revenues); and (3) a
separate line-item that identifies the dollar amount of the
subscriber's bill that is being used by the carrier to pay for
the government program. H.R. 3011 also requires the GAO to
conduct an examination, and report its finding to Congress, of
the current implicit and explicit subsidy mechanisms in the
telecommunications industry.
Legislative History
On October 10, 1999, Mr. Bliley introduced H.R. 3011 with
one cosponsor. H.R. 3022, the Rest of the Telephone Truth in
Billing Act, was introduced in the House by Mr. Markey on
October 5, 1999. Both bills were referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3011 and H.R. 3022, the Rest of the Telephone Truth in
Billing Act. Testimony was received from industry
representatives and academic associations.
On September 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session and approved the bill, as amended, for Full
Committee consideration by a voice vote.
On October 5, 2000, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 3011 reported to the House, as
amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce filed the
report to H.R. 3011 in the House on October 13, 2000 (H. Rept.
106-978).
No further action was taken on H.R. 3011 in the 106th
Congress.
RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT ACT
(H.R. 4445)
To exempt from reciprocal compensation requirement
telecommunications traffic to the Internet.
Summary
H.R. 4445 bars the inter-carrier compensation mechanism
known as ``reciprocal compensation'' for local telephone,
wireless, and Internet-bound traffic. Under reciprocal
compensation, a telecommunications carrier charges other
carriers for terminating traffic on its telecommunications
network. The bill replaces reciprocal compensation with a
``bill and keep'' system of compensation. Under bill and keep,
carriers do not exchange payments for terminating each others
traffic but merely bill and keep revenue for all calls made by
their subscribers.
H.R. 4445 establishes that Internet-bound traffic is
interstate in nature, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the FCC, and makes clear that the FCC shall not impose access
charges on Internet telecommunications. H.R. 4445 grandfathers
existing reciprocal compensation arrangements in
interconnection agreements, but it eliminates the requirement
that carriers to be allowed to ``pick and choose'' select
portions of grandfathered reciprocal compensation agreements.
In addition, H.R. 4445 extends for six months any reciprocal
compensation arrangement that is scheduled to expire within six
months after enactment. H.R. 4445 requires each
telecommunications carrier to negotiate in good faith to
establish points of interconnection for the transport of
Internet telecommunications in order to ensure network
integrity and service quality. Lastly, H.R. 4445 requires the
GAO, within 90 days after enactment, to report on the impact of
bill and keep on consumers' Internet access bills. If the GAO
finds that bill and keep will cause an unreasonable increase in
the aggregate or average costs to consumers nationwide for
access to the Internet, then the FCC has 90 days to prescribe
an alternative cost-based mechanism that gives each local
carrier and equivalent opportunity to recover the costs of
delivering Internet telecommunications.
Legislative History
H.R. 4445 was introduced in the House by Mr. Tauzin and
three cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. On June 22, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 4445. Testimony was received from
industry representatives, State public service commissioners,
and a stock market analyst.
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open
markup session and approved the bill, as amended, for Full
Committee consideration by a voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4445 in the 106th
Congress.
TELEMARKETING REFORM
(H.R. 3100, H.R. 3180)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
telemarketers from interfering with the caller identification
service of any person to whom a telephone solicitation is made,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3100 amends the Communications Act of 1934 by making
it unlawful for any person making a telephone solicitation to
interfere with or circumvent a caller identification service
from accessing or providing the call recipient with the name
and valid working telephone number of the caller. The bill also
prevents telemarketers from using ``do not call'' lists for any
marketing purpose. The bill directs the FCC to prescribe
regulations implementing such a prohibition. Lastly, the bill
provides a cause of action to a person or entity, or a State
attorney general on behalf of its residents, for violations of
such prohibitions or regulations.
H.R. 3180 amends the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and
Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102) by mandating the FTC to
include in its rules requirements that telemarketers: (1)
notify consumers that they have the right to be placed on
either the Direct Marketing Association's or the appropriate
State's ``do not call'' list; (2) notify the Association or
State if a consumer elects to be placed on such a list; (3)
obtain and reconcile such lists on a regular basis; (4) not
make any telemarketing calls during the hours of 5:00 p.m. to
7:00 p.m.; and (5) not block the identity of the telephone from
which they are making a telemarketing call. The bill also
directs the FTC to study and report to Congress on the
violations of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 3100 was introduced in the House by Mr. Frelinghuysen
on October 19, 1999. H.R. 3180 was introduced in the House by
Mr. Salmon and five cosponsors on October 28, 1999. Both bills
were referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On June 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3100 and H.R. 3180. The Subcommittee received testimony
from two Members of Congress, and representatives from the FTC,
the Arizona House of Representatives, and organizations
representing retired persons and the telemarketing industry.
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection was
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 3100. The
Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3100
on September 14, 2000. The Committee ordered H.R. 3100 reported
to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present. The Committee on Commerce filed the report to
accompany H.R. 3100 on September 20, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-872).
The House considered H.R. 3100 on September 27, 2000 under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a record vote of
420 yeas and no nays. On September 28, 2000, H.R. 3100 was
received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3100 or H.R. 3180 in
the 106th Congress.
INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT ACT
(H.R. 3850)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote
deployment of advanced services and foster the development of
competition for the benefit of consumers in all regions of the
Nation by relieving unnecessary burdens on the Nation's two
percent local exchange telecommunications carriers, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3850 amends the Communications Act of 1934 for two
percent carriers, defined as local exchange carriers with fewer
than two percent of the Nation's subscriber lines installed in
the aggregate nationwide. The bill requires the FCC to adopt
less burdensome regulatory, compliance or reporting
requirements for two percent carriers than apply to regional
bell operating companies. If the FCC adopts a burdensome rule
applicable to incumbent local exchange carriers which does not
separate two percent carriers, the two percent carrier may seek
a waiver or reconsideration of the rule. The bill exempts two
percent carriers from filing or maintaining audited cost
allocation manuals and annual Automated Reporting and
Management Information Systems reports. The bill prevents the
FCC from adopting or enforcing any regulation which impairs the
ability of a two percent carrier to integrate its operations in
one or more entities.
The bill allows two percent carriers to participate in one
or more study areas for NECA's common line tariff, and elect to
be regulated under the price cap scheme for one or more study
areas. It also allows two percent carriers to introduce new
interstate services by filing a tariff with one day's notice
and prevents the FCC from approving or disapproving the rate
structure.
In the event of facilities-based or resale-based
competition with a two percent carrier, the bill allows pricing
flexibility for the two percent carrier, allowing it to
deaverage its interstate switched or special access rates, file
a tariff with one days notice, or file contract-based tariffs
for interstate switched or special access services. The bill
provides full pricing deregulation for a two percent carrier
when a facilities-based carrier enters its service area. The
right to participate in the NECA common line tariff is
preserved in both instances. The bill eliminates the
applicability of FCC's section 214 merger review (transfer of
authority to operate a telephone line) for two percent
carriers, making such carriers subject only to the section 310
(transfer of control of a wireless license) public interest
analysis. Moreover, the bill requires the FCC to complete
review of two percent carrier mergers within 45 days. Failure
to act within 45 days will constitute merger approval.
The bill amends section 405 of the Communications Act by
requiring the FCC to act on waiver and reconsideration
petitions by two percent carriers within 90 days of filing. If
no action is taken within 90 days, the petition is deemed
granted and final.
Legislative History
H.R. 3850 was introduced in the House by Mrs. Cubin and
three cosponsors on March 8, 2000. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on
H.R. 3850. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the FCC, a telecommunications economist, and
organizations representing two percent telecommunications
carriers and competitive local exchange carriers.
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection was
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 3850. The
Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3850
on September 14, 2000. The Committee ordered H.R. 3850 reported
to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
on Commerce reported the bill to the House on October 3, 2000
(H. Rept. 106-926).
The House considered H.R. 3850 on October 3, 2000 under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
October 4, 2000, H.R. 3850 was received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3850 during the 106th
Congress.
PERMITTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE IN LIMOUSINE SERVICE
(H.R. 1689)
To prohibit States from imposing restrictions on the
operation of motor vehicles providing limousine service between
a place in a State and a place in another State, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1689 is a bill to prohibit States from imposing
restrictions on the operation of motor vehicles providing
limousine service between a place in a State and a place in
another State. The legislation prohibits a State, local
jurisdiction, public authority or other similar entity from
enforcing any law, ordinance, rule or regulation that has the
effect of restricting the operation of a motor vehicle
providing pre-arranged ground transportation service if the
motor carrier providing that service is registered with the
Secretary of Transportation, meets all applicable State
requirements in the State in which they are domiciled, and was
hired pursuant to a contract for interstate travel.
Legislative History
H.R. 1689 was introduced by Mr. Andrews and two cosponsors
on May 19, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
On September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer protection was
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 1689. The
Full Committee met on September 14, 2000 in open markup session
and ordered H.R. 1689 reported, with an amendment, by a voice
vote. The Committee on Commerce reported the bill to the House,
with an amendment, on October 25, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-1003, Part
1).
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was
granted a sequential referral of the bill through December 15,
2000.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1689 in the 106th
Congress.
LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES
(H.R. 2592)
To amend the Consumer Products Safety Act to provide that
low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to
such Act.
Summary
H.R. 2592 amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide
that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject
to such Act. The bill removes low-speed electric bicycles from
the definition of ``motor vehicle'' within the jurisdiction of
the Department of Transportation, where such bicycles are
required to be regulated in the same manner as motorcycles. The
bill then amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to transfer
jurisdiction over electric bicycles to the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), where such bicycles would be
regulated similarly to human powered bicycles.
Legislative History
H.R. 2592 was introduced in the House by Mr. Rogan and 17
cosponsors on July 22, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2592 on May 16,
2000. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Commissioners and Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, and representatives of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and manufacturers of electric bicycles.
The Full Committee met in open markup session on September
14, 2000, and ordered H.R. 2592 reported to the House, with
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection was discharged from the further consideration of the
legislation. On October 18, 2000, H.R. 2592 was considered by
the House under suspension of the rules and was agreed to as
amended by a voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2592 in the 106th
Congress.
NATIONAL AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE SAFETY ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 3032)
Summary
H.R. 3032 amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to expand
the definition of ``consumer product'' to include amusement
park roller coasters that are permanently fixed to a site. The
bill also authorizes additional annual appropriations of
$500,000 to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate
such fixed site amusement park roller coasters.
Legislative History
H.R. 3032 was introduced in the House by Mr. Markey and 10
cosponsors on October 6, 1999. The bill was referred solely to
the Committee on Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3032 on May 16,
2000. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Commissioners and Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, consumers, and representatives of the amusement
park industry.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3032 in the 106th
Congress.
SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY REFORM ACT
(S. 1185, H.R. 2366)
Summary
H.R. 2366 provides small businesses certain protections
from litigation excesses and limits the product liability of
product sellers.
Title I: Small Business Lawsuit Abuse Protection. Title I
allows punitive damages to be awarded against a small business
only if the claimant establishes by clear and convincing
evidence that conduct carried out by the defendant with a
conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of
others was the proximate cause of the harm that is the subject
of the action. Such punitive damages are limited to the lesser
of three times the amount awarded for economic and noneconomic
losses, or $250,000. The limitations are inapplicable if the
court finds that the defendant acted with specific intent to
cause the type of harm for which the action is brought.
Title I further states that in any civil action against a
small business: (1) each defendant shall be liable only for the
amount of noneconomic loss allocated to that defendant in
direct proportion to the percentage of responsibility of that
defendant for the harm caused to the plaintiff; and (2) the
court shall render a separate judgment against each defendant
describing such percentage of responsibility. Excepted from
such liability limitations are any misconduct of a defendant:
(1) that constitutes a crime of violence, international
terrorism, or a hate crime; (2) that results in liability for
damages under specified provisions of the Oil Pollution Control
Act of 1990 or the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; (3) that involves a
sexual offense or violation of a Federal or State civil rights
law; (4) caused by being under the influence of intoxicating
alcohol or a drug; or (5) relating to false claims or actions
brought by the United States relating to fraud or false
statements. Inconsistent State laws are preempted.
Title II: Product Seller Fair Treatment. Title II governs
any product liability action brought in any Federal or State
court, except for actions for commercial loss, negligent
entrustment, negligence per se concerning firearms and
ammunition, and actions brought under a dram-shop or third-
party liability arising out of the sale or provision of alcohol
to an intoxicated person or a minor. The title mandates that,
in any product liability action covered by this Act, a product
seller other than a manufacturer shall be liable to a claimant
only if such claimant establishes that: (1) the product that
caused the harm was sold, rented, or leased by the seller, the
seller failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to the
product, and such failure was the proximate cause of harm to
the plaintiff; (2) the seller made an express warranty
applicable to such product, the product failed to conform to
the warranty, and such failure caused the harm to the
plaintiff; or (3) the product seller engaged in intentional
wrongdoing (as determined under applicable State law), and such
wrongdoing caused the harm to the plaintiff. The title further
provides that a seller shall not be considered to have failed
to exercise reasonable care with respect to a product based
upon a failure to inspect if: (1) there was no reasonable
opportunity to inspect; or (2) such inspection would not have
revealed the aspect of the product that allegedly caused the
claimant's harm. A seller is allowed to be held liable as a
manufacturer if: (1) the manufacturer is not subject to
appropriate service of process; or (2) the court determines
that the claimant is or would be unable to enforce a judgment
against the manufacturer. Limited liability is provided for
persons engaged in the business of renting or leasing a
product.
Title III: Effective Date. Title III sets forth the
effective date of this Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 2366 was introduced on June 25, 1999, by Mr. Rogan and
three cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and additionally to the Committee on Commerce.
On September 29, 1999, the House Committee on the Judiciary
held hearings on H.R. 2366. The Committee on the Judiciary met
in open markup session to consider H.R. 2366 on October 19,
1999, November 2, 1999, and February 1, 2000. On February 1,
2000, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered H.R. 2366 to be
reported to the House, with an amendment, by a voice vote.
On February 7, 2000, the House Committee on Commerce was
granted an extension for the further consideration of the bill
ending not later than February 14, 2000. On February 14, 2000,
the Committee on Commerce was discharged from the further
consideration of H.R. 2366.
On February 15, 2000, the Committee on Rules granted a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2366 (H.Res. 423). On
February 16, 2000, H.Res. 423 passed the House by a record vote
of 223 yeas and 187 nays. The House passed H.R. 2366, as
amended, by a record vote of 221 yeas and 193 nays.
On February 22, 2000, H.R. 2366 was received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2366 in the 106th Congress.
WORKPLACE GOODS JOB GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 2005)
Summary
H.R. 2005 prohibits the filing of a civil action against a
manufacturer or seller of a durable good (except a motor
vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or train that is used primarily to
transport passengers for hire) more than 18 years after it was
delivered to its first purchaser or lessee for: (1) damage to
property arising out of an accident involving such good; or (2)
damages for death or personal injury arising out of an accident
involving such good if the claimant has received or is eligible
to receive worker compensation and the injury does not involve
a toxic harm (including, but not limited to, all asbestos-
related harm). However, the Act: (1) shall not bar an action
against a defendant who made an express warranty in writing as
to the safety or life expectancy of a specific product which
was longer than 18 years, except that this Act shall apply at
the expiration of such warranty; and (2) does not supersede or
modify any statute or common law that authorizes an action for
civil damages, cost recovery, or any other form of relief for
remediation of the environment.
Legislative History
H.R. 2005 was introduced in the House on June 7, 1999, by
Mr. Chabot and 2 cosponsors. It was referred to the House
Committee on the Judiciary, which ordered H.R. 2005 to be
reported as amended on September 22, 1999. On October 21, the
Committee on Judiciary reported H.R. 2005 (H. Rept. 106-410,
Part 1), and it was referred sequentially to the House
Committee on Commerce for a period ending not later than
October 22, 1999. On October 22, 1999, the Committee on
Commerce was discharged from the further consideration of H.R.
2005.
On February 1, 2000, the Committee on Rules granted a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2005 (H.Res 412).
H.Res. 412 passed the House on February 2, 2000 by a voice
vote. On February 2, 2000, the House considered and passed the
bill, as amended, by a record vote of 222 yeas and 194 nays. A
motion to reconsider was laid on the table without objection.
On February 3, 2000, H.R. 2005 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2005 in the 106th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
HIGH DEFINITION TELEVISION (HDTV) AND RELATED MATTERS
On July 25, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the
status of high definition television (HDTV) and related
matters. The hearing examined a number of issues facing the
development of high definition in the U.S., including (1) the
rate of deployment of digital televisions and equipment by
consumers and broadcasters; (2) the differing standards for
broadcasting digital television; (3) FCC regulatory issues
related to digital television; and (4) the use of spectrum
allocated for digital television for supplemental or ancillary
services. Testimony was received from industry representatives
and government witnesses.
obscene material available via the internet
On May 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
obscene material transmitted via the Internet. The hearing
explored the current state of the law and enforcement practices
surrounding obscene material available on the Internet. The
witnesses addressed what types of material exist in cyberspace
today, as well as the technological methods to limit and
control the proliferation of obscene material in the digital
arena, particularly regarding young children's exposure to such
material. Witnesses included government officials,
representatives of family groups, and victims of obscene
material transmitted via the Internet.
ACCESS TO BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
PROVIDERS
On May 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
access to buildings and facilities by telecommunications
providers. The hearing examined related issues including: (1)
whether the Federal government has a role with regard to
building access and inside wiring to promote competition; (2)
whether building owners or landlords should be prohibited from
granting exclusive telecommunications carrier access to a
building; (3) whether building owners and landlords should be
required to offer non-discriminatory access to all
telecommunications companies; (4) whether the terms,
conditions, and compensation for the installation of
telecommunications facilities should be comparably equivalent
for all telecommunications entrants; (5) whether the
compensation building owners and managers receive should be
reasonable and should be based on cost; and (6) whether FCC
rules governing inside wiring should be changed to encourage
use of existing wires within buildings. Witnesses included a
representative of the FCC, and representatives from the
telecommunications industry and the real estate industry.
THE WHITE HOUSE, THE NETWORKS, AND TV CENSORSHIP
On February 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on the Clinton Administration's practice of
trading advertising time purchased from national media outlets
by the Federal government, or free time provided by the
television networks, in exchange for the inclusion of anti-drug
messages in television network programs and related media
outlets. Witnesses included government officials, a
constitutional expert, a media expert, and representatives of
the broadcasting industry.
STATUS OF DEPLOYMENT OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held three oversight hearings on the status of
broadband deployment. The hearings were held on: June 24, 1999;
April 11, 2000; and May 25, 2000. The hearings focused on the
current state of broadband deployment. In particular, the
hearings focused on the deployment of broadband as it relates
to applications that utilize broadband networks, and use of the
broadband networks to provide service to traditionally unserved
or underserved areas of America. Testimony was received from
industry representatives and government representatives
involved in the provision of broadband services.
A REVIEW OF THE FCC'S SPECTRUM POLICIES
On July 19, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing
reviewing the FCC's spectrum policies and H.R. 4758, the
Spectrum Resource Assurance Act. The oversight portion of the
hearing explored the current spectrum management policies of
the U.S. Government. In particular, the Subcommittee examined a
specific allocation decision of the FCC involving medical
telemetry to the detriment of meter reading equipment.
Testimony was received from Members of Congress, Federal agency
representatives, and industry representatives. For information
on H.R. 4758, see previous section.
REPORT OF THE ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
On April 6, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to
receive the report of the Advisory Commission on Electronic
Commerce (ACEC). The purpose of the hearing was to have the
Chairman of the Advisory Commission provide the Subcommittee
with a summary of the Commission's report to Congress. Pursuant
to the Internet Tax Freedom Act (Public Law 105-277), Congress
directed ACEC to examine a broad set of international, Federal,
State, and local tax issues that affect electronic commerce.
Specifically, Congress sought ACEC's views on ways in which to
clarify, reduce, or simplify current tax laws as they apply to
electronic commerce, Internet-related activities, and
telecommunications services that underlie Internet services.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Honorable James
Gilmore, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
Chairman of the ACEC.
VIDEO IN THE INTERNET: ICRAVETV.COM AND OTHER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On February 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing to address a variety of public policy and
technological issues stemming from the delivery of video
programming over the Internet, a service typically known as
``webcasting.'' The hearing focused on what, if any, role
Congress should play in facilitating the delivery of video over
the Internet. In addition, the hearing addressed iCraveTV.com's
distribution of local broadcast signals over the Internet. The
hearing also focused on the debate over whether Internet
service providers should be permitted to use existing statutory
licenses to distribute broadcast programming over cable and
satellite networks, and whether Congress should create a
separate licensing regime for delivery of Internet video.
Witnesses included representatives from the different
industries affected, including several content providers and
Internet content distributors.
WIPO ONE YEAR LATER
On October 28, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing to mark the anniversary of the passage of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA implemented
two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties
into U.S. law. The DMCA is intended to give copyright owners
(such as the film and record industries) enhanced copyright
protection in a digital environment, while also ensure that
consumers have ongoing access to copyrighted works. The hearing
sought to assess the current status of consumer access to
digital entertainment on the Internet and other media, in
particular, the progress that has been made in bringing
entertainment products in digital video and digital audio
formats to consumers; how the affected industries propose to
resolve any remaining impediments; and whether there was a
further role for the Subcommittee to play in speeding the
resolution of these issues. Witnesses included representatives
from the copyright community and the information technology
industry.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REFORM
On May 20, 1999, and October 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held
oversight hearings on reform of the FCC. The May hearing
specifically focused on reform from the States' perspective and
testimony was received from four State Public Service
Commissioners. The October hearing focused on the FCC's
perspective and testimony was received from all five FCC
Commissioners.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FCC
On March 17, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the
statutory reauthorization of the FCC. The hearing explored
various issues relating to the reauthorization, such as whether
the FCC is effectively implementing the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 and whether the FCC organizational structure is
consistent with the deregulatory framework of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Witnesses included the five FCC
Commissioners.
ONLINE PRIVACY
On July 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the
status of privacy protections for online consumers. The
Subcommittee received the FTC's findings and recommendation on
privacy self-regulation from its recently released report. In
addition, the Subcommittee reviewed two industry-wide surveys
of the privacy policies and practices of commercial websites.
The hearing explored the efforts of industry to develop self-
regulatory guidelines to protect the privacy of online
consumers and the need for government regulations to establish
minimum privacy protections for consumers. Witnesses included
the Chairman and Commissioners of the FTC and representatives
from industry and privacy advocates.
On October 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on recent developments in privacy protections
for consumers. The Subcommittee reviewed a recent GAO report
comparing the privacy policies of Federal government websites
to the privacy policies of commercial websites. The hearing
also explored other developments such as the latest privacy-
enhancing technologies, recent efforts by the Internet
advertising industry to promote standardized privacy practices
and the status of privacy policies of commercial websites.
Witnesses included representatives from the GAO, relevant
Federal agencies, representatives from industry, and privacy
advocates.
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES
On September 7, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on the issue of foreign government ownership
of American telecommunications companies. The hearing explored
the proposed merger between Deutsche Telekom AG and Voicestream
Wireless Corporation, the impact of trade treaties on such
mergers, and the implications of legal limitations on foreign
government ownership of American telecommunications firms.
Witnesses included representatives from Federal government
agencies, the telecommunications industry, competition
organizations, and academia.
BROADCAST OWNERSHIP REGULATIONS
On September 15, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on the status of the broadcast ownership
rules and recent revisions to those rules. Witnesses included
newspaper and broadcast industry representatives.
FUTURE OF THE INTERACTIVE TELEVISION SERVICES MARKETPLACE
On September 27, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on the future of the interactive television
services marketplace. The hearing explored the impact of the
pending merger between America Online and Time Warner on the
future of interactive television and related services.
Witnesses included representatives from both America Online and
Time Warner.
On October 6, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade and Consumer Protection continued the oversight hearing
on the future of the interactive television services
marketplace. The hearing explored the impact of the merger
between America Online and Time Warner on other industry market
participants. Witnesses included representatives from the
Internet and television industries.
THE FIRESTONE TIRE RECALL ACTION INVOLVING FORD EXPLORERS
On September 6, 2000, and September 21, 2000, the
Subcommittees on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer
Protection and Oversight and Investigations held joint hearings
on the August 2000 Firstone Tire Recall Action as it pertains
to Ford Explorers. At the hearings, the Subcommittees heard
testimony from the two companies' top executives, as well as
Federal safety regulators, an insurance company official who
warned the regulators years ago about this problem, and a
representative from an auto safety interest group.
The Committee's investigation and hearings uncovered
damaging evidence that both companies--as well as Federal
safety regulators--knew or were warned repeatedly about
dangerous problems with the recalled tires years ago, but
failed to take prompt action to investigate and remove them
from the market. The Committee found that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) failed to fully or timely
analyze the numerous--and increasing--reports it received from
various sources (including Mr. Samuel Boyden of State Farm
Insurance Company, who testified at the first hearing), citing
accidents and deaths involving these tires, particularly when
mounted on Ford Explorers. The Committee also uncovered
evidence that Ford Motor Company and Firestone discussed their
concerns with respect to notifying safety regulators in the
United States about foreign recall actions on related tires,
and that neither company ever conducted high-speed tests of
these tires on the Ford Explorer at Ford's recommended tire air
pressure prior to or during routine production of the Explorer.
The evidence also showed that Firestone was analyzing its
problems with these tires as early as 1996, that Firestone's
own random compliance testing at its key plant in 1996 resulted
in a 10% failure rate on the high-speed tests, and that
Firestone made a significant change to the tire design in 1998
to reduce the incidence of tread belt separations. The
investigation also raised questions about the adequacy of
Ford's decisions on tire-vehicle safety margins and tire
pressure recommendations, both domestically and abroad.
Partially because of the Committee's oversight hearings on
this matter, the House passed--and the Senate and White House
agreed to--new legislation that requires companies to report
significant defect claims or lawsuits, as well as foreign
recall actions, to Federal safety regulators on a regular
basis. The law also provides NHTSA with additional resources to
evaluate such data, and requires that NHTSA strengthen its
organization and management to avoid similar failures in the
future. For more information on this legislation, see H.R. 5164
in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection section of this report.
IDENTITY THEFT: IS THERE ANOTHER YOU?
On Thursday, April 22, 1999, the Subcommittees on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection and Finance
and Hazardous Materials held a joint oversight hearing on
identity theft. The focus of the hearing was to examine how
identity theft occurs, what type of enforcement activities are
being conducted or planned to combat identity theft, and what
actions can be taken to reduce identity theft. The
Subcommittees received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, credit bureaus, and a victim of identity theft.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SATELLITE HOME VIEWER ACT
On February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on reform and reauthorization of the
Satellite Home Viewer Act. The Subcommittee received testimony
from the government, industry and consumer protection
representatives.
WTO 2000: THE NEXT ROUND
On Thursday, November 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a
hearing on the World Trade Organization 2000: The Next Round.
The purpose of the hearing was to inform the Subcommittee of
the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) goals for the
Seattle Ministerial Conference. Witnesses included
representatives from USTR, Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), and representatives from financial and commercial
industries.
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF AMERICAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES
On September 7, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on foreign ownership of American
telecommunications companies, due to concerns that the United
States Trade Representative (USTR) was not doing enough to
encourage foreign governments to reduce their ownership
interests in incumbent telecommunications monopolies who were
seeking access to the U.S. market. As a follow up to this
hearing, on September 12, 2000, the Chairman and other relevant
Committee Members wrote to Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky to
request information and documents regarding USTR's efforts to
urge the end of foreign ownership of incumbent
telecommunications monopolies. On September 21, 29, and October
20, 2000, USTR produced written responses and documents to the
Committee. The Committee's preliminary review of this material
supports the belief that USTR has not adequately encouraged
privatization of these foreign incumbent telecommunications
monopolies.
LOW-POWER TELEVISION LICENSES
On April 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
Low-Power Television Licenses. The purpose of the hearing was
to focus on the regulatory classification of low power
television licensees, including the benefits of low power
broadcast stations, potential interference of such stations,
and the impact to low-power stations of the conversion to
digital transmission. Witnesses included representatives from
the FCC and broadcast organizations.
SPAMMING: THE E-MAIL YOU WANT TO CAN
On November 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on Spamming: The E-Mail You Want to Can. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine the practice of sending
unsolicited commercial e-mail, also otherwise known as ``spam''
e-mail. The hearing provided information relating to four
pieces of legislation: H.R. 1910, the E-mail User Protection
Act; H.R. 2162, the Can Spam Act; H.R. 3113, the Unsolicited
Electronic Mail Act of 1999; and H.R. 3024, the Netizens
Protection Act of 1999. Witnesses included Members of Congress,
representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, privacy
organizations, marketing organizations, and academia.
Hearings Held
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act.--Hearing on
H.R. 438, the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999. Hearing held on February 3, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-2.
Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act.--Hearing on H.R. 514, the
Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act of 1999. Hearing held on
February 3, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-2.
Reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Act.--
Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the Satellite Home
Viewer Act. Hearing held on February 24, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-6.
Reauthorization of the Federal Communications Commission.--
Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the Federal
Communications Commission. Hearing held on March 17, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-13.
Regulatory Classification of Low-Power Television
Licensees.--Oversight hearing on Regulatory Classification of
Low-Power Television Licensees. Hearing held on April 13, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-21.
Identity Theft: Is There Another You?--Joint oversight
hearing with the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials on Identity Theft: Is There Another You? Hearing held
on April 22, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-16.
NTIA Reauthorization Act.--Hearing on H.R. ---- (an
unintroduced bill), the NTIA Reauthorization Act of 1999.
Hearing held on May 11, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-55.
Access to Buildings and Facilities by Telecommunications
Providers.--Oversight hearing on Access to Buildings and
Facilities by Telecommunications Providers. Hearing held on May
13, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-22.
Federal Communications Commission Reform: The States'
Perspective.--Oversight hearing on Federal Communications
Commission Reform: The States' Perspective. Hearing held on May
20, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-23.
Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 850, the Security and Freedom through
Encryption (SAFE) Act. Hearing held on May 25, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-28.
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce
Act.--Hearing on H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act. Hearing held on June 9, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-32.
Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act.--Hearing
on H.R. 1858, the Consumer and Investor Access to Information
Act. Hearing held on June 15, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-
49.
Deployment of Data Services.--Oversight hearing on
Deployment of Data Services. Hearing held on June 24, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-50.
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.--Hearing on H.R. 1832, the
Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. Hearing held on June 29, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-26.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Reauthorization Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 2384, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Authorization Act of 1999. Hearing held on June 30 and July 20,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-56.
Electronic Commerce: Current Status of Privacy Protections
for Online Consumers.--Oversight hearing on Electronic
Commerce: Current Status of Privacy Protections for Online
Consumers. Hearing held on July 13, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-39.
Broadcast Ownership Regulations.--Oversight hearing on
Broadcast Ownership Regulations. Hearing held on September 15,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-77.
Schools and Libraries Internet Access Act.--Hearing on H.R.
---- (an unintroduced bill), the Schools and Libraries Internet
Access Act. Hearing held on September 30, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-81.
FCC Reform for the New Millennium.--Oversight Hearing on
FCC Reform for the New Millennium. Hearing held on October 26,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-85.
WIPO One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to Digital
Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media.--Oversight
hearing on WIPO One Year Later: Assessing Consumer Access to
Digital Entertainment on the Internet and Other Media. Hearing
held on October 28, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-83.
Spamming: The E-Mail You Want to Can.--Oversight hearing on
Spamming: The E-Mail You Want to Can. Hearing held on November
3, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-84.
WTO 2000: The Next Round.--Oversight hearing on WTO 2000:
The Next Round. Hearing held on November 4, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-71.
The White House, the Networks, and TV Censorship.--
Oversight hearing on The White House, the Networks, and TV
Censorship. Hearing held on February 9, 2000. PRINTED, serial
number 106-91.
Video on the Internet: iCraveTV.com and Other Recent
Developments in Webcasting.--Oversight hearing on Video on the
Internet: iCraveTV.com and Other Recent Developments in
Webcasting. Hearing held on February 16, 2000. PRINTED, serial
number 106-94.
FCC's Low-Power FM: A Review of the FCC's Spectrum
Management Responsibilities and the Radio Broadcasting
Preservation Act.--Hearing on FCC's Low-Power FM: A Review of
the FCC's Spectrum Management Responsibilities and H.R. 3439,
the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act. Hearing held on
February 17, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-118.
Truth in Telephone Billing Act and Rest of the Truth in
Telephone Billing Act.--Hearing on H.R. 3011, the Truth in
Telephone Billing Act and H.R. 3022, the Rest of the Truth in
Telephone Billing Act of 1999. Hearing held on March 9, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-127.
Telecommunications Merger Act of 2000.--Hearing on H.R. --
-- (an unintroduced bill), the Telecommunications Merger Act of
2000. Hearing held on March 14, 2000.
Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act.--Hearing on H.R. 3615,
the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act. Hearing held on March 16,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-119.
Report of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce.--
Oversight to receive the Report of the Advisory Commission on
Electronic Commerce. Hearing held on April 6, 2000. PRINTED,
serial number 106-98.
Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 3489, the Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing
and Privacy Act. Hearing held on April 6, 2000.
Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act and Noncommercial
Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act.--Hearing on H.R. 3535,
the Religious Broadcasting Freedom Act, and H.R. 4201, the
Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act of 2000.
Hearing held on April 13, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-121.
Internet Services Promotion Act and Internet Access Charge
Prohibition Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R. 1291, the Internet
Services Promotion Act of 2000, and H.R. 4202, the Internet
Access Charge Prohibition Act of 1999. Hearing held on May 3,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-114.
Consumer Safety Initiatives: Protecting the Vulnerable.--
Hearing on Consumer Safety Initiatives: Protecting the
Vulnerable, focusing on H.R. 4145, the Child Passenger
Protection Act, H.R. 2592, a bill to amend the Consumer Product
Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles are
consumer products subject to such Act, and H.R. 3032, the
National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act of 1999. Hearing held
on May 16, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-130.
Obscene Material Available via the Internet.--Hearing on
Obscene Material Available via the Internet. Hearing held on
May 23, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-115.
Status of Deployment of Broadband Technologies.--Oversight
hearing on the Status of Deployment of Broadband Technologies.
Hearing held on May 25, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-128.
Know Your Caller Act and Telemarketing Victim Protection
Act.--Hearing on H.R. 3100, the Know Your Caller Act, and H.R.
3180, the Telemarketing Victim Protection Act of 1999. Hearing
held on June 13, 2000.
Reciprocal Compensation Requirements Exemption.--Hearing on
H.R. 4445, a bill to exempt from reciprocal compensation
requirements telecommunications traffic to the Internet.
Hearing held June 22, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-134.
FCC Spectrum Policies and the Spectrum Resource Assurance
Act.--Hearing on a Review of the FCC's Spectrum Policies for
the 21st Century and H.R. 4758, the Spectrum Resource Assurance
Act. Hearing held on July 19, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-
142.
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications
Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000. Hearing held on July 20,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-141.
High Definition Television and Related Matters.--Oversight
hearing on High Definition Television and Related Matters.
Hearing held on July 25, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-143.
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act.--Hearing on
H.R. 2420, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of
1999. Hearing held on July 20, 2000. PRINTED, serial number
106-141.
Independent Telecommunications Consumer Enhancement Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 3850, the Independent Telecommunications
Consumer Enhancement Act of 2000. Hearing held on July 20,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-141.
Firestone Tire Recall Action.--Joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the
Firestone Tire Recall Action, focusing on the action as it
pertains to relevant Ford vehicles. Hearing held on September 6
and 21, 2000.
Foreign Government Ownership of American Telecommunications
Companies.--Oversight hearing on Foreign Government Ownership
of American Telecommunications Companies. Hearing held on
September 7, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-153.
Future of the Interactive Television Services Marketplace:
What Should Consumers Expect?--Oversight hearing on the Future
of the Interactive Television Services Marketplace: What Should
Consumers Expect? Hearing held on September 27, 2000.
Part II: The Future of the Interactive Television Services
Marketplace: What Should Consumers Expect?--Oversight hearing
on Part II: The Future of the Interactive Television Services
Marketplace: What Should Consumers Expect? Hearing held on
October 6, 2000.
Recent Developments in Privacy Protections for Consumers.--
Oversight hearing on Recent Developments in Privacy Protections
for Consumers. Hearing held on October 11, 2000.
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials
(Ratio: 16-13)
MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio BART STUPAK, Michigan
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
GREG GANSKE, Iowa LOIS CAPPS, California
RICK LAZIO, New York EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
VITO FOSSELLA, New York JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROY BLUNT, Missouri (Ex Officio)
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Securities, exchanges, and finance; solid waste,
hazardous waste and toxic substances, including Superfund and RCRA
(excluding mining, oil, gas, and coal combustion wastes); noise
pollution control; insurance, except health insurance; and regulation
of travel, tourism, and time.
Legislative Activities
FINANCIAL SERVICES ACT
Public Law 106-102 (S. 900, H.R. 10)
To enhance competition in the financial services industry
by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of
banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 10 establishes a comprehensive framework to permit
affiliations among securities firms, insurance companies, and
commercial banks. The primary objective of allowing such
affiliations is to enhance consumer choice in the financial
services marketplace, eliminate anti-competitive regulatory
disparities among financial services providers, and increase
competition among providers of financial services. This
legislation seeks to help participants in the financial
services marketplace to realize the cost savings, efficiency,
and other benefits resulting from increased competition. The
Act is also designed to improve the international
competitiveness of U.S. companies, which may have been
constrained by the barriers to affiliation that exist pursuant
to certain sections of the Banking Act of 1933, commonly
referred to as the Glass-Steagall Act. (Sections 16, 20, 21,
and 32 of the Banking Act of 1933 are referred to as the
``Glass-Steagall Act.'')
The Act provides for a number of prudential safeguards
designed to protect investors and their privacy, avoid risk to
the Federal deposit insurance funds, protect the safety and
soundness of insured depository institutions and the Federal
payments system, prevent the expansion of the Federal subsidy
provided to banks, and protect consumers.
Title I. Title I repeals the anti-affiliation provision of
the Glass-Steagall Act (Section 20 and Section 32 of the
Banking Act of 1933). It also sets up a new structure,
different from that in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956,
permitting affiliation among securities firms, insurance
companies, and banks. These new affiliations may be structured
as a holding company or a financial subsidiary (with certain
prudential limitations on activities and appropriate
safeguards). The Federal Reserve will be the primary umbrella
regulator of the new holding company structure.
Title II. Title II provides for functional regulation of
bank securities activities. Bank exemptions from regulation
under the definition of broker and dealer are eliminated, but
limited exceptions are provided for banks in cases where
investor protection concerns are minimal (relative to third-
party networking arrangements, trust and fiduciary activities
and employee and shareholder benefit plans). Title II permits
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to determine if a
new banking product meets the definition of a security and to
regulate it as such if the definition is met, subject to
consultation and concurrence of the Federal Reserve Board.
Title III. Title III provides for the regulation of
insurance. State functional insurance regulation is preserved
for insurance sales and underwriting, subject to the
``significant interference'' standard set forth by the Supreme
Court in Barnett Bank of Marion County N.A. v. Nelson, 15 U.S.
25 (1996)(Florida statute prohibiting banks from selling
insurance struck down because it prevented or significantly
interfered with the national bank's exercise of its powers
specifically authorized under Federal law). The legislation
sets forth a definition of insurance relative to allowable bank
underwriting and removes the restrictions limiting bank
insurance agencies to towns of 5,000. A uniform licensing
system is created for insurance brokerage, and a new standard
for redomestication and demutualization is provided for States
which do not have comparative laws.
Title IV. Title IV prohibits new unitary savings and loan
holding companies from engaging in nonfinancial activities or
affiliating with nonfinancial entities, while grandfathering
current thrifts and thrift charters and their activities and
powers.
Title V. Title V provides consumers with new protections
with respect to the transfer and use of their nonpublic
personal information by financial institutions. Further,
customers of financial institutions are given the option to
``opt out'' of having their personal financial information
shared with nonaffiliated third parties, subject to certain
exceptions.
Title VI. Title VI eliminates mandatory Federal Home Loan
Bank (FHLBank) membership for Federal savings associations in
order to provide completely voluntary membership. Small bank
members are given expanded access to FHLBank advances, and
governance of the FHLBanks is decentralized from the Federal
Housing Finance Board (FHFB) to the individual FHLBanks
Title VII. Title VII requires automated teller machine
(ATM) operators who impose a fee for use of an ATM by a
noncustomer to post a notice on the machine and on the screen
that a fee will be charged and the amount of the fee. This
notice must occur prior to the time that the consumer becomes
committed to completing the transaction.
Title VII also amends the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by
creating a new Section 46, which requires full disclosure of
agreements entered into between insured depository institutions
or their affiliates and nongovernmental entities or persons
made pursuant to or in connection with the fulfillment of the
Community Reinvestment Act. This requirement relates to funds
or other resources of an insured depository institution or
affiliate.
Legislative History
H.R. 10 was introduced in the House on January 6, 1999, by
Mr. Leach and 11 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and in addition to
the Committee on Commerce. On January 20, 1999, the Chairman of
the Committee on Commerce referred the bill to the Subcommittee
on Finance and Hazardous Materials.
On March 11, 1999, the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services considered H.R. 10, and ordered the bill reported to
the House, amended, by a record vote of 51 yeas and 8 nays. The
Committee on Banking and Financial Services reported H.R. 10 to
the House on March 23, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-74, Part 1). On March
23, 1999, the referral of H.R. 10 to the Committee on Commerce
was extended for a period ending not later than May 14, 1999.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held
two legislative hearings on H.R. 10 on April 28 and May 5,
1999. Witnesses giving testimony included: Members of Congress;
Federal banking and Federal securities regulators; State
insurance regulator; securities and investment firm
representative; insurance company representative; and a
representative from a State charted bank.
On May 13, 1999, the referral of H.R. 10 to the Committee
on Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than
June 11, 1999.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials met in
open markup session on May 27, 1999, and approved H.R. 10 for
Full Committee consideration, amended, by a record vote of 26
yeas and 1 nay. On June 10, 1999, the Full Committee met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 10 reported to the House,
with an amendment, by a voice vote.
On June 10, 1999, the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services filed a supplemental report on H.R. 10 with the House
(H. Rept. 106-74, Part 2).
On June 11, 1999, the referral of H.R. 10 to the Committee
on Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than
June 15, 1999. The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 10 to
the House on June 15, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-74, Part 3).
On June 30, 1998, the Rules Committee met and granted a
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 10 (H.Res. 235),
making in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of the Rules Committee print dated June
24, 1999. On July 1, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 235 by a
record vote of 227 yeas and 203 nays. The House then considered
H.R. 10 on July 1, 1999, and passed the bill, amended, by a
record vote of 343 yeas and 86 nays.
On March 4, 1999, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs ordered reported an original measure which
was reported to the Senate on April 28, 1999 (S. 900; S. Rpt.
106-44). On May 6, 1999, the Senate considered and passed S.
900, amended, by a record vote of 54 yeas and 44 nays. S. 900
was received in the House on May 14, 1998, and held at the
desk.
On July 20, 1999, the House amended S. 900 with a
substitute text consisting of the text of H.R. 10. On July 22,
1999, the message on House action was received in the Senate,
and the Senate disagreed to the House amendment, requested
conference, and appointed conferees. On July 30, 1999, the
House insisted on its amendment, agreed to a conference with
the Senate, agreed to a motion to instruct conferees by a
record vote of 241 yeas and 132 nays, and appointed conferees.
The Committee of conference met on September 23, September
29, September 30, October 14, October 15, and October 22, 1999.
The conference report on S. 900 was filed in the House on
November 2, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-434). On November 11, 1999, the
Senate agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 90
yeas and 8 nays. On November 4, 1999, the House considered the
conference report under the provisions of H.Res. 355, and
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 362 yeas to
57 nays.
S. 900 was presented to the President on November 9, 1999.
The President signed S. 1260 into law on November 12, 1999
(Public Law 106-102).
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Public Law 106-398 (H.R. 4205, S. 2549, S. 2550)
(Hazardous Materials and Information Security Issues)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for
military activities of the Department of Defense and defense-
related activities of the Department of Energy.
Summary
H.R. 4205 contains provisions dealing with environmental
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce,
including section 342, relating to the payment of fines and
penalties for environmental violations; title 15, relating to
environmental cleanup activities associated with the transfer
of the island of Vieques to Puerto Rico; and section 2812
relating to enhancements of military lease authority including
provisions relating to indemnification for environmental
contamination.
H.R. 4205 also includes title 14 establishing government-
wide cyber security standards and testing mandates intended to
bolster Federal agency efforts to protect government
information systems at both military and civilian agencies.
Legislative History
H.R. 4205 was introduced in the House by Mr. Spence and Mr.
Skelton by request on April 6, 2000. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services. The Committee on Armed
Services reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on
May 12, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-616).
A rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4205, H.Res.
503, passed the House by a record vote of 220 yeas and 201
nays. The House considered H.R. 4205 on May 17 and 18, 2000. On
May 18, 1999, the House passed the bill, as amended, by a
record vote of 353 yeas and 63 nays. H.R. 4205 was received in
the Senate on May 22, 2000.
S. 2549, the Senate companion legislation, was considered
by the Senate on June 6 through 8, June 14, June 19 through 20,
June 29 through 30, and July 11 through 13, 2000. The Senate
amended the text of H.R. 4205 with S. 2549, as amended by the
Senate, and passed H.R. 4205 by a roll call vote of 97 yeas and
3 nays on July 13, 2000 by a roll call vote of 92 yeas and 3
nays. The Senate also insisted on its amendment, requested a
conference with the House, and appointed conferees. On July 26,
2000, the House disagreed to the amendment of the Senate, and
agreed to the conference requested by the Senate by unanimous
consent.
On July 27, 2000, the Speaker appointed conferees. The
Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Commerce for
consideration of matters contained in the House bill and the
Senate amendment falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
As a result, certain provisions were accepted without
significant change, certain provisions were modified
substantially, and certain provisions were deleted outright .
The conference report on H.R. 4205 was filed in the House
on October 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-945). The House adopted a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report,
H.Res. 616, by a voice vote. The House agreed to the conference
report by a record vote of 382 yeas and 31 nays on October 11,
2000. The Senate agreed to the conference report by a roll call
vote of 90 yeas and 3 nays on October 12, 2000. The bill was
presented to the President on October 19, 2000, and signed into
law on October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-398).
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999
Public Law 106-53 (S. 507, H.R. 1480)
To provide for the conservation and development of water
and related resources, to authorize the United States Army
Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for
improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and
for other purposes.
Summary
Section 326 of H.R. 1480, which addresses the modification
of a project on the West Bank of the Mississippi River for
flood control and storm damage reduction, contains language
clarifying the application of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.
Legislative History
S. 507, the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, was
introduced by Senator Warner on March 2, 1999, and was referred
to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ordered the
bill reported with an amendment on March 17, 1999, and reported
the bill to the Senate on March 23, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-34).
On April 19, 1999, the Senate considered and passed the
bill with an amendment by unanimous consent. The bill was
received in the House and held at the desk on April 21, 1999.
The House companion bill, H.R. 1480, was introduced on
April 20, 1999, and referred to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, and additionally to the Committee on
Resources. On April 21, 1999, the Subcommittee on Water
Resources and Environment approved the bill for consideration
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 20 yeas and 16 nays.
On April 22, 1999, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure considered and ordered the bill reported, with
an amendment, by a record vote of 49 yeas and 24 nays. The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported the
bill to the House, with an amendment, on April 26, 1999 (H.
Rept. 106-106, Part 1) and the Committee on Resources was
discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
On April 27, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure noting the effect of certain
provisions on the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. In his letter, the
Chairman indicated that he had no objection to the provision
and that the Committee on Commerce would not exercise its right
to consider the legislation.
On April 28, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 1480 (H.Res. 154). On
April 29, 1999, H.Res. 154 passed the House by a voice vote and
the House considered H.R. 1480 pursuant to its provisions. The
House passed the bill on April 29, 1999, as amended, by a
record vote of 418 yeas and 5 nays.
On July 22, 1999, the House considered and passed S. 507 by
unanimous consent with an amendment consisting of the text of
H.R. 1480. By unanimous consent, the House insisted on its
amendments, requested a conference, and appointed conferees. On
July 28, 1999, the Senate disagreed to the House amendments,
agreed to the conference requested by the House, and appointed
conferees.
The Committee on Conference met on June 29, 1999. On August
5, 1999, the conference report to accompany S. 507 was filed in
the House (H. Rept. 106-298). The Senate considered and passed
the conference report by unanimous consent on August 5, 1999.
On August 5, 1999, the House considered and agreed to the
conference report by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for
the White House.
S. 507 was presented to the President on August 12, 1999
and signed by the President on August 17, 1999 (Public Law 106-
53).
COMMODITY FUTURES MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2000
Public Law 106-554 (H.R. 4577, H.R. 4541, S.2697)
To reauthorize the Commodity Exchange Act to promote legal
certainty, enhance competition, and reduce systemic risk in
markets for futures and over-the-counter derivatives, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4541 repeals the Shad-Johnson Jurisdictional Accord,
provides legal certainty for over the counter (OTC) financial
derivatives, and provides regulatory relief for the futures
exchanges.
Since 1982, single stock futures have been banned in the
United States financial markets. H.R. 4541 repeals the current
prohibition on these products and provides a framework for
their regulation jointly by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC).
In addition, the bill provides legal certainty to exchange-
traded futures, swaps and other financial derivatives. This
uncertainty stems from a provision of the Commodity Exchange
Act (CEA) which states that futures traded off of regulated
exchanges are illegal and unenforceable. Because the term
``futures'' is not defined in the CEA and certain OTC
derivatives are not excluded, it is possible a court could find
an OTC product is a future, rendering the contract void because
it was entered into off exchange. H.R. 4541 seeks to remedy
this problem by excluding OTC financial derivative contracts
between eligible contract participants from the CEA.
H.R. 4541 also provides regulatory relief for the futures
exchanges.
Legislative History
H.R. 4541 was introduced in the House on May 25, 2000, by
Mr. Ewing. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Agriculture, in addition to the Committee on Commerce and the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker. Within the Committee on
Commerce, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials.
On June 8, 2000, a companion bill, S. 2697 was introduced
in the Senate by Mr. Lugar. S. 2697 was referred to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. On June 29,
2000 the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
ordered S. 2697 to be reported with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute favorably.
On August 25, 2000, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry, reported by Senator Lugar under authority of the
order of the Senate of July 26, 2000 with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute (S. Rpt. 106-390). S. 2697 was placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No.
766.
On June 26, 2000, the Committee on Agriculture considered
H.R. 4541, and ordered the bill reported to the House, amended,
by a voice vote. The Committee on Agriculture reported H.R.
4541 to the House on June 29, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-711, Part 1).
On June 29, 2000, the referral of H.R. 4541 to the Committee on
Commerce and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services
was extended for a period ending not later than September 6,
2000.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 4541 on July 12, 2000. Witnesses
giving testimony included Federal banking and Federal
securities regulators.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials met in
open markup session on July 20, 2000, and approved H.R. 4541
for Full Committee consideration, amended, by a voice vote. On
July 26, 2000, the Full Committee met in open markup session
and ordered H.R. 4541 reported to the House, amended, by a
voice vote.
The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 4541 to the House
on September 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-711, Part 2), and the
Committee on Banking and Financial Service reported H.R. 4541
to the House on September 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-711, Part 3).
On October 19, 2000, the Committee on Banking and Financial
Service filed a supplemental report to H.R. 4541 (H. Rept. 106-
711, Part 4).
The House considered H.R. 4541 on October 19, 2000 under
suspension of the rules, and passed H.R. 4541 by a roll call
vote of 377 yeas and 4 nays.
The provisions of H.R. 4541 were introduced as a new bill,
H.R. 5660, on December 14, 2000, by Mr. Combest. H.R. 5660 was
incorporated by reference into the conference report to
accompany H.R. 4577 (H. Rept. 106-1033), which was filed in the
House on December 15, 2000. On December 15, 2000, the
conference report was considered pursuant to a previous order
of the House and agreed to by a record vote of 292 yeas and 60
nays. On December 15, 2000, the Senate agreed to the conference
report by unanimous consent.
H.R. 4577 was presented to the President on December 15,
2000, and was signed into law on December 21, 2000 (Public law
106-554).
ESTABLISHING A TIME ZONE FOR GUAM
Public Law 106-564 (H.R. 3756)
To establish a standard time zone for Guam and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other
purposes.
Summary
The bill amends the Calder Act to increase from eight to
nine the number of standard time zones in the territory of the
United States. It defines the ninth zone (embracing Guam and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), which will
be known as Chamorro standard time.
The legislation also amends the Uniform Time Act of 1966 to
require Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands to observe
daylight savings time.
Legislative History
H.R. 3756 was introduced in the House on February 29, 1999
by Mr. Underwood. On October 10, 2000, the bill was considered
by the House under suspension of the rules, and passed the
House by a voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on October 11, 2000.
The Senate considered and passed the bill by unanimous consent
on December 15, 2000, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 3756 was presented to the President on December 20,
2000 and signed into law on December 23, 2000 (Public Law 106-
564).
BOND PRICE COMPETITION IMPROVEMENT ACT
(H.R. 1400)
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to improve
collection and dissemination of information concerning bond
prices and to improve price competition in bond markets, and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1400 facilitates the best execution of customer orders
in the secondary market for debt securities by providing for
improved price transparency of debt securities through last
sale reporting and improved price competition in bond markets.
The bill directs the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC or the Commission) to use its existing authority under
Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act) to adopt rules to assure the prompt, accurate,
reliable, and fair collection, processing, distribution, and
publication of transaction information, including last sale
data, with respect to covered debt securities, so that such
information is made available to the public.
H.R. 1400 does not limit or alter Commission authority
under other provisions of the Exchange Act. It provides for
definitions of relevant terms and for completion of required
actions within one year of the enactment of the Act. Government
securities, municipal securities, and other ``exempted
securities'' as defined in section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act
are excepted from the requirements of this legislation, as are
any securities that the Commission determines by rule to except
from these requirements.
Legislative History
On March 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing to consider a Committee
print of the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999.
Witnesses giving testimony included Federal securities
regulators, a market participant, and a bond market
representative.
H.R. 1400 was introduced in the House on April 14, 1999, by
Mr. Bliley and 27 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce and the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials met in
open markup session on April 15, 1999, and approved H.R. 1400
for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote. On April 21,
1999, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered
H.R. 1400 reported to the House by a voice vote.
The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1400 to the House
on May 18, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-149).
On June 14, 1999, the House suspended the rules and passed
H.R. 1400, amended, by a record vote of 332 yeas and 1 nay
H.R. 1400 was received in the Senate on June 15, 1999, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Banking.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1400 in the 106th
Congress.
CONSUMER AND INVESTOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 1858)
To promote electronic commerce through improved access for
consumers to electronic databases, including securities market
information databases.
Summary
H.R. 1858, the Consumer and Investor Access to Information
Act of 1999, protects against unfair competition in the
electronic database marketplace, while ensuring that
information--particularly information that is accessible via
the Internet--remains widely available to the American public.
H.R. 1858 is comprised of two titles. Title I governs all
databases in general and creates new protections against the
selling or distributing of duplicated databases in interstate
and foreign commerce. Title II deals specifically with
databases that are used for the collection and dissemination of
stock quote information and provides new protections under
Federal securities laws for the entities that collect and
disseminate such information (such as stock exchanges). While
both title I and title II afford databases new legal
protections, these protections are carefully limited to ensure
that the American public will continue to have access to
information, which is critical to the growth and development of
a robust electronic marketplace.
Legislative History
H.R. 1858 was introduced in the House on May 19, 1999, by
Mr. Bliley and 5 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce. On June 8, 1999, the Chairman of the
Committee on Commerce referred the bill to the Subcommittee on
Finance and Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On June 15, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing to consider Title
I of H.R. 1858. Witnesses giving testimony included a
Department of Commerce official, telecommunications industry
representatives, research library representatives, internet
companies, and a University official. The Subcommittee on
Finance and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on June 30, 1999
to consider Title II of H.R. 1858. Witnesses giving testimony
included the Federal securities regulator, online securities
brokers, securities dealers, and a stock exchange.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials met in
open markup session on July 21, 1999, and approved H.R. 1858,
amended, for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote. On
July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade,
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 1858, amended, for Full Committee consideration by a voice
vote.
On August 5, 1999, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 1858 reported, with an amendment, to
the House by a voice vote. The Committee on Commerce reported
H.R. 1858, amended, to the House on September 30, 1999 (H.
Rept. 106-350, Part 1).
H.R. 1858 was referred sequentially to the House Committee
on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than October 8,
1999 for consideration of provisions of the bill and the
amendment which fall under the jurisdiction of that Committee.
On October 8, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary was
discharged from the further consideration of the bill, and H.R.
1858 was placed on the Union Calendar.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1858 in the 106th
Congress.
MUTUAL FUND TAX AWARENESS ACT OF 2000
(H.R. 1089)
To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to
require the improved disclosure of after-tax returns regarding
mutual fund performance, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1089, the Mutual Fund Tax Awareness Act of 2000,
requires that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
revise its regulations under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Investment Company Act of 1940 to require, consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, improved
disclosure in investment company prospectuses or annual reports
of after-tax returns to investors. These regulations must be
issued within 18 months after the date of enactment.
Legislative History
H.R. 1089 was introduced in the House by Mr. Gillmor and 12
cosponsors on March 11, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce. On March 30, 1999, the Chairman of the
Committee referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials.
On October 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 1089. Witnesses
giving testimony included investment companies.
On November 2, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 1089 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
voice vote. On March 15, 2000, the Committee on Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1089 reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote.
The House considered H.R. 1089 on April 3, 2000 under
suspension of the rules. H.R. 1089 passed by a record vote of
358 yeas and 2 nays.
On April 4, 2000, H.R. 1089 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1089 in the 106th
Congress.
FAIRNESS IN SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ACT
(H.R. 2441)
To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to reduce fees
on securities transactions.
Summary
H.R. 2441, the Fairness in Securities Transactions Act,
decreases the rate applicable to transaction fees from the
statutory level of 1/300th of 1 percent to 1/500th of 1 percent
through Fiscal year 2006. Additionally, the accounting
treatment of all transaction fees is changed. Whereas current
law designates transaction fees derived from exchange traded
securities as general revenue, and transaction fees received
from off exchange traded securities as offsetting collections,
H.R. 2441 designates all transaction fees as general revenue.
However, the legislation provides that all revenue collected
above the most recent CBO general revenue baseline (prior to
enactment) is deposited and credited as offsetting collections
to the account providing appropriations to the SEC.
Legislative History
H.R. 2441 was introduced in the House by Mr. Lazio and 27
cosponsors on July 1, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce. On July 21, 1999, the Chairman of the
Committee referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials.
On September 28, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2441. Witnesses
giving testimony included Members of Congress, Federal
securities regulators, and a Federal budget office.
On February 15, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 2441 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
voice vote.
On October 6, 2000, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 2441 reported to the House, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 24 yeas and 16 nays. The
Committee reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on
December 15, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-1034).
No further action was taken on H.R. 2441 in the 106th
Congress.
BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 2415, S. 625, H.R. 833, S. 3186)
To amend title 11 of the United States Code, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 833 reforms measures pertaining to both consumer and
business bankruptcy cases. The heart of the bill's consumer
bankruptcy reforms is the implementation of an income/expense
screening mechanism (``needs-based bankruptcy relief'') to
ensure that debtors repay creditors the maximum they can
afford. In addition to implementing needs-based bankruptcy
relief, H.R. 833 institutes a panoply of other consumer
bankruptcy reforms designed to enhance the protections
available to debtors and creditors.
H.R. 833 also contains a comprehensive set of reforms
pertinent to business bankruptcies. Many of these provisions
are intended to heighten administrative scrutiny and judicial
oversight of small business bankruptcy cases. In addition, the
bill includes provisions designed to reduce ``systemic risk''
in the financial marketplace. It also creates a new form of
bankruptcy relief for transnational insolvencies, includes
provisions regarding the treatment of tax claims, and requires
the collection of certain data relating to consumer bankruptcy
cases.
Section 1011 of H.R. 833 amends the Securities Investor
Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA; Public Law 91-598) to provide
that an order or decree issued pursuant to SIPA shall not
operate as a stay of any right of liquidation, termination,
acceleration, offset, or netting under one or more securities
contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase
agreements, swap agreements, or matter netting agreements (as
defined in the Bankruptcy Code and including rights of
foreclosure on collateral), except that such an order or decree
may stay any right to foreclose on securities (but not cash)
collateral pledged by the debtor or sold by the debtor under a
repurchase agreement.
Legislative History
H.R. 833 was introduced in the House of Representatives by
Representative Gekas and 36 cosponsors on February 24, 1999.
Upon introduction, the bill was referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
On March 25, 1999, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial
and Administrative Law forwarded H.R. 833, with an amendment,
to the full Judiciary Committee by a record vote of 5 yeas and
3 nays.
On March 16, 1999, S. 625 was introduced in the Senate by
Senator Grassley and 3 cosponsors. The bill was read twice and
referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Senate
Committee on the Judiciary met in an open markup session on
April 15, 22, and 27, 1999, and ordered S. 625 reported,
amended.
The House Committee on the Judiciary met in an open markup
session on April 20, 21,22, 27, and 28, 1999. The bill, as
amended, was ordered reported by a vote of 22 yeas and 13 nays
on April 28, 1999. On April 29, 1999, the House Committee on
the Judiciary reported H.R. 833, amended, to the House (H.
Rept. 106-123, Part 1).The Committee on Banking and Financial
Services was discharged from the further consideration of H.R.
833 on April 29, 1999.
On May 3, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
agreeing to forgo the Committee's right to a sequential in the
interest of moving the legislation in an expedient manner. The
letter further stated that, by agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Commerce was not
waiving its jurisdictional interest in H.R. 833.
On May 4, 1999, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule
providing for consideration of H.R. 883 with one hour of
general debate (H.Res. 158). On May 5, 1999, H.Res. 158 passed
the House by a record vote of 227 yeas and 190 nays.
On May 5, 1999, the House considered and passed H.R. 833,
with amendments by a record vote of 313 yeas and 108 nays. On
May 6, 1999 H.R. 833 was received in the Senate. On May 12,
1999 H.R. 883 was read twice in the Senate and placed on the
Senate legislative Calendar.
On May 11, 1999, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
reported S. 625 to the Senate with amendments (S. Rpt. 106-49).
S. 625 was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. The measure was laid before the Senate on
September 16, 1999, and a cloture motion on the bill was
presented in the Senate. On September 21, 1999, cloture on S.
625 was not invoked in the Senate by a vote of 53 yeas and 45
nays.
S. 625 was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent on
November 4, 1999. The measure was considered on November 5, 8,
9, 10, 16, and 17, 1999. On November 19, 1999, a cloture motion
was presented in the Senate, and the motion was withdrawn by
unanimous consent on January 24, 2000. S. 625 was further
considered in the Senate by unanimous consent on January 26 and
31, 2000, and February 1 and 2, 2000.
On February 2, 2000, H.R. 883 was considered by the Senate,
by unanimous consent. The Senate struck all after the enacting
clause and substituted the language of S. 625, passing the
legislation by a roll call vote of 83 yeas and 14 nays. The
Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference
with the House.
On October 11, 2000, the provisions of H.R. 883 were
included in a new bill, S. 3186. S. 3186 was incorporated by
reference into the conference report to accompany H.R. 2415. On
October 11, 2000, the Conference report to accompany H.R. 2415
was filed in the House (H. Rept. 106-970) and the Committee on
Rules reported a rule providing for the consideration of the
conference report (H.Res. 624).
On October 12, 2000, the House passed H.Res. 624 by a voice
vote. The House considered the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2415 pursuant to the provisions of the rule. The
Conference report was agreed to by a voice vote.
On December 5, 2000, the Senate invoked cloture on the
conference report by a roll call vote of 67 yeas and 31 nays.
The conference report was considered in the Senate on December
6 and 7, and the Senate agreed to the conference report by a
roll call vote of 70 yeas and 28 nays, clearing the bill for
the White House.
On December 7, 2000, the bill was presented to the
President and pocket vetoed by the President on December 19,
2000.
FINANCIAL CONTRACT NETTING IMPROVEMENT ACT
(H.R. 2415, H.R. 1161)
To revise the banking and bankruptcy insolvency laws with
respect to the termination and netting of financial contracts,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1161, the Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act
of 2000, amends the Bankruptcy Code, banking statutes, and
securities laws to clarify the treatment of financial contracts
upon the insolvency of one of the parties to the transaction.
In the event of the bankruptcy of a party to a swap or other
financial contract, parties can enforce their rights to
terminate the contract or to offset, or ``net,'' their various
contractual obligations.
Legislative History
H.R. 1161 was introduced in the House by Mr. Leach on March
17, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services, and in addition to the Committees on
Commerce and the Judiciary.
On April 16, 1999, it was referred to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit and discharged on July 27,
2000. On July 27, 2000, the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services considered H.R. 1161 and ordered the bill reported to
the House by a voice vote.
The Chairman of the Committee on Commerce sent a letter on
September 6, 2000 to the Chairman of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, agreeing to the Committee's
consideration of the bill in the interest of moving the
legislation in an expeditious manner. The letter further stated
that, while the Committee on Commerce had no substantive
concerns regarding the legislation, by agreeing to waive its
consideration of the bill, the Committee on Commerce was not
waiving its jurisdictional interest in H.R. 1161 or any similar
legislation.
On September 7, 2000, Mr. Bliley received a response to his
letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services agreeing that the Committee on Commerce's
decision to forego consideration would not prejudice the
Committee's future jurisdiction claims on this or similar
legislation, and agreeing to support the Committee's request
for conferees.
On September 7, 2000, the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services reported H.R. 1161 to the House, with an
amendment (H. Rept. 106-834, Part 1). The Committees on
Commerce and the Judiciary were discharged from the further
consideration of the bill.
On October 24, 2000, H.R. 1161 was considered under
suspension of the rules. The bill passed the House by a voice
vote and was received in the Senate on October 25, 2000.
On October 11, 2000, the provisions of H.R. 1161 were
included in a new bill, S. 3186. S. 3186 was incorporated into
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2415. On October 11,
2000, the Conference report to accompany H.R. 2415 was filed in
the House (H. Rept. 106-970) and the Committee on Rules
reported a rule providing for the consideration of the
conference report (H.Res. 624).
On October 12, 2000, the House passed H.Res. 624 by a voice
vote. The House considered the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2415 pursuant to the provisions of the rule. The
Conference report was agreed to by a voice vote.
On December 5, 2000, the Senate invoked cloture on the
conference report by a roll call vote of 67 yeas and 31 nays.
The conference report was considered in the Senate on December
6 and 7, and the Senate agreed to the conference report by a
roll call vote of 70 yeas and 28 nays, clearing the bill for
the White House.
On December 7, 2000, the bill was presented to the
President and pocket vetoed by the President on December 19,
2000.
RENTAL FAIRNESS ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 1954)
To regulate motor vehicle insurance activities to protect
against retroactive regulatory and legal action and to create
fairness in ultimate insurer laws and vicarious liability
standards.
Summary
H.R. 1954, the Rental Fairness Act of 2000 protects
consumers and businesses from the imposition of vicarious
liability to motor vehicle rentals in different States. The
Rental Fairness Act establishes the simple legal rule for
rental vehicles that the party at fault should bear the
responsibility for any liability incurred. Specifically, the
bill provides that vehicle rental companies will not be held
liable for the negligent or intentional acts of others solely
because of ownership of the vehicle. State laws other than
those imposing vicarious liability are not affected. Companies
that own or operate motor vehicles within a State are still
fully subject to that State's financial responsibility laws and
are explicitly subject to any claims for negligence or criminal
wrongdoing. The legislation thus does not in any way limit
actions against a rental or leasing company for their
wrongdoing or malfeasance. It further allows all current
recovery rights against such companies, including those based
solely on ownership, up to the coverage amounts required under
a State's financial responsibility insurance laws (which vary
from State to State). Compensation would be procured through
the State's insurance regime with all accompanying consumer
protections and regulations.
Legislative History
H.R. 1954 was introduced in the House on May 26, 1999, by
Mr. Bryant and 6 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce. On June 23, 1999, the Chairman of the
Committee referred the bill to the Subcommittees on Finance and
Hazardous Materials and the Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection.
On October 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing to consider the H.R. 1400.
Witnesses giving testimony included rental car companies and
the trial bar.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials met in
open markup session on November 2, 1999, and approved H.R.
1954, without amendment, for Full Committee consideration by a
record vote of 12 yeas and 11 nays. On November 2, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection received an extension of its referral on H.R. 1954,
for a period ending not later than November 16, 1999. The
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection was discharged from the further consideration of
H.R. 1954 on November 16, 1999.
On March 15, 2000, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 1954 reported, with an amendment, to
the House by a record vote of 26 yeas and 23 nays.
The Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 1954, with an
amendment, to the House on July 20, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-774,
Part 1). H.R. 1954 was referred sequentially to the House
Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than
September 15, 2000 for consideration of provisions of the bill
and the amendment which fall under the jurisdiction of that
Committee.
On September 15, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary was
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 1954. No
further action was taken on the bill in the 106th Congress.
THE LAND RECYCLING ACT
(H.R. 2580, H.R. 1300)
To amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to encourage the
redevelopment of brownfields and provide liability relief for
innocent parties.
Summary
H.R. 2580, the Land Recycling Act of 1999, provides
liability defenses for certain parties who did not cause or
contribute to environmental contamination; provides exemptions
from, and limitations on Superfund liability for small
businesses, generators and transporters of municipal solid
waste and sewage sludge, and persons who send recyclable
materials to legitimate recycling facilities; and supports
remedy selection based on realistic risks attributable to
reasonably anticipated uses of land, water, and other
resources.
H.R. 1300, the Recycle America's Land Act of 1999,
contained similar provisions.
Legislative History
H.R. 2580 was introduced by Mr. Greenwood and 16 cosponsors
on July 21, 1999. It was referred the Committee on Commerce and
additionally to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. On July 27, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials.
On August 4, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on legislation to improve
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act. The witnesses testifying were officials of the
Clinton Administration, State and local governments, and
private sector witnesses.
On September 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on legislation to improve
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA): Provisions in H.R. 1300 and H.R. 2580.
The witnesses testifying were officials of the Clinton
Administration, State and local governments, and private sector
witnesses.
On September 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session to consider H.R.
2580, the Land Recycling Act of 1999. H.R. 2580 was approved
for Full Committee consideration by a record vote of 17 yeas
and 12 nays.
On October 13, 1999, the Full Committee held an open markup
session to consider H.R. 2580. The bill was ordered to be
reported, with an amendment, by a record vote of 30 yeas and 21
nays.
The Committee reported the bill to the House on July 20,
2000, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-775, Part 1). The
referral of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
was extended for a period ending not later than December 15,
2000.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2580 or H.R. 1300 in
the 106th Congress.
THE SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF ACT
(H.R. 5175)
To provide relief to small businesses from liability under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
Summary
H.R. 5175, the Small Business Liability Relief Act, exempts
from CERCLA liability small businesses that only contributed a
very small amount of waste or ordinary garbage to a Superfund
site. The bill also provides for expedited settlements for
those who only contribute small volumes of wastes or small
businesses with a limited ability to pay.
Legislative History
H.R. 5175 was introduced on September 14, 2000 by Mr. Oxley
and 12 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Commerce
Committee and additionally to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure. The Committee took no action on H.R. 5175,
which was based in significant part on the small business
liability relief provisions of H.R. 2580. H.R. 5175 was
considered under suspension of the rules on September 26, 2000.
The measure failed by a record vote of 253 yeas and 161 nays.
Oversight Activities
INSURANCE REGULATION
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials held an oversight hearing on Improving Insurance for
Consumers--Increasing Uniformity and Efficiency in Insurance
Regulation. The hearing examined efforts by State insurance
regulators and the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners to achieve uniformity in insurance regulation and
what might be required of Congress and State legislators to
help realize this goal. Various options and approaches to
achieving uniformity were considered, including State
reciprocity and uniformity reforms, a State-run national
chartering system, and an optional Federal chartering system.
The hearing also examined the level of coordination and
cooperation between the insurance and banking agencies,
including a determination of whether Congress needs to act
further to facilitate such cooperation, and what further
interagency discussions need to take place relating to bank
insurance consumer protections and general anti-fraud efforts
to further the goals of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Testimony
was received by representatives from the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners, the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, and the National Conference of Insurance
Legislators.
On September 19, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held its second day of hearings on
Improving Insurance for Consumers--Increasing Uniformity and
Efficiency in Insurance Regulation. This second hearing
continued the Committee's oversight of improving insurance
regulation uniformity and effectiveness, with an additional
focus on the progress made by the State insurance commissioners
since the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and what goals and short-term
time-frames should be agreed upon by the participants for
achieving regulatory uniformity. The hearing also examined a
report by the General Accounting Office on an insurance
scandal, and the Subcommittee considered what additional steps
needed to be taken by Congress and the insurance and Federal
regulators to prevent future fraud. Testimony was received by
numerous insurance industry associations, including bank
insurance associations, by a State insurance commissioner, and
by the General Accounting Office.
THE MARKET IMPACT OF THE PRESIDENT'S SOCIAL SECURITY PROPOSAL
On Thursday, February 25, 1999, and on Wednesday, March 3,
1999 the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials held
hearings on the Market Impact of the President's Social
Security Proposal. The purpose of the hearings was to examine
the proposal put forth by President Clinton in his January 19,
1999, State of the Union address. President Clinton proposed
earmarking a substantial portion of the projected budget
surplus for investment in the stock market. The proceeds from
these investments would be used to provide benefit funding to
Social Security recipients. The hearing examined the effect of
that proposal on the financial markets and investors, along
with the effect of corporate governance in the financial
markets. Witnesses included Members of Congress, the Chairman
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the
Department of Treasury, and scholars.
IDENTITY THEFT: IS THERE ANOTHER YOU?
On Thursday, April 22, 1999, the Subcommittees on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection and Finance
and Hazardous Materials held a joint oversight hearing on
identity theft. The focus of the hearing was to examine how
identity theft occurs, what type of enforcement activities are
being conducted or planned to combat identity theft, and what
actions can be taken to reduce identity theft. The
Subcommittees received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, credit bureaus, and a victim of identity theft.
THE IMPACT OF MARKET VOLATILITY ON SECURITIES TRANSACTION FEES
On Tuesday, July 27, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the current status of
securities transaction fee collections and their impact on the
capital markets. The purpose of the hearing was to examine
evidence supporting the need for Congressional action to change
the fee structure for transactions and filings under the
Federal securities laws, which were originally intended to help
to offset the cost to the Federal government of funding the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The unpredicted level of
growth in the transaction volume in the markets that occurred
in recent years resulted in the amount of transaction fees
being collected exceeding the cost of funding the SEC by
several multiples. Witnesses testified before the Subcommittee
and shared their views regarding the impact of the fees on
investor savings, the capital formation process, and market
efficiency. Those testifying included the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, and representatives for the Securities Industry
Association, the Security Traders Association, and the
Specialist Association of the New York Stock Exchange.
PUHCA REPEAL: IS THE TIME NOW?
On Thursday, October 7, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the Public Utility
Holding Company Act (PUHCA). That law was enacted in 1935 to
protect shareholders and ratepayers in response to concerns of
abuse that resulted from the corporate structure of electric
and gas utilities. The purpose of the hearing was to examine
the issues raised by the repeal of the PUHCA, in particular how
such repeal relates to legislation designed to restructure the
entire electricity industry. Witnesses included the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), and representatives from financial and
commercial industries.
DECIMAL CONVERSION 2000: ARE THE MARKETS READY?
On Wednesday, March 1, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Decimal Conversion
2000: Are the Markets Ready? The purpose of the hearing was to
evaluate the result of the General Accounting Office's (GAO)
review of industry implementation of decimal pricing. The
hearing explored: the impact of decimals on quote traffic, the
impact of eliminating government mandated minimum increments,
and the overall readiness of the securities industry for
conversion to decimal pricing. Witnesses included
representatives from the GAO.
COMPETITION IN THE NEW ELECTRONIC MARKET
On Wednesday, March 29, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials hold a hearing on Competition in the
New Electronic Market: Part I. The purpose of the hearing was
to examine the changes that new technologies have effected in
the securities markets. Specifically, issues included how
telecommunications technology have affected the pace and
structure of the market and the extent to which the regulatory
structure has encouraged or hindered innovation and competition
in the market. Witnesses included representatives from the
newest market participants, electronic communication networks
(ECNs).
On Thursday, May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Competition in the New
Electronic Market: Part II. The purpose of the hearing was to
provide Members with the opportunity to hear from the
traditional participants in the marketplace about the
implications of technological and other changes to investors
and the U.S. securities markets. Specifically, issues
considered included: how fragmentation has affected competition
in the market; the impact centralized trading would likely have
on competition; and the extent to which technology and new
competition called for a reevaluation of the self-regulatory
structure and existing market regulations. Witnesses included
representatives from the brokerage industry, institutional
investors, analysts, the broker-dealer that developed the first
electronic communication network (ECN), and traditional trading
venues.
ACCOUNTING FOR BUSINESS COMBINATIONS: SHOULD POOLING BE ELIMINATED
On Thursday, May 4, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Accounting for Business
Combinations: Should Pooling Be Eliminated? The purpose of the
hearing was to examine the effect of changes contemplated in
the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) exposure draft
on business combinations. The hearing addressed the impact of
the FASB proposal on accuracy in financial reporting of
business combinations. Discussion focused on the effects of
eliminating the pooling method of accounting and, more broadly,
on the treatment of intangible assets and goodwill under the
purchase method of accounting. Witnesses included Members of
Congress, a representative of FASB, and representatives from
various industries.
PNTR: OPENING THE WORLD'S BIGGEST POTENTIAL MARKET TO AMERICAN
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPETITION
On Tuesday, May 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on PNTR: Opening
the World's Biggest Potential Market to American Financial
Services Competition. The hearing focused on the issue of
making China's normal trade relations (NTR) status permanent
(PNTR), avoiding the need for annual Congressional approval.
Witnesses included representatives of the finance and insurance
industries.
DECIMALS 2000: WILL THE EXCHANGES CONVERT?
On Tuesday, June 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Decimals 2000: Will the
Exchanges Convert? The purpose of the hearing was to address
issues of decimal conversion in exchange-listed and NASDAQ
securities raised by the announcement that NASDAQ would be
unable to convert by the conversion deadline. Issues included:
conversion options for exchange-listed securities; deadlines
for decimal implementation in NASDAQ securities; and the impact
of the move by one ECN, the Island ECN, to begin trading in
decimals before the rest of the industry. Witnesses included
the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the Chairman of the National Association of Securities Dealers
(NASD), and the Chairman of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
ORGANIZED CRIME ON WALL STREET
On Wednesday, September 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Finance and Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on
Organized Crime on Wall Street. The purpose of the hearing was
to examine the extent to which organized crime has a presence
in the securities markets. Witnesses discussed efforts to
detect and prevent fraud related to organized crime. Witnesses
included representatives from the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
National Association of Securities Dealers Regulation (NASDR),
and North American Securities Administrators Association
(NASAA).
LOST SECURITY HOLDERS: REUNITING SECURITY HOLDERS WITH THEIR
INVESTMENTS
On Wednesday, October 4, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials held a hearing entitled Lost Security
Holders: Reuniting Security Holders with their Investments. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine the issue of investors
who have lost contact with entities holding some property
related to their investment. The hearing provided the
opportunity to analyze the extent of this ''lost security
holder'' problem and how the 1997 Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regulations have improved, or failed to
improve, that problem. Witnesses included a representative of
the SEC and a former Member of Congress and lost security
holder.
THE STATUS OF THE FEDERAL SUPERFUND PROGRAM
On March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
Status of the Federal Superfund Program. The hearing addressed
the status of site cleanups, liability issues, the relationship
of Superfund to State cleanup programs and other program
issues. Witnesses included the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the General Accounting Office, and the Association of
State and Territorial Waste Management Officials.
REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FY 2001 BUDGET REQUEST
The Committee reviewed EPA's proposed FY 2001 Budget
Request, focusing specifically on programs relating to the
Committee's jurisdiction, including clean air, safe drinking
water, hazardous wastes, and toxic substance programs. The
Committee received briefings from senior EPA officials, and
requested additional budget justifications and materials
relating to specific programs and line items. On March 30,
2000, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment and the
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials conducted a
joint hearing on EPA's FY 2001 Budget Request at which
testimony was provided by Mr. Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator, EPA Office of Air and Radiation, who was
accompanied by six other senior EPA program officials. On May
4, 2000, the Committee requested detailed responses to 40
additional interrogatories regarding EPA's budget. On August
31, 2000, EPA completed its responses to these questions and
these materials were placed in the hearing record.
THE ROLE OF THE EPA OMBUDSMAN IN ADDRESSING CONCERNS OF LOCAL
COMMUNITIES
The Subcommittees on Health and Environment and Finance and
Hazardous Materials conducted a joint oversight hearing on
October 3, 2000 in order to assess the adequacy and
effectiveness of EPA's Ombudsman. At the hearing,
representatives from EPA, the EPA Office of Ombudsman, and
several citizens and citizen groups provided testimony about
the role of the Ombudsman in addressing local concerns. At the
hearing, concerns were raised about whether the EPA Ombudsman
was adequately independent from the EPA programs, and the
citizen witnesses and EPA Ombudsman identified the lack of
independence and other bureaucratic obstacles imposed by the
EPA programs as key problems with the current statutory
program.
Hearings Held
Market Impact of the President's Social Security
Proposal.--Oversight hearing on the Market Impact of the
President's Social Security Proposal. Hearing held on February
25 and March 3, 1999. PRINTED, Serial Number 106-5.
The Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999.--
Hearing on H.R. ---- (an unintroduced bill), the Bond Price
Competition Improvement Act of 1999. Hearing held on March 18,
1999. PRINTED, Serial Number 106-8.
Status of the Federal Superfund Program.--Oversight hearing
on the Status of the Federal Superfund Program. Hearing held on
March 23, 1999. PRINTED, Serial Number 106-44.
Identity Theft: Is There Another You?--Joint oversight
hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and
Consumer Protection on Identity Theft: Is There Another You?
Hearing held on April 22, 1999. PRINTED, Serial No. 106-16.
Financial Services Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R. 10, the
Financial Services Act of 1999. Hearing held on April 28 and
May 5, 1999. PRINTED, Serial No. 106-30.
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce
Act.--Hearing on H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act. Hearing held on June 24, 1999.
PRINTED, Serial number 106-33.
Consumer and Investor Access to Information Act of 1999.--
Hearing on H.R. 1858, the Consumer and Investor Access to
Information Act of 1999. Hearing held on June 30, 1999.
PRINTED, Serial number 106-35.
Impact of Market Volatility on Securities Transaction
Fees.--Oversight hearing on the Impact of Market Volatility on
Securities Transaction Fees. Hearing held on July 27, 1999.
PRINTED, Serial number 106-41.
Legislation to Improve the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.--Hearing on H.R.
1300, H.R. 1750, and H.R. 2850, Legislation to Improve the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. Hearing held on August 4 and September 22, 1999.
PRINTED, Serial number 106-82.
Securities Transaction Fees.--Hearing on H.R. 1256, the
Savings and Investment Relief Act of 1999 and H.R. 2441, the
Fairness in Securities Transactions Act. Hearing held on
September 28, 1999. PRINTED, Serial number 106-62.
PUHCA Repeal: Is the Time Now?--Oversight hearing on PUHCA
Repeal: Is the Time Now? Hearing held on October 7, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-68.
Rental Fairness Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R. ---- (an
unintroduced bill), the Rental Fairness Act of 1999. Hearing
held on October 20, 1999. PRINTED, Serial number 106-35.
Increasing Disclosure to Benefit Investors.--Hearing on
H.R. 887, a bill to amend the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 to require improved disclosure of corporate charitable
contributions, and for other purposes, and H.R. 1089, the
Mutual Fund Tax Awareness Act of 1999. Hearing held on
September 29, 1999. PRINTED, Serial number 106-70.
Decimal Conversion 2000: Are the Markets Ready?--Oversight
hearing on Decimal Conversion 2000: Are the Markets Ready?
Hearing held on March 1, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-113.
Competition in the New Electronic Market: Part I.--
Oversight hearing on Competition in the New Electronic Market:
Part I. Hearing held on March 29, 2000. PRINTED, serial number
106-111.
Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Budget Request
for Fiscal Year 2001.--Joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Health and Environment on the Environmental
Protection Agency's Proposed Budget Request for Fiscal Year
2001. Hearing held on March 30, 2000. PRINTED, serial number
106-138.
Accounting for Business Combinations: Should Pooling be
Eliminated?--Oversight hearing on Accounting for Business
Combinations: Should Pooling be Eliminated? Hearing held on May
4, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-100.
Competition in the New Electronic Market: Part II.--
Oversight hearing on Competition in the New Electronic Market:
Part II. Hearing held on May 11, 2000. PRINTED, serial number
106-111.
PNTR: Opening the World's Biggest Potential Market to
American Financial Services Competition.--Oversight hearing on
PNTR: Opening the World's Biggest Potential Market to American
Financial Services Competition. Hearing held on May 23, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-102.
Decimals 2000--Will the Exchanges Convert?--Oversight
hearing on Decimals 2000--Will the Exchanges Convert? Hearing
held on June 13, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-107.
Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.--Hearing on
H.R. 4541, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
Hearing held on July 12, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-123.
Improving Insurance for Consumers--Increasing Uniformity
and Efficiency in Insurance Regulation.--Oversight hearing on
Improving Insurance for Consumers--Increasing Uniformity and
Efficiency in Insurance Regulation. Hearing held on July 20 and
September 19, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-155.
Organized Crime on Wall Street.--Oversight hearing on
Organized Crime on Wall Street. Hearing held on September 13,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-156.
Role of the EPA Ombudsman in Addressing Concerns of Local
Communities.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment on the Role of the EPA Ombudsman in
Addressing Concerns of Local Communities. Hearing held on
October 3, 2000.
Lost Security Holders: Reuniting Security Holders with
their Investments.--Oversight hearing on Lost Security Holders:
Reuniting Security Holders with their Investments. Hearing held
on October 4, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-154.
Subcommittee on Health and Environment
(Ratio: 17-14)
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California GENE GREEN, Texas
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
Vice Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICK LAZIO, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, (Ex Officio)
Mississippi
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
TOM BLILEY, 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; food and
drugs; drug abuse; and Clean Air Act and environmental protection in
general, including the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Legislative Activities
CHILDREN'S HEALTH ACT OF 2000
Public Law 106-310 (H.R. 4365, H.R. 3301, H.R. 2634,
H.R. 274, H.R. 997, H.R. 1085, H.R. 1193, H.R. 1445, H.R. 2511,
H.R. 2538, H.R. 2573, H.R. 2739, H.R. 2840, S. 805,
S. 901, S. 1897)
To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
children's health.
Summary
The legislation is a multi-faceted approach to remedying
the public health challenges facing American children,
addressing adoption awareness for infants and special needs
children; autism; research and development regarding fragile x;
juvenile arthritis and related conditions; diabetes among
children and youth; asthma services for children; birth defects
prevention activities through a national folic acid education
program; hearing loss in infants; children and epilepsy; safe
motherhood and infant health promotion; pediatric research
initiative; childhood malignancies; traumatic brain injury;
child care safety and health grants; authorization for the
healthy start initiative, including increased access to
ultrasound screenings and prenatal surgery; oral health;
vaccine-related programs; hepatitis C; autoimmune diseases;
graduate medical education programs in children's hospitals;
pediatric organ transplantation; muscular dystrophy research;
Tourette Syndrome awareness; childhood obesity prevention;
childhood lead poisoning; screening for heritable disorders;
metabolic disorders.
The legislation also reauthorizes programs within the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) to improve mental health and substance abuse services
for children and adolescents, to implement proposals giving
States more flexibility in the use of block grant funds with
accountability based on performance, and to consolidate
discretionary grant authorities to give the Secretary more
flexibility to respond to the needs of those who need mental
health and substance abuse services while permitting faith-
based charities to compete for grants on an equal footing with
secular institutions, similar to the provisions of S. 979. It
also provides a waiver from the requirements of the Narcotic
Addict Treatment Act, which would permit qualified physicians
to dispense and prescribe schedule III, IV, or V narcotic drugs
or combinations of such drugs approved by FDA for the treatment
of heroin and other opioid addictions. It also provides a
comprehensive strategy to combat use of methamphetamine and
other ``club drugs'' abused by America's young people.
As enacted, the legislation includes provisions of H.R.
274, H.R. 997, H.R. 1085, H.R. 1193, H.R. 1445, H.R. 2511, H.R.
2538, H.R. 2573, H.R. 2634, H.R. 2739, H.R. 2840, S. 805, S.
901, and S. 1897.
Legislative History
H.R. 3301 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis and 9 cosponsors
on November 10, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
H.R. 4365, a bill which superseded H.R. 3301, was
introduced by Mr. Bilirakis and one cosponsor on May 3, 2000.
The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On May 9, 2000, the House considered H.R. 4365 under
suspension of the rules, with an amendment. The House passed
the bill by a record vote of 419 yeas and 2 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 10, 2000 and
referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions. On September 22, 2000, the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from the
further consideration of H.R. 4365 by unanimous consent. The
bill was laid before the Senate and passed, with an amendment,
by unanimous consent.
On September 26, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a
rule providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to
H.R. 4365 (H.Res. 594). On September 27, 2000, the House passed
H.Res. 594 by a voice vote. The House considered the Senate
amendment pursuant to H.Res. 594 and agreed to the amendment by
a record vote of 394 yeas and 25 nays (Record vote no. 496),
clearing the bill for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on October 5, 2000
and signed into law on October 17, 2000 (Public Law 106-310).
THE MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACT
OF 2000
Public Law 106-525 (S. 1880, H.R. 3250)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to improve research
and education for minority health and health disparity
populations.
Summary
The Act authorizes a new National Center on Minority Health
and Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) which is responsible for coordinating all minority health
and health disparity research programs at the NIH. The Center
will also have grant-making authority for minority health and
health disparity biomedical and behavioral research projects.
It also authorizes funds for new research at the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) into disparities in
access to health care. Finally, it also provides funds for loan
repayment for continuing education programs focusing on
minority health professionals and education programs dedicated
to reducing health disparities.
Legislative History
H.R. 3250 was introduced in the House by Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi and 86 cosponsors on November 8, 1999. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Commerce. The Subcommittee on
Health and Environment held a hearing on H.R. 3250 on May 11,
2000, and heard testimony from Members of Congress, the
Administration, and various associations and advocacy groups.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 3250 on July 26, 2000 and the bill was ordered reported,
with an amendment by a voice vote. On October 18, 2000, the
Committee reported the bill to the House, with an amendment (H.
Rept. 106-986).
S. 1880 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kennedy and
one cosponsor on November 8, 1999 and referred to the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On October
26, 2000, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions was discharged from the further consideration of S.
1880 by unanimous consent. By unanimous consent, the Senate
proceeded to the consideration of S. 1880 and passed the bill.
S. 1880 was received in the House and held at the desk on
October 27, 2000. On October 31, 2000, the House considered the
bill under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a
voice vote, clearing the bill for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on November 13,
2000 and signed on November 22, 2000 (Public Law 106-525).
RYAN WHITE CARE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000
Public Law 106-345 (S. 2311, H.R. 4807)
To revise and extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under
title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve access
to health care and the quality of health care under such
programs, and to provide for the development of increased
capacity to provide health care and related support services to
individuals and families with HIV disease, and for other
purposes.
Summary
S. 2311, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources
Emergency Act Amendments of 2000, reauthorizes funding to help
those suffering from HIV/AIDS access medical treatments and
other necessary services such as testing and counseling, and
improves various aspects of the original bill. H.R. 4807 places
a greater emphasis on HIV prevention, addresses the misuse of
Federal AIDS funds, and more equitably distributes those funds
both within and among States.
Legislative History
S. 2311 was introduced on March 29, 2000, by Senator
Jeffords and 51 cosponsors and referred to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On April 12, 2000, the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
ordered S. 2311 to be reported with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute favorably. On May 15, 2000, the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported the bill to the
Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (S.Rpt.
106-294).
The Senate considered and passed the bill as amended on
June 6, 2000 by unanimous consent. On June 7, 2000, the bill
was received in the House and referred to the House Committee
on Commerce.
H.R. 4807 was introduced by Mr. Coburn and 23 cosponsors on
May 29, 2000. The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a
hearing on the bill on July 11, 2000 and heard testimony from
the Administration, the General Accounting Office, and various
AIDS organizations.
The Committee on Commerce met in an open markup session on
July 13, 2000 to consider H.R. 4807 and ordered the bill
reported, with an amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on July 25,
2000 (H. Rept. 106-788). On July 25, the House considered and
passed the bill under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote.
On October 4, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of S. 2311 (H.Res. 611), which
provided that an amendment based upon the text of H.R. 4807
would be considered as adopted. On October 5, 2000, the House
considered and passed H.Res. 611 by a voice vote. The House
considered S. 2311 and passed the bill, as amended, by a record
vote of 411 yeas and no nays.
On October 5, 2000, the Senate agreed to the House
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on October 11,
2000 and signed by the President on October 20, 2000 (Public
Law 106-345).
BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT
Public Law 106-354 (H.R. 4386, H.R. 1070, S. 662)
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide
medical assistance for certain women screened and found to have
breast or cervical cancer under a Federally funded screening
program, to amend the Public Health Service Act and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to surveillance and
information concerning the relationship between cervical cancer
and the human papillomavirus (HPV), and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4386, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of
2000, creates incentives for States to provide coverage and
treatment under Medicaid for low-income women who are diagnosed
with breast or cervical cancer. This bill would guarantee
coverage of women who were screened and diagnosed with breast
or cervical cancer under title XV of the Public Health Services
Act's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Program (NBCCEDP).
Legislative History
H.R. 1070 was introduced on March 11, 1999, by Mr. Lazio
and 79 bipartisan cosponsors. On July 21, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing on H.R.
1070, and heard testimony from the Centers for Disease Control,
and various breast cancer organizations. The Subcommittee on
Health and Environment met in an open markup session on
September 30, 1999, and approved H.R. 1070 for Full Committee
consideration. On Thursday, October 28, 1999, the Committee on
Commerce met in an open markup session and ordered H.R. 1070
reported, with an amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee
reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on November
22, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-486, Part 1).
On November 22, 1999, the bill and amendment were
sequentially referred to the Committee on Ways and Means for a
period ending not later than February 29, 2000. The referral of
the Committee on Ways and means was extended through May 26,
2000, when the Committee on Ways and Means was discharged from
the further consideration of the bill.
H.R. 4386 was introduced on May 4, 2000, by Mrs. Myrick and
2 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. H.R. 4386 incorporated the text of H.R. 1070 as
reported except a provision relating to the partial
hospitalization program was struck.
On May 9, 2000, the House considered H.R. 4386 under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a record vote of
421 yeas and 1 nay.
On May 10, 2000, the bill was received in the Senate and
placed on the Senate legislative calendar. On October 4, 2000,
H.R. 4386 was considered and passed by the Senate with an
amendment consisting of the text of S. 662 by unanimous
consent.
On October 10, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R.
4386 (H.Res. 628). On October 12, 2000, the House considered
and passed H.Res. 628 by a voice vote. The House considered
H.R. 4386 pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 628 and agreed
to the Senate amendment by a voice vote, clearing the bill for
the White House.
On October 19, 2000, the bill was presented to the
President and signed on October 24, 2000 (Public Law 106-354).
RESOLUTION CONCERNING BREAST CANCER
(H.Res. 278)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives
regarding the importance of education, early detection and
treatment, and other efforts in the fight against breast
cancer.
Summary
H.Res. 278 expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives regarding the importance of education, early
detection and treatment, and other efforts in the fight against
breast cancer.
Legislative History
H.Res. 278 was introduced by Mr. Bass and 21 cosponsors on
August 5, 1999. On September 30, 1999 the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment met in open markup session and approved
the legislation for Full Committee consideration by a voice
vote. On October 13, 1999, the Full Committee ordered reported
H.Res 278, by voice vote.
On October 3, 2000, the House considered H.Res. 278 under
suspension of the rules. The House passed the resolution by a
record vote of 420 yeas and no nays.
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPROVEMENT ACT
Public Law 106-505 (H.R. 2498, H.R. 762, H.R. 1798, H.R. 2291, H.R.
4964, S. 1243, S. 1268, S. 1813, S. 2528, S. 2625, S. Res. 225)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
recommendations of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
regarding the placement of automatic external defibrillators in
Federal buildings in order to improve survival rates of
individuals who experience cardiac arrest in such buildings,
and to establish protections from civil liability arising from
the emergency use of the devices.
Summary
H.R. 2498 will increase chances of survival for those
experiencing cardiac arrest. Defibrillation, the process of
sending electrical shocks to the patient's heart, is highly
effective in restoring a normal heartbeat to victims of sudden
cardiac arrest. The placement of automated external
defibrillators in Federal buildings will increase survival
rates for those who experience sudden cardiac arrest.
It also improves access to automated external
defibrillators (AEDs) in small communities and rural areas to
boost the survival rates of individuals in those communities
who suffer cardiac arrest. Under this legislation, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the
Rural Health Outreach Office of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, shall award grants to community
partnerships consisting of local emergency responders, police
and fire departments, hospitals and other community
organizations to purchase AEDs and to provide defibrillator and
basic life support training.
The bill also includes language expanding Federal lupus
research activities through the National Institutes of Health.
The bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to make grants to projects for the delivery of essential
services to individuals with lupus and their families.
The bill also amends title III of the Public Health Service
Act through grant programs which will allow public health
agencies to combat disease emergencies by assessing capacities
to identify areas of greatest need; upgrading the ability of
laboratories to identify disease-causing microbes; improving
electronic communication networks; developing plans to respond
to public health emergencies; and training public health
personnel.
Further, it amends the Public Health Service Act by
establishing intramural and extramural clinical research
fellowship programs and a continuing education clinical
research training program at the National Institutes of Health.
It also provides for the renovation of biomedical and
behavioral research facilities and the expansion, remodeling,
and renovation of existing research facilities. In addition,
the legislation would also provide grants to public and non-
profit private entities for the purchase of high-end, state-of-
the-art laboratory instrumentation.
The bill also expands the authority of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to carry out activities
related to prostate cancer screening and overall awareness and
surveillance of the disease. It also extends the authority of
the National Institutes of Health to conduct basic and clinical
research in combating prostate cancer.
The bill requires HCFA to change the standards for organ
procurement organization (OPO) recertification to account for
variation in the number of potential donors in a given State,
extends the current certification cycle from 2 to 4 years,
ensures greater due process rights for OPOs, and reinstates
certification for all OPOs which were most recently
decertified. It also establishes November 23, 2000,
Thanksgiving Day, as a day to ``Give Thanks, Give Life'' and to
discuss organ and tissue donation with other family members.
Finally, the bill also includes language on Alzheimer's
Disease and sexually transmitted disease clinical research and
training. These provisions establish and maintain programs to
enhance and promote the translation of new scientific knowledge
into clinical practice related to the diagnosis, care and
treatment of individuals with Alzheimer's Disease and sexually
transmitted diseases.
Legislative History
H.R. 2498 was introduced by Mr. Stearns and 133 cosponsors
on July 13, 1999. On May 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health
and Environment met in open markup session and approved the
bill for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote. On May
17, 2000 the Full Committee met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 2498 reported to the House by a voice vote. The
Committee on Commerce reported this bill to the House on May
17, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-634).
On May 23, 2000, the House considered the bill under
suspension of the Rules and passed H.R. 2498 by a record vote
of 415 yeas and 2 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 24, 2000. On
October 26, 2000, by unanimous consent, the Senate considered
and passed H.R. 2498 with an amendment consisting of the text
of H.R. 2498, S. 2528, the Rural AED Act, H.R. 762, the Lupus
Research and Care Amendments of 1999, H.R. 4964, the Public
Health Threats and Emergencies Act, H.R. 1798, the Clinical
Research Enhancement Act, H.R. 2241, the Twenty-first Century
Research Laboratories Act, S. 1243, the Prostate Cancer
Research and Prevention Act, S. 2625, the Organ Procurement
Organization Certification Act of 2000, S. Res. 225, a
resolution designating November 23, 2000 as a day to ``give
thanks, give life,'' and additional language addressing
clinical research and training on Alzheimer's disease.
S. 2528 was introduced on May 10, 2000 by Senator Collins
and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions. On October 10, 2000, the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from
the further consideration of the bill by unanimous consent. The
Senate passed the bill on October 11, 2000 by unanimous consent
and the bill was received in the House and referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 762 was introduced by Ms. Meek and 22 cosponsors of
Florida on February 12, 1999. The Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held a hearing on H.R. 762 on September 13, 2000.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Lupus Foundation
of America. On September 26, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health
and Environment was discharged from the further consideration
of H.R. 762 and the Full Committee met in open markup session
and ordered H.R. 762 reported, with an amendment, by a voice
vote.
On October 10, 2000, the Committee on Commerce reported
H.R. 762 with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-950) and the House
considered and passed the bill under suspension of the rules by
a record vote of 385 yeas and 2 nays.
H.R. 1798 was introduced by Mr. Greenwood and 18 cosponsors
on May 13, 1999. On September 26, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment was discharged from consideration of
H.R. 1798. On September 26, 2000, the Full Committee met in
open markup session and approved H.R. 1798, without amendment,
by a voice vote. The Committee reported the legislation to the
House on October 25, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-1002). The Senate
companion legislation, S. 1813, was introduced by Senator
Kennedy on October 27, 1999 and passed the Senate by unanimous
consent on November 19, 1999.
H.R. 2241 was introduced by Mr. Foley on June 16, 1999.
Companion legislation in the Senate, S. 1268, was introduced by
Senator Harkin on June 23, 1999, and passed by the Senate by
unanimous consent, with an amendment, on November 19, 1999.
S. 1243 was introduced by Senator Frist on June 18, 1999
and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions. On November 19, 1999, the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions was discharged from
the further consideration of the bill and the Senate passed the
bill by unanimous consent. On November 22, 1999, the bill was
received in the House and held at the desk. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Commerce on January 27, 2000.
S. 2625 was introduced by Senator Collins on May 24, 2000
and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions. On June 7, 2000, the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions was discharged from the
further consideration of the bill and the bill passed by
unanimous consent. On June 8, 2000, the bill was received in
the House and referred to the Committee on Commerce.
S.Res. 225 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Durbin
on November 8, 1999 and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary. On November 19, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary
was discharged from the further consideration of the resolution
and the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent.
On October 26, 2000, the House considered the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2498 under suspension of the Rules and agreed
to the amendment by a record vote of 384 yeas and 2 nays,
clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 2498 was presented to the President on November 1,
2000 and signed into law on November 13, 2000 (Public Law 106-
505).
THE DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF
2000
Public Law 106-402 (S. 1809, H.R. 4920)
To improve service systems for individuals with
developmental disabilities, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 1809, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill
of Rights Act of 2000, is designed to help ensure that
individuals with developmental disabilities achieve increased
independence, productivity, and integration into the community.
The legislation provides flexibility to individual States, who
can then create programs targeted to specific local problems,
and to families, who can choose to care for developmentally
disabled children in the home.
Legislative History
S. 1809 was introduced on October 27, 1999 by Senator
Jeffords and 9 cosponsors, and referred to the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On November 3, 1999,
the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
ordered the bill reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The Committee reported the bill without a written
report on November 4, 1999.
The Senate passed S. 1809 by unanimous consent on November
8, 1999. The bill was received in the House on November 9, 1999
and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
On February 10, 2000, the bill was re-referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and additionally to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, by unanimous consent.
H.R.4920, the House counterpart, was introduced by Mr.
Lazio and 28 cosponsors on July 24, 2000. The bill was referred
to the Committee on Commerce, and additionally to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. On July 26, 2000, the House
considered H.R. 4920 under suspension of the rules and passed
the bill by a voice vote.
On October 11, 2000, the Committees on Commerce and
Education and the Workforce were discharged from the further
consideration of S. 1809 and the bill passed by unanimous
consent, clearing the measure for the White House.
S. 1809 was presented to the President on October 19, 2000,
and signed by the President on October 30, 2000 (Public Law
106-402).
THE HILLORY J.FARIAS AND SAMATHA REID DATE RAPE DRUG PROHIBITION ACT OF
2000
Public Law 106-172 (H.R. 2130, H.R. 3437, S. 1561)
Summary
Following the recommendations of the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and the Department of Justice, H.R. 2130
amends the Controlled Substances Act to make GHB (Gamma
Hydroxybutyric Acid), a central nervous system depressant that
is abused to produce intense highs and to assist in the
commission of sexual assaults, a Schedule I drug, the DEA's
most intensively regulated category of drugs. In addition, H.R.
2130 lists GBL (Gamma-Butyrolactone), the primary precursor
used in the production of GHB, as a List I chemical. GHB, and
GBL are otherwise known as ``date rape'' drugs.
H.R. 2130 also requires the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to establish a National Awareness Campaign to
educate junior high, high school, and college students on the
dangers of date rape drugs, and to assist law enforcement
personnel in battling their abuse. The bill establishes an
expert advisory panel to assist HHS in carrying out the
national campaign. Under H.R. 2130, HHS is required to provide
periodic reports to Congress on the national status of abuse of
date rape drugs. Additionally, two years after the commencement
of the National Awareness Campaign, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) is required to conduct an evaluation of the effect
of the national campaign on the abuse of date rape drugs, and,
if necessary, provide specific recommendations to improve its
effectiveness.
Legislative History
H.R. 2130 was introduced by Mr. Upton and 3 cosponsors on
June 10, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, and additionally to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On July 27, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment met in open markup session and approved the bill
for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote. On August 5,
1999, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered
H.R. 2130 reported, with an amendment, by a voice vote. The
Committee reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on
September 27, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-340, Part 1). The Committee on
the Judiciary was granted an extension of its referral for
further consideration through October 8, 1999, and was
discharged from the further consideration of the bill on that
date.
On October 12, 1999, the House considered H.R. 2130 under
suspension of the rules. The House passed the bill by a record
vote of 423 yeas and 1 nay. The bill was received in the Senate
on October 13, 2000.
The Senate companion legislation, S. 1561, was introduced
by Senator Abraham on August 5, 1999 and referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary. On November 17, 1999, the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary ordered S. 1561 reported to the
Senate with amendments. The bill was reported in the Senate on
November 18, 1999, without written report.
A bill substantially similar to S. 1561, H.R. 3457, was
introduced in the House by Mr. Upton on November 18, 1999.
However, no further action was taken on this bill in the 106th
Congress.
On November 19, 1999, by unanimous consent, the Senate
proceeded to consideration of H.R. 2130, amended the bill by
substituting the text of S. 1561 as passed by the Senate, and
passed in lieu of S. 1561.
On January 31, 2000, the House considered the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2130 under suspension of the rules. The House
agreed to the Senate amendment by a record vote of 339 yeas and
2 nays, clearing the bill for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on February 9, 2000
and signed into law on February 18, 2000 (Public Law 106-172).
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY ACT OF 1999
Public Law 106-129 (S. 580, H.R. 2506)
To amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend the Agency for Healthcare Policy and
Research.
Summary
This legislation reauthorizes the Agency for Health Care
Policy and Research, renames it the ``Agency for Health
Research and Quality,'' and redefines its objectives. It
refocuses the efforts of the agency to support health programs
within the private sector. The bill also authorizes grants in
order to establish regional centers to improve and increase
access to preventive health care services.
Legislative History
S. 580 was introduced by Senator Frist and 12 cosponsors on
March 10, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 2506, the House companion to S. 580, was introduced by
Mr. Bilirakis and 8 bipartisan cosponsors on June 10, 1999, and
was referred to the Committee on Commerce. On July 27, 1999,
the Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in an open
markup session to consider H.R. 2506 and forwarded the bill to
the Full Committee by a voice vote. On August 5, 1999, the Full
Committee met in an open markup session and ordered the bill
reported, with an amendment by a voice vote. On September 8,
1999, the Committee on Commerce reported H.R. 2506 to the
House, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-305).
On September 22, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2506 (H.Res. 299).
On September 28, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 299 by a voice
vote. The House considered H.R. 2506 pursuant to the provisions
of H.Res. 299 and passed H.R. 2506, as amended, by a record
vote of 417 yeas and 7 nays. On September 30, 1999, the bill
was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On November 3, 1999, the Senate considered and passed S.
580 with an amendment, consisting largely of the text of H.R.
2506, by unanimous consent. The bill was received in the House
on November 4, 1999 and held at the desk.
On November 18, 1999, the House considered and passed S.
580 by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on December 1,
1999 and signed into law on December 6, 1999 (Public Law 106-
129).
WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
Public Law 106-170 (H.R. 1180, H.R. 3070, S. 331, S.Res 127, H.Con.Res.
236)
To amend the Social Security Act to expand the availability
of health care coverage for working individuals with
disabilities, to establish a Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program in the Social Security Administration to
provide such individuals with meaningful opportunities to work,
and for other purposes.
Summary
This legislation helps persons with disabilities more
easily return to work, and promotes more productive and
fulfilling lives. This Act creates new options for employed
Social Security Disability Insurance and Social Security
Insurance beneficiaries to purchase the health care coverage
they would be entitled to if they did not work. The bill also
supports a public-private partnership approach to job training
and offers placement assistance to individuals with
disabilities who want to work. Before this law was passed, many
persons with disabilities were forced to choose between working
or health insurance. This created counterproductive incentives
and sent the wrong message to those with disabilities who want
to be a part of the work force. This Public Law now removes
barriers for individuals who want to work, and promotes an
environment conducive to personal dignity and self-sufficiency.
Legislative History
H.R. 1180 was introduced by Mr. Lazio and 43 bipartisan
cosponsors on March 18, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and additionally to the Committee
on Commerce.
On March 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held a legislative hearing on the bill. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the Health Care Financing
Administration, various associations, and advocacy groups. On
April 20, 1999, the Subcommittee met in open markup session and
approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, as amended,
by a voice vote. On May 19, 1999, the Full Committee met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1180 reported to the
House, with an amendment, by a voice vote. On July 1, 1999, the
Committee on Commerce reported the bill to the House, with an
amendment (H. Rept. 106-220, Part 1).
H.R. 3070 was introduced by Mr. Hulsof and 12 cosponsors on
October 13, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and additionally to the Committee on Commerce.
The Committee on Ways and Means met in open markup session on
October 14, 1999, and ordered the bill reported, as amended, by
a record vote of 33 yeas and 1 nay. The Committee on Ways and
Means reported H.R. 3070 to the House, as amended, on October
18, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-393, Part 1). The referral of the
Committee on Commerce was extended through October 19, 1999,
whereupon the Committee on Commerce was discharged from the
further consideration of H.R. 3070.
On October 19, 1999, the House considered H.R. 1180--with a
further amendment reconciling the differences between it and
H.R. 3070--under suspension of the rules. The House passed the
bill, as amended, by a record vote of 412 yeas and 9 nays. H.R.
1180 was received in the Senate on October 19, 1999.
S. 331, the Senate companion legislation, was introduced by
Senator Jeffords on January 28, 1999 and referred to the Senate
Committee on Finance. On March 4, 1999, the Senate Committee on
Finance ordered the bill reported with an amendment. The Senate
Committee on Finance reported the bill to the Senate with an
amendment on March 26, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-37).
On June 16, 1999, the Senate proceeded to the consideration
of S. 331 by unanimous consent. The Senate passed the bill by a
roll call vote of 99 yeas and no nays.
The bill was received in the House and held at the desk on
June 17, 1999. On June 23, 1999, the Senate passed S.Res. 127,
a resolution requesting that the House return the official
papers for S. 331, by unanimous consent. On October 19, 1999,
the House returned the papers to the Senate.
On October 21, 1999 the Senate considered and passed H.R.
1180, by unanimous consent, with a substitute amendment
consisting of the text of S. 331 as passed by the Senate. The
Senate insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with
the House, and appointed conferees.
On October 28, 1999, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and agreed to the conference requested by the Senate
by unanimous consent. The Speaker appointed conferees.
On November 17, 1999, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1180 was filed in the House (H. Rept. 106-478). On
November 18, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1180 (H.Res. 387). On November 18, 1999, H.Res.
387 passed the House by a voice vote. The House considered the
conference report pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 387 and
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 418 yeas
and 2 nays.
On November 18, 1999, Mr. Rogers introduced H.Con.Res. 236,
a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk of the House to
make certain corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 1180. The
House passed the concurrent resolution on November 18, 1999 by
unanimous consent. The concurrent resolution was received in
the Senate on November 18, 1999 and agreed to by unanimous
consent on November 19, 1999.
On November 19, 1999, the Senate agreed to the conference
report to accompany H.R. 1180 by a roll call vote of 95 yeas
and 1 nay, clearing the bill for the White House. The bill was
presented to the President on December 6, 1999 and signed into
law on December 17, 1999 (Public Law 106-170).
NURSING HOME RESIDENT PROTECTION AMENDMENTS OF 1999
Public Law 106-4 (H.R. 540)
To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit
transfers or discharges of residents of nursing facilities as a
result of a voluntary withdrawal from participation in the
Medicaid program.
Summary
H.R. 540 affords protection from discharge or transfer
based on Medicaid status to residents of nursing homes which
decide to withdraw from the Medicaid program. The residents
protected include those who are presently receiving Medicaid
benefits in nursing homes, as well as those patients who are
already residents but not yet dependent on Medicaid. For those
individuals who take up residence in the nursing home after the
effective date of the facility's withdrawal from the Medicaid
program, H.R. 540 provides that they must be informed orally
and in writing that the nursing home may transfer or discharge
the resident once the resident is unable to pay the charges of
the facility through non-Medicaid sources.
Legislative History
H.R. 540 was introduced by Mr. Davis of Florida and 33
cosponsors on February 3, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 540 on February 11, 1999. The
Subcommittee received testimony from a member of Congress; the
Health Care Financing Administration; and industry and
association representatives. On March 2, 1999, the Subcommittee
on Health and Environment met in open markup session and
approved H.R. 540 for Full Committee consideration, without
amendment, by a voice vote. On March 4, 1999, the Full
Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 540
reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote. The
Committee reported the bill to the House on March 8, 1999 (H.
Rept. 106-44).
On March 9, 1999, the House considered the bill under
suspension of the rules. On March 10, the House passed the bill
by a record vote of 398 yeas and 12 nays. H.R. 540 was received
in the Senate on March 11, 1999.
The Senate companion legislation, S. 494, was introduced in
the Senate on March 2, 1999 by Senator Graham, and referred to
the Senate Committee on Finance. On March 4, 1999, the Senate
Committee on Finance ordered the bill favorably reported
without amendment and reported the bill to the Senate on March
10, 1999 (S.Rept. 106-13).
On March 15, 1999, the Senate considered and passed H.R.
540 by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on March 17,
1999, and signed into law on March 25, 1999 (Public Law 106-4).
MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND SCHIP BALANCED BUDGET REFINEMENT ACT OF 1999
Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 3194, H.R. 3426, H.R. 3075, H.R. 3146)
To amend titles XVIII, XIX and XXI of the Social Security
Act to adjust the Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health
Insurance programs as revised by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997.
Summary
The Health Care Restoration Act addressed certain
unintended consequences of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It
restored funding to Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, due to
greater than expected savings from these programs that resulted
from changes contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
H.R. 3075 restored $16 billion to these Federal health
programs. In particular, hospitals received additional $7.3
billion, skilled nursing facilities over $2 billion, home
health agencies $1.3 billion and health plans participating in
the Medicare+Choice program will receive an additional $1.9
billion. Finally, nearly $1 billion was restored to the
Medicaid and SCHIP programs.
Legislative History
Mr. Thomas and 44 cosponsors introduced H.R. 3075 on
October 14, 1999 and the bill was referred to the Committee on
Ways and Means and additionally to the Committee on Commerce.
Chairman Bliley and 14 cosponsors introduced H.R. 3146, the
Health Care Restoration Act of 1999 on October 26, 1999 and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce and additionally
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
On October 15, 1999, the Committee on Ways and Means'
Subcommittee on Health met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 3075 for consideration by the Committee on Ways and Means
by a voice vote. The Committee on Ways and Means met in open
markup session on October 21, 1999 and ordered H.R. 3075
reported, with an amendment, by a record vote of 26 yeas and 11
nays. The Committee on Ways and Means reported the bill to the
House, with an amendment, on November 2, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-
436, Part 1). The Committee on Commerce was granted an
extension of its referral for the further consideration of H.R.
3075 for a period ending not later than November 5, 1999.
The Committee on Commerce took no action on either H.R.
3146 or H.R. 3075, but worked with the other committees of
jurisdiction to include provisions from H.R. 3146 in the
version of H.R. 3075 considered by the House.
On November 5, 1999, the House considered H.R. 3075, as
amended, under suspension of the rules. The House passed H.R.
3075 by a record vote of 388 yeas and 25 nays. The bill was
received in the Senate on November 8, 1999 and referred to the
Senate Committee on Finance on November 19, 1999.
The text of H.R. 3075, along with various amendments agreed
to by House and Senate negotiators, was reintroduced as H.R.
3426 on November 17, 1999 by Mr. Archer and incorporated by
reference in section 1000(a)(6) of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 3194, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.
Rept. 106-479). On November 18, 1999, the Committee on Rules
reported a rule providing for the consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3194 (H.Res. 386) which
passed the House by a voice vote, with an amendment. The House
considered the conference report on November 18, 1999 and
approved the conference report by a record vote of 296 yeas and
135 nays.
On November 18, 1999, the Senate agreed to consider the
conference report by a roll call vote of 80 yeas and 8 nays and
a cloture motion was filed. On November 19, 1999, the Senate
invoked cloture by a roll call vote of 87 yeas and 9 nays and
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 74 yeas
and 24 nays, and the bill was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3194 was presented to the President on November 22,
1999. The President signed H.R. 3194 into law on November 29,
1999 (Public Law 106-113).
INTERNET POSTING OF CHEMICAL ``WORST CASE'' SCENARIOS
Public Law 106-40 (S. 880, H.R. 1790)
To amend the Clean Air Act to ensure that communities
receive chemical ``worst case'' scenarios in a manner that does
not jeopardize national security, and to address the regulatory
status of certain fuels.
Summary
S. 880, the Chemical Safety Information Site Security And
Fuels Regulatory Act, amends Section 112(r) of the Clean Air
Act to direct the President to promulgate regulations ensuring
that the public dissemination of chemical worst case scenarios
is conducted pursuant to certain criteria addressing, among
other things, national security concerns and benefits of public
disclosure. Additionally, S. 880 addresses the regulatory
status under Clean Air Act Section 112(r) of flammable
substances used as fuels or held for sale as a fuel at a retail
facility. Finally, S. 880 provides for reports on
implementation of the Act and the vulnerability of facilities
to criminal and terrorist activity.
Legislative History
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
held a joint hearing titled ``Internet Posting Of Chemical
'Worst Case' Scenarios: A Roadmap for Terrorists.'' The
subcommittees received testimony from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and other public and private sector witnesses.
On May 13, 1999, Chairman Bliley introduced by request H.R.
1790, an Administration-authored bill that would establish a
distribution system for chemical worst case scenarios. On May
19 and 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment
held hearings on H.R. 1790. The Subcommittee received testimony
from: FBI; EPA; the Department of Justice; State and local
elected officials; environmental groups; the Fraternal Order of
Police; the International Association of Fire Chiefs; the
American Library Association; and the PACE Workers
International Union.
On June 9, 1999, the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works reported a companion bill to the Senate, S. 880.
By unanimous consent, on June 23, 1999 the Senate passed S. 880
with an amendment. The measure was received in the House and
held at the desk on June 24, 1999. On July 21, 1999, the House
considered and passed S.880, with an amendment, by unanimous
consent.
On August 2, 1999, the Senate agreed to the House amendment
by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the President.
S. 880 was presented to the President on August 4, 1999. On
August 5, 1999, the President signed S. 880 into law (Public
Law 106-40).
THE CHIMPANZEE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION ACT
Public Law 106-551 (H.R. 3514)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for a
system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees that have been designated
as being no longer needed in research conducted or supported by
the Public Health Service, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3514, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance
and Protection Act would establish a National sanctuary system
primarily for Federally-owned chimpanzees, no longer needed for
research. The system. The system would be administered by a
sanctuary board under the National Institutes of Health.
Legislative History
H.R. 3514 was introduced by Mr. Greenwood and 21 cosponsors
on November 22, 1999 and was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. On May 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held a hearing on the bill May 18, 2000.
On October 24, 2000, the House considered the bill under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill by a voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on October 25, 2000. On
December 6, 2000, the Senate considered and passed H.R. 3514 by
unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 3514 was presented to the President on December 8,
2000 and signed into law on December 20, 2000 (Public Law 106-
551).
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL
for fiscal year 1999
Public Law 106-31 (H.R. 1141, S. 544, H.R. 351)
Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1999.
Summary
Section 2011 of the Senate amendment included language
which amends section 1903 of the Social Security Act to prevent
the Federal government from seeking recoupment of the proceeds
of State settlements with the Nation's largest tobacco
manufacturers under the Medicaid statutes.
Legislative History
H.R. 1141 was reported from the Committee on Appropriations
as an original measure on March 17, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-64). On
March 23, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a resolution
providing for the consideration of H.R. 1141 (H.Res. 125).
H.Res. 125 passed the House by a voice vote on March 24, 1999.
H.R. 1141 was considered in the House pursuant to the
provisions of H.Res. 125 and passed the House by a record vote
of 220 yeas and 211 nays.
H.R. 1141 was received in the Senate on March 25, 1999, and
the Senate passed H.R. 1141 with an amendment consisting of the
text of S. 544 by unanimous consent. By unanimous consent, the
Senate insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with
the House, and appointed conferees.
On March 24, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Speaker indicating that section 2011 of
the Senate amendment to H.R. 1141 contained language identical
to H.R. 351, legislation referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On March 26, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriation wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce indicating that he would consult with the Chairman as
the conference proceeded.
On April 22, 1999, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and agreed to the conference requested by the Senate
by unanimous consent. The Speaker appointed conferees. The
Committee of Conference met on May 11 and 12, 1999. The
conference report to accompany H.R. 1141 was filed in the House
on May 14, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-143).
On May 17, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1141 (H.Res. 173). On May 18, 1999, the House
passed H.Res. 173 by a voice vote. The House considered the
conference report pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 173 and
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 269 yeas
and 158 nays.
On May 20, 1999, the Senate agreed to waive the budget act
with respect to the conference report by a roll call vote of 70
yeas and 30 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report by
a roll call vote of 64 yeas and 36 nays, clearing the bill for
the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on May 21, 1999 and
signed into law (Public Law 106-31).
TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE ACT OF 2000
Public Law 106-260 (H.R. 1167, S. 979, H.R. 403)
To amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance to provide for further self-governance by Indian
tribes and for other purposes.
Summary
Section 12 of the Senate amendment contained provisions
similar to the text of H.R. 403 which establishes within the
Department of Health and Human Services the office of the
Assistant Secretary of Indian Health to facilitate advocacy for
the development of appropriate Indian health policy and to
promote consultation on matters related to Indian health. The
provision requires that the Assistant Secretary to preform the
functions currently performed by the Director of the Indian
Health Service, as well as certain additional departmental
advisory and coordinating services in Indian health matters.
Legislative History
H.R. 403 was introduced by Mr. Nethercutt on January 19,
1999 and referred to the Committee on Resources, and
additionally to the Committee on Commerce. On March 17, 1999,
H.R. 1167, the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 2000, was
introduced by Mr. Miller of California and was referred to the
Committee on Resources.
The Committee on Resources ordered H.R. 1167 reported, with
an amendment, on June 9, 1999, and reported the bill to the
House on November 17, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-477). On November 17,
1999, the House considered H.R. 1167 under suspension of the
rules and passed the bill by a voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on November 18, 1999.
On April 4, 2000, the Senate considered and passed H.R. 1167
with an amendment consisting of the text of S. 979. By
unanimous consent, the Senate insisted on its amendment and
requested a conference with the House.
On May 1, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
wrote to the Speaker and indicated that the Senate amendment to
H.R. 1167 contained provisions within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Commerce, and requested that the Speaker appoint
conferees from the Committee on Commerce should the bill be the
subject of a House-Senate conference. On June 5, 2000, the
Chairman of the Committee on Resources wrote to the Chairman of
the Committee on Commerce indicating that he intended to concur
in the Senate amendment with an amendment striking the
provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Commerce. On June 6, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote the Chairman of the Committee on Resources
agreeing not to exercise the right of the Committee on Commerce
to a referral of the legislation or conferees in return for the
commitment to remove provisions within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Commerce.
On July 24, 2000, the House agreed to the Senate amendment
with amendments pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 562, which
was agreed to by a voice vote. On July 26, 2000, the Senate
agreed to the House amendments to the Senate amendment by
unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 1167 was presented to the President on August 8, 2000,
and signed into law on August 18, 2000 (Public Law 106-260).
TORTURE VICTIM RELIEF REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999
Public Law 106-87 (H.R. 2367)
To reauthorize a comprehensive program of support for
victims of torture.
Summary
The legislation authorizes appropriations for FY 2001
through 2003 to: (1) the President to provide assistance in the
form of grants to treatment centers and programs in foreign
countries that are carrying out projects or activities
specifically designed to treat victims of torture for the
physical and psychological effects of such torture; (2) the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide grants to
programs in the United States to cover the costs of services
provided by domestic treatment centers in the rehabilitation of
victims of torture (including treatment of the physical and
psychological effects of torture); and (3) the President for
the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for
Victims of Torture.
The legislation also expresses the sense of Congress that
the President, through the U.S. Permanent Representative to the
United Nations, should: (1) request the Fund to find new ways
to support, and to encourage the development of new, treatment
centers and programs that are carrying out rehabilitative
services for victims of torture; (2) use the vote of the United
States to support the work of the Special Rapporteur on Torture
and the Committee Against Torture established under the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment; and (3) use the U.S. vote to
establish a country rapporteur or similar mechanism to
investigate human rights violations in a country if either the
Special Rapporteur or the Committee Against Torture indicates
that a systematic practice of torture is prevalent there.
Legislative History
On June 29, 1999, H.R. 2367 was introduced by Mr. Smith of
New Jersey and referred to the Committee on International
Relations and additionally to the Committee on Commerce. On
September 9, 1999, the Committee on International Relations
ordered the bill reported, with an amendment.
On September 12, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on
International Relations indicating that the Committee on
Commerce would not exercise its right to consider the
legislation, but did not waive its jurisdictional prerogatives
with respect to H.R. 2367 or similar legislation. On September
17, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on International
Relations wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
agreeing to support any request by the Committee on Commerce
for conferees on H.R. 2367.
On September 21, 1999, the House considered the bill under
suspension of the rules and passed H.R. 2367 by a voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on September 22, 1999.
On October 21, 1999, the Senate considered and passed the
bill by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the White
House.
The bill was presented to the President on October 26,
1999, and signed into law on November 3, 1999 (Public Law 106-
87).
SEMIPOSTAL AUTHORIZATION ACT
Public Law 106-253 (H.R. 4437)
To grant the United States Postal Service the authority to
issue semipostals, and for other purposes.
Summary
The legislation amends Federal postal law to authorize the
U.S. Postal Service to issue and sell semipostal postage
stamps, at a premium not to exceed 25 percent above regular
rates, in order to advance appropriate causes in the national
public interest identified according to criteria prescribed by
regulations which the Board of Governors of the Postal Service
shall issue.
The legislation also extends the Stamp Out Breast Cancer
Authorization Act until July 29, 2002, or the end of the second
year after enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Legislative History
H.R. 4437 was introduced by Mr. McHugh on May 11, 2000, and
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and
additionally to the Committees on Commerce and Armed Services.
On June 28, 2000, the Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on the Postal Service met in open markup session
and approved H.R. 4437 for Full Committee consideration by a
voice vote. On July 10, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform indicating that the Committee on Commerce would not
exercise its right to consider the legislation, but did not
waive its jurisdictional prerogatives with respect to H.R. 4437
or similar legislation. On September 17, 1999, the Chairman of
the Committee on Government Reform wrote to the Chairman of the
Committee on Commerce agreeing to support any request by the
Committee on Commerce for conferees on H.R. 4437.
The Committee on Government Reform reported H.R. 4437 with
an amendment on July 17, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-734) and the
Committees on Commerce and Armed Services were discharged from
the further consideration of the bill. On July 17, 2000, the
House considered the bill under suspension of the rules and
passed H.R. 4437 by a voice vote.
H.R. 4437 was received in the Senate on July 18, 2000. On
July 26, 2000, the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent,
clearing the bill for the White House. On July 27, 2000, H.R.
4437 was presented to the President and signed into law on July
28, 2000 (Public Law 106-253).
AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Public Law 106-181 (H.R. 1000, S. 82)
To amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
purposes.
Summary
The legislation contains numerous provisions to reauthorize
and improve the programs of the Federal Aviation
Administration. However, the legislation contains provisions
which require the Secretary to ``streamline'' the environmental
review process for certain aviation projects by coordinating
the schedule for several types of environmental analysis and
assessment. This streamlining is similar to that established
for certain surface transportation projects under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-
85).
Legislative History
Mr. Shuster introduced H.R. 1000 on March 4, 1999, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and additionally to the Committees on the
Budget and Rules. On March 9, 1999, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation
met in open markup session and approved H.R. 1000, amended, by
a voice vote. On March 11, 1999, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure met in open markup session
and ordered H.R. 1000 reported, with an amendment, by a voice
vote.
On May 26, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce wrote
the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure indicating that the bill, as ordered reported by
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, contains
provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Commerce, and that the Committee on Commerce would not exercise
its right to consider the legislation, but did not waive its
jurisdictional prerogatives with respect to H.R. 1000 or
similar legislation. On May 29, 1999, the Chairman of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure wrote to the
Chairman of the Committee on Commerce agreeing to support any
request by the Committee on Commerce for conferees on the
provisions of H.R. 1000 within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Commerce.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported
H.R. 1000 to the House, with an amendment, on May 28, 1999 (H.
Rept. 106-167). The referrals of the Committees on the Budget
and Rules were extended for further consideration of the bill
for a period ending not later than June 11, 1999. On June 9,
1999, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure filed
a supplemental report on the bill (H. Rept. 106-167, Part 2).
On June 11, 1999, the Committees on the Budget and Rules were
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 1000.
On June 14, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 1000 (H.Res. 206). On
June 15, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 206 by a voice vote and
considered H.R. 1000 pursuant to its provisions. The House
passed the bill by a record vote of 316 yeas and 110 nays.
On June 16, 1999, the bill was received in the Senate and
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce. On October 5,
1999, by unanimous consent, the Senate Committee on Commerce
was discharged and the bill was considered and passed by the
Senate, with an amendment consisting of the text of S. 82. On
October 13, 1999, the Senate insisted on its amendment,
requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees
by unanimous consent.
On October 14, 1999, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and agreed to the conference requested by the Senate
by unanimous consent and the Speaker appointed conferees. The
Committee of Conference met on October 18 and 20, and November
3, 1999. The Conference report was filed in the House on March
8, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-513).
On March 8, 2000, the Senate considered the conference
report by unanimous consent and agreed to the conference report
by a roll call vote of 82 yeas and 17 nays.
On March 14, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 1000 (H.Res. 438). On March 15, 2000, the House
passed H.Res. 438 by a voice vote and considered the conference
report pursuant to its provisions. On March 15, 2000, the House
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 319 yeas
and 101 nays, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 1000 was presented to the President on March 28, 2000
and signed into law on April 5, 2000 (Public Law 106-181).
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BIOMEDICAL IMAGING AND BIOENGINEERING
ESTABLISHMENT ACT
(H.R. 1795) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A public law number was not available at the time of filing of
this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish the
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering.
Summary
H.R. 1795 amends the Public Health Service Act to provide
for the establishment of the National Institute of Biomedical
Imaging and Engineering. Specifically, the bill requires the
Director of the Institute to establish a National Biomedical
Imaging and Engineering Program which shall include research
and related technology assessments and development in
biomedical imaging and engineering. The Director, with respect
to such program, shall prepare and transmit to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the Director of the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) a plan to initiate, expand,
intensify, and coordinate Institute biomedical imaging and
engineering activities. H.R. 1795 also requires: (1) the
consolidation and coordination of Institute biomedical imaging
and engineering research and related activities with those of
the NIH and other Federal agencies; and (2) the establishment
of an Institute advisory council. The bill authorizes
appropriations for the Institute for FY 2000 through 2002; and
provides for the transfer of appropriate NIH personnel and
research facilities for Institute activities.
Legislative History
H.R. 1795 was introduced on May 13, 1999, by Mr. Burr and
one cosponsor and was referred to the Committee on Commerce. On
September 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
was discharged from the further consideration of the bill and
the Full Committee met in open markup session to consider the
bill. H.R. 1795 was ordered reported, with an amendment, by a
voice vote. The Committee reported the bill to the House, with
an amendment, on September 26, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-889).
On September 27, 2000, the House considered H.R. 1795 under
suspension of the Rules and passed the bill by a voice vote. On
September 28, 2000, H.R. 1795 was received in the Senate.
On December 15, 2000, the Senate considered and passed the
bill by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White
House.
The bill was presented to the President on December 20,
2000, and signed into law on December 29, 2000.\3\
DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENT ACT OF 1999
Public Law 106-310 (H.R. 4365, H.R. 2634, S. 486)
To amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to
registration requirements for practitioners who dispense
narcotic drugs in schedule IV or V for maintenance treatment or
detoxification treatment.
Summary
The Drug Addiction Treatment Act greatly improves treatment
programs for opiate addicts and takes the next step in fighting
America's war on drugs. This legislation makes highly effective
anti-addiction medications available to certain board-certified
physicians, increasing the chance of recovery for many drug
addicts. The Drug Addiction Treatment Act will open up new
front in the war on drugs and assist many families who have
been scourged by drug abuse.
Legislative History
H.R. 2634 was introduced on July 29, 1999 by Mr. Bliley and
3 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, and additionally to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 2634, the Drug Addiction Treatment
Act on July 30, 1999. On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee
met in open markup session and approved H.R. 2634 for Full
Committee consideration by a voice vote. On October 13, 1999,
the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered the
bill reported, with an amendment, by a voice vote.
On October 25, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
indicating that the Committee on the Judiciary would not
exercise its right to consider the legislation, but reserved
its jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R. 2634 or similar
legislation. The Chairman of the Committee on Commerce replied
that he acknowledged the jurisdictional interest of the
Committee on the Judiciary and that he would support the
Judiciary Committee's request for conferees should the bill
become the subject of a House-Senate conference.
On November 3, 1999, the Committee on Commerce reported
H.R. 2634 to the House, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-441,
Part 1). The referral of the Committee on the Judiciary was
extended through November 3, 1999, when the Committee on the
Judiciary was discharged from the further consideration of H.R.
2634.
On July 18, 2000, the House considered the bill under
suspension of the rules. The House passed the bill on July 19,
2000 by a record vote of 412 yeas and 1 nay. The bill was
received in the Senate on July 27, 2000.
The Senate companion legislation, S. 486, the DEFEAT Meth
Act of 1999, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ashcroft
on February 25, 1999 and reported with an amendment by the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary on August 5, 1999, without a
written report. The Senate agreed to consideration of the bill
by unanimous consent on November 19, 1999. No further action
was taken on S. 486 during the 106th Congress.
Provisions from H.R. 2634 were included in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act. On September
26, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for
the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4365 (H.Res.
594). On September 27, 2000, the House passed H.Res. 594 by a
voice vote. The House considered the Senate amendment pursuant
to H.Res. 594 and agreed to the amendment by a record vote of
394 yeas and 25 nays, clearing the bill for the White House.
An amendment containing provisions of H.R. 2634 was added
to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4205, the Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2001. However, this amendment was
not included in the final report of the Committee of Conference
because the provisions were enacted prior to the conclusion of
the conference.
H.R. 4365 was presented to the President on October 5, 2000
and signed into law on October 17, 2000 (Public Law 106-310).
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Public Law 106-377 (H.R. 4635)
(Safe Drinking Water 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, 2001, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Two provisions addressing safe drinking water matters were
included in the conference report to accompany H.R. 4635. The
first provision provides that notwithstanding section
1412(b)(12)(A)(v) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Administrator of EPA shall promulgate a drinking water
regulation for arsenic not later than June 22, 2001, permitting
EPA to extend the time period in which it may review the public
comments received on the proposed arsenic regulation and the
time period in which it may promulgate a final regulation for
arsenic.
The second provision provides that notwithstanding section
1452(n) of the SDWA, none of the funds made available under the
Fiscal Year 2001 Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act shall
be reserved by the EPA Administrator for health effects studies
on drinking water contaminants.
Legislative History
H.R. 4635, legislation making appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2001 for Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development,
and for sundry independent agencies, was reported as an
original measure from the Committee on Appropriations on June
12, 2000. The House approved H.R. 4635 was approved, with
amendments, on June 21, 2000 by a record vote of 256 yeas and
169 nays.
During the House consideration of H.R. 4535, the Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment made a point of
order against the legislative language contained in H.R. 4635
affection section 1452(n) of the SDWA. The point of order was
sustained and the language stricken.
On September 13, 2000, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations reported H.R. 4635 with an amendment to the
Senate (S.Rept. 106-410). On October 12, 2000, H.R. 4635 was
approved by the Senate with an amendment by a roll call vote of
87 yeas and 8 nays.
On October 17, 2000, the House moved to disagree with the
Senate amendments and to appoint conferees. The conference
report to accompany H.R. 4635 was filed in the House on October
18, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-988). On October 18, 2000, the Committee
on Rules reported a rule providing for the consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 4635 (H.Res. 638).
The conference report to accompany H.R. 4635 contained the
provisions summarized above. The Committee was not consulted
during the House-Senate conference regarding either provision.
On October 19, 2000, the House considered and passed H.Res.
638 by a voice vote. The House considered and agreed to the
conference report by a record vote of 386 yeas and 24 nays. On
the same day, the conference report was considered in the
Senate by unanimous consent and agreed to by a roll call vote
of 85 yeas and 4 nays.
The bill was presented to the President on October 19,
2000, and signed into law on October 27, 2000 (Public Law 106-
377).
ICCVAM AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2000
Public Law 106-545 (H.R. 4281, S. 1495)
To establish, wherever feasible, guidelines,
recommendations, and regulations that promote the regulatory
acceptance of new, or revised scientifically valid
toxicological tests that protect human and animal health and
the environment while reducing, refining, or replacing animal
tests and ensuring human safety and product effectiveness.
Summary
H.R. 4281, the ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000, authorizes
the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of
Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) to function as a standing
interagency coordinating committee under the National
Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of
Alternative Toxicological Methods. H.R. 4281 provides statutory
authorization and standing for ICCVAM to establish, wherever
feasible, guidelines and recommendations that promote the
regulatory acceptance of scientifically valid new and revised
and alternative toxicological test methods. H.R. 4281 directs
ICCVAM to review and evaluate new and revised and alternative
test methods for regulatory acceptance and use. The purposes of
ICCVAM are to (1) increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
Federal agency test method review; (2) eliminate unnecessary
duplicative efforts and share expertise between Federal
regulatory agencies; (3) optimize the utilization of scientific
expertise outside the Federal government; (4) ensure that new
and revised test methods are validated to meet the needs of
Federal agencies; and, (5) to reduce, refine, or replace the
use of animals in testing, where feasible.
Legislative History
On April 13, 2000, H.R. 4281, the ICCVAM Authorization Act
of 2000, was introduced in the House by Mr. Calvert and 28
cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce.
On October 5, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment was discharged from the further consideration of
H.R. 4281 and the Full Committee met in open markup session to
consider the bill. The Committee ordered H.R. 4281 reported,
with an amendment, by a voice vote. The Committee reported the
bill to the House, with an amendment, on October 16, 2000 (H.
Rept. 106-980).
On October 17, 2000, the House considered the bill under
suspension of the rules and House passed the bill by a voice
vote.
The Senate companion legislation, S. 1495, was introduced
by Senator DeWine on August 4, 1999, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. On
September 20, 2000, the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions ordered the bill reported favorably with an
amendment and filed its report on October 11, 2000 (S.Rept.
106-496).
On October 18, 2000, H.R. 4281 was received in the Senate.
On December 6, 2000, the Senate considered and passed the bill
by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 4281 was presented to the President on December 8,
2000 and signed into law on December 20, 2000 (Public Law 106-
545).
THE MEDICARE RX 2000 ACT
(H.R. 4680)
To amend the Social Security Act to provide a voluntary,
outpatient prescription drug benefit for all Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in Part B.
Summary
H.R. 4680 provides an option for private insurance plans to
offer qualified prescription drug coverage to seniors and the
disabled on Medicare either through private prescription drug-
only plans or through Medicare+Choice plans. H.R. 4680 provides
direct subsidies for eligible individuals up to 150% of the
Federal poverty level to cover all or part of the premiums or
cost sharing of a prescription drug plan. Medicare
beneficiaries who spend more than $6000 annually out-of-pocket
will have 100% of costs in excess of $6000 covered through a
stop-loss benefit.
In addition, H.R. 4680 creates a new entity to administer
the prescription drug program called the Medicare Benefits
Administration (MBA). The MBA would be responsible for
administering the subsidy program, certifying eligible
prescription drug plans, and administering the Medicare+Choice
program.
Finally, the bill makes changes to the Medicare+Choice
program which would increase payments to Medicare+Choice plans
by $3.2 billion over 5 years. Overall, H.R. 4680 authorizes $40
billion in spending over 5 years for the prescription drug
program and the Medicare+Choice program.
Legislative History
H.R. 4680 was introduced in the House by Mr. Thomas and 7
cosponsors on June 15, 2000. H.R. 4680 was referred to the
Committee on Ways and Means and additionally to the Committee
on Commerce.
On June 21, 2000, the Committee on Ways and Means met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4680 reported, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 23 yeas and 14 nays. The
Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 4680 to the House on
June 27, 2000, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-703, Part 1).
The Committee on Commerce was discharged from the further
consideration of H.R. 4680 on June 27, 2000.
On June 28, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 4680 (H.Res. 539) and
the House passed H.Res. 539 by a record vote of 216 yeas and
213 nays.
On June 28, 2000, the House considered H.R. 4680 pursuant
to the provisions of H.Res. 539. The House passed H.R. 4680, as
amended, by a record vote of 217 yeas and 214 nays.
On June 29, 2000, the measure was received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4680 in the 106th Congress.
THE BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS MANAGED CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT
(H.R. 2990, H.R. 2723, S. 1344)
To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in
managed care plans and other health coverage. In addition, this
bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
individuals greater access to health insurance through a health
care tax deduction, a long-term care deduction, and other
health-related tax incentives, to amend the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 to provide access to and choice in
health care through association health plans, to amend the
Public Health Service Act to create new pooling opportunities
for small employers to obtain greater access to health coverage
through HealthMarts, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2723 provides a number of requirements for insurers
and providers of managed care policies that provide basic
standards for consumers enrolled in these plans. These
requirements include utilization review, internal appeals,
independent external appeals, consumer choice options for
policies, choice of health care professionals, access to
emergency care, access to specialists, access to obstetrical
and gynecological care, access to pediatric care, continuity of
care, access to prescription drugs, clinical trials, access to
patient information, prohibitions against interference with the
doctor-patient communications, prohibitions against
discrimination based on licensure, prohibitions against
improper incentive arrangements, prompt payment of claims, and
protection of patient advocacy. The bill also removes Federal
preemption of certain causes of action.
H.R. 2990, as introduced phases-in 100 percent
deductibility of health and long term care insurance for
persons not participating in employer-subsidized insurance. It
also provides immediate 100 percent deductibility for health
insurance costs for the self-employed. It extends current law
authorizations for medical savings accounts (MSA) and expands
the personal exemption for those who care for an elderly family
member in their home.
In addition, H.R. 2990 allows the creation of Association
Health Plans by bona fide associations, providing ERISA
preemptions of State laws for these health plans. The bill
authorizes the creation of HealthMarts, which preempt State
mandated benefit laws and allow small employers to pool their
employees and resources to purchase health insurance. Finally,
the bill creates Community Health Organizations which allow
certain community health centers to assume risk and be licensed
as an insurance provider by Federal authorities.
Legislative History
H.R. 2723, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care
Improvement Act, was introduced by Mr. Norwood and 65
bipartisan cosponsors on August 5, 1999. It was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and additionally to the Committees on
Education and the Workforce, and Ways and Means.
H.R. 2990 was introduced by Mr. Talent and 4 cosponsors on
September 30, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
On October 5, 1999, the Rules Committee reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2723 and H.R. 2990
(H.Res. 323). The rule provided that in the engrossment of H.R.
2990, the Clerk was to add the text of H.R. 2723, as passed by
the House, as new matter at the end of the bill and lay H.R.
2723 on the table. On October 6, 2000, the House passed H.Res.
323 by a record vote of 221 yeas and 209 nays.
On October 6, 1999, the House considered H.R. 2990 pursuant
to the rule and passed the bill by a record vote of 227 yeas
and 205 nays. The House also considered H.R. 2723 pursuant to
the rule on October 6 and 7, 1999. On October 7, 1999, the
House passed the bill, as amended, by a record vote of 275 yeas
and 151 nays. Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 323, H.R.
2723 was laid on the table.
H.R. 2990 was received in the Senate on October 14, 1999.
By unanimous consent, the Senate substituted the language of S.
1344, as passed by the Senate, for the text of H.R. 2990, and
passed the bill. The Senate also insisted on its amendment,
requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees.
On November 1, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R.
2990 (H.Res. 348), providing that the House disagreed to the
Senate amendment and agreed to the conference requested by the
Senate. On November 2, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 348 by a
voice vote. On November 3, 1999, the House agreed to a motion
to instruct conferees offered by Mr. Dingell that the House
insist on the provisions of the Bipartisan Consensus Managed
Care Improvement Act of 1999 (division B of H.R. 2990) by a
record vote of 257 yeas and 167 nays. The Speaker appointed
conferees.
On February 1, 2000, the House agreed to a motion to
instruct conferees that the managers on the part of the House
take all necessary steps to begin meetings of the Committee of
Conference and that the House insist on the provisions of the
Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999
(division B of H.R. 2990) by a record vote of 207 yeas and 175
nays, 28 voting present.
The Committee of Conference met on March 2 and 9, 2000, the
Senate chairing.
No further action was taken on this legislation in the
106th Congress.
METHAMPHETAMINE AND CLUB DRUG ANTI-PROLIFERATION
ACT OF 2000
(H.R. 2987)
To provide for the punishment of methamphetamine laboratory
operators, provide additional resources to combat
methamphetamine production, trafficking, and abuse in the
United States, and for other purposes.
Summary
The purpose of H.R. 2987, the Methamphetamine and Club Drug
Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000, is to prevent the proliferation
of methamphetamine and club drug manufacturing, trafficking,
use, and addiction in America. This legislation will provide
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials with tools
and training to more adequately address the methamphetamine and
club drug epidemics in America today, and authorize
comprehensive prevention and treatment programs to combat abuse
and addiction as well.
The enactment of H.R. 2987 will provide needed funding to
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to combat methamphetamine
manufacturing by providing assistance to State and local law
enforcement officials in small and mid-sized communities in all
phases of methamphetamine investigations, and establishing
additional DEA offices in rural areas. It will also provide for
training to State and local agencies in handling toxic waste
created by methamphetamine laboratories, and authorize funding
for the DEA to reimburse States and localities for expenses
incurred in connection with the clean up and safe disposal of
hazardous substances associated with clandestine
methamphetamine laboratories.
H.R. 2987 provides for increased penalties for offenses
related to the production of amphetamine, trafficking of
precursor chemicals, manufacturing drug offenses that create a
substantial risk of harm to human life or to the environment,
and offenses relating to 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine
(MDMA), commonly known as ``Ecstasy,'' gamma-hydroxybutyric
acid (GHB), other enumerated ``club'' drugs, as well as other
similar controlled substances. This legislation also contains a
number of provisions authorizing effective and science-based
methamphetamine and club drug prevention and addiction
treatment programs.
Legislative History
H.R. 2987, the Methamphetamine and Club Drug Anti-
Proliferation Act of 2000, was introduced in the House by Mr.
Cannon and 10 cosponsors on September 30, 1999. The bill was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and additionally to
the Committee on Commerce.
The Committee on the Judiciary met in open markup session
on July 19 and 25, 2000 and ordered the bill to be reported,
with an amendment, by a voice vote. On September 18, 2000, the
Chairman of the Committee on Commerce wrote to the Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary agreeing to waive consideration
of the bill by the Committee on Commerce, but reserving the
Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives with respect to the
bill or similar legislation. On September 18, 2000, the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary responded that he
recognized the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional interest in
the bill and that the decision to waive consideration of the
bill does not affect the Committee's jurisdictional
prerogatives with respect to this bill or similar legislation.
On September 21, 2000, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported the bill to the House, with an amendment (H. Rept.
106-878, Part 1). The Committee on Commerce was granted an
extension for further consideration through September 21, 2000,
and was discharged from the further consideration of the bill.
No further action was taken on this legislation in the
106th Congress.
PAIN RELIEF PROMOTION ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 2260)
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain
management and palliative care without permitting assisted
suicide and euthanasia, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, amends
the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain management and
palliative care while reinforcing the illegality of the
administration or distribution of drugs for the purpose of
assisting in suicide. This bill addresses pain management and
helps to educate professionals about new and aggressive ways to
treat pain, even if it were to increase the risk of death. H.R.
2260 establishes a ``Program for Palliative Care Research and
Quality'' within HHS, and it authorizes a program in education
and training in palliative care for physicians and law
enforcement officers.
Legislative History
H.R. 2260 was introduced in the House by Mr. Hyde and 68
cosponsors on June 17, 1999. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce, and additionally to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
On July 20, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary's
Subcommittee on the Constitution met in open markup session and
approved the bill for consideration by the Committee on the
Judiciary by a voice vote. On September 9 and 14, 1999, the
Committee on the Judiciary met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 2260 reported by a record vote of 16 yeas and 8
nays.
On October 13, 1999, the Committee on Commerce Subcommittee
on Health and Environment was discharged from the further
consideration of H.R. 2260, and the Full Committee met in open
markup session to consider the bill. H.R. 2260 was ordered
reported, with an amendment, on October 13, 1999 by a voice
vote.
On October 13, 1999, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported the bill to the House (H. Rept. 106-378, Part 1). On
October 18, 1999, the Committee on Commerce reported the bill
to the House, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-378, Part 2).
On October 21, 1999, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2260 (H.Res. 339). On
October 27, 1999, the House passed H.Res. 339 by a voice vote
and considered H.R. 2260 pursuant to the rule's provisions. The
House passed the bill by a record vote of 271 yeas and 156
nays.
The bill was received in the Senate on October 28, 1999. On
November 19, 1999, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary. On April 25, 2000, the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the bill, and on
April 27, 2000, ordered the bill reported with an amendment.
On April 23, 2000, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 2260 to the Senate with an amendment (S.Rept.
106-299). No further action was taken on H.R. 2260 in the 106th
Congress.
ORGAN PROCUREMENT AND TRANSPLANTATION NETWORK AMENDMENTS OF 1999
(H.R. 2418)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend
programs relating to organ procurement and transplantation.
Summary
H.R. 2418, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network Amendments of 1999, protects the independence of the
organ network and improves its accountability by requiring
performance reports of transplant centers within the network.
H.R. 2418 also ensures that decisions concerning organ
procurement are placed in the hands of the medical community,
patients, and donor families.
Legislative History
On July 1, 1999, Mr. Bilirakis and 86 cosponsors introduced
H.R. 2418, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
Amendments of 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment met in open
markup session and forwarded the bill to the Full Committee, as
amended, by voice vote on September 30, 1999. On October 13,
1999 the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered
H.R. 2418 reported, with an amendment, by a voice vote. The
Committee reported the bill to the House on November 1, 1999
(H. Rept. 106-429).
On April 3, 2000, the Committee on Rules reported a rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 2418 (H.Res. 454). On
April 4, 2000, the House passed H.Res. 454 by a voice vote. The
House considered H.R. 2418 pursuant to the provisions of H.Res.
454 and passed the bill, as amended, by a record vote of 276
yeas and 147 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate on April 5, 2000 and
referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
S. 2366, the Senate companion legislation, was introduced
on April 5, 2000, and referred to the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions met in open markup
session on April 12, 2000, and ordered S. 2366 reported, with
an amendment. The bill was reported to the Senate, with an
amendment, on April 13, 2000.
No further action was taken on this legislation in the
106th Congress.
DRUG DEALER LIABILITY ACT OF 2000
(H.R. 1042)
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide civil
liability for legal manufacturers and distributors of
controlled substances for the harm caused by the use of those
controlled substances.
Summary
The bill amends the Controlled Substances Act to provide
that any person who manufactures or distributes a controlled
substance in a felony violation of that Act will be liable in a
civil action to any party harmed, directly or indirectly, by
the use of that substance. The bill also prohibits an
individual user of a controlled substance from bringing or
maintaining such an action unless the individual personally
discloses to narcotic enforcement authorities all of the
information known to that individual regarding all of his or
her sources of illegal controlled substances.
Legislative History
H.R. 1042 was introduced by Mr. Latham and 2 cosponsors on
March 9, 1999. The legislation was referred to the Committee on
Commerce and additionally to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Neither committee took action on the bill.
On October 10, 2000, the House considered H.R. 1042 under
suspension of the rules. The House passed the bill by a voice
vote. The bill was received in the Senate on October 11, 2000.
No further action was taken on this bill in the 106th Congress.
NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT
(H.R.2086)
To authorize funding for networking and information
technology research and development for fiscal years 2000
through 2004, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2086 authorizes appropriations for networking and
information technology research and development (R&D) at the
National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), Department of Energy (DOE),
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The bill authorizes
appropriations of $4,768.7 million over Fiscal Years 2000
through 2004. In an amendment approved by the House, the bill
authorized appropriations for NIH to conduct basic and applied
research toward the advancement and dissemination of
computational techniques and software tools in support of its
mission of biomedical and behavioral research.
Legislative History
H.R. 2086 was introduced on June 9, 1999, and referred to
the Committee on Science, and additionally to the Committee on
Ways and Means. On September 9, 1999, the Committee on Science
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2086 reported, with
an amendment by a record vote of 41 yeas and no nays. The
Committee reported the bill to the House on November 16, 1999
(H. Rept. 106-472, Part 1).
On November 16, 1999, the House Committee on Ways and Means
was granted an extension for further consideration ending not
later than February. 29, 2000. On February 10, 2000, the
Committee on Rules reported a rule providing for the
consideration of H.R. 2086 (H.Res. 422) H.Res. 422 passed the
House on February 15, 2000 by a voice vote. On February 15,
2000, the House considered H.R. 2086 pursuant to the provisions
of H.Res. 422 with an amendment which contained, in part,
provisions relating to the National Institutes of Health, an
agency within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
On February 22, 2000, the bill was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
REFORMULATED GASOLINE IN CALIFORNIA
(H.R. 11)
To amend the Clean Air Act to permit the exclusive
application of California State regulations regarding
reformulated gasoline in certain areas within the State
Summary
H.R. 11 amends section 211 of the Clean Air Act to provide
that California reformulated gasoline rules would apply in
areas of California which are now considered ``covered'' areas
under the Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) program. These
areas are San Diego, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. Under H.R.
11, California reformulated gasoline rules would apply in lieu
of the Federal RFG rules if certain conditions were met. These
conditions are that the California rules achieve equivalent or
greater emission reductions than the requirements of section
211(k) of the Clean Air Act (e.g., the formula and performance
standards regarding Federal RFG composition) with respect to
the aggregate mass of emissions of toxic air pollutants and
ozone-forming compounds.
Legislative History
H.R. 11 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bilbray on
January 6, 1999 with 33 cosponsors. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Commerce.
On May 6, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
held a hearing on H.R. 11. The Subcommittee received testimony
from a Member of the United States Senate, two members of the
United States House of Representatives and the mayor of Santa
Monica, California. The Subcommittee also received testimony
from representatives of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, the California Environmental Protection
Agency, a metropolitan water agency, an energy corporation, an
oil refiner and a marketer of gasoline.
On September 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held an open markup session on H.R. 11 and voted to
report the legislation to the full Commerce Committee with an
amendment by a voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 11 in the 106th
Congress.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(H.R. 1742)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for the environmental and scientific research, development and
demonstration programs and projects, and activities of the
Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory Board
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Summary
H.R. 1742 provides authorization for the expenditure of
$504 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and $520 million in Fiscal
Year 2001 for certain unspecified environmental research and
development and scientific research development and
demonstration programs for which specific sums are not
authorized under other authority of law. It further allocates
within such sums $2 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001 for
the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center and $5
million in the same fiscal years for the Gulf Coast Hazardous
Substance Research Center. Such sums are subject to certain
limitations. In addition, H.R. 1742 provides for the assignment
of certain duties to the Assistant Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, imposes new requirements on
the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Student
Fellowship Program, requires an annual report from the Science
Advisory Board, imposes certain limitations and notice
requirements on the expenditure of funds by the Office of
Research and Development and the Science Advisory Board,
requires a detailed annual justification for programs, projects
and activities funded under the Act, imposes limits on the use
of travel funds, imposes limits on the use of funds for the
purpose of implementation or in preparation of implementation
of the Kyoto Protocol, provides $1 million for a field-scale
environmental research and development project, contains a
limitation on funding with respect to projected results,
requires Federal Acquisition Regulations to be followed except
in certain cases, limits Requests for Proposals for funds
authorized and appropriated pursuant to the Act, restricts the
use of funds with respect to comparable articles or services
available in the United States, limits certain awards to those
based on a competitive, merit-based process, and provides for
the Internet availability of certain abstracts relating to
research grants and awards.
Legislative History
H.R. 1742 was introduced by Representative Ken Calvert on
May 10, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Science, which held markup sessions on May 25 and May 26, 1999
and reported the bill on May 26, 1999 with amendment. On March
6, 2000, H.R. 1742 was sequentially referred to the Committee
on Commerce for a period ending not later than April 7, 2000.
On April 7, 2000 the Committee on Commerce was granted an
extension for further consideration not extending beyond April
11, 2000.
On April 11, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Science
indicating that the Committee on Commerce would not consider
H.R. 1742, but reserving the Committee's jurisdiction
prerogatives with respect to H.R. 1742 or similar legislation.
On April 11, the Chairman of the Committee on Science wrote to
the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce acknowledging the
Committee's jurisdiction over certain provisions of H.R. 1742
and recognizing the rights of the Committee on Commerce with
respect to H.R. 1742 or similar legislation. On April 11, 2000,
the Committee on Commerce was discharged from the further
consideration of H.R. 1742.
No further action took place on H.R. 1742 during the 106th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
On Tuesday, September 28, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health
and Environment held the first in a series of hearings on
prescription drug coverage in the Medicare program. The first
hearing was entitled, ``Prescription Drugs: What We Know and
Don't Know About Seniors' Access to Coverage.'' The purpose of
the hearing was educational and designed to identify the nature
and scope of the problem senior citizen's face in gaining
access to prescription drugs. Witnesses provided a review of
the data on current prescription drug coverage for seniors,
such as types of coverage, income and demographic analysis of
seniors with and without coverage, and out-of-pocket drug
expenditures. The Subcommittee heard testimony from HCFA, the
GAO, and various advocacy groups. The Subcommittee held a
second day of hearings of October 4, 1999, to receive testimony
from Members of Congress.
On February 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held the second hearing in this series. The purpose
of the hearing was educational and designed to evaluate
different models for providing prescription drug coverage to
senior citizens who lack access to affordable coverage today.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of
various advocacy groups.
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on access to drugs and biologicals in the Medicare program on
March 23, 2000. The purpose of the hearing was to hear from the
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on the subject of
Medicare coverage of injectable therapies. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from a HCFA representative who discussed the
Administration's position on the coverage of injectable drugs
and biologicals in the Medicare program. The Subcommittee also
heard from patients, a patient advocate, a professor, a
surviving spouse and a nurse who talked about the importance of
patient access to these therapies.
On June 14, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held the final hearing in this series. The purpose
of the hearing was educational and designed to address specific
issues involved in designing and implementing a prescription
drug benefit for the Medicare program. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from HCFA, and representatives of private and public
sector advocacy groups.
MANAGED CARE REFORM
On March 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held a hearing on America's Health: Protecting
Patients' Access to Quality Care and Information. This was the
first in a series of hearings to be held by the Subcommittee on
topics related to America's Health. This series focused on
managed health care and increasing access to health insurance
for the uninsured. The first panel addressed patients' access
to emergency room services and specialty care (including ob/gyn
services, pediatric care, and care for chronic conditions.) The
second panel focused on issues related to medical
communications (i.e., gag rules), the disclosure of health plan
information, and health ombudsmen. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from various public witnesses.
On June 16, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held another hearing on America's Health: Access to
Affordable Health Coverage for the Uninsured. The purpose of
the hearing was educational and designed to assist Members in
their efforts to craft legislation to promote access to health
coverage for America's estimated 43 million uninsured. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from various public witnesses.
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on June 23, 1999. The Subcommittee examined the need to improve
managed care plans' accountability to patients and develop a
strong external appeals process. This hearing was designed to
provide Members with insight into the current external appeals
laws governing health plans, the problems that have arisen
within the existing system and potential ways of resolving
them. The Subcommittee heard testimony from various private and
public sector witnesses.
CHILDREN'S HEALTH
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on October 12, 1999 entitled ``Children's Health: Building
Toward a Better Future.'' The purpose of this hearing was to
help inform Members on a range of children's health issues,
including autism, adoption of children with special needs,
juvenile diabetes, childhood asthma, and poison control. This
hearing afforded Members the opportunity to question witnesses
about their experiences with Federal and State programs and
private sector programs that serve children. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from various public and private sector advocacy
groups.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on April 29, 1999 on Reauthorization of the Agency for Health
Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). The Subcommittee heard
testimony from AHCPR and other public and private sector
witnesses.
BALANCED BUDGET ACT REFINEMENTS
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held hearings to
address the unintended consequences to both patients and
providers as a result of the changes made by the Medicare
portion of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Subcommittee on
Health and the Environment held three hearings examining the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and the impact the changes to the
Medicare program have had on our health care delivery system,
and patient access to care. On February 25, 1999, the
Subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Medicare+Choice: An
Examination of the Risk Adjuster.'' The Subcommittee heard
testimony from HCFA, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission,
the GAO, and various other public and private sector witnesses.
On August 4, 1999, the Subcommittee held its second hearing
on this issue. At this hearing, entitled, ``Medicare+Choice: An
Evaluation of the Program,'' the Subcommittee heard testimony
from HCFA and other public and private sector witnesses.
On September 15, 1999, the Subcommittee held its third
hearing entitled ``The Balanced Budget Act of 1997: Impact of
Cost Savings and Patient Care.'' The Subcommittee considered
the impact on the fee for service sector of the health care
delivery system. The Subcommittee heard testimony from HCFA,
the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the GAO, the
Congressional Budget Office, and various other public and
private sector witnesses.
In addition, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
held an additional hearing on this topic on July 19, 2000. The
purpose of this hearing was to examine the impact of BBA `97 on
patients and providers, particularly since the passage of the
Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of
1999. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission, the GAO, and other public and
private sector witnesses.
ORGAN ALLOCATION
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
entitled ``Putting Patients First: Increasing Organ Supply for
Transplantation,'' on April 15, 1999. The Subcommittee received
testimony from organ transplant recipients, representatives of
transplant programs, and other public and private sector
witnesses.
CERVICAL CANCER
In order to increase awareness about cervical cancer and
educate the public on the link between HPV and cervical cancer,
the Committee held the first-ever congressional hearing on
cervical cancer on March 16, 1999. The hearing focused not only
on the causes of cervical cancer, but also new advances being
made in cervical cancer detection, prevention and treatment.
Currently, pap smears at least once a year comprise the
accepted medical practice for cervical cancer detection and
prevention. However, current pap smear testing does not detect
every strain of HPV. At the hearing, Senator Mack and Ms. Eshoo
testified regarding a concurrent resolution recognizing the
severity of cervical cancer. On the second panel, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NCI testified.
According to CDC testimony, it is now estimated that
approximately five million new cases of genital HPV occur in
the United States each year, making it the most common of all
STDs. While it is further estimated that at least 50 percent of
sexually active men and women will acquire genital HPV
infection at some point in their lives,most strains of HPV do
not cause cancer. On the last panel, a cervical cancer
survivor, a practicing physician, the American Medical Women's
Association, and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists
testified.
The Committee's oversight hearing exposed that the
available scientific evidence points to a small number of
strains of HPV that cause cancer. Despite this link between
cervical cancer and HPV, Federal health authorities do not
track HPV infections, and do not warm women about the
heightened risk of cancer or the fact that condoms do not
prevent HPV transmission. The Committee's oversight led to the
enactment of provisions in H.R. 4386 and the Labor, Health and
Human Services appropriations act for Fiscal Year 2001 that
would require the Federal government to begin tracking data on
HPV transmission, conduct HPV prevention studies and analysis,
and review whether warning labels on condoms are medically
adequate. For additional information on this legislation, see
H.R. 4386 in the legislative activities portion of this
section.
HCFA MISMANAGEMENT
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on June 27, 2000 on ``Medicare's Management: Is HCFA's
Complexity Threatening Patient Access to Quality Care?'' The
purpose of the hearing was to learn about the current
complexities in the Medicare Program, the extent to which such
complexities are affecting patient care, and what role Congress
can play in addressing these concerns. Witnesses included HCFA
and other public and private sector witnesses.
MEDICAL RECORDS CONFIDENTIALITY
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on May 27, 1999 on medical records confidentiality in the
modern delivery of health care. The purpose of this hearing was
to inform members of the complexity in the area of legislation
relating to medical records confidentiality. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the Department of Health and Human
Services, and other public and private sector witnesses.
MEDICAL ERRORS
On February 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Health
held a joint hearing entitled ``Medical Errors: Improving
Quality of Care and Consumer Information.'' The purpose of the
hearing was to focus on a number of issues that arose since
publication of an Institute of Medicine report entitled: ``To
Err is Human. Building a Better Health System.'' The
Subcommittee heard testimony from public and private sector
witnesses.
TELEMEDICINE
On September 7, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held a hearing entitled, ``Telehealth: A Cutting
Edge Medical Tool for the 21st Century.'' Members examined
telemedicine policy initiatives and related issues such as
bariers posed by State licensing requirements and the potential
cost-effectiveness of expanding the use of this new service in
both the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from HCFA and other public
and private sector witnesses.
PROTECTING SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held a hearing
on Thursday, May 18, 2000 on ``Biomedical Research: Protecting
Surplus Chimpanzees.'' The purpose of this hearing was to
examine issues that arise with regard to the permanent
retirement of ``surplus'' chimpanzees that have been used, or
were bred or purchased for use, in research conducted or
supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Food and
Drug Administration, or other agencies of the Federal
Government. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the National
Institutes of Health and other public and private sector
witnesses.
PREPARING FOR THE Y2K BUG
On May 25, 1999, the Subcommittees on Oversight and
Investigations and Health and Environment held a joint hearing
on the ``Year 2000 Date Problem,'' commonly referred to as Y2K,
as it relates to medical devices. The hearing examined the Food
and Drug Administration's, the medical device industry's, and
hospitals' efforts to become Y2K compliant. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the Food and Drug Administration and other
public and private sector witnesses.
On October 21, 1999, the Subcommittees on Oversight and
Investigations and Health and Environment held a joint hearing
on the ``Year 2000 Date Problem,'' commonly referred to as Y2K,
as it relates to medical devices. The hearing examined the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), the medical device industry, and
hospitals' efforts to become Y2K compliant. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the Department of Health and Human
Services, the GAO, and other public and private sector
witnesses.
COMMERCE IN FETAL TISSUE
On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment held a hearing to consider whether fetal tissue was
being bought and sold for valuable consideration in violation
of Federal law. This hearing, which featured testimony from
former employees of an abortion clinic and fetal tissue supply
companies, was held to obtain information from certain
subpoenaed witnesses who either could not or would not agree to
staff-level interviews. Also testifying at this hearing were
representatives from the research community, which relies on
fetal tissue for medical research projects, and patient groups
who stand to benefit from that research.
Dr. Miles Jones, proprietor of Opening Lines (a company
which procured fetal tissue from abortion clinics and sold it
to researchers), was subpoenaed to appear at this hearing,
after refusing to respond to numerous Committee letters and
telephone calls. Upon his failure to appear at the hearing, the
Subcommittee unanimously decided to forward to the Full
Committee on Commerce a Report on Contempt of Congress against
Dr. Miles Jones for Failure to Appear Pursuant to a Duly
Authorized Subpoena. The Full Committee on Commerce unanimously
approved this Report on Contempt against Dr. Miles Jones on
March 15, 2000. Dr. Jones subsequently agreed to testify before
the Committee, so the Chairman did not forward the Report on
Contempt to the full House of Representatives for
consideration. However, due to concerns raised by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI)--which launched a criminal
inquiry into Dr. Jones' activities as a result of the
Committee's oversight--the Committee did not re-call Dr. Jones
to testify.
EPA'S DISSEMINATION OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO CHEMICAL ACCIDENT DATA
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a joint hearing on the national security
and public safety impact of electronic dissemination of worst-
case scenario chemical release data to be collected by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 112(r) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA). In accordance with this section, EPA
published a ``Risk Management Program'' rule on June 20, 1996
that required an EPA-estimated 66,000 facilities nationwide to
send EPA by June 1999 a ``Risk Management Plan'' (Plan)
containing, among other things, what is commonly known as
``worst-case scenario'' data--that is, identification of
potential accidental chemical release points within each
facility, the precise quantities of specific chemicals
associated with each of those potential release points, and an
estimate of the injuries to human health that could result from
a worst-case accident scenario. Section 112(r) required that
these Plans be made available to the public, but the statute
did not specify the method by which the information should be
disseminated to the public.
In 1998, EPA proposed disseminating these Plans to the
public, including the worst-case scenario data, by posting them
in a searchable electronic format on the agency's Internet
website. EPA's proposal was met with substantial opposition
from law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other public safety officials who expressed
concerns that the searchable electronic format could be used as
a targeting tool by terrorists. Community and pro-information
disclosure groups supported wide-spread dissemination of
information relating to risks faced by the communities.
Committee Chairman Tom Bliley wrote to EPA to express
concerns about the agency's plans. In late October 1998, EPA
and the FBI reached an agreement under which EPA would not post
the worst-case scenario data on the agency's Internet site,
although EPA would continue to work to ensure that State and
local governments and their citizens had access to such
critical data about the facilities located in their particular
communities. However, the agreement would not prevent the
release of this information in a searchable electronic format
under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Subcommittees heard testimony from a panel of experts
in the field of law enforcement and emergency response. The
Subcommittees also heard testimony from representatives of the
FBI and EPA, the principal Federal agencies involved in
designing a dissemination plan, as well as interested
environmental, community safety, and industry representatives.
The Committee subsequently developed a bill, which was passed
by Congress and ultimately signed into law by the President,
that addresses dissemination of worst-case scenario data.
NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REFORMULATED GASOLINE PROGRAM
The Subcommittee on Health and Environment held two
hearings concerning the implementation of the Reformulated
Gasoline (RFG) Program during the 106th Congress. The first
hearing was held on May 6, 1999 regarding the implementation of
the reformulated gasoline program in California and
legislation, H.R. 11, which would waive the Clean Air Act
requirement pertaining to a minimum oxygenate content for RFG.
The second hearing was held on March 2, 2000 concerning
national implementation of the RFG program.
The May 6, 1999 hearing received testimony from Members of
the United States Senate and the United States House of
Representatives, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a
California State environmental official, a local California
elected official, representatives from the oil refining, fuel
additive and fuel marketing industry, a representative from the
renewable fuels industry and a representative from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The
California RFG program was of particular interest to several
Members since the California RFG market constitutes
approximately one-third of the national RFG market and since
the State took both executive and legislative actions to ban
the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a widely used
oxygenate associated with the contamination of drinking water.
The March 2, 2000 hearing received testimony from several
members of the United States House of Representatives, the
United States Department of Energy, the EPA Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, the Director of the
Illinois Environmental Protection, and a representative from
the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, the
Health Effects Institute and the Suffolk County Water Authority
of New York State. This hearing additionally received testimony
from the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of an oil
company, a manufacturer of MTBE, an academic expert on fuels, a
representative from the renewable fuels industry, a
representative from the American Lung Association and a
representative from Oxybusters, a citizens group opposed to the
use of oxygenates in gasoline.
The March 2, 2000 hearing reviewed the implementation of
the RFG program in various areas of the country and explored
several issues concerning the RFG program including the status
of the California petition to waiver the Federal oxygenate
requirement, differences in various areas and regions which
have implemented the RFG program either on a mandatory or
voluntary basis, the health and environmental impacts of the
RFG program and oxygenates used in the RFG program and the
impact of making changes to the RFG program on the cost and
availability of RFG gasoline and the ability of States to meet
their obligations under the Clean Air Act.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
The Health and the Environment Subcommittee held two
hearings concerning the implementation of the 1996 Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments. On October 20, 1999, the
Subcommittee reviewed the status of implementing the 1996
Amendments and the conduct of safe drinking water research
programs. On September 19, 2000, the Subcommittee again
reviewed the status of implementing the 1996 Amendments as well
as the funding of State programs to implement the 1996
Amendments.
The October 20, 1999 hearing received testimony from the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, the
EPA Director of the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water,
and the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) Director
of Environmental Protection Issues. The hearing also received
testimony from a representative of publicly and privately-owned
water companies, the Association of California Water Agencies
and a representative of the Natural Resource Defense Council.
This hearing reviewed provisions of the 1996 Amendments which
require the establishment of new drinking water regulations
taking into account those contaminants which present the
greatest risk to public health and the best available science
and technical information on such contaminants. The hearing
also received a report from the GAO which indicated that,
although EPA's research budget has doubled in the last 5 years,
EPA did not have research plans for significant portions of its
regulatory work load, have an overall estimate of the resources
needed for drinking water research, or an effective tracking
system to understand the progress of the research that it
conducts.
The September 19, 2000 hearing received testimony from the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and the GAO Director for
Environmental Protection Issues. The hearing also received
testimony from the State of Vermont Director of Environmental
Conservation as well as representatives of the American Water
Works Association, the American Metropolitan Water Association,
the National Association of Water Companies and the Natural
Resource Defense Council. The GAO report indicated that while
available Federal resources were presently sufficient for State
drinking water programs, State program funding was less than
the estimated need for such spending and that program
requirements would increase in future years. The GAO report
also indicated that States currently are experiencing personnel
shortages in their drinking water programs due to such factors
as State personnel ceilings and inadequate salaries and that
States expect such shortages to increase in future years. The
hearing further explored pending and future rulemakings
required by the 1996 Amendments, including rulemakings for
arsenic and radon. Additionally, the hearing examined the
effect of funding and implementation efforts on public health
and safety of drinking water supplies. The hearing also
examined the adequacy of State implementation of source water
protection programs.
CALIFORNIA OXYGENATE WAIVER
In March of 1999, the State of California requested EPA to
waive application of the 2 percent Federal oxygenate
requirement for RFG contained in section 211 of the Clean Air
Act. The State of California sent a written petition to EPA on
this matter on April 12, 1999. The Committee reviewed EPA's
consideration of this petition in both written correspondence
and during hearings held on the RFG program. As of December 20,
2000, the EPA had not approved or denied the waiver request.
In order to assess the EPA's activity on this matter,
between March 1999 and July 2000, the Chairman of the Full
Committee and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment sent six letters to EPA concerning the agency's
review of the California waiver request. Records relating to
the waiver request, including electronic files and legal
analysis, were also requested and received by the Committee.
The correspondence and record requests explored several issues
including the length of time taken to review the waiver
request, the amount of resources, agency staff, and contractor
personnel devoted to the review of the waiver request and
statutory authority available to EPA to either grant the waiver
request or to take other action related to the use of
oxygenates, including MTBE, in RFG.
Hearings Held
Internet Posting of Chemical ``Worst-Case'' Scenarios: A
Roadmap for Terrorists?--Joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Internet
Posting of Chemical ``Worst-Case'' Scenarios: A Roadmap for
Terrorists? Hearing held on February 10, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-3.
Nursing Home Resident Protection Amendments of 1999.--
Hearing on H.R. 540, the Nursing Home Resident Protection
Amendments of 1999. Hearing held on February 11, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-1.
Medicare+Choice: An Examination of the Risk Adjustor.--
Hearing on Medicare+Choice: An Examination of the Risk
Adjustor. Hearing held on February 25, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-10.
Women's Health: Raising Awareness of Cervical Cancer.--
Hearing on Women's Health: Raising Awareness of Cervical
Cancer. Hearing held on March 16, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-4.
Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R.
---- (an unintroduced bill), the Work Incentives Improvement
Act of 1999. Hearing held on March 23, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-15.
America's Health.--Oversight hearing on America's Health.
Hearing held on March 24, June 16 and 23, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-48.
Putting Patients First: Increasing Organ Supply for
Transplantation.--Oversight hearing on Putting Patients First:
Increasing Organ Supply for Transplantation. Hearing held on
April 15, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-14.
Y2K and Medicare Providers: Inoculating Against the Y2K
Bug.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations on Y2K and Medicare Providers:
Inoculating Against the Y2K Bug. Hearing held on April 27,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-20.
Reauthorization of the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research (AHCPR).--Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). Hearing
held on April 29, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-29.
Permitting the Exclusive Application of California State
Regulations Regarding Reformulated Gas in Certain Areas Within
the State.--Hearing on H.R.11, a bill to amend the Clean Air
Act to permit the exclusive application of California State
regulations regarding reformulated gas in certain areas within
the State. Hearing held on May 6, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-18.
Y2K and Medical Devices: Screening for the Y2K Bug.--Joint
oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on Y2K and Medical Devices: Screening for the
Y2K Bug. Hearing held on May 25, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-25.
Chemical Safety Information and Site Security Act of
1999.--Hearing on H.R.1790, the Chemical Safety Information and
Site Security Act of 1999, legislation proposed by the
Administration to address the Internet posting of chemical
``worst-case'' scenarios. Hearing held on May 19 and 26, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-24.
Medical Records Confidentiality in the Modern Delivery of
Health Care.--Oversight hearing on Medical Records
Confidentiality in the Modern Delivery of Health Care. Hearing
held on May 27, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-34.
Medical Information Protection and Research Enhancement Act
of 1999.--Hearing on H.R.---- (an unintroduced bill), the
Medical Information Protection and Research Enhancement Act of
1999. Hearing held on July 15, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-53.
Breast and Cervical Cancer Federally Funded Screening
Program.--Hearing on H.R. 1070, a bill to amend title XIX of
the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance for
certain women screened and found to have breast or cervical
cancer under a Federally funded screening program. Hearing held
on July 21, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-42.
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R.
2634, the Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999. Hearing held on
July 30, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-45.
Medicare+Choice: An Evaluation of the Program.--Oversight
hearing on Medicare+Choice: An Evaluation of the Program.
Hearing held on August 4, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-52.
Balanced Budget Act of 1997: Impact on Cost Savings and
Patient Care.--Oversight hearing on the Balanced Budget Act of
1997: Impact on Cost Savings and Patient Care. Hearing held on
September 15, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-67.
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Amendments of
1999.--Hearing on H.R. 2418, Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network Amendments of 1999. Hearing held on
September 22, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-75.
Prescription Drugs: What We Know and Don't Know About
Seniors' Access to Coverage.--Oversight hearing on Prescription
Drugs: What We Know and Don't Know About Seniors' Access to
Coverage. Hearing held on September 28 and October 4, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-73.
Children's Health: Building Toward A Better Future.--
Hearing on Children's Health: Building Toward A Better Future.
Hearing held on October 12, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-
60.
Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996.--Oversight hearing on Implementation of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996. Hearing held on October 20, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-80.
Medical Errors: Improving Quality of Care and Consumer
Information.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations and the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Health on Medical Errors: Improving
Quality of Care and Consumer Information. Hearing held on
February 9, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-90.
Seniors' Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs: Models
for Reform.--Oversight hearing on Seniors' Access to Affordable
Prescription Drugs: Models for Reform. Hearing held on February
16, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-92.
National Implementation of the Reformulated Gasoline
Program.--Oversight hearing on national implementation of the
reformulated gasoline program. Hearing held on March 2, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-101.
Fetal Tissue: Is It Being Bought and Sold in Violation of
Federal Law?--Oversight hearing on Fetal Tissue: Is It Being
Bought and Sold in Violation of Federal Law? Hearing held on
March 9, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-104.
Patient Access to Self-injectable Prescription Drugs in the
Medicare Program.--Oversight hearing on Patient Access to Self-
injectable Prescription Drugs in the Medicare Program. Hearing
held on March 23, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-122.
Saving Lives: The Cardiac Arrest Survival Act.--Hearing on
H.R. 2498, the Cardiac Arrest Survival Act. Hearing held on May
9, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-99.
Health Care Fairness Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R. 3250,
the Health Care Fairness Act of 1999. Hearing held on May 11,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-108.
Biomedical Research: Protecting Surplus Chimpanzees.--
Hearing on Biomedical Research: Protecting Surplus Chimpanzees.
Hearing held on May 18, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-109.
Prescription Drugs: Modernizing Medicare for the 21st
Century.--Oversight hearing on Prescription Drugs: Modernizing
Medicare for the 21st Century. Hearing held on June 14, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-110.
Medicare's Management: Is HCFA's Complexity Threatening
Patient Access to Quality Care?--Oversight hearing on
Medicare's Management: Is HCFA's Complexity Threatening Patient
Access to Quality Care? Hearing held on June 27, 2000. PRINTED,
serial number 106-125.
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000.--Hearing on H.R.
4807, the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000. Hearing held
on July 11, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-140.
BBA '97: A Look at the Current Impact on Providers and
Patients.--Oversight hearing on BBA '97: A Look at the Current
Impact on Providers and Patients. Hearing held on July 19,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-145.
Telehealth: A Cutting Edge Medical Tool for the 21st
Century.--Oversight hearing on Telehealth: A Cutting Edge
Medical Tool for the 21st Century. Hearing held on September 7,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-144.
Securing the Health of the American People.--Hearing on
Securing the Health of the American People: Hearing on H.R.
2399, the National Commission for the New National Goal: The
Advancement of Global Health Act; H.R. 4242, the Orphan Drug
Innovation Act; H.R. 762, the Lupus Research and Care
Amendments of 1999; H.R. 3677, the Thomas Navarro FDA Patient
Rights Act; H.R. 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical
Imaging and Engineering Establishment Act; and H.Res. ---- (an
unintroduced resolution), recognizing the importance of
researching childhood cancers.
Implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments and Funding of State Drinking Water Programs.--
Oversight hearing Implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments and Funding of State Drinking Water
Programs. Hearing held on September 19, 2000. PRINTED, serial
number 106-158.
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
(Ratio: 17-14)
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
Vice Chairman KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma TOM SAWYER, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma BART GORDON, Tennessee
JAMES E. ROGAN, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio)
ED BRYANT, Tennessee
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy,
renewable energy resources, and synthetic fuels; energy conservation;
energy information; energy regulation and utilization; utility issues
and regulation of nuclear facilities; interstate energy compacts;
nuclear energy and waste; mining, oil, gas, and coal combustion wastes;
and all laws, programs, and government activities affecting such
matters.
Legislative Activities
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT FOR FERC PROJECT NO.
9401, THE MT. HOPE WATERPOWER PROJECT
Public Law 106-121 (H.R. 459)
To extend the deadline for the commencement of construction
of a hydroelectric project in the State of New Jersey.
Summary
H.R. 459 extends the statutory deadline for the
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the
State of New Jersey.
Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
for the 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
two years from the date the license is issued, unless FERC
extends the deadline. Section 13 permits FERC to grant only one
two-year extension of that deadline. Therefore, a license is
subject to termination if a licensee fails to begin
construction within four years.
H.R. 459 authorizes FERC to extend the deadline for the
commencement of construction of a project in the State of New
Jersey until August 3, 2002, if the licensee meets the good
faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of
section 13 of the Federal Power Act.
Legislative History
On October 16, 1998, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
requested executive comment from FERC on an identical bill
introduced in the 105th Congress, H.R. 4633. Executive comment
was received from FERC on December 1, 1998.
H.R. 459 was introduced in the House by Mr. Frelinghuysen
on February 2, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open markup
session to consider H.R. 459 on April 14, 1999, and the bill
was approved for Full Committee consideration, without
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 459 on April 21, 1999, and ordered the bill reported to
the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present. The Committee reported H.R. 459 to the House on April
28, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-119).
The House considered and passed H.R. 459 under suspension
of the rules on May 4, l999, by a voice vote. H.R. 459, as
passed by the House, was received in the Senate on May 5, 1999,
read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources. The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a
hearing on H.R. 459 on May 27, 1999. The Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 459 on June 16, 1999, and ordered the bill reported to the
Senate, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being
present. The Committee reported H.R. 459 to the Senate on June
24, 1999 (S. Rpt. 106-97).
The Senate considered and passed H.R. 459 on November 19,
1999, without amendment. H.R. 459 was presented to the
President on November 30, 1999. The President signed H.R. 459
into law on December 6, 1999 (Public Law 106-121).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Public Law 106-213 (S. 1836, H.R. 3852)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
a hydroelectric project in the State of Alabama.
Summary
H.R. 3852 extends the statutory deadline for the
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the
State of Alabama.
Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
for the commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects
once FERC has issued a license. The licensee must begin
construction not more than two years from the date the license
is issued, unless FERC extends the deadline. Section 13 permits
FERC to grant only one two-year extension of that deadline.
Therefore, a license is subject to termination if a licensee
fails to begin construction within four years.
H.R. 3852 directs FERC to extend the deadline for the
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the
State of Washington for up to three additional two-year periods
if the licensee meets the good faith, due diligence, and public
interest requirements of section 13 of the Federal Power Act.
Legislative History
S. 1836 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Hollings on
November 1, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources. The Senate Subcommittee on
Water and Power held a hearing on S. 1836 on March 22, 2000.
H.R. 3852 was introduced in the House by Mr. DeMint on
March 8, 2000. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on
Commerce. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing
on H.R. 3852 on March 30, 2000. The Subcommittee received
testimony from FERC, the Department of the Interior, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Forest
Service, the National Hydropower Association, and American
Rivers.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in
open markup session to consider S. 1836 on April 5, 2000, and
ordered the bill reported to the Senate, without amendment, by
a voice vote. The Committee reported S. 1836 to the Senate on
April 12, 2000 (S. Rpt. 106-265).
The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 3852 on April 12, 2000, and the bill was approved for Full
Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 3852 on May 17, 2000, and ordered the bill reported to the
House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present. The Committee reported H.R. 3852 to the House on May
19, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-629).
The Senate considered and passed S. 1836 by unanimous
consent on April 13, 2000, without amendment. S. 1836 was
received in the House on May 2, 2000, and referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
The House considered and passed S. 1836 under suspension of
the rules on May 22, 2000, by a record vote of 354 yeas and no
nays.
The Committee on Commerce was discharged from the further
consideration of S. 1836 on May 22, 2000. The House considered
the bill and passed the bill by unanimous consent. H.R. 3852,
as passed by the House, was laid on the table.
S. 1836 was presented to the President on May 23, 2000. The
President signed S. 1836 into law on May 26, 2000 (Public Law
106-213).
VALLES CALDERA PRESERVATION ACT
Public Law 106-248 (S. 1892)
To authorize the acquisition of the Valles Caldera, to
provide for an effective land and wildlife management program
for this resource within the Department of Agriculture, and for
other purposes.
Summary
The purpose of S. 1892 is to authorize the acquisition of
the Valles Caldera and provide for an effective land and
wildlife management program for this resource. S. 1892
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire the Baca
Ranch in New Mexico from its present owners. The bill also
designates the property as the Valles Caldera National Preserve
and establishes a government corporation to manage the
preserve. Section 109(a)(3) of the bill contained language
regarding the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to
impose conditions on the issuance of certain FERC hydropower
licenses.
Legislative History
S. 1892 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Domenici on
November 9, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
The Senate Subcommittee on Forest and Public Land
Management held a hearing on S. 1892 on March 10, 2000.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in
open markup session to consider S. 1892 on April 5, 2000, and
ordered the bill reported to the Senate, as amended, by a voice
vote. The Committee reported S. 1892 to the Senate on April 12,
2000 (S. Rpt. 106-267).
The Senate considered and passed S. 1892 on April 13, 2000,
without amendment.
S. 1892 was received in the House on May 2, 2000, and
referred to the Committee on Resources.
The Committee on Resources met in open markup session to
consider S. 1892 on May 24, 2000, and ordered the bill reported
to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
In a July 11, 2000 letter to the Committee on Resources,
The Chairman of the Committee on Commerce agreed to waive
consideration of S. 1892 while reserving its jurisdictional
prerogatives and its right to seek conferees on any provisions
of the bill under the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction. The
Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Resources agreed to
report language clarifying the intent of section 109(a)(3) of
S. 1892.
The Committee on Resources reported S. 1892 to the House on
July 11, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-724).
The House considered and passed S. 1892 under suspension of
the rules on July 12, 2000 by a record vote of 377 yeas and 45
nays.
S. 1892 was presented to the President on July 14, 2000.
The President signed S. 1892 into law on July 25, 2000 (Public
Law 106-248).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT
FOR COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
ARROWROCK DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO
Public Law 106-343 (S. 1236)
To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act for
commencement of the construction of the Arrowrock Dam
Hydroelectric Project in the State of Idaho.
Summary
S. 1236 extends the statutory deadline for the
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the
State of Idaho.
Section 13 of the Federal Power Act establishes time limits
for the commencement of construction of hydroelectric projects
once FERC has issued a license. The licensee must begin
construction not more than two years from the date the license
is issued, unless FERC extends the deadline. Section 13 permits
FERC to grant only one two-year extension of that deadline.
Therefore, a license is subject to termination if a licensee
fails to begin construction within four years.
S. 1236 authorizes FERC to extend the deadline for the
commencement of construction of a project in the State of Idaho
for up to three additional two-year periods, if the licensee
meets the good faith, due diligence, and public interest
requirements of section 13 of the Federal Power Act.
Legislative History
S. 1236 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Craig on June
17, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
The Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing
on S. 1236 on July 28, 1999.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in
open markup session to consider S. 1236 on September 22, 1999,
and ordered the bill reported to the Senate, without amendment,
by a voice vote. The Committee reported S. 1236 to the Senate
on October 4, 1999 (S. Rpt. 106-170).
The Senate considered and passed S. 1236 by unanimous
consent on November 19, 1999, without amendment.
S. 1236 was received in the House on November 22, 1999, and
referred to the Committee on Commerce on January 27, 2000.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on S.
1236 on March 30, 2000. The Subcommittee received testimony
from FERC, the Department of the Interior, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Forest Service, the
National Hydropower Association, and American Rivers.
The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider S.
1236 on April 12, 2000, and the bill was approved for Full
Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
S. 1236 on May 17, 2000, and ordered the bill reported to the
House, with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present. The Committee reported S. 1236 to the House on May 19,
2000 (H. Rept. 106-630).
The House considered and passed S. 1236 under suspension of
the rules on May 22, 2000 by a record vote of 356 yeas and no
nays.
The Senate received a message on House action on May 23,
2000. The Senate agreed to the House amendment by unanimous
consent on October 5, 2000. S. 1236 was presented to the
President on October 12, 2000 and the President signed it into
law on October 19, 2000 (Public Law 106-343).
TO AMEND THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST ELECTRIC POWER PLANNING
AND CONSERVATION ACT TO PROVIDE FOR SALES OF ELECTRICITY
BY THE BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION TO JOINT
OPERATING ENTITIES
Public Law 106-273 (S. 1937, H.R. 3447)
To amend the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and
Conservation Act to provide for sales of electricity by the
Bonneville Power Administration to joint operating entities.
Summary
S. 1937 directs the Bonneville Power Administration to sell
wholesale electric power to joint operating entities to meet
the regional firm power loads of regional public bodies and
cooperatives that are members of the joint operating entity.
The bill bars public bodies and cooperatives from reselling
power they receive from a joint operating entity to any person
other than their retail electric consumers or other members of
the joint operating entity. Bonneville's power sales have been
governed by public preference since enactment of the Bonneville
Project Act of 1937. However, current law limits Bonneville
preference sales to public bodies and cooperatives that own
distribution facilities and bars sales to joint operating
entities established by preference customers.
Legislative History
S. 1937 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Craig on
November 17, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
A similar bill, H.R. 3447, was introduced in the House by
Mr. Hastings and one cosponsor on November 18, 1999. H.R. 3447
was referred to the Committee on Resources and additionally to
the Committee on Commerce. No further action was taken on H.R.
3447.
On November 19, 1999, the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources was discharged from the further consideration
of S. 1937 by unanimous consent. The Senate then considered,
and passed the bill, without amendment, by unanimous consent.
S. 1937 was received in the House on November 22, 1999, and
referred to the Committee on Resources and, in addition, the
Commerce on Commerce on January 27, 2000.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on S.
1937 on March 30, 2000. The Subcommittee received testimony
from a Member of Congress, FERC, the Bonneville Power
Administration, the Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative,
and Reynolds Metals Company.
The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider S.
1937 on May 16, 2000, and the bill was approved for Full
Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present.
The Committee on Resources met in open markup session to
consider S. 1937 on July 19, 2000, and ordered the bill
reported to the House, without further amendment, by a voice
vote. On July 24, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on
Resources wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
asking that he waive consideration of S. 1937 and agreeing that
doing so would not affect the jurisdictional prerogatives of
the Committee on Commerce with respect to this or similar
legislation. On July 24, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote the Chairman of the Committee on Resources
waiving consideration of the bill and reserving the Committee
on Commerce's jurisdictional prerogatives with respect to the
legislation.
The Committee on Resources reported S. 1937 to the House on
September 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-820, Part 1) and the Committee
on Commerce was discharged from the further consideration of S.
1937.
The House considered and passed S. 1937 under suspension of
the rules on September 12, 2000 by a voice vote.
S. 1937 was presented to the President on September 14,
2000. The President signed S. 1937 into law on September 22,
2000 (Public Law 106-273).
REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLEANUP OF URANIUM AND THORIUM PROCESSING SITES
Public Law 106-317 (H.R. 2641)
To make technical corrections to title X of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992.
Summary
The purpose of H.R. 2641 is to amend title X of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, as amended (Public Law 102-486, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 2296a) to extend for another five years the program of
annual reimbursements from the Department of Energy to the
private sector licensees cleaning up uranium and thorium mill
tailings sites under the authority of title II of the Uranium
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-604,
42 U.S.C. Sec. 7901 et seq.). The measure also revises the
date when the Secretary of Energy determines whether there are
any excess funds in the program, and eliminates the requirement
for DOE to place in escrow funds to cover estimated post-2002
cleanup costs.
Legislative History
H.R. 2641 was introduced in the House on July 29, 1999, by
Mrs. Cubin and one cosponsor. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
2641 on April 5, 2000. The Subcommittee received testimony
from: Mr. James Fiore of the Department of Energy, Mr. Tom
McDaniel of the Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Mr. Pat Morgan
representing the Umetco Minerals Corporation. On September 14,
2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power was discharged from
the further consideration of H.R. 2641. On September 14, 2000,
the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R.
2641, as amended, to be reported to the House by a voice vote.
The Committee on Commerce reported the bill to the House, with
an amendment, on September 25, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-886).
On September 27, 1999, H.R. 2641 was considered by the
House under suspension of the rules and passed by a voice vote.
H.R. 2641 was received by the Senate and passed by unanimous
consent on October 5, 2000. H.R. 2641 was presented to the
President on October 12, 2000, and signed into law on October
19, 2000 (Public Law 106-317).
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
Public Law 106-65 (S. 1059, H.R. 1401)
(Energy Related Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, defense-related activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for the Armed Forces,
and for other purposes.
Summary
Both S. 1059 and H.R. 1401 contained a number of provisions
which related to the Department of Energy and the marketing and
generation of power. Title 31 of H.R. 1401 contained several
provisions designed to address security problems in the DOE,
including civil and monetary penalties for violations of DOE
regulations regarding handling of classified information, a
counterintelligence polygraph program, establishment of new
counterintelligence offices, and stricter controls on foreign
contacts. Other provisions of H.R. 1401 affect tritium
production and the operation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
and voluntary separation incentive payments. The Senate version
of the defense authorization bill, S. 1059, contained numerous
other provisions affecting the DOE, most notably Title 32
authorizing the creation of the new National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). This new semi-autonomous NNSA raised
serious questions about its impact on non-defense activities of
the DOE and on the execution of DOE's safety, health, and
environmental responsibilities, both within the new NNSA and
within the rest of the DOE complex.
Legislative History
H.R. 1401 was introduced by request by Mr. Spence and Mr.
Skelton on April 14, 1999. The Committee on Armed Services met
in open markup session and ordered the bill reported, with an
amendment, on May 19, 1999 by a record vote of 55 yeas and 1
nay. On May 24, 1999, the bill was reported by the Committee on
Armed Services to the House, with an amendment (H. Rept. 106-
162).
On June 9 and 10, 1999, the House considered H.R. 1401
pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 200. The House passed the
bill by a record vote of 365 yeas and 58 nays.
S. 1059, the Senate companion legislation, was passed by
the Senate on May 27, 1999 by a roll call vote of 92 yeas and 3
nays and received in the House on June 7, 1999 and held at the
desk. On June 14, 1999, the House considered S. 1059, struck
all after the enacting clause and amended the bill with the
text of H.R. 1401 as it passed the House, and passed the bill
by unanimous consent. On June 16, 1999, the Senate disagreed to
the House amendment, requested a conference, and appointed
conferees.
On July 1, 1999, House insisted upon its amendment and
agreed to the conference requested by the Senate. The Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Commerce for
consideration of matters contained in the Senate bill and the
House amendment falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee of Conference met on July 13 and 15, 1999.
The conference report on S. 1059 was filed on August 6,
1999. The House considered and agreed to the conference report,
pursuant to H.Res. 288, on September 15, 2000. Mr. Dingell
offered a motion to recommit with instructions, addressing the
role of the NNSA with respect to certain authorities previously
delegated to the Secretary of Energy. The motion to recommit
failed by a record vote of 139 yeas and 281 nays. The House
agreed to the conference report by a record vote of 375 yeas
and 45 nays.
The Senate considered the conference report on September 21
and 22, 1999. The Senate agreed to the conference report on
September 22, 1999 by a roll call vote of 93 yeas and 5 nays.
The bill was presented to the President on September 23, 1999,
and signed into law on October 5, 1999 (Public Law 106-65).
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Public Law 106-398 (H.R. 4205, S. 2549, S. 2550)
(Department of Energy Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, defense-related activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for the Armed Forces,
and for other purposes.
Summary
Both H.R. 4205 and S. 2549 contained a number of provisions
which related to the Department of Energy and the marketing and
generation of power. Title 31 contains provisions affecting the
new National Nuclear Security Administration, specifically, the
term of the initial NNSA administrator, the authority of the
Secretary of Energy to reorganize the NNSA, and a prohibition
on pay for dual-hatted DOE-NNSA employees. Title 31 also
contains provisions dealing with a new operations center for
the NNSA, a prohibition on the use of defense funds for the
Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program, additional
polygraph requirements for certain DOE employees, authorization
for DOE laboratories to enter into ``other transactions''
outside of those covered by the Federal Acquisition
Regulations, conformance of Secretarial actions through the
NNSA administrator, establishment of an Office of Arctic Energy
in DOE, and extension of authority for appointment of certain
scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. Title 32
contained one provision authorizing appropriations for the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and Title 33 contained
provisions dealing with the minimum price for petroleum sold
from Naval Petroleum Reserves 2 and 3, repeal of authority to
contract for cooperative or unit plans affecting Naval
Petroleum Reserve 1, and the transfer of Naval Oil Shale
Reserve #2 to the Ute Indian Tribe and the cleanup of the
uranium mill tailings site near Moab, Utah.
Legislative History
H.R. 4205 was introduced in the House by Mr. Spence and Mr.
Skelton by request on April 6, 2000. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services. The Committee on Armed
Services reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on
May 12, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-616).
A rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4205, H.Res.
503, passed the House by a record vote of 220 yeas and 201
nays. The House considered H.R. 4205 on May 17 and 18, 2000. On
May 18, 1999, the House passed the bill, as amended, by a
record vote of 353 yeas and 63 nays. H.R. 4205 was received in
the Senate on May 22, 2000.
S. 2549, the Senate companion legislation, was considered
by the Senate on June 6 through 8, June 14, June 19 through 20,
June 29 through 30, and July 11 through 13, 2000. The Senate
amended the text of H.R. 4205 with S. 2549, as amended by the
Senate, and passed H.R. 4205 by a roll call vote of 97 yeas and
3 nays on July 13, 2000 by a roll call vote of 92 yeas and 3
nays. The Senate also insisted on its amendment, requested a
conference with the House, and appointed conferees. On July 26,
2000, the House disagreed to the amendment of the Senate, and
agreed to the conference requested by the Senate by unanimous
consent.
On July 27, 2000, the Speaker appointed conferees. The
Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Commerce for
consideration of matters contained in the House bill and the
Senate amendment falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
As a result, certain provisions were accepted without
significant change, certain provisions were modified
substantially, and certain provisions were deleted outright .
The conference report on H.R. 4205 was filed in the House
on October 6, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-945). The House adopted a rule
providing for the consideration of the conference report,
H.Res. 616, by a voice vote. The House agreed to the conference
report by a record vote of 382 yeas and 31 nays on October 11,
2000. The Senate agreed to the conference report by a roll call
vote of 90 yeas and 3 nays on October 12, 2000. The bill was
presented to the President on October 19, 2000, and signed into
law on October 30, 2000 (Public Law 106-398).
ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION
Public Law 106-64 (H.R. 2981)
To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act through March 31, 2000.
Summary
H.R. 2981 extended until March 31, 2000, the authority for
the Department of Energy to buy or lease oil for, operate, and
draw down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The bill also
extends authority for the United States to participate in the
International Energy Agency until September 30, 2003.
Legislative History
H.R. 2981 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bliley on
September 30, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
On September 30, 1999, the Committee on Commerce was
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 2981 and
considered and passed by the House by unanimous consent.
On September 30, 1999, H.R. 2981 was received in the Senate
and passed by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the
White House. On September 30, 1999, H.R. 2981 was presented to
the President and signed into law on October 5, 1999 (Public
Law 106-64).
ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION
Public Law 106-469 (H.R. 2884, H.R. 4733)
To extend energy conservation programs under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act through fiscal year 2003
Summary
H.R. 2884, extends until September 30, 2003, the authority
of the Department of Energy (DOE) to buy or lease oil for,
operate, and draw down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The
bill also extends authority for the United States to
participate in the International Energy Agency until September
30, 2003. H.R. 2884 also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
fill the Reserve using oil purchased from marginal wells
whenever the price of oil drops below $15 per barrel. In
addition, H.R. 2884 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to
establish a home heating oil reserve to be located in the
northeastern United States.
H.R. 2884 also contains provisions requiring the U.S.
Geological Survey to conduct an inventory of oil and gas
reserves on Federal lands; change the Federal Energy Management
Program to allow Federal managers to enter into more energy
savings performance contracts; updates the low-income
weatherization program; and modifies regulations relating to
the licensing of small hydroelectric facilities in Alaska.
H.R. 4733, as passed by the House, contained provisions
amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Specifically,
the bill contained provisions extending through September 30,
2001, the authority for the Department of Energy to buy or
lease oil for, operate, and draw down the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. The provisions also extended authority for the United
States to participate in the International Energy Agency until
September 30, 2001. The provisions were ultimately dropped from
H.R. 4733 during the conference with the Senate.
Legislative History
H.R. 2884 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bliley on
October 21, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing
on September 23, 1999, on Reauthorization of Expiring Energy
Policy and Conservation Act Programs.
On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
met in open markup session and approved H.R. 2884 for Full
Committee consideration, amended, by a voice vote. The Full
Committee met in open markup session on September 29, 1999, and
ordered H.R. 2884 reported to the House, with an amendment, by
a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On April 11, 2000, H.R. 2884 was considered by the House
under suspension of the rules. On April 12, 2000, H.R. 2884 was
agreed to by a record vote of 416 yeas and 8 nays.
On October 19, 2000, H.R. 2884 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent. On October 24, 2000, the House
considered and agreed to the Senate amendment under suspension
of the rules by a voice vote, clearing the bill for the White
House.
The bill was presented to the President on October 28, 2000
and was signed into law on November 9, 2000 (Public Law 106-
469).
TO AMEND THE FEDERAL POWER ACT TO REMOVE THE
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY
COMMISSION TO LICENSE PROJECTS ON FRESH WATERS
IN THE STATE OF HAWAII
(S. 334)
To amend the Federal Power Act to remove the jurisdiction
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to license
hydropower projects on fresh waters in the State of Hawaii.
Summary
S. 334 precludes FERC licensing of hydroelectric projects
on fresh waters in the State of Hawaii under section 4(e) of
the Federal Power Act. Section 4(e) authorizes FERC to license
projects that are not required to be licensed by FERC under
section 23(b). For that reason, hydroelectric project
developers have some discretion to choose between FERC or State
licensing of these projects. S. 334 precludes FERC licensing of
hydroelectric projects under section 4(e) that it is not
required to license under section 23(b).
Legislative History
S. 334 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Akaka on
February 3, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in
open markup session to consider S. 334 on March 4, 1999, and
ordered the bill reported to the Senate, without amendment, by
a voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee reported S.
334 to the Senate on March 18, 1999 (S. Rpt. 106-26).
The Senate considered and passed S. 334 on March 25, 1999,
without amendment, by unanimous consent. S. 334 was received in
the House on April 12, 1999, and referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on S.
334 on March 30, 2000. The Subcommittee received testimony from
FERC, the Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Forest Service, and American
Rivers.
No further action was taken on S. 334 in the 106th
Congress.
TO PROVIDE FOR ALASKA STATE JURISDICTION OVER SMALL HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECTS
(S. 422)
To provide for Alaska state jurisdiction over small
hydroelectric projects.
Summary
S. 422 directs FERC to discontinue exercising its licensing
and regulatory authority over certain small hydroelectric
projects in Alaska upon a determination by FERC, after
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of
Agriculture, and Secretary of Commerce, that the State has a
regulatory program in place equivalent to the Federal Power Act
licensing process. The bill provides that State licensing of
projects located on Federal lands be subject to approval of the
Secretary administering such lands, such conditions as such
Secretary may prescribe, and grants of rights-of-way under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. S. 422 provides for
FERC oversight of the State program, and requires FERC to
reassert its licensing and regulatory authority if it finds the
State of Alaska has not complied with the requirements of the
bill.
Legislative History
S. 422 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Murkowski on
February 11, 1999. The bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in
open markup session to consider S. 422 on March 4, 1999, and
ordered the bill reported to the Senate, as amended, by a voice
vote. The Committee reported S. 422 to the Senate on March 19,
1999 (S. Rpt. 106-28).
The Senate considered and passed S. 422 on March 25, 1999,
as amended, by unanimous consent. S. 422 was received in the
House on April 12, 1999, and referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on S.
422 on March 30, 2000. The Subcommittee received testimony from
the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, the Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Power &
Telephone, and American Rivers.
The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider S.
422 on May 16, 2000, and the bill was approved for Full
Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
Provisions similar to those contained in S. 422 were
included in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2884. No further
action was taken on S. 422 in the 106th Congress.
NUCLEAR WASTE POLICY ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 45, S. 608, S. 1287)
To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Summary
H.R. 45 has three general purposes: (1) strengthen the
permanent repository program, by ensuring adequate funding to
construct a repository, providing for repository licensing, and
encouraging the settlement of utility lawsuits against the
Federal government; (2) accelerate acceptance by providing for
a centralized interim storage facility; and (3) protect
consumers by ensuring applicable fees are dedicated to the
nuclear waste program and not diverted to other purposes. H.R.
45 takes the Nuclear Waste Fund ``off-budget,'' which provides
secure funding for the nuclear waste program, by gaining access
to the balance in the Fund, to interest on this balance, and to
future revenues.
Legislative History
H.R. 45 was introduced in the House by Mr. Upton on January
6, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce,
and additionally to the Committees on Resources and
Transportation and Infrastructure.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held hearings on H.R.
45 on February 10, 1999, and March 12, 1999. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Department of Energy, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board, Department of Justice, Members
and State and local officials from the State of Nevada, Nuclear
Waste Strategy Coalition, National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners, Nuclear Energy Institute, Wisconsin
Electric Company, and Public Citizen.
The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 45 on April 14, 1999, and the bill was approved for Full
Committee consideration, as amended, by a record vote of 25
yeas and no nays, a quorum being present.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 45 on April 21, 1999, and ordered the bill reported to the
House, with an amendment, by a record vote of 40 yeas and 6
nays, a quorum being present.
On May 4, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure wrote to the Chairman of the
Committee on Commerce agreeing to waive consideration of H.R.
45, while reserving his committee's jurisdictional prerogatives
on the bill. On May 5, 1999, the Chairman of the Committee on
Commerce wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure agreeing that his committee's
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation
would not be affected by his agreement to waive consideration
of the bill.
The Committee reported H.R. 45 to the House on May 20, 1999
(H. Rept. 106-155, Part I).
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was
discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 45 on May 20,
1999, and the Committee on Resources was discharged on June 2,
1999.
The Committee on Budget was granted a sequential referral
of H.R. 45 on May 20, 1999, and was discharged from the further
consideration of the bill on June 2, 1999.
S. 608 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Murkowski on
March 15, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a
hearing on S. 608 on March 24, 1999.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in
open markup session to consider S. 608 on May 19, 1999. The
Committee subsequently met in open markup session to consider
an original bill on June 16, 1999, and ordered the bill
reported to the Senate, as amended, by a vote of 14 to 6, a
quorum being present. S. 1287 was introduced on June 24, 1999
and reported that same day (S. Rpt. 106-98).
The Senate considered S. 1287 on February 9 and 10, 2000,
and passed the bill, as amended, by a vote of 64 to 34 on
February 10, 2000. S. 1287 was received in the House on
February 14, 2000 and held at the desk.
On March 22, 2000, the Committee on Rules granted a rule
providing for the consideration of S. 1287, H.Res. 444, which
was agreed to by the House by a record vote of 220 yeas and 191
nays. The House considered S. 1287 on March 22, 2000 pursuant
to the rule and passed the bill by a record vote of 253 yeas
and 167 nays.
S. 1287 was presented to the President on April 14, 2000.
The President vetoed the bill on April 25, 2000.
On May 2, 2000, the Senate considered the President's veto
message. The Senate failed to override the President's veto on
May 2, 2000, by a roll call vote of 64 yeas and 35 nays.
No further action was taken on S. 1287 or H.R. 45 in the
106th Congress.
HYDROELECTRIC LICENSING PROCESS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 2335)
To amend the Federal Power Act to improve the hydroelectric
licensing process by granting the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission statutory authority to better coordinate
participation by other agencies and entities, and for other
purposes.
Summary
The purpose of H.R. 2335 is to improve the hydroelectric
licensing process, by (1) requiring Federal resource agencies
to consider a range of public interest factors in the
development of mandatory conditions, such as the impact on
other beneficial uses (irrigation, flood control, water supply,
and recreation), economic effects, and compatibility with other
conditions; (2) requiring Federal resource agencies to give
notice of draft mandatory conditions and offer an opportunity
for public hearings on draft conditions; (3) requiring Federal
resource agencies to develop a written record detailing their
development of mandatory conditions; and (4) authorizing and
directing FERC to set a deadline for submission of mandatory
conditions to a license by Federal resource agencies.
Legislative History
H.R. 2335 was introduced by Mr. Towns on June 24, 1999. The
bill was referred solely to the Committee on Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
2335 on March 30, 2000. The Subcommittee received testimony
from a Member of Congress, FERC, the Department of the
Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
Western Governors Association, U.S. Forest Service, National
Hydropower Association, PacifiCorp, and American Rivers.
The Subcommittee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 2335 on May 16, 2000, and the bill was approved for Full
Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2335 in the 106th
Congress.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION LEGISLATION
(H.R. 2944, H.R. 1828, H.R. 667, H.R. 971, H.R. 1138, H.R. 1486, H.R.
1587, H.R. 2050, H.R. 2363)
To promote competition in electricity markets and to
provide consumers with a reliable source of electricity, and
for other purposes.
Summary
In the 106th Congress, the Committee on Commerce considered
9 separate bills to restructure or reform all or parts of the
electric utility industry. These bills ranged from single
purpose bills that modified the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935 (H.R. 2363) or the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 (H.R. 1138), to comprehensive bills that
significantly changed the electric utility industry (H.R. 1828
and H.R. 2944).
Legislative History
H.R. 2944 was introduced by Mr. Barton on September 24,
1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and
additionally to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Resources, and Ways and Means. The Chairman of
the Committee referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power, and additionally to the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a legislative
hearing on H.R. 1828, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition
Act, introduced by Mr. Bliley and one cosponsor, by request, on
June 17, 1999. This hearing examined the Administration's
proposal in detail. The Subcommittee received testimony from
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson.
On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
a legislative hearing on electric utility restructuring
legislation. This hearing was a continuation of the Committee's
efforts to examine comprehensive federal legislation to foster
competition in retail electricity markets. At this hearing the
Subcommittee considered H.R. 667, the Power Bill; H.R. 971, the
Electric Power Consumer Rate Relief Act; H.R. 1138, the
Ratepayer Protection Act; H.R. 1486, the Power Marketing
Administration Reform Act; H.R. 1587, the Electric Energy
Empowerment Act of 1999; H.R. 1828, the Comprehensive
Electricity Competition Act; H.R. 2050, the Electric Consumer's
Power To Choose Act of 1999; and H.R. 2363, the Public Utility
Holding Company Act of 1999. The Subcommittee received
testimony from witnesses representing investor and consumer-
owned electric utilities, independent power producers,
environmental and consumer groups.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a legislative
hearing on H.R. 2944 on October 5 and 6, 1999. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Department of Energy, FERC, and
groups representing State regulators, and other interested
parties.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power met in open markup
session to consider H.R. 2944 on October 27, 1999, and the bill
was approved for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
vote of 17 yeas and 11 nays, a quorum being present.
On July 10, 2000, the bill's referral to the Subcommittee
on Finance and Hazardous Materials was extended for a period
ending not later than July 12, 2000. On July 13, 2000, the
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous materials was discharged
from the further consideration of H.R. 2944.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2944 in the 106th
Congress.
PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION
(H.R. 1378, S. 2438)
To authorize appropriations for carrying out pipeline
safety activities under chapter 601 of title 49, United States
Code.
Summary
H.R. 1378, reauthorizes the current natural gas and
hazardous liquid pipeline safety programs now codified in 49
U.S.C. Sec. 60101 et seq., for an additional two years,
through Fiscal Year 2002. Authorization for the current
pipeline safety program expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2000.
The amounts authorized for the program reflect an approximate
2.7 percent annual increase in funding to keep pace with
inflation. In addition, the bill makes minor changes to the
current program by requiring the Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) to formally respond to recommendations from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and provides some additional
funding for damage prevention activities, including public
education and awareness.
Legislative History
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on
reauthorizing the pipeline safety program on February 3, 1999.
H.R. 1378 was introduced in the House by Mr. Barton on
April 13, 1999. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition, the
Committee on Commerce.
On April 14, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met
in open markup session and approved H.R. 1378 for Full
Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote.
The Full Committee met in open markup session on April 21,
1999, and ordered H.R. 1378 reported to the House, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 40 yeas and no nays.
On May 20, 1999, H.R. 1378 was reported, with an amendment,
by the Committee on Commerce. (H. Rept.106-153, Part 1.)
The Senate version of the legislation, S. 2438, was
introduced by Senator McCain on April 13, 2000 and referred to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On June 15, 2000, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation ordered the bill favorably reported with an
amendment and reported the bill to the Senate on August 25,
2000 (S.Rept. 106-387).
On September 7, 2000, the Senate considered S. 2438 and
passed the bill by unanimous consent. The bill was received in
the House on September 11, 2000 and held at the desk.
On October 10, 2000, the House considered S. 2438 under
suspension of the rules. The House failed to pass the bill by
the necessary two-thirds majority by a record vote of 232 yeas
and 158 nays. No further action was taken on S. 2438 or H.R.
1378 in the 106th Congress.
Kansas Ad Valorem Taxes
(H.R. 1117)
To provide relief from unfair interest and penalties on
refunds retroactively ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
Summary
H.R. 1117 provides relief from interest and penalties on
refunds ordered by the FERC on collections of an ad valorem tax
imposed by the State of Kansas. Specifically, the bill amends
the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 to preclude the payment of
interest or penalties on refunds of any rates and charges for
reimbursement of State ad valorem taxes ordered by the FERC in
connection with natural gas sales prior to 1989. The bill also
provides that these refunds are required only to the extent
that the purchaser demonstrates to FERC that it will be passed
on to ultimate natural gas consumers.
Legislative History
H.R. 1117 was introduced by Mr. Moran of Kansas and 3
cosponsors on March 16, 1999 and the bill was referred to the
Committee on Commerce.
On July 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
a legislative hearing on H.R. 1117. The Subcommittee heard from
a Member of Congress, the State of Kansas, and a consumer.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1117 in the 106th
Congress.
National Oilheat Research Alliance Act
(H.R. 380)
Summary
H.R. 380 authorizes the oilheat industry to conduct a
referendum among its retailers and wholesalers for the creation
of a National Oilheat Research Alliance (NORA or Alliance).
According to the bill, if the oilheat industry approves such a
referendum, NORA would be authorized to collect annual
assessments from oilheat wholesalers to cover its planning and
program costs. H.R. 380 would then permit the Alliance to
allocate these collected funds to conduct research and
development of oilheat utilization equipment, to promote
consumer education, and to inform and educate the public about
safety and other issues associated with the use of oilheat.
Legislative History
On April 5, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
a legislative hearing on H.R. 380, the National Oilheat
Research Alliance Act of 1999. The Subcommittee heard from
witnesses representing the oilheat industry.
Provisions similar to H.R. 380 were included in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 2884. No further action was taken on H.R.
380.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REAUTHORIZATION
(H.R. 2531)
To authorize appropriations for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for Fiscal Year 2000, to authorize the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to continue to collect user fees and
annual charges through the end of Fiscal Year 2004, and to make
a number of other changes to the Commission's authorizing
statutes.
Summary
Title I of H.R. 2531 authorizes a total of $471,400,000 for
the activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in
Fiscal Year 2000. This total budget authorization is divided
into several key strategic areas: $210,043,000 for nuclear
reactor safety, $63,881,000 for nuclear materials safety,
$42,143,000 for nuclear waste safety (including an
authorization for appropriations of $19,150,000 from the
Nuclear Waste Fund), $4,840,000 for international nuclear
safety support, and $144,493,000 for management and support.
The total authorization also includes $6,000,000 for the
programs and activities of the Inspector General of the NRC.
Title I amends the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 to
extend for another five years, through Fiscal Year 2004, the
authority of the NRC to collect user fees and annual charges,
which fund almost all of the Commission's operating expenses.
Title I of H.R. 2531 also authorizes the NRC to assess and
collect fees to recover the full costs of the services the
Commission renders to other Federal agencies.
Title II includes provisions to improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of the NRC in the performance of its missions.
Section 201 authorizes the Commission to allow the guards at
certain licensed facilities to carry firearms while in the
discharge of their official duties to protect the facilities or
prevent the theft of special nuclear materials. Section 202
prohibits the introduction of dangerous weapons onto facilities
licensed or certified by the Commission; such introduction is
already prohibited for Commission-owned facilities. Section 203
expands current prohibition on sabotage or attempted sabotage
of nuclear facilities to include nuclear waste treatment and
disposal facilities and nuclear fuel fabrication facilities.
Section 204 provides for an initial 40-year period for combined
construction and operation license for a production or
utilization facility. Section 205 eliminates the requirement
that the NRC maintain an office in the District of Columbia for
the service of process and papers. Section 206 provides that
Commission meetings must be held in accordance with the
requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Public Law
94-409), in effect overruling more recent Commission
interpretations allowing for certain closed Commission
meetings.
Legislative History
H.R. 2531 was introduced in the House by Mr. Barton and Mr.
Hall on July 15, 1999, by request.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on H.R.
2531 on July 21, 1999. The Subcommittee received testimony from
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2531. The
Subcommittee approved H.R. 2531, as amended, for Full Committee
consideration by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On
September 29, 1999, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 2531 reported to the House, with an
amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Committee reported the bill to the House, with an amendment, on
October 26, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-415).
No further action was taken on H.R. 2531 in the 106th
Congress.
CIVIL PENALTIES ON NONPROFIT DOE CONTRACTORS
(H.R. 3383)
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to remove an
exemption from civil penalties for nuclear safety violations by
non profit institutions.
Summary
The Price-Anderson Act (Public Law 85-256) was enacted in
1957 as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public
Law 83-703, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq.). The original Price-
Anderson Act provided a limited indemnification of DOE
contractors engaged in activities that involve the risk of a
nuclear accident. The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-408) modified the indemnification provisions
and also created a system of civil penalties for DOE
contractors that violate any DOE rule, regulation, or order
relating to nuclear safety. These provisions relating to civil
penalties are contained in section 234A of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
All for-profit DOE contractors are currently subject to the
civil penalties as provided for in section 234A. However,
section 234A(d) specifically exempts certain named nonprofit
DOE contractors from civil penalties for nuclear safety
violations. In addition, section 234A(b)(2) of the Atomic
Energy Act, as amended, allows the Secretary of Energy to
provide for the automatic remission of any such civil penalties
for all nonprofit educational institutions. This administrative
exemption for nonprofit educational institutions is implemented
by DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 820.20(d).
H.R. 3383 eliminates both the statutory and administrative
exemption of nonprofit contractors from paying civil penalties
when they commit nuclear safety violations. Because of the
unique funding situation for nonprofit institutions, H.R. 3383
provides for an upper limit on the amount of civil penalties
that may be collected from a nonprofit contractor. This limit
is the amount of the discretionary fee paid to the contractor
under the contract under which the nuclear safety violation
occurs.
Legislative History
At a legislative hearing of the Energy and Power
Subcommittee on March 22, 2000, witnesses from GAO, the
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council all testified in favor of H.R. 3383.
On April 12, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met
in open markup session and approved H.R. 3383 for Full
Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote, with a
quorum being present. On May 17, 2000, the Full Committee met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3383 reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Committee on Commerce reported the bill to the House, with an
amendment, on June 23, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-695, Part 1).
On June 23, 2000, H.R. 3383 was referred sequentially to
the House Committee on Armed Services for a period ending not
later than July 21, 2000. The Committee on Armed Services met
in open markup session on June 28, 2000, and approved H.R. 3383
by voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee on Armed
Services reported the bill to the House, as amended by the
Committee on Commerce, on July 21, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-695, Part
2).
No further action was taken on H.R. 3383 in the 106th
Congress.
ENFORCEMENT OF PRICE-ANDERSON ACT CIVIL PENALTIES
(H.R. 4446)
To ensure that the Secretary of Energy may continue to
exercise certain authorities under the Price-Anderson Act
through the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment,
Safety, and Health.
Summary
The Price-Anderson Act (Public Law 85-256) was enacted in
1957 as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public
Law 83-703, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2011 et seq.). The original Price-
Anderson Act provided a limited indemnification of DOE
contractors engaged in activities that involve the risk of a
nuclear accident. The Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-408) modified the indemnification provisions
and also created a system of civil penalties for DOE
contractors that violate any DOE rule, regulation, or order
relating to nuclear safety. These provisions relating to civil
penalties are contained in section 234A of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
These civil penalties provide a valuable and important
enforcement tool for the DOE to ensure that its contractors pay
proper attention to nuclear safety. Implicit in the ability to
impose civil penalties on contractors are related enforcement
actions, including accident investigations, subpoenas for
information, notices of violation, and orders to abate or
correct hazardous practices. Section 234A of the Atomic Energy
Act is enforced primarily by the Assistant Secretary of Energy
for Environment, Safety, and Health.
Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 2401 et
seq.) created the semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Section 3213 of that Act provides that
employees and contractors of the NNSA shall not be subject to
the authority, director, or control of any officer, employee,
or agent of the Department of Energy other than the Secretary
of Energy, the Administrator of the NNSA, or the
Administrator's designee. Under this provision of title 32, the
authority of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety,
and Health is limited such that this office is no longer able
to enforce effectively the provisions of section 234A of the
Atomic Energy Act with respect to the facilities and operations
of the NNSA. This office can only make recommendations to the
NNSA Administrator or to the Secretary of Energy, but can no
longer take direct enforcement actions such as issuing notices
of violation, subpoenas for information, or assessment of civil
penalties against the elements of the NNSA. Title 32 of the
NNSA Act thus fragments responsibility for the enforcement of
Section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act between the NNSA and non-
NNSA portions of the Department of Energy. Further,
restrictions on the authority of the Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health over the NNSA
facilities could significantly restrict the ability of the
Assistant Secretary to gather evidence of violations at those
sites and provide such information to the Secretary of Energy.
H.R. 4446 ensures that the Secretary of Energy, acting
through a single office at the Department of Energy, such as
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and
Health, is responsible for and can be held accountable for
enforcement of Section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act for the
entire DOE complex, including the facilities and operations of
the NNSA.
Legislative History
At the joint hearing held by the Subcommittees on Energy
and Power and Oversight and Investigations on March 14, 2000,
the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and
Health testified to the conflict between the responsibilities
of his office to enforce section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act
and the restrictions imposed by section 3213 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 on his authority
over the NNSA. The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a
legislative hearing on H.R. 4446 on March 22, 2000. The
Subcommittee received testimony from: Department of Energy; the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Occupational Safety and Health
Administration; Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board;
General Accounting Office; Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory; University of California; Alliance for Nuclear
Accountability; Natural Resources Defense Council; and PACE
International Union.
On April 12, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met
in open markup session and approved a committee print of the
bill for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice
vote. The committee print was subsequently introduced by Mr.
Barton and Mr. Boucher as H.R. 4446. On May 17, 2000, the Full
Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4446
reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present. The Committee on Commerce reported the
bill to the House on June 23, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-694, Part 1).
H.R. 4446 was referred sequentially to the House Committee
on Armed Services for a period ending not later than July 21,
2000. The Committee on Armed Services met in open markup
session on June 28, 2000, and approved by a voice vote, a
quorum being present, H.R. 4446, with an amendment. The
amendment approved by the Committee on Armed Services provides
that enforcement of Section 234A of the Atomic Energy Act will
be through the NNSA Administrator for NNSA facilities, and
through the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment,
Safety, and Health for all other DOE facilities. The Committee
on Armed Services reported the bill to the House on July 21,
2000 (H. Rept. 106-694, Part 2).
There was no further action taken on H.R. 4446 in the 106th
Congress.
DOE EXTERNAL REGULATION AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
(H.R. 1656, H.R. 3907)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for the commercial application energy technology and related
civilian energy and scientific programs, projects, and
activities of the Department of Energy, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1656 authorized DOE activities for the commercial
application of various energy technologies. Specifically,
section 3 authorized $41 million for uranium programs and $9.1.
million for technical information management under the Energy
Supply heading, a total of $330 million for environmental
cleanup activities under the Non-Defense Environmental
Management heading, $10.7 million for the Clean Cities
Initiative, $9.1 million for building standards, and $6.4
million for appliance and lighting standards under the Energy
Conservation Research and Development heading. Section 15 of
H.R. 1656 authorized external regulation of the Department of
Energy by the Nuclear Energy Commission and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. Section 19 dealt with the DOE
regulations related to the safeguarding and security of
restricted data, and Section 20 dealt with whistleblower
protections for DOE employees.
Legislative History
H.R. 1656 was introduced by Mr. Calvert on May 3, 1999. The
bill was referred to the Committee on Science, and additionally
to the Committees on Commerce and Education and the Workforce.
On May 26, 1999, the Committee on Science marked up the
legislation and ordered the bill reported, amended, by a voice
vote.
The Committee on Science filed its report with the House on
February 3, 2000 (H. Rept. 106-492, Part 1). The Speaker
extended the referrals of the Committees on Commerce and
Education and the Workforce through June 9, 2000. On June 7,
2000, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce wrote the
Chairman of the Committee on Science and agreed to waive the
Commerce Committee's further consideration of the legislation.
On June 8, 2000, the Chairman of the Committee on Science wrote
the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce agreeing that the
Commerce Committee's decision to forego further action on H.R.
1656 would not prejudice the Committee on Commerce's
jurisdiction prerogatives on H.R. 1656 or similar legislation.
On June 9, 2000 the Committees on Commerce and Education
and the Workforce were discharged from the further
consideration of H.R. 1656. No further action was taken on H.R.
1656 in the 106th Congress.
On March 14, 2000, Mr. Bliley and 7 cosponsors introduced
H.R. 3907, a bill addressing the external regulation of the
Department of Energy. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Commerce, and additionally to the Committees on Armed Services
and Education and the Workforce. The Subcommittee on Energy and
Power held a hearing on the legislation on March 22, 2000. No
further action was taken on the legislation in the 106th
Congress.
PLUMBING STANDARDS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999
(H.R. 623)
To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to
eliminate certain regulation of plumbing supplies.
Summary
H.R. 623 would repeal certain requirements enacted as part
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), establishing water
use efficiency standards for showerheads, faucets, water
closets, and urinals. Under EPACT, certain categories of
showerheads and faucets manufactured after January 1, 1994 are
required to comply with maximum water use standards of 2.5
gallons per minute. Similarly, certain types of urinals and
water closets manufactured after January 1, 1994 are required
to comply with maximum water use standards of 1.6 gallons per
flush. H.R. 623 eliminates the federal uniform national
standards for maximum water usage for showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals. In lieu of such standards, maximum
water use standards for these appliances would be governed by
various state and local regulations.
Legislative History
On February 8, 1999, H.R. 623, the Plumbing Standards
Improvement Act of 1999, was introduced in the House by Mr.
Knollenberg and 107 cosponsors. Within the Committee on
Commerce, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.
On July 27, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
a legislative hearing on H.R. 623. Witnesses giving testimony
included Members of Congress and public and private sector
witnesses.
On April 12, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power met
in open markup session to consider H.R. 623. The bill was not
forwarded to the Full Committee for consideration by a record
vote of 12 Yeas and 13 Nays.
No further action was taken on H.R. 623 in the 106th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY ACT AND THE
HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY ACT
On February 3, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on reauthorization of the Natural Gas
Pipeline Safety Act and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety
Act. Authorization for the current pipeline safety program
expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2000. The pipeline safety
program is managed by the Office of Pipeline Safety within the
Department of Transportation. Witnesses testified regarding
both the positive and negative aspects of the current pipeline
safety program. The Subcommittee received testimony from
Administration, industry, and environmental representatives.
THE EXXON-MOBIL MERGER
On March 10 and 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Power held an oversight hearing on the Exxon-Mobil merger. On
December 1, 1998, Exxon, the Nation's largest domestic oil
company, agreed to buy Mobil Oil for $77 billion. At the time
of the hearing, this merger represented the largest industrial
merger in history, exceeding the $54 billion acquisition of
Amoco by British Petroleum. Exxon-Mobil Corporation would have
a combined 1998 revenue of $170 billion. The merger created the
largest non-state-owned integrated oil and gas company in the
world, with a market capitalization of over $240 billion. The
hearing considered the impact the merger would have on American
consumers, competition in the oil industry, and American energy
security. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Administration, the companies, service station dealers, and
petroleum industry analysts.
THE IRAQI OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM AND ITS IMPACT
On March 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on the Iraqi Oil for Food Program and
its impact. After Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United
Nations imposed sanctions which prohibited all trade with Iraq.
However, in April 1995, in recognition of the humanitarian
needs of the people of Iraq, Security Council Resolution 986
was passed, which authorized the sale of oil from Iraq to be
used to purchase goods authorized by the United Nations
Security Council. Under this program, Iraq is currently allowed
to sell up to $5.2 billion worth of oil every 6 months. The
money generated from the sale is deposited in the bank of the
choosing of the government of Iraq and is to be used to provide
humanitarian goods to the Iraqi people under United Nations
supervision. The program has been criticized for its slowness.
In February of 1999, the U.N. Secretary General reported that
there is $275 million worth of medicine sitting in Iraqi
warehouses undistributed. The hearing focused on the
effectiveness of the program and the impact Iraqi oil sales
were having on U.S. energy security. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from the Administration, State regulators, and oil
and gas industry participants.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: EVOLVING FEDERAL AND STATE ROLES
On March 18, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on Electricity Competition: Evolving
Federal and State roles. This hearing was the first day in a
series of hearings over the course of the 106th Congress
relating to the restructuring of the electric utility industry.
This hearing focused on Federal and State roles in the
regulation and operation of the interstate electricity grid,
especially as the grid becomes increasingly competitive. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from current and former
Administration officials, Federal and State regulators, and a
variety of electric industry participants.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: RELIABILITY AND TRANSMISSION IN COMPETITIVE
ELECTRICITY MARKETS
On April 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on Electricity Competition:
Reliability and Transmission in Competitive Electricity
Markets. This hearing was a continuation of the Committee's
consideration of electric utility restructuring. This hearing
focused on the reliability and transmission issues raised by
increasingly competitive electricity markets. The Subcommittee
considered the future role of the North American Electricity
Reliability Council and the FERC in regulating interstate
transmission lines. Witnesses representing State and Federal
regulators, consumers, and electric industry participants
testified at the hearing.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: MARKET POWER, MERGERS, AND PUHCA
On May 6, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on Electricity Competition: Market Power,
Mergers, and PUHCA. This hearing was a continuation of the
Committee's consideration of electric utility restructuring. As
States have begun to open up their electricity markets to
retail competition, the way the Federal government and the
States regulate providers of electricity may need to change.
This hearing focused on three specific areas which may be
implicated by electric utility restructuring: market power,
mergers, and reform of the Public Utility Holding Company Act.
The Subcommittee heard from witnesses Federal and State
regulators, consumers, and electric industry representatives.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: THE ROLE OF THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
On September 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on electricity competition: the role
of the Tennessee Valley Authority. The purpose of the hearing
was to review proposals to reform the role of the Tennessee
Valley Authority in competitive electric markets and determine
whether such proposals should be included in Federal electric
restructuring legislation. The Subcommittee heard testimony
from witnesses representing the Tennessee Valley Authority, and
some of its competitors and consumers.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: ROLE OF FEDERAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
On May 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on the electricity competition focusing on
the role of Federal electric utilities. There are nine Federal
electric utilities--these utilities are part of several
agencies in the Federal government, including the power
marketing administrations in the Department of Energy
(Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power
Administration, Southwestern Power Administration, and
Southeastern Power Administration); and the Tennessee Valley
Authority. Four Federal agencies operate electric generation
facilities: the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission. The Tennessee Valley Authority
markets its own power while generation by the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the International
Boundary and Water Commission is marketed by Federal power
marketing administrations. This hearing focused on the role of
these utilities in increasingly competitive electricity
markets. The Subcommittee heard testimony at this hearing from
Federal witnesses representing these Federal electric
utilities, customers and competitors of these utilities, and
environmental groups and other interested stakeholders.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: PURPA, STRANDED COSTS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on the electricity competition focused on
PURPA, stranded costs, and the environment. As States have
begun to open up their electricity markets to retail
competition, the Subcommittee considered whether the way the
Federal government and the States regulate providers of
electricity may need to change. This hearing was focused on
three specific areas which may be implicated by Federal and/or
State movement to retail competition: the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA), stranded costs, and the
environment. Witnesses representing State regulators,
consumers, the environmental community, utilities, and other
power suppliers testified at the hearing.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
On May 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on electricity competition. This hearing
which was continuation of the Subcommittee's consideration of
electric utility restructuring issues focused on consumer
protection issues. As electricity markets become increasingly
competitive, there is a need to ensure that consumers are
protected from unqualified or unreliable electric suppliers, by
false and misleading advertising, and by unfair or deceptive
trade practices. This hearing focused on ways State and Federal
regulators and legislators can assure that consumers receive
the full benefits of competitive electricity markets. Witnesses
at the hearing included Administration and State consumer
protection agencies, consumers, and providers of information
regarding offers to sell electricity.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: STATE AND LOCAL ISSUES
On July 1, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on the electricity competition. This
hearing was focused on State and local issues. As electricity
markets become more competitive, important questions regarding
State and local roles in electricity markets are raised. The
hearing considered what is the role of Federal Government in
fostering reliable and competitive, retail and wholesale
electricity markets, how does that role overlap or complement
State and local roles in competitive electricity markets, and
how to assure that the competition in electricity markets is
vigorous and also fair. The Subcommittee heard testimony from
witnesses representing State Legislatures, Public Utility
Commissions, and municipal and cooperatively-owned utilities.
ELECTRICITY COMPETITION: INNOVATION AND THE FUTURE
On July 15, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on the electricity competition focused on
innovation and the future. At this hearing the Subcommittee
focused on innovations, services, and/or technologies being
developed by to help consumers pay less for their electricity
and get more for their money. The hearing also highlighted any
barriers or incentives posed by State or Federal regulation to
bringing new energy or cost saving technology to the
marketplace. The Subcommittee heard from witnesses representing
innovative companies that have developed products or services
designed to provide consumers more choice, more reliable
service, and/or lower prices. Witnesses described their
initiatives in the areas of distributed generation technology,
metering and billing technology, innovations in transmission
technology, and other related products that may more readily
find a market in a deregulated industry.
KANSAS AD VALOREM TAX REFUND
On June 8, 1999, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on the Kansas Ad Valorem Tax Refund. This
hearing focused on an ad valorem tax that Kansas imposed on
natural gas produced in the State of Kansas. Until 1993, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and its
predecessor agency, the Federal Power Commission, established
the maximum price a natural gas producer could charge for
natural gas. FERC, and the FPC, allowed an upward adjustment of
the ceiling price of natural gas to allow producers and royalty
owners to recover State production or severance taxes. This had
the effect of making the purchasers of the natural gas, rather
than the producers, ultimately responsible for paying these
severance or production taxes. Originally, FERC and the FPC
determined that Kansas producers could pass the tax through to
consumers. That decision was reversed in 1988 and in 1996, the
D.C. Circuit Court affirmed that producers owed consumers
refunds on the amount of the tax, plus interest and penalties,
on that amount. The hearing explored whether the decision that
producers should pay interest and penalties should be
legislatively overturned. The Subcommittee heard from witnesses
representing the FERC, States, and natural gas producers and
consumers.
PRICE FLUCTUATIONS IN OIL MARKETS
On March 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
an oversight hearing on price fluctuations in oil markets.
Since 1981 the price of oil has been deregulated and is set
exclusively by the market place. One result of the price being
set by the market place is that it fluctuates. In the 18 months
prior to the hearing, the U.S. had seen both historically low
and high oil prices. In 12 months crude oil prices rose from
$12 per barrel in mid February 1999 (the lowest price in
nominal terms since 1986) to over $30 per barrel in February
2000. These crude prices translated into high prices for
heating oil, diesel fuel, and propane across the country. The
hearing focused on some of the causes of the price rise
including colder than average temperatures, low distillate
inventories, distribution slowed due to frozen waterways,
unexpected refinery outages, and increased demand from
interrupted natural gas customers. The Subcommittee received
testimony from Members of Congress, the Administration,
consumers, and oil industry participants and analysts.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: ENSURING ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS AND
CRUDE OIL
On May 24, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
a oversight hearing on National Energy Policy: ensuring
adequate supply of natural gas and crude oil. This was the
first hearing in a series of hearing focused on energy policy
in general. This hearing provided Members with a broad spectrum
of information upon which to evaluate current energy proposals.
This hearing focused on U.S. energy policy, especially as it
relates to the oil and gas industry. The hearing examined both
long-term and short-term predictions for energy supply and
prices. Witnesses representing the current and past
Administrations, energy policy decision-makers, and oil and
natural gas industry participants and analysts testified at the
hearing.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR AND COAL POWER IN THE
UNITED STATES
As part of a series of hearings on national energy policy,
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on June 8,
2000, to consider the future of nuclear energy and coal power
in the United States. Witnesses on the panel on nuclear energy
represented the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and
Technology at the Department of Energy, PECO Energy Generation,
the University of Texas, Converdyne, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists. Witnesses on the coal panel represented the Office
of Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy, the Edison
Electric Institute, the National Mining Association, the
Electric Power Research Institute, and Pennsylvania State
University. This hearing explored both potential opportunities
and impediments to the use of nuclear and coal power, which
together account for 70 percent of the electric power generated
in the United States.
ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY RESTRUCTURING: THE CALIFORNIA MARKET
On September 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on Electric Utility Industry
Restructuring: the California Market. This hearing focused on
the reliability and price concerns that electricity consumers
in the San Diego area experienced after their utility began
charging market-based rates. Witnesses at the hearing testified
concerning competition in the wholesale electricity market, the
operation of the California Independent System Operator and the
Power Exchange, and Federal solutions to address the concerns
of California consumers. Subcommittee received testimony from
Federal and State regulators, electric utilities, independent
power producers, consumers, and other interested stakeholders.
ONGOING ENERGY CONCERNS FOR THE AMERICAN CONSUMER: NATURAL GAS AND
HEATING OIL
On September 28, 2000, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing on Ongoing Energy Concerns for the American Consumer:
Natural Gas and Heating Oil. As the winter of 2000-2001
approached, concerns regarding fuel prices and supply were
raised. This hearing addressed what consumers should expect
regarding energy prices, steps they could take to lower their
energy bills, and things the United States could do to improve
its energy production and delivery infrastructure. Witnesses
that testified at the hearing included representatives of the
Administration, State utility commissioners, and energy
producers, suppliers, and consumers.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE DRAWDOWN
On October 19, 2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
held an oversight hearing on Strategic Petroleum Reserve: a
closer look at the drawdown. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve
was created by Congress in 1975 to deal with severe energy
supply interruptions. On September 22, 2000, Secretary of
Energy Bill Richardson announced that he had been directed by
the President to release 30 million barrels of oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Administration's reasons for
releasing the oil were to address a potential heating oil
shortage and to acquire more oil from the Reserve. The hearing
focused on the Administration's decision to release oil from
the Reserve while acknowledging there was no severe energy
supply interruption, the Administration's claim that the
release would result in an additional 3 to 5 million barrels of
heating oil being refined, and the conduct of the bidding
process. The Subcommittee received testimony from Members of
Congress, current and past Administration representatives,
purchasers of oil released from the Reserve, and oil industry
analysts.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY
The Energy and Power Subcommittee held an oversight hearing
on June 23, 2000, on the status of the Department of Energy
program to develop a permanent repository for spent nuclear
fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Members of
Congress, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the
National Research Council's Board on Radioactive Waste
Management. This hearing focussed on three principal issues:
the ability of the DOE to meet its near-term schedule for a
final Site Recommendation in mid-2001, the basis for EPA's
proposed radiation standards for the repository, and the
decision by the DOE to recompete the management and operating
contract for the Yucca Mountain program in the midst of several
critical milestones.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BUDGET REQUESTS
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the
Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 2000
on February 24, 1999. The DOE witness was the Honorable Ernest
Moniz, the Under Secretary of Energy. Areas of inquiry
included: DOE progress on the Yucca Mountain repository and the
adequacy of long-term funding for the program, Power Marketing
Administrations, petroleum reserves and energy security,
electricity reliability, uranium enrichment, DOE's proposed
Nuclear Cities Initiative, U.S. policy with respect to oil
sales by Iraq, DOE asset sales, cleanup of contaminated DOE
sites, and DOE research and development activities.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the
Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 2001
on March 24, 2000. Testifying for the Department was the
Honorable T.J. Glauthier, the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Areas
of inquiry by the Subcommittee included: progress on the Yucca
Mountain repository, implementation of the new National Nuclear
Security Administration, energy security, the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, the proposed Home Heating Oil Reserve,
worker's compensation, radiation standards, gasoline prices,
environmental cleanup, Hanford privatization, metals recycling,
technology development, DOE surplus assets, DOE national
laboratories, remediation of the Atlas uranium mill tailings
site, nuclear stockpile stewardship, DOE security and
safeguards, uranium enrichment, tritium production, electricity
reliability, and energy efficiency.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
The FUSRAP program was created by the Department of Energy
to clean up low-level radioactive contamination resulting from
activities in support of the nuclear weapons programs of the
Manhattan Engineer District and the Atomic Energy Commission.
Through the end of fiscal year 1997, the DOE had completed work
on 24 out of a total of 46 FUSRAP sites. At that time, Congress
transferred the responsibility for the remaining 22 sites from
DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-62). The Commerce Committee continues to exercise its
jurisdiction over this program. The Committee chartered a GAO
review of the transition from DOE to Corps management, and of
the Corps performance since that transition. Concerns over the
Corps use of disposal facilities that are not licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission led to several exchanges of
correspondence with the Corps and to discussion of this problem
at a July 21, 1999 hearing of the Energy and Power Subcommittee
on the reauthorization of the NRC.
LONG-TERM CHALLENGES AT DOE LABORATORIES
In addition to the scrutiny placed on near-term safety and
security problems at the Department of Energy national
laboratories, the Committee also looked into the longer-term
challenges facing the national laboratories. On August 24,
2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held an informal
field forum at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, to discuss these concerns with laboratory management.
Members heard testimony from two panels of witnesses
representing the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia
laboratories. The first panel discussed the future roles and
missions of the laboratories, particularly in view of the
recent creation of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to consolidate work on nuclear weapons. The second panel
addressed the challenges the laboratories face in recruiting
and retaining the top scientific talent, a task made especially
difficult in times of strong economic growth in other fields,
enhanced emphasis on security, and changing roles of the
laboratories.
Hearings Held
Reauthorization of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and
the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act.--Oversight hearing on
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 February 3, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-11.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R. 45, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Hearing held on February 10
and March 12, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-17.
Department of Energy's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year
2000.--Oversight hearing held on the Department of Energy's
Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. Hearing held on February
24, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-54.
Exxon-Mobil Merger.--Oversight hearing held on the Exxon-
Mobil Merger. Hearing held on March 10 and 11, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-12.
Electricity Competition--Evolving State and Federal
Roles.-- Oversight hearing held on Electricity Competition--
Evolving State and Federal Roles. Hearing held on March 18,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-63.
The Iraqi Oil for Food Program and its Impact.--Oversight
hearing on the Iraqi Oil for Food Program and its Impact.
Hearing held on March 26, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-27.
Electricity Competition--Reliability and Transmission in
Competitive Electricity Markets.-- Oversight hearing held on
Electricity Competition--Reliability and Transmission in
Competitive Electricity Markets. Hearing held on April 22,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-63.
Electricity Competition--Market Power, Mergers, and
PUCHA.-- Oversight hearing on Electricity Competition--Market
Power, Mergers, and PUCHA. Hearing held on May 6, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-63.
Electricity Competition--The Role of Federal Electric
Utilities.--Oversight hearing on Electricity Competition--The
Role of Federal Electric Utilities. Hearing held on May 13,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-64.
Electricity Competition--PURPA, Stranded Costs, and the
Environment.--Oversight hearing on Electricity Competition--
PURPA, Stranded Costs, and the Environment. Hearing held on May
20, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-64.
Electricity Competition--State Restructuring Efforts, and
Consumer Protection Issues.--Oversight hearing on Electricity
Competition--State Restructuring Efforts, and Consumer
Protection Issues. Hearing held on May 26, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-64.
Kansas Ad Valorem Tax Refund.--Oversight hearing on the
Kansas Ad Valorem Tax Refund. Hearing held on June 8, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-38.
Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act.--Hearing on H.R.
1828, the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act. Hearing
held on June 17, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-61.
Electricity Competition--State and Local Issues.--Oversight
hearing on Electricity Competition--State and Local Issues.
Hearing held on July 1, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-64.
Restructuring the Department of Energy.--Joint oversight
hearing with the Committee on Science Subcommittee on Energy
and Environment on Restructuring the Department of Energy.
Hearing held on July 13, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-40.
Electricity Competition--Competition and Innovation.--
Oversight hearing on Electricity Competition--Competition and
Innovation. Hearing held on July 15, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-65.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000.--Hearing on H.R. 2531, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Hearing held
on July 21, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-40.
Electric Utility Restructuring Legislation.--Hearing on
H.R. 667, H.R. 971, H.R. 1138, H.R. 1486, H.R. 1587, H.R. 1828,
H.R. 2050, and H.R. 2363, Electric Utility Restructuring
Legislation. Hearing held on July 22, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-61.
A Bill to Amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to
Eliminate Certain Regulation of Plumbing Supplies.--Hearing on
H.R. 623, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act to Eliminate Certain Regulation of Plumbing Supplies.
Hearing held on July 27, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-76.
A bill to provide relief from unfair interest and penalties
on refunds retroactively ordered by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.--Hearing on H.R. 1117, a bill To provide
relief from unfair interest and penalties on refunds
retroactively ordered by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Hearing held on July 29, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-74.
Electricity Competition: The Role of the Tennessee Valley
Authority.--Oversight field hearing in Nashville, Tennessee on
Electricity Competition: The Role of the Tennessee Valley
Authority. Hearing held on September 13, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-65.
Reauthorization of Expiring Energy Policy and Conservation
Act Programs.--Hearing on Reauthorization of Expiring Energy
Policy and Conservation Act Programs. Hearing held on September
23, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-58.
Price Fluctuations in Oil Markets.--Oversight hearing on
Price Fluctuations in Oil Markets. Hearing held on March 9,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-149.
Safety and Security of the New National Nuclear Security
Administration.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations on the Safety and Security of
the New National Nuclear Security Administration. Hearing held
on March 14, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-126.
Legislation to Improve Safety and Security in the
Department of Energy.--Hearing on H.R. 3383,a bill to amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to remove separate treatment or
exemption for nuclear safety violations by nonprofit
institutions, H.R. 3906, a bill to ensure that the Department
of Energy has appropriate mechanisms to independently assess
the effectiveness of its policy and site performance in the
areas of safeguards and security and cyber security, and H.R.
3907, a bill to provide for the external regulation of nuclear
safety and occupational safety and health at Department of
Energy facilities. Hearing held on March 22, 2000. PRINTED,
serial number 106-126.
Department of Energy's Proposed Budget for FY2001.--
Oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Proposed Budget
for FY2001. Hearing held on March 24, 2000. PRINTED, serial
number 106-139.
Hydroelectric Legislation.--Hearing on H.R. 2335, H.R. 1262
H.R. 3852, S. 422,S. 334, S. 1236, and S. 1937, pending
hydroelectric legislation. Hearing held on March 30, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-106.
Making Technical Corrections to Title X of the Energy
Policy Act.--Hearing on H.R. 2641, a bill to make technical
corrections to title X of the Energy Polciy Act of 1992.
Hearing held on April 5, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-124.
National Oilheat Research Alliance Act.--Hearing on H.R.
380, the National Oilheat Research Alliance Act of 1999.
Hearing held on April 5, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-133.
National Energy Policy: Ensuring Adequate Supply of Natural
Gas and Crude Oil.--Oversight Hearing on National Energy
Policy: Ensuring Adequate Supply of Natural Gas and Crude Oil.
Hearing held on May 24, 2000.
National Energy Policy: The Future of Nuclear and Coal
Power in the United States.--Hearing on National Energy Policy:
The Future of Nuclear and Coal Power in the United States.
Hearing held on June 8, 2000.
Status of the Department of Energy Program to Develop a
Permanent Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.--
Oversight Hearing on the status of the Department of Energy
program to develop a permanent geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada for spent nuclear fuel and high-level
radioactive waste. Hearing held on June 23, 2000. PRINTED,
serial number 106-151.
Electric Utility Industry Restructuring: The California
Market.--Oversight hearing on Electric Utility Industry
Restructuring: The California Market. Hearing held on September
11, 2000.
Ongoing Energy Concerns for the American Consumer: Natural
Gas and Heating Oil.--Hearing on Ongoing Energy Concerns for
the American Consumer: Natural Gas and Heating Oil. Hearing
held on September 28, 2000.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve: A Closer Look at the
Drawdown.--Hearing on Strategic Petroleum Reserve: A Closer
Look at the Drawdown. Hearing held on October 19, 2000.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(Ratio: 10-8)
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas RON KLINK, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER COX, California HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART STUPAK, Michigan
Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ED BRYANT, Tennessee (Ex Officio)
TOM BLILEY, Virginia,
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments,
and programs within the jurisdiction of the Full Committee, and for
conducting investigations within such jurisdiction.
Introduction
During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations initiated major inquiries with respect to
virtually all Federal agencies within the Committee's
jurisdiction, including the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Department of Commerce, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and the Office of the United States
Trade Representative. The Subcommittee's oversight has exposed
improper activities and waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer
dollars, strengthened our national security, improved health
care and environmental protection, and promoted the safety of
American consumers and the growth of the digital economy. These
investigations have provided the basis for enactment of
corrective legislation in the 106th Congress, and will provide
the foundation for legislative action in the 107th Congress. In
addition, the Subcommittee's inquiries have resulted in
meaningful changes in the Executive Branch's implementation and
enforcement of current law and the establishment of cost-saving
measures in the operations of the various departments and
agencies.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Hearings
REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK
In June 1999, the Committee began a review of the National
Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) to evaluate the effectiveness of
the NPDB in protecting patients from questionable health care
providers and improving the quality of health care. The
Committee examined various improvements to the Data Bank
including, but not limited to: granting public access to the
NPDB's information on doctor disciplinary and malpractice
reports (currently barred by law), expanding the Data Bank to
include criminal convictions of health care providers, and
revising the entity reporting requirements to the NPDB to
ensure a more complete compendium of information.
On November 2, 1999, Chairman Bliley sent a letter to the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
to express his concern that the NPDB was failing to protect
consumers from questionable practitioners and to determine how
the operation of the NPDB could be improved. On November 23,
1999, Chairman Bliley sent correspondence to the American
Medical Association (AMA) and the American Hospital Association
(AHA) to solicit their views on possible improvements to the
NPDB. Chairman Bliley sent a second letter to the HHS Secretary
on February 3, 2000, to obtain information on certain
practitioners with a relatively high number of reports in the
NPDB.
On March 1, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on granting public access to the
Data Bank. Three panels of witnesses testified. The first panel
featured Senator Ron Wyden, a long-time advocate of public
access. The second panel featured two victim witnesses: Dr.
Liana Gedz, a New York dentist, whose doctor carved his
initials into her abdomen after an emergency caesarean
operation; and Anderson Smart, a New York City police officer
and husband of Lisa Smart, who died following a botched surgery
at an outpatient surgical center. Both witnesses testified that
public access to doctors' histories could prevent similar cases
of malpractice in the future. The third panel included various
witnesses who testified as to their opinions on public access
to the NPDB, including state health officials and
representatives from the American Osteopathic Association, the
AHA, the AMA, and Beth Israel Hospital in New York. Concerns
raised about public access included the completeness and
accuracy of information in the Data Bank and fairness to
providers.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
second hearing on March 16, 2000, to hear from the
Administration, specifically Mr. Tom Croft of the Health
Resources and Services Administration within HHS, which runs
the NPDB. Mr. Croft expressed the Administration's concerns
with providing public access to the NPDB, which tracked those
of doctor groups--namely, that the public might misinterpret or
be confused by this information. Subsequent to this hearing, on
April 3, 2000, Chairman Bliley sent a third letter to the HHS
Secretary, requesting the Secretary to clarify the
Administration's views on how the NPDB could be changed to
offer greater protections to patients. Specifically, Chairman
Bliley asked the Administration to reconcile its prior support
of public access to the Data Bank in 1993 with its current
position that there are significant concerns with providing
public access to the NPDB. In response, the Administration
reiterated its prior testimony that, after further scrutiny of
this issue, it continued to have serious concerns about
granting public access to this data.
As a result of this investigation, Chairman Bliley
determined that the benefits of public access to a revised NPDB
outweighed any arguments against it. On September 7, 2000, he
introduced H.R. 5122, the Patient Protection Act of 2000, which
would allow the public free Internet access to information in
the NPDB concerning physicians (doctors and dentists). For more
information on legislative action on H.R. 5122, see the Full
Committee section of this report.
MEDICAL ERRORS
On February 9, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
of the Committee on Commerce, and the Subcommittee on Health of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, held a joint hearing on the
problem of medical errors. Specifically, the hearing focused on
the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report: To Err is Human:
Building a Better Health System, which estimated that between
44,000 and 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a
result of errors in their medical care.
The hearing featured three panels of witnesses, including
representatives from the IOM, the Veterans' Health
Administration, the General Accounting Office, the Foundation
for Accountability, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, the American Hospital Association,
the American Health Quality Association, and the American
Nurses Association, as well as academic experts on the subject
of medical errors. The first panel focused on the problem of
medical errors, the IOM recommendations for reducing medical
errors, and issues and controversies surrounding those
recommendations. The second panel focused on evaluating
existing medical error reduction systems. The third panel
examined consumer and provider perspectives on medical errors.
MEDICARE THIRD-PARTY BILLING FRAUD
On April 6, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine how the use of third-
party billing companies by Medicare providers, coupled with the
Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) lax oversight
over such companies, had increased the vulnerability of the
Medicare program to fraud and abuse. The hearing reviewed the
findings of a General Accounting Office (GAO) investigation
into the activities of a particular third-party billing
company, which revealed how the Medicare program was defrauded.
In addition, the hearing shed additional light on HCFA's
inadequate efforts to oversee such companies, which contributed
to the Medicare program's vulnerability to the types of fraud
uncovered and described in the GAO Office of Special
Investigations' report. The hearing featured the testimony of
representatives from GAO, the Department of Health and Human
Service's Office of the Inspector General, HCFA, and a trade
association representing third-party billing companies. As a
result of the Committee's oversight, the matter involving the
third-party billing company fraud was referred to the
Department of Justice for criminal investigation.
MEDICAID FRAUD AND ABUSE
On November 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to assess current State and
Federal efforts to combat the problem of fraud and abuse within
State Medicaid programs and explore possible means to improve
these efforts. Medicaid, which receives both State and Federal
funding, pays for the healthcare expenses of more than 40
million, primarily low-income Americans, including mothers with
children, the elderly, the blind and other disabled persons.
While greater attention has been focused in recent years on
efforts to eliminate fraud and abuse in the Medicare program,
less attention has been focused at the Federal level on efforts
to combat fraud and abuse within Medicaid--despite the fact
that the cost of the Medicaid fraud problem could exceed $17
billion every year. The hearing focused upon assessing State
and Federal responses to the emerging problem of Medicaid
fraud, considering possible solutions, and determining how the
Federal government could assist States in reducing Medicaid
fraud and abuse. The hearing featured the testimony of
witnesses from the General Accounting Office, the Department of
Health and Human Service's Office of the Inspector General, the
Health Care Financing Administration, several representatives
from State law enforcement and Medicaid program integrity
agencies, and several private companies that currently assist
State efforts to detect and prevent Medicaid fraud and abuse.
Due to this oversight, the Committee is preparing legislation
that would close the loopholes that permit the type of problems
identified by the hearing to occur.
MEDICAID PROVIDER ENROLLMENT
On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
held a joint oversight hearing on Medicaid provider enrollment
controls. Such controls, which can include criminal background
checks and site visits to a provider's place of business, can
be used to screen out of State Medicaid programs individuals
with criminal records who are seeking to become providers. The
hearing examined how the lack of provider enrollment controls
contributed to several recent major fraud cases, and assessed
how current State efforts to deter such fraud could be
improved. The hearing featured the testimony of a cooperating
witness in an ongoing FBI investigation into Medicaid fraud in
California, State and Federal law enforcement and Medicaid
program officials working on Medicaid program integrity
efforts, and representatives from the General Accounting Office
and a company that performs site visits and criminal background
checks of both Medicare and Medicaid providers. As a result of
this oversight, the Committee is preparing legislation that
would create incentives for States to conduct more rigorous
screening of providers before allowing them to enroll in their
Medicaid programs.
PROBLEMS WITH MEDICARE'S OWN FRAUD FIGHTERS
On July 14, 1999 and September 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held hearings to assess the
adequacy of HCFA's oversight of its Medicare contractors, and
to highlight concerns identified in the course of the
Committee's examination of the anti-fraud efforts of the
contractors who review and process Medicare claims and
payments. The hearings reviewed the performance of Medicare
contractors, focusing particularly on the acts of criminal
conduct by certain contractors that were revealed in reports by
the GAO released at the hearings. These reports identified
weaknesses in HCFA's contractor oversight, widespread non-
compliance with HCFA's anti-fraud regulations, and evidence of
major fraud perpetrated by these HCFA Medicare contractors. The
hearings featured the testimony of witnesses from GAO, the
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector
General, HCFA, anti-fraud associations that provide private
sector and non-governmental perspectives on the anti-fraud
efforts of HCFA, relators from the qui tam cases that first
revealed many of the Medicare contractor fraud cases, as well
as representatives from the actual Medicare contractors and
associations implicated in the fraud schemes, including the
Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.
HCFA AND MEDICARE PROVIDER READINESS FOR Y2K
On January 26, 1999, Chairman Bliley sent a letter to Donna
Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), regarding HCFA's efforts to resolve its Year
2000, or Y2K, problem for Medicare claims processing systems.
The Medicare program uses seven Medicare claims processing
systems, and more than 70 private contractors and financial
institutions to process nearly 800 million Medicare claims
annually for approximately one million physicians, hospitals,
medical equipment suppliers and home health agencies. Because
nearly 85 percent of all Medicare claims are submitted and paid
electronically, it was crucial that HCFA, its contract
carriers, fiscal intermediaries, and providers were Y2K
compliant.
On February 9, 1999, Chairman Bliley and two Members of the
Committee--Mr. Lazio and Mr. Burr--also requested information
from several healthcare associations regarding the status of
its members on Year 2000, or Y2K, compliance efforts. These
associations included: the American Hospital Association (AHA),
the American Medical Association (AMA), the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association, the American Association of Health Plans
(AAHP), the American Association of Homes and Services for the
Aging, the American Health Care Association (AHCA), the
National Association for Home Care (NAHC), and the Health
Insurance Association of America (HIAA). The Committee
questioned whether each association was assisting its members
with Y2K compliance efforts, whether an auditor had been hired
to examine Y2K compliance efforts, the association's overall
assessment of its member companies' status in achieving Y2K
compliance, whether the association was familiar with outreach
programs by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on
Y2K, and whether any of the association's member companies had
utilized HCFA's programs.
Over the next few months, the Committee received responses
from HCFA and all of the healthcare associations, and the
Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations and Health and
Environment held a joint oversight hearing, on April 27, 1999,
to gain insight on the status of Medicare providers in
preparing for Y2K. The hearing consisted of two panels of
witnesses, including representatives from HCFA, the GAO, the
HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), AMA, AHA and NAHC.
Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, the head of HCFA, testified at the
hearing, providing updates and assurances on HCFA's Medicare
claims processing systems. The hearing also raised concerns
about the readiness of the health care providers for Y2K, and
highlighted the need for all healthcare providers to be Y2K
compliant and to have contingency plans in place by January 1,
2000.
Due to concerns raised at the hearing on April 27, 1999,
the Committee sent a letter to GAO requesting that it undertake
a review of a number of issues, including a review of HCFA's
efforts to ensure that Medicare providers will be Y2K
compliant, a review of the main segments of the Medicare
provider community and the progress each was making on Y2K
compliance, and a review of the surveys that had been conducted
to date regarding the Y2K compliance of the Medicare provider
community. In July 1999, GAO released its report, entitled
``Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Medicare Providers
Unknown,'' concluding: (1) HCFA was conducting numerous
outreach activities, but provider participation was low; (2)
Medicare contractor testing with providers had been limited and
reported results were not encouraging; and (3) insufficient
information was available from surveys to assess the Year 2000
status of healthcare providers.
Throughout the remainder of 1999, the Committee continued
to meet with provider groups, HCFA, GAO, the HHS OIG, and
others to ensure that HCFA and its Medicare providers would be
Y2K compliant by December 31, 1999, resulting in few reported
incidents at the start of the new year that presented
significant problems for HCFA, its providers, or consumers.
MEDICAL DEVICE Y2K READINESS
As part of the Committee's overall investigation of Y2K
readiness, the Committee took a closer look at the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and the readiness of the medical
device industry, which it regulates. Medical devices are
critical to medical treatment and research in both Federal and
private sector healthcare facilities. Software contained in a
number of medical devices were susceptible to the Year 2000
problem because they contained date or time calculations.
Pursuant to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA is
responsible for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of
medical devices in the market place.
On May 25, 1999, a joint hearing of the Health and
Environment and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittees was
held to gain insight on the Y2K compliance status of medical
devices. The hearing highlighted the need for all medical
devices, and specifically critical care devices and life
support devices, to be Y2K complaint. Further, the hearing
focused on the Federal Year 2000 Biomedical Equipment
Clearinghouse, a project developed by FDA, Veterans Health
Administration (VHA), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the
Health Industry Manufacturers Association (HIMA) to provide
more detailed information on the Y2K compliance status of
particular devices. Testifying at the hearing were
representatives from the General Accounting Office, FDA, HIMA,
the American Hospital Association, and the Federation of
American Health Systems.
Following the hearing, the Committee requested that GAO
examine: (1) the status of information on the compliance of
biomedical equipment on the FDA Federal Y2K Biomedical
Equipment Clearinghouse; and (2) the status of the FDA's
efforts to implement its proposal to review the Y2K compliance
activities of selected medical device manufacturers.
Subsequently, on October 21, 1999, the Subcommittee held a
follow-up hearing to examine the progress that had been made
since the prior hearing in May. Testifying at the hearing were
representatives from FDA, the HHS OIG, GAO, HIMA, and the
Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA). The hearing
examined the results of FDA's third-party contractor assessment
of manufacturers' Y2K test results, as well as the results of
the HHS OIG's most recent survey of Medicare fee-for-service
providers. FDA testified about the on-site visits by third-
party contractors hired by FDA to conduct a statistically
random sample of manufacturers of potentially high-risk devices
(PHRDs). The contractors had been studying each manufacturer's
procedures and records, both for Y2K assessment of PHRDs and
for validation of any Y2K corrections to PHRDs.
Overall, FDA's findings indicated that a majority of
manufacturer sites reviewed by its contractors had low concerns
with regards to Y2K. However, GAO testified that, despite the
efforts made by FDA, information on biomedical equipment
compliance of health care providers was still incomplete. In
addition, although compliance information was available on
FDA's clearinghouse or on manufacturers' web sites, the quality
of the information varied significantly. Committee staff
continued to meet with representatives from FDA, HIMA, GAO and
others throughout the remainder of the year to monitor the
progress being made by all relevant parties to ensure that at
the turn of the century healthcare service was uninterrupted
and patient safety was not jeopardized. Fortunately, no major
incidents were reported due to Y2K non-compliance at the start
of the new year.
CERVICAL CANCER
On January 12, 1999, Chairman Bliley sent a letter to Dr.
Richard Klausner, Director of the National Cancer Institute
(NCI), regarding a number of healthcare issues concerning
women, including cervical cancer. Of particular concern to the
Chairman was that, despite the number of women with cervical
cancer in this country and around the world, few people know
what causes cervical caner or how to reduce the likelihood of
getting it. On February 19, 1999, Chairman Bliley received a
written response from Dr. Klausner, which stated that sexual
behavior has been identified as the major risk factor for
cervical cancer. In addition, he stated that experts estimate
that 24 million Americans are infected with the human papilloma
virus (HPV), the virus that causes over 90 percent of all
cervical cancers, and that the infection rate is increasing.
Each year, there are about 5,000 deaths in the United States
from cervical cancer, over 90 percent of these are HPV-related,
according to Dr. Klausner. Although condoms have prove to be
effective in preventing the transmission of other sexually
transmitted diseases, Dr. Klausner stated that ``condoms are
ineffective against HPV because the virus is prevalent not only
in mucosal tissue (genitalia) but also on dry skin of the
surrounding abdomen and groin, and it can migrate from those
areas into the vagina and cervix.'' By comparison, there were
about 4,600 female deaths in the United States from HIV-related
illnesses in Fiscal Year 1997. NCI estimated that, in Fiscal
Year 1999, it would spend about $38 million on cervical cancer-
related HPV research, while spending about $235 million on
AIDS-related cancers.
INTERNET PHARMACIES
During the 105th Congress, the Committee followed the
development of a number of Internet healthcare issues. In
particular, the Committee noted a growing number of companies
preparing to distribute prescription pharmaceuticals over the
Internet. Although the Committee identified various potential
benefits that the on-line distribution of pharmaceuticals can
provide for patients, the Committee also identified many areas
of potential fraud and abuse that pose a threat to the American
people and may undermine the public's confidence in legitimate
Internet pharmacies.
To assist in this investigation, in March 1999, the
Committee made a bipartisan request that the GAO undertake a
formal review of a number of issues related to Internet
pharmacies. Among the specific issues the Committee requested
GAO to look at were: (1) What law enforcement efforts were
taking place to police the growing Internet narcotics trade?;
(2) What, if any, enforcement actions had the FDA taken against
Internet pharmacies trying to use the ``personal use''
exemption?; (3) Are current mail order pharmacy laws adequate
to apply to Internet pharmacies? (4) How are voluntary industry
policing mechanisms such as the National Association of Boards
of Pharmacy (NABP) Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites
(VIPPS) program working?; and (5) What are the various State
prescription transmission laws and are they adequate in this
new environment? In addition to requesting a formal GAO
investigation, the Committee continued its own oversight of
this matter, meeting with relevant federal agencies, including
FDA, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the White House Working Group on Electronic
Commerce, and the United States Customs Office. The Committee
also met with State law enforcement and regulatory officials
from across the country, and various interest groups and
officials from Internet pharmacies.
On June 14, 1999, the Committee sent a letter from Chairman
Bliley, Subcommittee Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Dingell and
Ranking Member Klink to FDA in an attempt to determine who is
responsible for regulating and overseeing the sale of
pharmaceutical products over the Internet, and what actions FDA
has taken to address these related issues. The Committee also
provided to FDA approximately 100 web site addresses of
Internet pharmacies and asked that FDA identify the following
information for each site: (a) the physical location of the
site, and the States into which it sells products; (b) a brief
description of the products sold through the site; (c) the
source of all the pharmaceutical products sold through the
site; (d) whether the site is licensed in the U.S., and if so,
by what State(s); (e) whether FDA has ever reviewed the site
for any advertising or usage claims made regarding any
pharmaceutical product sold; (f) the accuracy of any such
claims made by the site that fall under FDA's jurisdiction; and
(g) whether FDA has taken any enforcement action against on-
line pharmacies attempting to use the ``personal use''
exemption.
On July 1, 1999, the Committee received a partial response
from FDA indicating that, since the authority over Internet
drug sales is widely dispersed throughout the government (State
and Federal), the identification and resolution of the numerous
law enforcement issues is complex. FDA indicated that several
working groups had been formed to facilitate a more detailed
examination of the problems associated with Internet
pharmacies. A follow-up letter was sent by FDA on July 9, 1999,
providing additional information related to the Committee's
June 14 request.
On July 30, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the benefits and risks of
Internet pharmacies. On the first panel, testimony was given
regarding the benefits of Internet pharmacies by a working
mother and a senior citizen, who found it more convenient to
purchase drugs over the Internet. Two news reporters provided
testimony on the ease of ordering prescription drugs over the
Internet, often times with no prescription required, and no
physical examination. Also on the first panel, Carla Stovall,
Attorney General for the State of Kansas, testified regarding
enforcement activities by the State of Kansas against Internet
pharmacies and doctors prescribing over the Internet. On the
second panel, the FTC, DOJ, and FDA all provided testimony on
the structure and responsibilities of the Federal agencies with
regards to on-line pharmaceutical activity. The third panel
examined the role of State regulators, healthcare associations,
and Internet pharmacies in regulating such sales, including
representatives from NABP, AMA, the Texas Department of Health,
and two Internet pharmacies (Drugstore.com and PlanetRx.com).
At the hearing, Chairman Bliley issued a statement calling
for a joint Federal-State task force to examine whether current
laws and regulations are adequate to protect purchasers of
drugs on the Internet, and if not, to recommend changes to
those laws. Following the hearing, on August 5, 1999, the
President ordered, via Executive Order, the establishment of a
Federal Working Group on unlawful conduct on the Internet,
including prescription drugs. According to the Executive Order,
the Working Group was ordered to undertake the review in the
context of current Administration Internet policy, which
includes ``support for industry self-regulation where possible,
technology-neutral laws and regulations, and an appreciation of
the Internet as an important medium both domestically and
internationally for commerce and free speech.'' According to
the Executive Order, the Working Group was given 120 days to
prepare a report and its recommendations. On September 16,
1999, Chairman Bliley wrote President Clinton stating his
support for such a working group. However, because the practice
of pharmacy and medicine have traditionally been regulated at
the State level, Chairman Bliley requested the inclusion of
State regulatory and enforcement agencies in the effort.
However, the Working Group was never expanded to include any
State groups.
In late December 1999, and before receiving the report and
recommendations of his own Working Group, President Clinton
announced a new legislative initiative that would give FDA
broad new authority over Internet pharmacies. The proposal
would, in part, nationalize State-level pharmacy regulations by
requiring pharmacies to obtain certification from FDA before
being allowed to sell pharmaceuticals on-line. On January 24,
2000, Chairman Bliley wrote President Clinton expressing
disappointment that he released this new initiative before
receiving the report or recommendations from his Working Group
on the topic. Chairman Bliley urged the President to publicly
release all draft reports and recommendations of the Working
Group to the Committee and the American people, as well as the
final product of the Working Group once it was completed.
Although the Working Group finally issued its report in March
2000, approximately three months later than scheduled, no draft
reports or recommendations were ever released.
In March 2000, both Chairman Bliley and Mr. Dingell sent
letters to FDA to question whether the Agency was fulfilling
its current regulatory obligations with regard to Internet
pharmacies. Generally, these letters sought information on how
many enforcement actions FDA had taken with regard to
pharmaceutical products being sold over the Internet, how many
referrals had been made to DOJ, the dollar amount of funds
allocated in Fiscal Year 1999 in order to pursue Internet drug
sales, and the status of those cases pursued. FDA responded to
these requests by stating that, with regard to web sites
offering to sell prescription drugs on-line, ``no arrests or
convictions have occurred at this time.'' According to the
Agency, FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations (OCI) had
referred approximately 33 criminal investigations involving
over 100 web sites to various United States Attorney's Offices
(USAOs). On the civil enforcement side, FDA stated that it had
issued roughly two dozen warning letters and had taken a
limited number of product-specific actions, such as import
alerts or product recalls/seizures. FDA also stated that, in
Fiscal Year 1999, it devoted approximately $1.9 million to
investigating Internet drug sales. The Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA), principally OCI spent $1.7, while the Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) spent $0.2 million.
Also in March 2000, Chairman Bliley wrote to the Honorable
Robert Pitofsky, Chairman of the FTC, requesting a briefing by
Commission staff on the number of investigations the FTC had
pursued relating to Internet pharmacies, the status of any
pending investigations, and the amount of resources the FTC had
devoted to investigating deceptive practices regarding the sale
of pharmaceuticals over the Internet. Within a few weeks, a
briefing took place between Committee staff and Commission
staff regarding pending investigations the FTC had undertaken
regarding Internet pharmacies.
In May 2000, Committee staff began to focus not just on
domestic web sites offering to sell pharmaceutical products
over the Internet, but also on the increasing number of web
sites abroad shipping pharmaceutical products into the United
States. Evidence of the increasing number of pharmaceutical
products coming into the United States is found by looking at
the increase in number of seizures of pharmaceuticals at the
U.S. Customs Office's 14 mail facilities across the country. As
the Committee found, the number of pharmaceutical seizures at
mail branches increased by more than 450 percent from Fiscal
Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 1999 (2,145 seizures to 9,725
seizures). The number of pills seized increased by more than
250 percent during the same time period (760,720 doses to
nearly 2 million doses). Customs' officials indicated that they
believe many of these drugs have been purchased from foreign-
based Internet pharmacies.
As part of the Committee's investigation, Committee staff
visited several Customs International Mail Facilities around
the country, including Dulles, Virginia; Los Angeles,
California; Oakland, California; and New York City. Through the
Committee staff's investigation, the Committee discovered that
differing standards were being applied by FDA and Customs in
determining what prescription drugs were allowed to enter the
United States. Under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
the importation of unapproved new drugs--that is, those that
lack FDA approval, and foreign-made versions of U.S.-approved
drugs that have not been manufactured in accordance with and
pursuant to an FDA approval--is prohibited. Under FDA's
``Coverage of Personal Importations'' policy, the FDA sets
forth guidance under which FDA will refrain from taking action
against the illegal importation of a product in certain
circumstances. However, the Committee's investigation showed
that implementation of that guidance by both FDA and Customs is
piecemeal and lacks uniformity. The result has been an increase
of unapproved pharmaceutical products being allowed into the
U.S.
On May 25, 2000, the Committee held a second hearing on
Internet pharmacies and examined what progress the Federal and
State agencies had made to enforce current law regarding the
sale and dispensing of pharmaceuticals over the Internet. In
addition, the hearing examined the increase of pharmaceuticals
and over-the-counter medications being sent into the United
States from foreign countries, including the lack of uniformity
on what products are allowed into the United States. Testifying
at the hearing were officials from FDA, Customs, and DOJ, as
well as Carla Stovall, Kansas State Attorney General.
At the hearing, both Customs and FDA acknowledged the
inconsistent application of FDA's Personal Importation
Guidance, and pledged to notify the Committee in the weeks
following the hearing on how they intended to resolve this
inconsistency. On June 8, 2000, FDA sent a letter to Chairman
Upton announcing that it was going to be undertaking an overall
review of the Personal Importation Guidance to ensure internal
and external coordination on the effort. In addition, FDA
stated it was considering several memoranda and/or letters to
both FDA personnel and Customs personnel that would detail the
responsibility of FDA for enforcement, summarize the current
guidance, and reiterate the need for Customs to refer matters
of enforcement to FDA instead of Customs makings its own
decisions. Subsequent to the hearing, both Chairman Bliley and
Mr. Dingell sent FDA follow-up correspondence requesting
additional information on the review FDA pledged to undertake
with regard to its Personal Importation Guidance, and other
various matters.
On October 17, 2000, Chairman Bliley and Messrs. Klink and
Upton introduced H.R. 5476, the Internet Prescription Drug
Consumer Protection Act of 2000. The bill would do a number of
things to protect consumers. First, the Act requires interstate
Internet sellers of prescription drugs to disclose important
information on their web sites and to State licensing boards to
improve the reliability of consumer transactions and make it
easier for State and Federal enforcement officials to patrol
for rogue sellers. Second, the bill enhances the authority of
State attorneys general to seek injunctions against interstate
Internet sellers that violate disclosure requirements or
certain provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Third, the bill enhances Federal authority to restrain the
disposal of property that is traceable to a violation of
certain provisions of the Act. Finally, the bill provides for
public education about the dangers of purchasing medications
from Internet prescription drug sellers who fail to follow the
law.
On October 19, 2000, GAO issued a preliminary report on
Internet pharmacies, as requested by the Committee. The Report
confirmed the work of the Committee and supported the
principles of H.R. 5476. Findings included that (1) Internet
pharmacies vary in the information presented, (2) regulating
Internet pharmacies pose difficulties for State regulators, (3)
foreign Internet pharmacies challenge Federal regulators, and
(4) adding disclosure requirements would aid State and Federal
oversight.
WELFARE REFORM AND DEADBEAT PARENTS
On February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the implementation of a new
joint Federal-State-local child support enforcement program
called Project Save Our Children (PSOC). The purpose of the
hearing was to assess the Department of Health and Human
Services' role in the program, and to examine the results of
the initiative following its first year in operation.
The first panel of witnesses featured custodial parents
with delinquent ex-spouses who had been identified, located,
and prosecuted by the PSOC multi-agency task force in order to
force them to pay their outstanding child support obligations.
The second panel consisted of witnesses from various Federal
and State child welfare agencies, as well as a local sheriff
department investigator and an attorney for the Center for Law
and Social Policy. The hearing provided the Committee an
opportunity to gain insight into this new program before the
program was expanded to 17 States, and to highlight the
importance of cracking down on deadbeat parents.
ADEQUACY OF CONTROLS ON DEADLY BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
Due to the Chairman's concerns about the adequacy of
Federal controls on the possession, use and transfer of
biological agents such as anthrax and the ebola virus that
could be used for criminal or terrorist purposes, the Committee
launched a review in late 1998 of the current regulatory and
legal schemes. In April 1996, Congress passed a law that, for
the first time, required the CDC to identify--and regulate the
transfer of--those biological agents whose misuse could pose a
severe threat to public health and safety. The law was passed
in response to concerns that it was too easy for individuals to
gain access to and possess biological agents that could be used
for terrorist and other criminal purposes. However, mere
possession of a biological agent--without evidence of any
intent to use the agent as a weapon--was not made unlawful,
regardless of the possessor's past criminal record or lack of
scientific credentials (a state of law that continues to this
day). CDC issued final regulations pursuant to this statutory
mandate, which became effective on April 15, 1997, identifying
roughly 40 ``select agents'' whose transfers would be
regulated. Under the regulations, any person that either
transfers or receives a select agent must register with CDC and
receive its approval prior to such transfer or receipt.
Notably, the scheme does not require individuals who gained
possession of these agents prior to April 15, 1997 to register
with CDC or comply with any of the other safety and
administrative requirements. Nor does the CDC rule require
individuals who develop these agents on their own to register
their possession, even if they were developed after the
effective date of the regulations.
In January 1999, Committee staff began interviewing
interested parties within the Federal government and non-
governmental organizations in order to assess the current scope
and adequacy of regulations governing the possession and use of
biological agents. During these interviews, concerns were
expressed by law enforcement officials and some members of the
scientific community that the current CDC regulations exempt
too many entities that possess or use these select agents, and
that both the public health and law enforcement would benefit
from tightening up the existing regulations. Specifically, they
have argued that the CDC regulations should be expanded to
govern all cases of possession (not just transfers), so that
the Federal government would be notified of all legitimate
possessors and could ensure minimum safety requirements. From a
law enforcement perspective, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have argued that
an expanded registration scheme would assist law enforcement by
providing a tool to use against individuals caught in
possession of these select agents without having registered
with the Federal government. DOJ and the FBI also have
expressed concern that the burden under current law of proving
intent to use as a weapon in order to prosecute someone for
unlawful possession provides a large loophole for questionable
possessors of these dangerous agents to avoid prosecution.
The Committee's review also revealed the slow pace of
action by the Clinton Administration to address these law
enforcement concerns, which had been raised within the
Administration for several years prior to the Committee's
oversight but had been blocked by concerns raised by CDC and
HHS regarding the impact of tighter regulations on the academic
and scientific communities. In March 1998, Attorney General
Reno testified that she was concerned about the current state
of Federal law in this area--particularly, the unregulated
possession issue--and that the Department was actively
reviewing legislative proposals to address some of its concerns
with Federal criminal statutes and CDC's regulations. However,
when President Clinton announced his anti-terrorism initiatives
on January 22, 1999, they did not include any changes in either
the Federal criminal statutes or the CDC regulations to enhance
the prevention of biological terrorism. That same day, Chairman
Bliley wrote to the President, urging him to focus on
preventing biological terrorist attacks by reviewing the
questions of access and possession. Chairman Bliley also wrote
to Attorney General Reno in March 1999, reminding her of her
prior testimony on this subject and inquiring into the status
of the Department's legislative and regulatory proposals.
On May 12, 1999--a week after the Committee notified the
Administration that it planned to hold an oversight hearing on
this topic--the Administration announced that its soon-to-be-
released omnibus crime bill would contain several provisions
strengthening current law in the area of biological agents,
including barring the unauthorized possession of certain deadly
biological agents by anyone, and preventing certain categories
of individuals--such as felons and fugitives--from possessing
any such agents, presumably through some form of background
checks.
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the Threat of Bioterrorism in
America: Assessing the Adequacy of Federal Laws relating to
Dangerous Biological Agents, and heard testimony from two
panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of governmental
witnesses from DOJ, FBI, CDC, and HHS, all of whom now
expressed support for regulating possession, as well as
transfers, of such agents, and otherwise enhancing both Federal
laws and regulations in this area. The second panel consisted
of non-governmental witnesses from the academic and scientific
communities, all of whom also conceded (and in some cases
advocated) the need for tighter controls on who may possess
such deadly agents and for what purposes, and for improved
Federal oversight. Subsequent to the hearing, the Committee
continued to press the Administration for specific proposals to
improve Federal law and regulations in this area, which finally
resulted in a package of reforms sent to Congress in December
1999.
Investigative Activities
FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM
In February 1999, the Committee initiated an investigation
into the setting of reimbursement rates for prescription drugs
covered under the current Medicare program. The purpose of the
investigation was to explore allegations that HCFA's lax
oversight over the current Medicare reimbursement system had
permitted certain drug manufacturers to manipulate the amounts
Medicare reimbursed for particular drugs, which in turn allowed
these manufacturers to increase the sales of their drugs to
healthcare providers.
The Medicare program currently pays for a limited number of
drugs. The reimbursement for these drugs is based upon the
Average Wholesale Price (AWP), which in turn is derived from
prices that manufacturers report to various price reporting
services that work with the pharmaceutical industry. The
Committee's investigation sought to explore allegations that
certain manufacturers had deliberately inflated their reported
prices above the prices they actually sold the drugs to
healthcare providers, in order to create larger ``spreads''
between their purchase prices and the Medicare reimbursement
rates for those drugs--creating in turn financial incentives
for these providers to use that manufacturer's drug over
competitors' drugs with smaller spreads.
In July 1999 and again in May 2000, the Committee wrote to
several drug manufacturers requesting pricing information and
internal corporate documents relating to the setting of AWP and
other related issues. On September 6, 2000, the Committee
issued a recess subpoena to compel SmithKline Beecham to
produce to the Committee certain documents, which had
previously been withheld, based upon what the Committee had
determined to be an invalid claim of the attorney-client
privilege. In addition, the Committee subpoenaed documents from
a relator in a pending qui tam case against several drug
manufacturers, which related to alleged price manipulations.
Chairman Bliley also wrote to Donna Shalala, the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services, on May 5, 2000,
to inquire what actions were being taken by the Administration
to address this problem. The letter noted that HCFA and the
Department had known for several years about the nature and
scope of this abuse, due to reports of the Department's Office
of Inspector General and other warnings by outside experts, but
had failed to take any regulatory action to stop these pricing
abuses. In response to this letter, HCFA announced that it was
finally going to take some limited regulatory action to correct
the disparities in drug prices by issuing new pricing
information to Medicare carriers for certain drugs.
After reviewing almost 100,000 pages of documents,
Committee staff prepared a summary of the findings from the
investigation, which were included within a September 25, 2000
letter from Chairman Bliley to HCFA and the Department of
Justice. These letters attached many of the documents uncovered
during the course of the Committee's investigation, which
indicated that certain manufacturers had deliberately
manipulated the AWPs of certain drugs in order to increase the
sales of those drugs. These documents also indicated that these
manipulations had severe impacts on both Medicare and Medicare
beneficiaries, increasing the reimbursement cost and co-
payments for these drugs by hundreds of millions of dollars
annually. In addition, the letters also included documents that
suggested that the spread between the AWP and the actual cost
to healthcare providers was having troubling impacts upon
healthcare provider drug utilization decisions and may also
have contributed to the over-utilization of certain drugs.
FEDERAL FUNDS USED TO PAY FOR ASSISTED SUICIDE IN OREGON IN VIOLATION
OF THE ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT
In February 1998, the State of Oregon decided to provide
State Medicaid assistance to pay for low-income individuals'
costs related to assisted suicide. Since Congress previously
had passed the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act
(ASFRA), which barred the use of Federal funds in support of
assisted suicide, the costs would have to be paid for out of
State-only funds, despite the Medicaid program's dual-funding
source. Following the announcement by the State of Oregon,
Chairman Bliley sought assurances from Donna Shalala, Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), that the
manner in which Oregon implemented physician-assisted suicide
into its Medicaid program would in no way violate the
requirements of ASFRA. In response, HHS, the Health Care
Financing Administration (HCFA), and Oregon provided numerous
assurances to the Committee that Federal law prohibiting the
use of Federal funds to pay for assisted suicide and related
services would be respected.
Despite these assurances, the Committee continued its
investigation to ensure that no Federal funds were being used
in violation of the law. The Committee questioned whether HCFA
had ever conducted an ``on-site'' review of the claims
processing procedures in determining whether Oregon was
complying with Federal law. Having discovered that no such
review had ever taken place, HCFA decided in February 1999 to
perform an on-site review. After concluding its initial review,
HCFA admitted to the Committee there was a possibility that
Federal law had been broken in Oregon by the use of Federal
funds for assisted suicide and related services. A subsequent
investigation ultimately discovered that, between 1998 and
1999, $2,334 ($1,167 in Federal funds) was spent for salaries,
payroll and other administrative costs that were not allowable
claims under ASFRA. These unlawful reimbursements were refunded
to the Federal government, and both Oregon and HCFA put several
safeguards into place to ensure that further improper use of
Federal funds would not take place. One year following the
Committee's investigation, the State of Oregon conducted an
audit and determined that, in the year following the
Committee's investigation, no funds were used by the State in
violation of ASFRA.
FETAL SURGERY
On March 14, 2000, Chairman Bliley wrote to the Acting
Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), requesting
information about NIH's efforts to promote innovative medical
procedures to treat certain birth defects in utero. The
Chairman was concerned that, despite recent and striking
advances in this area of medicine, NIH was not doing enough to
further this research or promote its possibilities. NIH's
response identified a few extramural research grants and
research performed by NIH, and other limited efforts undertaken
by NIH to support the training of health care professionals to
perform such procedures. In addition, Committee majority staff
interviewed several nationally-recognized health care experts
who have contributed to the development of new techniques to
treat conditions, such as spina bifida, in utero. These
interviews sought to determine what additional actions could be
taken by the Federal government to promote the development and
utilization of these procedures.
GAO/OSI INVESTIGATION INTO MEDICARE'S CONTRACT WITH ACCOUNTING FIRM
On June 15, 2000, Chairman Bliley requested that the GAO's
Office of Special Investigations (OSI) review HCFA's Medicare
Audit Quality Review Program. This program was established in
response to various Medicare contractor abuses, which were
highlighted in hearings on that topic before the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations. The OSI response to Chairman
Bliley's request determined that HCFA had given the Audit
Quality Review Program contract to KPMG, a company that had
previously been implicated in one of the largest fraud cases in
the Medicare program's history.
The OSI report, dated October 31, 2000, concluded that HCFA
staff had failed to take into account critical information
about KPMG before granting it the Audit Quality Review Program
contract. Specifically, HCFA had failed to consider that KPMG
had advised Columbia/HCA on preparing cost reports that had led
to criminal and civil fraud charges against Columbia/HCA. This
failure occurred despite the fact that information relating to
this case had been mailed to HCFA by the Department of Justice.
As a result, KPMG then became responsible for reviewing
transactions that were of the same type as those transactions
on which KPMG had advised Columbia/HCA. In addition, the OSI
report found that HCFA had issued KPMG a task order to perform
audits at a firm that employed a key prosecution witness in the
criminal trial of the Columbia/HCA executives.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION
Hearings
DATE RAPE DRUGS
On March 11, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on ``date rape'' drugs. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine the problem of date rape
drugs and to determine whether the relevant Federal agencies
were adequately responding to this problem. Four panels of
witnesses appeared. The first panel featured Rep. Sheila
Jackson, who had introduced legislation to schedule GHB and
Ketamine (two drugs that have been misused for recreational and
criminal purposes) under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
The second panel consisted of victims, victim advocates, law
enforcement and health care personnel who discussed their
experiences and views on date rape drugs. This panel included:
(1) Candace Pruett, an eighteen year old Virginia woman who was
sexually assaulted after being given what police believe was a
date rape drug; (2) Trinka Porratta, formerly of the Los
Angeles Police Department; (3) Dr. Jo Ellen Dyer of the San
Francisco Bay Area Poison Control Center; (4) Dr. Felix Adatsi
of the Michigan State Police; (5) Lt. Paul Bane of the Maryland
State Police Drug Enforcement Command; and (6) Denise Snyder of
the District of Columbia Rape Crisis Center; (7) Detective
Sergeant G. Mark Faistenhammer of the Gross Ile (MI) Police
Department; and (8) Detective Sergeant John Szczepaniak of the
Gross Ile (MI) Police Department. The third panel included
federal officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute
of Drug Abuse, and the Department of Justice. The fourth panel
featured a witness from the Orphan Medical company, the sponsor
of an orphan drug under clinical trials, that could be affected
by Federal controls of one of the date rape drugs.
In February 2000, the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid
Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000 was enacted. Named after
two teenaged girls who died after drinking a soda laced with
GHB, the law makes it a Federal crime to possess, manufacture
or distribute GHB, with up to 20 year prison time. It also
requires the Federal government to launch a nationwide public
awareness campaign about GHB. for further information about
this legislation, see the Health and Environment section of
this report.
BLOOD SAFETY AND AVAILABILITY
On September 23, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on blood safety and availability.
The purpose of the hearing was to examine current oversight
issues affecting the safety and availability of the U.S. blood
supply. These oversight issues include: recent trends in the
supply and demand of the U.S. blood supply; expected loss to
supply from the new FDA policy excluding donors who have
traveled to the United Kingdom; potential increase in supply to
allow distribution of blood units collected from individuals
with hemochromatosis; and the status of FDA's implementation of
recommendations concerning notification of errors and accidents
at blood establishments.
One panel of four witnesses appeared. The first witness,
Janet Heinrich of the General Accounting Office, testified
about the GAO's report to Chairman Bliley entitled, ``Blood
Supply: Availability of Blood to Meet the Nation's
Requirements.'' The second witness, Thomas Roslewicz of the HHS
Office of Inspector General, testified about the status of
FDA's implementation of the recommendations made in the OIG
report entitled, ``Reporting Process for Blood Establishments
to Notify the FDA of Errors and Accidents Affecting Blood.''
The third witness, Marian Sullivan of the National Blood Data
Resource Center (NBDRC), testified about NBDRC's data reports
and research services concerning the blood supply. The fourth
witness, James AuBuchon of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical
Center, testified about blood supply and demand, with
particular attention to blood usage. The GAO testified that
there is a cause for concern about shortages of certain blood
types or in certain regions, but that the blood supply as a
whole is not in crisis. GAO confirmed that available data
showed the blood supply has tightened, but that the blood
supply has declined more slowly than assumed in projections.
NBDRC testified that if rates of overall blood collection and
transfusion that occurred between 1994 and 1997 continue, the
U.S. may experience a national blood shortage as early as next
year. Dr. AuBuchon testified that given the demographics of our
population, the blood supply situation is only going to get
worse and that he did not expect significant reductions in
blood usage.
On October 6, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations continued its hearing on blood safety and
availability. One panel of witnesses appeared. The designated
witness for the Department of Health and Human Services was
David Satcher, M.D., the Assistant Secretary, the U.S. Surgeon
General, and the HHS Blood Safety Director. Kathryn Zoon,
Ph.D., the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (CBER) represented FDA at the hearing. Dr. Satcher
testified about strategies developed by the Public Health
Service Working Group for increasing the blood supply. At the
hearing, in response to a request from Chairman Bliley and
questioning from Subcommittee Chairman Upton, Dr. Satcher
indicated that improvements in the blood error and accident
reporting was receiving attention at the departmental level,
and that a near-missing reporting system for transfusion
errors, similar to the model used in commercial aviation, would
be considered at the January meeting of the HHS Advisory
Committee on Blood Safety and Availability.
On October 19, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations continued its hearing on blood safety and
availability. One panel of witnesses appeared: Jacquelyn
``Jackie'' Fredrick, Acting Chief Operating Officer, American
Red Cross Blood Services; Celso Bianco, M.D., President of
America's Blood Centers (accompanied by the Sperry family of
Amarillo, Texas who spoke briefly about a lifesaving
transfusion); and Susan Wilkinson, President of the American
Association of Blood Banks. The witnesses stressed the
following themes: (1) The blood supply situation is more
serious than it was portrayed by the GAO, and national
leadership is needed to support volunteer blood donation; (2)
There is concern about policies restricting the blood supply
that are based on undemonstrated safety risks or lack a
scientific basis; (3) Adequate HCFA reimbursement is needed for
measures that increase the safety and availability of the blood
supply.
RE-USE OF SINGLE-USE MEDICAL DEVICES
On February 10, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the reuse of medical devices
labeled and approved by FDA for single use only. The hearing
covered two issues: the health and safety of patients affected
by reprocessed single-use medical devices, and the adequacy of
the FDA's authority and enforcement related to the reprocessing
of single-use medical devices. The hearing had several
purposes: (1) educate the public about reprocessing of single-
use medical devices; (2) establish a factual record of any
public health risks from reprocessing; and, (3) assess whether
the FDA has adequate authority and is appropriately regulating
reprocessing of single-use medical devices. The first panel
featured the witness for the Food and Drug Administration,
David W. Feigal, Jr., M.D., M.P.H., Director of FDA's Center
for Devices and Radiological Health. A second panel of eight
witnesses followed. Four witnesses testified about their
concerns about the practice of reprocessing and their support
for increased FDA enforcement. The witnesses were: Laurene
West, R.N., a patient advocate from Salt Lake City, Utah;
Robert O'Holla, Vice President - Regulatory Affairs, Johnson &
Johnson; Dr. Phil Grossman of Miami, Florida; Dr. John Fielder
of Villanova University. Four witnesses testified more
favorably about the practice of reprocessing and their support
for more measured FDA enforcement. These witnesses were: Vern
Feltner, President, Alliance Medical Corporation; Dr. Bruce
Lindsay of Washington University at St. Louis (for the North
American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology); Dr. Walter
G. Maurer of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (for the American
Hospital Association); Dr. Griffin Trotter of Saint Louis
University, Center for Health Care Ethics. On August 14, 2000,
the FDA published a final guidance document requiring hospitals
and third-party reprocessors to file either a pre-market
notification (510(k)) or a pre-market approval application
(PMA) for devices they intend to reprocess.
COUNTERFEIT BULK DRUG IMPORTS
Since the summer of 1998, the Committee has been
investigating FDA's activities relating to counterfeit bulk
drugs. Developments from this investigation led Chairman Bliley
to send a letter to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney on May 8,
2000, detailing the Committee's concerns about the lack of FDA
leadership and weaknesses in FDA's import system that appear to
have left the American people vulnerable to dangerous,
counterfeit bulk drugs from abroad. On June 8, 2000, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on
counterfeit bulk drugs. The purposes of the hearing were: (1)
to examine the FDA's failure to take adequate actions
concerning imported bulk drugs and (2) to determine whether the
FDA will take adequate actions to prevent crimes, and address
public health issues, associated with the introduction of
counterfeit, unapproved, or substandard bulk drugs imported
into the U.S. healthcare delivery system. The hearing featured
the witness for the Food and Drug Administration, Dennis Baker,
FDA's Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. He
testified that maintaining safety and authenticity of imported
drug products is a priority and discussed FDA's actions and
plans to address the problem.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a follow-up hearing on counterfeit bulk
drugs and related concerns. Since the previous hearing of June
8, some of the issues raised about imported counterfeit bulk
drugs gained more prominence as the House and the Senate passed
legislation on reimportation of U.S.-made prescription drugs.
The purposes of the hearing were: (1) to explore any additional
concerns about imported bulk drugs and counterfeit drugs
generally; (2) to determine whether the FDA is taking and
proposing appropriate actions to protect American consumers
from imported counterfeit drugs, including reimported drugs;
and (3) to obtain additional information and proposals on
counterfeit drugs from the U.S. Customs Service, the Department
of Justice, and the pharmaceutical industry. The hearing
featured a panel of federal witnesses. The witness for the Food
and Drug Administration was Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner
of Food and Drugs. She testified that maintaining safety and
authenticity of imported drug products is a priority and will
discuss FDA's actions and plans to address the problem. The
witness for the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) was Raymond W.
Kelly, the Commissioner of USCS. He discussed the problem of
counterfeit drugs generally, and his agency's coordination with
FDA's plan to improve detection and interdiction of counterfeit
or substandard bulk drugs. The witness from the Department of
Justice was Patricia L. Maher, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in the Civil Division. She discussed the Department's
views on how to strengthen criminal investigations of
counterfeit bulk drugs. A second panel representing industry
views featured Nikki Mehringer, the Area Quality Control Leader
at Eli Lilly.
Investigative Activities
FDA COMPUTER SECURITY REVIEW
In June 2000, the Committee initiated a review of
information security practices at the Food and Drug
Administration. On July 6, 2000, Committee staff received an
initial briefing from senior FDA officials on the state of
FDA's efforts to ensure that its wide area networks and public
access servers are adequately secure from damage, destruction
and unauthorized misuse. Based on these briefings, it appeared
that FDA, in a similar fashion to other agencies reviewed by
the Committee staff, had failed to conduct any serious or
comprehensive penetration testing or auditing of the strength
of its cyber security defenses. On July 20, 2000, the Committee
requested that FDA provide its security planning documents and
policies, its internal audits, and its incident reports to
assist the Committee in its cyber security review. In that same
letter, Chairman Bliley also expressed the Committee's concern
about the speed with which FDA was addressing certain
acknowledged and serious system vulnerabilities. FDA failed to
produce the requested materials in a timely manner, and on
August 29, 2000, Chairman Bliley repeated this request in a
letter to the FDA Commissioner. Although FDA allowed Committee
staff to review a limited portion of the documents at FDA
offices on August 15, 2000, FDA refused to provide the
Committee with any documents that FDA deemed to be draft,
sensitive, confidential or deliberative. On September 5, 2000,
the Committee subpoenaed the materials that FDA refused to
provide, and on September 8, 2000, FDA complied with the
subpoena by providing the requested materials with some minor
information redacted (per agreement with Committee staff),
while agreeing to make the unredacted copies available at its
Washington, D.C. office. The Committee's review of FDA cyber
security is ongoing.
HEPATITIS C PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM
On May 10, 2000, the Chairman sent a letter concerning the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention management of
hepatitis C programs. In particular, the Committee was
examining the apparent failure of CDC to launch the public
education programs that were originally intended to supplement
the targeted ``blood lookback'' program to identify persons who
may have acquired hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection from blood
transfusion and other sources. On July 27, 2000, in an effort
to get the word out about the HCV spreading throughout the
U.S., Chairman Bliley sent letters to his colleagues in the
House of Representatives and held a bipartisan press conference
with Surgeon General David Satcher and other Members of the
Committee about this ``silent epidemic.''
INFLUENZA PANDEMIC
On January 11, 2000 the Chairman and the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee Chairman asked GAO to examine: (1)
the capability to develop and produce a vaccine to protect the
nation from a pandemic influenza virus; (2) the capability to
use other measures, such as antiviral drugs and pneumococcal
vaccine, to help protect or treat people exposed to a pandemic
virus, and (3) the status of Federal and State plans to address
the purchase, distribution, and administration of vaccines. On
October 31, 2000, GAO issued a report. GAO found that vaccines
may be unavailable, in short supply, or ineffective for certain
portions of the population during the first wave of a pandemic.
Antiviral drugs and vaccines against pneumonia are also
expected to be in a short supply if a pandemic occurs and
influenza vaccine is unavailable. Finally, Federal and State
influenza pandemic plans are in various stages of completion
and do not completely or consistently address key issues
surrounding the purchase, distribution, and administration of
vaccines and antiviral drugs.
FOOD IRRADIATION
On August 3, 1999, the Chairman requested that GAO
determine: (1) the extent and the purposes for which food
irradiation is being used in the United States and (2) the
scientifically supported benefits and risks of food
irradiation. On August 24, 2000, GAO issued a report. GAO found
that (1) to date, only limited amounts of irradiated foods have
been sold in the United States, and (2) scientific studies
conducted by public and private researchers worldwide over the
past 50 years support the benefits of food irradiation while
indicating minimal potential risks.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH INVENTION
LICENSES AND ROYALTIES
In 1999, the Chairman and the Subcommittee Chairman asked
that GAO (1) determine the extent and reasons for the
differences between the number of research inventions licensed
by NIH under cooperative research and development agreements
(CRADAs) compared to inventions licensed under other intramural
projects (non-CRADAs) and (2) review the internal controls that
ensure proper accountability for royalty income resulting from
these licenses. GAO found in a November 22, 1999 report that
available information appeared to show that NIH licensed more
inventions developed under non-CRADAs than it did under CRADAs,
but that the number of licenses granted was not an appropriate
measure for comparing CRADA and non-CRADA research projects.
GAO's limited testing of the internal controls over royalty
income found some deficiencies that could impact the
completeness and accuracy of royalty income. As a result of the
deficiencies identified, GAO continued its work to review NIH's
internal controls. GAO found that, although NIH had established
policies and procedures for administering its royalty income,
there were deficiencies in internal controls that affect the
monitoring of licensees and the completeness and accuracy of
royalty income received. In addition, NIH's systems and
processes hampered proper management of royalty income. GAO
made recommendations to help NIH strengthen its internal
controls over the administration of royalty income.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: FDA'S CONTROLS OVER PROPERTY
In 1998, the Chairman of the Full Committee and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
requested GAO to assess the adequacy and status of the Food and
Drug Administration's planned actions to correct identified
internal control weaknesses related to property and equipment
in prior financial statement audit reports. In addition, GAO
was asked to review FDA's internal controls related to the
safeguarding and reporting of automated data processing (ADP)
equipment that is lost, stolen, destroyed, or surplussed. In
February 1999, GAO issued a report. GAO found that FDA
developed an action plan that, if properly implemented, should
correct the weaknesses identified in the financial audit
reports regarding property and equipment. GAO concluded that
FDA had made progress in implementing various actions, but FDA
had not yet resolved some of the reported weaknesses. In
addition, GAO found that FDA did not have adequate controls in
place to effectively monitor the loss, theft, or destruction of
ADP equipment.
TRENDS IN TUBERCULOSIS IN THE UNITED STATES
In February 2000, in light of concerns over possible
increased health risk to the U.S. population from the global
prevalence of tuberculosis (TB) and the emergence of multidrug-
resistant TB, the Chairman of the Full Committee and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
asked GAO to review available data on the incidence and
characteristics of TB cases in the U.S. GAO found in an October
2000 report that, following more than three decades of decline,
the number of TB cases began to increase in the late 1980s and
early 1990s and since has steadily declined. Despite this
progress, the United States has not reached the Department of
Health and Human Services' Year 2000 goal to reduce TB to 3.5
new cases per 100,000 population (the current rate is 6.4 cases
per 100,000 population). Consistent with the overall trends in
TB cases, the number of MDR-TB cases has also steadily
declined.
ADVERSE DRUG EVENTS
In 1998, the Chairman of the Full Committee and requestors
from the Senate asked GAO to summarize from available research
what is known about adverse drug events. GAO concluded in a
January 2000 report that adverse drug events arise either from
adverse drug reactions, which are previously known or newly
detected side effects of drugs, or from medication errors
committed by health care professionals or the patients
themselves. Although it is clear that a wide range of commonly
used drugs cause adverse drug events with potentially serious
consequences for patients, relatively little is known about
their frequency. Thus, the magnitude of health risk is
uncertain because of limited incidence data.
REFERRAL TO THE SEC OF POSSIBLE SECURITIES LAWS VIOLATIONS BY BREAST
IMPLANT MANUFACTURER
In April 2000, the Chairman of the Full Committee forwarded
a matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to
determine whether Federal securities laws were violated. The
matter concerned public statements issued by Mentor
Corporation, a breast implant manufacturer, denying a newspaper
report that there was an FDA criminal investigation of
allegations against the company for serious irregularities in
breast implant studies. The statements by Mentor claimed that
FDA denied a previous FDA description provided to the Committee
of the criminal investigation as relating to ``allegations of
serious irregularities in breast implant studies.'' Mentor's
public statements affected the trading of its stock. However,
FDA subsequently confirmed that FDA stood by its statement that
described the criminal investigation as relating to
``allegations of serious irregularities in breast implant
studies.'' The SEC is reviewing the matter.
MUTUAL RECOGNITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S.-EUROPEAN UNION ON DRUG
INSPECTIONS
In 1999, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Full
Committee and the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations requested that GAO
provide an update on the status of FDA's implementation of a
mutual recognition agreement between the U.S. and the European
Union concerning inspections of pharmaceutical facilities. In
an earlier correspondence on FDA's progress assessing
pharmaceutical inspection programs, GAO reported that FDA did
not have a comprehensive program for conducting equivalence
assessments of member States' pharmaceutical Good Manufacturing
Practices regulatory systems. In this requested correspondence,
GAO reported in an August 13, 1999 memorandum that FDA has not
yet determined how it will use the criteria in the
pharmaceutical GMP annex to assess whether the regulatory
systems of the European Union member States are equivalent to
FDA's regulatory systems.
FDA'S USE OF FASTER TESTS TO ASSESS THE SAFETY OF IMPORTED FOODS
Concerned about the safety of imported foods, the Chairman
of the Full Committee and the Subcommittee Chairman asked GAO
in 1999 to examine FDA's use of faster technologies--known as
rapid tests--to screen and identify potentially unsafe imported
foods, particularly at ports of entry, before they enter the
domestic food supply. GAO reported in a February 2000 report
that FDA uses dozens of rapid tests to screen food samples for
bacterial pathogens. FDA uses rapid tests in its laboratories
but not at food inspection sites such as ports of entry.
However, GAO reported that several factors can limit FDA's
expanded use of rapid tests for foodborne pathogens.
FEDERAL RESEARCH GRANTS: COMPENSATION PAID TO GRADUATE STUDENTS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
On May 1, 1998, the Chairman of the Full Committee
requested that GAO investigate the use of Federal research and
development grant funds by the University of California system
in its payments to graduate student researchers (GSRs). The
Chairman asked that GAO determine if (1) the compensation paid
to GSRs was in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the
OMB Circular A-21, ``Principles for Determining Costs
Applicable to Grants, Contracts, and other Agreements With
Educational Institutions;'' (2) foreign students were receiving
a larger share of Federal research funds than resident students
as compensation for performing as GSRs; and (3) the
University's treatment of GSR compensation for Federal income
tax purposes was consistent with its actions in charging such
moneys to the Federal grants under OMB Circular A-21. In a June
1999 report, GAO found: (1) that the compensation paid to GSRs
for services charged to Federal research grants sometimes
exceeded the allowable costs that could be charged to such
grants; and (2) although all GSRs receive substantially the
same salary for work performed on Federal research grants,
foreign students receive a proportionally larger share of fee
and tuition payments charged to the grants because they pay a
higher nonresident student tuition. In light of a pending court
case against the University of California on the taxability
issue and opinions from the Department of Health and Human
Services and the National Institutes of Health, GAO did not
address whether the tuition remission provided to GSRs should
have been taxed or whether the University's treatment of the
tuition remission for tax purposes is consistent with the OMB
circular.
NIH RESEARCH: MONITORING EXTRAMURAL GRANTS
In 1999, because of concerns about NIH oversight and
monitoring of extramural grants, the Chairman of the Full
Committee and the Subcommittee Chairman asked GAO to report on:
(1) how NIH monitors the scientific progress of extramural
research, (2) whether NIH has controls to ensure the effective
financial management of extramural research grants, and (3) how
NIH used the increased funds from its Fiscal Year 1999
appropriations to support extramural research. GAO found that
NIH had developed policies and procedures to carry out
oversight functions of monitoring scientific progress and
financial management of the grants, but identified areas in the
system of internal controls that could be strengthened.
Regarding NIH's use of Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations, about
41 percent of the increase for extramural grants was used to
expand the number of competitive grants and to increase the
average amount awarded for competitive grants. The remaining
funds were used to provide out-year commitments to more than
20,000 ongoing grants, support for extramural research centers,
and other extramural research activities.
BIOSAFETY PRACTICES IN FDA LABORATORIES
In 1999, at the request of the Committee, GAO's Office of
Special Investigations conducted a review of reallocation and
survey of FDA laboratory facilities as it related to biosafety
practices. As a result of some of the information found by GAO,
the Committee staff investigated further. The investigation
revealed that: (1) there were serious questions about the
accuracy and forthrightness of FDA testimony and statements
made to the Congress concerning avian flu research at one of
the laboratories located near a shopping mall; (2) unlike the
safety review at NIH of on-campus research, FDA's review of
safety aspects of research conducted in FDA buildings lacks
representation of community interests with respect to health
and the environment; and (3) there were concerns about the
safety of FDA employees (and potentially the public) in the
vicinity of FDA laboratories in FDA buildings.
PHYSICAL SECURITY AND INTERNAL CONTROLS OF BIOTERRORISM RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES AT FDA AND NIH
On July 12, 1999, because of a history of concern over
security issues at FDA and the anticipated dramatic increase in
bioterrorism research activities, the Chairman and the
Subcommittee Chairman requested that the Department of Health
and Human Services Office of Inspector General conduct a review
of the physical security and internal controls of bioterrorism
research at the FDA. On December 8, 1999, the Chairman and the
Subcommittee Chairman also requested that the HHS OIG conduct a
review of the physical security and internal controls of
bioterrorism research at the NIH. The HHS OIG is conducting
these reviews and had not concluded them at the time of the
writing of this report.
OVERSIGHT OF HUMAN GENE TRANSFER CLINICAL TRIALS
In 2000, the Committee investigated the adequacy of Federal
oversight of gene therapy clinical trials. This oversight issue
was triggered by the death of 18-year old Jesse Gelsinger in
the gene transfer clinical trial at the University of
Pennsylvania. One question before the Committee with regard to
the Gelsinger case was the issue of financial conflicts of
interest and whether these conflicts were inappropriate and had
any bearing on the conduct of the gene transfer clinical trial.
To that end, the Chairman of the Full Committee and the
Subcommittee Chairman inquired in October 2000 as to whether
the FDA had aggregate data from on-site inspections of clinical
sites about financial conflicts of interest. At the time of the
writing of this report, FDA had not yet submitted its response
to the Committee.
CDC DIVERSION OF FUNDS
In 2000, the Committee investigated the diversion of funds
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1999, an
audit by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department
of Health and Human Services found that CDC could not account
for or defied congressional intent while spending $12.9 million
appropriated to study chronic fatigue syndrome. An article in
the February 2, 2000 Washington Post reported that CDC diverted
much of the $7.5 million earmarked for research on the deadly
hantavirus to other purposes. These developments raised
questions about the management of funds at the National Center
for Infectious Diseases (NCID) and the truthfulness of CDC
statements about NCID programs made to the Congress. In light
of these questions, the Committee requested and received some
internal audits and reports. At the time of the writing of this
report, CDC had scheduled a briefing with Committee staff to
report on internal audits and the status of improvements in
financial management.
CLINICAL RESEARCH
In May 1999, the Committee examined the adequacy of FDA's
detection of fraud in clinical trials of new drugs. According
to an article in the May 17, 1999 New York Times, FDA and the
industry failed to notice any problems with fraudulent drug
studies by a doctor and his testing operation until an
informant told an FDA auditor in June 1996 about rumors of
misconduct. That contact triggered an investigation resulting
in the doctor and one of his assistants pleading guilty to
conspiracy. Another of the doctor's assistants pled guilty to
fraud. The Committee was briefed by FDA about the case and the
detection of fraud in clinical trials of new drugs. In
addition, on July 13, 1999, the Chairman and the Subcommittee
Chairman requested that the Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Inspector General ongoing review of clinical
research include the issues of detection of fraud and patient
recruitment. Those topics were included in June 2000 reports
issued by the HHS OIG regarding recruitment of human subjects
and FDA oversight of clinical investigators. The HHS OIG found
that oversight of the recruitment of human subjects is minimal
and largely unresponsive to emerging concerns. In addition, the
Inspector General found that FDA's oversight of clinical
investigators is limited and that FDA's bioresearch monitoring
program lacks clear and specific guidelines.
APPEARANCE OF RETALIATION AGAINST AN FDA WHISTLEBLOWER
In March 1999, the Chairman wrote to the FDA Commissioner
because of concerns about the appearance of retaliation against
an FDA whistleblower. According to CBS News, FDA initiated an
Internal Affairs investigation against FDA scientist Robert
Misbin, who has raised issues about the diabetes drug Rezulin
with several Members of Congress. The investigation reportedly
is examining whether Dr. Misbin was involved in the possible
inappropriate release of information. In addition, the Chairman
subsequently raised concerns about the legal basis for FDA to
conduct such an internal investigation against one of its
employees for releasing information to a Member of Congress
because of Federal laws protecting the rights of Federal
employees to petition or furnish information to the Congress.
At the request of Committee staff, the American Law Division of
the Congressional Research Service-Library of Congress (CRS)
wrote a legal memorandum based on its review of the
communications between FDA and the Committee on the Misbin case
to determine if FDA had a valid policy and a valid basis to
investigate Dr. Misbin. The CRS legal memorandum indicates that
FDA's policy against employee disclosure to Congress appears to
be overridden by evidence of a strong and consistent
Congressional policy of encouraging and protecting the flow of
such employee disclosures to Congress and its members. The
Committee referred this matter to the Department of Health and
Human Services Office of Inspector General for review of
internal FDA investigations against FDA employees who furnished
information to the Congress.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Hearings
EPA'S DISSEMINATION OF WORST-CASE SCENARIO CHEMICAL ACCIDENT DATA
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a joint hearing on the national security,
public safety impact, and benefits of public disclosure of
electronic dissemination of worst-case scenario chemical
release data to be collected by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
In accordance with this section, EPA published a ``Risk
Management Program'' rule on June 20, 1996 that required an
EPA-estimated 66,000 facilities nationwide to send EPA by June
1999 a ``Risk Management Plan'' (Plan) containing, among other
things, what is commonly known as ``worst-case scenario''
data--that is, identification of potential accidental chemical
release points within each facility, the precise quantities of
specific chemicals associated with each of those potential
release points, and an estimate of the injuries to human health
that could result from a worst-case accident scenario. Section
112(r) required that these Plans be made available to the
public, but the statute did not specify the method by which the
information should be disseminated to the public.
In 1998, EPA proposed disseminating these Plans to the
public, including the worst-case scenario data, by posting them
in a searchable electronic format on the agency's Internet
website. EPA's proposal was met with substantial opposition
from law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other public safety officials who expressed
concerns that the searchable electronic format could be used as
a targeting tool by terrorists. Community and pro-information
disclosure groups supported wide-spread dissemination of
information relating to risks faced by the communities.
Committee Chairman Tom Bliley wrote to EPA to express
concerns about the agency's plans. In late October 1998, EPA
and the FBI reached an agreement under which EPA would not post
the worst-case scenario data on the agency's Internet site,
although EPA would continue to work to ensure that State and
local governments and their citizens had access to such
critical data about the facilities located in their particular
communities. However, the agreement would not prevent the
release of this information in a searchable electronic format
under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Subcommittees heard testimony from a panel of experts
in the field of law enforcement and emergency response. The
Subcommittees also heard testimony from representatives of the
FBI and EPA, the principal Federal agencies involved in
designing a dissemination plan, as well as interested
environmental, community safety, and industry representatives.
The Committee subsequently developed a bill, which was passed
by Congress and ultimately signed into law by the President,
that addresses dissemination of worst-case scenario data.
EPA'S BROWNFIELDS CLEANUP REVOLVING LOAN FUND
In the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of EPA's Brownfields Initiative. As part of its
Brownfields Initiative, EPA created the Brownfields Cleanup
Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) Pilot Program in 1997. Under this
program, EPA grants money to pilots (e.g., States or local
governments) to establish a revolving loan fund, which in turn
is used to make low-interest loans to facilitate the cleanup
and redevelopment of brownfield properties. This program is the
only part of EPA's Brownfields Initiative that provides money
to assist with cleaning up brownfield sites. To date, EPA has
issued over 100 grants under this program, totaling nearly $65
million, for the purpose of facilitating the cleanup of
brownfield sites.
On March 19, 1999, Committee staff were briefed by EPA
about the progress of the BCRLF program. At this time, none of
the original pilots had made a loan. Following up on this
briefing, the Committee, on April 20, 1999, requested further
information from EPA on the BCRLF program, in an effort to
determine the reasons for the lack of loans. In May 1999, Vice
President Gore announced a four-fold expansion of the BCRLF
program. On September 30, 1999, the Committee requested
additional information from EPA about the BCRLF program and
EPA's Brownfields Management System database, and following a
review of that information, Committee staff interviewed the
recipients of the 1997 BCRLF pilot awards to learn why they
were having difficulty making loans under this program.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing on this program on November 4, 1999 to evaluate its
progress and to examine steps EPA could take to improve the
program. At the hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Upton secured a
promise from Tim Fields, EPA Assistant Administrator for the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), that he
would examine administrative ways to make EPA's regulatory
requirements more flexible and less restrictive. In partial
response to the issues raised at the hearing, Linda Garczynski,
Director, Outreach and Special Projects Staff in OSWER, issued
a memorandum in July 2000 that, among other things, reduced
some of the requirements imposed on BCRLF loan recipients.
The Committee continued its review of this program
throughout 2000, as part of an overall oversight effort
relating to EPA's myriad brownfields-related efforts. The
findings of the Committee majority staff were compiled in a
November 2000 report on EPA's Brownfields Initiative. The
report concluded that, with respect to the BCRLF program that,
through that date, just four BCRLF pilots out of 105 have made
a total of five loans for approximately $1.1 million, leading
to the cleanup of just one brownfields site. On December 8,
2000, Assistant Administrator Fields responded that the
majority staff report fell short in recognizing many of the
agency's successes. The Committee's review of other aspects of
EPA's Brownfields Initiative is discussed below.
Investigative Activities
EPA COMPUTER SECURITY REVIEW
In September 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency
Inspector General conducted an investigation of EPA's
information security and concluded that EPA was vulnerable to
hacker attacks. The Inspector General documented numerous
security breaches resulting in unauthorized intrusions,
deletion of files, and compromised passwords. Over one year
later, in December 1998, these concerns still had not been
rectified by the Agency, and EPA admitted in an annual report
to Congress that its information security plans were deficient
or non-existent, potentially placing Agency organizations in a
state of non-compliance with Federal and Agency regulations. At
that time, EPA outlined nine corrective actions that it
intended to implement to rectify security vulnerabilities.
As of April 1999, EPA had completed only one of the
corrective actions it had pledged to implement. Accordingly, on
April 14, 1999, Chairman Bliley requested a detailed
explanation of EPA's failure to close these information
security gaps. On May 7, 1999, the Committee received a
response from EPA stating that it had implemented an ``enhanced
firewall strategy'' for its systems from the Internet, and had
taken extraordinary steps to protect its confidential and
sensitive data from unauthorized access. However, the Agency
indicated that it had failed to conduct any penetration tests
or other information security assessments to test the strength
of its defenses.
The Committee's detailed review of EPA's responses, and
subsequent interviews of EPA personnel, raised significant
doubts about the accuracy of the Agency's representations to
the Chairman. Furthermore, it became clear that, in order to
assess the true state of information security at EPA, some
external testing needed to be conducted. In August 1999, the
Chairman requested that the General Accounting Office conduct a
comprehensive investigation of the state of information
security at EPA, including vulnerability analyses and
penetration testing.
On December 17, 1999, GAO informed the Committee that its
ongoing investigation revealed at least two severe security
vulnerabilities that could render critical EPA systems
vulnerable to control, damage, and misuse by attacks from the
Internet. Because these deficiencies were so severe, GAO
requested that the Chairman authorize it to brief EPA
immediately about these vulnerabilities, rather than wait until
the issuance of its full report. The Chairman did so, and sent
a letter to EPA urging that the Agency promptly correct these
serious deficiencies.
In January 2000, GAO worked with EPA to address the two
specific vulnerabilities that had been identified to date.
Meanwhile, GAO completed its comprehensive testing of EPA's
systems and found additional widespread and pervasive security
problems. In February 2000, GAO provided the Committee and EPA
with a comprehensive briefing outlining the full scope of
security problems uncovered at EPA. The Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations scheduled a hearing to review
these findings on February 16, 2000.
At that time, GAO experts advised Committee staff that a
shutdown of its servers was the most secure and effective way
for the Agency to proceed to correct these major deficiencies,
given the long-standing nature of these vulnerabilities and
EPA's inability to determine the extent of current and past
compromises. After careful consideration of GAO's written
findings prepared for the hearing, the Chairman decided to
postpone the planned public hearing and called upon the Agency
to temporarily shut down its systems and fix these problems.
EPA initially refused to do so, but eventually agreed to this
course of action. The Agency systems remained fully
disconnected from the Internet for approximately five days in
February 2000, while the Agency underwent a substantial
revamping of its security measures and perimeter defenses for
its wide area network.
On July 6, 2000, GAO issued its final report on the state
of cyber security at EPA, outlining dozens of security
vulnerabilities and management deficiencies that resulted in
the need for such a dramatic Agency overhaul. The Committee
continued to oversee the Agency's efforts to address the
identified deficiencies throughout 2000.
EPA'S BROWNFIELDS INITIATIVE
In the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of EPA's Brownfields Initiative, which consists of
numerous grant programs, including the Brownfields Assessment
Demonstration Pilot program, Brownfields Cleanup and Revolving
Loan Fund Pilot Program, Targeted Brownfields Assessments, and
Brownfields Showcase Communities. In addition, EPA supports
other, smaller-scale programs including Job Training and
Development Pilots, Air Quality and Economic Progress Pilots,
brownfields conferences, EPA Summers Teacher's Institute, and
International Brownfields Partnerships.
In April 1999, the General Accounting Office released a
report--conducted at Chairman Bliley's request--on the
Brownfield National Partnership Action Agenda (Action Agenda),
a two-year, $400 million multi-agency Federal effort led by
EPA, which Vice President Gore announced in 1997 and estimated
would lead to the cleanup of 5,000 brownfield sites, create
196,000 new jobs, leverage $5-28 billion in private investment,
and save 34,000 acres of greenfields (i.e., pristine,
undeveloped land) from urban sprawl. The report characterized
certain shortcomings and successes in the Action Agenda.
In response to these findings, the Committee requested
information from EPA on its Brownfields Initiative on April 20,
1999, May 21, 1999, September 30, 1999, November 19, 1999, and
May 1, 2000. In addition, Committee staff were briefed by EPA
on numerous occasions about various aspects of the Brownfields
Initiative, including the BCRLF program. (For an in-depth
description of Committee oversight activities pertaining to the
BCRLF program, please see the section regarding the hearing
held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the
BCRLF program above.) On December 23, 1999, the Committee
requested that GAO assess the progress under EPA's Brownfields
Initiative, and to examine several State-run brownfields
programs for alternative approaches. GAO expects to release its
report during December 2000.
In November 2000, Chairman Bliley issued a Committee
majority staff report on EPA's Brownfields Initiative, based on
its own oversight work, as well as preliminary findings from
the recently concluded GAO review. The staff report sharply
questioned the progress of the Action Agenda to date.
EPA'S DIESEL ENGINE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
review of EPA's diesel engine certification program. On October
28, 1998, Attorney General Reno and EPA Administrator Browner
announced a settlement of claims in the enforcement action
against diesel engine manufacturers for allegedly using
electronic engine control ``defeat devices'' to circumvent
Federal emission standards.
The Committee continued to receive and review information
from EPA pertaining to the diesel enforcement action during
1999. As part of the Committee's investigation, Committee
Majority staff traveled to Ann Arbor, Michigan in February 1999
to meet with several EPA officials who were familiar with the
diesel engine certification program. Committee Majority staff
learned that EPA was repeatedly warned by internal and outside
experts, as far back as 1991, that the diesel truck engines the
Agency certified as being in compliance were emitting
pollutants in excess of the regulatory standard. Committee
Majority staff further learned that EPA itself acknowledged the
possibility of this problem in a related 1993 rulemaking, but
nonetheless took no further action to investigate whether these
excess emissions were occurring until 1997. Majority staff
learned that in 1997 such emissions were ``first discovered''--
according to EPA officials--as part of an unrelated audit, and
not as part of an intentional effort by EPA to investigate
whether electronic controls were being used to circumvent or
defeat applicable emission standards.
The Majority staff report on this oversight effort, issued
by Chairman Bliley on March 23, 1999, contained the above
findings, and also characterized EPA's testing protocol for
measuring emissions of diesel engines, known as the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), as flawed, outdated, and capable of being
circumvented by electronic engine controllers being used by
diesel engine manufacturers. The report also stated that EPA
was aware of the deficiencies in the FTP, but nonetheless did
not revise it until the 1998 settlement with certain diesel
engine manufacturers. Published reports recently indicated that
the diesel engine manufacturers have requested that EPA alter
the terms of the settlement agreement reached with EPA and the
Department of Justice, in order to provide additional
flexibility in meeting the agreed upon emission targets.
AVAILABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS DATA AND
CERTIFICATIONS
During the 106th Congress, the Committee conducted
oversight of EPA's efforts to comply with the public disclosure
requirements of the Clean Air Act with respect to automobile
emissions. Committee Majority staff was concerned that,
contrary to the plain text of the Act, EPA was not making such
emissions data publicly available in a format that made it easy
for consumers to judge the comparative emissions of various
automobiles and that EPA was not providing vehicle-specific
emissions information at all--instead providing complicated
data sets relating to ``engine families,'' which were virtually
inaccessible to individuals with basic computer programs.
In April 1999, Chairman Bliley urged EPA to provide vehicle
specific emissions data in a user-friendly way on its Internet
website in order to encourage market-based reductions in
automobile emissions. This oversight effort led to the
introduction of legislation by Committee Members requiring EPA
to make emissions testing data available to consumers in a more
user-friendly format, and to place comparative emissions
information on all new car sales stickers. In October 2000, EPA
announced that it would rank car emissions on its website, but
only based on the minimum emissions standard categories.
On a related matter, the Committee also reviewed EPA's new
CAP 2000 program implementing Clean Air Act motor vehicle
emission requirements, due to the Chairman's concern--as
expressed in a July 27, 2000 letter to EPA--about the lack of
transparency in certain elements of the CAP 2000 program. By
way of background, the Chairman's letter noted the CAA requires
that, each model year, EPA certify that every model of vehicle
available in the U.S. will meet pollution standards for the
vehicle's entire useful life and recounted other pertinent
views, as follows. Prior to 1994, EPA accomplished this mandate
by reviewing two types of information submitted by vehicle
manufacturers. First, EPA reviewed actual emission tests from
new vehicles. Second, EPA reviewed a calculation that increased
the new vehicle emission test results as a projection of
increased emissions resulting from the deterioration of
emission controls over the useful life of the vehicle. Vehicle
manufacturers calculated these ``deterioration factors'' (DFs)
by accumulating mileage on prototype vehicles using an EPA-
approved standard method, known as the ``AMA'' driving cycle.
During the AMA driving cycle, the vehicle manufacturers
generated emissions data at periodic intervals and then used a
linear regression of that data to calculate the DF. In 1994,
EPA changed this system by allowing vehicle manufacturers to
use their own methods, based on good engineering judgment, to
determine DFs, subject to review and approval by EPA. Vehicle
manufacturers, however, could still use the AMA for this
purpose or, as some did, use both the AMA and their own
specially-designed tests. But EPA also approved the sole use of
manufacturer-specific tests for certification purposes--a
decision that ultimately led the way to the 1999 CAP 2000
program, which eliminated the AMA driving cycle method in favor
of manufacturer-developed durability cycles approved by EPA on
a case-by-case basis.
Chairman Bliley's concern was that EPA's approval of the
sole use of manufacturer-specific tests for certification
purposes, which the companies, and EPA in certain
circumstances, consider proprietary, may inhibit the public's
ability to independently verify the processes used to develop
DFs, a matter integral to the emissions certification process.
To inquire about these matters relating to the emissions
certification process, Chairman Bliley wrote to Administrator
Browner on July 27, 2000, and staff conducted interviews with
most of the major domestic and foreign car manufacturers. EPA
responded to the Chairman through a series of letters, and the
Majority staff is in the process of reviewing these responses
and other information to determine whether potential changes to
EPA's automobile emissions certification program are necessary
or desirable.
AVAILABILITY OF ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION TO AFTER-MARKET REPAIR
SHOPS
On-board diagnostic (OBD) systems in automobiles, developed
during the 1990s, were intended to enable manufacturers to
improve control of vehicle emissions, and many other vehicle
functions and safety features, electronically. However, in
meetings with Committee Majority staff, representatives from
independent automotive repair and parts shops complained that
the increasing sophistication and coverage of these OBD
systems--the details of which are closely-held proprietary
secrets--also have created a situation in which many formerly
routine repairs to emission control or other vehicle systems
now can be done only by the repair shops at the authorized new
car dealerships, which have the necessary computer diagnostic
equipment and software to analyze and correct the problem. In
meetings with Committee Majority staff, representatives of
automobile manufacturers disputed these assertions. Committee
Majority staff, also in meetings with outside stakeholder
groups, learned of numerous complaints from consumers--
particularly in rural areas--about the increased expense and
inconvenience of using authorized dealer-repair shops instead
of their local mechanics.
To gather information about this matter, Committee Majority
staff interviewed most of the major domestic and foreign
automobile manufacturers about their efforts to make OBD system
information available to after-market repair shops, and
possible changes in those practices to increase the
availability and usefulness of such information. Committee
Majority staff also interviewed representatives from the after-
market repair and parts manufacturing industries, to obtain
information about the barriers they face in acquiring the
information they need to serve their customers' needs.
REGULATION OF ASBESTOS IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS
In November 1999, the Committee initiated an inquiry into
EPA's activities relating to the regulation of asbestos in
commercially-available products. Committee Majority staff
learned that asbestos may be present in more than 3,500
products sold for construction and home improvement projects in
the United States. However, despite the fact that the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals struck down most of EPA's Asbestos Ban
and Phaseout Rule (ABPO) nearly a decade ago and remanded the
rule to EPA for further agency consideration, the Agency has
not yet proposed a substitute rule.
On May 24, 2000, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Chairman Upton sent a letter to Carol Browner
seeking to learn why EPA decided to cease its asbestos control
program after the 1991 court remand, and what steps the Agency
planned to take in the future with respect to asbestos. In that
letter, Chairman Upton expressed concerns about the accuracy of
a public statement by an EPA official to the effect that the
agency was undertaking a nationwide effort to sample and
evaluate a wide range of products for asbestos. Chairman Upton
noted in his letter following briefings on May 9 and 24, 2000
for Committee Majority staff, EPA officials indicated that EPA
is planning on testing a minimal number of products, and only
for a particular type of asbestos. On June 12, 2000, the Agency
responded to this inquiry, explaining its lack of action to
date and identifying several ongoing efforts in this area.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment conducted a review of EPA's and the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The FQPA amended Federal
pesticide and food safety laws by directing EPA to apply
improved standards to evaluate the safety of pesticides that
are used on food crops, such as fruits, vegetables and grains.
Among other things, the FQPA requires EPA to reevaluate the
maximum safe levels of pesticide residues on foods, or
``tolerances,'' by taking into consideration sensitivities of
infants and children, and by using the best available
information to evaluate other important factors. The
Committee's goal was to ensure that the statute was properly
implemented to ensure a safe and abundant food supply.
The FQPA directed EPA to reassess one-third of existing
pesticide tolerances by August 3, 1999, using updated safety
standards. As part of the Committee's oversight of EPA's
tolerance reassessment efforts, Chairman Bliley wrote to EPA
concerning the science policies devised to carry out the
reviews. Additionally, the Chairman wrote to the USDA asking
questions about USDA's role in the ongoing reviews. On June 29,
1999, representatives from EPA and USDA provided Members of the
Committee on Commerce with a briefing on the status of FQPA
implementation. Members of the Committee focused their
inquiries on the revised risk assessments being undertaken by
EPA; the transparency and openness of the FQPA review process;
the timing of the decisions; and the regional and national
market impacts of the FQPA reviews.
Subsequently, EPA disclosed its intention to issue
cancellation notices for two pesticides primarily used for
apples, peaches, pears and vegetables. The cancellations were
the result of private negotiations between EPA and the
manufacturers of the pesticides, with only limited involvement
and input from the affected growers and other interested
parties. These actions by EPA contradicted assurances that had
been given to the Committee during the June 29th Member
briefing on this issue. On August 2, 1999, the Chairman wrote
to Administrator Browner expressing his concerns about how
EPA's negotiations with the pesticide manufacturers had
excluded growers and other stakeholders from effectively
participating in the tolerance reassessment process. The
Committee requested and reviewed internal EPA documents
relating to these negotiations. Additional letters to both
Administrator Browner and Secretary Glickman were sent during
the Fall of 1999, raising additional concerns about EPA's
tolerance reassessment process involving other pesticides.
During this time, Committee staff continued to meet with
pesticide manufacturers, growers and other stakeholders as part
of its oversight of FQPA implementation.
EPA'S EFFORTS TO ISSUE A FINAL GUIDANCE FOR INVESTIGATING
COMPLAINTS FILED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
OF 1964 AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES
In February 1998, EPA issued the Interim Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints (Interim
Guidance) setting forth how the Agency would process
``environmental justice'' claims filed against State
environmental agencies under the legal theory that a State
environmental permitting decision discriminated against a
protected class of citizens, such as racial minorities. Many
State and local government organizations, such as the National
Governors Association, the Environmental Council of States
(ECOS), and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, complained that EPA
should have consulted with States, local governments, and other
stakeholder groups prior to issuing the Interim Guidance. These
groups also complained that the Interim Guidance would hurt
urban revitalization and the redevelopment of contaminated
brownfields.
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
review of EPA's efforts to issue a final guidance on
environmental justice and other environmental justice issues.
During the 106th Congress, Committee staff met regularly with
Ann Goode, Director of EPA's Office of Civil Rights, to discuss
the steps she was taking to ensure stakeholder input into the
revised Title VI guidance, and to receive updates on the
progress EPA was making toward issuing a revised guidance.
Chairman Bliley wrote to Administrator Browner on December 1,
1999, to request the latest draft of the revised guidance
document. Chairman Bliley also wrote a second letter to
Administrator Browner on December 1, 1999, to express concern
regarding public statements attributed to Agency officials
about EPA's Select Steel decision (the only Title VI complaint
that EPA has resolved on the merits to date). The letter also
severely criticized EPA for, and requested information about,
the handling of environmental justice investigations in the
South Bronx in New York City, and Indianapolis, Indiana--both
of which were the subject of leaked press reports indicating
questionable Agency, and even White House, activity with
respect to pending enforcement actions.
EPA issued its revised draft guidance on June 16, 2000,
roughly six years after President Clinton and EPA Administrator
Browner committed to developing an environmental justice
policy. Committee staff was briefed by Ann Goode on June 16,
prior to EPA's release of the revised guidance to the general
public. Ann Goode briefed Committee legislative assistants on
the revised guidance on June 26, 2000, and met with Committee
staff again on June 27 to answer additional questions
pertaining to the revised guidance. The revised guidance, which
was not actually printed in the Federal Register until June 27,
2000, was subject to a 60-day comment period, during which EPA
received more than 120 comments. Committee staff requested and
received copies of the comments that were filed on the revised
guidance, which raised many of the same criticisms and praises
directed at the interim guidance. As of this date, EPA has not
decided whether to further revise its guidance or issue the
June guidance document as final.
As part of the Committee's oversight of EPA's development
of the Title VI guidance, Chairman Bliley wrote to
Administrator Browner on April 13, 2000, to request a draft of
the Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda (Action Agenda), a government-wide effort being
coordinated by EPA that is designed to address environmental
justice concerns. Committee staff was briefed on this matter on
April 18, 2000, by Barry Hill, Director of EPA's Office of
Environmental Justice, and other EPA officials. Chairman Bliley
also sent a letter to Administrator Browner on September 18,
2000, requesting information from the Agency about its efforts
to follow up on recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (Commission) in its 1996 report on EPA's Title VI
program. The letter requested that EPA inform the Committee
what actions it took with respect to the more than 70
recommendations made by the Commission, and provide documents
in support of what actions the Agency took or did not take with
respect to those recommendations. Committee staff currently is
reviewing EPA's response to Chairman Bliley's September letter.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Hearings
SECURITY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR WEAPON LABORATORIES AND
OTHER SENSITIVE FACILITIES
During the 105th Congress, Committee staff received several
briefings and internal security reports raising questions about
the adequacy of the safeguards and security programs at the
Department of Energy's (DOE) nuclear weapon laboratories and
other sensitive facilities. As a result, toward the end of
1998, the Committee began to work with the General Accounting
Office to plan a comprehensive review of DOE security. During
the subsequent 21 months, the Committee held seven hearings on
this topic, and Members met five times to receive briefings--
most of them classified--relating to security concerns at the
Department and its laboratories. Committee Members and staff
made several visits to DOE sites to conduct inspections and
question officials on security matters. Committee staff also
received dozens of classified and unclassified briefings on
matters relating to site security during the 106th Congress,
and reviewed extensive documentation relating to security
evaluations conducted by the various DOE program elements
responsible for security policies, practices, and assessments.
Further, as noted above, the Committee also requested and
received the assistance of GAO in this matter, which conducted
several specific security-related evaluations for the Committee
during the 106th Congress.
The Committee's bipartisan review of this important matter
was the subject of repeated delays and objections from DOE with
respect to requested briefings and the production of
documentary materials relating to security evaluations--leading
to the issuance of a subpoena to compel certain information
that Energy Secretary Bill Richardson refused to provide
voluntarily. Eventually, DOE provided all information,
classified and unclassified, requested or subpoenaed by the
Committee during the course of this review.
The Committee announced its intent to conduct intensive
oversight of such issues in a letter to Secretary Richardson on
February 1, 1999, which also criticized the Department for
failing to timely report to the Congress and the President on
the status of its safeguards and security programs, as required
by statute and a long-standing Presidential National Security
Directive. The letter noted that the current report was five
months overdue, and that the Department had a history of delays
in producing these annual reports--mostly because of its
inability to internally reconcile competing views on the status
of security at these sensitive sites. The letter demanded that
DOE either produce a final report by February 15th or provide
the Committee with all draft versions created up until that
time. In response, DOE issued a final report to the President
on February 15, 1999, and shortly thereafter produced it to the
Committee. The final report indicated serious security
weaknesses at several of the Department's key nuclear
facilities.
Within days of this report's release, the first of several
Los Alamos National Laboratory security scandals erupted
publicly, with allegations (never proven) of foreign espionage
activities by a Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear
scientist named Wen Ho Lee. The nation learned that this
scientist had improperly downloaded some of America's most
sensitive nuclear weapon codes onto his unclassified computer
system, and had even transferred this information to portable
computer discs. Unfortunately, as the Committee found, the
security problems highlighted by the Wen Ho Lee episode were
not new to the Department--in fact, DOE had been warned five
years earlier of the specific weaknesses in classified
information controls that permitted the downloading of such
sensitive information to an unclassified computer system that
itself was riddled with vulnerabilities from both outside of
and within the laboratory.
Concerned by the long history of recurring and unresolved
security problems at DOE's nuclear weapon laboratories and
other sensitive facilities--including unregulated exchanges and
visits with foreign scientists, unauthorized access to or loss
of classified information, poor physical and computer security,
lack of adequate counterintelligence programs and training,
insufficient management oversight and attention to security
matters, and a lack of accountability for security failures
throughout the DOE and laboratory management structures--
Chairman Bliley wrote in March 1999 to Secretary Richardson to
announce that the Committee would conduct an aggressive review
of security on a laboratory-by-laboratory basis, focused on the
most sensitive sites, in order to ensure that ongoing security
problems are identified and timely corrected. Chairman Bliley
also wrote to GAO on that same day, requesting that its DOE
security experts conduct a broader review of how DOE manages
its security affairs. Specifically, the Chairman requested that
GAO assess not only the adequacy of current security
arrangements, but also review prior security-related
recommendations from DOE, GAO, and other external sources to
determine whether DOE ever effectively implemented such
recommendations, and if not, why not.
Subsequently, Secretary Richardson announced a series of
action plans to improve security at the three nuclear weapon
laboratories, focusing on computer-related security issues and
reorganizing the Department's management of security affairs.
In particular, on April 1, 1999, he ordered that the
laboratories undertake a series of specific actions to improve
classified and unclassified computer security, and gave them
between seven and 30 days to implement them, depending on the
specific action item.
On April 14, 1999, Members of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a classified meeting to receive a
briefing on the contents of the Report of the Select Committee
on U.S. Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
People's Republic of China (commonly known as the ``Cox
Commission Report'')--part of which concluded that China had
been systematically stealing nuclear weapons-related
information from DOE laboratories for many years, and had
ongoing espionage activities at these same sites. A week later,
on April 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held the first in a series of Committee hearings
on the topic of DOE security. The focus of this hearing was on
the perspective of GAO, which had reviewed various aspects of
DOE security practices and had made numerous recommendations to
improve security at these sites over the past 22 years. Four
officials from GAO testified at the hearing, providing an
overview of past GAO work and putting the current spy scandal
in historical context. Specifically, GAO testified to the long-
standing nature of many of DOE's security problems, DOE's
inability to timely or effectively correct identified problems
in the past, and GAO's concerns that the Secretary's recently-
announced action plans to improve security likely would meet
the same fate due to systemic institutional and management
deficiencies that remained unaddressed. GAO's testimony
emphasized the need for greater and more consistent management
attention, prioritization, and accountability throughout the
DOE and laboratory management structure with respect to
security issues.
Secretary Richardson responded to this hearing by issuing a
statement to the effect that GAO was focusing on the past, and
that the Department already had implemented improvements in
many of the areas cited. Thereafter, Secretary Richardson
continued to state publicly throughout April and May 1999 that
DOE had fixed its security problems and that the nation's
nuclear secrets were ``safe and secure.'' However, as the
Committee was learning during the same time period, DOE's own
internal security experts were finding continuing problems at
the labs, and a lack of full implementation of the ordered
corrective actions.
On June 15, 1999, the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board issued a report, prepared at the President's
request, that was highly critical of DOE's management of the
labs on security matters. The report--called the ``Rudman
Report'' after the Board's chairman, former U.S. Senator Warren
Rudman--condemned DOE as responsible for ``the worst security
record on secrecy that members of this panel have ever
encountered.'' The panel found that security at DOE sites has
been lacking in many critical areas for the last 20 years, and
that many of these deficiencies ``still exist today.'' These
deficiencies--particularly in personnel assurance, information
security, and counterintelligence--``invite attack by foreign
intelligence services.'' The panel also found that these
problems had been ``blatantly and repeatedly ignored,'' and
placed the blame on ``organizational disarray, managerial
neglect, and a culture of arrogance--both at DOE headquarters
and the labs themselves.'' The panel criticized DOE for taking
over a year to order the implementation of counterintelligence
measures mandated by a Presidential Decision Directive from
February 1998 (PDD-61), and found that DOE had yet to fully
implement those or other corrective actions ordered by the
President and Secretary. Accordingly, the panel's report
concluded that Secretary Richardson ``has overstated the case
when he asserts, as he did several weeks ago, that `Americans
can be reassured: our nation's secrets are, today, safe and
secure.' '' The panel also expressed its view that Secretary
Richardson's announced reforms ``simply do not go far enough,''
and that DOE was ``incapable of reforming itself.'' The
report's key recommendation was that DOE's weapons research and
stockpile management functions should be placed within a new
semi-autonomous agency within DOE, with a clear mission,
streamlined bureaucracy, and simplified lines of authority.
On June 22, 1999, the Full Committee held a hearing on the
Rudman Report, at which Senator Rudman testified about his
panel's findings and its recommendations for reform. Secretary
Richardson also testified on the same panel, and was questioned
about his prior public statements, criticizing the Rudman
Report and attesting to adequate security at the weapons labs.
At the hearing, however, the Secretary accepted the key
findings of the Rudman Report and acknowledged DOE's need to
further improve security. But Secretary Richardson rejected
calls for a new independent or semi-autonomous agency within
DOE to manage these labs. Notwithstanding such opposition,
Congress eventually ordered the creation of a semi-autonomous
agency for this purpose, known as the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), in the Defense Authorization Act of
2000.
Several weeks later, on July 2, 1999, Members of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a closed session
on ongoing security problems at DOE's Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory. Officials from the Department's
independent oversight office--which had recently conducted a
security inspection at Livermore--testified, as well as
relevant DOE and laboratory officials. As a follow up to this
briefing, on July 20, 1999, the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee held a hearing--part in open session, part in
closed session--on Livermore's security problems. In the
portion of the hearing open to the public, it was revealed that
there were serious security deficiencies at this nuclear weapon
laboratory with respect to classified and unclassified computer
security, the protection of classified weapon parts and other
classified information, and other security matters. The hearing
also revealed that many of these problems had been identified
in security reviews years prior to the current inspection, but
had not been corrected--yet Livermore had never been
financially penalized for these failures in its annual contract
performance evaluations. Members also learned that other layers
of the Department's oversight failed to catch these serious
issues over the years, and that the recent claims of
improvements in computer security in particular were not wholly
accurate. Testifying at the hearing were the Department's chief
security inspector, Mr. Glenn Podonsky, the director of
Livermore, Dr. Bruce Tarter, and two relevant DOE program
officials responsible for the Livermore site. Dr. Tarter
pledged to the Subcommittee that Livermore would promptly
correct all of the cited deficiencies.
To follow up on the Livermore hearing and to review the
progress being made at that site and the other two nuclear
weapon laboratories--Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia
National Laboratory in New Mexico--Committee majority staff
visited all three labs during September and October1999. During
these visits, staff visited classified areas of the
laboratories, physically reviewed the progress being made in
correcting the key deficiencies cited in various inspection
reports, and received numerous briefings from relevant
laboratory and DOE officials on virtually every aspect of
security at these sites. Staff also reviewed the security
assessments conducted by the laboratories, as well as those
conducted by DOE's operations offices, to determine their
adequacy and why some of the current problems were not
identified and/or corrected before the recent independent
inspections by DOE's security inspection team and outside
reviewers. In addition, several Members and staff of the
Committee went to these labs in January 2000 to conduct
similar, follow-up inspections.
On October 26, 1999, the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee held a hearing on the status of security at the
three nuclear weapon laboratories, and heard from two panels of
witnesses. The first panel consisted of the three top security
advisers to Energy Secretary Richardson--General Eugene
Habiger, director of the Department's security policy office,
Mr. Ed Curran, director of the Department's counterintelligence
office, and Mr. Podonsky, whose office had recently completed
reviews at all three labs. The second panel consisted of the
three laboratory directors (Dr. John Browne, Los Alamos; Dr.
Bruce Tarter, Livermore; and Dr. Paul Robinson, Sandia), and
officials from the two relevant DOE operations offices.
General Habiger was questioned by Members about the lack of
adequate DOE policies in critical security areas, such as
foreign nationals accessing DOE computer networks on-site or
from remote locations, the proper use of computer passwords,
and controls on classified information and nuclear weapon
parts. He also was questioned about the ambiguity of other DOE
policies, which have permitted the laboratories to be in
technical compliance with DOE orders yet still have poor
security. Mr. Curran was questioned about the Department's
continuing failure to implement some of the important
counterintelligence directives from PDD-61 and the Department's
implementation plan--notably an expanded polygraph program for
key personnel, monitoring of outgoing e-mails to foreign
countries, and monitoring of high-risk personnel and high-
performance computers to detect unusual patterns of computer
use (particularly by foreign nationals with approved access).
Mr. Podonsky testified about serious problems at both Sandia
and Livermore with respect to controls on access by foreign
nationals and uncleared personnel to classified or sensitive
information, as well as weaknesses in the protection of
classified weapon parts. While Los Alamos National Laboratory
received an overall ``satisfactory'' rating from Mr. Podonsky,
he nonetheless reported similar computer security weaknesses
relating to foreign nationals at that lab as well.
The second panel of witnesses was questioned about the
labs' corrective action plans, the reasons these deficiencies
were allowed to arise in the first place, why they went
unnoticed and/or uncorrected for years, and why the annual
financial bonuses received by the labs' senior managers were
not impacted by these recurring, material deficiencies. For
example, the Committee's oversight revealed that Los Alamos
National Laboratory had received critical security evaluations
in 1998 from both Mr. Podonsky's office and the DOE field
office, yet the lab received an ``excellent'' rating in
security as part of its contract performance appraisal that
same year, conducted by the same DOE field office.
In November 1999, the Committee also began to review the
state of security at other sensitive nuclear facilities,
particularly the Department's Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. A recent
inspection by Mr. Podonsky's office had highlighted some long-
standing concerns in the areas of nuclear material control and
accountability, the protection of classified matter, and
personnel security, among other areas, and the Department
promptly removed the head of security at that site. While the
Committee was concerned about the security problems at this
site, the Committee also was troubled that the Department had
moved so quickly to place all of the blame for these long-
standing problems on a single, career-level individual. The
Committee requested extensive documentation relating to these
matters. Committee majority staff also visited the Y-12 Plant,
and interviewed relevant officials on these related subjects.
Committee staff found that most of the key problems identified
by Mr. Podonsky in the fall of 1999 had been raised by the
site's own security office years earlier, but for various
reasons the program officials on site and in DOE headquarters
had refused to address them. The Committee also found that site
managers had been given conflicting advice from DOE
headquarters on the requirements of a key personnel assurance
program. Further, Committee staff found that the personnel
action, which was taken at the urging of the Secretary and his
senior staff, was done without virtually any investigation into
this matter by either DOE headquarters or the Oak Ridge
operations office. After Committee staff discussed these
findings with top Department managers at Oak Ridge, the
Department acknowledged that it should not have blamed its site
security chief for the current deficiencies, and promoted the
individual to a more senior-level security position at that
site.
As noted earlier, in January 2000, several Members of the
Committee and certain staff visited the three nuclear weapon
plants to review whether they were making progress in improving
specific areas of security, as promised by the three lab
directors at the Subcommittee's October 1999 hearing. While the
Committee observed improvements in the specifically-cited
areas, these visits and others taken by Committee staff in 1999
raised concerns about the general controls on classified
information required by DOE orders, and whether ``need to
know'' restrictions were being properly and consistently
implemented at these and other DOE sites. Accordingly, on March
1, 2000, Chairman Bliley requested that GAO evaluate the
procedures and practices employed by the Department and its
contractors to control classified matter, including the impact
of the Department's decisions during the 1990s to reduce
accountability and inventory requirements for such matter.
GAO's work in this area, however, was quickly overtaken by
events--specifically, the revelation in June 2000 that highly
classified hard drives were missing from a secure vault at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, which is discussed in greater
detail below.
The Committee also continued its own review of security-
related matters. On March 14, 2000, the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee held a joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power, focusing on safety and
security oversight of the new National Nuclear Security
Administration. The hearing focused on how the implementation
of the new, semi-autonomous NNSA may affect the independent
oversight of safety and security matters at sites within the
NNSA (such as the three nuclear weapon labs), which had been
performed by DOE headquarters offices. The statute creating the
NNSA did not specifically provide for independent oversight of
safety and security functions, and the limitations in the law
on DOE staff authority over the NNSA raised doubts about the
ability of these DOE inspection offices to properly do their
jobs with respect to sites within the NNSA. There were three
panels of witnesses at the hearing, including Deputy Secretary
of Energy T.J. Glauthier, and the Department's chief security
and safety inspectors--Mr. Podonsky, and Dr. David Michaels.
Both inspectors raised concerns at the hearing about possible
impediments to their performance of their duties with respect
to NNSA sites.
Also testifying at this hearing were representatives from
the three nuclear weapon labs and the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, as
well as from GAO and the National Association of Attorneys
General. In particular, GAO testified about a report prepared
for the Committee (and released at the hearing by Chairman
Bliley) regarding DOE's oversight of its contractors' security
performance, and how the problems found in that review could be
exacerbated by the semi-autonomy of the NNSA. The GAO report
found that DOE's security oversight historically has been
inconsistent at best, and has not been sufficiently coordinated
at a centralized level to ensure that prompt corrective actions
are taken to close all findings of security deficiencies and
that lessons are learned and shared throughout the DOE complex.
GAO reported that different security oversight organizations
within the DOE structure often gave conflicting assessments of
security at the same sites and in the same years, because of
the use of different standards, criteria, and methods. GAO also
reported that some key sites would go several years without any
security evaluations at all. GAO noted that Mr. Podonsky's
inspection function has existed, in various forms, at different
levels of the DOE bureaucracy over time, resulting in
inconsistent management attention and priority to such matters.
As a result of the GAO report, the March 14th hearing, and
the extensive oversight conducted over the prior 15 months on
DOE security-related matters, the Committee reported
legislation that would improve security oversight within the
entire DOE complex, including the NNSA. Specifically, the bill
would strengthen the internal oversight of physical and
computer security within DOE by establishing in statute an
Office of Independent Security Oversight, with a Director
appointed by the Secretary and subject to the authority of the
Secretary only. Under the bill, this Office must conduct
regular inspections at all key sites (including those within
the NNSA) to identify problems in physical, personnel, and
cyber security, make specific recommendations for improvement,
and assess the effectiveness and timeliness of corrective
actions. The legislation specifies that the Director of the
Office of Independent Security Oversight is to have access to
all records and personnel of the Department of Energy,
including the records and personnel of the NNSA. H.R. 3906
provides for annual reporting from the Office of Independent
Security Oversight to the Secretary of Energy, and requires the
Secretary to submit those annual reports, without alteration,
to the Congress. H.R. 3906 also requires immediate reports to
the Congress of any serious security deficiencies, and provides
for uncensored testimony and briefings to the Congress from the
Director of the Office of Independent Security Oversight. For
more information regarding this legislation, see H.R. 3906 in
the Energy and Power section of this report.
Shortly after Full Committee reported the bill, Committee
staff received a briefing from Mr. Podonsky's office on the
results of an audit of unclassified computer security at DOE's
own headquarters offices. Committee Member Heather Wilson, at
the October 26, 1999 hearing on laboratory security, had
requested that Mr. Podonsky conduct such a review on an
expedited basis, which he agreed to do. The results of the
audit showed that DOE's own headquarters suffered from many of
the same computer vulnerabilities that had been identified and
corrected by the labs during 1999, but that DOE had done
virtually nothing to remedy these deficiencies in its own
headquarters' systems. The audit found that the unclassified
headquarters network lacked adequate and consistent intrusion
detection capabilities, and contained significant and
exploitable vulnerabilities that could permit unauthorized
users or authorized foreign nationals to roam throughout and
among the various program office systems--which share a common
network--to compromise sensitive information. Further, the
audit found that many of DOE's public web servers contained
vulnerabilities that would permit the alteration or deletion of
public information, or the use of these web servers to launch
denial of service attacks against other governmental or private
entities--despite the fact, as uncovered by the Committee, that
DOE had certified to the President just months earlier that its
systems had been evaluated for such a vulnerability. The audit
also revealed that the headquarters offices failed to fully
implement the Secretary's mandated enhancements to cyber
security, which were announced in May 1999. The audit
attributed these deficiencies to the lack of uniform computer
policies among the various headquarters offices--particularly
with respect to the use of modems, access by foreign nationals,
and external connections to the network that could provide
back-door access to the overall network by unauthorized
sources. The audit faulted DOE's decentralized management of
the headquarters network, and urged that senior management
attention to this issue was necessary to correct these
deficiencies.
Under questioning by Committee staff at this same briefing,
DOE's chief information officer (CIO) also acknowledged that
his office had known about these problems for at least one year
prior to Mr. Podonsky's audit, but had not taken any action to
correct them because he did not believe he had any authority to
require the various program offices to make the necessary
changes--despite the fact that they all share a common network.
The CIO also pledged that all problems would be corrected
within 60 days. Based on this briefing, the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee scheduled a hearing on this topic
for June 13, 2000, and Chairman Bliley wrote to Secretary
Richardson on June 12, 2000, to urge that the Department take
its own computer security as seriously as it has computer
security at the weapon laboratories. After the hearing was
noticed, the Deputy Secretary of Energy issued a memorandum
granting the DOE CIO explicit authority over all headquarters
program offices' computer policies and practices. At the
hearing, DOE security director General Habiger testified,
accompanied by DOE's CIO, Mr. John Gilligan, both of whom
acknowledged the problems but suggested that they resulted from
a lack of Congressional funding for cyber security purposes.
Mr. Podonsky also testified at the hearing, describing the
results of the audit, and his office's view that the identified
problems stemmed from a lack of management attention to cyber
security issues, rather than from a lack of financial
resources.
The June 13th hearing, however, did not focus solely on the
noticed topic of computer security at DOE headquarters. Days
before the scheduled hearing, DOE and Los Alamos National
Laboratory announced that two portable computer hard drives--
containing compendia of nuclear weapons-related information
used by the Department's Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST)
in its response actions--were missing from their secure vault
location at the laboratory. NEST is a multi-laboratory effort
coordinated by DOE headquarters to respond to incidents
involving the use or potential use of U.S. or foreign nuclear
weapons or improvised nuclear devices by terrorists. Committee
staff immediately received a full briefing from the Department
on this matter, and at the June 13th hearing, Subcommittee
Members questioned General Habiger extensively about the Los
Alamos National Laboratory situation. Committee Members also
received a classified briefing immediately following the public
hearing from General Habiger and other relevant DOE officials.
As part of its investigation, the Committee learned that
Los Alamos National Laboratory officials failed to notify DOE
about the NEST situation for several weeks after learning that
the drives were missing, and that the laboratory did not have
in place--because DOE did not require--basic accountability
mechanisms for the control of such highly-classified
information. For example, the hard drives were contained in a
vault to which 26 individuals had unrestricted access, even
though only half of them were involved in NEST activities and
had a ``need to know'' such information. Further, there were no
requirements that inventories of the hard drives (there were
three sets of two hard drives in the vault) be conducted on a
regular basis, or that individuals who remove a hard drive from
the vault leave any record of that removal. Nor did the
laboratory keep records of all those entering the vault. Thus,
when the hard drives were discovered missing in early to mid-
May 2000, investigators had no paper trail to follow to
determine who might have possession or last had possession of
these drives, or who had gained access to the vault and when.
Following the hearing, Committee staff interviewed
officials at Los Alamos National Laboratory and the other two
nuclear weapon labs about the NEST issue (all three labs
participate in NEST), and how they control similar types of
classified information. Committee staff also interviewed DOE
officials regarding Department policies on control of
classified information, and discussed with GAO officials the
ongoing review of these exact same matters that had been
requested by the Chairman in March 2000. During the course of
this oversight, the Committee learned about significant
deficiencies and inconsistencies in how DOE and its
laboratories control highly sensitive information. According to
GAO and DOE security inspectors, prior to 1992, DOE required
that all classified material, whether Secret or Top Secret, be
strictly ``accounted'' for by its contractors, which included
regular inventories, unique numbering for every classified
document, and other controls on receipt, transmission, and
destruction of such documents. In mid-1992, DOE began to
eliminate these accountability requirements for all Secret
material (such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory hard
drives), with some particular exceptions, but maintained the
strict control measures for Top Secret data. In 1995, this
modified accountability system for Secret information was
adopted government-wide and certain controls on Top Secret
information were eliminated. In January 1998, DOE decided to
eliminate virtually all accountability controls for Top Secret
information.
But, according to GAO and experts within DOE, the
Department never required that entry to vaults be logged or
that those removing Secret-level materials from common-access
vaults ``check-out'' such materials. In addition, the inventory
requirements that did exist prior to 1992 for Secret data only
required inventories once every three years, so would not have
aided the investigation into the missing NEST hard drives
significantly even if they had remained in place. Instead, DOE
had set minimum, general requirements for classified materials,
whether Secret or Top Secret, and had essentially left the
details of access controls to the relevant personnel within the
labs.
To explore the actual operational practices of the labs,
Committee staff interviewed officials at the three nuclear
weapon laboratories concerning their procedures for handling
NEST-related information, as well as for similar types of
classified information. The Committee's interviews revealed
that the labs have not implemented uniform practices--both
among the labs, and within the same lab. The differences in
access control procedures governing similar types of classified
materials highlighted the failure of DOE headquarters and the
laboratories to issue security policies that were sufficiently
clear and graded to deal with the inevitable variation in
sensitivity even within classification categories. These
differences also suggested that the responsible DOE and
laboratory program officials have the power to impose
additional control requirements when dealing with particularly
sensitive classified material in their programmatic possession
or control, but that they did so on a hit-or-miss basis, rather
than based on a consistent and thorough evaluation of risks and
costs, or clear guidance from DOE headquarters.
The Committee also learned that--following the Cox
Commission Report findings--the directors of the three nuclear
weapon labs wrote to the DOE Under Secretary in March 1999,
urging that formal accountability requirements for Secret and
Top Secret restricted weapons data be re-instituted ``as
quickly as possible.'' The Rudman Report, issued shortly
thereafter, contained a similar recommendation. But DOE did not
take any apparent action to address these recommendations prior
to the Los Alamos National Laboratory NEST security incident
one year later.
With respect to NEST specifically, the Committee's
interviews revealed confusion within the Los Alamos National
Laboratory management structure over who was responsible for
setting the security rules governing NEST materials, and found
that no single person was in charge of all NEST assets on site
at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Further, though the NEST
program technically was subject to laboratory and DOE security
inspections similar to those done for other lab programs, the
Committee learned that neither Los Alamos National Laboratory
or the relevant DOE overseers conducted such oversight to any
significant degree.
Based on this oversight, the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee held a hearing on July 11, 2000, focusing on the
disappearance--and, by that time, the mysterious re-
appearance--of the NEST hard drives from Los Alamos National
Laboratory, as well as the general practices and procedures
governing control of and access to classified materials at all
sensitive DOE facilities, such as the nuclear weapon labs.
There were two panels of witnesses. The first panel included
Mr. Jim Wells of GAO, and Mr. Podonsky, DOE's chief security
inspector, both of whom discussed what controls DOE orders do
and do not require with respect to Secret and Top Secret
materials (as discussed above). Mr. Podonsky also testified
regarding a review of these control requirements and their
implementation by the laboratories he conducted at the
Secretary's request after the Los Alamos National Laboratory
incident surfaced, finding deficiencies in DOE's general
security requirements, and inconsistent implementation by the
labs--leading to his conclusion that, while the labs are mostly
in compliance with DOE orders, security practices may
nonetheless be ineffective.
The second panel at the hearing consisted of DOE Deputy
Secretary T.J. Glauthier, accompanied by General Tom Giaconda,
Acting Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs within the
NNSA, General Habiger, DOE's security policy chief, and General
John M. McBroom, DOE's Director of the Office of Emergency
Operations, who is in charge of emergency response functions
such as NEST. The DOE officials were questioned in detail about
the Department's policies and practices in this area, and its
lack of action over the years to address high-level
recommendations to tighten controls on highly sensitive
materials. The DOE officials also testified regarding changes
DOE ordered following the Los Alamos National Laboratory
incident. Specifically, DOE ordered all of its sites to upgrade
vault access control procedures, so as to record duration and
time of access by authorized personnel. DOE also required that
deployable, classified encyclopedic databases such as those
used by NEST and other similar response teams be encrypted and
stored in vaults, with sign out and sign in procedures and the
use of electronic bar codes for inventory purposes. DOE also
announced plans to re-institute some accountability controls
for the more sensitive electronic media, and full
accountability for Top Secret data. Further, DOE testified, and
was questioned extensively, about its intention to
``restructure,'' in an undefined fashion, the security-related
aspects of its contract with the University of California (UC)
(which runs Los Alamos National Laboratory and Livermore).
Also on the second panel were the three directors of the
nuclear weapon laboratories, and Mr. Steve Aftergood, a Senior
Research Fellow from the Federation of American Scientists, who
testified concerning broader classification issues, including
what is known as the ``Higher Fences Initiative.'' The Higher
Fences Initiative grew out of a 1996 DOE study, which
recommended that DOE impose higher levels of security on its
more sensitive Secret-level materials, particularly nuclear
weapon design, control, and use information (such as the NEST
hard drives), by either re-classifying them as Top Secret
(which at the time had greater control mechanisms) or by
imposing additional protection requirements on this subcategory
of Secret material. After much internal debate, in December
1999 DOE issued a formal proposal to the Department of Defense
(DOD)--which receives and uses some of this sensitive data from
DOE--to re-classify all nuclear weapons material to Top Secret.
DOD, however, indicated to DOE and Committee staff that it
believed the DOE proposal was too sweeping in nature and would
impose significant financial and operational costs on DOD, if
implemented. DOE nonetheless could have proceeded on its own to
impose tighter requirements for these materials when in DOE's
possession at any time since it was first recommended in 1996--
as the actions taken by DOE to tighten such requirements after
the June 2000 Los Alamos National Laboratory hard drive
incident demonstrated. To pursue this matter directly with DOD,
Chairman Bliley also wrote to Defense Secretary William Cohen
in August 2000 to request an explanation of DOD's plans in this
regard, and the Committee is currently reviewing this response.
Several weeks after the July 11th hearing, Committee
Members met with General John Gordon, the newly-confirmed
Administrator of the NNSA, to discuss issues relating to
security at NNSA sites. In particular, the focus of the meeting
was on DOE's announced plans to restructure its contract with
UC to improve security management at Los Alamos National
Laboratory and Livermore, among other sites. Committee Members
expressed concern that DOE's suggested possibility of bringing
into the contract in some way various security subcontractors
(to either DOE or UC) would only further blur already confused
lines of authority and accountability for security matters, and
would fail to address the principal problem underlying the
history of security weaknesses--the lack of clear and
consistent policy guidance and implementation on the part of
DOE headquarters and its contractors, respectively. General
Gordon pledged to consider such matters when evaluating reform
options for the Secretary's consideration, which he said would
be presented in September 2000.
In mid-October 2000, General Gordon submitted to Secretary
Richardson a recommendation regarding the UC contract, and his
senior staff was called to brief Committee Members on its
substance on October 19, 2000. NNSA officials explained that
Administrator Gordon recommended to the Secretary a course of
action--which the Secretary had accepted--that included the
replacement of the existing 5-year contract with UC that was
set to expire at the end of 2002 with a new 5-year contract. In
other words, DOE agreed to negotiate with UC a three-year, non-
competitive extension of this contract. An NNSA representative
expressed the Department's intent to finalize the contract
extension negotiations by the end of 2000. The parties also
agreed to renegotiate the terms of the contract to include five
``new'' actions proposed by UC to address security and other
management-related concerns at these labs.
However, when pressed about the details of these five
actions, or how they would be implemented, neither DOE nor UC
was able to offer any substantive explanations to Committee
Members--saying only that the specifics would be worked out
during contract negotiations. Both at the briefing and in
subsequent correspondence to Secretary Richardson from Chairman
Bliley and Ranking Member Dingell dated October 26, 2000,
Committee Members expressed concern that the five action items
fell far short of the fundamental restructuring necessary to
bring new management expertise and accountability into the
operations of these labs. Chairman Bliley and Mr. Dingell wrote
that ``these actions are, for all practical purposes, either
meaningless or already provided for in the current contract.
These action items mask the lack of any real change to the UC
contract and, unfortunately, appear to be an excuse for further
extending this contract without competition.'' The joint letter
also noted that the current contract does not expire until the
end of 2002, which provided time for DOE to conduct a thorough
renegotiation with UC and/or a competitive bidding of the
contract, and criticized the Department's ``rush to complete
such a major undertaking in less than two months.'' The letter
concluded by expressing the Members' views that ``[n]o
extension of the UC contract is warranted at this time, and in
this manner.''
At the October 19, 2000 Member briefing with NNSA
officials, two other security-related issues were reviewed as
well. The first issue was discussed in closed session due to
its classified nature. The final topic discussed at the October
19, 2000 Member briefing related to the second part of the
computer security review of DOE headquarters conducted by Mr.
Podonsky's office at the Committee's request. This portion of
the review focused on the headquarters classified computer
networks, and found some of the same problems that had been
found in June 2000 with respect to the unclassified network.
Specifically, the review found that, not only had the
headquarters offices failed to implement the enhancements to
classified computing ordered by the Secretary in May 1999 (and
largely implemented by the laboratories last year), but that
the Department's Chief Information Office had not yet even
transformed these enhancements into specific directives or
orders for DOE's headquarters and other offices/sites to
follow. DOE's computer policy staff were questioned about these
failures at the briefing and pledged to work promptly to bring
DOE headquarters into compliance with the Secretary's May 1999
order.
In summary, the Committee's sustained oversight effort--
including numerous oversight hearings, Member briefings, on-
site inspections and other investigative activities--on the
poor state of security at our nation's most sensitive nuclear
facilities and other critical DOE sites helped to keep pressure
on the laboratories and DOE officials to match their rhetoric
of improved security with reality on the ground. In addition,
this oversight led to the passage of legislation by the
Committee that, if enacted by the next Congress, will further
strengthen and clarify the Department's own internal oversight
of site security policies and practices. The Committee will
continue to conduct oversight of the Department's safeguards
and security programs in the 107th Congress.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FAILURE TO DEVELOP AND USE DOE-FUNDED
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES
On May 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing that focused on DOE's failure to
deploy innovative cleanup technologies funded by the Office of
Science and Technology (OST) at DOE waste sites. The mission of
OST, as defined by both Congress and the Department, is to fund
the development of new technologies that will improve DOE's
massive environmental restoration and management efforts--by
making them cheaper, faster, and safer. The Subcommittee held a
hearing in May 1997 that revealed severe management problems
within OST, leading to the waste of hundreds of millions of
dollars on technologies that either did not work as planned or
were not being used for DOE cleanup by site managers.
The May 1999 Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
hearing focused on the problem of deploying those useful OST-
funded technologies at DOE waste sites. At the hearing, Dr.
Ernest Moniz, Under Secretary of Energy, testified that the
Subcommittee's May 1997 hearing ``galvanized the Department
into action to solve the technology development and deployment
problem.'' Dr. Moniz stated ``we have turned the corner and are
beginning to see the results of the investments we have made in
science and technology.'' However, four witnesses at the May
1999 hearing representing companies that market commercially
available OST-funded cleanup technologies identified real-world
barriers that continue to prevent deployment at DOE waste
sites. Several of these companies developed commercially
available OST-funded technologies, but have been unable to gain
access to DOE waste sites due to non-technical barriers.
Combined, these four companies received $52 million in DOE and
OST funds to develop and test their wares ($27 million from the
OST program).
Mr. John Schofield, representing Thermatrix, Inc.,
testified that his technology--developed with $29 million in
DOE and OST funds--has achieved widespread use treating noxious
emissions in the refining, chemical, and pharmaceutical
industries. Unfortunately, due to the cost and frustration
associated with several failed attempts to deploy the
Thermatrix technology at DOE sites, Mr. Schofield told the
Subcommittee ``it is our policy not to do business with DOE,
and I am sorry to report that.'' Dr. Payasada Kotrappa,
representing Rad Elec, Inc., received approximately $1 million
in DOE funds to develop and demonstrate a technology to measure
low levels of radioactive contaminants on surfaces and soils.
At the hearing, Dr. Kotrappa described his efforts to gain
access to DOE sites as ``an example of the long and difficult
path to get to any commercial business from the DOE, however
promising the technology may be.'' Dr. Kotrappa noted that the
critical performance information on his technology is available
to DOE site managers and contractors, yet ``it takes a
painfully long period for making a decision to use the
technology at DOE sites.'' Mr. Dick Bernardi of BIR, Inc., who
also testified at the hearing, has worked with OST and DOE over
10 years to develop and test Waste Inspection Tomography
(WIT)--a technology for non-intrusive characterization of
transuranic waste drums. OST and DOE have invested
approximately $13 million in the development of WIT. As a
result of this substantial investment, BIR now operates two
mobile, full-scale, and operable WIT units that could be driven
to more than 20 DOE sites where thousands of drums of
transuranic wastes are located. However, WIT is not currently
deployed for use at any DOE site. The Subcommittee also
received testimony from several DOE site management contractors
that manage environmental cleanup activities at DOE's largest
waste sites, including DOE's Hanford site, Fernald site, Rocky
Flats site, Oak Ridge site, Savannah River site, and the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).
On November 1, 2000, Chairman Bliley issued a Majority
staff report entitled ``Incinerating Cash: The Department of
Energy's Failure to Develop and Use Innovative Technologies to
Clean Up the Nuclear Waste Legacy.'' The Majority staff report
concluded that several of EM's largest waste sites--including
the Hanford site, the WIPP site, and the Rocky Flats site--
failed to use commercially available OST-funded technologies to
date, and have limited plans to do so in the foreseeable
future.
WORKER SAFETY AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR FACILITIES
On June 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review worker safety at
Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities. The hearing
focused on DOE's enforcement of Price-Anderson Act nuclear
safety requirements. In 1988, Congress enacted the Price-
Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA), which provided DOE with new
authority to assess civil fines on DOE contractors that violate
DOE regulations or orders related to nuclear safety. However,
the 1988 amendments also exempted seven non-profit M&O
contractors from paying civil penalties, including the
University of California (at Los Alamos National Laboratory and
Lawrence Livermore, and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs) and
the University of Chicago (at Argonne National Laboratory). In
1996, DOE established its PAAA nuclear safety program after
promulgating two enforceable rules covering quality assurance
requirements and radiation protection for workers. DOE's Office
of Enforcement and Investigations--which reports to the
Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health--is
responsible for investigating possible violations of these
rules and imposing civil penalties or other corrective actions
when appropriate.
At the request of Chairman Bliley, the General Accounting
Office reviewed DOE's nuclear safety program and assessed
whether there is a continued need for exempting non-profit
contractors from paying civil penalties for nuclear safety
violations. According to the testimony of Ms. Gary Jones,
Associate Director of Energy Issues for GAO, DOE had issued
only two enforceable rules, covering two out of the 11 safety
areas originally proposed under the law. Because the nine
remaining safety areas are not now enforceable, GAO reported
that DOE has limited the overall effectiveness of its
enforcement program. Of the two rules that are enforceable, GAO
reported that DOE field offices have inconsistently applied its
quality assurance rule at nuclear facilities. GAO recommended
that the Secretary of Energy ``strengthen DOE's nuclear safety
enforcement program and ensure that field offices are
consistent in applying it.''
GAO also recommended that DOE end the civil penalty
exemptions it has administratively extended to all non-profit
educational institutions, and called for Congress to consider
ending the exemption for the remaining non-profit educational
institutions exempted by statute (including the University of
California and the University of Chicago). At the hearing, Ms.
Mary Anne Sullivan, DOE's General Counsel, cited three reasons
for continuing and expanding the exemptions: (1) non-profit
contractors' unwillingness to put their assets at risk for
civil penalties; (2) the effectiveness of existing contract
mechanisms to compel safety; and (3) consistency with other
regulatory agencies' treatment of non-profit contractors. Ms.
Jones countered, however, that non-profit contractors are now
paid performance fees that can be used to pay civil penalties,
that DOE has not used contract mechanisms consistently in the
past to address safety problems, and that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission assesses civil penalties on all
contractors that violate its nuclear safety requirements,
regardless of their non-profit or for-profit status.
The Subcommittee also received testimony from several DOE
contractors (including several non-profit contractors) that
manage DOE facilities, including the University of California,
the University of Chicago, Kaiser Hill Company (contractor at
the Rocky Flats site), and Lockheed Martin Corporation
(contractor at Idaho and Oak Ridge Laboratory sites).
On a related matter, the Subcommittees on Oversight and
Investigations and Energy and Power held a joint hearing on
March 14, 2000, on safety and security oversight of the newly-
established National Nuclear Security Administration, within
DOE. The Subcommittees heard from, among others, the Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health, who
testified to the conflict between the responsibilities of his
office to enforce the PAAA throughout the DOE complex and the
restrictions imposed by section 3213 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 on his authority over
the NNSA.
As a result of these hearings on DOE safety issues, the
Committee reported legislation in May 2000 that would ensure
that the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health, can
continue to enforce the civil penalties section of the PAAA for
the entire Department of Energy, including the NNSA, and to end
the exemption provided for non-profits under this regulatory
scheme. Also, Ms. Sullivan committed that DOE would improve the
effectiveness of its nuclear safety enforcement program by
finalizing the remaining enforceable rules covering nuclear
safety management at DOE nuclear facilities by the end of 2000.
For more information about this legislation, see the Energy and
Power section of this report.
WORKER SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AT THE PADUCAH GASEOUS
DIFFUSION PLANT
On September 16, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing that revealed serious worker
safety and environmental contamination concerns at the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah site), located in Kentucky.
The hearing focused on the current status of worker safety and
environmental cleanup activities at the site, as well as past
practices related to these issues. The Paducah plant is one of
three gaseous diffusion plants (including K-25 and Portsmouth)
built by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) within the Oak
Ridge complex. The plant was operated for AEC and DOE under
contract by Union Carbide between 1951 and 1986, and by Martin
Marietta (later Lockheed Martin) between 1984 and 1996.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the newly-created
government corporation known as the United States Enrichment
Corporation (USEC) assumed uranium enrichment responsibility in
1993 at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants (with Lockheed Martin
continuing as contractor).
Three plaintiffs to a lawsuit filed in June 1999 against
former contractor Lockheed Martin--Mr. Garland E. Jenkins, Mr.
Ronald B. Fowler, and Dr. Thomas B. Cochran--provided testimony
at the hearing alleging that Lockheed Martin dumped radioactive
wastes at Paducah in unauthorized locations, exposed workers to
unlawful levels of radioactivity, failed to report levels of
radioactive contamination on and off the Paducah site, and
failed to remove contamination from recycled materials prior to
shipment of those materials off site.
Based on documents obtained by the Committee and released
at the hearing, the Subcommittee revealed inaccuracies in the
quality and accuracy of data contained in several environmental
reports written by former DOE site contractors. In at least one
case, data provided by DOE and its contractors to the State of
Kentucky, and used to permit a non-hazardous RCRA Subtitle D
sanitary landfill (the C-746-S Closed Non-Hazardous Landfill),
failed to identify the long-standing presence of uranium and
technetium, which DOE and Bechtel just discovered in March
2000. The Subcommittee also revealed inaccuracies that failed
to report off-site radiological contamination in a Superfund
site assessment generated by Lockheed Martin and its
subcontractor (CH2M Hill). Additionally, the Subcommittee
revealed several corporate environmental audit reports from
Lockheed Martin that indicated deficiencies in health physics
technician staffing at the site, inadequate radiological
postings, and poor environmental monitoring systems.
The Subcommittee also received testimony from
representatives of Lockheed Martin, USEC, and Bechtel Jacobs
Corp., the current DOE contractor at Paducah. Also testifying
at the hearing were Dr. David M. Michaels, DOE Assistant
Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, who discussed
worker safety and environmental issues at the Paducah site, as
well as representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection.
WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES
On May 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review retaliation against
whistleblowers at Department of Energy contractor-operated
facilities. In particular, the hearing focused on DOE's failure
to enforce its ``zero tolerance'' policy for reprisals taken by
DOE contractors against their employees, and DOE's questionable
policy regarding reimbursement of its contractors' legal costs
associated with defending against whistleblower retaliation
claims.
The Subcommittee reviewed several specific cases of
whistleblower retaliation. Mr. Randy Walli testified that he
was fired by DOE's Hanford site contractor Flour Daniel for
refusing to install an under-rated valve on a high-level
nuclear waste transfer line at the Hanford site. Mr. Walli
initially contacted DOE's Employee Concerns Program with his
complaint, but the Department performed only a cursory review
and decided that it could not resolve the matter. Subsequently,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
investigated the complaint and, in July 1997, ordered Flour
Daniel to reinstate Mr. Walli and others with back pay and
damages. Flour Daniel appealed OSHA's ruling, at taxpayer
expense, and after another year of litigation decided to settle
one day before the administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing. The
Department reimbursed Flour Daniel $500,000 for its legal
costs, including the settlement costs. Yet, according to Mr.
Walli's testimony, the harassment of the returning pipefitters
continued by Flour Daniel, including a decision by Flour Daniel
(with DOE's approval) to file suit against the pipefitters for
alleged breach of the settlement agreement for their decision
to file internal union grievances against certain union
personnel. That suit was dismissed by the judge, who ordered
Flour Daniel to pay the pipefitters' legal costs and pay
interest on the original settlement funds (which had been
wrongfully withheld). Not only did DOE pay these costs, but
also paid for Flour Daniel's $50,000 in legal fees.
The Subcommittee also heard testimony from Mr. Joe
Gutierrez, who suffered acts of retaliation taken against him
by the University of California (UC) at Los Alamos National
Laboratory for disclosing nuclear safety concerns. An
investigation by OSHA verified Mr. Gutierrez' claims to the
satisfaction of a Department of Labor (DOL) ALJ, who ordered UC
to expunge negative comments from his personnel record and
readjust his salary. UC has appealed the ALJ decision within
DOL.
The testimony provided by these whistleblowers, and by Mr.
Tom Carpenter on behalf of the Government Accountability
Project, raised serious questions as to whether the Department
has properly implemented Secretary Richardson's zero tolerance
policy for whistleblower retaliation. These cases also
highlight the Department's questionable policy of reimbursing
its contractors' outside legal costs in defending retaliation
cases that clearly have merit. During her testimony, Ms. Mary
Anne Sullivan, DOE's General Counsel, was unable to provide a
single instance in which DOE had refused a contractor's choice
of outside counsel, regardless of the cost, to defend against a
whistleblower claim. Nor was she able to provide a single
instance in which DOE had formally disallowed a contractor's
legal bills in such a case, despite the fact that former DOE
Secretary Hazel O'Leary pledged five years ago to implement
such a disallowance policy. Also at the hearing, Mr. Bob Van
Ness, Senior Vice President of UC, and Mr. Ron Hansen,
President of Flour Hanford, Inc., discussed their
organization's respective actions with regard to whistleblower
claims at DOE facilities they operate.
Moreover, in preparation for the hearing, the Committee
learned and revealed that Kaiser Hill Company, which operates
the Rocky Flats site, was inappropriately reimbursed $210,000
by the Department for outside legal costs related to another
successful whistleblower claim filed by Mr. Mark Graf--even
though the Department initially reported to the Committee that
it had not reimbursed any legal fees associated with this case.
As a result of the Committee's oversight, Kaiser Hill returned
the funds to DOE.
In addition to this hearing, the Committee sent two letters
to Secretary Richardson (dated January 26, 2000, and April 3,
2000, respectively), regarding ongoing acts of retaliation
taken against Mr. David Lappa, an employee of the University of
California at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). In
June 1998, DOL determined that Mr. Lappa was retaliated against
for raising nuclear safety concerns at LLNL; however, the
Department refused to take any action to enforce its ``zero
tolerance'' policy against UC. DOE also refused to investigate
Mr. Lappa's matter under its nuclear safety enforcement
authority, and in January 2000, Mr. Lappa resigned his position
after 20 years at LLNL due to ongoing acts of retaliation. DOE
has paid, and continues to pay, for hundreds of thousands of
dollars in UC legal costs related to various suits brought by
Mr. Lappa.
DOE'S CONTRACT REFORM EFFORTS: FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTING
On June 22, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to continue the Committee's long-
standing review of the Department of Energy's efforts to
control nuclear waste cleanup costs with fixed-price contacts.
The hearing focused on the current status of DOE's major fixed
price contracts at the Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge sites.
In 1994, the Department initiated sweeping contract reform
initiatives that included a plan to fundamentally change the
way DOE acquired environmental remediation services by moving
to a fixed-price contracting system that was supposed to solve
the severe cost and schedule increases experienced under the
old ``cost-plus'' contracting approach. Yet, six years later,
DOE's major privatization initiatives have failed to control
cleanup costs, schedule performance, or improve contractor
performance. Based on the findings of two Subcommittee hearings
in the 105th Congress and subsequent work by the Committee
during the 106th Congress, the Department's fixed-price
contracts, including the Pit 9 project and the Hanford Tank
Waste project, have resulted in dramatic cost escalation and
contract termination without any cleanup progress. Other major
fixed-price contracts, including the Oak Ridge Metals Recycling
project and the Idaho Advanced Mixed Waste project, also have
experienced significant cost overruns and schedule delays.
According to the testimony of Ms. Gary Jones, Associate
Director for Energy, Resource, and Science Issues for the
General Accounting Office, DOE has pursued fixed-price
contracting for several complex cleanup projects as a key
component of its contract reform efforts, but these contracts
have experienced cost, schedule, and performance problems
similar to problems found on more traditional cost-plus
contracting approaches. Ms. Jones also testified that DOE has
chosen to apply fixed-price contracting to projects that are
inconsistent with government guidelines, and thus may not have
been good candidates for fixed-price contracting. Additionally,
DOE's lack of technical, financial, and managerial oversight
capabilities has resulted in the Department's failure to
address significant cost, technical, and schedule slippages as
they occurred.
At the Subcommittee's October 1998 hearing on the Hanford
Tank Waste project, GAO reported that effective oversight by
DOE would be critical to project success. Yet despite this
warning, and after 20 months and over $260 million spent by
BNFL (the main contractor on this project), DOE's financial and
oversight personnel at Hanford failed to anticipate BNFL's
surprise announcement in May 2000 that it had more than doubled
the original fixed-price estimate of $6.9 billion to $15.2
billion, resulting in an abrupt termination of the contract by
DOE without any contingent plan to proceed with the cleanup.
The hearing also revealed severe problems with DOE's fixed-
price contract with BNFL to decontaminate and recycle
contaminated metals from three buildings at the Oak Ridge site.
The Oak Ridge fixed-price contract with BNFL was signed in 1997
with a total project cost fixed at $238 million. However,
changing DOE policies for recycling contaminated metals, and
numerous requests for additional funds from BNFL could add an
additional $210 million to the original contract price.
Mr. T.J. Glauthier, Deputy Secretary of Energy, provided
testimony on behalf of DOE. Mr. Paul A. Miskimin, CEO of BNFL,
also testified regarding the company's efforts to manage the
Department's three largest fixed-price cleanup contracts at
Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge.
PRIVATIZATION OF THE UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION
On April 13, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review the privatization of
the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), and its impact
on the uranium industry. The hearing focused on the financial
status of USEC and other segments of the domestic uranium
industry two years after USEC privatization.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the 1992 Act),
the government-owned USEC assumed responsibility from DOE in
1993 for production and marketing of uranium enrichment
services, with the mandate to operate as an efficient business.
The 1992 Act, and the USEC Privatization Act of 1996 (the 1996
Act), called for the privatization of USEC, transferring
ownership from the government to private investors--provided,
however, that the Administration and the USEC Board first
concluded that privatization would not jeopardize other
strategic goals specified by Congress. Specifically, Congress
required Presidential approval before any plan for USEC
privatization was implemented, and also required the USEC Board
of Directors to determine, in consultation with appropriate
agencies of the United States, that privatization would not be
inimical to the health and safety of the public or the common
defense and security. Additionally, the 1996 Act required the
Treasury Secretary to ensure that the manner of transfer chosen
by the USEC Board to implement privatization provided for,
among other things, the long-term viability of the corporation,
continuous operation of both gaseous diffusion plants, the
protection of the public interest in maintaining a reliable and
economical domestic source of uranium mining, enrichment and
conversion services, and maximum proceeds to the United States
Treasury from the privatization.
On July 26, 1998, the Treasury Department determined, based
on the recommendation of the USEC Board, and the concurrence of
several Federal agencies, that the sale of USEC through an
initial public offering of stock (IPO) best met the statutory
criteria. On July 27, 1998, USEC was privatized through the
sale of 100 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange,
priced at $14.25. USEC's financial condition since
privatization deteriorated rapidly to $4.75 per share as of
April 7, 2000--a 66% decline in stock value. USEC's decline can
be attributed to its actions in the marketplace, and the steady
decline in the market price of enriched uranium, which has
continued since privatization. In June 1999, USEC announced the
termination of its development of AVLIS, next-generation
enrichment technology intended to replace the Portsmouth and
Paducah gaseous diffusion plants. In February 2000, Standard
and Poor's reduced its credit rating on USEC's debt to below
investment grade. The downgrade in its credit rating was
considered by USEC to be a ``significant event'' under the
exception to USEC's agreement with Treasury to keep both plants
open and, subsequently, in June 2000 USEC announced that it
would close the Portsmouth plant in 2001.
In an effort to generate additional cash flow, USEC has
aggressively sold its stockpiles of unenriched uranium. Much of
USEC's current inventory of unenriched uranium was transferred
to the corporation by DOE at privatization. The uranium mining
and conversion service industries (companies that mine and
convert unenriched uranium) have expressed concern regarding
the impact of USEC's aggressive sale of unenriched uranium.
They argue that, as a result of USEC privatization, the market
price for uranium mining and conversion services have
plummeted, raising questions about the future viability of the
industry. The blended-down highly-enriched uranium (HEU) that
USEC buys from Russia under the U.S.-Russian HEU Agreement now
accounts for approximately 50% of the enriched uranium USEC
sells each year. With USEC's announced closure of the
Portsmouth plant, USEC will have to rely on deliveries of
Russian HEU to meet its commercial orders.
In November 1999, USEC threatened to resign as executive
agent to the HEU Agreement unless the government paid USEC $200
million over a two-year period to cover its asserted losses
under this agreement. DOE assessed USEC's request for financial
assistance and raised questions regarding USEC's ability to
economically produce enriched uranium at a price less than what
it currently pays Russia. Due in part to criticism from this
Committee of any potential bailout, USEC was unsuccessful in
its effort to obtain government funds, but decided to continue
as executive agent to the HEU Agreement nonetheless. Although
USEC remains as executive agent, its threats to resign and its
poor financial condition raise serious concerns about the
future of the HEU Agreement, which has significant national
security implications.
USEC's dire financial condition, the impact it is reported
to have had on the domestic uranium mining and conversion
services industries, the national security implications of the
threat to the U.S.-Russia HEU agreement and the closure of one
of only two domestic uranium enrichment plants all raise
serious questions about the manner of privatization chosen by
the Treasury Department and the USEC Board. These circumstances
also indicated that Treasury, the USEC Board, and its financial
advisers failed to fully consider market conditions and other
issues, including the applicable statutory criteria, when they
determined to proceed with the IPO in July 1998. Indeed, the
Committee's review of extensive documentation, as well as
interviews of relevant personnel, revealed that many of these
concerns were raised prior to privatization, but were either
ignored or otherwise discounted by the Administration.
The hearing provided the Subcommittee with the opportunity
to assess the current and projected financial condition of USEC
and the uranium industry, whether the manner of privatization
chosen by Treasury met statutory criteria regarding long-term
viability and the maintenance of a reliable domestic uranium
industry, and the future options for USEC and the industry. The
Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. William Timbers,
President and CEO of USEC, Mr. Gary Gensler, Under Secretary of
Treasury for Domestic Finance, Dr. Ernest Moniz, Under
Secretary of Energy, and Mr. Carl Paperiello, Deputy Secretary
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Subcommittee also
received testimony from representatives of the domestic uranium
conversion and mining industries, a uranium industry
consultant, and a labor union representing USEC workers.
On a related matter, the Chairman sent a letter to
Secretary Richardson on October 24, 2000, regarding DOE's plan,
announced October 6, 2000, to secure domestic enrichment
capacity in the aftermath of USEC privatization and USEC's
decision to close the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant.
USEC's decision to close the Portsmouth plant, without a
credible plan for a successor enrichment technology, reduces
domestic enrichment capacity by 50%--a level that is no longer
adequate to meet domestic energy and national security needs.
On October 6, 2000, DOE announced an initiative to keep the
Portsmouth plant on cold stand-by, and to build a pilot-scale
gas centrifuge plant at the Portsmouth site to secure future
enrichment capacity. The Secretary proposed to use $630 million
from the USEC Revolving Fund without Congressional
authorization or appropriation to pay for this effort.
At the Chairman's request, the Congressional Research
Service (CRS) completed a preliminary review that has
identified several critical flaws in the Department's
contention that it can spend $630 million from the USEC
Revolving Fund as an ``expense of privatization,'' and without
Congressional appropriation or authorization. Accordingly, the
Committee has requested further information regarding these
decisions from various sources. Specifically, the Committee has
requested from DOE additional information on the technology
decision, from the Office of Management and Budget a detailed
legal analysis (addressing concerns raised by the CRS
preliminary review), and from the General Accounting Office a
determination as to whether DOE can spend funds deposited in
the Treasury after USEC privatization in the proposed manner.
Investigative Activities
TRITIUM PRODUCTION AT CIVILIAN TVA REACTORS
On February 8, 1999, the Chairman sent a letter to DOE
requesting documents and information regrading the Department's
decision to select the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Watts
Bar and Sequoyah commercial light water reactors (TVA reactors)
as a primary source for tritium production. Given a new
production source of tritium is needed by 2005 to maintain the
U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile at START I force levels, this
was a key national security decision. The Committee reviewed
key aspects of this decision. Specifically, the Committee
reviewed the decision criteria, factors, and other
considerations supporting the selection of TVA reactors, and
the nuclear nonproliferation implications of utilizing civilian
reactors to produce essential nuclear weapon components.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Investigative Activities
LOCAL COMPETITION IN THE TELEPHONE MARKET
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 marked the beginning of
a new era in the development of telecommunications and
information technologies. The Act swept away a monopoly
paradigm and made competition the rule of law. During the 106th
Congress, the Committee continued its review of the state of
competition in the broadband market to determine whether the
Act was working and whether any roadblocks were thwarting the
development of competition. The Committee's review consisted of
numerous letters from Chairman Bliley to--and staff interviews
with--market participants and government regulators, staff
interviews, and site visits to telecommunications facilities
The Committee Majority staff discovered in its review that
the Act was working in large part because it provided new
incentives for the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs),
or Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), to open their
markets to competition. Today, this competition is driving the
deployment of high-speed data services, such as digital
subscriber line (DSL), and competition in the local loop. For
example, prior to the Act's passage, there were only 13
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Today, there are
nearly 400 CLECs offering a diverse variety of services to
consumers. Despite this competition, however, many remain
concerned about remaining barriers to competition in the
marketplace.
REVIEW OF SBC MATTER
As part of the Committee's review into the remaining
barriers to local telecommunications competition, the Committee
also investigated a situation involving Southwestern Bell
Telephone (SWBT)--a subsidiary of SBC Communications, Inc.
(SBC)--the Texas Public Utilities Commission (PUC), and two
CLECS. The CLECs requested arbitration from the Texas PUC in
order to establish an interconnection agreement with SBC. As
part of the discovery in the arbitration proceeding, the CLECs
uncovered an e-mail written by a SBC employee (at the direction
of her supervisor) to 81 other SWBT and SBC employees directing
them to destroy draft documents related to SWBT's retail
digital subscriber line offering--documents that in the normal
course of the company's disposition of documents would have
been routinely destroyed, but that the CLECs alleged should not
have been destroyed because they might have been relevant to
the ongoing PUC proceeding. Although the e-mail was under
protective seal by the Texas PUC, Chairman Bliley requested
that SWBT turn the document over to the Committee. After
several exchanges of letters and threats of subpoenas, SBC
provided Committee staff with access to the e-mail. Shortly
thereafter, the Texas Attorney General released the e-mail
publicly, and the Texas PUC sanctioned SWBT for discovery
abuses and ordered them to pay $850,000. The arbitrators in the
case described the e-mail as ``unsettling'' and indicative of a
``general disregard on the part of SBC for matters pending in
litigation at the [Texas PUC].''
Because the contents of the e-mail raised a substantial
issue as to whether SBC was complying with its legal ``duty''
under the 1996 Act to ``negotiate in good faith'' with
competitive carriers seeking to interconnect with SBC, the
Chairman requested to interview the e-mail's author and the SBC
staff attorney who, according to the author, gave the
directions to send the e-mail. During the interviews with both
individuals, Committee staff heard two different accounts of
why the e-mail was sent out. Committee staff questioned the SBC
staff attorney extensively about when she learned of the
arbitration proceeding in Texas and its relationship to the e-
mail. Although she could not pinpoint exactly when she learned
of the arbitration proceeding, she was adamant that it was
after the e-mail had been sent out ordering the destruction of
documents. Shortly after the interviews, Committee staff met
with SBC's counsel to review follow-up questions that needed to
be addressed by both of the interviewed employees. At the
meeting, Committee staff indicated that the Chairman would be
requesting additional documents from SBC that the Committee
believed could clarify whether the SBC staff attorney and
others did in fact know about the arbitration proceeding before
the e-mail was sent. A few days after this meeting, Committee
staff received a letter from SBC's counsel indicating that the
SBC staff attorney's representation to the Committee that she
did not know about the arbitration proceeding prior to the e-
mail being sent was wrong. According to SBC's counsel, after
further thought, the SBC staff attorney now believed she was
aware of the existence of the arbitration at the time the e-
mail was sent.
REVIEW OF THE SBC-AMERITECH MERGER
In August 1999, the Committee initiated a review of the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) handling of a
proposed merger between SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC), and
Ameritech Corporation (Ameritech). The Committee was concerned
about the process the FCC used to impose certain conditions on
the companies involved. In a letter to FCC Chairman William
Kennard, dated August 19, 1999, Chairman Bliley expressed his
belief that the FCC did not act in a transparent and open
manner with regard to developing a set of conditions under
which it might approve the SBC-Ameritech merger.
On June 29, 1999, SBC and Ameritech announced a deal in
which they would agree to 26 conditions intended to address the
FCC's concerns about the merger. The Committee was concerned
that the public had no knowledge or input into the negotiations
between the two companies and the FCC staff. The public was not
apprised of the actual language of the conditions until the
conditions were filed with the FCC by SBC and Ameritech two
days after the June 29 announcement. Therefore, in his August
19th letter, Chairman Bliley wrote FCC Chairman Kennard and the
FCC staff in charge of the merger negotiations and asked them
to respond to questions regarding their initial reservations
about the merger and the conditions they felt at the time would
be necessary for approval. Chairman Bliley also requested
documents designed to elicit information with respect to how
the proposed conditions were developed by staff and what role,
if any, the commissioners played in those negotiations.
Chairman Bliley sent follow-up letters to the FCC on September
9, September 14, and October 13, 1999, asking for additional
clarification regarding the proposed merger conditions, the
amendments proposed to the conditions, and the circumstances
under which commissioners cast their votes while the
negotiations were still underway. Chairman Bliley also
questioned whether FCC staff had made changes to the merger
conditions after several commissioners had already voted on an
item. In order to gain a complete understanding of the FCC's
review of the proposed merger, on October 5, 1999, Chairman
Bliley also wrote a letter to the Chairmen of both SBC and
Ameritech, requesting their documents relating to the proposed
merger as well.
The Committee learned that, since June 29, 1999, when the
26 conditions were initially revealed, further negotiations had
been conducted between the FCC and the companies involved that
resulted in amendments being proposed to the conditions. Again,
these negotiations were not conducted in an open or transparent
manner. The Committee's review was helpful in determining and
analyzing the process used by the FCC to approve this merger.
The review also highlighted the overall process the FCC uses to
approve complex mergers and the need to consider reforms to
that process.
REVIEW OF THE AMERICA ONLINE-TIME WARNER MERGER
On September 26, 2000, the Committee requested information
and materials from the Federal Communications Commission and
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) related to their reviews of
the America Online (AOL)-Time Warner merger. In these letters,
Chairman Bliley expressed concern about reported conditions
that both Commissions were planning on requiring before
permitting the AOL-Time Warner merger to proceed, and whether
those conditions were in violation of the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. The Chairman also expressed his concern
about the impact of these regulatory agencies mandating
conditions during a merger review that could set a de facto
industry-wide standard, nation-wide, without the benefit of
full input from the Congress and affected stakeholders.
Further, the Chairman criticized the Commissions for apparent
leaks to the media of confidential information pertaining to
this merger.
On October 3, 2000, the FTC provided a briefing for
Committee staff and, on October 6, 2000, the FTC formally
responded by letter to the Committee's written questions and
agreed to provide requested documents at the conclusion of
merger negotiations. On November 17, 2000, the Committee
requested additional information and materials from the FTC
related to the ongoing negotiations between the FTC and America
Online and Time Warner. On November 21, 2000, the FTC provided
a further briefing for Committee staff on this matter, and is
in the process of providing requested documents. With respect
to the FCC, on September 29, 2000, the FCC provided a briefing
for Committee staff related to confidential information leaks
concerning this merger from FCC staff. On October 3, 2000, the
FCC provided a briefing for Committee staff related to the
license transfer negotiations between the FCC and America
Online and Time Warner. On October 6, 2000, the FCC formally
responded by letter to the Committee's written questions. The
Committee continues to review this matter.
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS LICENSE CONTROVERSY
In September 1999, the Committee requested, and received,
documentation pertaining to an agreement by Nextel
Communications, Inc., the Federal Communications Commission,
and the Department of Justice, under which the Federal agencies
would support a hostile bankruptcy reorganization plan of
NextWave Personal Communications offered by Nextel. Such a plan
would have included the transfer of certain wireless licenses
held by NextWave to Nextel.
The Committee inquiry was prompted by concerns that, by
agreeing to support Nextel's plan for reorganization of
NextWave in bankruptcy, the FCC had, in effect, granted
putative regulatory approval of the proposed transfer of
licenses to Nextel without the benefit of public notice and
comment, even though Nextel would not be eligible to receive
NextWave's licenses without a waiver from the FCC. In response
to this oversight, the FCC assured the Committee that it had
not made any private deals with Nextel to pre-judge the
regulatory issues in their favor, nor that it would preclude
competition by other entities for those same wireless licenses
should the courts uphold the reversion of those licenses from
NextWave.
FOLLOW-UP ON PORTALS INVESTIGATION
During the 105th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a series of hearings on the
circumstances surrounding the planned relocation of the Federal
Communications Commission to the Portals, a building complex
financed in large part by a politically well-connected
developer named Franklin Haney. At the end of the 105th
Congress, the Chairmen of the Committee and the Subcommittee
referred the findings of this investigation to the Department
of Justice, which continues to review certain aspects of this
matter.
In February 2000, the Committee learned about the existence
of a highly relevant document that had not been produced to the
Committee during the course of its lengthy investigation into
the Portals matter. On April 14, 2000, DOJ provided this
Committee with a copy of the document, which had been produced
to the Department by a source DOJ would not identify. The
document contains a discussion of how the intended recipient
should use his political connections to the Vice President and
his status as a major Democrat fundraiser to influence the
General Services Administration (GSA) with respect to the
Portals lease changes sought by Mr. Haney. Specifically, the
document states that Vice President ``Gore has called or is
ready to call'' the head of GSA to help resolve the issues in
contention, and that Mr. Gore will have someone else make
follow-up calls to GSA to handle the details. An extensive FBI
investigation failed to identify the author or the intended
recipient of the memorandum.
Concerned about why this document had never been turned
over to the Committee by the various parties who were
subpoenaed or requested to provide documents during the course
of the Committee's Portals investigation, Chairman Bliley wrote
to Attorney General Janet Reno on June 1, 2000, to request that
DOJ launch a criminal inquiry into whether Franklin Haney or
one of his business associates deliberately attempted to
obstruct a lawful Committee investigation into his Portals-
related dealings by intentionally withholding a key piece of
requested documentation.
DOJ agreed to conduct an investigation into this matter
and, on July 24, 2000, informed the Committee that it would not
prosecute the individual who had been in possession of this
document, given that he relied upon the advice of legal counsel
in withholding this document from the Committee, and thus did
not have the requisite willful intent to obstruct a lawful
congressional proceeding.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE CORPORATION FOR
PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Investigative Activities
PUBLIC BROADCASTING STATION DONOR SHARING WITH PARTISAN POLITICAL
ORGANIZATIONS
Following public revelations in July 1999 that at least
four public broadcasting stations had exchanged donor lists
with partisan political organizations, Chairman Bliley wrote to
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the Public
Broadcasting Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and
America's Public Television Stations (APTS) on July 23, 1999,
to request a full accounting of all such activity by public
broadcasting stations, and to learn what these organizations
knew about such practices and what, if anything, they had done
to prevent or stop such activity on the part of their member
stations. At a hearing days earlier, before the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection,
representatives from CPB, PBS, NPR, and APTS testified as part
of the Subcommittee's work toward reauthorization of CPB,
providing preliminary information about the donor-sharing
activity of a few member stations and stating that they did not
condone such activity.
In order to respond to the Chairman's detailed request for
information about donor-sharing practices, CPB requested that
its Inspector General conduct a thorough inquiry into the
matter by interviewing public broadcasting stations nationwide.
The Inspector General issued a report on September 8, 1999,
finding that the scope of the donor-sharing went far beyond the
four stations initially identified by CPB, and included 53
stations. During the course of the Committee's investigation,
the Committee also learned that CPB had become aware of the
donor-sharing activity of at least one station prior to its
initial reauthorization hearing before the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection in June
1999, but failed to notify the Subcommittee of such activity at
that time. In response to the Committee's oversight on this
matter, the Congress passed legislation, as part of the
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, barring any recipient of
Federal public broadcasting funds from engaging in swaps,
sales, or other exchanges of donor information with partisan
political organizations.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION
Investigative Activities
REVIEW OF THE FTC'S ``CLEAN SWEEP'' POLICY REGARDING DIVESTITURES IN
GROCERY STORE MERGERS
On April 18, 1999, the parent company of Food Lion, Inc.,
and Hannaford Brothers Company (a large, northeastern grocery
store chain) announced that the two firms would be merging,
creating the sixth largest U.S. food retailer. As part of this
merger, the FTC required the parties to divest assets in
overlapping markets. Amid concerns that the FTC's ``clean
sweep'' policy--requiring the divestiture of all overlapping
assets in a particular market to a single, usually large,
entity--would place certain small, community-based firms at a
competitive disadvantage and have the effect of reducing
competition in the affected markets over the long-term, the
Chairman decided to inquire further about the FTC's policies in
this matter.
On May 3, 2000, the Chairman of the Full Committee
requested that the FTC staff provide a confidential briefing to
Committee staff regarding the FTC staff's initial findings
regarding the merger. After the briefing and further
discussions between the parties, the FTC staff, and others, the
Chairman wrote to the FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky on May 31,
2000, indicating concern that the FTC's ``own policies with
respect to divestitures are limiting competition for the sake
of administrative efficiencies and adversely impacting
independent, minority-owned companies, rather than protecting
competition over the long term.'' The Chairman went on to
explain that it appeared that the FTC's policies favored large,
corporate purchasers to the exclusion of smaller community-
based firms.
On May 31, 2000, Chairman Pitofsky responded to Chairman
Bliley's inquiry indicating that the Commission's policy
regarding supermarket divestitures was designed to ensure that
the competition lost in a particular market was replaced, and
stating that its experience has shown that a single buyer
purchasing a divested network of stores best serves that goal.
On June 15, 2000, the Chairman of the Full Committee responded
with further questions for the Commission and its staff.
While the merger between Hannaford Bros. and Food Lion was
completed in August 2000, Committee Majority staff continued
the inquiry and travelled to the FTC's regional office in New
York City to review documents related to the merger.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES
PERTAINING TO THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Hearings
THE FIRESTONE TIRE RECALL ACTION INVOLVING FORD EXPLORERS
On September 6, 2000, and September 21, 2000, the
Subcommittees on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer
Protection and Oversight and Investigations held joint hearings
on the August 2000 Firestone Tire Recall Action as it pertains
to Ford Explorers. At the hearings, the Subcommittees heard
testimony from the two companies' top executives, as well as
Federal safety regulators, an insurance company official who
warned the regulators years ago about this problem, and a
representative from an auto safety interest group.
The Committee's investigation and hearings uncovered
damaging evidence that both companies--as well as Federal
safety regulators--knew or were warned repeatedly about
dangerous problems with the recalled tires years ago, but
failed to take prompt action to investigate and remove them
from the market. The Committee found that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) failed to fully or timely
analyze the numerous--and increasing--reports it received from
various sources (including Mr. Samuel Boyden of State Farm
Insurance Company, who testified at the first hearing), citing
accidents and deaths involving these tires, particularly when
mounted on Ford Explorers. The Committee also uncovered
evidence that Ford Motor Company and Firestone discussed their
concerns with respect to notifying safety regulators in the
United States about foreign recall actions on related tires,
and that neither company ever conducted high-speed tests of
these tires on the Ford Explorer at Ford's recommended tire air
pressure prior to or during routine production of the Explorer.
The evidence also showed that Firestone was analyzing its
problems with these tires as early as 1996, that Firestone's
own random compliance testing at its key plant in 1996 resulted
in a 10% failure rate on the high-speed tests, and that
Firestone made a significant change to the tire design in 1998
to reduce the incidence of tread belt separations. The
investigation also raised questions about the adequacy of
Ford's decisions on tire-vehicle safety margins and tire
pressure recommendations, both domestically and abroad.
Partially because of the Committee's oversight hearings on
this matter, the House passed--and the Senate and White House
agreed to--new legislation that requires companies to report
significant defect claims or lawsuits, as well as foreign
recall actions, to Federal safety regulators on a regular
basis. The law also provides NHTSA with additional resources to
evaluate such data, and requires that NHTSA strengthen its
organization and management to avoid similar failures in the
future. For more information on this legislation, see H.R. 5164
in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection section of this report.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Hearings
MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued to
examine the Administration's plan to inject competition into
the assignment of Internet domain names--such as registering
.com, .net and .org domain names--which previously had been
done by a single company named Network Solutions, Inc., under
an exclusive cooperative agreement with the Department of
Commerce. In September 1998, the cooperative agreement for
management of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) between the
U.S. government and Network Solutions was transferred from the
National Science Foundation to the Department of Commerce.
Since that time, the Committee has conducted oversight of the
ongoing management of the DNS to ensure its stability during
the transition of management from the Federal government to the
private sector. The smooth functioning of this system is
essential to the stability and growth of the Internet, and
Chairman Bliley was concerned about several aspects of the
Administration's handling of this matter. The Committee also
has been closely following the activities of the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) since the
selection of this non-profit corporation by the Department of
Commerce to assume management functions of the DNS from Network
Solutions.
On June 22, 1999, Chairman Bliley wrote to Esther Dyson,
chair of the board of directors of ICANN, raising questions
about the formation of the interim board of directors of ICANN,
the authority granted to the interim board of directors
(including the authority to impose a $1 per domain name fee),
and the annual budget of ICANN. That same day, the Chairman
wrote to Commerce Secretary William Daley concerning the
relationship between the Department of Commerce and ICANN. The
Chairman inquired about the authority of ICANN to negotiate
agreements with domain name registrars and domain name
registries, the authority of ICANN to impose a $1 per domain
name fee, and the scope of the Department's oversight of
ICANN's activities. After the Chairman's objections, the $1 tax
idea was dropped. The new board also changed its policies to
open its meetings to the public, another reform resulting from
the Committee's oversight and criticism.
On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to address the management of the
DNS. The hearing focused on the efforts by the Administration
to transfer management functions of the DNS from government
control to ICANN and some Members' concerns about NSI's efforts
to maintain its dominant position in name registration. The
hearing also examined closely a number of actions by ICANN's
interim board--such as its imposition of a $1 per domain name
tax on registrants, and its decision to exclude the public from
portions of its board meetings--that called into question
whether ICANN was exercising sound judgment and making well-
informed decisions. The oversight hearing also explored whether
ICANN and the Department of Commerce, which oversaw the
Administration's efforts in this area, were creating the type
of transparent, consensus-based, standards-setting organization
contemplated in the Administration's privatization plan.
The July 22nd hearing featured testimony from three panels
of witnesses. The first panel consisted of representatives from
the National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA)
(which is part of the Commerce Department), Network Solutions,
and ICANN. This panel focused on the Administration's
conception and implementation of its plan to transfer the
management of the DNS from the public sector to the private
sector, how ICANN was selected, ICANN's decision-making and
accountability, and the interaction between the panel's three
organizations during the transfer of the DNS. The second and
third panels consisted of nine witnesses from various
corporations, industry and consumer groups with interests in
the management of the DNS. They shared with the Committee their
experiences related to the actual implementation of competition
for domain name registration services, as well as their views
on how ICANN's present policies will affect future management
of the DNS.
On July 28, 1999, the Chairman wrote to Attorney General
Janet Reno concerning contacts between the Department of
Justice and ICANN regarding the ongoing Justice Department
antitrust investigation of Network Solutions. The Chairman of
the Full Committee was concerned about the propriety of such
contacts in light of the continuing negotiations between ICANN
and Network Solutions on a registrar agreement. That same day,
the Chairman also wrote to ICANN Board Chair Esther Dyson
regarding contacts between ICANN's chief outside counsel and
the Department of Justice regarding the antitrust investigation
of Network Solutions. The Chairman of the Full Committee
requested a full accounting of such contacts, and inquired if
such contacts had been approved by the board of directors of
ICANN.
On August 4, 1999, the Chairman wrote to Charles F. C.
Ruff, Counsel to the President, concerning contacts between
ICANN and an employee of the Executive Office of the President
regarding fund-raising activities on behalf of ICANN. The
Chairman of the Full Committee inquired if the employee in
question were undertaking the fund-raising activities in an
official capacity, and the extent of any fund-raising
activities on behalf of ICANN. The Chairman of the Full
Committee also inquired about the ethics guidelines for fund-
raising activities by employees of the Executive Office of the
President. Further, on August 18, 1999, the Chairman wrote a
letter to ICANN Board Chair Esther Dyson regarding the
financial status of ICANN and fund-raising activities by ICANN.
The Chairman of the Full Committee inquired about efforts by
ICANN to solicit funding from the private sector and from the
Federal government, including outstanding loans or other
financial arrangements. As a result of these letters, the
Chairman of the Full Committee learned of contacts made by an
employee of the Executive Office of the President to a number
of individuals and corporations to solicit funding to support
ICANN. The Chairman of the Full Committee also learned of a
number of financial arrangements between ICANN and corporations
as a result of ICANN's broader solicitations, including those
by the employee of the Executive Office of the President.
Investigative Activities
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COMPUTER SECURITY REVIEW
In June 2000, the Committee initiated a review of cyber
security practices at the Department of Commerce. Committee
staff met with senior Commerce Department officials in June and
July 2000 to review the state of cyber security at the Commerce
Department and discuss efforts underway at the Department to
ensure that its wide area networks and other computer-based
resources are adequately secure from damage, destruction, and
unauthorized misuse. The Department provided the Committee with
detailed information, including relevant planning materials,
descriptions and prior audit materials; however, these
materials did not contain any comprehensive or rigorous
penetration testing or similar audits of the strength of the
Departments cyber security defenses. Based on a review of these
materials, on July 25, 2000, Chairman Bliley requested that the
General Accounting Office initiate a more detailed review of
cyber security practices at the Department. GAO's review will
include penetration testing and security vulnerability
assessments at key agencies within the Department. GAO's review
is underway and testing is scheduled to commence in early 2001.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY
Hearings
OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY EFFORTS TO PREVENT CONSUMER FRAUD
BY BANK OPERATING SUBSIDIARIES
During the 106th Congress, the Committee reviewed the
financial dangers associated with cases of fraudulent sales
practices in bank operating subsidiaries that provide
securities brokerage services to bank customers. The
Committee's oversight team gathered information on the
specifics of several cases or allegations involving such fraud,
as well as on the regulatory interaction between the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC), the National Association of
Securities Dealers (NASD), and the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency (OCC) regarding such cases. In addition, Committee
staff evaluated other allegations of securities fraud in bank
operating subsidiaries to determine whether securities fraud
was a widespread problem in operating subsidiaries or whether
it was primarily limited to one or two banks.
Pursuant to this oversight effort, Committee staff
conducted interviews with representatives from OCC, which
confirmed a variety of concerns regarding OCC's oversight and
investigation of NationsBank and its subsidiary
NationsSecurities, one high-profile case in this area.
Specifically, Committee staff found that: (1) OCC's own
examination process failed to discover the problems at
NationsSecurities until a highly publicized securities fraud
lawsuit was brought against the bank; (2) OCC's subsequent
investigation failed to include interviews with any of the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit who had first-hand experience of the
illegal sales practices, and also failed to include any
significant root cause analysis of financial arrangements
between NationsBank staff and NationsSecurities staff that
facilitated the illegal securities sales; (3) OCC's sanctions
against NationsBank and NationsSecurities appear to be
seriously inadequate in comparison to those taken by the SEC
and the courts--OCC imposed a civil monetary penalty of
$750,000 on NationsBank and imposed relatively light sanctions
on three NationsBank employees, whereas the SEC forced
NationsBank and NationsSecurities to pay a $7 million
settlement, and the courts forced a $20 million settlement on
the bank with regard to the class-action lawsuit; and (4)
following the discovery of the problems at NationsSecurities,
OCC did not appear to have made an adequate effort to examine
other national banks and their operating subsidiaries for
similar sales practice problems.
Committee staff subsequently met with a representative from
the Department of the Treasury's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) to review the adequacy of the Inspector General's role in
overseeing the OCC (which is part of the Treasury Department).
At the meeting, staff were informed that the OIG was being
totally restructured following a series of revelation about its
lax attitude and inept approach towards investigations of the
programs within its jurisdiction. The Inspector General's
representative also informed the Committee that the OIG's audit
department has just completed a review of OCC's oversight of
the insurance activities undertaken by banks and concluded that
the Comptroller was not well equipped to ensure that banks
selling insurance products comply with all the relevant
insurance regulations.
On June 25, 1999, the Subcommittee held an oversight
hearing that focused on the contrasting regulatory roles of the
bank regulators and the securities regulators, and the
inadequacy of OCC's examination of illegal securities
activities at NationsBank and NationsSecurities. The hearing
also highlighted the inadequacy of OCC's subsequent efforts to
discipline NationsBank, and to determine whether similar sales
practice problems also existed at any of the other 2,400
national banks under OCC's jurisdiction. At the hearing,
representatives from OCC, the Consumers Union, and the
Securities Commission of the State of Texas testified.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Investigative Activities
RULES GOVERNING DISCLOSURE OF INSIDER TRANSACTIONS
In response to the extreme volatility in the equity markets
during 2000, the Committee launched a review of current
Securities and Exchange Commission rules designed to ensure
that individual investors have timely access to material
information about a company's future market prospects. In
particular, Chairman Bliley was concerned that current SEC
rules on the disclosure of insider transactions may provide
corporate insiders with a window of opportunity to cash in or
cash out of their companies' stock before the average outside
investor ever learns about these transactions. A March 2000
Wall Street Journal article, entitled ``Founding Investors and
Insiders Unloaded Tech Shares Before Fall,'' highlighted this
problem, reporting: ``This month's ugly plunge in technology
stocks left many stunned investors wishing they had sold
earlier * * *. But one group seems to have been more prescient:
corporate insiders * * *.'' The article noted that, as the
technology-heavy NASDAQ Composite Index ``roared toward its
high on March 10, many of these people were selling at a heavy
pace.'' In fact, according to The Journal, ``insiders at the
100 large companies that make up the NASDAQ 100 sold $4.5
billion worth of shares'' in the month of February 2000 alone--
more than ``all insiders in all U.S. stocks combined sold in
February 1999.''
Following its record closing high on March 10, the NASDAQ
Composite Index quickly fell by as much as one third, with many
individual stocks suffering losses far greater than the
composite average. As the Committee noted, March 10 also was
the date by which all February insider transactions were
required to be reported under SEC regulations--that is, the
first time that outside investors were able to learn about and
analyze the meaning behind the massive insider selling of high-
priced technology stocks by corporate insiders that occurred
during the month of February. Under current SEC rules, insiders
have until the 10th day of the month following their
transaction to report it to the SEC, which means that someone
who sells shares on the 1st of February need not publicly
disclose that sale until the 10th of March, or up to 40 days
later. Further, the filing rules for the SEC's electronic,
public database (EDGARS) give insiders the option as to whether
to file their disclosure forms in the EDGARS system at all.
To learn why the SEC regulates the disclosure of insider
transactions in this less-than-investor-friendly manner, and
whether the SEC has considered alternative disclosure
requirements that would provide the ordinary investor with more
timely information about such transactions, Chairman Bliley
wrote to SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt on May 8, 2000. In return
correspondence and staff-level conversations, the SEC pledged
to review its current rules regarding the timing and method of
disclosure of such information, and to consider seeking new
statutory authority, if necessary, to provide investors with
more timely information on corporate insider transactions.
MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES
Hearings
THE INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE SITE SELECTION PROCESS
During the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held two hearings dealing with the site
selection process associated with the awarding of the
International Olympic Games. The purpose of the first hearing,
held on September 15, 1999, was to review the conduct of the
Atlanta Organizing Committee in connection with the bidding for
the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the International Olympic
Committee's site selection process, and the relationship
between the International Olympic Committee (IOC),
its delegates, the United States Olympic Committee, and the
bidding cities. At the time when Salt Lake City Olympic bribery
scandal was being portrayed as an isolated incident, the
Committee investigated the gift-giving practices to IOC members
conducted by the Atlanta Organizing Committee in an effort to
determine whether there was a pattern or practice of improper
activities associated with the IOC's site selection process.
At the Committee's request, the Atlanta Organizing
Committee submitted a written report to Chairman Bliley on June
1, 1999, setting forth answers to questions regarding whether
it gave improper payments or other inappropriate inducements to
influence the IOC's selection of Atlanta as the site for the
1996 Olympics. At the same time, Committee staff were given
access to numerous boxes of documents containing
contemporaneous records of the bidding process. After reviewing
these records, Committee staff raised serious concerns as to
whether the June 1 report submitted by the Atlanta Organizing
Committee--which only admitted to a few minor violations of the
IOC's gift rule--accurately portrayed the volume and type of
gifts or other assistance provided by Atlanta organizers to the
IOC members and their families. Consequently, and as a result
of the Committee's investigation, the Atlanta Olympic Committee
was forced to amend its report to admit that it, too, had
actively gathered personal information about the IOC members,
and armed with this information, repeatedly broke gift and
travel rules in order to keep its host city bid competitive.
The second oversight hearing, held on December 15, 1999,
focused on the IOC site selection process, and reviewed what
reforms and enforcement mechanisms were necessary to ensure
that the abuses and excesses that were apparent within the site
selection process would not occur again. In response to the
Committee's findings, Olympic officials, including IOC
President Juan Antonio Samaranch, testified regarding the IOC's
recommendations for new procedures and restrictions involving
the site selection process. The IOC voted to forbid IOC members
from visiting potential host cities and accepting any gifts
from persons representing the bidding cities. Additionally, the
IOC authorized the creation of an independent Ethics Commission
to investigate future abuses and corruption.
Hearings Held
Internet Posting of ``Worst-Case'' Scenarios: A Roadmap for
Terrorists?--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment on Internet Posting of ``Worst-Case''
Scenarios: A Roadmap for Terrorists? Hearing held on February
10, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-3.
Supporting Welfare Reform: Cracking Down on Deadbeat
Parents.--Oversight hearing on Supporting Welfare Reform:
Cracking Down on Deadbeat Parents. Hearing held on February 24,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-9.
``Date-Rape'' Drugs.--Oversight hearing on ``Date-Rape''
Drugs. Hearing held on March 11, 1999. PRINTED, serial number
106-7.
Security at the Department of Energy's Laboratories: The
Perspective of the General Accounting Office.--Oversight
hearing on Security at the Department of Energy's Laboratories:
The Perspective of the General Accounting Office. Hearing held
on April 20, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-31.
Y2K and Medicare Providers: Inoculating Against the Y2K
Bug.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Health
and Environment on Y2K and Medicare Providers: Inoculating
Against the Y2K Bug. Hearing held on April 27, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-20.
Threat of Bioterrorism in America: Assessing the Adequacy
of Federal Law Relating to Dangerous Biological Agents.--
Oversight hearing held on Threat of Bioterrorism in America:
Assessing the Adequacy of Federal Law Relating to Dangerous
Biological Agents. Hearing held on May 20, 1999. PRINTED,
serial number 106-19.
Y2K and Medical Devices: Screening for the Y2K Bug.--Joint
oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment on Y2K and Medical Devices: Screening for the Y2K
Bug. Hearing held on May 25, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-
25.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.--Hearing on H.R. 45, the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Hearing held on February 10
and March 12, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-17.
Department of Energy's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year
2000.--Oversight hearing held on the Department of Energy's
Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. Hearing held on February
24, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-54.
A Review of the Department of Energy's Deployment of DOE-
Funded Environmental Cleanup Technologies.--Oversight hearing
held on A Review of the Department of Energy's Deployment of
DOE-Funded Environmental Cleanup Technologies. Hearing held on
May 26, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-36.
Risky Business in the Op. Sub: How the OCC Dropped the
Ball.--Oversight hearing on Risky Business in the Op. Sub: How
the OCC Dropped the Ball. Hearing held on June 25, 1999.
PRINTED, serial number 106-37.
Worker Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities.--Oversight hearing
on Worker Safety at DOE Nuclear Facilities. Hearing held on
June 29, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-43.
How Healthy are the Government's Medicare Fraud Fighters?--
Oversight hearing on How Healthy are the Government's Medicare
Fraud Fighters? Hearing held on July 14, 1999 and September 9,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-
Results of Security Inspections at the Department of
Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.--Oversight
hearing on Results of Security Inspections at the Department of
Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Hearing held
on July 20, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-
Domain Name System Privatization: Is ICANN Out of
Control?--Oversight hearing on Domain Name System
Privatization: Is ICANN Out of Control? Hearing held on July
22, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-47.
Drugstores on the Net: The Benefits and Risks of On-Line
Pharmacies.--Oversight hearing on Drugstores on the Net: The
Benefits and Risks of On-Line Pharmacies. Hearing held on July
30, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-51.
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: An Assessment of Worker
Safety and Environmental Contamination.--Oversight hearing on
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant: An Assessment of Worker Safety
and Environmental Contamination. Hearing held on September 22,
1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-87.
Blood Safety and Availability.--Oversight hearing on Blood
Safety and Availability. Hearing held on September 23, October
6 and 19, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-79.
Y2K and Medical Devices: Testing for the Y2K Bug.--
Oversight hearing on Y2K and Medical Devices: Testing for the
Y2K Bug. Hearing held on October 21, 1999. PRINTED, serial
number 106-69.
Problems with EPA's Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Program.--Oversight hearing on Problems with EPA's Brownfields
Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund Program. Hearing held on November
4, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-86.
Medicaid Fraud and Abuse: Assessing State and Federal
Responses.--Oversight hearing on Medicaid Fraud and Abuse:
Assessing State and Federal Responses. Hearing held on November
9, 1999. PRINTED, serial number 106-72.
Medical Errors: Improving Quality of Care and Consumer
Information.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Subcommittee on Health on Medical Errors: Improving Quality of
Care and Consumer Information. Hearing held on February 9,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-90.
Reuse of Single-Use Medical Devices.--Oversight hearing on
the reuse of single-use medical devices. Hearing held on
February 10, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-89.
Public Access to the National Practitioner Data Bank: What
Consumers Should Know About Their Doctors.--Oversight hearing
on Public Access to the National Practitioner Data Bank: What
Consumers Should Know About Their Doctors. Hearing held on
March 1, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-93.
Safety and Security Oversight of the New National Nuclear
Security Administration.--Joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Energy and Power on Safety and Security
Oversight of the New National Nuclear Security Administration.
Hearing held on March 14, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-105.
Assessing the Operation of the National Practitioner Data
Bank.--Oversight hearing on Assessing the Operation of the
National Practitioner Data Bank. Hearing held on March 16,
2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-93.
Third Party Billing Company Fraud: Assessing the Threat
Posed to Medicare.--Oversight hearing on Third Party Billing
Company Fraud: Assessing the Threat Posed to Medicare. Hearing
held on April 6, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-97.
Review of U.S. Enrichment Corporation Privatization and its
Impact on the Domestic Uranium Industry.--Oversight hearing on
review of U.S. Enrichment Corporation privatization and its
impact on the domestic uranium industry. Hearing held on April
13, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-129.
Whistleblowers at Department of Energy Facilities: Is There
Really ``Zero Tolerance'' for Contractor Retaliation?--
Oversight hearing on Whistleblowers at Department of Energy
Facilities: Is There Really ``Zero Tolerance'' for Contractor
Retaliation? Hearing held on May 23, 2000. PRINTED, serial
number 106-135.
Enforcing the Laws on Internet Pharmaceutical Sales: Where
are the Feds?--Oversight hearing on Enforcing the Laws on
Internet Pharmaceutical Sales: Where are the Feds? Hearing held
on May 25, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-112.
Computer Insecurities at DOE Headquarters: DOE's Failure to
Get its Own Cyber House in Order.--Oversight hearing on
Computer Insecurities at DOE Headquarters: DOE's Failure to Get
its Own Cyber House in Order. Hearing held on June 13, 2000.
PRINTED, serial number 106-157.
DOE's Fixed-Price Cleanup Contracts: Why are Costs Still
Out of Control?--Oversight hearing on DOE's Fixed-Price Cleanup
Contracts: Why are Costs Still Out of Control? Hearing held on
June 22, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-137.
Weaknesses in Classified Information Security Controls at
DOE's Nuclear Weapon Laboratories.--Weaknesses in Classified
Information Security Controls at DOE's Nuclear Weapon
Laboratories. Hearing held on July 11, 2000. PRINTED, serial
number 106-148.
Medicaid Provider Enrollment: Assessing State Efforts to
Prevent Fraud.--Oversight hearing on Medicaid Provider
Enrollment: Assessing State Efforts to Prevent Fraud. Hearing
held on July 18, 2000. PRINTED, serial number 106-120.
Firestone Tire Recall Action.--Joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection on the recent Firestone tire recall action, focusing
on the action as it pertains to relevant Ford vehicles. Hearing
held on September 9 and 21, 2000.
Counterfeit Bulk Drugs and Related Concerns.--Oversight
hearing on counterfeit bulk drugs and related concerns. Hearing
held on June 8 and October 3, 2000.
EPA's Brownfields Initiative: The Reality Behind the
Rhetoric.--Oversight hearing on EPA's Brownfields Initiative:
The Reality Behind the Rhetoric. Hearing held on October 11,
2000.
Committee on Commerce Oversight Plan for the 106th Congress
Clause 2(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 106th Congress requires each standing
Committee in the first session of a Congress to adopt an
oversight plan for the two-year period of the Congress and to
submit the plan to the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and the Committee on House Oversight.
Clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI 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 Rules
X and XI during the Congress ending on January 3 of such year.
Clause 1(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 106th Congress which the Full Committee
considered and adopted by a voice vote on February 13, 1997, 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 106th 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
106TH CONGRESS
CONGRESSMAN TOM BLILEY, CHAIRMAN
Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the House requires each
standing Committee to adopt an oversight plan for the two-year
period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committees
on Government Reform and House Administration not later than
February 15 of the first session of the Congress.
This is the oversight plan of the Committee on Commerce for
the 106th Congress. It includes the areas in which the
Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 106th
Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of
additional matters as the need arises.
----------
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE
The Committee will continue its efforts to identify
instances of and opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse in
the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This oversight will focus
on a range of program areas, including administration,
contracting, provider reimbursement, and eligibility
determination.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGEMENT OF THE MEDICARE
PARTIAL HOSPITALIZATION PROGRAM
The Committee will continue its ongoing inquiry into
evidence of widespread fraud and abuse regarding Medicare
partial hospitalization services provided to psychiatric
patients in community mental health centers (CMHCs) and
hospitals. Last year, the HHS Inspector General found
noncompliance rates of greater than 90 percent in CMHCs the
worst rates of noncompliance in Medicare history. Numerous
concerns have arisen regarding HCFA's ability to identify and
fix the compliance problems adequately and to manage the
partial hospitalization program effectively in the future. In
the 106th Congress, the Committee will continue to assess the
current efforts to reform CMHCs and the role of Medicare fiscal
intermediaries in administering the partial hospitalization
benefit.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-FRAUD
BILLING SOFTWARE
During the 105th Congress, the Committee conducted a review
of the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) failure to
implement pre-payment, anti-fraud software in its Medicare
claims systems, in light of several reports by the HHS
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office suggesting
that Medicare could save hundreds of millions of dollars
annually by implementing software systems similar to those
currently available in the private sector. HCFA recently took
steps to implement and evaluate such systems, and the Committee
will monitor the agency's progress in this regard during the
106th Congress.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED
BUDGET ACT
During the 106th Congress, the Committee will continue to
monitor the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA)
implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). Many
of the changes required by the BBA would help modernize
Medicare, save money, and open the program to a wider range of
private health plans.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGEMENT OF FISCAL
INTERMEDIARIES AND CARRIERS
The Committee will assess the Health Care Financing
Administration's management of the fiscal intermediaries and
carriers that are responsible for processing all Medicare
claims and payments. In particular, the Committee will examine
the relationship between HCFA and the fiscal intermediaries and
carriers in combating waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare.
Although HCFA provides overall policy guidance for the
administration of Medicare, day-to-day operation of the program
is dependent on contractors (known as fiscal intermediaries for
Part A, and carriers for Part B) who process beneficiary claims
and make Medicare payments to healthcare providers. Through
oversight, the Committee will seek to ensure that there is a
proper balance between the financial incentives that HCFA
offers the fiscal intermediaries for processing claims, and
their responsibility to take appropriate measures to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare billing process.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The Health Care Financing Administration was created in
1977 as part of an internal reorganization ordered by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, in order to
consolidate the administration of Medicare and Medicaid in one
agency. In the Spring of 1999, the National Bipartisan
Commission on the Future of Medicare is expected to announce
reform proposals to save Medicare for future generations, some
of which may require structural changes to HCFA. The Committee
will review any Medicare proposals submitted to Congress by the
Bipartisan Commission.
The Committee also will conduct a comprehensive oversight
review of HCFA's current management structure. Oversight
activities will include a review of HCFA's recent
reorganization which was completed in 1997. In considering
HCFA's 1997 reorganization, the Committee will evaluate the
effectiveness of specific offices within HCFA and the extent to
which HCFA's effectiveness may be enhanced.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
The Committee will continue to monitor the Health Care
Financing Administration's (HCFA) efforts to resolve its Year
2000 (Y2K) problem for its Medicare claims processing systems.
The Medicare program uses seven Medicare claims processing
systems, more than 70 private contractors, and financial
institutions to process nearly 800 million Medicare claims
annually for approximately one million physicians, hospitals,
medical equipment suppliers and home health agencies. Since
nearly 85 percent of all Medicare claims are submitted and paid
electronically, it is crucial that HCFA, its contract carriers,
fiscal intermediaries, and providers are Y2K compliant.
REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
AFFECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Committee will conduct oversight of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) grant programs that affect the
health of children and families. According to estimates, HHS
funding for programs related to the health of children and
families was more than $13.7 billion in FY 1998. The
Committee's oversight review will evaluate where the money is
going, whether it is being spent effectively, and the extent to
which these programs are consistent with statutory requirements
and Congressional intent. In conjunction with the Committee's
oversight of these HHS grant programs, the Committee also
intends to conduct oversight of the various HHS agencies that
have responsibility for children and family-related programs.
For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conduct
extensive studies of youth risk behaviors, including alcohol,
drugs, tobacco, sex and violence. In addition, these two
agencies are increasingly active in establishing health policy
programs in areas such as school health, HIV education,
pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention.
The Committee intends to review the effectiveness of these
programs in the 106th Congress.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEADBEAT PARENT PROGRAM
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), commonly known
as the Welfare Reform Act, increased the accountability of
parents in the welfare system by imposing strict work
requirements and eligibility time limits on welfare recipients,
and by establishing and enforcing strict child support
obligations on noncustodial parents. The Committee will conduct
oversight of the role of the Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Child Support Enforcement efforts in
implementing the Welfare Reform Act. In particular, the
Committee will assess the effectiveness of the Child Support
Multi-Agency Investigative Team (CSMAIT) in identifying and
locating noncustodial parents who have not fulfilled their
child support obligations. Under this new program, the HHS
Inspector General has teamed up with the HHS Office of Child
Support Enforcement, the Justice Department and State and local
authorities to develop a high profile program to track down the
most egregious child-support offenders and arrest and punish
them in order to encourage estranged parents to pay child
support. The multi-agency teams have already conducted a pilot
in Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio. HHS intends to implement the
program nationwide in 1999.
ADOPTION
The Committee will conduct an oversight review of adoption
promotion programs within the purview of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). In conducting this review, the
Committee will determine the extent to which HHS programs have
an impact on increasing the number of adoptions. The oversight
activities associated with a review of adoption programs will
include assessment of relevant authorizing statutes, Federal
regulations, program guidelines and practices, and statistical
data.
TITLE V ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM
During the 105th Congress, the Committee initiated a review
of the Title V Abstinence Education program, which was
authorized by the Welfare Reform Bill of 1996. This oversight
identified problems and concerns in the implementation of this
program by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
which the Committee will continue to assess in the 106th
Congress.
THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amended the Social Security
Act to add Title XXI--The State Children's Health Insurance
Program (S-CHIP). Under this Title, funds are provided to
States to enable them to initiate and expand health assistance
to uninsured, low-income children. S-CHIP targets children in
families whose income levels exceed Medicaid thresholds, but
who lack private insurance. States may receive funds by
providing child health assistance through a separate State-only
S-CHIP program, an S-CHIP financed Medicaid expansion, or a
combination of the two. The Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA) was charged with approving and reviewing
States' plans for implementing the S-CHIP program. HCFA is
responsible for approving and reviewing a State's application
of a plan prior to receiving S-CHIP funds. At the Committee's
request, the General Accounting Office (GAO) is examining
HCFA's oversight role in a State's use of the program's design
flexibility, unresolved design issues, strategies to enroll
children, and plans to coordinate S-CHIP with Medicaid and
private health insurance and plans to review the matter during
the 106th Congress.
HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS (HPV) AND CERVICAL CANCER
An estimated 15,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed
in the United States each year, and 5,000 women die from the
disease annually. Worldwide, cervical cancer affects 500,000
women each year and, after breast cancer, it is the second most
common malignancy found in women. Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
is recognized as the primary cause of cervical cancer, and is
one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD).
However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
does not have a program to track comprehensive surveillance
data for HPV. The Committee will conduct oversight to determine
why this widely prevalent STD is not being tracked by the CDC,
and what measures can be implemented to fight the spread of
this lethal, cancer-causing virus.
CANCER RESEARCH
The National Institutes of Health and other agencies have
made tremendous progress in the ``War on Cancer.'' Scientists
have been able to learn about the fundamental processes of
cellular development, maintenance, and proliferation, and how
these processes can be corrupted to cause cancer. The Committee
will continue to oversee cancer research to help ensure that
Federal efforts are properly managed, and that these recent
scientific advances on the prevention, detection, and treatment
of cancer are brought to the forefront of the battle.
DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT AND PREVENTION
In the 105th Congress, the Committee worked to broaden the
war on drug abuse by working to bring innovative solutions to
the area of drug treatment. For example, the Committee worked
with several Federal agencies on proposed legislation that
would build an infrastructure for the distribution of
buprenorphine, which, according to the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA), is a safer and better treatment for opiate
addiction than methadone. The Committee will conduct oversight
of the incentives for developing anti-addictive medications and
the potential of other methods of drug addiction treatment.
In light of the 1998 Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration Services Research Outcomes Study that
found a 202 percent increase in adolescent crack use after drug
addiction treatment, the Committee will inquire into Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) funding for research in this
area. The Committee also will work with State and local
initiatives that may provide the Committee with valuable
insights on programs that succeed where others fail. Recent
reports have raised concerns about the effectiveness of drug
abuse rehabilitation programs, especially among adolescents
seeking drug treatment. The Committee will conduct oversight of
drug abuse programs and illegal drug use in order to determine
the effectiveness of existing HHS efforts to reduce such usage.
The Committee will examine the relationship between HHS
programs and other Federal anti-drug initiatives and their
overall impact on public health.
ORGAN ALLOCATION REFORM
After a thorough review, the Department of Health and Human
Services'(HHS) efforts to reconfigure the organ allocation
system were delayed by the 105th Congress for at least one
year. During the 106th Congress, the Committee will conduct
further oversight to insure that State and regional organ
procurement and transplantation systems operate in the best
interests of current and future patients, and that the Federal
government will assist in the efforts of the transplant
community. The Committee also will assess the Institute of
Medicine Study on organ allocation systems ordered by the 105th
Congress.
ASSISTED SUICIDE COVERAGE FOR MEDICAL PLANS
In 1993, the State of Oregon, operating under a Section
1115 Medicaid waiver, began the Oregon Health Plan as an
alternative to traditional Medicaid. The Oregon Health Plan
guarantees a set of benefits (Basic Health Care Package) that
provides Medicaid coverage to Oregonians based on a list of
prioritized health services. The Oregon Health Plan is funded
using State general funds, portions of the State's cigarette
tax, and matching Federal funds. With regard to the matching
Federal dollars, in April of 1997, Congress passed the
``Assisted Suicide Funding Restoration Act of 1997,'' Public
Law 105-12. The purpose of this bill was ``to clarify Federal
law with respect to restricting the use of Federal funds in
support of assisted suicide.''
In February of 1998, the Oregon Health Services Commission
agreed to include assisted suicide as a covered medical item,
thus making funding available to low-income residents for this
purpose. The Federal Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA), which must ratify any change or amendment to the Oregon
plan, approved this amendment allowing coverage of assisted
suicide. Since Oregon uses matching Federal Medicaid funds to
support the Oregon Health Plan, the Committee will conduct
oversight to ensure that no Federal funds are being used to
support assisted suicide in Oregon in violation of Public Law
105-12.
PATIENT PROTECTION: HEALTH MARKET REFORM AND HEALTH CARE QUALITY
The Committee will conduct oversight of patient protection
issues, particularly the ability of patients to seek outside
appeals for treatment decisions that are imposed by health
plans, and the ability of patients to access their health care
provider's performance records. One current proposal calls for
patients to have electronic access to the service records of
their providers so that they can make more fully informed
health-care choices based on sound knowledge of their health-
care provider's medical qualifications, and any malpractice or
disciplinary records. The Committee will review this and other
proposals to improve patient access to information regarding
the quality of their health care.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FDA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1997
In 1997, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA), a wide-ranging piece of legislation
affecting key components of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). Under the authority of the Act, the FDA has issued a
variety of rules, guidance documents, and regulatory notices
dealing with such issues as the distribution of information
about off-label uses for marketed drugs and fast track programs
designed to speed the development and approval of drugs and
biologics to treat serious and life-threatening illnesses. The
Committee will closely monitor FDA's activities to ensure FDA's
implementation is consistent with the statutory requirements
and intent of FDAMA.
IMPORTED DRUGS
Over the last decade, there has been a surge in shipments
of drug products from overseas. This trend has implications for
the public health and the ability of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to ensure safety and efficacy of drugs. In
connection with this area, the Committee has been examining
FDA's foreign drug inspections, the Mutual Recognition
Agreement (MRA) between the U.S. and the European Union on drug
inspections, and counterfeit bulk drugs.
With respect to foreign drug inspections, the issue is
whether there is an unlevel playing field between the U.S.,
where FDA regulation is tougher, and overseas where the FDA
regulation is looser. If in fact there is a double-standard, it
would mean that drugs from overseas do not meet the same safety
standards as drugs made in the U.S.
With respect to the MRA, the FDA was pressured into signing
an agreement with the European Union regarding drug
inspections. If the agreement works, FDA will in effect rely on
European inspectors to conduct the inspections of European
plants shipping drugs into the U.S. by the year 2002. However,
some of the European inspectorates lack the expertise and
safeguards that give us assurance they can do as competent a
job as the FDA conducts. Moreover, this agreement can also be
viewed as a foreign-aid package to European countries, already
enjoying a huge trade advantage with the US, by giving them FDA
personnel to build their drug inspection programs. In addition,
U.S. drug companies continue to be burdened by at-border batch
testing by some EU member states. With respect to counterfeit
bulk drugs, the Committee is examining the problem of
counterfeit drug products from overseas.
DRUG TESTING
The Committee will continue oversight of drug-testing
issues. This oversight will involve monitoring of the
Department of Health and Human Services' efforts to include
more advanced drug-testing technologies in the Federal
workplace drug testing program, and examining Food and Drug
Administration regulation of drug-testing systems.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY
In October 1998, Chairman Bliley, along with Chairman
Jeffords and Senator Frist, requested GAO to initiate a
comprehensive study of the U.S. system for ensuring the safety
of prescription drugs. This examination would cover not only
the Food and Drug Administration's post-marketing surveillance
activities, but the entire system including the pre- and post-
marketing activities conducted by both public and private
organizations.
PATIENT ACCESS TO TREATMENT
The Committee will continue its oversight work to ensure
seriously-ill patients have early access to treatment,
especially in the cases of promising treatment for incurable,
life-threatening diseases. One way is to help patients get more
information on clinical trials. In consultation with the Food
and Drug Administration and other public health contacts, the
Committee is looking at administrative measures to provide more
information to patients. The benefit is making a life-and-death
difference in the lives of many patients.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT
During the 105th Congress, the Committee conducted
oversight of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) application of
the False Claims Act in the fight against waste, fraud, and
abuse in the health care industry. In response to the
Committee's review, DOJ issued new guidance on fair and
appropriate use of the False Claims Act in health care. In the
106th Congress, the Committee will monitor DOJ's application of
the False Claims Act with regard to the health care industry in
order to evaluate the impact of the new guidelines.
HHS OVERSIGHT OF USE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awards
billions of dollars each year under thousands of extramural
agreements, many of those with universities and colleges, for
scientific research. Graduate students play a central role in
these Federally-funded research agreements. The Office of
Management and Budget and HHS are responsible for setting the
standards for determining the level of compensation for
graduate student research. Generally, such compensation is
allowable if it represents reasonable compensation for
necessary research and development (R&D) work. However, Federal
guidance strictly limits using Federal R&D awards to provide
educational assistance to selected graduate students, rather
than as reasonable compensation for work performed on Federal
R&D awards.
The Committee is concerned that HHS may lack appropriate
oversight to safeguard against hundreds of millions of Federal
dollars that may be diverted or misused by some colleges and
universities into a form of student aid. On May 1, 1998, the
Full Committee Chairman requested that the GAO investigate
allegations of improper use of Federal research and development
grant funds by the University of California. The GAO's Office
of Special Investigations is investigating this matter. The
Committee expects to receive a report on this matter in the
upcoming year.
ON-LINE HEALTH CARE
During the 105th Congress, the Committee followed the
development of a number of on-line health care resources. In
particular, a growing number of companies are now preparing to
distribute prescription pharmaceuticals on-line, and some are
moving into the realm of providing health care advice and
diagnosis without physically meeting the patient. The Committee
will hold hearings on the growth of on-line health care, and
evaluate a variety of new consumer protection issues which have
arisen in relation to this new field. The Committee will work
to ensure that consumers are able to select the best health
care options available and to protect themselves against
unscrupulous or unqualified providers.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GRANTS
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), through its 24
Institutes, Centers and Divisions, supports the research of
scientists in universities, medical schools, hospitals and
research institutes throughout the country. The Committee will
review NIH research grants and assess how to improve the
overall efficiency and accountability of the grant program. The
Committee will examine the overhead costs charged by some
universities, which reduce the amount of money directly spent
on Federal research priorities.
CONTROL OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WARFARE MATERIALS
In 1996, Congress required the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations providing for
the establishment and enforcement of safety procedures for the
transfer of biological agents (such as anthrax or the ebola
virus), and safeguards to prevent access to such agents for
terrorism or other criminal purposes. In 1997, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued final regulations
governing the transport of biological agents, the registration
of transferee facilities, and notification of interstate
shipments. Despite these regulations, law enforcement and
terrorism experts have expressed concerns about the
unrestricted availability, possession, use, and transfer of
these potentially dangerous agents, similar to concerns they
have raised about chemical agents such as sarin gas. The
Committee plans to review whether the CDC regulations
adequately comply with the intent of Congress to ensure the
safety and security of these agents, whether there is
sufficient compliance with these regulations in a manner useful
to law enforcement agencies, and whether changes to Federal
laws or regulations are necessary to ensure that both
biological and chemical agents are used solely for legitimate
purposes. The Committee also intends to review whether there
are sufficient regulations or controls on the export and import
of biological and chemical agents.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 106th Congress, the Committee intends to
continue its general oversight of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) management, structure, and operations, including
the agency's budget and funding decisions, resource allocation,
research activities, enforcement actions, relations with State
and local governments, and program implementation.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S IMPLEMENTATION OF RECENTLY
ESTABLISHED AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND PROGRAMS
The Committee has the responsibility to ensure that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implements the Clean Air
Act in accordance with statutory language and Congress' intent.
In July 1997, EPA published significant revisions to the
existing national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter and ozone. In October 1998, EPA established
a major program intended to address the interstate transport of
ozone within 22 States and the District of Columbia. In early
1999, EPA will establish a program to address ``regional haze''
affecting visibility in Federal parks. Given the significance
of these rules and programs to the environment and to States,
local governments, and private entities, the Committee will
continue its oversight of EPA's implementation of the revised
NAAQS, ozone transport, and regional haze programs in the 106th
Congress.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HANDLING OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CLAIMS
In February 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issued interim guidance setting forth how it would handle
``environmental justice'' claims filed with the agency against
the issuance of State environmental permits to industries
located in certain areas. These claims generally allege that a
specific State environmental permitting action discriminates
against a class of citizens living near such sites, such as
minority groups, who are protected under Title VI of the
Federal Civil Rights Act. Many State and local government
organizations have expressed concerns that EPA's approach to
this issue may hurt urban revitalization efforts and the
cleanup of contaminated ``brownfields'' by dissuading companies
from seeking, or preventing State agencies from issuing,
permits in these areas, which often are in heavily minority
neighborhoods. Relatedly, EPA plans to decide in 1999 how to
handle complaints that State emission-trading programs have
discriminatory effects on minority areas and thus violate Title
VI. The Committee raised concerns with EPA and sought
information from the agency about environmental justice matters
during the 105th Congress, and intends to continue its
oversight in the upcoming Congress in order to ensure that the
views of States and other interested parties are considered in
the final agency decision making on this important matter, and
that EPA's actions in this regard do not negatively impact
State and local urban revitalization efforts.
INTERNET PUBLICATION OF RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
The Clean Air Act requires that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) implement a ``Risk Management Program''
focused on the prevention of chemical accidents. Under that
program, approximately 66,000 facilities will send EPA detailed
information regarding potential accidental chemical release
points and estimating damages and injuries that could result
from a worst-case scenario. Law enforcement and national
security experts have expressed concerns that this information,
which must be made available to the public under current
Federal law, may be disseminated in a searchable, electronic
database on the Internet, providing a targeting tool for
international and domestic terrorists. The Committee plans to
continue its oversight of this matter in the 106th Congress, in
order to ensure that third-party access to and dissemination of
worst-case scenario data is properly managed to protect the
American public from potential acts of terrorism.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED REGULATION OF PEST-
RESISTANT PLANTS AS PESTICIDES
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed
``plant pesticide'' rule would regulate as pesticides any pest-
resistant traits transferred to agricultural crop plants
through recombinant DNA techniques. Under EPA's plan, these
plants would become subject to regulation under both the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), and may face
additional export-related restrictions in light of their
domestic classification as pesticides. The Committee plans to
review whether EPA's proposed action is based on sound science,
proper risk management, and good policy, and what impact it
could have on human health, the environment, and the United
States' agricultural and technology development communities.
MERCURY EMISSIONS AND EXPOSURE STANDARDS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
During the 105th Congress, the Committee initiated an
inquiry into the activities of several Federal agencies
(including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
Department of Commerce, and the Department of Health and Human
Services) regarding the implementation of the mercury
provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
Specifically, the Committee raised concerns and sought
information about the adequacy of the scientific basis
underlying EPA's report to Congress suggesting that certain
levels of mercury exposure and emissions are harmful to human
health, given the contrary views expressed by Federal public
health agencies and many within the scientific community. The
Committee intends to continue its oversight of interagency
activities related to mercury exposure to ensure that EPA's
regulatory determinations are made on the basis of sound
science, and do not unnecessarily scare consumers away from
healthy foods that generally contain mercury, such as most
types of fish.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S DIESEL ENGINE CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and the
Department of Justice recently signed consent decrees with the
manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines for alleged Clean
Air Act (CAA) violations. EPA claims that, for years, the
manufacturers used a ``defeat device'' in their electronically-
controlled engines that allowed the engines to pass the
emissions test under urban driving conditions, while emitting
levels of nitrogen oxide in excess of the regulatory standard
when under highway driving conditions. The settlement raises
concerns regarding the consistency and level of EPA's
enforcement activities under the CAA, and the harm to the
environment caused by this long-term breakdown in the
regulatory system. During the 105th Congress, the Committee
requested and reviewed documentary information concerning this
enforcement activity. This review will be expanded in the 106th
Congress in order to determine how and why this situation
occurred, and what changes are necessary to ensure similar
problems do not occur in the future.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS AGAINST ``SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS''
Recent audits by the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Office of Inspector General revealed that certain States
and EPA's regional offices have failed to properly enforce the
Clean Air Act with respect to ``significant violators'' in
States throughout the country. The audits suggest an
inconsistent application of Federal law among the various EPA
regions, as well as lack of oversight by EPA headquarters. The
Committee plans to investigate the problems identified by these
audits, as well as the corrective actions that may need to be
taken to ensure appropriate levels of enforcement by all
parties.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
PROGRAMS
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process
of expanding programs designed to provide environmental
information resources to the public. These programs comprise
efforts to package and publish agency data bases on the
Internet, to develop new information products and resources,
and to implement information management reforms that address
cross-cutting issues, such as data quality, public access and
burden reduction. The Committee intends to monitor these
information products and programs, and review the agency's
implementation of its information management reform
commitments.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The Committee will continue its close oversight of the
Administration's various climate change programs and policies,
with particular attention to ensuring that the Administration
does not take measures that would constitute implementation of
the Kyoto Protocol in advance of receiving the Senate's advice
and consent on this agreement. The Committee also will review
the components of the Global Change Research Program and the
Climate Change Technology Initiative to ensure compliance with
Congressional intent and guidance.
SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS
During the 105th Congress, the Committee examined the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) implementation of the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, and heard concerns
that EPA may not be allocating sufficient resources to ensure
the successful implementation of those amendments.
Specifically, the Committee was advised that funds allocated by
EPA to health-effects research may be insufficient to allow the
agency to address future regulatory decisions required under
the 1996 amendments, and that current and future infrastructure
needs may outstrip projected resources in the State Revolving
Fund established by those amendments. In the 106th Congress,
the Committee plans to continue its oversight of the
implementation of the 1996 amendments, in order to ensure that
EPA's activities are sufficient to address critical issues
regarding the safety and reliability of our nation's drinking
water supply.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
The Committee is concerned about the potential impact the
failure of computer systems due to the Year 2000 problem will
have on the nation. The Committee is concerned that a number of
Federal agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction have not
been making satisfactory progress in remediating Year 2000
problems in their computer systems. Of particular concern is
the potential impact on the critical telecommunications and
energy infrastructure, financial markets, and the delivery of
health care. The Committee will review efforts by the private
sector and Federal agencies to remediate Year 2000 problems and
develop contingency plans.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration is currently in the process of turning over
management of the Domain Name System (the system by which
numeric Internet addresses are translated into easy to remember
names such as www.house.gov) to a newly created non-profit
corporation, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN). In 1998, the Committee undertook oversight of
the establishment of ICANN and the transition from government
management to private sector management. The Committee will
continue to monitor the transition of the Domain Name System to
ensure the stability of the Internet.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: ON-LINE PRIVACY
One of the top concerns of on-line users is the protection
of private information on the Internet or other computer
networks. As more consumers use the Internet to conduct
electronic transactions or to locate medical or financial
information, there are concerns that personal information that
is provided to websites may be misused. To alleviate these
concerns, the private sector has undertaken self-regulatory
efforts to create enforceable standards to protect the privacy
of their customers. In 1998, the Committee examined through a
public hearing the private sector's privacy protection
initiative. The Committee will continue to monitor these
efforts in the 106th Congress.
POSSIBLE PAYOLA ABUSES
The Committee plans to examine the relationship between the
radio broadcast industry and the recording industry to
determine whether adequate protections are in place to prevent
payments for the inclusion of any matter in a broadcast without
disclosure to the public. Specifically, the Committee will
examine current prohibitions on such payments to determine
whether they are effective and whether radio licensees are
complying with the law.
CELL SITING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY
The Committee intends to examine procedural barriers that
may prevent commercial wireless companies from siting wireless
towers on Federal property and thus from completing a seamless
wireless network for the benefit of consumers and increased
public safety. In particular, the Committee will examine the
established procedures of the National Park Service and General
Services Administration to consider wireless tower
applications.
THE ROLE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION
The Committee will continue its examination of Federal and
private technology programs that facilitate the educational
techniques currently employed in our nation's schools. The
Committee plans to work with the Committee on Education and the
Workforce to examine the results of the General Accounting
Office (GAO) study conducted on behalf of Chairmen Bliley and
Goodling. The Committee's effort will help develop the scope of
Federal educational programs that utilize technology and
explore the educational benefits of new telecommunications
technologies. In addition, the Committee will examine the
operations of the National Education Technology Funding
Corporation, created in part by the Telecommunications Act of
1996.
The Committee will conduct oversight of the increasing
utilization of technology and telecommunications in America's
classrooms to supplement the curriculum. Technology can be a
very effective tool for enhancing the education of our youth
but only if used in the proper manner. During the 106th
Congress, the Committee will review this and other issues
related to the use of technology and telecommunications in our
educational system.
SET-TOP BOXES
The Committee intends to examine the relationship between
the cable industry and set-top box manufacturers to determine
whether this relationship is harming efforts to promote the
retail accessibility of set-top boxes. In particular, the
Committee will examine whether recent large set-top box orders
from the cable industry promote the spirit of provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, which seek to promote
consumers' ability to obtain set-top boxes from non-cable
sources. Further, the Committee will look at how the cable
industry's current involvement with the use and functionality
of set-top boxes is affecting the development of other multi-
media options.
TAXATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
The Committee will review and examine the use of taxes and
fees on telecommunications services by governments at the
local, State and Federal level. The Committee will examine the
impact of these taxes or fees on telecommunications companies,
telecommunications services, and most importantly, on
consumers. The Committee also will examine whether these taxes
or fees represent entry barriers that prevent
telecommunications competition from developing or flourishing.
Lastly, the Committee will gain information to educate
consumers on exactly what taxes or fees they now make to
government entities and where their money is going.
ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH INMARSAT RESTRUCTURING
The International Maritime Satellite Act set out the
statutory regime applicable to Inmarsat (the International
Mobile Satellite Organization, formerly known as the
International Maritime Satellite Organization). The
Administration participated in international negotiations on a
restructuring plan for Inmarsat that differs from the existing
statutory structure. The Committee intends to continue its
examination of the conduct of the Administration in the
restructuring of Inmarsat. The examination will include the
issue of whether the Administration and the U.S. Signatory to
Inmarsat have the statutory authority for the actions they have
taken and may take in connection with the Inmarsat
restructuring.
BROADCAST OWNERSHIP
Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 mandated that the FCC liberalize its
broadcast ownership rules. The 1996 Act, for example: increased
the national ownership cap on television stations to 35 percent
of the national audience; eliminated the national ownership
rules for radio and increased the number of radio stations that
could be owned in the same local market; promoted radio-
television combinations by expanding the one-to-a-market waiver
process from the top 25 to the top 50 markets; instructed the
FCC to conduct a study to determine whether its television
duopoly rules should be modified given the significant growth
in the media marketplace; and grandfathered existing television
local marketing agreements (LMAs).
Similarly, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provided
substantial relief from the FCC's duopoly and newspaper cross-
ownership rules by prohibiting the FCC from disqualifying
potential auction bidders for reclaimed broadcast spectrum
based on the application of these ownership rules. The Act's
report language additionally instructed the Commission to
``provide additional relief (e.g., VHF/UHF combinations) that
it finds to be in the public interest, and [to] implement the
permanent grandfather requirement for local marketing
agreements as provided in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.''
Notwithstanding Congress' clear intent on this issue, the
FCC has signaled that it may possibly tighten, rather than
relax, these rules. The Committee therefore intends to closely
monitor the FCC's implementation of these provisions, and to
specifically identify the basis (if any) for the FCC's failure
to implement Congressional intent.
LOCAL COMPETITION
The Committee is in the midst of a wide-ranging review of
the state of competition in local exchange markets. In October
1998, the Committee requested information from 16 entities,
including regulatory agencies, consumer advocate groups, and
various private-sector trade associations. The Committee
specifically sought their views on the extent to which local
exchange competition was developing, what barriers existed to
this development, and the impact of regulatory proceedings.
With this information, the Committee will be in a better
position to determine to what extent the local competition
provisions of the Act are operating as intended. In addition,
the Committee will be able to determine whether the FCC is
adequately prioritizing Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC)
compliance with the local competition provisions of the Act and
better assess what actions may be necessary to speed compliance
with these provisions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was
enacted into law. The Act fundamentally changes the way the
telecommunications industry is regulated. In particular, the
Act swept away more than 60 years of outdated laws and
regulations and replaced them with pro-competitive provisions.
Under the Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is
required to conduct approximately 80 rulemakings on major
issues such as interconnection, universal service, Bell
Operating Company entry into the long distance market,
accounting and non-accounting safeguards, cable reform, open
video systems, and regulatory reform. As the Telecommunications
Act enters its fourth year, the Committee will continue an
examination of its implementation.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT
Congress created the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in 1934 for the purpose of regulating interstate and
foreign communication by wire and radio. Once implementation of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been successfully
completed, the need for regulation of the telecommunications
industry will diminish. The Committee will evaluate the need
for restructuring the FCC once competition flourishes in each
telecommunications market. The Committee also will continue its
oversight of the FCC to ensure that it operates as efficiently
as possible.
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB) in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Historically, the
Committee has been charged with monitoring the activities of
the CPB and authorizing appropriations. The Committee will
review the level of Federal funding necessary for the
continuation of public broadcasting. The Committee also will
examine issues relating to the efficiency of CPB, the Public
Broadcasting Service, and the National Public Radio.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Congress created the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) in 1978 to perform a number
of functions including: advising the President on
telecommunications policy; developing policies for
international communications conferences; managing Federal use
of the radio frequency spectrum; and awarding financial grants
to communications companies that are in need of assistance. The
Committee will examine NTIA's execution of these functions and
its role as a part of the Department of Commerce.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The services industry is an increasingly important area of
the American and world economies. Services also provide an
important export opportunity for American business. The
Committee will examine implementation of World Trade
Organization (WTO) services sector agreements, in particular
the WTO agreement on basic telecommunications and, if it is put
into effect, the WTO agreement on financial services. Because
another key area for growth of the American economy is
electronic commerce, the Committee will examine the
Administration's efforts to prevent or remove overseas barriers
to international electronic commerce. Encouraging other nations
to comply with their trade obligations is important in terms of
opening markets for American companies. Accordingly, another
area the Committee will examine is the Administration's efforts
to encourage other nations to fulfill their obligations under
existing trade agreements.
U.S. - JAPAN INSURANCE AGREEMENT
In August 1998, the Committee began an inquiry into certain
aspects of the 1996 U.S. - Japan Insurance Agreement. The
Committee will continue its examination of this agreement,
which raises several policy concerns, and also will look at,
more generally, the issue of transparency in trade agreements.
The Committee also may review other recent trade agreements to
assess how accompanying side agreements are being used and what
ramifications they have for promoting the United States' free-
trade policies.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
The Committee will continue to review the activities of the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in particular its
response to the recommendations made by the General Accounting
Office in a report entitled ``Better Data Needed to Help
Identify and Analyze Potential Hazards,'' which was requested
by the Committee.
LIABILITY REFORM
The Committee will continue to examine the need for further
liability reform in a number of areas. In particular, the
Committee will assess current trends in medical malpractice
liability, product liability, and punitive damage reform.
COSTS OF ELECTRIC UTILITY ADVERTISING
Numerous reports indicate that electric utilities are
incurring significant increases in their advertising expenses.
While utilities are permitted to allocate those advertising
expenses necessary to keep their current ratepayers informed,
utilities are not allowed to pass along to their customers
those advertising expenses intended to increase market share or
attract new ratepayers. The Committee will investigate the
nature of these increased advertising costs to ensure that
electric customers are only paying for costs properly
attributable to their existing service.
ENERGY AND POWER ISSUES
ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 promoted wholesale
competition in the electric industry. Since then, many States
have decided to open up their retail markets to competition.
The Committee will conduct a comprehensive review of the
electric industry and consider legislation to promote retail
competition.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety
through regulation of commercial nuclear power plants, nonpower
research, test and training reactors, fuel cycle facilities,
medical, academic, and industrial uses of nuclear materials,
and the transport, storage, and disposal of nuclear waste. The
Committee will conduct oversight of how the Commission
discharges these responsibilities, and whether the Commission
is an effective regulator of nuclear facilities. The Committee
will consider whether the Commission should be granted
regulatory authority over DOE nuclear facilities.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ANTI-TERRORISM PROGRAM
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for
ensuring that licensees provide adequate safeguards and
security for the nation's 100-plus commercial nuclear reactors,
which operate in 32 States across the nation. In September
1998, the NRC announced the termination of its Operational
Safeguards Response Evaluations program; subsequently, the
program was reinstated in November 1998. Also in 1998, the NRC
undertook a comprehensive review of security at commercial
nuclear power plants. In light of these actions, the Committee
intends to conduct oversight of the NRC safeguards and security
program to ensure that it provides the public with adequate
levels of safety and protection against the threat of terrorism
at commercial reactors.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates
electric utilities, hydropower facilities, and natural gas and
oil pipelines. The Committee will review how FERC discharges
these responsibilities, in light of the sweeping changes in the
electric industry. Some of the specific areas the Committee may
examine are FERC's implementation of Orders 888 and 889, FERC's
merger policy and approach to market power, and FERC regulation
of the transmission system. The Committee will examine FERC's
hydropower relicensing process and natural gas policies.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Committee will continue to conduct oversight on the
Department of Energy to assure improvements in management of
the Department and its many contractors. Following are some of
the issues that the Committee will consider in the conduct of
this oversight.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S HANFORD SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL PROJECT
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Spent Nuclear Fuel project
(SNF project) is an effort to remove 210,000 spent nuclear fuel
rods from leaking wet storage basins (K-Basins) located at
DOE's Hanford site in Richland, Washington. The K-Basins are
one of the largest health and safety risks within the
government's nuclear waste complex, and are known to have
leaked at least 15 million gallons of slightly contaminated
water, some of which already has reached the nearby Columbia
River. The SNF project has encountered more than $600 million
in cost overruns and schedule delays that have delayed the
removal of the deteriorated fuel elements by more than four
years. The Committee conducted oversight of the SNF project in
the 105th Congress and, as a result, several commitments were
made by DOE and its contractors to improve management of this
multi-year project. The Committee plans to continue this
oversight in the 106th Congress in order to ensure that this
major environmental health and safety threat is managed
adequately and resolved in a cost-effective manner.
DOE'S PRIVATIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Department of Energy's contract reform initiative has
focused on efforts to ``privatize'' major environmental cleanup
projects, including a very recent $6.9 billion dollar contract
issued to a private contractor to clean up radioactive wastes
stored in underground tanks at DOE's Hanford reservation. As
revealed by Committee oversight during the 105th Congress, the
Department's initial privatization effort to clean up Pit 9 at
DOE's Idaho site was a failure. Accordingly, the Committee
plans to monitor DOE's performance on the Hanford Radioactive
Tank Waste privatization contract, which not only is much
larger in terms of costs to the American taxpayers, but also
poses a much more serious environmental health and safety
threat than did Pit 9. The Committee began its oversight of
this contract in the 105th Congress and plans to continue this
review, as well as its review of Pit 9 and other major DOE
privatization efforts, in the 106th Congress, in order to
ensure effective DOE management and to prevent serious public
health threats and billions in wasted taxpayer dollars.
DOE'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Department of Energy estimates that between $150 and
$300 billion in taxpayer funds will be needed over the next 40
years to clean up and stabilize wastes within its nuclear
weapons complex. The Office of Science and Technology was
created by DOE in response to a Congressional directive in 1989
to begin a program to fund the development of innovative
environmental technologies that will make DOE's cleanup
activities faster, cheaper, and safer. DOE has estimated that
approximately $20 billion in cleanup costs could be avoided
with the use of innovative technologies developed by OST.
However, the Committee's review of OST in the 105th Congress
revealed that few technologies developed by OST have been
deployed, in part due to OST's ineffective management, poor
technology selection and review, and lack of integration with
DOE's cleanup program offices. Close and continuing oversight
of OST in the 106th Congress is necessary to ensure that DOE's
$3 billion investment in OST results in cheaper, faster and
safer cleanups throughout the DOE nuclear waste complex.
HANFORD PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT
The Department of Energy is responsible for the
stabilization and removal of 17 metric tons of plutonium and
plutonium-bearing materials currently stored at the Hanford
Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP)--America's second largest
plutonium inventory. The PFP was built in 1951 to convert
plutonium liquids and powders into metal for use in nuclear
weapons, but production operations at PFP were stopped in 1987.
The plutonium and plutonium-bearing materials remaining at PFP
must be stabilized, packaged, and shipped offsite. According to
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, DOE has halted
plutonium cleanup activities at PFP due to repeated instances
of poor work control, criticality safety infractions, and lack
of management involvement. The Committee will review PFP
cleanup activities at Hanford in the 106th Congress in order to
identify and resolve management weaknesses and safety issues.
DOE'S PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE CONTRACTING
In its implementation of contract reform, the Department of
Energy continues to experiment with incentive fee arrangements,
such as annual performance-based incentive (PBI) contracts,
with its major private contractors. The Committee's review of
these reform initiatives during the 105th Congress revealed
significant deficiencies in the management of these incentive
contracts, and the Committee will continue to review these
efforts to ensure that they effectively incentivize contractors
to perform more efficiently and do not result in a waste of
taxpayer dollars.
DOE NUCLEAR HEALTH AND SAFETY
One of DOE's major responsibilities at its nuclear
production and research facilities is to ensure that health and
safety requirements are being met by the contractors who
operate or remediate the Department's nuclear facilities.
Events at Brookhaven, Lawrence Livermore, and other national
laboratories involving worker radiation exposures have raised
questions about DOE's effectiveness in enforcing nuclear health
and safety. The Committee will review DOE's nuclear health and
safety efforts to ensure adequate attention is given to this
important issue by the Department.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY PROGRAM
The Department of Energy is responsible for safeguards and
security at more than 50 Department of Energy facilities
nationwide, including 12 nuclear weapon facilities and 27 non-
weapon facilities. The DOE inventory includes tons of weapons-
grade nuclear material, classified hardware, computer systems
and documents, and over 120,000 security clearances. In the
105th Congress, the Committee initiated an inquiry into the
adequacy of safeguards and security at nuclear facilities, in
light of a January 1997 report issued by the DOE's Office of
Safeguards and Security (OSS). In the 106th Congress, the
Committee intends to continue to monitor the adequacy of DOE's
efforts to improve safeguards and security in view of the
potentially serious public health and safety consequences of a
major security breach at a DOE facility or during
transportation of DOE nuclear materials on public highways.
STORAGE OF WEAPONS GRADE FISSILE MATERIAL
The Department of Energy (DOE) currently stores weapons-
grade uranium and plutonium from dismantled U.S. nuclear
weapons in above-ground structures. By contrast, the United
States, through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, is
assisting Russia in the design and construction of a secure
underground facility for the fissile material removed from
warheads possessed by the former Soviet Union. U.S. assistance
on this Russian project is commendable, but it raises the
question of why the DOE is not providing a similar level of
safety and security here in the United States. The Committee
will review the current situation at DOE's facilities, and
investigate whether they should be upgraded to enhance the
safety and security of these nuclear materials.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
The Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in southeastern
New Mexico is designed to store radioactive transuranic wastes
from the production of nuclear weapons. The facility is
complete but WIPP has yet to begin accepting transuranic waste
because of continued objections from the State of New Mexico.
These delays in opening WIPP will impact the schedule for
cleaning up radioactive waste at other DOE sites. The Committee
will review the current status of the WIPP project, including
plans for transporting transuranic waste from other DOE sites
to WIPP, and will evaluate the substance and impact of the
delays in waste acceptance at WIPP.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program was
created in the early 1970s to clean up low-level radioactive
contamination resulting from the nation's early nuclear weapons
development. The program encompassed a total of 46 sites, of
which 24 had been cleaned up by the Department of Energy (DOE).
In October 1997, program responsibility for the remaining 22
active FUSRAP sites was transferred from DOE to the Army Corps
of Engineers. The Committee, with the assistance of the General
Accounting Office, will review the Corps' performance to date
and evaluate the effectiveness of the program under Corps
management.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S BUDGET REQUEST
The Committee will hold hearings on the Department of
Energy's (DOE) budget requests for Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001
and closely examine the requests. The missions of DOE have
changed dramatically over time. When DOE was first established,
the major mission was promoting energy security. At present,
the principal DOE missions are environmental management,
defense programs, science and technology, and energy security.
DOE has sought to add new missions such as trade promotion and
enhancing environmental quality. The Committee will examine the
DOE budget requests and determine whether they are consistent
with the Committee's priorities.
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act set energy
efficiency standards and directed DOE to consider revisions to
these standards. The primary purpose of the program is to
promote energy efficiency. Concerns have been raised about how
DOE has developed revised standards, the impact of the
standards on consumers, their potential anti-competitive
effects, and the impact on manufacturers. During the 106th
Congress, the Committee will review revised standards issued by
DOE.
DOE'S ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM
Current law directs DOE to develop an alternative fuels
program that displaces 10 percent of petroleum motor fuels in
2000 and 30 percent in 2010. DOE is well short of these goals.
The Committee will consider whether the existing DOE program
will meet these goals, and whether reforms to the program are
needed.
DOE'S NATIONAL LABORATORIES
The Committee will examine whether DOE is effectively
managing the contractors that operate the national
laboratories. The Committee will review proposals to improve
management of the labs.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Current law directs agencies to cut their energy use by 20
percent through 2000 and 30 percent through 2005. The Committee
will examine whether Federal agencies are meeting these goals,
and whether Federal accounting of energy savings is accurate.
FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES
ON-LINE INVESTOR PROTECTION
The Committee will conduct oversight of the rapidly growing
practice of on-line trading. The Internet is a powerful and
inexpensive new research tool for investors, and provides
considerable potential to improve price discovery and enhance
capital formation in American markets. However, the rapid
growth of on-line trading has been associated with increased
market volatility, in particular with regard to Internet
stocks, and with the growth of Internet securities fraud. The
Committee intends to examine the state of the on-line trading
industry and the impact of Internet trading on the stability of
the capital markets. The Committee will assess the adequacy of
the efforts made to protect investors from on-line securities
fraud schemes.
BOND MARKET TRANSPARENCY
The U.S. bond market is the largest securities market in
the world, representing more than $11 trillion in outstanding
debt obligations. The bond markets play a vital role in
providing private companies and State and local governments
with capital on more favorable lending terms than those offered
by banks. However, the level of transparency in the bond
market, particularly the corporate and municipal market, is
substantially less than that in the U.S. equity markets.
Consequently, it can be difficult for investors and regulators
to determine whether investors are paying the best price for a
bond, and difficult for investors to determine the valuation of
their portfolios. The Committee will review efforts to improve
transparency in these markets, and may propose legislation to
accomplish this goal.
PROFIT SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ON STOCK EXCHANGES
The Committee will continue its inquiry into profit sharing
arrangements between companies and brokers on the various stock
exchanges. The Committee will conduct oversight to determine
the full scope of market problems related to questionable
profit sharing arrangements and to evaluate the adequacy of
market surveillance reforms introduced by the New York Stock
Exchange and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in
response to the ongoing investigation by Federal law
enforcement authorities.
EDGAR PRIVATIZATION
The Committee continues to oversee the Securities and
Exchange Commission's (SEC) efforts to improve public access to
corporate filings data through modernization and privatization
of the Electronic Data Gathering and Retrieval System (EDGAR)
for corporate filings.
The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-290) directed the SEC to examine proposals for
the privatization of its Electronic Data Gathering and
Retrieval system (EDGAR) in order to promote competition in the
collection and dissemination of corporate filings. Pursuant to
the 1996 act, the SEC developed an EDGAR privatization
initiative in 1997, and then, in June 1998, awarded a three-
year $49 million contract to modernize and maintain the EDGAR
system. The Committee will monitor the SEC's efforts to
modernize and privatize EDGAR, in order to ensure adequate
public access to EDGAR data, and also to determine whether a
privatized system will benefit taxpayers without sacrificing
public policy concerns.
OVERSIGHT OF THE SEC'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS MANDATE ``TO PROMOTE
EFFICIENCY, COMPETITION & CAPITAL FORMATION''
The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996
created a major new mandate for the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The SEC is now required not only to protect
investors, but also to promote efficiency, competition and
capital formation. Section 106 of the Act requires that:
``Whenever pursuant to this title the Commission is engaged in
rulemaking and is required to consider or determine whether an
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, the
Commission shall also consider, in addition to the protection
of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation.''
The Committee intends to conduct oversight of the SEC's
implementation of this new mandate. In particular, the
Committee will examine the adequacy and timeliness of
information provided by the SEC's major Divisional Offices to
the Office of Chief Economist, which has the responsibility for
conducting cost-benefit analyses of proposed new rules.
Additionally, the Committee will conduct oversight to ensure
that final rules as adopted are consistent with the proposed
rule. Changes in rule proposals upon adoption that would
otherwise trigger a cost-benefit analysis on the basis of being
a major rule will be examined.
Many of the recent rules affect significant changes in the
fundamental structure and operation of the capital markets.
Some of the most significant proposals have been enacted by the
SEC while others remain in the proposal stage. The Committee
will continue to conduct oversight to determine the effects and
market impact of these recent rule changes, as well as to
examine whether current rulemaking proposals are consistent
with promoting efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
OVERSIGHT OF SELF REGULATORY ORGANIZATION RULEMAKING
The Committee will continue to examine rulemaking by the
self regulatory organizations to ensure that the rules are
necessary and do not afford anti-competitive advantages to
particular market participants.
CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND COLLARS
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved
changes to so-called ``circuit breakers,'' automatic halts in
trading on the New York Stock Exchange, triggered by large
downturns during a trading day. The changes were made to more
accurately reflect the original purpose of maintaining orderly
markets during volatile trading periods. The point loss levels
that trigger trading halts are now based on percentage drops
relative to the level of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The
Committee will conduct oversight to determine the effectiveness
and impact of the new trading halt levels in light of the
increased volatility in the markets.
While the new trigger levels reflect today's stock market
level, the ``collars'' that suspend program trading have not
been adjusted. The Committee plans to examine the utility of
the collars and determine if changes are warranted to reflect
current market conditions without placing individual investors
at a disadvantage.
PRESERVING DERIVATIVES' STATUS AS PRIVATE CONTRACTS
Derivatives have become a useful and integral risk
management tool for many businesses and financial institutions.
The Committee will continue to ensure that the utility and
status of derivatives is not harmed through any new regulatory
efforts, while working to preserve protections for investors.
OVERSIGHT OF HEDGE FUNDS
The Committee will continue to monitor questions relating
to moral hazard and enforcement of applicable regulations in
the hedge fund industry. The Committee will continue to monitor
the unwinding of positions at Long Term Capital Management.
Y2K / INSURANCE
The Committee will examine the progress made by the
insurance industry and the State insurance regulators in
preparing for Y2K problems. In particular, the Committee will
consider insurance solvency issues and the potential losses
from duty to defend responsibilities and from coverage exposure
related to directors and officers liability policies.
INSURANCE REGULATION
The Committee will oversee the Financial Standards
Accreditation program, and will examine recent efforts by the
National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to
regulate investment guidelines, company splits, and producer
database networks. The Committee also will review the role of
the NAIC in the functional regulation of insurance products
offered by non-insurance companies and agents, the involvement
by the NAIC in setting uniform standards for commercial
insurance transactions, and the implementation of NAIC
proposals to address insurance fraud.
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS SUPERFUND)
The Committee will continue to conduct oversight with
respect to the operation of the Superfund program. In
particular, the Committee will be interested in ensuring that
the program is achieving its primary goal--cleaning up toxic
waste sites--in an efficient and expeditious manner. The
Committee will also review the implementation of State cleanup
programs and will investigate whether changes to existing
Federal laws are necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste
sites to ensure the protection of human health and the
environment.
BASEL CONVENTION
The Committee will conduct oversight on the implementation
of the Basel Convention, an international agreement governing
the transboundary movement of hazardous materials. The
Committee's oversight will help determine whether the United
States should become a party to the Convention through the
enactment of implementing legislation.
PART B
Implementation of the Committee on Commerce Oversight Plan for the
106th Congress \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a more complete description of these and other oversight
activities by the Committee, see the appropriate subcommittee sections
of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ISSUES
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE
During the 106th Congress, the Committee held hearings and
conducted extensive oversight focusing on fraud and abuse in
the Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as methods of
reducing the vulnerability of these programs to such
activities.
The Committee's oversight activities in the 106th Congress
focused upon Medicaid, the joint State and Federal program that
provides health insurance coverage, primarily for low-income
children, pregnant women, elderly, and blind and disabled
individuals. On November 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a hearing to assess current State and
Federal efforts to combat the problem of fraud and abuse within
State Medicaid programs and explore possible means to improve
these efforts. The hearing featured the testimony of witnesses
from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Department of
Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS
OIG), the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), several
representatives from State law enforcement and Medicaid program
integrity agencies, along with several private companies that
currently assist State efforts to detect and prevent Medicaid
fraud and abuse. Witness testimony, along with Member
questions, identified the need for greater investments in
computer technology and program integrity efforts to deter
fraud and abuse in this important program. In addition,
witnesses identified how certain HCFA regulations currently
impede some States' efforts to rigorously pursue false claims.
On July 18, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations and the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
held a joint oversight hearing on Medicaid provider enrollment
controls. Such controls, which can include criminal background
checks and site visits to a provider's place of business, can
be used to screen out of State Medicaid programs individuals
with criminal records who are seeking to become providers. The
hearing examined how the lack of provider enrollment controls
contributed to several recent major fraud cases, and assessed
how current State efforts to deter such fraud could be
improved. The hearing featured the testimony of a cooperating
witness in an ongoing FBI investigation into Medicaid fraud in
California, State and Federal law enforcement and Medicaid
program officials working on Medicaid program integrity
efforts, and representatives from the General Accounting Office
and a company that performs site visits and criminal background
checks of both Medicare and Medicaid providers. As a result of
this oversight, the Committee is preparing legislation that
would create incentives for States to conduct more rigorous
screening of providers before allowing them to enroll in their
Medicaid programs. As a result of these hearings, legislation
has been prepared, which will be introduced in the 107th
Congress, to combat the problems identified in both hearings
and reduce the Medicaid program's vulnerability to fraud and
abuse. In addition, the Chairman of the Full Committee
requested that the General Accounting Office survey all State
anti-fraud activities and report back to the Committee with
recommendations on how these efforts could be improved.
The Committee's oversight activities also focused on the
vulnerability of the Medicare program to fraud. On April 6,
2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing that revealed the findings of a General Accounting
Office investigation and report into the activities of a Texas
billing company. The report, prepared by GAO's Office of
Special Investigations summarized how this company appears to
have submitted numerous false claims for services never
rendered. The hearing also featured the testimony of witnesses
who highlighted the Medicare program's vulnerability to fraud
by billing companies, and HCFA's inadequate efforts to reduce
this risk by more rigorously supervising such billing
companies. The findings summarized in the report were also
referred to the Office of Inspector General and the Department
of Justice for further investigation and possible prosecution.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGEMENT OF THE MEDICARE
PARTIAL HOSPITALIZATION PROGRAM
The Committee's healthcare-related work also continued to
review problems with HCFA's oversight of Community Mental
Health Centers in the Medicare partial hospitalization program.
In the 105th Congress on this topic, HCFA announced a new 10-
point plan to address the problem of rampant abuse in the
partial hospitalization program. On March 24, 1999, Chairman
Bliley wrote to the HCFA Administrator to express his concerns
about the implementation of this new plan. The letter noted
that, contrary to its previous assertions, HCFA had failed to
expel a single questionable provider. The letter also required
HCFA to provide additional information about its efforts, to
assist the Committee's ongoing efforts to guarantee that the
levels of fraud and abuse in the partial hospitalization
program are actually reduced.
The Committee continued its examination of the mental
health partial hospitalization services program, and approved
by voice vote an amendment that would bring reform to this
program. The Committee reported an amendment to H.R. 1070, the
Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of
1999, that addressed the weaknesses of the partial
hospitalization program.
The first element of the amendment excluded from the
definition of ``partial hospitalization services'' items and
services that are provided in a skilled nursing facility,
residential treatment facility, or other residential setting.
It also required community mental health centers to determine
the clinical appropriateness of admissions to inpatient
psychiatric hospitals by engaging a full-time mental health
professional who is licensed or certified to make such a
determination by the State involved. It also required that the
Secretary provide for the periodic recertification of each
community mental health center that furnishes partial
hospitalization services for which payment is made under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act, and that the Secretary
promulgate regulations for national coverage policies for
partial hospitalization services furnished under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act using a negotiated rulemaking process
within one year after the enactment of the bill.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ANTI-FRAUD
BILLING SOFTWARE
In the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its review
of the Health Care Financing Administration's use of
commercial-off-the-shelf software to process edits to Medicare
claims. The Committee monitored HCFA's implementation of its
two-year contract with McKesson HBOC. Committee staff requested
and received several briefings by HCFA and McKesson HBOC
personnel to monitor HCFA's implementation of this anti-fraud
software.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED
BUDGET ACT
The Committee held three hearings on Medicare reforms
contained in the Balanced Budget Act: two focused on the
Medicare+Choice program, the third focused on Medicare fee-for-
service policy changes contained in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGEMENT OF FISCAL
INTERMEDIARIES AND CARRIERS, AND OTHER STRUCTURAL CONCERNS
On July 14, 1999 and September 9, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held hearings to assess the
adequacy of HCFA's oversight of its Medicare contractors, and
to highlight concerns identified in the course of the
Committee's examination of the anti-fraud efforts of the
contractors who review and process Medicare claims and
payments. The hearings reviewed the performance of Medicare
contractors, focusing particularly on the acts of criminal
conduct by certain contractors that were revealed in reports by
the GAO released at the hearings. These reports identified
weaknesses in HCFA's contractor oversight, widespread non-
compliance with HCFA's anti-fraud regulations, and evidence of
major fraud perpetrated by these HCFA Medicare contractors. The
hearings featured the testimony of witnesses from GAO, the
Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector
General, HCFA, anti-fraud associations that provide private
sector and non-governmental perspectives on the anti-fraud
efforts of HCFA, relators from the qui tam cases that first
revealed many of the Medicare contractor fraud cases, as well
as representatives from the actual Medicare contractors and
associations implicated in the fraud schemes, including the
Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.
HEALTH CARE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION'S YEAR 2000 COMPUTER PROBLEM
On January 26, 1999, Chairman Bliley sent a letter to Donna
Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), regarding HCFA's efforts to resolve its Year
2000, or Y2K, problem for Medicare claims processing systems.
The Medicare program uses seven Medicare claims processing
systems, and more than 70 private contractors and financial
institutions to process nearly 800 million Medicare claims
annually for approximately one million physicians, hospitals,
medical equipment suppliers and home health agencies. Because
nearly 85 percent of all Medicare claims are submitted and paid
electronically, it was crucial that HCFA, its contract
carriers, fiscal intermediaries, and providers were Y2K
compliant.
On February 9, 1999, Chairman Bliley and two Members of the
Committee--Mr. Lazio and Mr. Burr--also requested information
from several healthcare associations regarding the status of
its members on Year 2000, or Y2K, compliance efforts. These
associations included: the American Hospital Association (AHA),
the American Medical Association (AMA), the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association, the American Association of Health Plans
(AAHP), the American Association of Homes and Services for the
Aging, the American Health Care Association (AHCA), the
National Association for Home Care (NAHC), and the Health
Insurance Association of America (HIAA). The Committee
questioned whether each association was assisting its members
with Y2K compliance efforts, whether an auditor had been hired
to examine Y2K compliance efforts, the association's overall
assessment of its member companies' status in achieving Y2K
compliance, whether the association was familiar with outreach
programs by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) on
Y2K, and whether any of the association's member companies had
utilized HCFA's programs.
Over the next few months, the Committee received responses
from HCFA and all of the healthcare associations, and the
Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations and Health and
Environment held a joint oversight hearing, on April 27, 1999,
to gain insight on the status of Medicare providers in
preparing for Y2K. The hearing consisted of two panels of
witnesses, including representatives from HCFA, the GAO, the
HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), AMA, AHA and NAHC.
Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, the head of HCFA, testified at the
hearing, providing updates and assurances on HCFA's Medicare
claims processing systems. The hearing also raised concerns
about the readiness of the health care providers for Y2K, and
highlighted the need for all healthcare providers to be Y2K
compliant and to have contingency plans in place by January 1,
2000.
Due to concerns raised at the hearing on April 27, 1999,
the Committee sent a letter to GAO requesting that it undertake
a review of a number of issues, including a review of HCFA's
efforts to ensure that Medicare providers will be Y2K
compliant, a review of the main segments of the Medicare
provider community and the progress each was making on Y2K
compliance, and a review of the surveys that had been conducted
to date regarding the Y2K compliance of the Medicare provider
community. In July 1999, GAO released its report, entitled
``Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Status of Medicare Providers
Unknown,'' concluding: (1) HCFA was conducting numerous
outreach activities, but provider participation was low; (2)
Medicare contractor testing with providers had been limited and
reported results were not encouraging; and (3) insufficient
information was available from surveys to assess the Year 2000
status of healthcare providers.
Throughout the remainder of 1999, the Committee continued
to meet with provider groups, HCFA, GAO, the HHS OIG, and
others to ensure that HCFA and its Medicare providers would be
Y2K compliant by December 31, 1999, resulting in few reported
incidents at the start of the new year that presented
significant problems for HCFA, its providers, or consumers.
REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS
AFFECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
As part of an on-going examination of HHS programs
affecting children and families, the Committee moved forward
with hearings on children's health programs, and enacted H.R.
4365, the Children's Health Act, into law (Public Law 106-310).
The legislation is a multi-faceted approach to remedying
the public health challenges facing American children,
addressing adoption awareness for infants and special needs
children; autism; research and development regarding fragile x;
juvenile arthritis and related conditions; diabetes among
children and youth; asthma services for children; birth defects
prevention activities through a national folic acid education
program; hearing loss in infants; children and epilepsy; safe
motherhood and infant health promotion; pediatric research
initiative; childhood malignancies; traumatic brain injury;
child care safety and health grants; authorization for the
healthy start initiative, including increased access to
ultrasound screenings and prenatal surgery; oral health;
vaccine-related programs; hepatitis C; autoimmune diseases;
graduate medical education programs in children's hospitals;
pediatric organ transplantation; muscular dystrophy research;
Tourette Syndrome awareness; childhood obesity prevention;
childhood lead poisoning; screening for heritable disorders;
metabolic disorders.
The legislation also reauthorizes programs within the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) to improve mental health and substance abuse services
for children and adolescents, to implement proposals giving
States more flexibility in the use of block grant funds with
accountability based on performance, and to consolidate
discretionary grant authorities to give the Secretary more
flexibility to respond to the needs of those who need mental
health and substance abuse services while permitting faith-
based charities to compete for grants on an equal footing with
secular institutions, similar to the provisions of S. 979. It
also provides a waiver from the requirements of the Narcotic
Addict Treatment Act, which would permit qualified physicians
to dispense and prescribe schedule III, IV, or V narcotic drugs
or combinations of such drugs approved by FDA for the treatment
of heroin and other opioid addictions. It also provides a
comprehensive strategy to combat use of methamphetamine and
other ``club drugs'' abused by America's young people.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEADBEAT PARENT PROGRAM
The Committee conducted a review of the Department of
Health and Human Services' deadbeat parent program.
Specifically, on February 24, 1999, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on the
implementation of a new joint Federal-State-local child support
enforcement program called Project Save Our Children (PSOC).
The purpose of the hearing was to assess the Department of
Health and Human Services' role in the program, and to examine
the results of the initiative following its first year in
operation.
The first panel of witnesses featured custodial parents
with delinquent ex-spouses who had been identified, located,
and prosecuted by the PSOC multi-agency task force in order to
force them to pay their outstanding child support obligations.
The second panel consisted of witnesses from various Federal
and state child welfare agencies, as well as a local sheriff
department investigator and an attorney for the Center for Law
and Social Policy. The hearing provided the Committee an
opportunity to gain insight into this new program before the
program was expanded to 17 States, and to highlight the
importance of cracking down on deadbeat parents.
ADOPTION
The Committee continued to study adoptions to ensure that
pregnant women are appropriately informed about adoption. After
discussions and negotiations with adoption and foster care
advocates, as well as representatives from the pro-life
community and the abortion industry, the Committee was
successful in enacting the Infant Adoption Awareness Act as
part of H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act, into law (Public
Law 106-310). This legislation would set up a training program
by which clinic workers and others could receive professional
in-service training in educational adoption counseling. If
properly trained, these counselors would be equipped to provide
valuable information on adoption to their clients.
TITLE V ABSTINENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM
The Committee continued to monitor the progress of an HHS
evaluation of this important program. Staff met with the
consultants hired to conduct the study, as well as the HHS
personnel who are supervising it.
THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM
When S-CHIP was enacted in 1997, each state and territory
was allocated a specific amount of money to be spent on
children's health insurance coverage. While a number of states
have not spent all of their allotted funds, others have
exhausted their allotment. The Committee has continued to
examine the allocation of S-CHIP resources, and the presumptive
eligibility for S-CHIP benefits, and such matters were
addressed by the Committee in H.R. 5291, the Beneficiary
Improvement and Protection Act of 2000.
HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS (HPV) AND CERVICAL CANCER
In order to increase awareness about cervical cancer and
educate the public on the link between HPV and cervical cancer,
the Committee held the first-ever congressional hearing on
cervical cancer on March 16, 1999. The hearing focused not only
on the causes of cervical cancer, but also new advances being
made in cervical cancer detection, prevention and treatment.
Currently, pap smears at least once a year comprise the
accepted medical practice for cervical cancer detection and
prevention. However, current pap smear testing does not detect
every strain of HPV. At the hearing, Senator Mack and Ms. Eshoo
testified regarding a concurrent resolution recognizing the
severity of cervical cancer. On the second panel, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NCI testified.
According to CDC testimony, it is now estimated that
approximately five million new cases of genital HPV occur in
the United States each year, making it the most common of all
STDs. While it is further estimated that at least 50 percent of
sexually active men and women will acquire genital HPV
infection at some point in their lives,most strains of HPV do
not cause cancer. On the last panel, a cervical cancer
survivor, a practicing physician, the American Medical Women's
Association, and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists
testified.
The Committee's oversight hearing exposed that the
available scientific evidence points to a small number of
strains of HPV that cause cancer. Despite this link between
cervical cancer and HPV, Federal health authorities do not
track HPV infections, and do not warm women about the
heightened risk of cancer or the fact that condoms do not
prevent HPV transmission. The Committee's oversight led to the
enactment of provisions in H.R. 4386 and the Labor, Health and
Human Services appropriations act for Fiscal Year 2001, that
would require the Federal government to begin tracking data on
HPV transmission, conduct HPV prevention studies and analysis,
and review whether warning labels on condoms are medically
adequate. For additional information on this legislation, see
H.R. 4386 in the legislative activities portion of the
Subcommittee on Health and Environment section of this report.
CANCER RESEARCH
The Committee's continuing work in this area led to
legislation to provide medical assistance for certain women
screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer under a
Federally-funded screening program: H.R. 4386, the Breast and
Cervical Cancer Treatment Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-354).
DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT AND PREVENTION
The Committee's review of drug abuse treatment programs,
through such fora as the July 30, 1999 hearing entitled ``The
Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 1999,'' led to significant
programs included in H.R. 4365, the Children's Health Act
(Public Law 106-310). This law reauthorizes programs within the
jurisdiction of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) to improve mental health and substance
abuse services for children and adolescents, to implement
proposals giving States more flexibility in the use of block
grant funds with accountability based on performance, and to
consolidate discretionary grant authorities to give the
Secretary more flexibility to respond to the needs of those who
need mental health and substance abuse services. The law also
provides a waiver from the requirements of the Narcotic Addict
Treatment Act, which would permit qualified physicians to
dispense (including prescribe) Schedule III, IV, or V narcotic
drugs or combinations of such drugs approved by FDA for the
treatment of heroin addiction. It also provides a comprehensive
strategy to combat methamphetamine and club drug abuse.
ORGAN ALLOCATION REFORM
Over the last two Congresses, the Committee has re-examined
the National Organ Transplant Act in general, with special
attention given to the matter of organ allocation. On September
22, 1999, the Committee held a hearing on organ allocation, and
succeeded in House passage of H.R. 2418, the Organ Procurement
and Transplantation Network Amendments of 1999, on April 4,
2000. For further information on this legislation, see the
Subcommittee on Health and Environment section of this report.
ASSISTED SUICIDE COVERAGE FOR MEDICAL PLANS
Following the announcement by the State of Oregon that it
would provide state Medicaid assistance to low-income
individuals seeking assisted suicide, Chairman Bliley sought
assurances from Donna Shalala, Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), that the manner in which
Oregon implemented physician-assisted suicide into its Medicaid
program would in no way violate the requirements of Federal
law, which bar the use of Federal funds for such purposes. In
response, HHS, the Health Care Financing Administration, and
Oregon provided numerous assurances to the Committee that
Federal law prohibiting the use of Federal funds to pay for
assisted suicide and related services would be respected.
Despite these assurances, the Committee continued its
investigation to ensure that no Federal funds were being used
in violation of the law. The Committee questioned whether HCFA
had ever conducted an ``on-site'' review of the claims
processing procedures in determining whether Oregon was
complying with Federal law. Having discovered that no such
review had ever taken place, HCFA decided in February 1999 to
perform an on-site review. After concluding its initial review,
HCFA admitted to the Committee there was a possibility that
Federal law had been broken in Oregon by the use of Federal
funds for assisted suicide and related services. A subsequent
investigation ultimately discovered that, between 1998 and
1999, $2,334 ($1,167 in Federal funds) was spent for salaries,
payroll and other administrative costs that were not allowable
claims under Federal law. These unlawful reimbursements were
refunded to the Federal government, and both Oregon and HCFA
put several safeguards into place to ensure that further
improper use of Federal funds would not take place. One year
following the Committee's investigation, the State of Oregon
conducted an audit and determined that, in the year following
the Committee's investigation, no funds were used by the State
in violation of Federal law.
The Committee's long-standing interest in this area led to
House passage of H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of
1999, amends the Controlled Substances Act to promote pain
management and palliative care while reinforcing the illegality
of the administration or distribution of drugs for the purpose
of assisting in suicide. H.R. 2260 establishes a ``Program for
Palliative Care Research and Quality'' within HHS, and it
authorizes a program in education and training in palliative
care for physicians and law enforcement officers. For more
information regarding this legislation, see the Subcommittee on
Health and Environment section of this report.
PATIENT PROTECTION: HEALTH MARKET REFORM AND HEALTH CARE QUALITY
During this Congress, the Committee closely examined the
delivery of health care services to Americans though managed
care plans, and how patients access to quality care could be
improved. Specifically, the Committee held three hearings on
proposed reforms to the laws governing managed care plans. On
March 24, 1999, the Committee held a hearing that focused on
Americans' need to have quality information about their health
care and better access to emergency room services and specialty
care. In its June 16, 1999 hearing, it examined the problem of
America's 43 million uninsured and sought to craft legislation
to promote access to health insurance for this population.
Finally, on June 26, 1999, the Committee heard testimony from
several health care experts regarding the current external
appeals processes used by health plans, the problems that have
arisen within the existing system and potential ways of
resolving them. With respect to legislative action on manage
care issues, see the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
section of this report.
Further, in an effort to improve patient access to critical
healthcare-related information, the Committee also began a
review of the adequacy of the National Practitioner Data Bank
(NPDB), and whether this confidential database containing
malpractice and disciplinary records of doctors and dentists
should be opened to the public. During the 106th Congress, the
Committee evaluated the effectiveness of the NPDB in improving
the quality of health care. The Committee also examined various
potential improvements to the Data Bank, including granting
public access to the NPDB, expansion of the Data Bank to
include criminal convictions, and revisions to entity reporting
requirements to the NPDB.
On November 2, 1999, Chairman Bliley sent a letter to the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to
express his concern that the NPDB was failing to protect
consumers from questionable practitioners and to determine how
the operation of the NPDB could be improved. On November 23,
1999, Chairman Bliley sent correspondence to the American
Medical Association and the American Hospital Association to
garner their views on possible improvements to the NPDB.
Chairman Bliley sent a second letter to the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services on February 3, 2000, to
obtain information of certain practitioners with an inordinate
number of reports in the NPDB. On April 3, 2000, Chairman
Bliley sent a third letter to the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services and requested the Secretary to
clarify the Administration's views on how the NPDB could be
used to offer greater protections to patients. Specifically,
Chairman Bliley asked the Administration to reconcile its
support of public access to the Data Bank in 1993 with its
current position that there are significant concerns with
providing public access to the NPDB.
On March 1, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on public access to the Data
Bank. The Subcommittee heard from various interested parties on
the benefits and disadvantages of giving the public access to
the NPDB. The Subcommittee held a second hearing on March 16,
2000, to assess the operation of the National Practitioner Data
Bank. As a result of these hearings and the Committee's
investigation, on September 7, 2000, Chairman Bliley introduced
H.R. 5122, the Patient Protection Act of 2000, which would
grant the public access to the NPDB. On September 20, 2000, the
Full Committee held a legislative hearing to examine the
Patient Protection Act of 2000.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FDA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1997
In 1997, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA), a wide-ranging piece of legislation
affecting key components of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). Under the authority of the Act, the FDA has issued a
variety of rules, guidance documents, and regulatory notices
dealing with such issues as the distribution of information
about off-label uses for marketed drugs and biologics to treat
serious and life-threatening illnesses. Through briefings and
meetings with the FDA and interested parties, the Committee
closely monitored FDA's activities to ensure FDA's
implementation was consistent with the statutory requirements
and intent of FDAMA.
IMPORTED DRUGS
Since the summer of 1998, the Committee has been
investigating FDA's activities relating to counterfeit bulk
drugs. Developments from this investigation led Chairman Bliley
to send a letter to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney on May 8,
2000, detailing the Committee's concerns about the lack of FDA
leadership and weaknesses in FDA's import system that appear to
have left the American people vulnerable to dangerous,
counterfeit bulk drugs from abroad. On June 8, 2000, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on
counterfeit bulk drugs. The purposes of the hearing were: (1)
to examine the FDA's failure to take adequate actions
concerning imported bulk drugs and (2) to determine whether the
FDA will take adequate actions to prevent crimes, and address
public health issues, associated with the introduction of
counterfeit, unapproved, or substandard bulk drugs imported
into the U.S. healthcare delivery system. The hearing featured
the witness for the Food and Drug Administration, Dennis Baker,
FDA's Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. He
testified that maintaining safety and authenticity of imported
drug products is a priority and discussed FDA's actions and
plans to address the problem.
On October 3, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a follow-up hearing on counterfeit bulk
drugs and related concerns. Since the previous hearing of June
8, some of the issues raised about imported counterfeit bulk
drugs gained more prominence as the House and the Senate passed
legislation on reimportation of U.S.-made prescription drugs.
The purposes of the hearing were: (1) to explore any additional
concerns about imported bulk drugs and counterfeit drugs
generally; (2) to determine whether the FDA is taking and
proposing appropriate actions to protect American consumers
from imported counterfeit drugs, including reimported drugs;
(3) to obtain additional information and proposals on
counterfeit drugs from the U.S. Customs Service, the Department
of Justice, and the pharmaceutical industry. The hearing
featured a panel of federal witnesses. The witness for the Food
and Drug Administration, was Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner
of Food and Drugs. She testified that maintaining safety and
authenticity of imported drug products is a priority and will
discuss FDA's actions and plans to address the problem. The
witness for the U.S. Customs Service (USCS) was Raymond W.
Kelly, the Commissioner of USCS. He discussed the problem of
counterfeit drugs generally, and his agency's coordination with
FDA's plan to improve detection and interdiction of counterfeit
or substandard bulk drugs. The witness from the Department of
Justice was Patricia L. Maher, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in the Civil Division. She discussed the Department's
views on how to strengthen criminal investigations of
counterfeit bulk drugs. A second panel representing industry
views featured Nikki Mehringer, the Area Quality Control Leader
at Eli Lilly.
In addition to the above oversight, the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, and the Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations requested in 1999 that GAO provide an update
on the status of FDA's implementation of a mutual recognition
agreement between the U.S. and the European Union concerning
inspections of pharmaceutical facilities.
DRUG TESTING
Through meetings with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), the FDA, and interested
parties, the Committee continued oversight of drug-testing
issues. This oversight involved monitoring of the Department of
Health and Human Services' efforts to include more advanced
drug-testing technologies in the Federal workplace drug testing
program, and examining Food and Drug Administration regulation
of drug-testing systems.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY
In 1998, the Chairman and requestors from the Senate asked
the GAO to summarize from available research what is known
about adverse drug events. The GAO concluded that adverse drug
events arise either from adverse drug reactions, which are
previously known or newly detected side effects of drugs, or
from medication errors committed by health care professionals
or the patients themselves. Although it is clear that a wide
range of commonly used drugs cause adverse drug events with
potentially serious consequences for patients, relatively
little is known about their frequency. Thus, the magnitude of
health risk is uncertain because of limited incidence data.
PATIENT ACCESS TO TREATMENT
The Committee continued its oversight work to ensure
seriously-ill patients have early access to treatment,
especially in the cases of promising treatment for incurable,
life-threatening diseases. One way is to help patients get more
information on clinical trials. In consultation with the Food
and Drug Administration and other public health contacts, the
Committee looked at administrative measures to provide more
information to patients. During the 106th Congress, both FDA
and the National Institutes of Health began to provide clinical
trial information through the Internet.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued to
oversee the Department of Justice's response to concerns
relating to its healthcare fraud activities under the False
Claims Act. Committee staff were briefed by DOJ attorneys
regarding the Department's efforts to improve its performance,
including the adoption of new standards for correspondence with
providers and establishing working groups to set protocols for
initiating new types of cases.
HHS OVERSIGHT OF USE OF FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANT FUNDS
On May 1, 1998, the Chairman requested that the GAO
investigate the use of federal research and development grant
funds by the University of California system in its payments to
graduate student researchers (GSRs). The Chairman asked that
GAO determine if (1) the compensation paid to GSRs was in
accordance with the guidelines set forth in the OMB Circular A-
21, ``Principles for Determining Costs Applicable to Grants,
Contracts, and other Agreements With Educational
Institutions''; (2) foreign students were receiving a larger
share of federal research funds than resident students as
compensation for performing as GSRs; and (3) the university's
treatment of GSR compensation for federal income tax purposes
was consistent with its actions in charging such moneys to the
federal grants under OMB Circular A-21. The GAO found: (1) that
the compensation paid to GSRs for services charged to federal
research grants sometimes exceeded the allowable costs that
could be charged to such grants; (2) although all GSRs receive
substantially the same salary for work performed on federal
research grants, foreign students receive a proportionally
larger share of fee and tuition payments charged to the grants
because they pay a higher nonresident student tuition; (3) in
light of a pending court case against the University of
California on the taxability issue and opinions from HHS and
NIH, GAO did not address whether the tuition remission provided
to GSRs should have been taxed or whether the university's
treatment of the tuition remission for tax purposes is
consistent with the OMB circular.
ON-LINE HEALTH CARE
During the 106th Congress, the Committee followed the
development of a number of Internet healthcare issues. In
particular, the Committee focused on the growing number of
companies distributing prescription pharmaceuticals over the
Internet. Although the Committee identified various potential
benefits that the on-line distribution of pharmaceuticals can
provide for patients, the Committee also identified many areas
of potential fraud and abuse that pose a threat to the American
people and may undermine the public's confidence in legitimate
Internet pharmacies.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing on the benefits and risks of Internet pharmacies,
followed by a second hearing that examined what progress the
Federal and state agencies had made in enforcing current law
regarding the sale and dispensing of pharmaceuticals over the
Internet. In addition, the second hearing examined the increase
of pharmaceuticals and over-the-counter medications being sent
into the United States from foreign countries, including the
lack of uniformity on what products are allowed into the U.S.
The Committee's two hearings on this matter, and the
General Accounting Office report requested by the Committee,
confirmed the need for narrowly-tailored legislation to protect
consumers from rogue sellers of prescription drugs who use the
Internet. In response, the Chairman Bliley introduced H.R.
5476, Internet Prescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of
2000, a bipartisan Committee effort to address these major
concerns.
REVIEW OF NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GRANTS
In 1999, because of concerns about NIH oversight and
monitoring of extramural grants, the Chairman and the
Subcommittee Chairman asked GAO to report on: (1) how NIH
monitors the scientific progress of extramural research, (2)
whether NIH has controls to ensure the effective financial
management of extramural research grants, and (3) how NIH used
the increased funds from its fiscal year 1999 appropriations to
support extramural research. The GAO found that NIH had
developed policies and procedures to carry out oversight
functions of monitoring scientific progress and financial
management of the grants, but the GAO identified areas in the
system of internal controls that could be strengthened.
Regarding NIH's use of fiscal year 1999 appropriations, about
41 percent of the increase for extramural grants was used to
expand the number of competitive grants and to increase the
average amount awarded for competitive grants. The remaining
funds were used to provide out year commitments to more than
20,000 ongoing grants, support for extramural research centers,
and other extramural research activities.
CONTROL OF BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WARFARE MATERIALS
Due to the Chairman's concerns about the adequacy of
Federal controls on the possession, use and transfer of
biological agents such as anthrax and the ebola virus that
could be used for criminal or terrorist purposes, the Committee
launched a review in late 1998 of the current regulatory and
legal schemes. In April 1996, Congress passed a law that, for
the first time, required the CDC to identify--and regulate the
transfer of--those biological agents whose misuse could pose a
severe threat to public health and safety. The law was passed
in response to concerns that it was too easy for individuals to
gain access to and possess biological agents that could be used
for terrorist and other criminal purposes. However, mere
possession of a biological agent--without evidence of any
intent to use the agent as a weapon--was not made unlawful,
regardless of the possessor's past criminal record or lack of
scientific credentials (a state of law that continues to this
day). CDC issued final regulations pursuant to this statutory
mandate, which became effective on April 15, 1997, identifying
roughly 40 ``select agents'' whose transfers would be
regulated. Under the regulations, any person that either
transfers or receives a select agent must register with CDC and
receive its approval prior to such transfer or receipt.
Notably, the scheme does not require individuals who gained
possession of these agents prior to April 15, 1997 to register
with CDC or comply with any of the other safety and
administrative requirements. Nor does the CDC rule require
individuals who develop these agents on their own to register
their possession, even if they were developed after the
effective date of the regulations.
In January 1999, Committee staff began interviewing
interested parties within the Federal government and non-
governmental organizations in order to assess the current scope
and adequacy of regulations governing the possession and use of
biological agents. During these interviews, concerns were
expressed by law enforcement officials and some members of the
scientific community that the current CDC regulations exempt
too many entities that possess or use these select agents, and
that both the public health and law enforcement would benefit
from tightening up the existing regulations. Specifically, they
have argued that the CDC regulations should be expanded to
govern all cases of possession (not just transfers), so that
the Federal government would be notified of all legitimate
possessors and could ensure minimum safety requirements. From a
law enforcement perspective, the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have argued that
an expanded registration scheme would assist law enforcement by
providing a tool to use against individuals caught in
possession of these select agents without having registered
with the Federal government. DOJ and the FBI also have
expressed concern that the burden under current law of proving
intent to use as a weapon in order to prosecute someone for
unlawful possession provides a large loophole for questionable
possessors of these dangerous agents to avoid prosecution.
The Committee's review also revealed the slow pace of
action by the Clinton Administration to address these law
enforcement concerns, which had been raised within the
Administration for several years prior to the Committee's
oversight but had been blocked by concerns raised by CDC and
HHS regarding the impact of tighter regulations on the academic
and scientific communities. In March 1998, Attorney General
Reno testified that she was concerned about the current state
of Federal law in this area--particularly, the unregulated
possession issue--and that the Department was actively
reviewing legislative proposals to address some of its concerns
with Federal criminal statutes and CDC's regulations. However,
when President Clinton announced his anti-terrorism initiatives
on January 22, 1999, they did not include any changes in either
the Federal criminal statutes or the CDC regulations to enhance
the prevention of biological terrorism. That same day, Chairman
Bliley wrote to the President, urging him to focus on
preventing biological terrorist attacks by reviewing the
questions of access and possession. Chairman Bliley also wrote
to Attorney General Reno in March 1999, reminding her of her
prior testimony on this subject and inquiring into the status
of the Department's legislative and regulatory proposals.
On May 12, 1999--a week after the Committee notified the
Administration that it planned to hold an oversight hearing on
this topic--the Administration announced that its soon-to-be-
released omnibus crime bill would contain several provisions
strengthening current law in the area of biological agents,
including barring the unauthorized possession of certain deadly
biological agents by anyone, and preventing certain categories
of individuals--such as felons and fugitives--from possessing
any such agents, presumably through some form of background
checks.
On May 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the Threat of Bioterrorism in
America: Assessing the Adequacy of Federal Laws relating to
Dangerous Biological Agents, and heard testimony from two
panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of governmental
witnesses from DOJ, FBI, CDC, and HHS, all of whom now
expressed support for regulating possession, as well as
transfers, of such agents, and otherwise enhancing both Federal
laws and regulations in this area. The second panel consisted
of non-governmental witnesses from the academic and scientific
communities, all of whom also conceded (and in some cases
advocated) the need for tighter controls on who may possess
such deadly agents and for what purposes, and for improved
Federal oversight. Subsequent to the hearing, the Committee
continued to press the Administration for specific proposals to
improve Federal law and regulations in this area, which finally
resulted in a package of reforms sent to Congress in December
1999.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
general oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) management, structure, and operations, including the
agency's budget and funding decisions, research activities,
relations with State with local governments, and program
implementation. Following are some of the specific issues upon
which the Committee conducted such oversight.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S IMPLEMENTATION OF RECENTLY
ESTABLISHED AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND PROGRAMS
The Committee continued its review of the Environmental
Protection Agency's implementation of new National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM)
which were issued in final regulations in July 1997. The
Committee staff received briefings from EPA and evaluated the
agency's actions with respect to the new NAAQS, both in terms
of direct implementation of the standards themselves and other
regulatory activity associated or dependent upon the existence
of the new standards.
Of note to the Committee is pending litigation concerning
the legal basis of the standards. Specifically, on November 7,
2000, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on EPA's
appeal of the lower court decision rendering the standards
unenforceable. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on EPA's
appeal in mid-2001.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S HANDLING OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
CLAIMS
In February 1998, EPA issued the Interim Guidance for
Investigating Title VI Administrative Complaints (Interim
Guidance) setting forth how the Agency would process
``environmental justice'' claims filed against State
environmental agencies under the legal theory that a State
environmental permitting decision discriminated against a
protected class of citizens, such as racial minorities. Many
State and local government organizations, such as the National
Governors Association, the Environmental Council of States
(ECOS), and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, complained that EPA
should have consulted with States, local governments, and other
stakeholder groups prior to issuing the Interim Guidance. These
groups also complained that the Interim Guidance would hurt
urban revitalization and the redevelopment of contaminated
brownfields.
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
review of EPA's efforts to issue a final guidance on
environmental justice and other environmental justice issues.
During the 106th Congress, Committee staff met regularly with
Ann Goode, Director of EPA's Office of Civil Rights, to discuss
the steps she was taking to ensure stakeholder input into the
revised Title VI guidance, and to receive updates on the
progress EPA was making toward issuing a revised guidance.
Chairman Bliley wrote to Administrator Browner on December 1,
1999, to request the latest draft of the revised guidance
document. Chairman Bliley also wrote a second letter to
Administrator Browner on December 1, 1999, to express concern
regarding public statements attributed to Agency officials
about EPA's Select Steel decision (the only Title VI complaint
that EPA has resolved on the merits to date). The letter also
severely criticized EPA for, and requested information about,
the handling of environmental justice investigations in the
South Bronx in New York City, and Indianapolis, Indiana--both
of which were the subject of leaked press reports indicating
questionable Agency, and even White House, activity with
respect to pending enforcement actions.
EPA issued its revised draft guidance on June 16, 2000,
roughly six years after President Clinton and EPA Administrator
Browner committed to developing an environmental justice
policy. Committee staff was briefed by Ann Goode on June 16,
prior to EPA's release of the revised guidance to the general
public. Ann Goode briefed Committee legislative assistants on
the revised guidance on June 26, 2000, and met with Committee
staff again on June 27 to answer additional questions
pertaining to the revised guidance. The revised guidance, which
was not actually printed in the Federal Register until June 27,
2000, was subject to a 60-day comment period, during which EPA
received more than 120 comments. Committee staff requested and
received copies of the comments that were filed on the revised
guidance, which raised many of the same criticisms and praises
directed at the interim guidance. As of this date, EPA has not
decided whether to further revise its guidance or issue the
June guidance document as final.
As part of the Committee's oversight of EPA's development
of the Title VI guidance, Chairman Bliley wrote to
Administrator Browner on April 13, 2000, to request a draft of
the Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice Action
Agenda (Action Agenda), a government-wide effort being
coordinated by EPA that is designed to address environmental
justice concerns. Committee staff was briefed on this matter on
April 18, 2000, by Barry Hill, Director of EPA's Office of
Environmental Justice, and other EPA officials. Chairman Bliley
also sent a letter to Administrator Browner on September 18,
2000, requesting information from the Agency about its efforts
to follow up on recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights (Commission) in its 1996 report on EPA's Title VI
program. The letter requested that EPA inform the Committee
what actions it took with respect to the more than 70
recommendations made by the Commission, and provide documents
in support of what actions the Agency took or did not take with
respect to those recommendations. Committee staff currently is
reviewing EPA's response to Chairman Bliley's September letter.
INTERNET PUBLICATION OF RISK MANAGEMENT PLANS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
On February 10, 1999, the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a joint hearing on the national security,
public safety impact, and benefits of public disclosure of
electronic dissemination of worst-case scenario chemical
release data to be collected by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
In accordance with this section, EPA published a ``Risk
Management Program'' rule on June 20, 1996 that required an
EPA-estimated 66,000 facilities nationwide to send EPA by June
1999 a ``Risk Management Plan'' (Plan) containing, among other
things, what is commonly known as ``worst-case scenario''
data--that is, identification of potential accidental chemical
release points within each facility, the precise quantities of
specific chemicals associated with each of those potential
release points, and an estimate of the injuries to human health
that could result from a worst-case accident scenario. Section
112(r) required that these Plans be made available to the
public, but the statute did not specify the method by which the
information should be disseminated to the public.
In 1998, EPA proposed disseminating these Plans to the
public, including the worst-case scenario data, by posting them
in a searchable electronic format on the agency's Internet
website. EPA's proposal was met with substantial opposition
from law enforcement agencies, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and other public safety officials who expressed
concerns that the searchable electronic format could be used as
a targeting tool by terrorists. Community and pro-information
disclosure groups supported wide-spread dissemination of
information relating to risks faced by the communities.
Committee Chairman Tom Bliley wrote to EPA to express
concerns about the agency's plans. In late October 1998, EPA
and the FBI reached an agreement under which EPA would not post
the worst-case scenario data on the agency's Internet site,
although EPA would continue to work to ensure that State and
local governments and their citizens had access to such
critical data about the facilities located in their particular
communities. However, the agreement would not prevent the
release of this information in a searchable electronic format
under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Subcommittees heard testimony from a panel of experts
in the field of law enforcement and emergency response. The
Subcommittees also heard testimony from representatives of the
FBI and EPA, the principal Federal agencies involved in
designing a dissemination plan, as well as interested
environmental, community safety, and industry representatives.
The Committee subsequently developed a bill, which was passed
by Congress and ultimately signed into law by the President,
that addresses dissemination of worst-case scenario data.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROPOSED REGULATION OF PEST-
RESISTANT PLANTS AS PESTICIDES
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued to
monitor the status of EPA's proposed rule that would regulate
pesticide-resistant plants as pesticides. Committee staff
conducted a review of the relevant studies and literature on
the issue, and met with interested parties to gather additional
information about the basis and implications of EPA's proposed
regulatory effort. At this time, the proposed rule is at the
Office of Management and Budget awaiting approval before it can
go to the Administrator of EPA for her signature.
MERCURY EMISSIONS AND EXPOSURE STANDARDS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
inquiry into the activities of several Federal agencies
regarding the implementation of the mercury-related provisions
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Committee
requested and received numerous briefings and documentary
materials from relevant officials, including the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's draft Toxicological
Profile for Mercury (Draft Profile), EPA's comments on the
Draft Profile, and several scientific case studies on the toxic
effects of mercury in humans.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S DIESEL ENGINE CERTIFICATION
PROGRAM
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
review of EPA's diesel engine certification program. On October
28, 1998, Attorney General Reno and EPA Administrator Browner
announced a settlement of claims in the enforcement action
against diesel engine manufacturers for allegedly using
electronic engine control ``defeat devices'' to circumvent
Federal emission standards.
The Committee continued to receive and review information
from EPA pertaining to the diesel enforcement action during
1999. As part of the Committee's investigation, Committee
Majority staff traveled to Ann Arbor, Michigan in February 1999
to meet with several EPA officials who were familiar with the
diesel engine certification program. Committee Majority staff
learned that EPA was repeatedly warned by internal and outside
experts, as far back as 1991, that the diesel truck engines the
Agency certified as being in compliance were emitting
pollutants in excess of the regulatory standard. Committee
Majority staff further learned that EPA itself acknowledged the
possibility of this problem in a related 1993 rulemaking, but
nonetheless took no further action to investigate whether these
excess emissions were occurring until 1997. Majority staff
learned that in 1997 such emissions were ``first discovered''--
according to EPA officials--as part of an unrelated audit, and
not as part of an intentional effort by EPA to investigate
whether electronic controls were being used to circumvent or
defeat applicable emission standards.
The Majority staff report on this oversight effort, issued
by Chairman Bliley on March 23, 1999, contained the above
findings, and also characterized EPA's testing protocol for
measuring emissions of diesel engines, known as the Federal
Test Procedure (FTP), as flawed, outdated, and capable of being
circumvented by electronic engine controllers being used by
diesel engine manufacturers. The report also stated that EPA
was aware of the deficiencies in the FTP, but nonetheless did
not revise it until the 1998 settlement with certain diesel
engine manufacturers. Published reports recently indicated that
the diesel engine manufacturers have requested that EPA alter
the terms of the settlement agreement reached with EPA and the
Department of Justice, in order to provide additional
flexibility in meeting the agreed upon emission targets.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE CLEAN AIR ACT
REQUIREMENTS AGAINST ``SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS''
Committee Majority staff reviewed documentation and
interviewed various parties regarding the findings of certain
audits conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Inspector General (EPA IG). In the view of the
Majority staff, these findings revealed that certain States and
EPA's regional offices had failed to properly enforce the Clean
Air Act with respect to ``significant violators,'' due to
inconsistent application of Federal law among the various EPA
regions and by individual States, as well as a lack of
oversight by EPA headquarters.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
PROGRAMS
During the 106th Congress, the Committee closely monitored
and reviewed developments and activities relating to EPA's
creation and operation of the Office of Environmental
Information (OEI). Committee staff were provided briefings and
met routinely with Agency officials about key initiatives
proposed by that office, including the Integrated Information
Initiative, the OEI Reorganization, the Cumulative Risk
Screening Tool, the Cumulative Exposure Project, the TRI Risk
Indicators Model, and the CBI substantiation proposed rule. In
addition, the Committee conducted detailed assessments of cyber
security at EPA, resulting in major upgrades to EPA's
information systems and security.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
In June 1992, the United States signed the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (Rio Treaty), which provided for
developed countries to aim to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. In 1997, U.S.
negotiators agreed to support the Kyoto Protocol which was
designed to strengthen and extend the commitments of the Rio
Treaty beyond the year 2000. During 1999-2000, U.S. negotiators
continued work to reach agreement on the detail of implementing
the Kyoto Protocol. Commerce Committee observers attended the
international negotiations in Bonn, Germany and The Hague,
Netherlands and continued to monitor the process of these
agreements.
SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS
The Health and Environment Subcommittee held two hearings
concerning the implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments. On October 20, 1999, the Subcommittee reviewed
the status of implementing the 1996 Amendments and the conduct
of safe drinking water research programs. On September 19,
2000, the Subcommittee again reviewed the status of
implementing the 1996 Amendments, as well as the funding of
state programs to implement the 1996 Amendments.
The October 20, 1999 hearing included testimony from the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, the
EPA Director of the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water,
and the United States General Accounting Office Director of
Environmental Protection Issues. The Subcommittee also received
testimony from a representative of publicly and privately-owned
water companies, the Association of California Water Agencies
and a representative of the Natural Resource Defense Council.
This hearing reviewed provisions of the 1996 Amendments that
require the establishment of new drinking water regulations
taking into account those contaminants that present the
greatest risk to public health and the best available science
and technical information on such contaminants. The
Subcommittee also received a report from GAO indicating that,
although EPA's research budget had doubled in the last 5 years,
EPA did not have research plans for significant portions of its
regulatory work load, did not have an overall estimate of the
resources needed for drinking water research, and did not have
an effective tracking system to understand the progress of the
research that it was conducting.
The September 19, 2000 hearing included testimony from the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and the GAO Director for
Environmental Protection Issues. The Subcommittee also received
testimony from the State of Vermont Director of Environmental
Conservation, as well as representatives of the American Water
Works Association, the American Metropolitan Water Association,
the National Association of Water Companies and the Natural
Resource Defense Council. The GAO testimony indicated that,
while available Federal resources were presently sufficient for
state drinking water programs, state program funding was less
than the estimated need for such spending and that program
requirements would increase in future years. GAO also indicated
that States currently are experiencing personnel shortages in
their drinking water programs due to such factors as State
personnel ceilings and inadequate salaries and that States
expect such shortages to increase in future years. The hearing
further explored pending and future rulemakings required by the
1996 Amendments, including rulemakings for arsenic and radon.
Additionally, the hearing examined the effect of funding and
implementation efforts on public health and safety of drinking
water supplies. The hearing also examined the adequacy of State
implementation of source water protection programs.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
YEAR 2000 PROBLEM
Concerned about the potential impact the failure of
computer systems due to the Year 2000 problem could have had on
the nation, the Committee reviewed the efforts of the private
sector and Federal agencies to remediate Y2K problems and
develop contingency plans if necessary. As noted elsewhere in
this report, the Committee conducted oversight of the insurance
industry's Y2K efforts, as well as those of the Health Care
Financing Administration and the Medicare program's major
health care providers and contractors. The Committee also met
with the major securities firms and exchanges to review their
Y2K compliance efforts, and were briefed by Department of
Energy officials on oil, gas, and electricity transportation
and distribution readiness for Y2K.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued to
examine the Administration's plan to inject competition into
the assignment of Internet domain names--such as registering
.com, .net and .org domain names--which previously had been
done by a single government-sanctioned company named Network
Solutions, Inc., under an exclusive cooperative agreement with
the Department of Commerce. In September 1998, the cooperative
agreement for management of the Internet Domain Name System
(DNS) between the U.S. government and Network Solutions was
transferred from the National Science Foundation to the
Department of Commerce. Since that time, the Committee has
conducted oversight of the ongoing management of the DNS to
ensure its stability during the transition of management from
the Federal government to the private sector. The smooth
functioning of this system is essential to the stability and
growth of the Internet, and Chairman Bliley was concerned about
several aspects of the Administration's handling of this
matter. The Committee also has been closely following the
activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers (ICANN) since the selection of this non-profit
corporation by the Department of Commerce to assume management
functions of the DNS from Network Solutions.
On June 22, 1999, Chairman Bliley wrote to Esther Dyson,
chair of the board of directors of ICANN, raising questions
about the formation of the interim board of directors of ICANN,
the authority granted to the interim board of directors
(including the authority to impose a $1 per domain name fee),
and the annual budget of ICANN. That same day, the Chairman
wrote to Commerce Secretary William Daley concerning the
relationship between the Department of Commerce and ICANN. The
Committee inquired about the authority of ICANN to negotiate
agreements with domain name registrars and domain name
registries, the authority of ICANN to impose a $1 per domain
name fee, and the scope of the Department's oversight of
ICANN's activities. After the Chairman's objections, the $1 tax
idea was dropped. The new board also changed its policies to
open its meetings to the public, another reform resulting from
the Committee's oversight and criticism.
On July 22, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to address the management of the
DNS. The hearing focused on the efforts by the Administration
to transfer management functions of the DNS from government
control to ICANN. The hearing also examined closely a number of
actions by ICANN's interim board--such as its imposition of a
$1 per domain name tax on registrants, and its decision to
exclude the public from portions of its board meetings--that
called into question whether ICANN was exercising sound
judgment and making well-informed decisions. The oversight
hearing also explored whether ICANN and the Department of
Commerce, which oversaw the Administration's efforts in this
area, were creating the type of transparent, consensus-based,
standards-setting organization contemplated in the
Administration's privatization plan. Witnesses included
representatives of ICANN, Network Solutions, the Commerce
Department, domain name registrars and academic experts on the
DNS.
The July 22nd hearing featured testimony from three panels
of witnesses. The first panel consisted of representatives from
the National Telecommunications Information Agency (NTIA)
(which is part of the Commerce Department), Network Solutions,
and ICANN. This panel focused on the Administration's
conception and implementation of its plan to transfer the
management of the DNS from the public sector to the private
sector, how ICANN was selected, ICANN's decision-making and
accountability, and the interaction between the panel's three
organizations during the transfer of the DNS. The second and
third panels consisted of nine witnesses from various
corporations, industry and consumer groups with interests in
the management of the DNS. They shared with the Committee their
experiences related to the actual implementation of competition
for domain name registration services, as well as their views
on how ICANN's present policies will affect future management
of the DNS.
On July 28, 1999, the Chairman wrote to Attorney General
Janet Reno concerning contacts between the Department of
Justice and ICANN regarding the ongoing Justice Department
anti-trust investigation of Network Solutions. The Committee
was concerned about the propriety of such contacts in light of
the continuing negotiations between ICANN and Network Solutions
on a registrar agreement. That same day, the Chairman also
wrote to ICANN Board Chair Esther Dyson regarding contacts
between ICANN's chief outside counsel and the Department of
Justice regarding the anti-trust investigation of Network
Solutions. The Committee requested a full accounting of such
contacts, and inquired if such contacts had been approved by
the board of directors of ICANN.
On August 4, 1999, the Chairman wrote to Charles F. Ruff,
Counsel to the President, concerning contacts between ICANN and
an employee of the Executive Office of the President regarding
fund-raising activities on behalf of ICANN. The Committee
inquired if the employee in question were undertaking the fund-
raising activities in an official capacity, and the extent of
any fund-raising activities on behalf of ICANN. The Committee
also inquired about the ethics guidelines for fund-raising
activities by employees of the Executive Office of the
President. Further, on August 18, 1999, the Chairman wrote a
letter to ICANN Board Chair Esther Dyson regarding the
financial status of ICANN and fund-raising activities by ICANN.
The Committee inquired about efforts by ICANN to solicit
funding from the private sector and from the Federal
government, including outstanding loans or other financial
arrangements. As a result of these letters, the Committee
learned of contacts made by an employee of the Executive Office
of the President to a number of individuals and corporations to
solicit funding to support ICANN. The Committee also learned of
a number of financial arrangements between ICANN and
corporations as a result of ICANN's broader solicitations,
including those by the employee of the Executive Office of the
President.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE: ON-LINE PRIVACY
On July 13, 1999, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the
status of privacy protections for online consumers. The
Subcommittee received the FTC's findings and recommendation on
privacy self-regulation from its recently released report. In
addition, the Subcommittee reviewed two industry-wide surveys
of the privacy policies and practices of commercial websites.
The hearing explored the efforts of industry to develop self-
regulatory guidelines to protect the privacy of online
consumers and the need for government regulations to establish
minimum privacy protections for consumers. Witnesses included
the Chairman and Commissioners of the FTC and representatives
from industry and privacy advocates.
On October 11, 2000, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on recent developments in privacy protections
for consumers. The Subcommittee reviewed a recent GAO report
comparing the privacy policies of Federal government websites
to the privacy policies of commercial websites. The hearing
also explored other developments such as the latest privacy-
enhancing technologies, recent efforts by the Internet
advertising industry to promote standardized privacy practices
and the status of privacy policies of commercial websites.
Witnesses included representatives from the GAO, relevant
federal agencies, representatives from industry, and privacy
advocates.
POSSIBLE PAYOLA ABUSES
The Committee examined the relationship between the radio
broadcast industry and the recording industry to determine
whether adequate protections are in place to prevent payments
for the inclusion of any matter in a broadcast without
disclosure to the public. The Committee conducted meetings and
conversations to determine whether the radio broadcast industry
is complying with current prohibitions on payola. Further, the
Committee conducted a hearing to examine the Clinton
Administration's anti-drug advertising campaign to determine
whether existing law on payola notices needs to be expanded or
refined.
CELL SITING ON FEDERAL PROPERTY
The Committee examined procedural barriers that prevented
commercial wireless companies from siting wireless towers on
Federal property and thus from completing a seamless wireless
network for the benefit of consumers and increased public
safety. In particular, the Committee examined the established
procedures of the National Park Service (NPS) and General
Services Administration (GSA) to consider wireless tower
applications. As a result, GSA and NPS agreed to permit the
siting of towers in specific locations and to simplify the
review of their respective process for considering and
approving applications.
THE ROLE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION
The Committee continued its examination of Federal and
private technology programs that facilitate the educational
techniques currently employed in our nation's schools. The
Committee worked with the Committee on Education and the
Workforce to examine the results of the General Accounting
Office study conducted on behalf of Chairmen Bliley and
Goodling. The Committee conducted oversight of the increasing
utilization of technology and telecommunications in America's
classrooms to supplement the curriculum.
In August 1999, the Committee on Commerce and the Committee
on Education and the Workforce received the report requested of
GAO. The report detailed the Federal funding for
telecommunications technology to schools and libraries. GAO
examined the 35 programs and eight agencies that give money in
some way to telecommunications technology being delivered to
schools and libraries across the nation.
The Committee on Commerce also examined the FCC's role in
implementing the E-Rate program. H.R. 1746 was introduced and a
hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection. H.R. 1746 would replace the
Schools and Libraries Corporation with a system administered at
the state level. The bill would have first reduced the existing
telephone excise tax from three percent to one percent,
effective January 1, 2000. The one percent excise tax would
then have remained in effect until October 1, 2003, and would
be repealed altogether on October 1, 2004. The Committee also
examined the fairness of the E-Rate program, in which a
majority of the States were adding far more into the program
then the amount they received from it.
SET-TOP BOXES
The Committee examined the relationship between the cable
industry and set-top box manufacturers to determine whether
this relationship is harming efforts to promote the retail
accessibility of set-top boxes. The Committee looked at how the
cable industry's current involvement with the use and
functionality of set-top boxes is affecting the development of
other multi-media options. The Committee conducted numerous
meetings with affected industry participants to gather a broad
knowledge of the private industry efforts to promote set-top
box availability. Further, the Committee examined the Federal
Communications Commission's efforts to implement the set-top
box provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The
Committee examined the issue of set-top boxes during hearings
that involved the examination of the future of interactive
television and also in a hearing on the implementation of high-
definition television standards.
TAXATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
While telecommunications industry growth has lead to
substantial job creation and technological innovation, it has
also attracted the attention of legislators and regulators at
all levels of government. Policymakers--particularly those at
the state and local level--increasingly view consumers'
telecommunications services as a means of funding a variety of
government programs. Many state and local governments impose
their own excise taxes, franchise fees, rights-of-way charges,
gross receipts taxes, license fees, 911 fees, public utility
taxes, infrastructure maintenance fees, and access line taxes.
Moreover, state and local government taxation is often
discriminatory--that is, state and local governments will
typically tax wireless services differently than wireline
services, and will tax competitive local exchange carriers
(CLECs) differently than incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILECs).
The Committee reviewed and examined the use of taxes and
fees on telecommunications services by governments at the
local, state and Federal level. The Committee examined the
impact of these taxes or fees on telecommunications companies,
telecommunications services, and most importantly, on
consumers. The Committee also examined whether these taxes or
fees represent entry barriers that prevent telecommunications
competition from developing or flourishing. Lastly, the
Committee gained information to educate consumers on exactly
what taxes or fees they now make to government entities and
where their money is going. The Committee conducted numerous
meetings with affected parties, which led to the introduction
and consideration of legislation to require telecommunications
companies to provide additional information on consumer
telephone bills. For more information, see the legislative
activity on H.R. 3011.
ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH INMARSAT RESTRUCTURING
The International Maritime Satellite Act set out the
statutory regime applicable to Inmarsat (the International
Mobile Satellite Organization, formerly known as the
International Maritime Satellite Organization). The
Administration participated in international negotiations on a
restructuring plan for Inmarsat that differs from the existing
statutory structure. The Committee examined the conduct of the
Administration in the restructuring of Inmarsat. The
examination included the issue of whether the Administration
and the U.S. Signatory to Inmarsat have the statutory authority
for the actions they have taken and may take in connection with
the Inmarsat restructuring. The Committee conducted meetings
with the Administration and related industry representatives.
Further, the Committee wrote follow-up letters to the
Department of State on this matter, and requested that the
Congressional Research Service conduct a legal analysis of the
Administration's authority to pursue the privatization of
Inmarsat. The Committee ultimately enacted legislation (Public
Law 106-180) on the subject of privatization. This law
dramatically altered existing authority and provided clear new
direction for the Administration in its privatization efforts
of Inmarsat.
BROADCAST OWNERSHIP
The Committee closely monitored the FCC's implementation of
the broadcast ownership rules. In August 1999, the FCC amended
several of its rules relating to ownership and attribution,
which allowed both the FCC and the industry to better identify
the real interests that companies hold in broadcast properties.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held an oversight hearing on the status of the FCC's
revisions to the broadcast ownership rules, including the two
remaining issues that the FCC did not address--the cross
ownership rules between newspaper and broadcast companies
within a single broadcast market, and the further increase of
the national ownership cap. Witnesses included newspaper and
broadcast industry representatives. Two pieces of legislation
were introduced and examined in the 106th Congress to address
broadcast ownership issues: H.R. 942, the Broadcast Ownership
for the 21st Century Act, and H.R. 598, a bill ending
restrictions on the cross-ownership of newspapers and
broadcasting stations.
LOCAL COMPETITION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TELECOM ACT OF 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 marked the beginning of
a new era in the development of telecommunications and
information technologies. The Act swept away a monopoly
paradigm and made competition the rule of law. During the 106th
Congress, the Committee continued its review of the state of
competition in the broadband market to determine whether the
Act was working and whether any roadblocks were thwarting the
development of competition. The Committee's review consisted of
numerous letters from Chairman Bliley to--and staff interviews
with--market participants and government regulators, staff
interviews, and site visits to telecommunications facilities
The Committee Majority staff discovered in its review that
the Act was working in large part because it provided new
incentives for the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs),
or Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), to open their
markets to competition. Today, this competition is driving the
deployment of high-speed data services, such as digital
subscriber line (DSL), and competition in the local loop. For
example, prior to the Act's passage, there were only 13
competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs). Today, there are
nearly 400 CLECs offering a diverse variety of services to
consumers. Despite this competition, however, many remain
concerned about remaining barriers to competition in the
marketplace.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT
The Committee has examined the structure and management of
the FCC and has exercised oversight of the FCC to ensure that
it operates efficiently. The Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on FCC reform from the States' perspective.
The Subcommittee also held an oversight hearing on FCC Reform
for the New Millennium. The purpose of this hearing was to
examine FCC Chairman Kennard's proposal for restructuring the
FCC to ensure the FCC was devoting resources to its core
functions. Further, the Committee has sent letters and attended
meetings to encourage FCC reform efforts.
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
(CPB) in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Historically, the
Committee has been charged with monitoring the activities of
the CPB and authorizing appropriations. During the 106th
Congress, the Committee reviewed the level of Federal funding
necessary for the continuation of public broadcasting. The
Committee also examined issues relating to the efficiency of
CPB, the Public Broadcasting Service, and National Public
Radio. As a result of this process, Subcommittee Chairman
Tauzin introduced the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Reauthorization Act of 1999, H.R. 2384, in June 1999. The bill
reauthorized CPB for FY 2000 through FY 2006. The Subcommittee
on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection held a
legislative hearing on the bill on June 30, 1999.
In addition, following public revelations in July 1999 that
at least four pubic broadcasting stations had exchanged donor
lists with partisan political organizations, Chairman Bliley
wrote to CPB, the Public Broadcasting Service, National Public
Radio, and America's Public Television Stations to request a
full accounting of all such activity by public broadcasting
stations. In response to the Committee's oversight on this
matter, the Congress passed legislation, as part of the
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, barring any recipient of
Federal public broadcasting funds from engaging in swaps,
sales, or other exchanges of donor information with partisan
political organizations.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
Congress created the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration in 1978 to perform a number of
functions including: advising the President on
telecommunications policy; developing policies for
international communications conferences; managing Federal use
of the radio frequency spectrum; and awarding financial grants
to communications companies that are in need of assistance. The
Committee conducted an extensive examination of NTIA, including
holding a hearing on reauthorization. The Committee also
conducted numerous meetings with NTIA and related industry
representatives to determine what reforms would be helpful to
make NTIA run more efficiently to deal with the changing
telecommunications industry. This process led to the
introduction and consideration of reauthorization legislation.
Further, the Committee held a hearing on spectrum management
issues that included an examination of NTIA's role in spectrum
management for Federal agencies and its involvement in
international spectrum bodies.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The Committee has examined a number of issues relating to
telecommunications and international trade. The Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on the issue of foreign government ownership
of American telecommunications companies, during which issues
were raised relating to the actions taken by the Clinton
Administration to implement the Basic Telecommunications
Agreement. Following up on that hearing, the Committee sent a
letter to the U.S. Trade Representative requesting information
and documents relating to the U.S. role in implementing the
Basic Telecommunications Agreement. Further, the Subcommittee
on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an
oversight hearing on the WTO Agreement and upcoming Seattle
Ministerial Conference. The Committee has also encouraged free
and open electronic commerce and reductions in interconnection
rates through letters to the Administration and foreign
governments.
U.S.-JAPAN INSURANCE AGREEMENT
During the 105th Congress, the Committee began an
investigation into allegations surrounding a private minute to
the 1996 Supplemental Measures to the Insurance Agreement
negotiated between the United States and Japan. The private
minute, which related to the acquisition of a U.S. insurance
company's Japanese subsidiary by another Japanese insurance
company, was allegedly negotiated in secret by the U.S. Trade
Representative and not disclosed to other U.S. insurance
companies. During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued
its investigation into this matter. The Committee requested
that the USTR produce additional documents relating to the
Committee's inquiry, which were subsequently reviewed by
Committee staff.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
On May 16, 2000, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing which continued
the Committee's oversight of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. In particular, the Subcommittee reviewed the
Commission's activities with respect to the flammability of
children's sleepwear, as well as a number of other proposals
related to electric bicycles and amusement parks. Testimony was
received by the Commission Chairman and the other two
Commissioners, as well as by various industry, consumer, and
scientific experts.
LIABILITY REFORM
On October 20, 1999, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing examining tort reform. The
Subcommittee focused on increased fairness and individual
responsibility in the laws governing rental vehicles, and
specifically examined the various state vicarious liability
laws and their effect on the vehicle rental markets. The
Subcommittee received testimony from small business owners,
large rental companies, and legal experts
COSTS OF ELECTRIC UTILITY ADVERTISING
The Committee undertook an investigation into consumer
issues related to utility advertising. Traditionally,
promotional expenditures in closed States (States which still
grant monopoly franchise areas) must be approved by the State
utility commission in rate making proceedings where a consumer
advocate represent the interests of the State's rate payers.
The current state-by-state pace of electricity restructuring,
however, often results in a situation where a utility is
located in part in a State that allows retail competition and
part in a non-competition State. Staff conducted meetings with
State utility commission officials and consumer advocates, as
well as officials from FERC, FTC, EIA and the RUS.
ENERGY AND POWER ISSUES
ELECTRICITY RESTRUCTURING
The electric power industry is in the midst of a major
transition. To date, more than half of the States have
undertaken comprehensive restructuring of their electric
industries, away from a regime of vertically integrated
monopolies, towards a market structure where electricity is
competitively generated and marketed to customers. This
transition is raising numerous questions regarding the
reliability of interstate transmission and the governance of
interstate commerce in electricity--issues paramount to the
Committee's oversight activities.
Over the course of the 106th Congress, the Committee
conducted a comprehensive review of the electric industry and
considered legislation to promote retail competition. The
Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a total of 15 hearings,
including a field hearing in San Diego on September 11, 2000 to
address restructuring problems in the California electricity
market and an October 29, 1999 markup which produced a bill,
H.R. 2944, The Electricity Competition and Reliability Act of
1999. Following production of the Subcommittee bill, Staff held
a series of 10 technical and policy briefings for all full
Committee Member staff by experts from government, academia,
and the private sector and met individually with the personal
staff of each Majority Member's office to discuss specific
concerns. Staff requested comments on proposed legislation from
106 interested parties and received nearly 100 responses, a
number of which were unsolicited. Staff followed up these
responses with 25 letters to selected stakeholders requesting
answers to detailed questions necessary to clarify stakeholder
positions.
Additionally, Staff traveled to various sites across the
country to gain a first hand knowledge of emerging issues
confronting such stakeholders as energy clearing houses,
financial institutions, Wall Street, TVA, as well as individual
states, municipal systems, and rural electric co-ops. Staff
also worked with GAO and CRS to request a number of useful
reports, and with the Department of Energy on mutual policy
objectives, including a June 19, 2000 presentation by Chairman
Bliley at a DOE-sponsored electric reliability summit in
Richmond, Virginia. Throughout this process and the 106th
Congress, Committee Staff maintained an ``open door'' policy
which resulted in numerous meetings with interested parties
from government, state, industry, and consumer representatives.
Finally, the Committee continually monitored the progress
and the status of implementation of retail competition in the
states in order to evaluate the impact on a nationwide basis
and on Federal legislation. Committee staff traveled to various
states and interviewed state public utility commissioners and
senior commission staff on a wide range of issues, including
reliability, jurisdictional impediments to the development of
competitive wholesale markets, the promotion of an economic
environment favorable to the construction of new generation and
transmission facilities, and consumer and environmental
protection.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power exercised its
oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) primarily
through consideration of legislation (H.R. 2531) to authorize
appropriations for the NRC for Fiscal Year 2000. The
Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on NRC
reauthorization on July 21, 1999. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Energy Institute,
and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The focus of this
hearing was on refinements to allow the NRC to exercise its
regulatory authority over nuclear reactors and nuclear
materials in a more efficient manner. A more detailed
description of the specific provisions contained in H.R. 2531
and the fate of that legislation is provided in the legislative
section of this activity report.
The other NRC issue of concern dealt with the recycling of
radioactive materials. The issue became most visible in the
context of a Department of Energy contract that provided for
the decontamination of radioactive nickel from the Oak Ridge
site and the eventual release of this material into general
commerce. Although the Secretary of Energy eventually imposed a
moratorium on the release of any radioactive material from Oak
Ridge and other DOE sites for uses outside of the DOE complex,
this particular contract prompted widespread discussion on the
benefits and risks of such recycling. The NRC ultimately agreed
to embark on an effort to set a national standard for the
recycling and release of radioactive materials, with the first
step in the regulatory process being a technical analysis to be
conducted in 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ANTI-TERRORISM PROGRAM
The NRC conducts anti-terrorism exercises under its
Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) program. The
goal of OSRE is to evaluate the capability of individual
nuclear power plants to meet a security threat, primarily
through the use of force-on-force exercises. NRC was scheduled
to conclude its current round of OSRE exercises in 2000 and
replace it with a program in which the licensees bear greater
responsibility for evaluating their own security readiness.
However, based on concerns expressed by Members of Congress,
including Members of the Commerce Committee, NRC agreed to
continue the current OSRE program until an improved replacement
program can be implemented.
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
In light of the sweeping changes in the electric power
industry, Committee oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) was of paramount importance during the 106th
Congress. In the context of electricity restructuring, one or
more FERC commissioners or their staff testified before the
Energy and Power Subcommittee on five occasions including the
March 18, 1999 hearing Electricity Restructuring: Evolving
Federal and State Roles; April 22, 1999 hearing Electricity
Competition: Reliability and Transmission in Competitive
Electricity Markets; May 6, 1999 hearing Electricity
Competition: Market Power, Mergers and PUHCA; the October 5,
1999 Legislative Hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Power; and the September 11, 2000 Field Hearing on Electric
Utility Industry Restructuring: The California Market. FERC
testimony was often directed to implementation of Orders 888,
889 and 2000, as well as merger review authority and market
power issues.
The Committee also continued a review of FERC's
hydroelectric licensing procedures that began in the 105th
Congress. On September 25, 1998, the Committee conducted an
oversight hearing into problems with FERC's licensing
procedures such as Federal-State conflicts and frictions
between FERC and the Federal resource agencies. In that hearing
FERC indicated that they were undertaking a comprehensive
interagency review that would streamline those procedures. Two
years later there appeared to be little progress in resolving
those conflicts, so legislation was considered to clarify
FERC's jurisdiction. At a legislative hearing on March 30,
2000, the Energy and Power Subcommittee heard testimony on
FERC's authority under current law, examined the progress of
the interagency review to date, and crafted legislation to
clarify FERC's jurisdiction. The Subcommittee approved H.R.
2335, The Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act of
1999, to improve the hydroelectric licensing process by
granting FERC statutory authority to better coordinate
participation by other agencies and entities, and for other
purposes.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
In the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of the Department of Energy to assure improvements in
management of the Department and its many contractors.
Following are several of the major issues the Committee
addressed in hearings and other oversight activities.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S HANFORD SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL PROJECT
The Committee continued its review of the Hanford Spent
Nuclear Fuel project at the Hanford site (Hanford SNF project).
The Hanford SNF project is an effort to remove 210,000 spent
nuclear fuel rods from leaking wet storage basins located 400
yards from the Columbia River in Richland, Washington. The
Committee began its review of the Hanford SNF project in the
105th Congress, including a May 12, 1998 hearing (May 1998
hearing) of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
The Committee staff have continued to monitor the Hanford SNF
project, and have obtained briefings from DOE and contractor
personnel. At Chairman Bliley's request, the General Accounting
Office issued a September 1999 report on the project that
acknowledged DOE's improvement in oversight of the project
since the May 1998 hearing, but also recommended further steps
to ensure the SNF project is completed. Since the May 1998
hearing and the September 1999 GAO report, significant
improvements and progress have occurred on the project. It is
apparent that a commitment made by Hanford contractors at the
May 1998 hearing to begin the removal of spent nuclear fuel by
November 2000 were substantially met with the initiation of
fuel removal in early December 2000.
DOE'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
On May 26, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing that focused on DOE's failure to
deploy innovative cleanup technologies funded by the Office of
Science and Technology (OST) at DOE waste sites. The mission of
OST, as defined by both Congress and the Department, is to fund
the development of new technologies that will improve DOE's
massive environmental restoration and management efforts--by
making them cheaper, faster, and safer. The Subcommittee held a
hearing in May 1997 that revealed severe management problems
within OST, leading to the waste of hundreds of millions of
dollars on technologies that either did not work as planned or
were not being used for DOE cleanup by site managers.
The May 1999 Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
hearing focused on the problem of deploying those useful OST-
funded technologies at DOE waste sites. At the hearing, Dr.
Ernest Moniz, Under Secretary of Energy, testified that the
Subcommittee's May 1997 hearing ``galvanized the Department
into action to solve the technology development and deployment
problem.'' Dr. Moniz stated ``we have turned the corner and are
beginning to see the results of the investments we have made in
science and technology.'' However, four witnesses at the May
1999 hearing representing companies that market commercially
available OST-funded cleanup technologies identified real-world
barriers that continue to prevent deployment at DOE waste
sites. Several of these companies developed commercially
available OST-funded technologies, but have been unable to gain
access to DOE waste sites due to non-technical barriers.
Combined, these four companies received $52 million in DOE and
OST funds to develop and test their wares ($27 million from the
OST program).
On November 1, 2000, the Chairman of the Full Committee
issued a staff report entitled ``Incinerating Cash: The
Department of Energy's Failure to Develop and Use Innovative
Technologies to Clean Up the Nuclear Waste Legacy.'' The
Incinerating Cash report details the Committee's oversight of
this issue since 1997, and presents the findings of a survey
conducted by the Committee demonstrating that several of EM's
largest waste sites--including the Hanford site, the WIPP site,
and the Rocky Flats site--have failed to use commercially
available OST-funded technologies to date, and have limited
plans to do so in the foreseeable future.
HANFORD PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT
Although the Committee took no direct oversight action on
this topic, the Committee monitored DOE's performance in this
area throughout the 106th Congress.
DOE'S PERFORMANCE-BASED INCENTIVE CONTRACTING AND PRIVATIZATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
On June 22, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to continue the Committee's long-
standing review of the Department of Energy's efforts to
control nuclear waste cleanup costs with fixed-price contacts.
The hearing focused on the current status of DOE's major fixed
price contracts at the Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge sites.
In 1994, the Department initiated sweeping contract reform
initiatives that included a plan to fundamentally change the
way DOE acquired environmental remediation services by moving
to a fixed-price contracting system that was supposed to solve
the severe cost and schedule increases experienced under the
old ``cost-plus'' contracting approach. Yet, six years later,
DOE's major privatization initiatives have failed to control
cleanup costs, schedule performance, or improve contractor
performance. Based on the findings of two Subcommittee hearings
in the 105th Congress and subsequent work by the Committee
during the 106th Congress, the Department's fixed-price
contracts, including the Pit 9 project and the Hanford Tank
Waste project, have resulted in dramatic cost escalation and
contract termination without any cleanup progress. Other major
fixed-price contracts, including the Oak Ridge Metals Recycling
project and the Idaho Advanced Mixed Waste project, also have
experienced significant cost overruns and schedule delays.
At the Subcommittee's October 1998 hearing on the Hanford
Tank Waste project, GAO reported that effective oversight by
DOE would be critical to project success. Yet despite this
warning, and after 20 months and over $260 million spent by
BNFL (the main contractor on this project), DOE's financial and
oversight personnel at Hanford failed to anticipate BNFL's
surprise announcement in May 2000 that it had more than doubled
the original fixed-price estimate of $6.9 billion to $15.2
billion, resulting in an abrupt termination of the contract by
DOE without any contingent plan to proceed with the cleanup.
The June 2000 hearing also revealed severe problems with DOE's
fixed-price contract with BNFL to decontaminate and recycle
contaminated metals from three buildings at the Oak Ridge site.
The Oak Ridge fixed-price contract with BNFL was signed in 1997
with a total project cost fixed at $238 million. However,
changing DOE policies for recycling contaminated metals, and
numerous requests for additional funds from BNFL could add an
additional $210 million to the original contract price.
Mr. T.J. Glauthier, Deputy Secretary of Energy, provided
testimony on behalf of DOE. Mr. Paul A. Miskimin, CEO of BNFL,
also testified regarding the company's efforts to manage the
Department's three largest fixed-price cleanup contracts at
Hanford, Idaho, and Oak Ridge.
In the 106th Congress the Committee also continued its
review of DOE's performance based incentive contracting (PBI
contracting), a major contract reform effort. Under this
approach, DOE and its site contractors negotiate annually
various tasks for which the contractors will be awarded an
incentive fee for completion ahead of schedule. The Committee
has requested and obtained briefings, data, and information on
the status of each of DOE's PBI contracts with its major site
contractors.
DOE NUCLEAR HEALTH AND SAFETY
The Committee has continuing concerns with the health and
safety of workers in the Department of Energy complex and with
the health and safety of the general public in the communities
surrounding DOE facilities. The ongoing record of nuclear
safety violations at certain DOE facilities as revealed by
Committee oversight activities, coupled with media revelations
of exposures of enrichment workers to significant radiation
levels, only served to heighten the Committee's concerns.
On June 29, 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review worker safety at
Department of Energy nuclear facilities. The hearing focused on
DOE's enforcement of Price-Anderson Act nuclear safety
requirements. In 1988, Congress enacted the Price-Anderson
Amendments Act (PAAA), which provided DOE with new authority to
assess civil fines on DOE contractors that violate DOE
regulations or orders related to nuclear safety. However, the
1988 amendments also exempted seven non-profit contractors from
paying civil penalties, including the University of California
(at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Labs) and the
University of Chicago (at Argonne National Laboratory).
At the request of Chairman Bliley, the General Accounting
Office reviewed DOE's nuclear safety program and assessed
whether there is a continued need for exempting non-profit
contractors from paying civil penalties for nuclear safety
violations. According to the testimony of Ms. Gary Jones,
Associate Director of Energy Issues for GAO, DOE had issued
only two enforceable rules, covering two out of the 11 safety
areas originally proposed under the law. GAO recommended that
the Secretary of Energy ``strengthen DOE's nuclear safety
enforcement program and ensure that field offices are
consistent in applying it.'' GAO also recommended that DOE end
the civil penalty exemptions it has administratively extended
to all non-profit educational institutions, and called for
Congress to consider ending the exemption for the remaining
non-profit educational institutions exempted by statute
(including the University of California and the University of
Chicago).
The Subcommittee also received testimony from several DOE
contractors (including several non-profit contractors) that
manage DOE facilities, including the University of California
(DOE's contractor at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory), the University of Chicago (contractor at Argonne
National Laboratory), Kaiser Hill Company (contractor at the
Rocky Flats site), and Lockheed Martin Corporation (contractor
at Idaho and Oak Ridge Laboratory sites).
On a related matter, the Subcommittees on Oversight and
Investigations and Energy and Power held a joint hearing on
March 14, 2000, on safety and security oversight of the newly-
established National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA),
within DOE. The Subcommittees heard from, among others, the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and
Health, who testified to the conflict between the
responsibilities of his office to enforce the PAAA throughout
the DOE complex and the restrictions imposed by section 3213 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 on
his authority over the NNSA.
As a result of these hearings on DOE safety issues, the
Committee reported legislation that would ensure that the
Secretary of Energy, acting through the Assistant Secretary of
Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health, can continue to
enforce the civil penalties section of the PAAA for the entire
Department of Energy, including the NNSA, and to end the
exemption provided for non-profits under this regulatory
scheme. Also, Ms. Sullivan committed that DOE would improve the
effectiveness of its nuclear safety enforcement program by
finalizing the remaining enforceable rules covering nuclear
safety management at DOE nuclear facilities by the end of 2000.
In addition to the above activities, the Committee reviewed
other worker safety matters as well. On September 16, 1999, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing
that revealed serious worker safety and environmental
contamination concerns at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(Paducah site), located in Kentucky. The hearing focused on the
current status of worker safety and environmental cleanup
activities at the site, as well as past practices related to
these issues.
Moreover, on May 23, 2000, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a hearing to review retaliation against
whistleblowers at Department of Energy contractor-operated
facilities. In particular, the hearing focused on DOE's failure
to enforce its ``zero tolerance'' policy for reprisals taken by
DOE contractors against their employees, and DOE's questionable
policy regarding reimbursement of its contractors' legal costs
associated with defending against whistleblower retaliation
claims. The Subcommittee reviewed several specific cases of
whistleblower retaliation. The testimony provided by these
whistleblowers, and by Mr. Tom Carpenter on behalf of the
Government Accountability Project, indicated a failure on
behalf of the Department to implement Secretary Richardson's
zero tolerance policy for whistleblower retaliation. These
cases also highlighted the Department's questionable policy of
reimbursing its contractors' outside legal costs in defending
retaliation cases that clearly have merit. During her
testimony, Ms. Mary Anne Sullivan, DOE's General Counsel, was
unable to provide a single instance in which DOE had refused a
contractor's choice of outside counsel, regardless of the cost,
to defend against a whistleblower claim. Nor was she able to
provide a single instance in which DOE had formally disallowed
a contractor's legal bills in such a case, despite the fact
that former DOE Secretary Hazel O'Leary pledged five years ago
to implement such a disallowance policy. Also at the hearing,
Mr. Bob Van Ness, Senior Vice President of UC, and Mr. Ron
Hansen, President of Fluor Hanford, Inc., discussed their
organization's respective actions with regard to whistleblower
claims at DOE facilities they operate.
Moreover, in preparation for the hearing, the Committee
learned and revealed that Kaiser Hill Company, which operates
the Rocky Flats site, was inappropriately reimbursed $210,000
by the Department for outside legal costs related to another
successful whistleblower claim filed by Mr. Mark Graf--even
though the Department initially reported to the Committee that
it had not reimbursed any legal fees associated with this case.
As a result of the Committee's oversight, Kaiser Hill returned
the funds to DOE.
In addition to this hearing, the Committee sent two letters
to Secretary Richardson (dated January 26, 2000, and April 3,
2000, respectively), regarding ongoing acts of retaliation
taken against Mr. David Lappa, an employee of the University of
California at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). In
June 1998, DOL determined that Mr. Lappa was retaliated against
for raising nuclear safety concerns at LLNL; however, the
Department refused to take any action to enforce its ``zero
tolerance'' policy against UC. DOE also refused to investigate
Mr. Lappa's matter under its nuclear safety enforcement
authority, and in January 2000, Mr. Lappa resigned his position
after 20 years at LLNL due to ongoing acts of retaliation. DOE
has paid, and continues to pay, for hundreds of thousands of
dollars in UC legal costs related to various suits brought by
Mr. Lappa.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S OFFICE OF SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY PROGRAM
During the 105th Congress, Committee staff received
several briefings and internal security reports raising
questions about the adequacy of the safeguards and security
programs at the Department of Energy's nuclear weapon
laboratories and other sensitive facilities. As a result,
toward the end of 1998, the Committee began to work with the
General Accounting Office to plan a comprehensive review of DOE
security. During the subsequent 21 months, the Committee held
seven hearings on this topic, and Members met five times to
receive briefings--most of them classified--relating to
security concerns at the Department and its laboratories.
Committee Members and staff made several visits to DOE sites to
conduct inspections and question officials on security matters.
Committee staff also received dozens of classified and
unclassified briefings on matters relating to site security
during the 106th Congress, and reviewed extensive documentation
relating to security evaluations conducted by the various DOE
program elements responsible for security policies, practices,
and assessments. Further, as noted above, the Committee also
requested and received the assistance of GAO in this matter,
which conducted several specific security-related evaluations
for the Committee during the 106th Congress.
The Committee's bipartisan review of this important matter
was the subject of repeated delays and objections from DOE with
respect to requested briefings and the production of
documentary materials relating to security evaluations--leading
to the issuance of subpoenas to compel certain information that
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson refused to provide
voluntarily. Eventually, DOE provided all information,
classified and unclassified, requested or subpoenaed by the
Committee during the course of this review.
The Committee's sustained oversight effort on the poor
state of security at our nation's most sensitive nuclear
facilities and other critical DOE sites--as detailed more fully
in the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation's Activity
Report for the 106th Congress--helped to keep pressure on the
laboratories and DOE officials to match their rhetoric of
improved security with reality on the ground. In addition, this
oversight led to the passage of legislation by the Committee
that, if enacted by the next Congress, will further strengthen
and clarify the Department's own internal oversight of site
security policies and practices.
STORAGE OF WEAPONS GRADE FISSILE MATERIAL
Although the Committee took no direct oversight action on
this topic, the Committee monitored DOE's performance in this
area throughout the 106th Congress.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico is
essential to completing the cleanup of transuranic wastes from
several other sites in the DOE complex. After extensive delays
in the permitting process for the facility, WIPP received its
first shipment of transuranic waste on March 26, 1999. The
100th shipment safely arrived at WIPP on October 19, 2000.
Throughout the lengthy process that culminated in the opening
of WIPP, the Committee has carefully watched over this program
to ensure that WIPP itself and the other DOE sites dependent on
WIPP stay on schedule. The status of WIPP was discussed with
DOE at the hearing on the DOE budget request for Fiscal Year
2000.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM (FUSRAP)
This program was created by the Department of Energy to
clean up low-level radioactive contamination resulting from
activities in support of the nuclear weapons programs of the
Manhattan Engineer District and the Atomic Energy Commission.
Through the end of fiscal year 1997, the DOE had completed work
on 24 out of a total of 46 FUSRAP sites. At that time, Congress
transferred the responsibility for the remaining 22 sites from
DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers in the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law
105-62). The Commerce Committee continues to exercise its
jurisdiction over this program. The Committee chartered a GAO
review of the transition from DOE to Corps management, and of
the Corps performance since that transition. Concerns over the
Corps use of disposal facilities that are not licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission led to several exchanges of
correspondence with the Corps and to discussion of this problem
at the July 21, 1999, hearing of the Energy and Power
Subcommittee on the reauthorization of the NRC, but ultimately
no legislation was enacted on this issue.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S BUDGET REQUEST
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the
Department of Energy budget request for fiscal year 2000 on
February 24, 1999. The DOE witness was the Honorable Ernest
Moniz, the Under Secretary of Energy. Areas of inquiry
included: DOE progress on the Yucca Mountain repository and the
adequacy of long-term funding for the program, Power Marketing
Administrations, petroleum reserves and energy security,
electricity reliability, uranium enrichment, DOE's proposed
Nuclear Cities Initiative, U.S. policy with respect to oil
sales by Iraq, DOE asset sales, cleanup of contaminated DOE
sites, and DOE research and development activities.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on the
Department of Energy budget request for fiscal year 2001 on
March 24, 2000. Testifying for the Department was the Honorable
T.J. Glauthier, the Deputy Secretary of Energy. Areas of
inquiry by the Subcommittee included: progress on the Yucca
Mountain repository, implementation of the new National Nuclear
Security Administration, energy security, the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve, the proposed Home Heating Oil Reserve,
worker's compensation, radiation standards, gasoline prices,
environmental cleanup, Hanford privatization, metals recycling,
technology development, DOE surplus assets, DOE national
laboratories, remediation of the Atlas uranium mill tailings
site, nuclear stockpile stewardship, DOE security and
safeguards, uranium enrichment, tritium production, electricity
reliability, and energy efficiency.
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act established energy
efficiency standards and directed DOE to consider revision to
these standards. On October 5, 2000, the Department of Energy
published in the Federal Register new proposed energy
efficiency standards for clothes washers and residential air
conditioners and heat pumps. The Committee is examining these
new standards and will continue to monitor the proposed
rulemaking as it goes forward to assure that the new standards
are achievable and do not have any anti-competitive effects.
DOE'S ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM
Although the Committee took no direct oversight action on
this topic, the Committee monitored DOE's performance in this
area throughout the 106th Congress.
DOE'S NATIONAL LABORATORIES
As described in more detail in other subsections of this
report, as well as the Committee's Activity Report for the
106th Congress, the Committee conducted extensive oversight of
DOE's management of the contractors that operate the national
laboratories, particularly with respect to the three national
nuclear weapons laboratories. The Committee will continue to
review proposals to improve management of the labs in such
critical areas as safety, security, and project management
during the 107th Congress.
In addition to the scrutiny placed on near-term safety and
security problems at the Department of Energy national
laboratories, the Committee also looked into the longer-term
challenges facing the national laboratories. On August 24,
2000, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held an informal
field forum at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, to discuss these concerns with laboratory management.
Members heard testimony from two panels of witnesses
representing the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia
laboratories. The first panel discussed the future roles and
missions of the laboratories, particularly in view of the
recent creation of the National Nuclear Security Administration
to consolidate work on nuclear weapons. The second panel
addressed the challenges the laboratories face in recruiting
and retaining the top scientific talent, a task made especially
difficult in times of strong economic growth in other fields,
enhanced emphasis on security, and changing roles of the
laboratories.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Current law directs agencies to cut their energy use by 20
percent through 2000 and 30 percent through 2005. In order to
assist the Administration in achieving these goals, the Energy
Act of 2000 (H.R. 2884, Public Law 106-469) amended the Nation
Energy Conservation Policy Act to make it easier for Federal
managers to enter into energy savings performance contracts.
FINANCE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES
ON-LINE INVESTOR PROTECTION
The Committee held several hearings on the emergence of new
technologies in the financial markets, including on-line
brokerage. The Committee passed legislation, the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (H.R. 1714),
which was signed by the President (Public Law 106-229), to
promote investor protection and competition in on-line
brokerage.
BOND MARKET TRANSPARENCY
The Committee considered legislation, H.R. 1400, to require
improved transparency in the bond market. Pursuant to that
legislation, initiatives by both the private sector and by the
National Association of Securities Dealers have been undertaken
to improve bond market transparency.
PROFIT SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ON STOCK EXCHANGES
The Committee examined competitive and investor protection
issues raised by stock exchanges in its hearings on the
developments of new technologies in the financial marketplace.
EDGAR PRIVATIZATION
The Committee monitored the actions taken by the SEC in
improving the EDGAR system, in particular, the process pursuant
to which the Commission issued requests for proposals for
modernization of that system.
OVERSIGHT OF THE SEC'S IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS MANDATE ``TO PROMOTE
EFFICIENCY, COMPETITION & CAPITAL FORMATION''
The Committee continued to monitor the SEC's activities in
rulemaking and found that the Commission has not adequately
complied with this mandate, in that it has not conducted
adequate cost-benefit analyses of its major rules, as required
by the statutory provision of the National Securities Markets
Improvement Act of 1996.
OVERSIGHT OF SELF REGULATORY ORGANIZATION RULEMAKING
The Committee examined SRO rulemaking in particular in the
context of the hearings on technological developments in the
financial marketplace. Chairman Bliley sent SEC Chairman Levitt
several letters raising concerns with one SRO rulemaking in
particular, the NASDAQ's SuperMontage proposal, which is
currently in the process of being amended.
CIRCUIT BREAKERS AND COLLARS
The Committee monitored the effects of changes to the
trigger levels for circuit breakers implemented in 1998 by the
stock exchanges. The circuit breakers were changed from an
absolute point level to a percentage based trigger to reflect
the original intention of the circuit breakers and eliminate
unnecessary trading halts. In light of the variance in the
stock market indices, the Committee believes the new percentage
based circuit breakers are more appropriate in determining
trading halts and found no reason for further changes.
PRESERVING DERIVATIVES' STATUS AS PRIVATE CONTRACTS
The Committee carefully considered derivative instruments
in the context of its deliberations on what was ultimately
signed into law as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The Committee
took pains in marking up that legislation to ensure that no
unwarranted regulation was applied to these instruments. In
addition, the Committee marked up legislation to amend the
Commodity Exchange Act (which was not ultimately signed into
law, as the Senate did not act on the legislation) in a manner
geared to preserve the private, contractual nature of
derivative instruments.
OVERSIGHT OF HEDGE FUNDS
The Committee monitored the unwinding of positions of Long
Term Capital Management and found no reason to take legislative
or other actions to regulate hedge funds.
Y2K / INSURANCE
With regard to possible Y2K problems in the insurance
industry, the Committee conducted requested documents and
conducted interviews with representatives of the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, and found the industry
to be adequately prepared for the event.
INSURANCE REGULATION
On July 20, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials held an oversight hearing on Improving Insurance for
Consumers--Increasing Uniformity and Efficiency in Insurance
Regulation. The hearing examined efforts by state insurance
regulators and the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners to achieve uniformity in insurance regulation and
what might be required of Congress and State legislators to
help realize this goal. Various options and approaches to
achieving uniformity were considered, including State
reciprocity and uniformity reforms, a State-run national
chartering system, and an optional Federal chartering system.
The hearing also examined the level of coordination and
cooperation between the insurance and banking agencies,
including a determination of whether Congress needs to act
further to facilitate such cooperation, and what further
interagency discussions need to take place relating to bank
insurance consumer protections and general anti-fraud efforts
to further the goals of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Testimony
was received by representatives from the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners, the Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, and the National Conference of Insurance
Legislators.
On September 19, 2000, the Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials held its second day of hearings on
Improving Insurance for Consumers--Increasing Uniformity and
Efficiency in Insurance Regulation. This second hearing
continued the Committee's oversight of improving insurance
regulation uniformity and effectiveness, with an additional
focus on the progress made by the state insurance commissioners
since the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and what goals and short-term
time-frames should be agreed upon by the participants for
achieving regulatory uniformity. The hearing also examined a
report by the General Accounting Office on an insurance
scandal, and the Subcommittee considered what additional steps
needed to be taken by Congress and the insurance and federal
regulators to prevent future fraud. Testimony was received by
numerous insurance industry associations, including bank
insurance associations, by a state insurance commissioner, and
by the General Accounting Office.
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT
(CERCLA, COMMONLY KNOWN AS SUPERFUND)
The Committee held numerous hearings on the Superfund
program, including an oversight hearing on the status of the
program's implementation on March 23, 1999. The Committee
received testimony from various government officials and
experts, including representatives from the General Accounting
Office (GAO), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials. During the 106th Congress, the GAO conducted several
studies of the Superfund program at the Chairman's request, and
issued various reports about Superfund program expenditures,
EPA progress on Superfund administrative reforms, and other
aspects of the program.
BASEL CONVENTION
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued to
review the failure of the Clinton Administration to propose
draft legislation implementing the Basel Convention. The United
States is one of a handful of countries that has failed to
ratify the Basel Convention governing transboundary shipments
of hazardous materials. The Clinton Administration has failed
to deliver implementing legislation to the Congress that was
promised by the Secretary of State in 1998. Committee staff met
repeatedly with officials from the State Department and EPA,
who assured the Committee staff that the legislation would be
delivered, but repeatedly failed to fulfill that commitment. In
the meantime, Committee staff participated in the Fifth
Conference of the Parties in Basel, Switzerland in December
1999, at which parties to the Convention drafted a liability
protocol as an addition to the original Convention.
APPENDIX I
Legislative Activities
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE
Summary of Committee Activities
Total Bills and Resolutions Referred to Committee................ 1,198
Public Laws...................................................... 50
Bills and Resolutions Reported to the House...................... 58
Hearings Held:
Days of Hearings............................................. 205
Full Committee........................................... 4
Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................... 39
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.......... 29
Subcommittee on Health and Environment................... 45
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection............................................. 50
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 42
Hours of Sitting.............................................680:34
Full Committee........................................... 17:18
Subcommittee on Energy and Power.........................141:38
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.......... 61:06
Subcommittee on Health and Environment...................156:18
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection.............................................153:34
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.............150:40
Legislative Markups:
Days of Markups.............................................. 64
Full Committee........................................... 25
Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................... 8
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.......... 9
Subcommittee on Health and Environment................... 9
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection............................................. 13
Hours of Sitting.............................................135:14
Full Committee........................................... 63:47
Subcommittee on Energy and Power......................... 19:20
Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials.......... 13:14
Subcommittee on Health and Environment................... 6:41
Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer
Protection............................................. 30:31
Business Meetings:
Days of Meetings............................................. 3
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 2
Subcommittee on Health and Environment................... 1
Hours of Sitting:............................................ 5:54
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 5:42
Subcommittee on Health and Environment................... 0:12
Executive Sessions:
Days of Meetings............................................. 2
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 2
Hours of Sitting............................................. 6:05
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 6:05
Appendix II
This list includes: (1) legislation on which the Committee
on Commerce acted directly; legislation developed through
Committee participation in House-Senate conferences; and (3)
legislation which included provisions within the Committee's
jurisdiction, including legislation enacted by reference as
part of other legislation.
Public Laws: [50]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Public Law Approved Bill Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
106-4 3/25/1999 H.R. Nursing Home
540 Resident
Protection
Amendments of
1999
106-31 5/21/1999 H.R. Emergency
1141 Supplemental
Appropriations
Bill for Fiscal
Year 1999
106-34 6/8/1999 H.R. Fastener Quality
1183 Act Amendments
Act of 1999
106-37 7/20/1999 H.R. Y2K Act
775
106-39 7/28/1999 H.R. To correct errors
2035 in the
authorizations of
certain programs
administered by
the National
Highway Traffic
Safety
Administration
106-40 8/5/1999 S. 880 To amend the Clean
Air Act to ensure
that communities
receive chemical
``worst case''
scenarios in a
manner that does
not jeopardize
national
security, and to
address the
regulatory status
of certain fuels
106-53 8/17/1999 S. 507 Water Resources
Development of
1999
106-64 10/5/1999 H.R. To extend energy
2981 conservation
programs under
the Energy Policy
and Conservation
Act through March
31, 2000
106-65 10/5/1999 S. National Defense
1059 Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2000
106-81 10/26/1999 S. 800 Wireless
Communications
and Public Safety
Act
106-87 11/3/1999 H.R. Torture Victims
2367 Relief
Reauthorization
Act of 1999
106-102 11/12/1999 S. 900 Financial Services
Act
106-113 11/29/1999 S. Trademark
1948 Cyberpiracy
* Prevention Act;
Satellite
Competition and
Consumer
Protection Act
........... H.R. Medicare,
3075 Medicaid, and
* SCHIP Balanced
Budget Refinement
Act of 1999
106-121 12/6/1999 H.R. To extend the
459 deadline under
the Federal Power
Act for FERC
project No. 9401,
the Mt. Hope
Water Project
106-129 12/6/1999 S. 580 Healthcare
Research and
Quality Act of
1999
106-169 12/14/1999 H.R. Foster Care
3443 Independence Act
of 1999
106-170 12/17/1999 H.R. Ticket to Work and
1180 Work Incentives
Improvement Act
of 1999
106-172 2/18/2000 H.R. Hillory J. Farias
2130 and Samantha Reid
Date-Rape Drug
Prohibition Act
of 2000
106-174 2/25/2000 S. 632 Poison Control
Center
Enhancement and
Awareness Act
106-180 3/17/2000 S. 376 Open-Market
Reorganization
for the
Betterment of
International
Telecommunication
s Act
106-181 4/5/2000 H.R. Aviation
1000 Investment and
Reform Act for
the 21st Century
106-210 5/26/2000 H.R. Muhammad Ali
1832 Boxing Reform Act
106-213 5/26/2000 S. To extend the
1836 deadline for
commencement of
construction of a
hydroelectric
project in the
State of Alabama
106-229 6/30/2000 S. 761 Electronic
Signatures in
Global and
National Commerce
Act
106-248 7/25/2000 S. Valles Caldera
1892 Preservation Act
106-253 7/28/2000 H.R. Semipostal
4437 Authorization Act
106-260 8/18/2000 H.R. Tribal Self-
1167 Governance Act of
2000.
106-273 9/22/2000 S. To amend the
1937 Pacific Northwest
Electric Power
Planning and
Conservation Act
to provide for
sales of
electricity by
the Bonneville
Power
Administration to
joint operating
entities
106-310 10/17/2000 H.R. Children's Health
4365 Act of 2000
106-317 10/19/2000 H.R. To make technical
2641 corrections to
title X of the
Energy Policy Act
of 1992
106-343 10/19/2000 S. A bill to extend
1236 the deadline
under the Federal
Power Act for
commencement of
the construction
of the Arrowrock
Dam Hydroelectric
Project in the
State of Idaho
106-345 10/20/2000 S. Ryan White CARE
2311 Act Amendments of
2000
106-354 10/24/2000 H.R. Breast and
4386 Cervical Cancer
Prevention and
Treatment Act of
2000
106-377 10/27/2000 H.R. Department of
4635 Veterans Affairs
and Housing and
Urban
Development, and
Independent
Agencies
Appropriations
Act, 2001
106-398 10/30/2000 H.R. Floyd D. Spence
4205 National Defense
Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2001
106-402 10/30/2000 S. Developmental
1809 Disabilities
Assistance and
Bill of Rights
Act of 2000
106-414 11/1/2000 H.R. Transportation
5164 Recall
Enhancement,
Accountability,
and Documentation
(TREAD) Act;
Child Passenger
Protection Act of
2000
106-417 11/1/2000 S. 406 Alaska Native and
American Indian
Direct
Reimbursement Act
of 1999
106-469 11/9/2000 H.R. Energy Policy and
2884 Conservation Act
Amendments of
2000
106-505 11/13/2000 H.R. Public Health
2498 Improvement Act
106-521 11/22/2000 H.R. To authorize the
2346 enforcement by
State and local
governments of
certain Federal
Communications
Commission
regulations
regarding use of
citizens band
radio equipment
106-525 11/13/2000 S. Minority Health
1880 and Health
Disparities
Research and
Education Act of
2000
106-534 11/22/2000 S. Protecting Seniors
3164 From Fraud Act
106-545 12/19/2000 H.R. ICCVAM
4281 Authorization Act
of 2000
106-551 12/20/2000 H.R. Chimpanzee Health
3514 Improvement,
Maintenance, and
Protection Act
N/A 12/29/2000 H.R. National Institute
1795 of Biomedical
Imaging and
Bioengineering
Establishment Act
106-554 12/21/2000 H.R. Medicare, Medicaid
5661 and SCHIP
Benefits
Improvement and
Protection Act
........... H.R. Commodity Futures
5660 Modernization Act
106-564 12/23/2000 H.R. To establish a
3756 standard time
zone for Guam and
the Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana Islands,
and for other
purposes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Enacted by reference in H.R. 3194.
A public law number was not available at the time of filing of
this report.
Enacted by reference in H.R. 4577.
Appendix III
part a
Printed Hearings of the Committee on Commerce
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing
Serial No. Hearing Title Date(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
106-1 The Nursing Home Resident February
Protection Amendments of 11, 1999
1999. (Subcommittee on
Health and Environment.)
106-2 The Wireless Privacy February 3,
Enhancement Act of 1999 1999
and the Wireless
Communications and
Public Safety
Enhancement Act of 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-3 Internet Posting of February
Chemical ``Worst Case'' 10, 1999
Scenarios: a Roadmap for
Terrorists.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-4 Women's Health: Raising March 16,
Awareness of Cervical 1999
Cancer. (Subcommittee on
Health and Environment.)
106-5 The Market Impact of the February
President's Social 25, 1999,
Security Proposal. March 3,
(Subcommittee on Finance 1999
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-6 Reauthorization of the February
Satellite Home Viewer 24, 1999
Act. (Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-7 Date Rape Drugs. March 11,
(Subcommittee on 1999
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-8 The Bond Price March 18,
Improvement Act of 1999. 1999
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-9 Supporting Welfare February
Reform: Cracking Down On 24, 1999
Deadbeat Dads.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-10 Medicare+Choice: An February
Examination of the Risk 25, 1999
Adjuster. (Subcommittee
on Health and
Environment.)
106-11 Reauthorization of the February
Natural Gas Pipeline 3, 1999
Safety Act and the
Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Act.
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-12 The Exxon-Mobile Merger. March 10,
(Subcommittee on Energy 1999,
and Power.) March 11,
1999
106-13 Reauthorization of the March 17,
Federal Communications 1999
Commission.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-14 Putting Patients First: April 15,
Increasing Organ Supply 1999
for Organ
Transplantation.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-15 The Work Incentives March 23,
Improvement Act of 1999. 1999
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
101-16 Identity Theft: Is There April 22,
Another You? 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection and the
Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-17 The Nuclear Waste Policy February
Act of 1999. 10, 1999
(Subcommittee on Energy March 12,
and Power.) 1999
106-18 Reformulated Gasoline. May 6,
(Subcommittee on Health 1999
and Environment.)
106-19 The Threat of May 20,
Bioterrorism in America: 1999
Assessing the Adequacy
of the Federal Law
Relating to Dangerous
Biological Elements.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-20 Y2K and the Medicare April 27,
Providers: Innoculating 1999
Against the Y2K Bug.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-21 Regulatory Classification April 13,
of Low-power TV 1999
Licensees. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-22 Access to Buildings and May 13,
Facilities by 1999
Telecommunications
Providers. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-23 Federal Communications May 20,
Commission Reform: The 1999
States Perspective.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-24 The Chemical Safety May 19,
Information and Site 1999
Security Act of 1999. May 26,
(Subcommittee on Health 1999
and Environment.)
106-25 Y2K and Medical Devices: May 25,
Screening for the Y2K 1999
Bug. (Subcommittee on
Health and Environment
and the Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-26 The Muhammad Ali Boxing June 29,
Reform Act. 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-27 The Iraqi Oil for Food March 26,
Program and Its Impact. 1999
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-28 The Security and Freedom May 25,
Through Encryption 1999
(SAFE) Act.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-29 Reauthorization of the April 29,
Agency for Health Care 1999
Policy and Research.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-30 The Financial Services April 28,
Act of 1999. 1999
(Subcommittee on Finance May 5,
and Hazardous 1999
Materials.)
106-31 Security at the April 20,
Department of Energy's 1999
Laboratories: The
Perspective of the
General Accounting
Office. (Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-32 The Electronic Signatures June 9,
in Global and National 1999
Commerce Act.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-33 The Electronic Signatures June 24,
in Global and National 1999
Commerce Act.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-34 Medical Records May 27,
Confidientiality in the 1999
Modern Delivery of
Health Care.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-35 The Consumer and Investor June 30,
Access to Information 1999
Act of 1999.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-36 Review of the Department May 26,
of Energy's Deployment 1999
of DOE-Funded
Environmental Cleanup
Technologies.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-37 Risky Business in the June 25,
Operating Subsidiary: 1999
How the OCC Dropped the
Ball. (Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-38 The Kansas Ad Valorem Tax June 8,
Refund. (Subcommittee on 1999
Energy and Power.)
106-39 Electronic Commerce: The July 13,
Current Status of 1999
Privacy Protections for
Online Consumers.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-40 Restructuring the July 13,
Department of Energy 1999
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-41 The Impact of Market July 27,
Volatility on Securities 1999
Transactions.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-42 Breast and Cervical July 21,
Cancer Federally Funded 1999
Screening Programs.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-43 Worker Safety at DOE June 29,
Nuclear Facilities. 1999
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-44 The Status of the Federal March 23,
Superfund Program. 1999
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-45 The Drug addiction and July 30,
Treatment Act of 1999. 1999
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-46 The Nuclear Regulatory July 21,
Commission Authorization 1999
Act for Fiscal Year
2000. (Subcommittee on
Energy and Power.)
106-47 Domain Name System July 22,
Privatization: Is ICANN 1999
Out of Control?
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-48 America's Health: March 6,
Protecting Patients' 1999
Access to Quality Care June 16,
and Information. 1999
(Subcommittee on Health June 23,
and Environment.) 1999
106-49 The Consumer and Investor June 15,
Access to Information 1999
Act of 1999.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-50 Deployment of Data June 24,
Services. (Subcommittee 1999
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-51 Drugstores on the Net: July 30,
the Benefits and Risks 1999
of On-Line Pharmacies.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-52 Medicare+Choice: An August 4,
Evaluation of the 1999
Program. (Subcommittee
on Health and
Environment.)
106-53 The Medical Information July 15,
and Research Enhancement 1999
Act of 1999.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-54 Department of Energy's February
Proposed Budget for FY 24, 1999
2000. (Subcommittee on
Energy and Power.)
106-55 The NTIA Reauthorization May 11,
Act of 1999. 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-56 Corporation for Public June 30,
Broadcasting 1999
Authorization Act of July 20,
1999. (Subcommittee on 1999
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-57 The Rudman Report: June 22,
Science at its Best, 1999
Security at its Worst.
(Full Committee.)
106-58 Reauthorization of September
Expiring Energy Policy 23, 1999
and Conservation Act
Programs. (Subcommittee
on Energy and Power.)
106-59 How Healthy are the July 14,
Government's Medicare 1999
Fraud Fighters? September
(Subcommittee on 9, 1999
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-60 Children's Health: October
Building Toward A Better 12, 1999
Future. (Subcommittee on
Health and Environment.)
106-61 Electric Restructuring June 17,
Legislation. 1999
(Subcommittee on Energy July 22,
and Power.) 1999
106-62 Securities Transaction September
Fees. (Subcommittee on 28, 1999
Finance and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-63 Electricity Competition-- March 18,
Volume 1. (Subcommittee 1999
on Energy and Power.) April 22,
1999
May 6,
1999
106-64 Electricity Competition-- May 13,
Volume 2. (Subcommittee 1999
on Energy and Power.) May 20,
1999
May 26,
1999
July 1,
1999
106-65 Electricity Competition-- July 15,
Volume 3. (Subcommittee 1999
on Energy and Power.) September
13, 1999
106-66 The Electricity October 5,
Competition and 1999
Reliability Act. October
(Subcommittee on Energy 6, 1999
and Power.)
106-67 Balanced Budget Act of September
1997: Impact on Cost 15, 1999
Savings and Patient
Care. (Subcommittee on
Health and Environment.)
106-68 PUHCA Repeal: Is the Time October 7,
Now? (Subcommittee on 1999
Finance and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-69 Y2K and Medical Devices: October
Testing for the Y2K Bug. 21, 1999
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-70 Increasing Disclosure to October
Benefit Investors. 29, 1999
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-71 WTO 2000: The Next Round. November
(Subcommittee on 4, 1999
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-72 Medicaid Fraud and Abuse: November
Assessing State and 9, 1999
Federal Responses.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-73 Prescription Drugs: What September
We Know and Don't Know 28, 1999
About Seniors' Access to October
Coverage. (Subcommittee 4, 1999
on Health and
Environment.)
106-74 The Kansas Ad Valorem Tax July 29,
Refund Legislation. 1999
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-75 Organ Procurement and September
Transplantation Network 22, 1999
Amendments of 1999.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-76 EPCA Regulation of July 27,
Plumbing Supplies. 1999
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-77 Broadcast Ownership September
Regulations. 15, 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-78 The Rental Fairness Act October
of 1999. (Subcommittee 20, 1999
on Finance and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-79 Blood Safety and September
Availability. 23, 1999
(Subcommittee on October
Oversight and 6, 1999
Investigations.) October
19, 1999
106-80 Implementation of the October
1996 Safe Drinking Water 20, 1999
Amendments and Safe
Drinking Water Research
Programs. (Subcommittee
on Health and
Environment.)
106-81 The Schools and Libraries September
Internet Access Act. 30, 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-82 Legislation to Improve August 4,
the Comprehensive 1999
Environmental Response, September
Compensation and 22, 1999
Liability Act.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-83 WIPO One Year Later: October
Assessing Consumer 28, 1999
Access to Digital
Entertainment on the
Internet and Other
Media. (Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-84 Spamming: The E-mail You November
Want To Can. 3, 1999
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-85 Federal Communications October
Commission Reform for 26, 1999
the New Millenium.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-86 Problem's With EPA's November
Brownfields Cleanup 4, 1999
Revolving Loan Fund
Program. (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-87 The Paducah Gaseous September
Diffusion Plant: An 22, 1999
Assessment of Worker
Safety and Environmental
Contamination.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-88 The Olympics Site October
Selection Process. 14, 1999
(Subcommittee on December
Oversight and 15, 1999
Investigations.)
106-89 Reuse of Single Use February
Medical Devices. 10, 2000
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-90 Medical Errors: Improving February
Quality of Care and 9, 2000
Consumer Education.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-91 The White House, the February
Networks and TV 9, 2000
Censorship.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-92 Seniors' Access to February
Affordable Prescription 16, 2000
Drugs: Models for
Reform. (Subcommittee on
Health and Environment.)
106-93 Public Access to the March 1,
National Practitioner 1999
Data Bank. (Subcommittee March 16,
on Oversight and 2000
Investigations.)
106-94 Video on the Internet: February
iCraveTV.com and Other 16, 2000
Recent Developments in
Webcasting.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-95 The Telecommunications March 14,
Act of 2000. 2000
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-96 The Wireless April 6,
Telecommunications 2000
Sourcing and Privacy Act
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-97 Third-Party Billing April 6,
Company Fraud: Assessing 2000
the Threat Posed to
Medicare. (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-98 The Report of the April 6,
Advisory Commission on 2000
Electronic Commerce.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-99 Saving Lives: The Cardiac May 9,
Arrest Survival Act. 2000
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-100 Accounting for Business May 4,
Combinations: Should 2000
Pooling Be Eliminated?
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-101 National Implementation March 2,
of the Reformulated 2000
Gasoline Program.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-102 PNTR: Opening the World's May 23,
Biggest Potential Market 2000
to American Financial
Services Competition.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-103 The State of Security at October
the Department of 26, 1999
Energy's Nuclear Weapons
Laboratories.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-104 Fetal Tissue: Is It Being March 9,
Sold In Violation of 2000
Federal Law?
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-105 Safety and Security March 14,
Oversight of the New 2000
Nuclear Security
Administration. (
Subcommittee on Energy
and Power and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-106 Hydroelectric March 30,
Legislation. 2000
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-107 Decimals 2000--Will the June 13,
Exchanges Convert? 2000
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-108 The Health Care Fairness May 11,
Act of 1999. 2000
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-109 Chimpanzee Health May 18,
Improvement, Maintenance 2000
and Protection Act.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-110 Prescription Drugs: June 14,
Modernizing Medicare for 2000
the 21st Century.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-111 Competition in the New March 29,
Electronic Market. 2000
(Subcommittee on Finance May 11,
and Hazardous 2000
Materials.)
106-112 Enforcing the Laws on May 25,
Internet Pharmaceutical 2000
Sales: Where are the
Feds? (Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-113 Decimal Conversion 2000: March 1,
Are the Markets Ready?. 2000
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-114 The Internet Services May 3,
Promotion Act of 2000, 2000
and the Internet Access
Charge Prohibition Act
of 2000. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-115 Obscene Material May 23,
Available Via the 2000
Internet. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-116 Deployment of Broadband May 25,
Technologies. 2000
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-117 The Know Your Caller Act June 13,
of 1999 and the 2000
Telemarketing Victim
Protection Act of 1999.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-118 FCC's Low Power FM: A February
Review of the FCC's 17, 2000
Spectrum Management
Responsibilities.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-119 The Rural Broadcast March 16,
Signal Act. 2000
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-120 Medicaid Provider July 18,
Enrollment: Assessing 2000
State Efforts to Prevent
Fraud. (Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-121 The Religious April 13,
Broadcasting Freedom Act 2000
and the Noncommercial
Broadcasting Freedom Act
of 2000. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-122 Patient Access to Self- March 23,
Injectable Prescription 2000
Drugs in the Medicare
Program. (Subcommittee
on Health and
Environment.)
106-123 The Commodity Futures July 12,
Modernization Act of 2000
2000. (Subcommittee on
Finance and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-124 Remediation of Uranium April 5,
and Thorium Processing 2000
Sites. (Subcommittee on
Energy and Power.)
106-125 Medicare's Management: June 27,
Is HCFA's Complexity 2000
Threatening Patient
Access to Quality Care?
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-126 Legislation to Improve March 22,
Safety and Security in 2000
the Department of
Energy. (Subcommittee on
Energy and Power.)
106-127 The Truth in Billing Act March 9,
of 1999 and the Rest of 2000
the Truth in Telephone
Billing Act of 1999.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-128 The Status of Deployment April 11,
of Data Services. 2000
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-129 Privatization of the U.S. April 13,
Enrichment Corporation 2000
and its Impact on the
Domestic Uranium
Industry. (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-130 Consumer Safety May 16,
Initiatives: Protecting 2000
the Vulnerable.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-131 National Energy Policy: June 8,
The Future of Nuclear 2000
and Coal Power in the
United States.
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-132 The Internet Freedom and July 27,
Broadband Deployment Act 2000
of 1999. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-133 The National Oilheat April 5,
Research Alliance Act of 2000
1999. (Subcommittee on
Energy and Power.)
106-134 Exempt from Reciprocal June 22,
Compensation 2000
Requirements
Telecommunications
Traffic to the Internet.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-135 Whistleblowers at May 23,
Department of Energy 2000
Facilities: Is There
Really ``Zero
Tolerance'' for
Contractor Retaliation?
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-136 Summer Energy Concerns June 28,
for the American 2000
Consumer. (Full
Committee.)
106-137 Department of Energy's June 22,
Fixed-Price Cleanup 2000
Contracts: Why are Costs
Still Out of Control?
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-138 The Environmental March 30,
Protection Agency's 2000
Proposed Budget Request
for Fiscal Year 2001.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment and the
Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-139 Department of Energy's March 24,
Proposed Budget for 2000
Fiscal Year 2001.
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-140 The Ryan White Care Act April 11,
Amendments of 2000. 2000
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-141 The Independent July 20,
Telecommunications 2000
Consumer Enhancement Act
of 2000. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-142 A Review of the FCC's July 19,
Spectrum Policies for 2000
the 21st Century and
H.R. 4758, the Spectrum
Resource Assurance Act.
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-143 High Definition July 25,
Television. 2000
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-144 Telehealth: A Cutting September
Edge Medical Tool. 7, 2000
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-145 The Balanced Budget Act July 19,
of 1997: A Look at the 2000
Current Impact on
Providers and Patients.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
106-146 Results of Security July 20,
Inspections at the 1999
Department of Energy's
Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-147 National Energy Policy: May 24,
Ensuring Adequate Supply 2000
of Natural Gas and Crude
Oil. (Subcommittee on
Energy and Power.)
106-148 Weaknesses in Classified July 11,
Information Security 2000
Controls at Department
of Energy's Nuclear
Weapons Laboratories.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-149 Price Fluctuations in Oil March 9,
Markets. (Subcommittee 2000
on Energy and Power.)
106-150 Internet Gambling. June 15,
(Subcommittee on 2000
Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-151 Status of the Department July 23,
of Energy's Program to 2000
Develop a Permanent
Geologic Repository at
Yucca Mountain Nevada.
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Power.)
106-152 Improving Insurance for July 20,
Consumers--Increasing 2000
Uniformity and
Efficiency in Insurance
Regulation.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-153 Foreign Government September
Ownership of American 7, 2000
Telecommunications
Companies. (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer
Protection.)
106-154 Lost Security Holders: October 4,
Reuniting Security 2000
Holders With Their
Investments.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-155 Improving Insurance for September
Consumers--Increasing 19, 2000
Uniformity and
Efficiency in Insurance
Regulation.
(Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-156 Organized Crime on Wall September
Street. (Subcommittee on 13, 2000
Finance and Hazardous
Materials.)
106-157 Computer Insecurities at June 13,
DoE Headquarters: DoE's 2000
Failure to Get It's Own
Cyber House in Order.
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.)
106-158 Implementation of the September
1996 SDWA Amendments and 19, 2000
Funding of State
Drinking Water Programs.
(Subcommittee on Health
and Environment.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
part b
Committee Prints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
106-A Committee Rules--January 1999.
(Full Committee.)
106-B Compilation of Securities Law--
March 1999. (Full Committee.)
106-C Compilation of Communications Law--
April 1999. (Full Committee.)
106-D Compilation of Health Law--May
1999. (Full Committee.)
106-E Tributes to Departing Members--
December 2000. (Full Committee.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------