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

