[House Report 107-802]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 503
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-802
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE FOR THE
107TH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Tauzin, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and 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; and siting of
generation facilities (except the installation of
interconnections between Government waterpower
projects).
(10) General management of the Department of Energy and
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) 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 Energy and Commerce shall review
and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government
activities relating to nuclear and other energy and nonmilitary
nuclear energy research and development including the disposal
of nuclear waste.
Rules for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of
Representatives, 107th Congress
Rule 1. General Provisions.
(a) Rules of the Committee. The Rules of the House are the
rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereinafter the
``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as is applicable,
except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to
dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or
resolution, if printed copies are available, are nondebatable
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 nongovernmental 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 5minute 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,
onethird 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 onefifth
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, mark up legislation, and report to the
Committee on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen
shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of
the chairman of the Committee with a view toward assuring the
availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous
scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings
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 onethird 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 107th 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 94163), 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 or Rule XI and Clauses 2 and 3 of Rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives for the 107th Congress
January 3, 2001
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 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 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 one for
which the presence of a majority of the committee is otherwise
required, 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.
Hearing procedures
(k)(1) The chairman at a hearing shall announce in an
opening statement the subject of the hearing.
(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall
be made available to each witness on request.
(3) Witnesses at 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 by a member of the committee
that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame,
degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a
witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would
give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
the witness--
(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 (3)(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
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: Contents of Reports
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. A supplemental report only correcting errors
in the depiction of record votes under paragraph (b) may be
filed under this subparagraph and shall not be subject to the
requirement in clause 4 concerning the availability of reports.
(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 statement of general performance goals and
objectives, including outcome- related goals and
objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding.
(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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
(Ratio 31-26)
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Vice Chairman EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHRISTOPHER COX, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BART GORDON, Tennessee
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG GANSKE, Iowa ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART STUPAK, Michigan
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
TOM DAVIS, Virginia BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ED BRYANT, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
STEVE BUYER, Indiana CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky \1\
__________
*Representative Steve Largent (R-OK) resigned as a Member of the House
of Representatives on February 15, 2002.
\1\ Representative Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) was elected to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce for the 107th Congress on March 20, 2002,
pursuant to H. Res. 375, which passed the House on March 20, 2002.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(Ratio 16-13)
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman LOIS CAPPS, California
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois JANE HARMAN, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MARY BONO, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Ex Officio)
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky\1\
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign commerce, including all trade
matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; regulation of
commercial practices (the FTC), including sports-related matters;
consumer affairs and consumer protection, including privacy matters
generally; consumer product safety (the CPSC); and product liability;
and motor vehicle safety; and, regulation of travel, tourism, and time.
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
(Ratio 18-15)
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER COX, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RALPH M. HALL, Texas
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky TOM SAWYER, Ohio
GREG GANSKE, Iowa ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
Vice Chairman HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
STEVE BUYER, Indiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California (Ex Officio)
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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; the Clean Air Act; and, all laws, programs,
and government activities affecting such matters.
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
(Ratio 16-13)
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG GANSKE, Iowa EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
(Vice Chairman) THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MARY BONO, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Ex Officio)
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky\1\
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Environmental protection in general, including the Safe
Drinking Water Act and risk assessment matters; solid waste, hazardous
waste and toxic substances, including Superfund and RCRA; mining, oil,
gas, and coal combustion wastes; and, noise pollution control.
Subcommittee on Health
(Ratio 18-15)
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina LOIS CAPPS, California
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky RALPH M. HALL, Texas
GREG GANSKE, Iowa EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Mississippi GENE GREEN, Texas
ED BRYANT, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland (Ex Officio)
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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; and, drug abuse.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
(Ratio 18-15)
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman ANNA G. ESHOO, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California GENE GREEN, Texas
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, JANE HARMAN, California
Mississippi RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
VITO FOSSELLA, New York SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri TOM SAWYER, Ohio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(Ratio 9-7)
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART STUPAK, Michigan
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
Vice Chairman BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky (Ex Officio)
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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
David V. Marventano, Chief of Staff
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Nydia Bonnin, Deputy Staff Director
Patrick Morrisey, Deputy Staff Director
Mark A. Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations
Ken Johnson, Director of Communications
Michael Abraham, Staff Assistant
Kelli Andrews, Counsel
Seth Benhard, Staff Assistant
Jason Bentley, Counsel
Ramsen Betfarhad, Policy Coordinator
Andy Black, Policy Coordinator
Linda Bloss-Baum, Counsel
William Carty, Legislative Clerk
Dwight Cates, Professional Staff Member
David L. Cavicke, Counsel
Yong Choe, Legislative Clerk
Charles M. Clapton, Counsel
John Clocker, Systems Administrator
Jaylyn Connaughton, Special Assistant
Brad Conway, Counsel
Anthony Cooke, Counsel
William Cooper, Counsel
Gerald Couri, Policy Coordinator
Sean Cunningham, Counsel
Brent A. Del Monte, Counsel
Thomas DiLenge, Senior Counsel
Eugenia Edwards, Legislative Clerk
Michael Geffroy, Counsel
Mary Ellen Grant, Deputy Communications Director
Billy Harvard, Staff Assistant
Rebecca Hemard, Counsel
Cheryl Jaeger, Professional Staff Member
Nandan Kenkeremath, Senior Counsel
Hollyn Kidd, Legislative Clerk
Peter E. Kielty, Legislative Clerk
Jill Latham, Staff Assistant
Brian McCullough, Professional Staff Member
Robert J. Meyers, Counsel
Audrey Murdoch, Assistant to the Administrative Coordinator
Will Nordwind, Policy Coordinator
Michael O'Rielly, Professional Staff Member
Joseph P. Patterson, Jr., Printer
Kelly Ponder, Staff Assistant
Vikki Riley, Deputy Communications Director
Jennifer Safavian, Counsel
Ray Shepherd, Counsel
Jerome Sikorski, Archivist
Arturo Silva, Deputy Communications Director
Robert E. Simison, Professional Staff Member
Alan Michael Slobodin, Senior Counsel
Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member
Joseph C. Stanko, Jr., Counsel
Anthony M. Sullivan, Comptroller
Steve Tilton, Policy Coordinator
Jon Tripp, Deputy Communications Director
Shannon Vildostegui, Counsel
Linda Walker, Administrative and Human Resources Coordinator
Jessica Wallace, Counsel
Howard Waltzman, Counsel
Ann Washington, Professional Staff Member
Brendan Williams, Legislative Clerk
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
Jonathan J. Cordone, Minority Counsel
Karen E. Folk, Minority Professional Staff Member
John P. Ford, Minority Counsel
Richard A. Frandsen, Senior Minority Counsel
Michael L. Goo, Minority Counsel
Ashley R. Groesbeck, Minority Staff Assistant
M. Bruce Gwinn, Minority Professional Staff Member
Amy B. Hall, Minority Professional Staff Member
Robert T. Hall, Minority Staff Assistant
Voncille Trotter Hines, Minority Staff Assistant
Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel
Carla R.V. Hultberg, Minority Senior Secretary/Assistant LAN
Administrator
Courtney L. Johnson, Minority Research Assistant
Brendan C. Kelsay, Minority Professional Staff Member
Nicole B. Kenner, Minority Research Assistant
Raymond R. Kent, Jr., Minority Financial Assistant
Rick Kessler, Minority Professional Staff Member
Christopher Knauer, Minority Investigator
Andrew W. Levin, Minority Counsel
Jessica A. McNiece, Minority Staff Assistant
David W. Nelson, Minority Investigator / Economist
Laura A.T. Sheehan., Minority Press Secretary
D. Elaine Sheets, Minority Senior Secretary
Sue D. Sheridan, Minority Counsel
Bridgett E. Taylor, Minority Professional Staff Member
Counsuela M. Washington, Senior Minority Counsel
Legislative and Oversight Activity of the Committee
During the 107th Congress, 1131 bills and resolutions were
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Full
Committee reported 52 measures to the House (not including
conference reports). Forty-one measures regarding issues within
the Committee's jurisdiction were enacted into law.
In areas as diverse as health, telecommunications, energy,
and the environment, the Committee made great strides towards
the goal of creating a more effective, les 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 Energy and Commerce during the
107th Congress. This report includes a summary of the
activities taken by the Committee to implement its Oversight
Plan for the 107th Congress, which was submitted by the
Committee under clause 2(d) of rule X. In addition, pursuant to
clause 1(d)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, this reports contains a summary of any
additional oversight activities undertaken by the Committee and
the recommendations made or actions taken thereon.
Committee on Energy and Commerce
FULL COMMITTEE
(Ratio 31-26)
W. J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART GORDON, Tennessee
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG GANSKE, Iowa ANNA G. ESHOO, California
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BART STUPAK, Michigan
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois TOM SAWYER, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
TOM DAVIS, Virginia BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ED BRYANT, Tennessee LOIS CAPPS, California
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
STEVE BUYER, Indiana CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JANE HARMAN, California
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
Legislative Activities
CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Public Law 107-296 (H.R. 5005)
To create a Department of Homeland Security and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5005 consolidates a number of Federal agencies,
offices, programs, and functions in a new Department of
Homeland Security in an effort to streamline and enhance
homeland security efforts, and to apply increased direction,
coordination, and focus to homeland security issues. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce exercises direct jurisdiction
over much of H.R. 5005, including issues contained in Title II
on cybersecurity, information analysis, and critical
infrastructure protection; Title III on research and
development programs within the Department of Energy (DOE) and
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and on the
selection, safety and security of dangerous biological agents;
Title V on emergency preparedness and response; and related
provisions elsewhere in the bill. Accordingly, the Committee
developed, on a bipartisan basis, a Committee Print containing
the Committee's formal recommendations to the Select Committee
on Homeland Security with respect to those areas of H.R. 5005
within the Committee's jurisdiction.
In the area of critical infrastructure protection
(including cyber security) the Committee made a series of
recommendations based on its extensive expertise as the
Committee responsible for policy and oversight of the country's
key critical infrastructures, including the energy and
telecommunications systems, chemical, oil and gas, and nuclear
facilities, and food and drinking water supplies. As
introduced, Title II of H.R. 5005 established an Undersecretary
for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, whose
responsibilities included: receiving and analyzing law
enforcement, intelligence, and other information regarding
terrorist threats; comprehensively assessing the
vulnerabilities of key resources and critical infrastructures
in the United States; integrating relevant information,
intelligence analyses, and vulnerability assessments;
developing a comprehensive national plan for securing key
resources and critical infrastructures in the United States;
taking or seeking to effect necessary measures to protect key
resources and critical infrastructures in the United States;
administering the Homeland Security Advisory System; and,
making recommendations for improvements in the policies and
procedures for sharing of law enforcement, intelligence and
other information. Title II also transferred to the Department
the following functions or programs of other executive
agencies: the National Infrastructure Protection Center of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (other than the Computer
Investigations and Operations Section); the National
Communications System at the Department of Defense (DOD); the
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of
Commerce (DOC); the Computer Security Division of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); the National
Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC) of the
DOE; and the Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the
General Services Administration (GSA).
The Committee's key recommendations in this area focused on
clarifying that these critical infrastructure protection
authorities did not grant the Department new regulatory
authority over the affected industries, and did not alter or
diminish any existing regulatory authority of any other
executive agency unless such authority was expressly
transferred to the new Department from such executive agency.
These recommendations were, in essence, adopted by the Select
Committee and the Congress in the version of H.R. 5005
ultimately signed into law by the President. The Committee also
recommended the inclusion of an additional section in Title II,
directing the Secretary to establish and manage a program to
improve the security of Federal critical information and
computer systems. While adopted by the Select Committee, this
recommendation was not included in the legislation upon final
passage.
The Committee also made a series of recommendations to
Title III of H.R. 5005 addressing matters relating to research
and development of terrorism-related countermeasures and
technologies. As introduced, Title III created an Under
Secretary for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
Countermeasures, whose principal responsibilities included:
conducting a national research and development program to
support the mission of the Department; coordinating Federal
civilian efforts to identify, develop, and demonstrate
countermeasures and technologies to protect against chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorist threats; and,
establishing guidelines for state and local government efforts
to implement such countermeasures. Title III also transferred
particular functions and programs from other executive agencies
to the new Department, specifically (1) the select agent
program of HHS for the possession and transfer of dangerous
biological agents and toxins; (2) various DOE research,
development, and assessment programs relating to chemical,
biological, radiological and nuclear agents; and, (3) two other
research centers from DOD and the Department of Agriculture
(USDA). This title also provided that the new Secretary shall
carry out his responsibilities for civilian, human health-
related biological, biomedical, and infectious disease defense
research and development through HHS, under agreements with the
HHS Secretary; may transfer funds to the HHS Secretary for
carrying out such research; and has the authority to establish
the research and development program and set its priorities, in
consultation with the HHS Secretary.
The Committee's key recommendations in this area focused on
clarifying that the new Department will not conduct human
health-related research and development activities, but will
nonetheless play an important role in identifying priorities
and developing national policy and a strategic plan for such
research as it pertains to the threats of biological, chemical,
radiological, and nuclear terrorism. The Committee Print also
recommended an additional provision that would direct the new
Secretary to establish, acting through the Under Secretary, a
central Federal repository to receive and, as appropriate,
review solicited and unsolicited submissions relating to
homeland security-relevant technologies and systems developed
by the Department, universities and other academic
institutions, other governmental agencies, and the private
sector. The Committee Print also amended the transfer of the
HHS select agent program by making it conditional upon the
transfer of the overlapping select agent program of USDA to the
new Department, as well as upon a continuing consultation role
for the Secretary of HHS in all aspects of the program. These
recommendations were, in essence, adopted by the Select
Committee and the Congress in the version of H.R. 5005
ultimately signed into law by the President, except that
neither the HHS select agent program nor the USDA companion
program was transferred to the new Department.
Title V of H.R. 5005, as introduced, created an Under
Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, whose
principal responsibilities included: enhancing the preparedness
of emergency response providers at the Federal, state, and
local levels for terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other
emergencies; managing the Federal government's response to
terrorist attacks and major disasters, including directing
certain response assets under the Department's control and
coordinating other Federal response resources; assisting in the
recovery from such attacks or disasters; establishing standards
and conducting joint and other exercises and training for the
Federal nuclear incident response teams; and developing and
promoting acquisition of interoperable communications
technology for emergency response providers. Title V
transferred specific functions and programs from other
executive agencies to the new Department, including the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other emergency
preparedness and response functions from the Departments of
Justice and Health and Human Services. The latter category
includes, from HHS, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Public Health Emergency Preparedness, the Office of Emergency
Preparedness, the National Disaster Medical System, the
National Strategic Stockpile, and the Metropolitan Medical
Response System. Title V also provided that the new Secretary
could call into action certain nuclear incident response
elements of DOE and EPA, in response to a terrorist attack,
major disaster, or other emergency. Finally, Title V provided
that the new Secretary shall carry out certain responsibilities
through HHS, under agreements with the HHS Secretary, including
(1) preparedness-related construction, renovation and
enhancement of security for research and development or other
facilities owned or occupied by HHS; and (2) public health-
related activities carried out by HHS to assist state and local
governments and other non-Federal public and private health
care and educational entities to plan or prepare for chemical,
biological, radiological, and nuclear events and other public
health emergencies.
The Committee's key recommendations in this area were (1)
to provide for a more limited transfer of authorities from HHS,
by retaining at HHS the coordination, liaison, and other
functions of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public
Health Emergency Preparedness, while transferring the functions
of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, the National Disaster
Medical System, and the Metropolitan Medical Response System;
and (2) to delete the provision relating to the new Secretary's
authority over public health-related and preparedness-related
activities currently carried out by HHS. The Select Committee
adopted the first Committee recommendation, and modified the
second recommendation with the bipartisan agreement of the
Energy and Commerce Committee leadership and the
Administration. The modification grants the new Secretary a
collaborative role in establishing the goals and priorities of
the HHS preparedness programs, but maintains HHS legal and
programmatic authority over such programs. The Select
Committee's incorporation of these two provisions was adopted
by the Congress in the version of H.R. 5005 ultimately signed
by the President.
The Committee Print also recommended the addition of new
section to provide a rule of construction regarding the
transfers of authority made by this Act. The rule of
construction ensured that the Act does not establish new
regulatory authority for the Secretary, except to the extent
that a function transferred to the Secretary by designated
sections includes such authority. This rule of construction
also ensured that the Act does not alter or diminish the
regulatory authority of any other executive agency, except to
the extent that a function of such agency that includes such
authority is transferred to the Secretary by one of the
designated sections. A similar rule of construction was adopted
by the Select Committee and the Congress in the version of H.R.
5005 ultimately signed by the President.
The Committee Print also recommended a new section to
clarify how the transfers of authority from DOE to the new
Department will occur with respect to the activities being
carried out for DOE by its national laboratories. In such
circumstances, the two Secretaries shall ensure that the
contracts between the Department of Homeland Security and the
operators of the national laboratories are separate from the
general management contracts between DOE and the operators of
the national laboratories. Because the national laboratories
performing work for the Department of Homeland Security will
continue to utilize DOE facilities, the Committee's
recommendation further provided that the new Department shall
reimburse DOE for costs relating to such activities. However,
the new Department shall not be required to pay administrative
or personnel costs of DOE or its contractors in excess of the
amount that the Secretary of Energy normally pays for an
activity carried out by such a contractor. A similar provision
relating to DOE transfers was adopted by the Select Committee
and the Congress in the version of H.R. 5005 ultimately signed
by the President.
Legislative History
On June 18, 2002, President Bush sent to Congress a
proposed bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security as
a new Cabinet-level agency within the Executive Branch of the
Federal government. Mr. Armey introduced the President's bill
on June 24, 2002, as H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act of
2002. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, the bill was referred
to the specially-created Select Committee on Homeland Security
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, and
in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Appropriations,
Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services,
Government Reform, Intelligence (Permanent Select),
International Relations, the Judiciary, Science, Transportation
and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means for a period ending not
later than July 12, 2002, for consideration of such matters as
fell within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On June 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on creating the Department of
Homeland Security that focused on the emergency preparedness
and response functions proposed for transfer to the new
Department as part of Title V of H.R. 5005. The Subcommittee
received testimony from a representative of The White House; a
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services; the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) of DOE; and representatives from the
General Accounting Office (GAO), various DOE/NNSA national
laboratories, the North Carolina Division of Emergency
Management, and the Washington Area National Medical Response
Team.
On July 9, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations continued its hearing, focusing on the research
and development and critical infrastructure activities proposed
for transfer to the new Department as part of Title II and III
of H.R. 5005. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of HHS, GAO, CIAO, DOE and its national
laboratories, and other critical infrastructure industry
sectors.
On July 11, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session for the consideration of a Committee Print to provide
recommendations to the Select Committee on Homeland Security
with respect to H.R. 5005, and approved the Committee Print,
without amendment, by voice vote.
On July 12, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
forwarded a report to the Select Committee on Homeland Security
containing the Committee's legislative recommendations to H.R.
5005. Pursuant to House Resolution 449, all Committee's were
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5005 on July 12,
2002.
The key recommendations contained in the Committee Print
were largely adopted by the Select Committee on Homeland
Security on July 19, 2002, as part of its reporting of H.R.
5005, by a 5-4 vote, to the floor for consideration by the
House. The Select Committee on Homeland Security reported H.R.
5005 to the House, as amended, on July 24, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-
609, Part I), pursuant to a special order.
The House considered H.R. 5005 on July 25 and 26, 2002,
pursuant to H. Res. 502. The House passed H.R. 5005, as
amended, on July 26, 2002, by a roll call vote of 295 yeas and
132 nays.
H.R. 5005 was received in the Senate, read twice, and
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders
on July 30, 2002. The Senate began consideration of H.R. 5005
on September 4, 2002, and on November 19, 2002, the Senate
passed H.R. 5005 with an amendment by a record vote of 90 yeas
and 9 nays.
On November 22, 2002, the message on Senate action was sent
to the House, and the House agreed to the Senate amendment by
unanimous consent. That same day, H.R. 5005 was cleared for the
White House and presented to the President. On November 25,
2002, H.R. 5005 was signed by the President (Public Law No:
107-296).
Oversight Activities
THE NETWORKS' ELECTION NIGHT 2000 COVERAGE
Shortly after the November 2000 Presidential election, the
Committee began a critical review of the media's coverage of
Election Night 2000, concerned about a series of incorrect
projections made by the major television and cable networks
during the evening and potential bias in polling and reporting
practices. The Committee sent information requests to CBS, NBC,
ABC, Fox, CNN, the Associated Press (AP), and the Voter News
Service (VNS)--the exit polling and vote-gathering conglomerate
owned by all the major networks and the AP--requesting
documentation on their polling and reporting systems, including
how and why they ``called'' certain states for a Presidential
candidate and the role that exit polls and incorrect and
incomplete VNS data played in their projections. Committee
staff met with representatives of the networks and VNS to
discuss the problems and their plans to avoid similar ones in
the future.
On February 14, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing on the problems that arose on
election night in November 2000. Witnesses at the hearing
included the heads of all the major networks, as well as top
officials from the AP and VNS. Also testifying at the hearing
were several experts who performed independent reviews of the
problems that occurred on election night. At the hearing, the
networks made a variety of pledges to the Committee regarding
how they intended to report on future elections, including
promises not to call any state for a particular candidate until
all of the polls within that state were closed, to use a
secondary source of voting and polling data to serve as a check
on VNS, and to either reform VNS' operations or refrain from
using its data. Recently, Committee majority staff contacted
the networks prior to the November 2002 elections to discuss
the status of these corrective actions.
COMBATTING BIOTERRORISM
On November 15, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing on bioterrorism and the proposals to
combat bioterrorism. The hearing was held in response to the
anthrax attacks in October 2001, and was based on more than
three years of previous Committee oversight activity in areas
relating to the efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) to counter bioterrorism. Those efforts
included reviewing: regulatory controls on dangerous biological
agents; Federal, state and local disease surveillance and
outbreak response, including as related to anthrax; health-
related information and communication systems; and CDC
laboratory security. The purpose of the hearing was to evaluate
the effectiveness and direction of CDC's overall public health
strategies and capabilities directly relevant to bioterrorism
preparedness and response, and to provide background
information for the Committee as it considered legislation to
improve these activities at the Federal and state levels. The
Committee heard testimony from the Secretary of the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), who was accompanied by the
Director of CDC, and the head of the HHS Office of Public
Health Preparedness. Subsequent to the hearing, the Committee
developed and the Congress passed bipartisan legislation to
address matters relating to bioterrorism, entitled ``The Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002.'' For a full description of this legislation, refer to
the Full Committee Legislation section of the Committee's
Activity Report for the 107th Congress.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM ENRON'S COLLAPSE: AUDITING THE ACCOUNTING INDUSTRY
On February 6, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing entitled ``Developments Relating to
Enron Corp., Including Its Relationship with Andersen LLP.''
The hearing focused on the adequacy of current Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and corporate disclosure
as well as corporate governance and accounting governance.
Witnesses included accounting experts, securities law experts,
representatives from the securities industry, and corporate
governance associations.
Hearings Held
Election Night 2000 Coverage by the Networks.--Oversight
hearing on the Election Night 2000 Coverage by the Networks.
Hearing held on February 14, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
25.
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001.--
Hearing on H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband
Deployment Act of 2001. Hearing held on April 25, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-24.
Bioterrorism and Proposals to Combat Bioterrorism.--
Oversight hearing on Bioterrorism and Proposals to Combat
Bioterrorism. Hearing held on November 15, 2001. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-72.
Developments Relating to Enron Corp., Including its
Relationship with Andersen LLP.--Oversight hearing on
Developments Relating to Enron Corp., Including its
Relationship with Andersen LLP. Hearing held on February 6,
2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-83.
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(Ratio 16-13)
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman LOIS CAPPS, California
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois JANE HARMAN, California
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
ED BRYANT, Tennessee EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
MARY BONO, California ANNA G. ESHOO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Ex Officio)
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign commerce, including all trade
matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; regulation of
commercial practices (the FTC), including sports-related matters;
consumer affairs and consumer protection, including privacy matters
generally; consumer product safety (the CPSC); and product liability;
and motor vehicle safety; and, regulation of travel, tourism, and time.
Legislative Activities
sarbanes-oxley act of 2002
Public Law 107-204 (H.R. 3763, S. 2673)
(Accounting Provisions)
To protect investors by improving the accuracy and
reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the
securities laws, and for other purposes.
Summary
Title I of Public Law 107-204 contains two provisions that
fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. First, section 108 permits the Securities and
Exchange Commission to recognize accounting standards set by
private sector organizations as authoritative for the purpose
of compliance with the Federal securities laws. The private
sector organizations must meet the criteria set forth in
section 108, including that the organizations be private and
funded by public companies in the manner set forth in section
109. Additionally, the standard setting body must have proven
the ability to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of
financial reporting, as determined by the Commission.
Section 109 establishes a funding mechanism for private
standard setting organizations that are recognized by the
Commission for purposes of compliance with the Federal
securities laws. The funding is derived from a fee imposed on
publicly traded companies.
Legislative History
H.R. 3763 was introduced in the House on February 14, 2002
by Mr. Oxley and referred to the Committee on Financial
Services. On April 22, 2002, H.R. 3763 was reported, as
amended, by the Committee on Financial Services (H. Rept. 107-
414). On April 23, the Rules Committee granted a rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 3763. The rule was filed in the
House as H. Res. 395. On April 24, 2002, the House passed H.
Res. 395.
Pursuant to H. Res. 395, the House considered H.R. 3763 on
April 24, 2002 and passed by a recorded vote 334 yeas and 90
nays.
On April 25, 2002, H.R. 3763 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs. On July 15, 2002, the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs was discharged of H.R. 3763 and the
measure was laid before the Senate. The Senate struck all after
the enacting clause and substituted the language of S. 2673,
amended. H.R. 3763 passed the Senate with an amendment by voice
vote on July 15, 2002.
The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a
conference on July 15, 2002 and on July 17, 2002 the Senate
appointed conferees.
On July 17, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and the Speaker appointed conferees from the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of sections
of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to
conference, within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On July 19, 2002, a conference was held. On July 24, 2002,
the conferees agreed to file conference report (H. Rept. 107-
610).
On July 25, 2002 Mr. Oxley brought up conference report H.
Rept. 107-610 by previously agreed to special order. The House
agreed to the report by a roll call vote of 423 yeas and 3
nays. On July 25, 2002, the Senate agreed to the conference
report record vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays.
On July 26, 2002 the legislation was cleared for the White
House and presented to the President. The President signed it
into law on July 30, 2002 (Public Law 107-204).
LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES
Public Law 107-319 (H.R. 727)
To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that
low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject to
such Act.
Summary
H.R. 727 amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide
that low-speed electric bicycles are consumer products subject
to that 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.
H.R. 727 then amends the Consumer Product Safety Act to
transfer jurisdiction over low-speed electric bicycles to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), where those bicycles
would be regulated similarly to human-powered bicycles.
Legislative History
H.R. 727 was introduced in the House by Mr. Stearns and six
cosponsors on February 27, 2001. The bill was referred solely
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 5, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session to consider H.R. 727, and ordered
reported, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 727 to the House
(H. Rpt. 107-5). The House considered H.R. 727 under suspension
of the rules on March 6, 2001, and passed H.R. 727 by a roll
call vote of 401 yeas to 1 nay.
On March 7, 2001, H.R. 727 was received in the Senate and
read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
On November 18, 2002, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation discharged H.R. 727 by unanimous consent,
and the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
H.R. 727 was cleared for the White House on November 18,
2002, and was presented to the President on November 22, 2002.
The President signed H.R. 727 on December 4, 2002 (Public Law
107-319).
ANTON'S LAW
Public Law 107-318 (H.R. 5504, s. 980)
To provide for the improvement of the safety of child
restraints in passenger motor vehicles, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5504 requires the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to initiate a rulemaking to establish
performance requirements for child restraints, including
booster seats, for the restraint of children over 50 pounds.
The rulemaking should consider: (1) whether to include injury
performance criteria for child restraints; (2) whether to
establish performance requirements for seatbelt fit when used
with booster seats; (3) whether to address situations when
children weighing over 50 pounds only have access to seats with
lap belts; and, (4) whether to review the definition of
``booster seat.'' This rulemaking must be completed within 30
months after enactment. H.R. 5504 also requires NHTSA to
develop and evaluate an anthropomorphic testing device to
simulate a 10-year old child within 24 months of enactment. A
rulemaking to adopt such a testing device must be completed
within one year after the device is developed and evaluated.
The bill also requires auto manufacturers to install three-
point shoulder and lap belts in the rear seats, unless NHTSA
determines that such belts are not ``practicable.'' These
three-point seatbelts must be installed in all vehicles over a
three-year implementation schedule. The bill directs NHTSA to
evaluate the use of integrated or built-in child restraints and
booster seats. This report must be completed within 180 days of
enactment and transmitted to Congress. Finally, the bill
authorizes $5 million to the Department of Transportation to
complete the evaluation of integrated child safety restraints
and for research into the nature and causes of injury to
children in auto collisions.
Legislative History
H.R. 5504 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus on October 1, 2002
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered H.R. 5504
reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote on October
2, 2002. On October 7, 2002, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 5504 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-726).
On October 15, 2002, H.R. 5504 passed the House by
unanimous consent.
The Senate received H.R. 5504 and read it twice on October
15, 2002. On October 18, 2002, the bill passed the Senate by
unanimous consent.
H.R. 5504 was presented to the President on November 26,
2002, and was signed by the President on December 4, 2002
(Public Law 107-319).
REAL INTERSTATE DRIVER EQUITY ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-298 (H.R. 2546)
To amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit States
from requiring a license or fee on account of the fact that a
motor vehicle is providing interstate pre-arranged ground
transportation service, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2546 amends Federal transportation law to prohibit a
state or political subdivision or an Interstate agency of two
or more states from enacting or enforcing any law, rule, or
regulation requiring a license or fee on account of the fact
that a motor vehicle is providing pre-arranged ground
transportation service, if the motor carrier providing such
service meets all applicable registration and vehicle and
Intrastate passenger licensing requirements, and is providing
such service, including intermediate stops in another state
without taking on new passengers, pursuant to a contract for
Interstate and Intrastate passenger travel.
Legislative History
H.R. 2546 was introduced in the House by Mr. Blunt and 18
cosponsors on July 18, 2001, and was referred to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
On November 7, 2001, the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2546
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote. The Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 2546 to the
House on November 13, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-282).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure exchanged correspondence on
November 13, 2001 concerning each Committee's jurisdiction over
H.R. 2546.
On November 13, 2001, the House considered H.R. 2546 under
suspension of the rules and approved the bill by voice vote.
On November 14, 2001, H.R. 2546 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. The Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation ordered H.R. 2546 to be reported with amendments
favorably on April 18, 2002. On August 1, 2002, Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation reported to the Senate
with amendments, and with a written report (S. Rpt. 107-237).
On October 17, 2002, the Senate passed H.R. 2546, as
amended, by unanimous consent. A message on the Senate action
was sent to the House on October 21, 2002.
On November 12, 2002, the House passed H.R. 2546, as
amended by the Senate, under suspension of the rules, by voice
vote clearing the measure for the White House.
H.R. 2546 was presented to the President on November 15,
2002, and the President signed the bill on November 26, 2002
(Public Law 107-298).
MADE IN AMERICA INFORMATION ACT
(H.R. 725)
Directs the Secretary of Commerce to provide for the
establishment of a toll-free telephone number to assist
consumers in determining whether products are American-made.
Summary
H.R. 727 directs the Secretary of Commerce, upon a
determination that there is sufficient manufacturer interest
and that manufacturers will provide fees so the program will
operate without Federal Government cost, to establish a three-
year toll-free telephone number pilot program solely to help
inform consumers whether a product with a retail value of at
least $250 is made in America. The bill requires the Secretary
to contract for the establishment and operation of such pilot
program. In addition, H.R. 727 directs the Secretary to propose
regulations to: (1) establish a voluntary product registration
procedure; (2) establish and collect a fee to cover
registration costs; (3) establish the pilot program; and, (4)
assess manufacturer interest in the program. The bill also
imposes civil monetary and Federal procurement penalties for
knowingly registering a product that is not American made.
Legislative History
H.R. 725 was introduced by Mr. Traficant on February 26,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 13, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 725 reported to the
House, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee
on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 725 to the House (H. Rpt.
107-21).
The House considered H.R. 725 under Suspension of the Rules
on March 14, 2001 and passed H.R. 725, as amended, by a roll
call vote of 407 yeas and 3 nays.
On March 15, 2001, H.R. 725 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. 725 in the 107th
Congress.
PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT
(H.R. 2037)
To amend the Act establishing the Department of Commerce to
protect manufacturers and sellers in the firearms and
ammunition industry from restrictions on interstate or foreign
commerce
Summary
H.R. 2037 directs the Secretary of Commerce to establish
and maintain a list of each person that notifies the Secretary
that it is a manufacturer or seller that is licensed to engage
in interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm or ammunition
product; or is a trade association representing such
manufacturers or sellers. H.R. 2037 also declares that any
lawful conduct carried out by a manufacturer or seller in
interstate or foreign commerce of a firearm or ammunition
product, or lawful conduct carried out by a trade association
in the course of representing such manufacturers or sellers,
shall not be the basis for imposing a restriction on such
commerce (the award of civil damages, equitable relief, or any
other specified limitation) as a result of harm caused by the
criminal or other unlawful misuse of such firearm or ammunition
product by any other person.
Legislative History
H.R. 2037 was introduced in the House by Mr. Stearns and
100 cosponsors on May 25, 2001. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the
Judiciary.
On April 18, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 2037. The
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the
firearms manufacturing industry and anti-gun violence advocacy
groups. On May 9, 2002, the Subcommittee met in open markup
session and approved H.R. 2037 for Full Committee
consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
On October 2, 1002, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and reported H.R. 2037, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 18 yeas to 7 nays.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2037 in the 107th
Congress.
AMERICAN SPIRIT FRAUD PROTECTION ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 2985)
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil
penalties for violations involving certain prescribed acts or
practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or
major disaster declared by the President, and to authorize the
Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such
violations in actions brought under section 13 of that Act.
Summary
H.R. 2985 amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to double
civil penalties imposed for committing unfair or deceptive acts
or practices if such acts or practices exploit popular reaction
during a presidentially-declared emergency or disaster period,
and directs the courts to impose a monetary civil penalty on a
person found to have committed such a violation during such a
presidentially-declared emergency or disaster period.
Legislative History
H.R. 2985 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bass and
fifteen cosponsors on October 2, 2001. The bill was referred
solely to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On October 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 2985 for Full Committee consideration, without amendment,
by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 11, 2001,
the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered
reported H.R. 2985, without amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present. The Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2985 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-276). The House
considered H.R. 2985 under suspension of the rules on November
13, 2001, and passed H.R. 2985 by a voice vote.
On November 14, 2001, H.R. 2985 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. 2985 in the 107th
Congress.
AMERICAN TRAVEL PROMOTION ACT
(H.R. 3321)
To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to
States for advertising that stimulates economic activity by
promoting travel and tourism.
Summary
H.R. 3321 directs the Secretary of Commerce to provide
grants, based on a specified formula, to qualified State
agencies for advertising to promote travel and tourism. The
federal share of costs of travel and tourism promotion
activities is capped at 50 percent.
Legislative History
H.R. 3321 was introduced in the House by Mr. Foley and six
cosponsors on November 16, 2001. H.R. 3321 was referred solely
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 3321. The
Subcommittee received testimony from two Members of Congress,
and representatives from the travel and tourism industry.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3321 in the 107th
Congress.
THE STEEL INDUSTRY LEGACY RELIEF ACT OF 2002
(H.R. 4646)
For the federal government to create and support a health
insurance program for steel industry retirees whose employers
were or are in danger of being driven out of business by
imports.
Summary
H.R. 4646 directs the federal government to create and
support a program of health insurance for the retirees of
steel, iron ore, and coke companies. These firms have either
been driven out of business or severely threatened by the
recent steel import crisis. Once enrolled in the program,
retirees and their beneficiaries will receive major medical and
prescription drug coverage. The primary aim of the bill is to
secure health insurance for several hundred thousand retirees
who have or soon will lose all retiree benefits. This
legislation gives existing American steel companies a right of
first refusal to acquire failing American steel companies.
Legislative History
H.R. 4646 was introduced in the House by Mr. Dingell on May
2, 2002, and 98 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy & Commerce and the Committee on Education
and Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On September 10, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R.
4646. The Subcommittee received testimony from organization
representing active and retired steelworkers, a health benefits
manager for an American integrated steel company, and an
organization representing ``mini-mill'' steel manufacturers.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4646 in the 107th
Congress.
THE CONSUMER PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 2002
(H.R. 4678)
To protect and enhance consumer privacy, cybersecurity and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4678, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2002,
requires that any organization, excluding government agencies,
not-for-profits and small businesses, that collects, sells,
discloses for consideration, or uses a consumer's personally
identifiable information (PII) for a purpose unrelated to the
consumer transaction shall provide to that consumer a notice of
such activity upon the first instance of collection of that
consumer's PII. The organization must also establish a privacy
policy which has elements that must be accessible at the time
the organization first collects a consumer's PII and
subsequently. In addition, the organization must provide the
consumer the opportunity to preclude the sale or disclosure for
consideration of his/her PII to any other organization that is
not an information-sharing partner of the organization.
Enforcement, under the bill, is the exclusive domain of the
Federal Trade Commission. The bill also creates a structure for
the approval of self-regulatory programs, preempts state
action, forecloses private right of action, applies to both
online and offline data collection activities, has an
information security obligation, and addresses international
privacy regimes.
Legislative History
On May 8, 2002, Mr. Stearns introduced H.R. 4678, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and,
in addition, to the Committee on International Relations, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 4678 on September
24, 2002. The Subcommittee received testimony from six
representatives of the large private sector collectors, sellers
and users of consumer data, and one consumer privacy advocate.
No further action occurred on H.R. 4678 in the 107th
Congress.
SPORTS AGENT RESPONSIBILTY AND TRUST ACT
(H.R. 4701)
To designate certain conduct by sports agents relating to
the signing of contracts with student athletes as unfair or
deceptive acts or practices to be regulated by the Federal
Trade Commission.
Summary
H.R. 4701 amends section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act to provide that certain acts by sports agents or their
associates are unfair or deceptive acts or practices. First,
the legislation creates new disclosure requirements for sports
agents prior to entering into an agency agreement with a
student athlete. Second, it defines certain activities
regarding the conduct of sports agents as unfair or deceptive
acts under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Third, the legislation authorizes the FTC and state attorneys
general to enforce violations of the Act and creates a private
right of action for educational institutions against sports
agents for certain violations of the Act.
Legislative History
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held an oversight hearing on various issues
affecting amateur athletics on February 13, 2002. The
Subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress,
collegiate associations, and the gaming association.
On May 9, 2002, H.R. 4701 was introduced by Congressman
Bart Gordon and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a legislative hearing on June 5, 2002. The
Subcommittee received testimony from a Member of Congress, a
collegiate athletic director, the Federal Trade Commission, and
the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The Subcommittee met in open markup session on July 17,
2002 to consider H.R. 4701, and approved H.R. 4701, as amended,
for Full Committee consideration by voice vote. On September
25, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 4701 favorably reported to the House, as amended,
by voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee on Energy
and Commerce reported H.R. 4701 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-725)
on October 7, 2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4701 in the 107th
Congress.
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD ACT
(H.R. 5058)
To preserve the integrity of the establishment of
accounting standards by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB).
Summary
H.R. 5058 recognizes FASB standards as authoritative for
federal regulatory programs and articulates FASB's duty to
establish and improve accounting and reporting standards. H.R.
5058 requires FASB to promulgate and revise standards based on
fundamental principles of usefulness, transparency and
comprehensibility. It requires FASB to promulgate a primary
standard prohibiting the application of any other standard in a
manner that fails to comply with principles of usefulness,
transparency and comprehensibility. H.R. 5058 also directs FASB
to promulgate or revise standards in areas in which current
standards are unresolved or deficient. Those areas include
accounting for off-balance sheet transactions and special
purpose entities, mark-to-market accounting, fair value
accounting and revenue recognition.
Legislative History
On June 26, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on a Committee print of the
FASB Act. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Chairman
of the FASB, accounting professors, a law professor, and a
former state comptroller.
H.R. 5058 was introduced in the House by Mr. Stearns and
eight cosponsors on June 27, 2002. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 10, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 5058, as amended, for Full Committee Consideration by a
voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5058 in the 107th
Congress.
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE HISPANIC CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
(H. Con. Res. 277)
Recognizing the important contributions of the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 277 expresses the sense of Congress that it is
important to the promotion of the free market process of the
United States, to the future success of Hispanic Americans, and
to society at large that the special role of the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce of the United States be recognized and
further cultivated to the benefit of all Americans.
Legislative History
On November 19, 2001, Mr. Paul introduced H. Con. Res. 277,
which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
The House considered H. Con. Res. 277 under suspension of
the rules on December 4, 2001 and passed the bill by voice
vote.
On December 5, 2001, H. Con. Res. 277 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 277 in the
107th Congress.
Oversight Activities
CONSUMER INFORMATION PRIVACY
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a series of oversight hearings on March 1,
2001, March 8, 2001, April 3, 2001, May 8, 2001, June 21, 2001,
and July 26, 2001, examining a large array of issues relating
to consumer information privacy in the commercial context. The
Subcommittee took extensive testimony on: (1) the limitations
imposed by the U.S. Constitution to regulating free speech; (2)
the implications of the EU Directive on data protection on U.S.
law and private sector activity; (3) existing Federal laws in
the area of privacy; (4) the value and results of opinion
surveys on the subject of privacy; (5) the best practices of
companies and new technological solutions to protecting
consumer privacy; and, (6) the real uses of consumer
information by companies. Witnesses included constitutional
scholars, representatives from a variety of industries,
consumer groups and representatives from foreign governments.
The hearings highlighted a number of information privacy issues
as related to commercial activities and the need for additional
legislation to protect American consumers' privacy in the
commercial context.
AIRLINE MERGERS
On March 21, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on pending
airline mergers. The hearing focused on the potential for
consolidation in the airline industry and the consequences for
consumers. Testimony was received from Members of Congress,
representatives of the airline industry, travel agents, and
consumer protection groups.
ELECTRONIC COMMERCE
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
held a series of oversight hearings on challenges facing
electronic commerce. In addition to discussions of online
privacy, six other hearings were held on electronic commerce,
or e-commerce, matters. The hearings examined issues such as
cyber security, cyber fraud, state and international regulatory
impediments to e-commerce, and online travel sites.
The Subcommittee's first oversight hearing on e-commerce
examined the impediments to digital trade and took place on May
22, 2001. The subcommittee received testimony highlighting the
growing significance of digital trade or international e-
commerce and on legal and regulatory impediments confronting
international e-commerce. The Subcommittee received testimony
from the chief American negotiator at the Hague Convention on
Private International Law, industry representatives from the
telecommunications industry, an association, and an
international law expert.
The Subcommittee's second oversight hearing on e-commerce
held on May 23, 2001 was an examination of online fraud and
crime, and whether or not consumers were safe. The Subcommittee
received testimony on the nature and extent of fraud and crime
perpetrated against the American consumer online from
representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Secret Service, the
Department of Justice, a consumers group, and a financial
services company.
The third oversight hearing held by the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection in its series on e-
commerce was held on November 15, 2001. The hearing focused on
assessing threats to cyber security and measures undertaken by
private industry to secure online commerce. The witnesses
included cyber security experts from a financial company, a
research and engineering firm, a telecommunications company, an
Internet security company, a software company, an information
technology company and an association.
The fourth in the Subcommittee's oversight hearings on e-
commerce was held on July 18,2002. The hearing examined
supplier-owned online travel sites and if these sites were good
for the consumer. The subcommittee received testimony as to
whether supplier-owned online travel sites, such as sites owned
by airlines and national hotel chains, advance consumer
interests. The witnesses included representatives from a
consumer association, online travel sites, a travel agent
organization, and a technology association.
The Subcommittee completed its oversight hearings on e-
commerce on September 26, 2002, with a hearing examining
whether state legal and/or regulatory consumer protections
restrict e-commerce, and if, in some cases, they are used to
protect local competitors. The Subcommittee received testimony
from a policy institute, an online auction company, a wine
association, an eye contact company, and the Federal Trade
Commission.
INDUSTRY TIRE RECALL
On June 19, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation on the industry
recall of certain Firestone tires. The hearing focused on Ford
Motor Company's decision to voluntarily recall all Firestone
Wilderness AT tires on all of its vehicles, and the safety
implications of such an action. Testimony was received from the
industry participants and the Department of Transportation.
HEALTH INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION AND GENETIC TESTS
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the potential
for discrimination in health insurance based on predictive
genetic tests. The hearing addressed current law, programs and
practices concerning eligibility criteria and rate setting in
health insurance and their relationship to new predictive
genetic tests. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Members of
Congress, a health insurance association, an organization
examining genetics, a genetics company, and a law professor.
FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD
On July 31, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on current issues
before the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). The
hearing focused on FASB's final standards for the business
combinations projects and the efforts of FASB and the
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) to work towards
harmonization of international accounting standards. Witnesses
included the Chairman of the FASB, a Member of the Board of the
IASB and a representative from the American Business
Conference.
THE U.S. TOURISM INDUSTRY
On October 17, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the state
of the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The hearing focused on
the effects of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the
different segments of the industry, particularly the impact on
industries and destinations dependent upon air travel.
Witnesses included Members of Congress, the Department of
Commerce, and industry representatives.
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
held an oversight hearing on November 7, 2001. The hearing
focused on the challenges facing the Federal Trade Commission
under the new Chairman, and outlined the Commission's agenda
under his leadership, specifically the Commission's enforcement
and programmatic priorities. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS IN THE WAKE OF SEPTEMBER 11TH
On December 19, 2001, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Electronic
Communications Networks (ECNs) in the wake of September 11th.
The hearing focused on the state of the financial markets after
September 11th and regulatory barriers to market continuity in
emergency circumstances. Witnesses included representatives
from several ECNs and exchanges
CHALLENGES FACING AMATEUR ATHLETICS
On February 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the
challenges facing amateur athletics. The hearing focused on the
issues of the commercialization of amateur athletics, the
effect of gambling on amateur athletics, and student athlete
welfare. Testimony was received from Members of Congress,
collegiate athletic association, current student athletes,
private industry associations, and private foundations.
ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
On February 14, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing that focused
on whether Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP)
provided transparency in financial statements and specifically
examined off balance sheet and mark-to-market accounting.
Witnesses included the Chief Accountant of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), the Chairman of the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB), a representative of a public
accounting organization, a representative from a professional
organization for senior financial executives, a representative
from an organization of large pensions, and an accounting
professor.
TREAD ACT
On February 28, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act. The hearing focused on the
implementation of the TREAD Act and the progress one year
following enactment. Testimony was received from a
representative from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the Office of Management and Budget, and
Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General.
THE FTC'S FRANCHISE RULE
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
held an oversight hearing on June 25, 2002 concerning the FTC's
Franchise Rule twenty-three years after its promulgation. The
hearing examined whether the FTC's franchise rule needed to be
revisited in light of changes in franchising that had occurred
in the past quarter of century since promulgation of the rule.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, a state attorney general's office, franchise
associations, a franchise operators association, and a
corporation.
CORPORATE RESPONSIBLITY
On July 26, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on oath taking,
truth telling and remedies in the business world. The hearing
focused on corporate responsibility, legal ethics and
accounting ethics. Witnesses included a privately held company,
an accounting ethics professor, and two legal ethics
professors.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
On September 4, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. The hearing focused on the
issues facing the Commission and specifically, the priorities
and agenda of the new Consumer Product Safety Commission
Chairman. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Chairman
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVISIONS IN TRADE AGREEMENTS
On October 9, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing that focused
on the inclusion of market access provisions for
telecommunications services in bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements. Witnesses included the Assistant United States
Trade Representative for Industry and Telecommunications, a
public policy research group, a lawyer, and an economics
professor.
ECNS AND MARKET STRUCTURE
On October 17, 2002, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on ECNs and
market structure and ensuring the best prices for consumers.
The hearing focused on a variety of market structure issues
including the impact of NASDAQ's SuperMontage on investors;
market data revenue and rebates; ECN access fees; and the
Intermarket Trading System. Witnesses included representatives
from several ECNs and an exchange.
Hearings Held
Privacy in the Commercial World.--Oversight hearing on
Privacy in the Commercial World. Hearing held on March 1, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-16.
The EU Data Protection Directive: Implications for the U.S.
Privacy Debate.--Oversight hearing on the EU Data Protection
Directive: Implications for the U.S. Privacy Debate. Hearing
held on March 8, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-19.
Airline Mergers and their Effect on American Consumers.--
Oversight hearing on Airline Mergers and their Effect on
American Consumers. Hearing held on March 21, 2001. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-3.
An Examination of Existing Federal Statutes Addressing
Information Privacy.--Oversight hearing on an Examination of
Existing Federal Statutes Addressing Information Privacy.
Hearing held on April 3, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-22.
Opinion Surveys: What Consumers Have To Say About
Information Privacy.--Oversight hearing on Opinion Surveys:
What Consumers Have To Say About Information Privacy. Hearing
held May 8, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-35.
Impediments to Digital Trade.--Oversight hearing on
Impediments to Digital Trade. Hearing held on May 22, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-36.
On-line Fraud and Crime: Are Consumers Safe?--Oversight
hearing on On-line Fraud and Crime: Are Consumers Safe? Hearing
held on May 23, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-37.
Ford Motor Company's Recall of Certain Firestone Tires.--
Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on Ford Motor Company's Recall of Certain
Firestone Tires. Hearing held on June 19, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-45.
Information Privacy: Industry Best Practices and
Technological Solutions.--Oversight hearing on Information
Privacy: Industry Best Practices and Technological Solutions.
Hearing held on June 21, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-38.
The Potential for Discrimination in Health Insurance Based
on Predictive Genetic Tests.--Oversight hearing on the
Potential for Discrimination in Health Insurance Based on
Predictive Genetic Tests. Hearing held on July 11, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-46.
How Do Businesses Use Customer Information: Is the
Customer's Privacy Protected?--Oversight hearing on How Do
Businesses Use Customer Information: Is the Customer's Privacy
Protected? Hearing held on July 25, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-49.
Current Issues Before the Financial Accounting Standards
Board.--Oversight hearing on Current Issues Before the
Financial Accounting Standards Board. Hearing held on July 31,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-48.
The State of the U.S. Tourism Industry.--Oversight hearing
on the State of the U.S. Tourism Industry. Hearing held on
October 17, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-66.
Challenges Facing the Federal Trade Commission.--Oversight
hearing on Challenges Facing the Federal Trade Commission.
Hearing held on November 7, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
68.
Cyber Security: Private-Sector Efforts Addressing Cyber
Threats.--Oversight hearing on Cyber Security: Private-Sector
Efforts Addressing Cyber Threats. Hearing held on November 15,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-74.
Electronic Communications Networks in the Wake of September
11th.--Oversight hearing on Electronic Communications Networks
in the Wake of September 11th. Hearing held on December 19,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-79.
Challenges Facing Amateur Athletics.--Oversight hearing on
Challenges Facing Amateur Athletics. Hearing held on February
13, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-85.
Are Current Financial Accounting Standards Protecting
Investors?--Oversight hearing on Are Current Financial
Accounting Standards Protecting Investors? Hearing held on
February 14, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-84.
Implementation of the TREAD Act: One Year Later.--Oversight
hearing on Implementation of the TREAD Act: One Year Later.
Hearing held on February 28, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
92.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.--Hearing on H.R.
2037, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Hearing
held on April 18, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-94.
American Travel Promotion Act.--Hearing on H.R. 3321, the
American Travel Promotion Act. Hearing held on May 23, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-103.
Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act.--Hearing on H.R.
4701, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act. Hearing
held on June 5, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-125.
The FTC's Franchise Rule: Twenty-Three Years After Its
Promulgation.--Oversight hearing on the FTC's Franchise Rule:
Twenty-Three Years After Its Promulgation. Hearing held on June
25, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-116.
Financial Accounting Standards Board Act.--Hearing on H.R.
5058, the Financial Accounting Standards Board Act. Hearing
held on June 26, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-109.
Are All Online Travel Sites Good for the Consumer: An
Examination of Supplier-Owned Online Travel Sites.--Oversight
hearing on Are All Online Travel Sites Good for the Consumer:
An Examination of Supplier-Owned Online Travel Sites. Hearing
held on July 18, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-120.
Oath Taking, Truth Telling, and Remedies in the Business
World.--Oversight hearing on Oath Taking, Truth Telling, and
Remedies in the Business World. Hearing held on July 26, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-121.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission: The New Chairman's
Agenda.--Oversight hearing on the Consumer Product Safety
Commission: The New Chairman's Agenda. Hearing held on
September 4, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-128.
Steel Industry Legacy Relief Act of 2002.--Hearing on H.R.
4646, the Steel Industry Legacy Relief Act of 2002. Hearing
held on September 10, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-136.
Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2002.--Hearing on H.R.
4678, the Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2002. Hearing held
on September 24, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-131.
State Impediments to E-Commerce: Consumer Protection or
Veiled Protectionism?--Oversight hearing on State Impediments
to E-Commerce: Consumer Protection or Veiled Protectionism?
Hearing held on September 26, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
130.
Telecommunications and Trade Promotion Authority:
Meaningful Market Access Goals for Telecommunications Services
in International Trade Agreements.--Oversight hearing on
Telecommunications and Trade Promotion Authority: Meaningful
Market Access Goals for Telecommunications Services in
International Trade Agreements. Hearing held on October 9,
2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-138.
ECNs and Market Structure: Ensuring Best Prices for
Consumers.--Oversight hearing on ECNs and Market Structure:
Ensuring Best Prices for Consumers. Hearing held on October 17,
2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-134.
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
(Ratio 18-15)
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER COX, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
Vice Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina TOM SAWYER, Ohio
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GREG GANSKE, Iowa MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
STEVE BUYER, Indiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California (Ex Officio)
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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; the Clean Air Act; and, all laws, programs,
and government activities affecting such matters.
Legislative Activities
farm security act of 2001
Public Law 107-171 (H.R. 2646, S. 1731)
(Energy Related Provisions)
To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Summary
Title IX of the Farm Security Act of 2001 amends the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act by adding a clean
energy subtitle to provide for biobased product development,
biorefinery development grants, biodiesel fuel education
grants, renewable energy and energy efficiency loans and grants
for farmers and ranchers, hydrogen and fuel cell technology
programs, technical assistance for farmers and ranchers to
develop renewable energy resources, and carbon sequestration
research, development, and demonstration programs. Title IX
also amends the Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000 to
authorize funding for biomass research and development. In
addition, Title IX amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936
to provide for financial and technical assistance for renewable
energy projects. Finally, Title IX amends the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 to
provide for a carbon sequestration demonstration program.
Legislative History
H.R. 2646 was introduced by Mr. Combest on July 26, 2001,
and the Committee on Agriculture favorably ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended, on July 27, 2001. On August
2, 2001, the Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 2646 to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-191, Part I). On August 31, 2001, the
Committee on Agriculture filed a supplemental report to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-191, Part II).
On August 2, 2001, H.R. 2646 was referred sequentially to
the House Committee on International Relations for a period
ending not later than September 7, 2001 for consideration of
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(j), rule X.
The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended on September 6, 2001, and was
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than September 10, 2001. On September 10, 2001, the Committee
on International Relations reported H.R. 2646 to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-191, Part III).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Agriculture exchanged correspondence on September 28, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdiction on H.R. 2646.
On October 3, 4, and 5, 2001, the House considered H.R.
2646 pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 248. The House
passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 291 yeas
and 120 nays.
On February 13, 2002, H.R. 2646 was considered in the
Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate struck all after the
Enacting Clause, and substituted the language of S. 1731, as
amended. The Senate then passed H.R. 2646, as amended, by a
record vote of 58 yeas and 40 nays. The Senate insisted on its
amendment and requested a conference on February 13, 2002.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference requested by the Senate.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in the
Senate amendment and modifications committed to conference
falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee on Conference met on April 9 and 10, 2002,
and on May 1, 2002 the conference report was filed. The House
considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H.
Res. 403, on May 1, 2001 by a roll call vote of 280 yeas and
141 nays.
The Senate considered the conference report on May 7 and 8,
2002, and agreed to the conference report by a record vote of
64 yeas and 35 nays on May 8, 2002.
On May 10, 2002, H.R. 2646 was cleared for the White House
and presented to the President. On May 13, 2002, the President
signed H.R. 2646 (Public Law No: 107-171).
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
Public Law 107-107 (H.R. 2586, S. 1438)
(Energy and Air Quality Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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
The Energy and Commerce Committee had jurisdiction over
numerous areas of S. 1438, the FY 2002 Department of Defense
Authorization Act and the House companion measure (H.R. 2586).
Section 316 of S. 1438 authorized the continuation of a pilot
program under which the Secretary of Defense may sell air
emission reduction credits generated by military facilities
under programs designed to meet the air quality requirements of
the Clean Air Act. S. 1438 provided that this program be
extended from September 30, 2001 to September 30, 2003, but
also required that a report be filed with the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the Armed Services Committee concerning
transactions that have been completed under the pilot program,
the extent to which proceeds from the program have provided
incentives, the extent of any loss to the United States
Treasury, and the environmental impact of the pilot program.
Legislative History
H.R. 2586 was introduced by Mr. Stump on July 23, 2001 and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On August 1, 2002,
the Committee on Armed Services met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 2586 reported, as amended.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on September 4, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
2586.
Pursuant to a unanimous consent request, on September 4,
2001, the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 2586 to
the House (H. Rpt 107-194).
H.R. 2586 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res.
246, and on September 25, 2001, the House passed the bill by a
vote of 398 yeas and 17 nays.
H.R. 2586 was received in the Senate on September 26, 2002,
read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. On June 18, 2002, the Senate indefinitely
postponed consideration of H.R. 2586 by unanimous consent.
The Senate passed S. 1438, which was introduced on
September 19, 2001, by Senator Levin, on October 2, 2001 by a
record vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays. The bill was received in the
House on October 4, 2001 and held at the desk.
On October 17, 2001, the House struck all after the
enacting clause of S. 1438 and inserted in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 2586, and passed the bill without objection.
The House insisted on its amendment and requested a conference
with the Senate on October 17, 2001. A motion by Mr. Stump was
agreed to by a roll call vote of 420 yeas and 0 nays to close
portions of the conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in
the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications
committed to conference falling within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
The Senate disagreed to the House amendment and agreed to
the House's request to go to conference on October 17, 2001 and
appointed conferees.
The Conference Committee met on October 31, 2001 and
November 1, 2001. The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-333) was
filed on December 12, 2001.
Pursuant to H. Res. 316, on December 13, 2001, the House
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 382 yeas
and 40 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report as well
on December 13, 2001 by a record vote of 96 yeas and 2 nays.
H. Con. Res. 288 passed the House and the Senate on
December 13, 2001, by unanimous consent to correct the
enrollment of S. 1438.
On December 13, 2001, S. 1438 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on December 20,
2001, and on December 28, 2001, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-107).
YUCCA MOUNTAIN RESOLUTION
Public Law 107-200 (H. J. Res. 87)
Approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the
development of a repository for the disposal of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Summary
H. J. Res. 87 approves the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-
level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, in accordance
with procedures under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 (NWPA).
Legislative History
H. J. Res. 87 was introduced in the House by Mr. Barton and
11 cosponsors on April 11, 2002. The text of the resolution is
the exact wording as required pursuant to section 115 of the
NWPA of 1982.
On April 18, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a hearing to review the President's approval and
recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site in
Nevada be developed as the nation's long-term repository for
the disposal of radioactive waste. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the Secretary of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear
Waste Technical Review Board, the General Accounting Office, as
well as representatives of the nuclear industry, a labor union,
and an environmental group.
On April 23, 2002, the Subcommittee considered H. J. Res.
87 in open markup session, and forwarded the bill, without
amendment, to the Full Committee on a recorded vote of 24 yeas
and 2 nays. On April 25, 2002, the Full Committee met in open
markup session to consider the resolution, and ordered H. J.
Res. 87 reported to the House, without amendment, by a recorded
vote of 41 yeas and 6 nays. On May 1, 2002, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce reported H .J. Res. 87 to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-425).
On May 8, 2002, the resolution was considered by the House
pursuant to 115(e)(4) of the NWPA. H. J. Res. 87 passed the
House, without amendment, by a roll call vote of 306 yeas and
117 nays.
On May 9, 2002, H. J. Res. 87 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 10135(d)(5)(A), placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
On July 7, 2002, the Senate passed H. J. Res. 87 in lieu of
S. J. Res. 34, without amendment, by voice vote.
The resolution was cleared for the White House on July 9,
2002, and presented to the President on July 10, 2002. The
President signed the bill on July 23, 2002 (Public Law 107-
200).
THORIUM REIMBURSEMENT
Public Law 107-222 (H.R. 3343)
To amend title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3343 will increase by $225 million the authorization
level for the thorium reimbursement program established
pursuant to Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The bill
also increases deposits to the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund by the same amount,
after adjustments for inflation. In addition, the bill
authorizes appropriations for the Secretary of Energy to
maintain the uranium enrichment facility at Portsmouth, Ohio on
cold standby. Finally, the bill requires the Comptroller
General to conduct an audit of the Uranium Enrichment
Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund and the programs paid
for by the fund, with regard to future costs and needs.
Legislative History
H.R. 3343 was introduced in the House by Mr. Shimkus and
three cosponsors on November 19, 2001. The bill was referred
solely to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Committee did not hold oversight or legislative
hearings on this legislation, and on December 12, 2001, the
Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R.3343
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote. The Committee
on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3343 to the House on
December 18, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-341).
The bill was considered in the House under a suspension of
the rules on December 18, 2001, and passed the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
On December 19, 2001, H.R. 3343 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under Read the First Time. On January 23, 2002, the
bill was read the second time and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
H.R. 3343 passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on August 1, 2002 and was cleared for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on August 13, 2002, and
was signed by the President on August 21, 2002 (Public Law 107-
222).
TEMPORARY WAIVER OF TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW YORK
CITY
Public Law 107-230 (H.R. 3880)
Providing a temporary waiver from certain transportation
conformity requirements and metropolitan transportation
planning requirements under the Clean Air Act and under other
laws for certain areas in New York where the planning offices
and resources have been destroyed by acts of terrorism, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3880 provides the state of New York a temporary waiver
from certain Clean Air Act transportation conformity
requirements and related metropolitan planning requirements of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century until
September 30, 2005, so that New York can implement adjustments
necessary after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the
World Trade Center. Additionally, New York must file an Interim
Progress Report no later than January 1, 2004, detailing the
manner in which the State will achieve compliance with the
transportation conformity requirements no later than the
expiration of the temporary waiver.
Legislative History
On March 6, 2002, Mr. Fossella introduced H.R. 3880, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On July 24, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality met in open markup session and approved H.R. 3880 for
Full Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice
vote. On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce met in open markup session and favorably ordered H.R.
3880 reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure exchanged correspondence on
September 5, 2002 concerning each Committee's jurisdictional
prerogatives regarding H.R. 3880.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3880 to
the House on September 9, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-649, Part I). The
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
September 9, 2002.
On September 10, 2002, the House considered H.R. 3880 under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 377 yeas to 0 nays.
H.R. 3880 was received in the Senate on September 11, 2002,
and read twice. On September 12, 2002, the Senate passed H.R.
3880 without amendment by unanimous consent and was cleared for
the White House.
H.R. 3880 was presented to the President on September 20,
2002. On October 1, 2002, the President signed H.R. 3880
(Public Law 107-230).
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
Public Law 107-314 (H.R. 4546, S. 2514)
(Energy and Air Quality Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4546 as enacted contained provisions under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 4546
extends Price Anderson indemnification authorities until
December 31, 2004 for Department of Energy (DOE) contractors.
The bill also requires DOE to promulgate regulations for
industrial and construction health and safety at DOE facilities
operated by contractors covered by Price Anderson indemnity
agreements. The regulations are to be substantially equivalent
to the level of protection currently provided to workers at
these facilities. In addition, the bill authorizes a
cooperative program on research, development, and demonstration
of technology regarding nuclear or radiological terrorism. H.R.
4546 also authorizes $19 million for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board.
Legislative History
Mr. Stump introduced H.R. 4546 on April 23, 2002, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On May 1,
2002, the Committee on Armed Services met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 4546 reported to the House, as
amended, by a roll call vote of 57 yeas and 1 nay.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on May 2, 2002
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
4546.
On May 3, 2002, the Committee on Armed Services reported
the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-436), and on May 6, 2002 the
Committee filed a supplemental report (H. Rpt. 107-436, Part
II).
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 415, the House
considered H.R. 4546 on May 9 and 10, 2002. On May 10, 2002,
the House passed the bill by a roll call vote of 359 yeas and
58 nays.
On May 14, 2002, H.R. 4546 was received in the Senate, an
on May 16, 2002 the bill was read twice and placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
On June 27, 2002, the Senate called up H.R. 4546, struck
all after the enacting clause, inserting its own version of
this legislation, S. 2514, and passed it on June 27, 2002 by
unanimous consent. In addition, the Senate insisted upon its
amendment, requested a conference with the House, and appointed
conferees.
Pursuant to H. Res. 500, on July 25, 2002, the House agreed
to an amendment to the Senate passed version of H.R. 4546
without objection. The House insisted upon its amendment to the
Senate amendment, and agreed to go to conference without
objection. A motion to close portions of the conference was
agreed to without objection.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in
the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications
committed to conference falling within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment by unanimous consent, agreed
to a conference, and appointed conferees.
The Conference Committee met on September 5, 10, 11, and
12, 2002. The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-172) was filed on
November 12, 2002.
The House agreed to the conference report by voice vote on
November 12, 2002, and the Senate agreed to the conference
report on November 13, 2002 by voice vote.
On November 13, 2002, H.R. 4546 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on November 26,
2002, and on December 2, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-314).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Public Law 107-322 (S. 1010)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
a hydroelectric project in the State of North Carolina.
Summary
S. 1010 extends the statutory deadline for the commencement
of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of
North Carolina. 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 of 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. 1010
authorizes FERC to extend the deadline for the commencement of
construction of a project in North Carolina for up to three
consecutive 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. 1010 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Helms on
June 11, 2001, where it was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
The Committee ordered S. 1010 reported without amendment on
June 5, 2002. On June 28, 2002, the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources reported S. 1010 to the Senate with a written
report (Senate Rpt. 107-192). The bill was placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
S. 101 passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent on August 1, 2002.
On September 4, 2002, S. 1010 was received in the House and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee
on Energy and Commerce discharged S. 1010 on November 15, 2002,
and bill was considered by unanimous consent and passed the
House without objection on November 15, 2002.
S. 1010 was cleared for the White House on November 15,
2002. The bill was presented to the President on November 22,
2002, and on December 4, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-322).
PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION TO ENHANCE SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT
Public Law 107-355 (H.R. 3609)
To amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance the
security and safety of pipelines.
Summary
H.R. 3609 reauthorizes the natural gas and hazardous liquid
pipeline safety programs set forth in 49 U.S.C. section 60101,
et seq., through fiscal year 2006. In addition, H.R. 3609
imposes additional Congressional requirements on the Office of
Pipeline Safety such as requiring the Secretary of
Transportation to conduct rule-makings in (1) the certification
of pipeline qualification programs; (2) integrity management
programs; (3) security of pipeline facilities; and, (4)
inspections by direct assessment. H.R. 3609 also gives the
Secretary of Transportation more latitude in the areas of
safety orders and penalties so that the Secretary does not have
to wait until a pipeline facility is hazardous before requiring
corrective action by the pipeline facility operator. The
amounts of money authorized for appropriations have been
increased because of the additional requirements imposed upon
the Office of Pipeline Safety.
H.R. 3609 provides for the coordination of environmental
reviews for pipeline repairs, the establishment of a legal
framework to protect employees providing pipeline safety
information, and for the establishment of a nationwide 3-digit
toll free number for state one-call programs. This bill also
includes studies on population encroachment and establishes a
research and development program to ensure the integrity of
pipelines. Furthermore, this bill allows the Secretary of
Transportation to make grants for technical assistance to local
communities and groups of individuals relating to pipeline
safety in local communities.
Legislative History
H.R. 3609 was introduced in the House on December 20, 2001
by Mr. Young of Alaska and 43 cosponsors. The bill was referred
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 19, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a hearing on H.R. 3609. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the National Transportation Safety Board, the
U.S. General Accounting Office, industry, non-profit and
environmental organizations.
On May 23, 2002, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure ordered H.R. 3609 reported, as amended.
On June 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality met in open markup session and approved the bill H.R.
3609 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice
vote, a quorum being present.
On June 13, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R 3609 favorably reported to the House,
without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On
July 23, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported
H.R. 3609 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-65, Part II). On July 23,
2002, the Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure
reported to the House (H. Rpt. 107-65, Part I).
The House considered H.R. 3609 under suspension of the
rules on July 23, 2002 and passed the bill, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 423 yeas to 4 nays.
On July 24, 2002, H.R. 3609 was received in the Senate and
read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. On November 13, 2002, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged H.R. 3609 by
unanimous consent, and the bill passed the Senate, as amended,
on November 14, 2002 by unanimous consent.
H.R. 3609 passed the House by unanimous consent on November
15, 2002 and was cleared for the White House.
On December 9, 2002, H.R. 3609 was presented to the
President and was signed on December 17, 2002 (Public Law 107-
355).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF OREGON
Public Law 107-376 (H.R. 5436)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
a hydroelectric project in the State of Oregon.
Summary
H.R. 5436 extends the statutory deadline for the
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the
State of Oregon. 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 of 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.
5436 authorizes FERC to extend the deadline for the
commencement of construction of a project in Oregon for up to
three consecutive two-year periods, if the licensee meets the
good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of
section 13 of the Federal Power Act. The bill also authorizes
FERC to reinstate the license if the original deadline to
commence construction has expired.
Legislative History
H.R. 5436 was introduced in the House by Mr. DeFazio on
September 24, 2002, and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality requested
executive comment from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) on S. 2927, a bill identical to H.R. 5436, on October
11, 2002, and received such comment on the same day.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged H.R. 5436
on November 15, 2002. The bill was considered by unanimous
consent and passed the House without objection on November 15,
2002.
H.R. 5436 was received by the Senate and read twice on
November 15, 2002, and passed by the Senate without amendment
by unanimous consent on November 20, 2002.
H.R. 5436 was cleared for the White House on November 20,
2002. The bill was presented to the President on December 10,
2002, and on December 19, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-376).
SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY ACT
(H.R. 4, H.R. 2436, H.R. 2460, H.R. 2587, S. 900)
To enhance energy conservation, research and development
and to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply
for the American people, and for other purposes.
Summary
In the 107th Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
considered legislation to enhance, conserve, and diversify the
energy needs of the United States. In doing this, the Committee
worked on a range of bills. The bills included H.R. 2587, the
Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001, H.R. 2436, the
Energy Security Act, and H.R. 2460, the Comprehensive Energy
Research and Technology Act. These three bills were eventually
merged into one bill introduced as H.R. 4, the Securing
America's Future Energy Act.
H.R. 4 is a comprehensive bill that addressed many of
America's energy needs. As passed by the House, H.R. 4 was
comprised of seven Divisions addressing energy policy matters.
Division A addressed energy conservation and other energy
policy matters including the following: energy efficiency and
energy assistance programs, automobile fuel economy, nuclear
energy, hydroelectric energy, fuels, and renewable energy.
Division B provided for research and development matters
relating to energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear
energy, fossil energy, and Department of Energy science
programs. Division C amended the Internal Revenue Code to
provide for credits, deductions, and other tax matters relating
to energy conservation, reliability, and production. Division D
amended Federal housing statutes and the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act to incorporate energy conservation and
efficiency activities and incentives into Federal housing
programs. Division E provided for the formation of clean coal
centers of excellence. Division F provided for the development
of energy resources on public lands, including matters relating
to energy supply and security, oil and gas development,
improvements to federal oil and gas management, geothermal
energy development, hydropower, Arctic coastal plain
development, Department of the Interior energy conservation,
coal production, and insular areas energy security. Division G
prohibited the availability of funds authorized under this Act
to any convicted violator of the Buy American Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 2436 was introduced by Mr. Hansen on July 10, 2001,
and was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On July 17, 2001, the Committee on Resources ordered H.R.
2436 reported, as amended, to the House by a vote of 26 yeas
and 17 nays.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Resources exchanged correspondence on July 23, 2001 concerning
each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R. 4546.
On July 25, 2001, the Committee on Resources reported H.R.
2436 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-160, Part I).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than July
25, 2001. On July 25, 2001, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce was discharged from further consideration of the bill.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2436 in the 107th
Congress.
H.R. 2460 was introduced by Mr. Boehlert on July 11, 2001,
and was referred to the Committee on Science. On July 18, 2001,
the Committee on Science ordered H.R. 2460 reported, as
amended, to the House by a voice vote.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Science exchanged correspondence on July 25, 2001 concerning
each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R. 2460.
On July 31, 2001, the Committee on Science reported H.R.
2460 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-177).
No further action was taken on H.R. 2460 in the 107th
Congress.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality met in open
markup session on July 10 and 11, 2001, and approved a
Committee Print, as amended, for Full Committee consideration
by a roll call vote of 29 yeas and 1 nay. On July 17, 18, and
19, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open
markup session. On July 19, 2001, the Committee ordered
reported the Committee Print, as amended by a roll call vote of
50 yeas and 5 nays. The Committee agreed to introduce the
Committee Print as a clean bill and agreed to file a report on
that bill.
On July 23, 2001, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 2587 which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Science,
Transportation and Infrastructure, the Budget, and Education
and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
On July 25, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2587 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-162, Part I).
The Committees on Ways and Means, Science, Transportation
and Infrastructure, the Budget, and Education and the Workforce
were granted an extension for further consideration ending not
later than July 25, 2001. Following an exchange of
correspondence on July 25, 2001 concerning each Committee's
jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R. 2587, all Committee were
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2587.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce filed a supplemental
report on H.R. 2587 to the House on August 1, 2001 (H. Rpt.
107-162, Part I).
No further action as taken on H.R. 2587 in the 107th
Congress.
However on July 27, 2001, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 4,
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Science, Ways and Means,
Resources, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and
Infrastructure, the Budget, and Financial Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. As introduced, H.R. 4
contained provisions that were substantially similar to
provisions in H.R. 2587, H.R. 2460, and H.R. 2436.
On August 1, 2001, H.R. 4 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 216. The bill passed the House, as amended,
by a roll call vote of 240 yeas and 189 nays.
H.R. 4 was received in the Senate on August 2, 1001. On
August 3, 2001, the bill was read the first time and placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. H.R.
4 was read the second time and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders on September 4, 2001.
On April 25, 2002, H.R. 4 passed the Senate with an
amendment by a record vote of 88 yeas and 11 nays. In addition,
the Senate insisted upon its amendment, requested a conference
with the House, and appointed conferees.
On June 12, 2001, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference. The Speaker appointed
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for
consideration of the House bill and Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
The Conference Committee met on June 27, July 25, September
12, September 19, September 25, September 26, October 2, and
October 3, 2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4 in the 107th
Congress.
BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 333, S. 420)
(Emergency Energy Assistance and Conservation Measures)
To amend Title 11, United States Code, and for other
purposes.
Summary
Title XIV of H.R. 333, Emergency Energy Assistance and
Conservation Measures, amended Acts within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Title XIV increased the
authorization levels through 2005 for certain energy programs,
including the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981
(direct energy assistance programs), the Energy Conservation
and Production Act (weatherization assistance programs); and
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (State energy
conservation grants). In addition, Title XIV amended portions
of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act regarding the
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) and Energy Savings
Performance Contracts (ESPCs).
Legislative History
Mr. Gekas introduced H.R. 333 on January 31, 2001, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On February 14, 2001 the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 333 reported to the House,
as amended, by a roll call vote of 19 yeas and 8 nays. On
February 26, 2001 the Committee on Financial Services was
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than February 26, 2001, at which time the Committee on
Financial Services discharged the bill.
On February 26, 2001, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-3, Part I).
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 71, the House
considered H.R. 333 on March 1, 2001, and the House passed the
bill by recorded vote of 306 yeas and 108 nays.
On March 5, 2001, H.R. 333 was received in the Senate, read
twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. The Senate passed H.R. 333 with an amendment by
a roll call vote of 82 yeas and 16 nays on July 17, 2001. In
addition, the Senate insisted upon its amendment, requested a
conference with the House, and appointed conferees.
On July 31, 2001, the House, by unanimous consent,
disagreed to the Senate amendment, and agreed to go to a
conference without objection.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Conference for consideration of matters contained
within the House bill and the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference falling within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
The conference met on May 22, 2002, and the conference
report (H. Rept. 107-617) was filed on July 26, 2002.
On November 14, 2002, H. Res. 606 providing for the
consideration of the conference report failed by a roll call
vote of 173 yeas and 243 nays. On November 15, 2002, the House
agreed with an amendment to the Senate amendment by a roll call
vote 244 yeas and 116 nays.
A message on House action was received in Senate and at
desk on the House amendment to Senate amendment on November 15,
2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 333 in the 107th
Congress.
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE FUNDING
(H.R. 724)
To authorize appropriations to carry out part B of title I
of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, relating to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Summary
H.R. 724 amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to
repeal the March 31, 2000 termination date for the
authorization of appropriations for the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve and to extend the authorization of appropriations
indefinitely.
Legislative History
H.R. 724 was introduced on February 26, 2001 by Mr. Bass
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On February 28, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
ordered H.R. 724 reported to the House, without amendment, by
voice vote. On March 6, 2001, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 724 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-6).
H.R. 724 was considered under suspension of the rules on
March 6, 2001, and passed the House by a roll call vote of 400
yeas and 2 nays.
H.R. 724 was received in the Senate on March 7, 2002, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
No further action was taken on H.R. 724 in the 107th
Congress.
ELECTRICITY EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT
(H.R. 1647)
To provide for electricity emergencies.
Summary
H.R. 1647 provides for a variety of federal actions to
address supply and demand disruptions in wholesale electricity
markets. The bill provides for reductions in electricity demand
during periods of peak usage through region-wide conservation
incentives, conservation at Federal facilities, and emergency
conservation education. Other provisions to reduce electricity
demand include establishment of a regional ``clearinghouse''
for demand reductions at market prices, and allowing Western
governors temporarily to adjust Daylight Savings Time. To
increase electricity supplies during state-declared
emergencies, H.R. 1647 gives generators and regulatory agencies
temporary flexibility to maximize available generation
resources. To address transmission issues, the bill authorizes
the federal government to take certain steps to identify and
relieve transmission constraints. The bill establishes an
Office of Tribal Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE) and
directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to form
a West-wide regional transmission organization (RTO) upon
request by 10 of the 14 Western governors. Finally, H.R. 1647
provides for federal emergency-response measures to prepare for
blackouts.
Legislative History
Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 1647 on May 1, 2001, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a
legislative hearing on May 1 and 3, 2001. At the hearing on May
1, 2001, the Subcommittee received testimony from three FERC
Commissioners, a state consumer advocate, and several market
participants. At the May 3, 2001 hearing, witnesses included
representatives from the Federal Power Marketing Agencies, the
Bonneville Power Administration, energy and air regulators from
California, a senior energy advisor to the Governor of
California, industry and environmental groups, and a state air
pollution regulator association.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality met in open
markup session to consider H.R. 1647 on May 3, 2001. The bill
was approved for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
vote of 17 yeas and 13 nays, a quorum being present.
The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 1647 on May 24, 2001, and subsequently recessed pursuant
to the call of the Chair.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1647 in the 107th
Congress.
PRICE-ANDERSON REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 2983)
To extend indemnification authority under section 170 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2983 amends the Atomic Energy Act to extend the
authorization period for Price-Anderson Act indemnification
authorities for an additional 15 years from August 1, 2002, to
August 1, 2017, for NRC licensees, and Department of Energy
(DOE) contractors. H.R. 2983 also increased the annual
retrospective premium from $10 million to $15 million and
adjusted for inflation in the future. Additionally, the Atomic
Energy Act is amended to provide for equitable treatment of
modular reactors, allowing 2 or more small reactors at a single
site to be assessed one full retrospective premium in the event
of a nuclear accident.
H.R. 2983 also requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) to enhance security requirements at nuclear power plants
by developing a new design basis threat to protect against
increased threats from terrorist organizations. Other
provisions in H.R. 2983 include a repeal of the automatic
remission of nuclear safety fines assessed on DOE non-profit
contractors, and a contractor accountability provision that
would allow the government to recover amounts paid under an
indemnification agreement from DOE contractors that engage in
intentional misconduct.
Legislative History
H.R. 2983 was introduced in the House by Mrs. Wilson and
eight cosponsors on October 2, 2001 and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality had previously
held hearings on the status of the Price-Anderson Act on June
27, 2001, and September 6, 2001. These hearings addressed the
outlook for the construction of new nuclear plants, including
any changes in law that may be necessary to help facilitate new
plants; and issues related to reauthorization of the Price-
Anderson Act. Witnesses included representatives from the DOE,
the NRC, the commercial nuclear industry, the DOE contractor
community, and the environmental community.
On October 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 2983 to
the Full Committee, as amended, by voice vote. On October 31,
2001, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered
H.R. 2983 reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On November 19, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2983 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-299, Part I). The
bill was referred sequentially to the Science Committee on
November 19, 2001, for a period ending not later than Nov. 20,
2001 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(n), rule X.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on November 19, 2001,
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
2983
The Committee on Science was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 2983 on November 20, 2001.
On November 27, 2001, H.R.2983 was considered under
suspension of the rules and passed by the House on voice vote.
The Senate received H.R. 2983 on November 28, 2001, read it
the first time, and placed it on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under Read the First Time. On November 29, 2001, the
bill was read the second time and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2983 in the 107th
Congress.
AMENDING THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996
(H.R. 3016)
To amend the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 with respect to the responsibilities of the Secretary
of Health and Human Services regarding biological agents and
toxins, and to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect
to such agents and toxins, to clarify the application of cable
television system privacy requirements to new cable services,
to strengthen security at certain nuclear facilities, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Title III of H.R. 3016 includes several provisions to
improve security at commercial nuclear power plants regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The bill authorizes
guards to carry and use weapons to protect nuclear facilities
and prevent theft of nuclear materials. In addition, the bill
provides NRC the authority to restrict the introduction of
dangerous weapons onto any facility regulated by the NRC. The
bill also expands current law that prevents sabotage of nuclear
facilities to include nuclear waste treatment and disposal
facilities, as well as nuclear fuel fabrication facilities,
including facilities under construction. The bill requires the
NRC to study and assess vulnerabilities of nuclear facilities
to terrorist attack, and directs NRC to revise its design basis
threat for these facilities in a new regulation within one
year. Finally the bill requires security at these facilities to
be tested at least once every two years.
Legislative History
On October 3, 2001, the Full Committee on Energy and
Commerce met in open markup session and favorably ordered
reported a Committee Print to strengthen security at certain
nuclear facilities, and for other purposes, as amended, by
voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee also agreed
to a unanimous consent request by Chairman Tauzin to
incorporate the Committee Print, along with two other Committee
Prints, into a bill to be introduced, H.R. 3016, and to allow
for the Committee to file a report on the introduced bill.
On October 3, 2001, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 3016, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3016 to
the House on October 9, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-231, Part I).
The Committee on the Judiciary was granted an extension for
further consideration of the bill for a period ending not later
than Oct. 16, 2001. Following an exchange of letters between
the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation, the
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 3016 on October 16, 2001.
On November 6, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
filed a supplemental report to the House on H.R. 3016 (H. Rpt.
107-231, Part I).
No further action was taken on H.R. 3016 in the 107th
Congress.
ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSMISSION ACT
(H.R. 3406)
To benefit consumers and enhance the Nation's energy
security by removing barriers to the development of competitive
markets for electric power, providing fro the reliability and
increased capacity of the Nation's electric transmission
networks, promoting the use of renewable and alternative
sources of electric power generation, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3406 would amend the Federal Power Act by adding new
provisions establishing requirements pertaining to
interconnection, net metering, price-responsive demand
programs, open access transmission, regional transmission
organizations, electric reliability, transmission siting and
rate reform, investigations, refunds, and penalties. The bill
would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act and would
repeal the mandatory purchase provisions of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act. The bill would eliminate the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's merger review authority under
the Federal Power Act. It includes provisions pertaining to
Federal utilities and consumer protection.
Legislative History
H.R. 3406 was introduced on December 5, 2001 referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Resources,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held legislative
hearings on the bill on December 12 and 13, 2001. At the
December 12, hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony from the
DOE, FERC, and the Tennessee Valley Authority on the need for
comprehensive electricity legislation and specific provisions
of the bill, including on the need for investment in
transmission infrastructure and increased supply of
electricity. On December 13 the Subcommittee heard testimony
from the Securities and Exchange Commission, state utility
commissions, public power, rural cooperatives, industrial and
other consumers, reliability councils, investor-owned
utilities, independent generators, the investment community,
and energy efficiency advocates. Witnesses testified on the
bill and on the issues relating to transmission infrastructure,
energy supply, and reliability, energy efficiency, and consumer
interests.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3406 in the 107th
Congress.
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF ALASKA
(S. 1843)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.
Summary
S. 1843 postpones the statutory deadline for the
commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the
State of Alaska pending completion of a transmission line. Once
the transmission line is completed, S. 1843 as introduced
provided for up to three additional two-year extension of the
deadline to commence construction. 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
of 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.
1843 temporarily suspends the deadline for the commencement of
construction of a project in the State of Alaska until a
transmission line is built, then extends the deadline for up to
two-years, if the licensee meets the good faith, due diligence,
and public interest requirements of section 13 of the Federal
Power Act. The bill also authorizes FERC to reinstate the
license if the original deadline to commence construction has
expired.
Legislative History
S. 1843 was introduced by Senator Stevens on December 18,
2001, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
S. 1843 was ordered to be reported without amendment
favorably on June 5, 2002. On June 28, 2002, the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported the bill to
the Senate without amendment. The Senate passed S. 1843 on
August 1, 2002, without amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 1843 was received in the House on September 4, 2002, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality requested executive
comment on S. 1843 from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) on October 11, 2002, and received executive comment that
same day.
On November 15, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
discharged S. 1843. S. 1843 was amended and passed the House
without objection by unanimous consent.
While the bill was amended by the House, the official
papers that were delivered to the Senate did not contain the
amendment that passed the House. Summarily, the Speaker did not
find himself obligated to sign the bill to clear it for the
White House since the official papers did not accurately
reflect the will of the House.
In an attempt to rectify the problem the Senate passed S.
Con. Res. 159 by unanimous consent on November 20, 2002 to
correct the enrollment of S. 1843. The House received S. Con.
Res. 159 and held it at the desk on November 22, 2002, but took
no action on the bill
No further action was taken on S. 1843 in the 107th
Congress.
FUEL PRICE GOUGING
(H. Res. 238)
Condemning any price gouging with respect to motor fuels
during the hours and days after the terrorist acts of September
11, 2001.
Summary
H. Res. 238 declares that the House of Representatives
condemns any price gouging with respect to motor fuels during
the hours and days after the terrorist acts of September 11,
2001. The resolution also urges the appropriate Federal and
state agencies to investigate any incidents of such price
gouging, and prosecute any violations of law discovered as a
result of the investigations.
Legislative History
H. Res. 238 was introduced on September 14, 2001 by Mr.
Tauzin and 41 co-sponsors, and referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged H. Res. 238
on September 14, 2001, and the bill was considered in the House
by unanimous consent was agreed to without objection
No further action was taken on H. Res. 238 in the 107th
Congress..
STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
(H. Res. 250)
Urging the Secretary of Energy to fill the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve.
Summary
H. Res. 250 urges the Secretary of Energy to increase the
capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1 billion
barrels of crude oil, to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
to its capacity as soon as practicable, and to consider
purchasing from marginal wells that would otherwise cease
production, consistent with current law.
Legislative History
H. Res. 250 was introduced by Mr. Barton on October 2,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On October 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality met in open markup session and approved the bill for
Full Committee consideration by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
The House considered H. Res. 250 under suspension of the
rules on October 9, 2001, and passed H. Res. 250, as amended,
by a roll call vote of 409 yeas and 3 nays.
No further action was taken on H. Res. 250 in the 107th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
ELECTRICITY MARKETS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM CALIFORNIA
On February 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing on competition in electricity
markets. The hearing examined the electric supply and pricing
problems experienced in California and the West, and whether
those problems were unique to that state. The hearing also
examined other, more successful State restructuring programs.
Witnesses included state regulators, government representatives
and consumer advocates from California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Maryland, along with industry representatives and analysts.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: NATURAL GAS
The Subcommittee held the first in a series of oversight
hearings on national energy policy on February 28, 2001. The
hearing focused on the role of natural gas in a comprehensive
national energy policy that addresses all forms of energy. The
hearing addressed topics such as the current and future status
of markets for natural gas, the causes of recent price
increases, and ways to generally increase the supply and
deliverability of natural gas to ensure that adequate supplies
reach consumers in a timely and safe fashion. Witnesses
included the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Energy
Information Administration, and representatives from the
production, transportation, and distribution sectors of the
industry, as well as consumer and environmental advocates.
ELECTRICITY MARKETS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST
On March 6, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a two-part Members' oversight hearing regarding
the status of electricity markets in California and the West,
and the need for a comprehensive national energy policy. With
respect to electricity markets in California and the West, the
hearing addressed the effects of high prices and supply
shortages on consumers, potential causes and solutions, and
ways to prevent future problems. The second part of the hearing
addressed the need for a balanced, comprehensive national
energy policy to ensure affordable, abundant, environmentally
sound energy supplies. Witnesses at the hearing consisted of
Members of Congress.
The Subcommittee continued with its oversight of California
electricity markets with two days of hearings on March 20 and
22, 2001. The hearing focused on the causes of the electric
supply and pricing problems in California, the state and
Federal governments' responses, and potential short- and long-
term solutions. Witnesses the first day consisted of the
Chairman and two Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Witnesses the second day consisted of
representatives from the California state government, industry
representatives, consumer groups, and market analysts.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: COAL
On March 14, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality continued its series of oversight hearings on national
energy policy with a hearing that focused on the role of coal
in a comprehensive national energy policy. The hearing
addressed the current and future role of coal as a fuel for the
generation of electricity, impacts on the supply of coal, and
the use of new technologies to reduce emissions of pollutants
from coal-fired electric power plants. The Subcommittee
received testimony from representatives of an electric utility,
an environmental group, a State public service commission, a
State environmental protection agency, a coal production
company, the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency,
a university center for coal and minerals processing, and the
United Mine Workers.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: NUCLEAR ENERGY
On Tuesday, March 27, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality held a hearing on the national energy policy
concerning nuclear energy. The hearing addressed the current
utilization of nuclear energy for electric generation,
regulatory and licensing issues facing the nuclear industry,
the prospects for nuclear energy to meet future generation
needs, including the use of new technologies, and the role of
nuclear energy in a comprehensive national energy policy. The
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the
Energy Information Agency, the nuclear industry, and an
environmental group.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: CRUDE OIL AND REFINED PETROLEUM
On March 30, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality continued the series of oversight hearings on a
national energy policy with a hearing on crude oil and refined
petroleum. The hearing addressed the role of crude oil and
refined petroleum in a comprehensive national energy policy
that addresses all forms of energy. Topics included current and
future status of markets for crude oil and refined petroleum
products, U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil, the
outlook for gasoline prices, and ways to ensure a sufficient,
affordable supply of crude oil and refined petroleum products
for consumers. Witnesses included the Energy Information
Administration; representatives from the production, refining
and distribution segments of the industry; an oil market
analyst; and a representative of an environmental group.
CONSUMER PERSPECTIVES ON ENERGY POLICY
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held an
oversight hearing on national energy policy focusing on
consumer perspectives on May 15, 2001. The hearing focused on
the effect of high prices and supply shortages of energy on
American consumers and the economy. Witnesses discussed the
impacts of energy price and supply on their lives and
businesses, and identified potential statutory and regulatory
reforms. Witnesses included representatives from the Energy
Information Administration, business and trade associations,
local government, the American Association of Retired Persons,
a school administrator, the American Automobile Association,
and consumer groups.
THE NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY REPORT OF THE NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
DEVELOPMENT GROUP
On June 13, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing on the President's National
Energy Policy Report. The hearing focused on the report by the
National Energy Policy Development Group, which included
regulatory and legislative proposals necessary to provide for
our Nation's long-term energy needs. The sole witness was the
Secretary of the Department of Energy.
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality continued the
series of oversight hearings on a national energy policy with a
hearing on June 22, 2001 focusing on conservation and energy
efficiency. The hearing addressed the role of energy efficiency
and conservation in helping manage our Nation's long-term
energy needs. The hearing also examined ways to promote
continued increases in energy efficiency and conservation
through such means as energy efficiency technologies, metering
technologies, electricity demand management, and vehicle fuels
conservation. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of state and Federal government, several energy
efficiency advocacy groups, the automobile industry, an energy
services company, an environmental protection group, electrical
manufacturers, a utility, a smart metering company, and a
national homeowners association.
HYDROELECTRIC RELICENSING AND NUCLEAR ENERGY
On June 27, 2001 the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing on hydroelectric relicensing and
nuclear energy. The hearing focused on the effects of the
hydroelectric licensing process on our nation's hydroelectric
power supplies, the outlook for construction new nuclear
reactors, and the need for Price-Anderson reauthorization.
Witnesses included representatives from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the General Accounting Office, a State
government representative, utilities, the commercial nuclear
industry, Department of Energy contractors, and environmental
groups.
NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POLICY: BARRIERS TO COMPETITIVE GENERATION
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held an
oversight hearing on July 27, 2001 on national electricity
policy. The hearing focused on the development of competitive
wholesale markets for electric power; barriers to competitive
generation, including current laws and regulations; and the
impact of wholesale markets on retail electric rates and the
states' transition to retail electric choice. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from state utility regulators, investor-owned
utilities, public power, independent power producers, advocates
for large and small consumers, distributed generation
companies, retail electricity providers, net metering
providers, and the investment community.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE PRICE-ANDERSON ACT
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held an
oversight hearing on the status of the Price Anderson Act on
September 6, 2001. The hearing addressed the outlook for the
construction of new nuclear plants, including any changes in
law that may be necessary to help facilitate new plants; and
issues related to reauthorization of the Price Anderson Act.
Witnesses included a representative from the Department of
Energy.
NATIONAL ELECTRICITY POLICY: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality continued its
series of oversight hearings on a national electricity policy
on September 20, 2001 with a hearing on Federal government
perspectives. The hearing focused on the status of the electric
power industry and competitive markets for wholesale electric
energy, the effect of current laws and regulations, the need
for expanded transmission capacity and siting of new
transmission and generation, and the role of the Federal
government in investigating and overseeing competitive
wholesale electricity markets. Additionally, in light of the
events of September 11, 2001, the hearing also addressed the
security of our nation's electric power supplies and
infrastructure from future terrorist attack, and steps the
Federal government is taking to protect such supplies and
infrastructure. Witnesses included the Department of Energy and
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION POLICY
On October 10, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing on electricity transmission
policy. The hearing addressed matters relating to the capacity
and efficient use of the nation's electric transmission
infrastructure, including the need for transmission pricing
reform to encourage new investment in transmission and the
formation of regional transmission organizations to promote the
development of wholesale power markets. The witnesses at the
hearing included representatives of investor owned utilities,
public power utilities, rural electric cooperatives, power
marketers, a non-profit electric organization, consumer
advocates, and investment analysts.
ENRON BANKRUPTCY AND THE ENERGY MARKETS
On February 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing on the effects of one of the
largest bankruptcy in our Nation's history. Enron was a large
energy marketer and proponent of competitive markets. Starting
as a natural gas pipeline company, Enron evolved into, among
other things, a commodity trader, a futures contract trader and
a market maker dealing in everything from natural gas, oil and
electricity to interest rates, foreign currency and equity.
Enron also attempted and failed to create markets in broadband
capacity, steel, coal, and wood pulp. The hearing focused on
competitive energy markets and the collapse of one of the
largest energy marketers in the world, and addressed whether
Enron's demise harmed or disrupted competitive energy markets,
and the short and long-term effects on energy prices and
supplies. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Chairman of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Chairman of the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Energy,
and a state utility commission, investor-owned utilities,
independent power producers, an independent oil and gas
exploration and development company, a consumer perspective,
and a private energy and economic consultant.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SAFETY ACT AND THE
HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY ACT
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held an
oversight hearing on March 19, 2002 to address the
reauthorization of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the
Hazardous Liquids Pipeline Safety Act. The hearing examined the
issue of pipeline safety for both natural gas and liquids
pipelines from the perspective of both government and the
private sector. Witnesses include representatives of the
Department of Transportation, the National Transportation
Safety Board, the General Accounting Office, pipeline
inspectors, pipeline owners, labor groups, consumer
perspectives, environmental advocates, and the oil and gas
industries.
NUCLEAR WASTE REPOSITORY AT YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA
On April 18, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to review the President's
approval and recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain
site in Nevada be developed as the nation's long-term
repository for the disposal of radioactive waste. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the Secretary of the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, the General Accounting Office, the nuclear
industry, a labor union, and an environmental group.
CLEAN AIR ACT
On May 1, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing regarding the accomplishments of the
Clean Air Act, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990. The hearing addressed the policy achievements
accomplished to date under the Clean Air Act, with an emphasis
on programs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
implemented under the authority granted EPA by the 1990
Amendments. Witnesses included the Environmental Protection
Agency, a college of law, a graduate school of public health, a
center for atmospheric processes and modeling, an environmental
group, and a public policy analysis center.
On June 5, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing regarding the experience of state and
local environmental regulators in implementing the Clean Air
Act. The hearing addressed specific past experiences of state
and local regulators in dealing with Clean Air Act
requirements, and observations regarding increasing the
effectiveness of future implementation schemes. Witnesses
included representatives of state and local environmental
agencies responsible for implementation of certain Clean Air
Act requirements.
Hearings Held
Electricity Markets: Lessons Learned from California.--
Oversight hearing on Electricity Markets: Lessons Learned from
California. Hearing held on February 15, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-7.
National Energy Policy: Natural Gas.--Oversight hearing on
National Energy Policy: Natural Gas. Hearing held on February
28, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-11.
Congressional Perspectives on Electricity Markets in
California and the West and National Energy Policy.--Oversight
hearing on Congressional Perspectives on Electricity Markets in
California and the West and National Energy Policy. Hearing
held on March 6, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-8.
National Energy Policy: Coal.--Oversight hearing on
National Energy Policy: Coal. Hearing held on March 14, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-2.
Electricity Markets: California.--Oversight hearing on
Electricity Markets: California. Hearings held on March 20 and
March 22, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-6.
National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy.--Oversight hearing
on National Energy Policy: Nuclear Energy. Hearing held on
March 27, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-10.
National Energy Policy: Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum
Products.--Oversight hearing on National Energy Policy: Crude
Oil and Refined Petroleum Products. Hearing held on March 30,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-12.
Electricity Emergency Relief Act of 2001.--Hearing on H.R.
1647, the Electricity Emergency Relief Act of 2001. Hearings
held on May 1 and May 3, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-26.
Consumer Perspectives on Energy Policy.--Oversight hearing
on Consumer Perspectives on Energy Policy. Hearing held on May
15, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-14.
National Energy Policy Report of the National Energy Policy
Development Group.--Oversight hearing on National Energy Policy
Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group. Hearing
held on June 13, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-47.
National Energy Policy: Conservation and Energy
Efficiency.--Oversight hearing on National Energy Policy:
Conservation and Energy Efficiency. Hearing held on June 22,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-50.
Hydroelectric Relicensing and Nuclear Energy.--Oversight
hearing on Hydroelectric Relicensing and Nuclear Energy.
Hearing held on June 27, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-55.
National Electricity Policy: Barriers to Competitive
Generation.--Oversight hearing on National Electricity Policy:
Barriers to Competitive Generation. Hearing held on July 27,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-62.
Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act.--Oversight
hearing on Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act. Hearing
held on September 6, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-69.
National Electricity Policy: Federal Government
Perspectives.--Oversight hearing on National Electricity
Policy: Federal Government Perspectives. Hearing held on
September 20, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-76.
Electricity Transmission Policy.--Oversight hearing on
Electricity Transmission Policy. Hearing held on October 10,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-64.
Electric Supply and Transmission Act of 2001.--Hearing on
H.R. 3406, the Electric Supply and Transmission Act of 2001.
Hearings held on December 12 and December 13, 2001. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-81.
The Effect of the Bankruptcy of Enron on the Functioning of
Energy Markets.--Oversight hearing on the Effect of the
Bankruptcy of Enron on the Functioning of Energy Markets.
Hearing held on February 13, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
82.
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. Hearing held on March 19,
2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-87.
A Review of the President's Recommendation to Develop a
Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.--Oversight
hearing on a Review of the President's Recommendation to
Develop a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Hearing held on April 18, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-99.
Accomplishments of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.--Oversight hearing on
Accomplishments of the Clean Air Act, as amended by the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. Hearing held on May 1, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-106.
Clean Air Act Implementation: Experience of State and Local
Regulators.--Oversight hearing on Clean Air Act Implementation:
Experience of State and Local Regulators. Hearing held on June
5, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-119.
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
(Ratio 16-13)
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG GANSKE, Iowa EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
(Vice Chairman) THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MARY BONO, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Ex Officio)
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Environmental protection in general, including the Safe
Drinking Water Act and risk assessment matters; solid waste, hazardous
waste and toxic substances, including Superfund and RCRA; mining, oil,
gas, and coal combustion wastes; and, noise pollution control.
Legislative Activities
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
Public Law 107-107 (H.R. 2586, S. 1438)
(Environmental Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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
Both H.R. 2586 and S. 1438 contained a number of provisions
which related to environmental protection and public health
statutes under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials. In
particular, the Department of Defense (DOD) is directed to
develop and maintain an inventory of sites suspected to contain
unexploded ordnance, abandoned military munitions, or munitions
constituents; and requires the DOD to assign a relative
priority for response and review. Both bills also require the
DOD to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency for costs
connected to cleanups at the Hooper Sands site, South Berwick,
Maine, and addressed reporting requirements under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
H.R. 2586 and S. 1438 also contained provisions
transferring land between the DOD and other Federal and state
agencies, but required that requirements of Federal and state
environmental laws and regulations must be met in doing so.
Fort Irwin, in San Bernardino County, California, was one
location where the DOD and the Department of Interior (DOI)
transferred administrative jurisdiction over a land tract and
retained their liability under CERCLA and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Finally, H.R. 2586 and S. 1438 contained provisions
regarding the Federal and state environmental responsibilities
of various Federal agencies in the transfer of administrative
jurisdiction over Rocky Flats from the Department of Energy
(DOE) to the DOI in order to create the Rocky Flats National
Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the bills excluded the transfer
of certain property and facilities that required environmental
response actions, directed completion of cleanup and closure at
Rocky Flats, and requested a joint report from the DOE and DOI
for each fiscal year from 2003 through 2007 on the costs of
implementation of these activities.
Legislative History
H.R. 2586 was introduced by Mr. Stump on July 23, 2001 and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On August 1, 2002,
the Committee on Armed Services met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 2586 reported, as amended.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on September 4, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
2586.
Pursuant to a unanimous consent request, on September 4,
2001, the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 2586 to
the House (H. Rpt 107-194).
H.R. 2586 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res.
246, and on September 25, 2001, the House passed the bill by a
vote of 398 yeas and 17 nays.
H.R. 2586 was received in the Senate on September 26, 2002,
read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. On June 18, 2002, the Senate indefinitely
postponed consideration of H.R. 2586 by unanimous consent.
The Senate passed S. 1438, which was introduced on
September 19, 2001, by Senator Levin, on October 2, 2001 by a
record vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays. The bill was received in the
House on October 4, 2001 and held at the desk.
On October 17, 2001, the House struck all after the
enacting clause of S. 1438 and inserted in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 2586, and passed the bill without objection.
The House insisted on its amendment and requested a conference
with the Senate on October 17, 2001. A motion by Mr. Stump was
agreed to by a roll call vote of 420 yeas and 0 nays to close
portions of the conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in
the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications
committed to conference falling within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
The Senate disagreed to the House amendment and agreed to
the House's request to go to conference on October 17, 2001 and
appointed conferees.
The Conference Committee met on October 31, 2001 and
November 1, 2001. The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-333) was
filed on December 12, 2001.
Pursuant to H. Res. 316, on December 13, 2001, the House
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 382 yeas
and 40 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report as well
on December 13, 2001 by a record vote of 96 yeas and 2 nays.
H. Con. Res. 288 passed the House and the Senate on
December 13, 2001, by unanimous consent to correct the
enrollment of S. 1438.
On December 13, 2001, S. 1438 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on December 20,
2001, and on December 28, 2001, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-107).
SMALL BUSINESS LIABILITY RELIEF AND BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION ACT
Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869, H.R. 1831, S. 350, Gillmor Discussion
Draft, Democratic Discussion Draft)
To provide certain relief for small businesses from
liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, and to amend such Act
to promote the cleanup and reuse of brownfields, to provide
financial assistance for brownfields revitalization, to enhance
State response programs, and for other purposes.
Summary
Title I of H.R. 2869, also known as The Small Business
Liability Protection Act (SBLPA), amends the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA) to provide, with exceptions, Superfund liability
relief to certain parties. The legislation provides that a
person is not responsible for the costs associated with cleanup
at a Superfund National Priorities List site if they disposed,
or arranged for the disposal of, less than 110 gallons of
liquid materials or less than 200 pounds of solid materials
before April 1, 2001. Such a party could nevertheless still be
held liable if its waste has contributed or could contribute
significantly to cleanup costs, if it did not cooperate with
information requests, or if it has not been convicted of an
environmental crime relating to the material. SBLPA also
exempts a business from Superfund liability if it only disposes
of municipal solid waste (MSW), generated all the MSW on-site,
and employs no more than 100 workers. Second, MSW, as defined
by the bill, includes items and quantities of waste that are
essentially the same as household garbage and are collected and
disposed of as part of normal municipal solid waste collection
services. The MSW liability exemption is subject to re-openers
similar to those for de-micromis generators. Third, SBLRA
requires that any party suing a non-liable party must pay
attorney's fees and court costs. Finally, SBLRA allows the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to settle a cleanup claim
with a small business for a lesser amount if the business can
show a financial inability to pay for the cleanup and otherwise
fully cooperates with the government in its cleanup efforts. In
addition, the Federal government is given the ability to weigh
alternative payment options when calculating a party's cleanup
responsibilities.
Title II of H.R. 2869, also known as the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration (BRERA) of 2001,
authorizes $200 million per year for fiscal years 2002-2006 for
brownfield assessment grants and cleanup grants, of which $50
million per year or 25 percent of the amount made available,
shall be used to clean up ``relatively low-risk'' brownfield
sites contaminated by petroleum. BRERA also sets out ranking
criteria to be used in awarding the assessment grants and
cleanup grants and defines the entities that are eligible to
receive grants. It also provides $50 million annually to
enhance state and tribal voluntary cleanup programs, and places
certain limitations on EPA enforcement at sites being cleaned
up under a state program. BRERA also provides liability
protection for contiguous property owners, prospective
purchasers, and innocent landowners. In addition, the bill
requires EPA to defer listing a site on the National Priorities
List if the President determines the site is being cleaned up
under a state program that will result in long-term protection
of human health and the environment, or negotiations are
underway to perform a response action.
Legislative History
On February 15, 2001, Senator Chafee and a bipartisan group
of Senators introduced S. 350 and the bill was referred to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works. On March 12, 2001,
the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported S. 350
to the Senate, amended (S. Rpt. 107-2). The bill was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar
No. 19.
On April 25, 2001, S. 350 passed the Senate with an
amendment by a record vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays. A message on
Senate action was sent to the House on April 26, 2001.
On April 26, 2001, S. 350 was received in the House and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
held a legislative hearing on S. 350, the Gillmor Discussion
Draft, and the Democratic Discussion draft on June 8, 2001
(Printed, Serial No. 107-43). The hearing looked at potential
changes to the Senate passed legislation as espoused by the
Chairman and Democrat Members of the Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the Environmental
Protection Agency, state, county, and local officials, and
interested business, financial, and environmental advocacy
representatives. While no further legislative action was taken
on S. 350, the Gillmor Discussion Draft, or the Democratic
Discussion draft in the 107th Congress; S. 350 eventually was
rolled into H.R. 2869.
On May 15, 2001, Mr. Gillmor introduced H.R. 1831 along
with 63 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On May 16, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials met in open markup session and reported H.R. 1831 to
the Full Committee by voice vote, a quorum being present.
The Full Committee met in open markup session on May 17,
2001 and ordered H.R. 1831 reported to the House by voice vote,
a quorum being present. The Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1831 to the House on May 21, 2001 (H Rpt. 107-70,
Part I), and on the same day the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure reported H.R. 1831 to the House (H. Rpt.
107-70, Part II).
On May 21, 2001, H.R. 1831 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 419 yeas and 0 nays.
H.R. 1831 was received in the Senate, read twice, and
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on
June 13, 2001. While no further action was taken on H.R. 1831
in the 107th Congress, its provisions were included in H.R.
2869.
H.R. 2869 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor and seven
cosponsors on September 10, 2001 and referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
As introduced H.R. 2869 incorporated H.R. 1831, the Small
Business Protection Liability Act as Title I of the bill, and
S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act, as Title II of the bill with technical
changes.
On December 20, 2001, H.R. 2869, with modifications, was
considered in the House under suspension of the rules, and
passed the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On December 20, 2001, H.R. 2869 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent without amendment and was cleared for the
White House.
H.R. 2869 was presented to the President on January 7,
2001, and was signed by the President on January 11, 2002
(Public Law 107-118).
FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-171 (H.R. 2646, S. 1731)
(Environmental Provisions)
To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2636 and S. 1731 contained environmental provisions
under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Section 648 of S. 1731, established SEARCH grants for rural
communities. These grants, administered by USDA, in cooperation
with EPA, would provide $1 million to each state, $51 million
total, for grants to assist communities with less than 2,500
people comply with environmental regulations.
In addition, section 213 of S. 1731 amended and expanded
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP). This
program authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide
technical assistance, cost-share payments, incentive payments
and education to agriculture producers for several purposes
related to compliance with Federal environmental statutes.
Legislative History
Mr. Combest introduced H.R. 2646 on July 26, 2001, and the
Committee on Agriculture favorably ordered the bill reported to
the House, as amended, on July 27, 2001. On August 2, 2001, the
Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 2646 to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-191, Part I). On August 31, 2001, the Committee on
Agriculture filed a supplemental report to the House (H. Rpt.
107-191, Part II).
On August 2, 2001, H.R. 2646 was referred sequentially to
the House Committee on International Relations for a period
ending not later than September 7, 2001 for consideration of
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(j), rule X.
The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended on September 6, 2001, and was
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than September 10, 2001. On September 10, 2001, the Committee
on International Relations reported H.R. 2646 to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-191, Part III).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Agriculture exchanged correspondence on September 28, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on
section 762 of H.R. 2646.
On October 3, 4, and 5, 2001, the House considered H.R.
2646 pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 248. The House
passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 291 yeas
and 120 nays.
On February 13, 2002, H.R. 2646 was considered in the
Senate by unanimous consent, struck all after the Enacting
Clause, and substituted the language of S. 1731, as amended.
The Senate then passed H.R. 2646, as amended, by a record vote
of 58 yeas and 40 nays. The Senate insisted on its amendment
and requested a conference on February 13, 2002.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference requested by the Senate.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in the
Senate amendment and modifications committed to conference
falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee on Conference met on April 9 and 10, 2002,
and on May 1, 2002 the conference report was filed. The House
considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H.
Res. 403, on May 1, 2001 by a roll call vote of 280 yeas and
141 nays.
The Senate considered the conference report on May 7 and 8,
2002, and agreed to the conference report by a record vote of
64 yeas and 35 nays on May 8, 2002.
On May 10, 2002, H.R. 2646 was cleared for the White House
and presented to the President. On May 13, 2002, the President
signed H.R. 2646 (Public Law No: 107-171).
NOTIFICATION AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ANTIDISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION
ACT
Public Law 107-174 (H.R. 169, S. 201)
To require that Federal agencies be accountable for
violations of anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection
laws, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 169 expresses the sense of Congress that Federal
agencies: (1) should not retaliate for court judgments or
settlements relating to discrimination and whistle blower laws
by targeting the claimant or other employees with reductions in
compensation, benefits, or workforce; (2) should not use a
reduction in force or furloughs as means of funding a
reimbursement under this Act; (3) should ensure that managers
have adequate training in the management of a diverse workforce
and in dispute resolution; (4) are expected to reimburse the
General Fund of the Treasury within a reasonable time under
this Act; and (5) may need to extend reimbursement over several
years in order to avoid reductions in force, furloughs,
reductions in compensation or benefits, or an adverse effect on
the mission of the agency. In addition, H.R. 169 declares that:
(1) the agency's mission and the security of employees who are
blameless in a whistle blower incident should not be
compromised; and (2) accountability in the enforcement of
employee rights is not furthered by terminating the employment
or benefits of other employees or if Federal agencies react by
taking unfounded disciplinary actions against, or by violating
the procedural rights of, managers who have been accused of
discrimination.
Legislative History
Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 169 on January 3, 2001,
and the bill was referred to the Committee on Government
Reform, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On May 23, 2001, the Committee on the Judiciary ordered
H.R. 169 reported to the House, as amended.
The Committee on Judiciary reported the bill to the House,
as amended, on June 14, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-101, Part I).
H.R. 169 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on October 2, 2001, and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 420 yeas and 0 nays.
On October 3, 2001, H.R. 169 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs. The Committee on Governmental Affairs reported H.R.
169 to the Senate with a written report (107-143), as amended.
The bill was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders
H.R. 169 passed the Senate, as amended, by unanimous
consent on April 24, 2002, and a message on Senate action was
sent to the House.
On April 30, 2002, H.R. 169, as amended by the Senate, was
considered in the House under suspension of the rules. The
House passed H.R. 169 by a roll call vote of 412 yeas and 0
nays. The bill was cleared for the White House.
On May 7, 2002, H.R. 169 was presented to the President,
and on May 15, 2002, the President signed the bill (Public Law
107-174).
PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM RESPONSE ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-188 (H.R. 3448)
(Environmental Provisions)
To improve the ability of the United States to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public
health emergencies.
Summary
Title IV of H.R. 3448 requires certain community water
systems to conduct vulnerability assessments, submit such
assessments to the EPA, and to prepare or revise emergency
response plans. The Title authorizes $160 million in fiscal
year 2002 and such sums as necessary in fiscal years 2003
through 2005 for this purpose, and to address basic security
enhancements of critical importance and significant threats to
public health as well as other purposes. In addition, Title IV
provides for a review of current and future methods to prevent,
detect and respond to the intentional introduction of chemical,
biological and radiological contaminants into community water
systems and source water for community water systems. This
review is to encompass methods and means to detect
contaminants, to provide sufficient notice of contamination, to
prevent the flow of contaminated drinking water, to negate or
mitigate deleterious effects on public health, and to conduct
biomedical research. The Title additionally provides for a
review of methods and means by which terrorists or other
individuals or groups could disrupt the supply of safe drinking
water or render a public water system significantly less safe
for human consumption. Finally, Title IV requires that reviews
include methods and means by which information systems,
including process controls, supervisory control and data
acquisition and cyber systems could be disrupted by terrorists
or other groups and that reviews reflect the needs of various
community water system sizes and geographical locations, the
vulnerability of regions or service areas, including the
National Capitol area, and that the Administrator of EPA
disseminate certain information through the Information Sharing
and Analysis Center. For these efforts, the Title provides
authorization for $15 million in fiscal year 2002 and such sums
as may be necessary in fiscal years 2003 through 2005. The
Title also increases the criminal and civil penalties for
tampering with a public water system and authorizes $35 million
in fiscal year 2002--and such sums as may be necessary
thereafter--to assist publicly owned water systems' efforts to
respond to or alleviate emergencies.
Legislative History
H.R. 3448 was introduced on December 11, 2001 by Mr. Tauzin
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 12, 2001, H.R. 3448 was considered in the House
under suspension of the Rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 418 yeas and 2 nays.
H.R. 3448 was received in the Senate and read twice on
December 18, 2001. The bill passed the Senate, amended, by
unanimous consent on December 20, 2001. The Senate insisted
upon its amendment, asked for a conference, and appointed
conferees.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and appointed conferees
The conference report was filed on May 21, 2002 (H. Rpt.
107-481), and pursuant to H. Res. 427, the conference report
was considered in the House on May 22, 2002. The conference
report passed the House by a roll call vote of 425 yeas and 1
nay.
On May 23, 2002, the conference report was considered in
the Senate and agreed to by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0
nays, and cleared for the White House.
S. Con. Res. 117 passed the Senate on May 23, 2002 by
unanimous consent. The bill was received in the House and held
at the desk on May 23, 2002. On June 4, 2002, S. Con. Res. 117
passed the House by unanimous consent. S. Con. Res. 117
provided for corrections in the enrolled version of H.R. 3448.
H.R. 3448 was presented to the President on June 7, 2002,
and was signed by the President on June 12, 2002 (Public Law
107-188).
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
Public Law 107-314 (H.R. 4546, S. 2514)
(Environmental Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year
for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4546 and S. 2514 contained provisions related to the
Department of Defense (DOD) response actions and
responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. In
particular, H.R. 4546 and S. 2514 streamlined the environmental
response reporting requirements, in section 2701 of Title 10 of
the United States Code, for the Defense environmental
restoration program for DOD facilities. In addition, an
environmental restoration projects manager was installed as the
single point of contact in the DOD for policy and budgeting
issues involving the characterization, remediation, and
management of explosive and related risks with respect to
unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and
munitions constituents at defense sites that pose a threat to
human health or safety.
Contained in neither H.R. 4546 nor S. 2514, but inserted in
conference, was the establishment of Mountain Longleaf National
Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alabama due to the transfer of
property at Fort McClellan, Alabama, to the Department of the
Interior. The transfer maintained all existing obligations
under Superfund and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
Legislative History
Mr. Stump introduced H.R. 4546 on April 23, 2002, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On May 1,
2002, the Committee on Armed Services met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 4546 reported to the House, as
amended, by a roll call vote of 57 yeas and 1 nay.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on May 2, 2002
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
4546.
On May 3, 2002, the Committee on Armed Services reported
the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-436), and on May 6, 2002 the
Committee filed a supplemental report (H. Rpt. 107-436, Part
II).
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 415, the House
considered H.R. 4546 on May 9 and 10, 2002. On May 10, 2002,
the House passed the bill by a roll call vote of 359 yeas and
58 nays.
On May 14, 2002, H.R. 4546 was received in the Senate, an
on May 16, 2002 the bill was read twice and placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
On June 27, 2002, the Senate called up H.R. 4546, struck
all after the enacting clause, inserting its own version of
this legislation, S. 2514, and passed it on June 27, 2002 by
unanimous consent. In addition, the Senate insisted upon its
amendment, requested a conference with the House, and appointed
conferees.
Pursuant to H. Res. 500, on July 25, 2002, the House agreed
to an amendment to the Senate passed version of H.R. 4546
without objection. The House insisted upon its amendment to the
Senate amendment, and agreed to go to conference without
objection. A motion to close portions of the conference was
agreed to without objection.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in
the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications
committed to conference falling within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment by unanimous consent, agreed
to a conference, and appointed conferees.
The Conference Committee met on September 5, 10, 11, and
12, 2002. The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-172) was filed on
November 12, 2002.
The House agreed to the conference report by voice vote on
November 12, 2002, and the Senate agreed to the conference
report on November 13, 2002 by voice vote.
On November 13, 2002, H.R. 4546 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on November 13,
2002, and on December 2, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-314).
MINERAL LEASING ACTIVITIES ON CERTAIN NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES
Public Law 107-345 (H.R. 2187)
To amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts
collected from mineral leasing activities on certain naval oil
shale reserves available to cover environmental restoration,
waste management, and environmental compliance costs incurred
by the United States with respect to the reserves.
Summary
H.R. 2187 would amend current law to allow the Secretary of
the Interior to spend certain mineral receipts from two naval
oil shale reserves in Colorado to study the environmental
cleanup costs at an oil shale retorting facility that was
formerly operated by the federal government within one of those
reserves. The bill would direct the Secretary to report the
results of the study to the Congress, outline a preferred
alternative for addressing environmental contamination at the
site, and estimate the cost of that preferred alternative.
Under H.R. 2187, if the estimated cost of the cleanup project
is less than the mineral receipts available under the bill, the
Secretary could spend the mineral receipts, without further
appropriation, to implement the preferred alternative.
Legislative History
H.R. 2187 was introduced on June 14, 2001, by Mr. Hefley
and referred to the Committee on Resources and, in addition, to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On June 26, 2001, the Resources Subcommittee on Energy and
Mineral Resources held a hearing on the bill, and on June 27,
2001, the Full Resources Committee ordered the bill reported,
as amended.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Resources exchanged correspondence on July 26, 2001 concerning
each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R. 2187.
On September 9, 2001, the Committee on Resources reported
H.R. 2187 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-202, Part I). In addition,
the Committee on Energy and Commerce was granted an extension
for further consideration ending not later than September 10,
2001, and was discharged from further consideration of the bill
on September 10, 2001.
H.R. 2187 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on December 18, 2001, and passed the House, as
amended by voice vote.
On December 19, 2001, H.R. 2187 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On
November 20, 2002, the Committee on Armed Services discharged
by unanimous consent.
H.R. 2187 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on
November 20, 2002, and was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 2187 was cleared for presentation to the President on
November 20, 2002, and on December 17, 2002, the bill was
signed by the President (Public Law 107-345).
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AND RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ACT
(H.R. 3178)
To authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to provide
funding to support research and development projects for the
security of water infrastructure.
Summary
H.R. 3178 would provide authorization for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to provide grants to organizations to
review short-term and long-term technologies and related
processes for the security of water supply systems.
Legislative History
H.R. 3178 was introduced by Mr. Boehlert on October 13,
2001, and was reported by the Full Science Committee on
November 15, 2002, as amended, by voice vote.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Science exchanged correspondence on December 14, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R.
3178.
On December 18, 2001, H.R. 3178 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, as amended, by voice vote.
On December 19, 2002, the bill was received in the Senate,
read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3178 in the 107th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
REMOVING BARRIERS TO BROWNFIELDS CLEANUPS
On March 7, 2001, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on the
brownfields cleanup programs run through the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the state environmental protection
agencies. The hearing focused on the roles, coordination, and
needs of the EPA, states, and private groups to more swiftly
and safely redevelop brownfield sites. Witnesses included the
Administrator of the EPA, a representative for the National
Governors' Association, state environmental officials, and an
environmental advocacy group.
DRINKING WATER NEEDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
On March 28, 2001, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Material held a hearing concerning current and future
needs for investment in drinking water infrastructure. This
hearing focused on the operation of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF), established by the 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments. The hearing examined how grants made by
the Environmental Protection Agency to states in order to
capitalize their state revolving funds had been utilized by the
states and disbursed to drinking water systems. The hearing
also examined the findings of the February 2001 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey, which compiled a national estimate
of the infrastructure, needed to meet the public health goals
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. This report indicated that
$102.5 billion is needed now to ensure the continued provision
of safe drinking water and that there are $48.4 billion in
future needs for a total of $150.9 billion over 20 years. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the Congressional Budget
Office and a panel of witnesses representing state officials,
public and private drinking water providers and an
environmental advocacy group. In addition to issues involving
drinking water delivery systems, some members of the
Subcommittee also posed questions to the witnesses concerning
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's decision to review
the drinking water standard for arsenic that was promulgated in
the Federal Register on January 22, 2001.
On April 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Material held a hearing to further examine issues
concerning current and future needs for investment in drinking
water infrastructure. This hearing examined estimates made by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding drinking
water infrastructure need as well as an independent analysis of
this need conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The CBO analysis was performed as part of a joint request by
members of the Energy and Commerce and House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee and covered both drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure requirements. In addition, the
Subcommittee received testimony from the General Accounting
Office (GAO) concerning the precision of EPA drinking water
estimates, states' use of drinking water revolving funds to aid
disadvantaged communities, and the amount and type of drinking
water infrastructure funding that EPA, other federal agencies
and the states have made available to drinking water systems.
The Subcommittee also received further testimony from a panel
of witnesses representing state officials, public and private
drinking water providers and an environmental advocacy group.
INTERSTATE AND INTERNATIONAL SHIPMENTS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
On August 1, 2001, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing on the status of
state disposal programs for municipal solid waste and whether
Federal law should be amended to give states and local
governments new authorities to place limits on disposal of
waste generated outside a states' borders. Witnesses included
Members of Congress, the state environmental directors of
several Midwestern states, the Deputy Mayor of New York City,
local waste officials, and representatives of the waste hauling
industry.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT OF 1996
On March 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held a field hearing to conduct oversight
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. The hearing focused on
the efforts of the EPA to meet statutory deadlines in the Act,
any cooperative efforts it was engaging in with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and practical concerns from
growers and environmental advocacy groups affected by the law.
Witnesses included representatives from USDA, EPA, farmer and
grower groups, and an environmental advocacy group.
MTBE CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER
On May 21, 2002, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing into the
contamination of drinking water sources by methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MTBE) and public responses to it. The hearing
focused on the primary role of leaking underground storage
tanks in contributing to MTBE contamination and states'
financial needs to address the large problem. Witnesses
included a representative from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Association, General Accounting Office, and the U.S.
Geological Survey. A second panel included a state hydrologist,
MTBE scientists, and representatives from communities facing
MTBE contamination of their drinking water sources.
THE EPA OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
On July 16, 2002, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials conducted a joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Health. The focus on this hearing was the
legality and effectiveness of moving the EPA Hazardous Waste
Ombudsman from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to its Office of
Inspector General (OIG). The Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials had requested a study from the General
Accounting Office on this matter. Witnesses included EPA's OIG
and its Office of General Counsel. In addition, witnesses from
the GAO testified on its report and the former Ombudsman and a
citizen advocate spoke as well.
Hearings Held
A Smarter Partnership: Removing Barriers to Brownfields
Cleanups.--Oversight hearing on a Smarter Partnership: Removing
Barriers to Brownfields Cleanups. Hearing held on March 7,
2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-17.
Drinking Water Needs and Infrastructure.--Oversight hearing
on Drinking Water Needs and Infrastructure.--Hearing held on
March 28, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-59.
Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration.--
Hearing on S. 350, the Brownfields Revitalization and
Environmental Restoration Act, H.R. --------, the Gillmor
Discussion Draft, and H.R. --------, the Democratic Discussion
Draft. Hearing held on June 28, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-43.
Perspectives on Interstate and International Shipments of
Municipal Solid Waste.--Oversight hearing on Perspectives on
Interstate and International Shipments of Municipal Solid
Waste. Hearing held on August 1, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-61.
The Status of Implementation of the Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996.--Oversight hearing on The Status of Implementation
of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Hearing held on
March 25, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-97.
Drinking Water Needs and Infrastructure.--Oversight hearing
on Drinking Water Needs and Infrastructure. Hearing held on
April 11, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-107.
MTBE Contamination in Groundwater: Identifying and
Addressing the Problem.--Oversight hearing on MTBE
Contamination in Groundwater: Identifying and Addressing the
Problem. Hearing held on May 21, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-108.
Recent Developments in the EPA Office of the Ombudsman.--
Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Health on
Recent Developments in the EPA Office of the Ombudsman. Hearing
on July 16, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-123.
Subcommittee on Health
(Ratio 18-15)
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
FRED UPTON, Michigan HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina LOIS CAPPS, California
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky RALPH M. HALL, Texas
GREG GANSKE, Iowa EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
Mississippi GENE GREEN, Texas
ED BRYANT, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland (Ex Officio)
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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; and, drug abuse.
Legislative Activities
ANIMAL DISEASE RISK ASSESSMENT, PREVENTION, AND CONTROL ACT
Public Law 107-9 (S. 700)
A bill to establish a Federal interagency task force for
the purpose of coordinating actions to prevent the outbreak of
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (commonly known as ``mad cow
disease'') and foot-and-mouth disease in the United States.
Summary
This legislation requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
prepare and submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry of the Senate a preliminary report, followed by a
final report, describing: (1) the economic impact associated
with the potential introduction of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE, or Mad-Cow Disease) and foot-and-mouth
disease into the United States; (2) the potential risks to the
public and animals of these two diseases; and (3)
recommendations to protect the health of animal herds and
individuals in the United States. Further, the report shall
contain an assessment of risks and recommendations to reduce
such risks, among other things. In preparing the preliminary
and final reports required under the Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture is to consult with the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, among others.
Legislative History
S. 700 was introduced in the Senate on April 4, 2001, by
Senator Campbell, read the first time, and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under Read the First Tim. On April 5,
2001, the bill was read the second time, placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders, and passed the
Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent.
The bill was received in the House and held at the desk on
April 24, 2001. The bill passed the House by unanimous consent
on May 9, 2001, and was cleared for the White House.
On May 17, 2001, S. 700 was presented to the President, and
on May 24, 2001 was signed by the President (Public Law 107-9).
DRUG FREE COMMUNITIES
Public Law 107-82 (H.R. 2291)
To extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities
Support Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a
National Community Anti-drug Coalition Institute, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2291 establishes a program to support and encourage
local communities that first demonstrate a comprehensive, long-
term commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth. The
Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 (DFCA) did this primarily by
authorizing grants of up to $100,000 to local community
coalitions to assist them in their anti-drug efforts. H.R. 2291
would expand that program and reauthorize it for an additional
five years, through fiscal year 2007. The reauthorizing
legislation includes provisions that would (1) annually
increase the total funds authorized for the program from
$50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $99,000,000 in fiscal year
2007; (2) increase the percentage of the total funds authorized
available for administrative costs from the 3 percent allowed
under current law to 6 percent; (3) instruct the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to take
steps to ensure that there is no bureaucratic duplication of
effort among the various entities charged with administering
the program and assisting coalitions; (4) allow coalitions to
re-apply for grants even after five years, but only with an
increased matching requirement; (5) create a new class of
grants that help mature coalitions ``mentor'' newly-formed
coalitions; (6) instruct the Director to give priority for all
grants to coalitions that propose to assist economically
disadvantaged communities; (7) help coalitions serving Native
American communities to meet their private fundraising
``matching requirement'' under existing law by allowing them to
count Federal funds allocated to tribal government agencies as
non-Federal funds raised; and, (8) establish a National
Community Anti-drug Coalition Institute.
Legislative History
H.R. 2291 was introduced by Mr. Portman on June 21, 2001,
and was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On July 25, 2001, the Committee on Government Reform met in
open markup session to consider H.R. 2291 and ordered the bill
favorably reported, as amended. The Committee on Government
Reform ordered H.R. 2291 reported to the House on July 30, 2001
(H. Rpt. 107-175, Part I).
On July 30, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was
granted an extension for further consideration. That same day,
the Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged the bill.
On September 5, 2001, H.R. 2291, as amended, passed the
House by a roll call vote of 402 yeas and 1 nay.
H.R. 2291 was received by the Senate on September 6, 2001.
On September 13, 2001, the bill was read the first time and
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time. The bill was read the second time and placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders on September
14, 2001.
The Senate approved the bill by unanimous consent on
November 29, 2001, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 2291 was presented to the President on December 6,
2001 and was signed by the President on December 14, 2001
(Public Law 107-82).
DUCHENNE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY CHILDHOOD ASSISTANCE, RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 2001
Public Law 107-84 (H.R. 717, S. 805)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
research with respect to various forms of muscular dystrophy,
including Duchenne, Becker, limb girdle, congenital,
facioscapulohumeral, myotonic, oculopharyngeal, distal, and
Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophies.
Summary
H.R. 717 allows the Director of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), in coordination with the Directors of the
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the
National Institute of Arthritis, and the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development to expand programs with
respect to activities concerning Duchenne. The legislation also
creates Centers of Excellence for Duchenne, which shall conduct
basic and clinical research into Duchenne and various other
muscular dystrophies.
Legislative History
H.R. 717 was introduced in the House by Mr. Wicker and 90
cosponsors on February 14, 2001, and referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce
The Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on
June 27, 2001 on H.R. 717. The hearing examined ways to advance
the health of the American people. The Subcommittee heard
testimony on the bill from an association dealing with muscular
dystrophy and a parent of a child with muscular dystrophy.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 717 for Full Committee
consideration, as amended, by voice vote. The Full Committee
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 717 favorably
reported to the House, as amended, by unanimous consent, on
July 18, 2001. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported
H.R. 717 to the House on September 5, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-195).
The House considered H.R. 717 under suspension of the rules
on September 24, 2001, and passed the bill by a roll call vote
of 383 yeas and 0 nays. F
On September 25, 2001, the bill was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
ordered H.R. 717 to be favorably reported with an amendment on
October 16, 2001. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions reported H.R. 717 with an amendment to the Senate,
without written report.
On November 15, 2002, the Senate passed H.R. 717 with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On November 29, 2001, the House agreed to the Senate
amendment by unanimous consent and the bill was cleared for the
White House.
H.R. 717 was presented to the President on December 6,
2001, and was signed by the President on December 18, 2001
(Public Law 107-84).
ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION COMPLIANCE ACT
Public Law 107-105 (H.R. 3323)
To ensure that covered entities comply with the standards
for electronic health care transactions and code sets adopted
under part C of title XI of the Social Security Act, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3323 extends by one year the deadlines for compliance
by health care providers, health plans other than small health
plans, and health care clearinghouses with the standards for
electronic health care transactions and code sets if, before
the current deadline, such entities submit to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services a plan for compliance with such
standards. In addition the bill directs the Secretary to
furnish the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics
with a sample of such plans for analysis for reports containing
effective solutions to compliance problems identified in the
plans; provides for excluding covered entities from
participation in Medicare for noncompliance. The bill also
requires the electronic submission of Medicare claims except in
certain circumstances; and clarifies administrative
simplification requirements for Medicare+Choice organizations.
Legislative History
H.R. 3323 was introduced in the House by Mr. Hobson on
November 16, 2001, and was Referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and
Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On December 4, 2001, the bill was considered under
suspension of the rules, and was passed by the House on a vote
of 410 yeas and 0 nays.
On December 5, 2001, H.R. 3323 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. The bill passed the Senate on December 12, 2001
without amendment by unanimous consent and was cleared for the
White House.
H.R. 3323 was presented to the President on December 18,
2001, and was signed by the President on December 27, 2001
(Public Law 107-105).
BEST PHARMACEUTICALS FOR CHILDREN ACT
Public Law 107-109 (H.R. 2887, S. 1789)
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
improve the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals for
children.
Summary
P.L. 107-109 reauthorizes the ``pediatric exclusivity''
provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for an
additional five years for drugs that are frequently used in
children, but for which no pediatric studies have been
conducted, for an additional six months of Food and Drug
Administration (FDA)-granted exclusivity when the FDA requests
that the drug's manufacturer conduct such testing, and the
manufacturer performs such tests. The law also establishes a
public fund to pay for pediatric testing of off-patent drugs
and on-patent drugs for which the manufacturer decides not to
conduct the pediatric testing requested by FDA. Further, the
law creates a private fund to conduct pediatric testing within
the already-existing National Institutes of Health Foundation.
Legislative History
H.R. 2887 was introduced by Mr. Greenwood and 22 cosponsors
on September 13, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Health approved H.R. 2887, as amended,
for Full Committee Consideration by a vote of 24 yeas and 5
nays on October 5, 2001. The Full Committee met in open markup
session on October 11, 2001, and ordered H.R. 2887 reported to
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 41 yeas and 6
nays. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2887
to the House on November 9, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-277).
H.R. 2887 passed the House under suspension of the rules on
November 15, 2001 by a roll call vote of 338 yeas and 86 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders on
November 16, 2001.
Upon conclusion of negotiations with the Senate, a new bill
S. 1789 was introduced by Senator Dodd on December 8, 2001.
Upon introduction, the bill was read the first time and
referred to the Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the
First Time. On December 10, 2001, the bill was read the second
time and referred to the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. S. 1789 passed by the Senate by unanimous
consent on December 12, 2001.
The bill was received in the House and held at the desk on
December 12, 2001. S. 1789 passed the House under suspension by
voice vote of the rules on December 18, 2001, clearing the bill
for the White House.
S. 1789 was presented to the President on January 3, 2002,
and was signed by the President on January 4, 2002 (Public Law
107-109).
NATIVE AMERICAN BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER TREATMENT TECHNICAL
AMENDMENT ACT
Public Law 107-121 (H.R. 1383, S. 1741)
To amend the Social Security Act to clarify that Indian
women with breast or cervical cancer are included in the
optional Medicaid eligibility category.
Summary
This legislation amends title XIX of the Social Security
Act to clarify that Indian women with breast or cervical cancer
who are eligible for health services under an Indian Health
Service or tribal organization medical care program, are
included in the optional Medicaid eligibility category of
breast or cervical cancer patients added by the Breast and
Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000.
Legislative History
On April 4, 2001, Mr. Udall of New Mexico introduced H.R.
1383. On November 28, 2001, the companion bill, S. 1741 was
introduced in the Senate by Senator Bingaman. The bill was read
twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without
amendment by unanimous consent on the same day.
The bill was received in the House and held at the desk on
November 29, 2001.
On December 20, 2001, S. 1741 passed the House under
suspension of the rules by a voice vote, clearing the measure
for the White House.
The bill was presented to the President on January 3, 2002,
and on January 15, 2002, S. 1741 was signed by the President
(Public Law 107-121).
FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT
Public Law 107-171 (H.R. 2646, S. 1731)
(Health Provisions)
To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Summary
The Act establishes labeling requirements for the terms
``catfish'' and ``ginseng'', and provides that failure to
comply with the labeling requirements is considered misbranding
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In addition,
the Act amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
allow foods that have been subjected to a safe process or
treatment which is reasonably certain to achieve the same level
of destruction or elimination of the most resistant
microorganisms as pasteurization, to be labeled as
``pasteurized.'' Further, the law requires the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to publish a final rule to revise the
current regulation governing the labeling of foods that have
been treated to reduce pest infestation or pathogens by
treatment by irradiation using radioactive isotope, electronic
beam, or x-ray.
Legislative History
H.R. 2646 was introduced by Mr. Combest on July 26, 2001,
and the Committee on Agriculture favorably ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended, on July 27, 2001. On August
2, 2001, the Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 2646 to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-191, Part I). On August 31, 2001, the
Committee on Agriculture filed a supplemental report to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-191, Part II).
On August 2, 2001, H.R. 2646 was referred sequentially to
the House Committee on International Relations for a period
ending not later than September 7, 2001 for consideration of
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(j), rule X.
The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended on September 6, 2001, and was
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than September 10, 2001. On September 10, 2001, the Committee
on International Relations reported H.R. 2646 to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-191, Part III).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Agriculture exchanged correspondence on September 28, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R.
2646.
On October 3, 4, and 5, 2001, the House considered H.R.
2646 pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 248. The House
passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 291 yeas
and 120 nays.
On February 13, 2002, H.R. 2646 was considered in the
Senate by unanimous consent, struck all after the Enacting
Clause, and substituted the language of S. 1731, as amended.
The Senate then passed H.R. 2646, as amended, by a record vote
of 58 yeas and 40 nays. The Senate insisted on its amendment
and requested a conference on February 13, 2002.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference requested by the Senate.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in the
Senate amendment and modifications committed to conference
falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee on Conference met on April 9 and 10, 2002,
and on May 1, 2002 the conference report was filed. The House
considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H.
Res. 403, on May 1, 2001 by a roll call vote of 280 yeas and
141 nays.
The Senate considered the conference report on May 7 and 8,
2002, and agreed to the conference report by a record vote of
64 yeas and 35 nays on May 8, 2002.
On May 10, 2002, H.R. 2646 was cleared for the White House
and presented to the President. On May 13, 2002, the President
signed H.R. 2646 (Public Law No: 107-171).
HEMATOLOGICAL CANCER RESEARCH INVESTMENT AND EDUCATION ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-172 (H.R. 2629, S. 1094)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
research, information, and education with respect to blood
cancer.
Summary
S. 1094 amends Part C of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act to create the Joe Moakley Research Excellence
Program and the Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Program.
Under the Joe Moakley Research Excellence Program, the Director
of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is directed to
expand and intensify programs to support and conduct research
with respect to blood cancer. Under the Geraldine Ferraro
Cancer Education program the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Director of NIH are directed to establish a
program to provide information and education to patients and
the public about blood cancer.
Legislative History
S. 1094 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Hutchison
and six cosponsors on June 22, 2001. The bill was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions.
On November 1, 2001, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions ordered S. 1094 to be favorably reported
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported to the
Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, without
a written report on November 8, 2001. S. 1094 was placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
On November 16, 2001, the Committee substitute of S. 1094
was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On November 19, 2001, S. 1094 was received in the House and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On April 30, 2002, the House passed S. 1094 under
suspension of the rules, by a voice vote, clearing the measure
for the White House.
S. 1094 was presented to President to the President on May
6. 2002, and on May 14, 2002, the President signed S. 1094
(Public Law 107-172).
PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM RESPONSE ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-188 (H.R. 3016, H.R. 3160, H.R. 3448)
(Health Provisions)
To improve the ability of the United States to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public
health emergencies.
Summary
This comprehensive legislation amends the Public Health
Service Act and directs the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to further develop and implement a coordinated
strategy--building upon core public health capabilities--to
carry out health-related activities to prepare for and respond
effectively to bioterrorism and other public health
emergencies.
P.L. 107-188 also amends the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act with respect to the regulation of dangerous
biological agents and toxins, known as ``select agents.'' The
new provisions require that all possessors of select agents
(unless specifically exempt) register with the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, and be subject to enhanced security
requirements to reduce the threat of misuse of such agents by
terrorists or other criminals. The new law also requires that
the Secretary establish a national database to track the
location of all such agents, and imposes enhanced criminal and
civil penalties for any violations of these provisions. The law
creates a similar regulatory regime under the auspices of the
Department of Agriculture for agents or toxins that pose a
severe threat to animal or plant safety.
In addition, P.L. 107-188 provides the Secretary of Health
and Human Services additional resources and authorities to
protect the American people from unsafe food and drugs. The
bill authorizes $100 million in fiscal year 2002, and such sums
as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006
to increase inspections for the detection of adulterated
imported foods; to improve information management systems used
to track imported foods; and to develop tests to rapidly detect
the intentional adulteration of food. The law further provides
for a reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
through 2007. In fiscal year 2007, the Secretary is authorized
to collect $259 million in user fees from drug and biologic
manufacturers, thus ensuring sound financial footing at the
FDA.
Legislative History
On October 3, 2001, the Full Committee on Energy and
Commerce met in open markup session and favorably ordered
reported a Committee Print to amend the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 with respect to the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services
regarding biological agents and toxins, and to amend title 18,
United States Code, with respect to such agents and toxins, as
amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee
also agreed to a unanimous consent request by Chairman Tauzin
to incorporate the Committee Print, along with two other
Committee Prints, into a bill to be introduced, H.R. 3016, and
to allow for the Committee to file a report on the introduced
bill.
On October 3, 2001, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 3016, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3016 to
the House on October 9, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-231, Part I).
The Committee on the Judiciary was granted an extension for
further consideration of the bill for a period ending not later
than Oct. 16, 2001. Following an exchange of letters between
the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation, the
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 3016 on October 16, 2001.
On November 6, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
filed a supplemental report to the House on H.R. 3016 (H. Rpt.
107-231, Part I).
No further action was taken on H.R. 3016 in the 107th
Congress, but on October 23, 2001, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R.
3160 which was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. H.R. 3160
contained provisions similar to those in H.R. 3016.
H.R. 3160 passed the House under suspension of the rules on
October 23, 2001 by a roll call vote of 419 yeas and 0 nays.
On October 24, 2001, H.R. 3160 was received in the Senate
and on December 20, 2001 the bill was referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3160 in the 107th
Congress, but H.R. 3448 was introduced on December 11, 2001 by
Mr. Tauzin and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. H.R. 3448 contained provisions similar to H.R. 3160.
On December 12, 2001, H.R. 3448 was considered in the House
under suspension of the Rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 418 yeas and 2 nays.
H.R. 3448 was received in the Senate and read twice on
December 18, 2001. The bill passed the Senate, amended, by
unanimous consent on December 20, 2001. The Senate insisted
upon its amendment, asked for a conference, and appointed
conferees.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and appointed conferees
The conference report was filed on May 21, 2002 (H. Rpt.
107-481), and pursuant to H. Res. 427, the conference report
was considered in the House on May 22, 2002. The conference
report passed the House by a roll call vote of 425 yeas and 1
nay.
On May 23, 2002, the conference report was considered in
the Senate and agreed to by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0
nays, and cleared for the White House.
S. Con. Res. 117 passed the Senate on May 23, 2002 by
unanimous consent. The bill was received in the House and held
at the desk on May 23, 2002. On June 4, 2002, S. Con. Res. 117
passed the House by unanimous consent. S. Con. Res. 117
provided for corrections in the enrolled version of H.R. 3448.
H.R. 3448 was presented to the President on June 7, 2002,
and was signed by the President on June 12, 2002 (Public Law
107-188).
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
Public Law 107-107 (H.R. 2586, S. 1438)
(Health Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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
The Health Care Provisions of the legislation are outlined
in Title VII and includes TRICARE Program improvements. The
bill also amends Federal provisions establishing the Department
of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund and
orders further studies and reports on various issues relating
to DOD health care programs.
Legislative History
H.R. 2586 was introduced by Mr. Stump on July 23, 2001 and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On August 1, 2002,
the Committee on Armed Services met in open markup session and
ordered H.R. 2586 reported, as amended.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on September 4, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
2586.
Pursuant to a unanimous consent request, on September 4,
2001, the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 2586 to
the House (H. Rpt 107-194).
H.R. 2586 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res.
246, and on September 25, 2001, the House passed the bill by a
vote of 398 yeas and 17 nays.
H.R. 2586 was received in the Senate on September 26, 2002,
read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. On June 18, 2002, the Senate indefinitely
postponed consideration of H.R. 2586 by unanimous consent.
The Senate passed S. 1438, which was introduced on
September 19, 2001, by Senator Levin, on October 2, 2001 by a
record vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays. The bill was received in the
House on October 4, 2001 and held at the desk.
On October 17, 2001, the House struck all after the
enacting clause of S. 1438 and inserted in lieu thereof the
provisions of H.R. 2586, and passed the bill without objection.
The House insisted on its amendment and requested a conference
with the Senate on October 17, 2001. A motion by Mr. Stump was
agreed to by a roll call vote of 420 yeas and 0 nays to close
portions of the conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in
the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications
committed to conference falling within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
The Senate disagreed to the House amendment and agreed to
the House's request to go to conference on October 17, 2001 and
appointed conferees.
The Conference Committee met on October 31, 2001 and
November 1, 2001. The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-333) was
filed on December 12, 2001.
Pursuant to H. Res. 316, on December 13, 2001, the House
agreed to the conference report by a roll call vote of 382 yeas
and 40 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report as well
on December 13, 2001 by a record vote of 96 yeas and 2 nays.
H. Con. Res. 288 passed the House and the Senate on
December 13, 2001, by unanimous consent to correct the
enrollment of S. 1438.
On December 13, 2001, S. 1438 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on December 20,
2001, and on December 28, 2001, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-107).
NURSE REINVESTMENT ACT
Public Law 107-205 (H.R. 3487)
To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
health professions programs regarding the field of nursing.
Summary
Title I amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to promote the nursing
profession through public service announcements. It also
expands eligibility for the nursing loan repayment program to
include service at any health care facility with a critical
shortage of nurses, but restricts service to nonprofits after
fiscal year 2007. It directs the Secretary to provide nursing
scholarships in exchange for at least two years of nursing
services at facilities with a critical shortage. It also
requires detailed, annual reports to Congress on the loan and
scholarship programs, including numbers, demographics, and
default rates.
Title II authorizes the Secretary to award grants or
contracts to schools of nursing or health care facilities to
expand nursing opportunities in education, through increased
enrollment in four-year degree programs, internship and
residency programs, or new technologies such as distance
learning, and in practice, through care to underserved
populations, care in non-institutional settings or organized
health care systems, and through developing cultural
competencies. Title II also makes career ladder programs and
activities that enhance professional collaboration,
communication, and decision-making eligible for a grant award.
In addition, the title requires the Comptroller General to
study and report to Congress within four years on: (1) national
variations in nursing shortages; (2) any differences in nurse
hiring practices between profit and nonprofit private entities
because of the inclusion of for-profit private entities in the
loan repayment program; and, (3) whether the scholarship
program increased applications to nursing schools.
Legislative History
H.R. 3487 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bilirakis and
27 cosponsors on December 13, 2001. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 19, 2001, the bill was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules. On December 20, 2001, the House
passed H.R. 3487 by a voice vote.
H.R. 3487 was received in the Senate, read the first time,
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time on December 20, 2001. The bill was read the second time
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders
on January 23, 2002.
On July 22, 2002, the Senate amended and passed H.R. 3487
by unanimous consent. On July 22, 2002, the House considered
H.R. 3487, as amended by the Senate, under suspension of the
rules, and passed the bill by a voice vote.
On July 22, 2002, H.R. 3487 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on July 30,
2002, and on August 1, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-205).
TRADE ACT OF 2002
Public Law 107-210 (H.R. 3005, H.R. 3009)
(Health Provisions)
To extend trade authorities procedures with respect to
reciprocal trade agreements.
Summary
The Trade Act of 2002 sets forth the overall trade
negotiating objectives for trade agreements. In addition, the
legislation provides temporary assistance with health insurance
for workers who lose their jobs due to new trade agreements.
Section 201 of the Act provides a tax credit equal to 65
percent of the cost of health insurance. The credit may be used
to purchase qualified health insurance. Workers who have three
months of prior creditable coverage must be offered coverage
and may not be excluded from coverage based upon pre-existing
conditions and must be offered premiums and coverage comparable
to those similarly situated. Payment of the credit may also be
provided in advance.
Additionally, the Act establishes a program of grants for
high-risk pools to qualifying States. It also authorizes States
to use national emergency grants to help eligible individuals
enroll in qualified health insurance coverage.
Legislative History
Mr. Thomas introduced H.R. 3005 on October 3, 2001, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker.
On October 9, 2001 the Committee on Ways and Means met in
open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3005 reported to the
House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 26 yeas and 13 nays.
On October 16, 2001, the Committee on Ways and Means reported
the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-249, Part I).
On October 16, 2001, the Committee on Rules was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
October 17, 2001, and on October 17, 2001, the Committee on
Rules was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3005.
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 306, the House
considered H.R. 3005 on December 6, 2001. The House passed the
bill by a roll call vote of 215 yeas and 214 nays.
On December 6, 2001, H.R. 3005 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance.
On December 12, 2001, the Committee on Finance met in open
mark-up session, and on December 18, 2001, ordered H.R. 3005
favorably reported, as amended. On February 28, 2002, H.R. 3005
was reported to the Senate by the Committee on Finance (No.
107-139), and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar
under General Orders.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3005 in the 107th
Congress.
Mr. Crane introduced H.R. 3009 on October 3, 2001, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. On
October 5, 2001, the Committee on Ways and Means met in open
mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3009 reported to the House, as
amended, by a voice vote.
On November 14, 2001, the Committee on Ways and Means
reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-290).
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 289, the House
considered H.R. 3009 on November 16, 2001, and the bill passed
by voice vote.
On November 16, 2001, H.R. 3009 was received by the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance. On
November 29, 2001, the Committee on Finance ordered H.R. 3009
be favorably reported, as amended. The Committee on Finance
reported H.R. 3009 to the Senate on December 14, 2001, with a
written report (Senate Rpt. 107-139). H.R. 3009 was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
The Senate began consideration of H.R. 3009 on May 2, 2002
and concluded on May 23, 2002. The bill passed the Senate, as
amended, by a recorded vote of 66 yeas and 30 nays.
Pursuant to H. Res. 450, on June 26, 2002, the House agreed
to Senate amendment with an amendment. The House agreed,
without objection, to insist upon its amendment to the Senate
amendment, and request a conference. The Speaker appointed
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for
consideration of sec. 603 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
On July 12, 2002, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment, agreed to the request for a
conference by Unanimous Consent, and appointed conferees.
The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-624) was filed on July
26, 2002.
Pursuant to H. Res. 509, on July 27, 2002, the House passed
the conference report by a roll call vote of 215 yeas and 212
nays.
On August 1, 2002, the Senate agreed to the conference
report by a recorded vote of 64 yeas and 34 nays, and the bill
was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3009 was presented to the President on August 2, 2002,
and on August 6, 2002, the bill was signed by the President
(Public Law 107-210).
NATIONAL HANSEN'S DISEASE PROGRAMS CENTER
Public Law 107-220 (H.R. 2441)
To rename the Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center.
Summary
H.R. 2441 changes the name of the Gillis W. Long Hansen's
Disease Center to the National Hansen's Disease Programs
Center.
Legislative History
H.R. 2441 was introduced by Mr. Baker on July 10, 2001, and
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 2441 for Full Committee
consideration by voice vote. The Full Committee ordered H.R.
2441 reported to the House on July 19, 2001, by unanimous
consent. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R.
2441 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-174) on July 30, 2001.
H.R. 2441 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on December 4, 2001, and passed the House by voice
vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on December 5, 2001,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions discharged H.R. 2441 by unanimous consent on
August 1, 2002.
H.R. 2441 was approved by the Senate by unanimous consent
on August 1, 2002.
On August 1, 2002, H.R. 2441 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on August 13,
2002, and on August 21, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-220).
MEDICAL DEVICE USER FEE AND MODERNIZATION ACT
Public Law 107-250 (H.R. 3580, H.R. 5651)
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to: (1)
create a medical device user fee program: (2) enact needed
regulatory reforms; and (3) revise the regulation of
reprocessed medical devices.
Summary
Title I of this legislation creates a user fee program for
the review of medical devices. Under this user fee program,
medical device manufacturers will pay a fee for every premarket
application (PMA), PMA supplement, premarket report, or
premarket notification submission (510(k)) submitted. With
these fees, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hire
new reviewers and upgrade information technology in order to
speed the review of medical devices.
Because small device manufacturers may not be able to
afford the full rate of the fees, the program establishes two
fee rates. For manufacturers with revenues below $30 million, a
lower tier of fees is established, and such manufacturers are
exempted from paying a fee for their first PMA.
Title II of the legislation enacts needed regulatory
reforms, including the establishment of third-party
inspections. Under the third-party inspection piece,
manufacturers with good histories of compliance with good
manufacturing practices will be eligible to select an FDA-
accredited third party to conduct the FDA biennial inspection
for quality systems regulation. This will enable global device
manufacturers to harmonize their different international
inspectional requirements by hiring one third-party to conduct
their multiple inspections.
Further included in Title II is the creation of the Office
of Combination Products within the FDA. This Office of
Combination Products will oversee and coordinate the review of
products with device, drug, and biological elements. Such
combination products presently do not receive appropriate
attention within the FDA. Also included in Title II are a one-
year extension of the third-party review program; electronic
labeling reforms; elimination of the ``intended use'' sunset;
and modular review.
Title III of the legislation constructs a new regulatory
regime for reprocessed single-use medical devices. This
provision ensures that all devices, both new and reprocessed,
conspicuously bear the name of the device manufacturer on the
device itself when practicable. Further, the legislation
ensures that all reprocessed single-use devices contain
labeling indicating that the device has been reprocessed.
Also, the legislation empowers the FDA to ask for
validation data proving that a reprocessed single-use device
subject to a 510(k) can be sterilized without affecting
functionality, and it empowers FDA to consider which currently
510(k)-exempt reprocessed devices should be subject to 510(k)
requirements, including proof of sterility and functionality.
Last, the legislation creates a regulatory pathway for approval
of reprocessed class III devices, through the creation of a
``Premarket Report,'' which largely tracks a PMA.
Legislative History
H.R. 3580 was introduced by Representatives Greenwood and
Eshoo on December 20, 2001. On October 2, 2002, the Committee
on Energy and Commerce ordered H.R. 3580 reported to the House,
as amended, by voice vote. The Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3580 to the House on October 7, 2002 (H. Rpt.
107-728).
H.R. 3580 passed the House under suspension of the rules by
a roll call vote of 406 yeas and 3 nays on October 9, 2002. On
October 15, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed a
supplemental report to H.R. 3580 (H. Rpt. 107-728, Part II).
No further action was taken on H.R. 3580, but H.R. 5651 was
introduced by Representatives Greenwood and Eshoo on October
16, 2002. H.R. 5651 resulted from House/Senate negotiations on
H.R. 3580.
H.R. 5651 was considered in the House by unanimous consent
on October 16, 2002, and passed the House without objection.
On October 16, 2002, H.R. 5651 was received in the Senate
and read twice. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent
on October 17, 2002, clearing it for the White House. H.R. 5651
was presented to and signed by the President on October 26,
2002 (Public Law 107-250).
HEALTH CARE SAFETY NET AMENDMENTS OF 2001
Public Law 107-251 (H.R. 3450, S. 1533)
An original bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
reauthorize and strengthen the health centers program and the
National Health Service Corps, and to establish the Healthy
Communities Access Program, which will help coordinate services
for the uninsured and underinsured, and for other purposes.
Summary
This legislation streamlines and consolidates the community
health centers program to maximize efficiency and delivery of
health care services. It authorizes the appropriation of $1.34
billion for fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary
for fiscal years 2003 through 2006 for Community Health
Centers.
Under this legislation, the Secretary will be authorized to
make grants to a new category of networks (practice management
networks) to help health centers to reduce costs, improve
access to health care services, enhance the quality and
coordination of health care services, or improve the health
status of communities. This law also reauthorizes and
streamlines the National Health Service Corps Program (NHSC) to
provide for greater patient access to high quality health care
in health professional shortage areas, where NHSC personnel are
assigned. It authorizes the appropriations of $146 million for
scholarship and loan forgiveness for fiscal year 2002 and $12
million for grants to the states for loan repayment programs
for fiscal year 2002 and such sums for fiscal years 2003
through 2006.
Finally, the law provides for a five-year authorization of
the Community Access Program (CAP). CAP is designed to provide
assistance to communities and consortia of health care
providers to develop or strengthen health care delivery systems
that coordinate health care services for individuals who are
uninsured or underinsured. Both public and private entities are
eligible grant recipients.
Legislative History
H.R. 3450 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis along with 27
cosponsors on December 11, 2001. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On October 1, 2002, H.R. 3450 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules. H.R. 3450 passed the House by
voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed
on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3450 in the 107th
Congress, but companion legislation, S. 1533, was introduced in
the Senate by Senator Kennedy on October 11, 2001, following
the markup of an original measure. The measure was reported
from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
with a written report (Senate Rpt. 107-83).
On April 16, 2002, S. 1533 passed the Senate, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent.
The bill was received in the House and held at the desk on
April 18, 2002. On October 16, 2002, the S. 1533 was considered
in the House under suspension of the rules. The bill passed the
House, as amended by a roll call vote of 392 yeas and 5 nays.
On October 17, 2002, the Senate received S. 1533, as
amended by the House. The Senate agreed to the bill as amended
by the House by unanimous consent.
S. 1533 was cleared for the White House on October 17,
2002. The bill was presented to the President on October 23,
2002, and on October 26, 2002, S. 1533 was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-251).
BENIGN BRAIN TUMOR CANCER REGISTRIES AMENDMENT ACT
Public Law 107-260 (H.R. 239, S. 2558)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the
collection of data on benign brain-related tumors through the
national program of cancer registries.
Summary
H.R. 239 amends section 399B of the Public Health Service
Act to ensure that data regarding benign brain-related tumors
are collected in state cancer registries through the national
program of cancer registries. Brain-related tumors are primary
tumors listed in the International Classification of Diseases
for Oncology (ICD-O) that occur in the brain, meninges, spinal
cord, cauda equina, a cranial nerve or nerves, any other part
of the central nervous system, pituitary gland, pineal gland or
craniopharyngeal duct.
Legislative History
H.R. 239 was introduced in the House by Representative Lee
and seven cosponsors on January 20, 2001. The bill was referred
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On November 15, 2001,
the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on H.R. 239. The
Subcommittee received testimony from a Board Member of the
Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States and the North
American Brain Tumor Coalition.
No further action was taken on H.R. 239 in the 107th
Congress, but on May 23, 2002, S. 2558 was introduced in the
Senate by Senator Reed and the bill was referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On June 19, 2002, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions ordered S. 2558 to be favorably reported, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute. On August 1, 2002, the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions discharged
S. 2558 by unanimous consent. S. 2558 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent that same day.
On September 4, 2002, S. 2558 was received by the House and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On October
10, 2002, the Committee discharged S. 2558 and, without
objection, the House passed S. 2558 by unanimous consent.
S. 2558 was cleared for the White House on October 10,
2002. The bill was presented to the President on October 17,
2002, and on October 29, 2002, S. 2558 was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-260).
21ST CENTURY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT
Public Law 107-273 (H.R. 2215, S. 1094)
(Health Provisions)
To authorize the Department of Justice, and other programs.
Summary
H.R. 2215 reauthorizes the Department of Justice. Included
in this legislation are provisions to address substance abuse
programs and research. The legislation instructs the President,
in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and
other appropriate Federal officers, to review all federal drug
treatment, prevention, education, and research programs and
recommend to Congress ways in which those programs could be
streamlined. The legislation also authorizes the expansion of
current and ongoing interdisciplinary research and clinical
trials with treatment centers of the National Drug Abuse
Treatment Clinical Trials Network relating to drug abuse and
addiction.
Legislative History
Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 2215 on June 19, 2001,
and the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On
June 20, 2001 the Committee on the Judiciary met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 2215 reported to the House, as
amended, by voice vote. On July 10, 2001, the Committee on the
Judiciary reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-125).
H.R. 2215 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on July 23, 2001, and passed by voice vote.
On July 24, 2001, H.R. 2215 was received in the Senate and
read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The
Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill to be reported with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably and placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders on October
18, 2001
On December 20, 2001, the Senate called up H.R. 2215, and
passed it with amendment by unanimous consent. In addition, the
Senate insisted upon its amendments, requested a conference
with the House, and appointed conferees.
On February 6, 2002, the House, by unanimous consent,
disagreed to the Senate amendment, and without objection,
agreed to go to a conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Conference for consideration of matters contained
within the House bill and the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference falling within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-685) was filed on
September 25, 2002.
On September 26, 2002, the House agreed to the conference
report by a recorded vote of 400 yeas and 4 Nays. The Senate
agreed to conference report by unanimous consent on October 3,
2002, clearing the bill for the White House.
H.R. 2215 was presented to the President on October 23,
2002 and was signed by the President on November 2, 2002
(Public Law No: 107-273).
RARE DISEASES ACT OF 2002
Public Law 107-280 (H.R. 4013, S. 1379)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an
Office of Rare Diseases at the national Institutes of Health,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4013 establishes within the Office of the Director of
the National Institutes of Health an office to be known as the
Office of Rare Diseases, to be headed by a Director appointed
by the Director of NIH. The Director of the Office of Rare
Diseases will recommend an agenda for conducing and supporting
research on rare diseases, and coordinate cooperation among the
national research institutes. For fiscal years 2003 through
2006, $4 million per year is authorized for this office.
Further, the legislation allows the Director of the Office
of Rare Diseases to enter into cooperative agreements with
public or private nonprofit entities to establish Rare Disease
Regional Centers of Excellence. H.R. 4013 authorizes $20
million for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2006 to support
such Rare Disease Regional Centers of Excellence.
Legislative History
H.R. 4013 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus on March 20, 2002,
and was referred solely to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On June 19, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4013 reported to the
House by voice vote. The Committee reported H.R. 4013 to the
House on June 26, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-543).
The bill passed the House under suspension of the rules on
October 1, 2002, by voice vote.
On October 2, 2002, H.R. 4013 was received in the Senate
and read twice. On October 17, 2002, the bill passed the Senate
by unanimous consent and was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 4013 was presented to the President on October 26,
2002 and was signed by the President on November 6, 2002
(Public Law 107-280).
RARE DISEASES ORPHAN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2002
Public Law 107-281 (H.R. 4014, S. 1379)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an
Office of Rare Diseases at the national Institutes of Health,
and for other purposes.
Summary
This bill reauthorizes the Orphan Products Research Grant
Program established under the Orphan Drug Act of 1983. The
grant program supports clinical trials on drugs being developed
to treat diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 patients in
America. H.R. 4014 reauthorizes the grant program at $25
million for each of the Fiscal Years 2003 through 2006.
Legislative History
H.R. 4013 was introduced by Mr. Foley on March 20, 2002,
and was referred solely to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4013 reported to
the House by unanimous consent. The Committee reported H.R.
4014 to the House on October 1, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-702).
The bill passed the House under suspension of the rules on
October 1, 2002, by voice vote.
On October 2, 2002, H.R. 4014 was received in the Senate
and read twice. On October 17, 2002, the bill passed the Senate
by unanimous consent and was cleared for the White House.
H.R. 4013 was presented to the President on October 28,
2002 and was signed by the President on November 6, 2002
(Public Law 107-281).
MENTAL HEALTH EXTENSION
Public Law 107-313 (H.R. 5716)
To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend the mental
health benefits parity provisions for an additional year.
Summary
H.R. 5716 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend the
mental health benefits parity provisions for an additional
year, through December 31, 2003. The original mental health
parity provisions were part of the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996.
Legislative History
H.R. 5716 was introduced by Mr. Boehner, and additionally,
by Mr. Miller, on November 13, 2002. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce were discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 5716 on November 15, 2002. On that same
day, H.R. 5716 was considered by unanimous consent in the
House, and passed the House without objection.
The Senate received H.R. 5716 on November 15, 2002, and the
bill was read twice considered, read the third time, and passed
without amendment by unanimous consent.
H.R. 5716 was cleared for the White House on November 15,
2002. The bill was presented to the President on November 21,
2002, and on December 2, 2002, H.R. 5716 was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-313).
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
Public Law 107-314 (H.R. 4546, S. 2514)
(Health Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 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
Title VII of H.R. 4546 amends the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services to make the
requirement of TRICARE preauthorization of inpatient mental
health care inapplicable to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
The legislation also implements the Department of Defense-
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Resources Sharing and
Performance Improvement Act of 2002, which urges the
Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs (VA) to: (1) commit
their departments to significantly improve mutually beneficial
sharing and coordination of health care resources and services;
(2) build supportive organizational cultures; and (3) establish
and achieve measurable goals to facilitate increased sharing
and coordination.
Legislative History
Mr. Stump introduced H.R. 4546 on April 23, 2002, and the
bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On May 1,
2002, the Committee on Armed Services met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 4546 reported to the House, as
amended, by a roll call vote of 57 yeas and 1 nay.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Armed Services exchanged correspondence on May 2, 2002
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives of H.R.
4546.
On May 3, 2002, the Committee on Armed Services reported
the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-436), and on May 6, 2002 the
Committee filed a supplemental report (H. Rpt. 107-436, Part
II).
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 415, the House
considered H.R. 4546 on May 9 and 10, 2002. On May 10, 2002,
the House passed the bill by a roll call vote of 359 yeas and
58 nays.
On May 14, 2002, H.R. 4546 was received in the Senate, an
on May 16, 2002 the bill was read twice and placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
On June 27, 2002, the Senate called up H.R. 4546, struck
all after the enacting clause, inserting its own version of
this legislation, S. 2514, and passed it on June 27, 2002 by
unanimous consent. In addition, the Senate insisted upon its
amendment, requested a conference with the House, and appointed
conferees.
Pursuant to H. Res. 500, on July 25, 2002, the House agreed
to an amendment to the Senate passed version of H.R. 4546
without objection. The House insisted upon its amendment to the
Senate amendment, and agreed to go to conference without
objection. A motion to close portions of the conference was
agreed to without objection.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in
the Senate bill and the House amendment and modifications
committed to conference falling within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate disagreed to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment by unanimous consent, agreed
to a conference, and appointed conferees.
The Conference Committee met on September 5, 10, 11, and
12, 2002. The conference report (H. Rpt. 107-172) was filed on
November 12, 2002.
The House agreed to the conference report by voice vote on
November 12, 2002, and the Senate agreed to the conference
report on November 13, 2002 by voice vote.
On November 13, 2002, H.R. 4546 was cleared for the White
House. The bill was presented to the President on November 26,
2002, and on December 2, 2002, the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-314).
AMENDMENTS TO SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS
Public Law 107-360 (H.R. 5738)
To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes and Indians.
Summary
H.R. 5738 extends diabetes programs for juvenile onset
diabetes and for Alaska Natives and American Indians by
specifying that $150,000,000 be appropriated for fiscal years
2004 through 2008. It also extends the date for a final report
on the grant programs from 2003 to 2007.
Legislative History
H.R. 5738 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus with four
cosponsors on November 14, 2002. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce was discharged from
further consideration of H.R. 5738 on November 15, 2002. On
that same day, H.R. 5738 was considered by unanimous consent in
the House, and passed the House without objection.
The Senate received H.R. 5738 on November 15, 2002, and the
bill was read twice. On November 20, 2002, the Senate passed
the bill by unanimous consent.
H.R. 5738 was cleared for the White House on November 20,
2002. The bill was presented to the President on December 10,
2002, and on December 17, 2002, H.R. 5738 was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-360).
DIRECTOR OF THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
(H.R. 239)
To elevate the position of Director of the Indian Health
Service within the Department of Health and Human Services to
Assistant Secretary for Indian Health, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 293 establishes within the Department of Health and
Human Services the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Health to facilitate advocacy for the development of
appropriate Indian health policy, and to promote consultation
on matters related to Indian health, in a manner consistent
with the government-to-government relationship between the
United States and Indian tribes. The position of Director of
the Indian Health Service is changed to an Assistant Secretary
position.
Legislative History
On January 30, 2001, H.R. 293 was introduced by
Representative Nethercutt and referred to the Committee on
Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On June 27, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a
legislative hearing on the bill. At the hearing, the
Subcommittee received testimony from the Chickasaw Nation
Ambassador to the United States of America concerning the
creation of an office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian
Health.
No further action was taken on H.R. 293 in the 107th
Congress.
ORGAN DONATION AND IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 624)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to promote organ
donation.
Summary
H.R. 624 creates new incentives for people to become organ
donors and provides for studies and demonstration projects to
encourage organ donation education efforts across the country.
The bill permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
make awards of grants or contracts to states, transplant
centers, qualified organ procurement organizations, or other
public or private entities for the purpose of providing for the
payment of travel and subsistence expenses incurred by
individuals toward making living donations of their organs. In
addition, the bill directs the Secretary to carry out studies
and demonstration projects for the purpose of educating the
public with respect to organ donation.
Legislative History
H.R. 624 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis on February 14,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On February 28, 2001, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 624 reported to the House by voice
vote.
On March 6, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 624 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-11).
H.R. 624 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on March 7, 2001. The bill passed the House by a roll
call vote of 404 yeas and 0 nays.
On March 8, 2002, H.R. 624 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H.R. 624 in the 107th
Congress.
MEN'S HEALTH ACT
(H.R. 632)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish an
Office of Men's Health.
Summary
H.R. 632 requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to establish within the Department of Health and Human
Services an office to be known as the Office of Men's Health.
The Secretary has the authority to appoint a director of the
office who must coordinate and promote the status of men's
health in the United States. The Secretary must submit to
Congress within two years a report describing the activities of
the Office.
Legislative History
H.R. 632 was introduced by Mr. Cunningham on February 14,
2001, and referred solely to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On June 27, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a
legislative hearing on the bill. At the hearing, the
Subcommittee received testimony from a doctor advocating for
the creation of an Office of Men's Health.
No further action was taken on H.R. 624 in the 107th
Congress.
FLU VACCINE AVAILABILITY ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 943)
To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the
availability of influenza vaccine through the program under
section 317 of such Act.
Summary
H.R. 943 amends section 317 of the Public Health Service
Act to permit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
conduct activities to enhance influenza vaccination efforts by
state and local governments. The legislation authorizes, under
the Public Health Service Act, such sums as may be necessary
for improved state and local infrastructure for influenza
immunizations with a particular focus on (1) increasing
influenza immunization rates for high risk populations; (2)
providing for continued vaccinations late in the flu season;
and (3) encouraging states to develop contingency plans for
influenza immunizations for high risk populations in the event
of a delay or shortage of influenza vaccine. This legislation
also expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that
oversight hearings should be convened immediately to determine:
(1) the course of action followed by distributors of influenza
vaccine during this influenza season; (2) whether or not such
distributors put profit ahead of the health and well-being of
the American people; and (3) whether it is necessary to take
additional measures to ensure the safe, adequate, and timely
supply of influenza vaccines in the future.
Legislative History
H.R. 943 was introduced in the House by Mr. Condit and two
cosponsors on March 8, 2001, and was referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 943 for Full Committee
consideration, as amended, by a voice vote. On July 18, 2001,
the Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R.
943 and favorably ordered H.R. 943 reported to the House, as
amended, by a voice vote.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 943 to
the House on July 26, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-168).
No further action was taken on H.R. 624 in the 107th
Congress.
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ASSISTANCE VOLUNTARY OPTION ACT
(H.R. 1340)
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
taxpayers to designate that part or all of any income tax
refund be paid over for use in biomedical research conducted
through the National Institutes of Health.
Summary
The legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a
taxpayer to designate any income tax overpayment to be used for
biomedical research conducted through the National Institutes
of Health.
Legislative History
H.R. 1340 was introduced by Chairman Bilirakis on April 3,
2001 and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and
in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H.R. 1340 to the Full Committee by
voice vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 624 in the 107th
Congress.
HUMAN CLONING PROHIBITION ACT
(H.R. 1644, H.R. 2505)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human
cloning.
Summary
H.R. 2505 amends title 18 of the United States Code,
establishing a comprehensive ban on human cloning and
prohibiting the importation of a cloned embryo, or any product
derived from such embryo. Any person or entity that is
convicted of violating this prohibition is subject to a fine or
imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or both. In addition,
H.R. 2505 provides a civil penalty of not less than $1,000,000
for any person who receives a monetary gain from cloning
humans. However, H.R. 2505 does not prohibit the use of cloning
technology to produce molecules, DNA, cells, tissues, organs,
plants, or animals.
Legislative History
H.R. 1644 was introduced by Mr. Weldon of Florida on April
26, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on
June 20, 2001 on H.R. 1644 an unnumbered piece of legislation
entitled the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. Witnesses
included Deputy Secretary of the Health and Human Services,
biotechnology industry representatives, professors,
researchers, research organizations, and a religious
organization.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1644 in the 107th
Congress, but on July 16, 2001, Mr. Weldon of Florida
introduced H.R. 2505 which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The Committee on the Judiciary met in open markup session
and ordered H.R. 2505 reported to the House on July 26, 2001,
as amended, by a roll call vote of 18 yeas and 11 nays. On July
27, 2001 the Committee on Judiciary was given permission by
unanimous consent to have until 5:00 p.m. on July 28 to file a
report on H.R 2505. On July 27, 2001, the Committee on the
Judiciary reported H.R. 2505 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-170).
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 214, H.R. 2505 was
considered in the House on July 31, 2001. H.R. 2505 passed the
House by a roll call vote of 265 yeas and 162 nays on July 31,
2001.
On August 1, 2001, H.R. 2505 was received in the Senate. On
August 2, 2001, the bill was read for the first time, and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time. The bill was read the second time, and placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders on August 3, 2001.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2505 in the 107th
Congress.
WOMEN'S HEALTH OFFICE ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 1784, S. 946)
To establish an Office on Women's Health within the
Department of Health and Human Services, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1784 formally establishes an Office on Women's Health
at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Health Resources and Services
Administration, and coordinates women's health activities at
the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality through its
Office of Priority Populations.
Legislative History
H.R. 1784 was introduced by Mrs. Morella on May 9, 2001,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 1784 for Full Committee
consideration, as amended, by voice vote. On June 13, 2002, the
Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1784
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote. On July 25,
2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill to
the House (H. Rpt. 107-616).
H.R. 1784 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on September 17, 2002, and passed the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
On September 18, 2002, H.R. 1784 was received in the
Senate, read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1784 in the 107th
Congress.
BREAST IMPLANT RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT
(H.R. 1961)
To promote research to identify and evaluate the health
effects of breast implants and to ensure that women receive
accurate information about breast implants.
Summary
H.R. 1961 requires the Director of National Institutes of
Health (NIH) to coordinate breast implant research within the
NIH and to conduct and support research to expand the
understanding of health implications of saline and silicone
breast implants. H.R. 1961 also requires the Commissioner of
the Food and Drug Administration to ensure post-market
surveillance is conducted on silicone breast implants and that
women receive accurate and complete information about the
safety of silicone breast implants.
Legislative History
H.R. 1961 was introduced in the House by Representative
Blunt and 17 cosponsors on May 23, 2001, and was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On November 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a
hearing on H.R. 1961. The Subcommittee received testimony from
the National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families
and a breast cancer survivor.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1961 in the 107th
Congress.
BIPARTISAN PATIENT PROTECTION ACT
(H.R. 2563, S. 1052)
To amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to protect consumers in managed care plans
and other health coverage.
Summary
The Bipartisan Patient Protection Act establishes minimum
standards for group health plans and health insurance issuers
with respect to patient care and coverage, including
utilization review activities and internal and external appeals
procedures. The Patient Protection Act also provides for
patient access to certain health care benefits, such as a point
of service option, emergency health services without prior
authorization, access to specialists and other services.
Furthermore, it establishes specific standards for holding a
health plan liable for damages related to injuries caused as a
result of services provided or withheld for patients.
Legislative History
On March 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a
hearing to address some of the main issues in the managed care
debate: (1) Federal and state roles in regulation of managed
care and (2) liability for wrongful denial of benefits. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels. The first panel
included a state insurance commissioner, a state senator, and a
national organization for health care consumers. The second
panel included a non-profit HMO, an employer, a physicians
group, and a health policy group.
H.R. 2563 was introduced by Mr. Ganske, and additionally by
Mr. Dingell, on July 19, 2001, and was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Education and the Workforce, and Ways and Means,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On August 2, 2001, H.R. 2563 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 219. H.R. 2563, as amended, passed the
House by a roll call vote of 226 yeas and 203 nays.
H.R. 2563 was received in the Senate on September 5, 2001,
read the first time, and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under Read the First Time. On September 6, 2001, the
bill was read the second time, and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
On June 14, 2002, Senator McCain introduced S. 1052. The
bill was read once and placed on the legislative calendar. The
motion to proceed was agreed to unanimously on June 21, 2001
and the legislation was considered by the Senate on June 22,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 2001. The legislation passed the Senate
with amendments on June 29, 2001 with 59 yeas and 36 nays. A
message on Senate action was sent to the House and received on
November 19, 2003.
EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 2581, S. 149)
To provide authority to control exports, and for other
purposes.
Summary
Title III (Foreign Policy Export Controls) of H.R. 2581
includes a section concerning measures to protect the public
health. This section defines the criteria and methods for
clinical investigations of test articles, and export licensing.
Legislative History
H.R. 2581 was introduced by Representative Gilman on July
20, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on International
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On August 1, 2001, H.R. 2581 was ordered reported, as
amended, by the Committee on International Relations by a roll
call vote of 26 yeas and 7 nays. The Committee on International
Relations reported H.R. 2581 to the House on November 16, 2001
(H. Rpt. 107-297, Part I).
On November 16, the Committee on Rules was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
December 7, 2001. In addition, the bill was referred jointly
and sequentially to the House Committee's on Agriculture, Armed
Services, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Ways and Means, and
Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period ending not later
than December 7, 2001 for consideration of such provisions of
the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clauses 1 and 11 of rule X. On December
7, 2001 all of the Committees were granted an extension for
further consideration ending not later than December 15, 2001.
On December 14, 2001, all of the Committees were granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
February 28, 2002. On February 28, 2002, all of the Committees
were granted an extension for further consideration ending not
later than March 8, 2002.
On March 6, 2002, the Committee on Armed Services met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2581 reported to the
House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 44 yeas and 6 nays.
The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 2581 to the House
on March 8, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-297, Part II).
On March 8, 2002, all of the Committees were discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 2581.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2581 in the 107th
Congress.
ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATIONS
(H.R. 3504, S. 1833)
To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
qualified organ procurement organizations.
Summary
H.R. 3504 clarifies that a qualified organ procurement
organization's certification or recertification in effect as of
January 1, 2000, remains in effect at least through July 31,
2004, and is subject to subsequent recertification not more
frequently than every four years.
Legislative History
H.R. 3504 was introduced by Mr. Burr on December 17, 2001,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 19, 2001, H.R. 3504 was considered in the House
under suspension of the Rules. The bill passed the House by
voice vote on December 20, 2001.
On December 20, 2001, H.R. 3504 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time. On January 23, 2002, the bill was
read the second time and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3504 in the 107th
Congress.
ECONOMIC SECURITY AND WORKER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 3529)
To provide tax incentives for economic recovery and
assistance to displaced workers.
Summary
H.R. 3529 primarily amends the Internal Revenue Code for a
variety of purposes. Among provisions related to public health
and health care, Title III extends provisions in the Internal
Revenue Code concerning parity in the application of certain
limits to mental health benefits and extends the availability
of medical savings accounts.
Title VIII amends the Internal Revenue Code to establish a
displaced worker health insurance credit and establishes a
program to make advance payments to providers of health
insurance on behalf of individuals eligible for the displaced
worker health insurance credit.
Title IX amends the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to
authorize the Secretary of Labor to award national emergency
grants to applicant Governors of States or outlying areas to
provide employment and training assistance and temporary health
care coverage assistance to workers affected by major economic
dislocations, including those caused by the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001.
Title X amends Title XXI (the State Children's Health
Insurance)(SCHIP) of the Social Security Act to make
appropriations for temporary State health care assistance. It
requires such funds to be allotted in specified amounts to
States and available for expenditure through the end of 2002.
It also directs States to use such funds only to provide health
care items and services, other than those for which Federal
assistance is prohibited under SCHIP or Medicaid.
Legislative History
H.R. 3529 was introduced by Mr. Thomas on December 19,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and
in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce,
Energy and Commerce, and the Budget, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On December 20, 2001, H.R. 3529 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 320. The bill passed the House by a roll
call vote of 224 yeas and 193 nays.
On December 20, 2001, H.R. 3529 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time. On January 23, 2002, the bill was
read the second time and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders.
H.R. 3529 passed the Senate, with an amendment, by
unanimous consent on November 14, 2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3529 in the 107th
Congress.
HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW COST, TIMELY HEALTH CARE (HEALTH) ACT
OF 2002
(H.R. 4600)
To establish minimum federal standards to reform the
medical liability system.
Summary
H.R. 4600 establishes minimum federal standards and
restrictions on the medical liability system. The provisions of
H.R. 4600 apply to any health care lawsuit brought in a federal
or state court, or subject to an alternative dispute resolution
system, that is initiated on or after the date of enactment,
with the exception that any health care lawsuit arising from an
injury occurring prior to the date of the enactment will be
governed by the applicable statute of limitations provisions in
effect at the time the injury occurred. In general, any issue
that is not governed by any provision of law established by or
under H.R. 4600 is governed by otherwise applicable state or
federal law.
Legislative History
On July 17, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing
to review issues pertaining to the evolving medical liability
crisis in several states and its effect on patient access to
care, and whether there is a need to enact medical liability
reform. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels of
witnesses. The first panel focused on how medical malpractice
insurance is affecting patient access to care and provider
availability. The panel consisted of representatives from a
Pennsylvania hospital, a public university health science
center, a family physician and clinical professor, a consumer
rights group, and a patients' group. The second panel provided
different perspectives on the causes of recent increases in
medical malpractice premiums and the effect of tort reform on
providers and injured patients. Witnesses included
representatives from a national physician-owned medical
liability insurer providing coverage for health care providers
in all fifty states, consumer rights groups, an actuaries
group, and the co-author of a tort law case book and advocate
of tort reform.
Representative Greenwood introduced H.R. 4600 on April 25,
2002, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On September 10, 2002, the Committee on Judiciary ordered
H.R. 4600 reported to the House, without amendment, by voice
vote.
On September 18, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4600 reported to the
House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 27 yeas and 22 nays.
The Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy
and Commerce reported H.R. 4600 to the House on September 25,
2002 (H. Rpt. 107-693, Parts I and II).
On September 26, 2002, pursuant to H. Res. 553, H.R. 4600
was considered in the House, and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 217 yeas and 203 nays.
H.R. 4600 was received in the Senate, read twice, and
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on September 26,
2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4600 in the 107th
Congress.
ABORTION NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 2002
(H.R. 4691, S. 2008)
To prohibit certain abortion-related discrimination in
governmental activities.
Summary
H.R. 4691 amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit
the federal government, and any state or local government that
receives federal financial assistance, from discriminating
against any health care entity because the entity refuses to
train, provide coverage of, or pay for, induced abortions. The
bill clarifies the definition of ``health care entity'' to
include health professionals, a hospital, a provider sponsored
organization, a health maintenance organization, a health
insurance plan, and any other kind of health care facility,
organization, or plan.
Legislative History
Mr. Bilirakis introduced H.R. 4691 on May 9, 2002, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing
to focus on two health care ethics issues. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from two panels of witnesses from both the
public and private sector. Witnesses on the first panel
discussed whether health care providers should be forced to
provide services that they consider morally objectionable.
H.R. 4691 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res.
546 on September 25, 2002. The bill passed the House by a roll
call vote of 229 yeas, 189 nays, and 2 present.
On September 26, 2002, H.R. 4691 was received in the
Senate, read the first time, and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. The bill was
read the second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under General Orders on September 30, 2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4691 in the 107th
Congress.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF 2002
(H.R. 4737, H.R. 4735, H.R. 4700, H.R. 4584, H.R. 4585)
To reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to
States for temporary assistance for needy families, improve
access to quality childcare, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4737 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program, which expired on September 30, 2002.
H.R. 4737 amends the Social Security Act to reauthorize
transitional medical assistance for one year, extending the
sunset date to September 30, 2003 (incorporating the provisions
of H.R. 4584). In addition, the bill extends funding for
abstinence-only education, maintaining the current funding
level of $50 million for each of the fiscal years 2003 through
2007 for abstinence-only education programs under title V of
the Social Security Act (incorporating the provisions of H.R.
4585).
Legislative History
On April 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held a
hearing to focus on two welfare reform issues that are within
the Committee's jurisdiction--abstinence education and
transitional medical assistance. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from the U.S. General Accounting Office and private
sector witnesses.
On April 24, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and favorably ordered reported a Committee Print to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend the
authorization of transitional medical assistance for 1 year,
without amendment, by voice vote. The Committee also agreed by
unanimous consent that the Committee Print would be introduced
as a bill, H.R. 4584, and to allow for a report to be filed on
the bill. At the same markup, and Committee favorably ordered
reported a Committee Print to amend title V of the Social
Security Act to extend abstinence education funding under
maternal and child health program through fiscal year 2007,
without amendment, by a roll call vote of 35 yeas and 17 nays.
The Committee also agreed to a unanimous consent request that
the Committee Print would be introduced as a bill, H.R. 4585,
and to allow for a report to be filed on the bill.
Mr. Upton introduced H.R. 4584 on April 24, 2002, which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On May 14,
2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4584
to the House (H. Rpt. 107-461). In addition, Mr. Upton also
introduced H.R. 4585 on April 24, 2002, which was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On May 14, 2001, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4585 to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-462).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4584 or H.R. 4585 in
the 107th Congress.
On May 15, 2002, Mrs. Pryce introduced H.R. 4737, which was
referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education and the
Workforce, Agriculture, and Financial Services, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On May 16, 2002, H.R. 4737 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 422, and passed the House by a roll call
vote of 229 yeas and 197 nays. The Clerk was authorized to
correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and
to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in
the engrossment of the bill.
On May 16, 2002, H.R. 4737 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance.
The Committee on Finance ordered H.R. 4737 to be reported
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably on
June 26, 2002. The Committee on Finance reported H.R. 4737 to
the Senate, with an amendment, and a written report (Senate
Rpt. 107-221). H.R. 4737 was placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4737 in the 107th
Congress.
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
(H.R. 4793)
To authorize temporary grants through the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for mosquito control programs to
prevent mosquito-borne diseases.
Summary
H.R. 4793 authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, to make temporary grants to political subdivisions
of states for the operation of mosquito control programs to
prevent and control mosquito-borne disease. The Secretary may
also make grants to political subdivisions of states to conduct
assessments, including entomological surveys of potential
mosquito breeding areas, and to develop mosquito control plans.
In addition to the grants to political subdivisions, states are
eligible for grants for the purpose of coordinating mosquito
control programs. The legislation also directs the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct or
support research to identify or develop methods of controlling
the population of insects that transmit diseases that have
significant adverse health consequences for humans.
Legislative History
Mr. John introduced H.R. 4793 on May 22, 2002, which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4793 reported to
the House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on Energy
and Commerce reported H.R. 4793 to the House on September 13,
2002 (H. Rpt. 107-657).
H.R. 4793 was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on October 1, 2002, and passed the House by voice
vote.
On October 2, 2002, H.R. 4793 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar under Read the First Time. The bill was read the
second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders on October 3, 2002.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4793 in the 107th
Congress.
MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2002
(H.R. 4888, S. 2591)
To reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act, and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4888 reauthorizes the Mammography Quality Standards
Act (``MQSA'') for an additional five years, through fiscal
year 2007. Further, the legislation makes technical changes to
the underlying statute, including allowing the Secretary to
issue temporary renewal certificates (not to exceed 45 days) to
certain facilities seeking reaccreditation in certain limited
circumstances. The legislation also requires the General
Accounting Office and Institute of Medicine to conduct studies
evaluating the effectiveness and impact of MQSA.
Legislative History
H.R. 4888 was introduced by Mr. Dingell on June 6, 2002,
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 13, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4888 reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 4888 to the House on July 22, 2002 (H.
Rpt. 107-601).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4793 in the 107th
Congress.
MEDICARE MODERNIZATION AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG ACT OF 2002
(H.R. 4954, H.R. 2768, H.R. 3046, H.R. 3391, H.R. 4961, H.R. 4962, H.R.
4984, H.R. 4985, H.R. 4986, H.R. 4987, H.R. 4991)
To amend Title XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide for a voluntary program for prescription drug
coverage under the Medicare Program, to modernize and reform
payments and the regulatory structure of the Medicare Program,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4954 amends the Social Security Act to establish a
new, voluntary prescription drug benefit as an entitlement for
all Medicare beneficiaries. The new benefit provides coverage
of Medicare beneficiaries' prescription drug costs, including a
protection against catastrophic expenses. The bill also
provides additional assistance to beneficiaries with incomes
below 175 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.
H.R. 4954 also addresses physician payment formula
problems, increases reimbursements for rural hospitals,
stabilizes the Medicare+Choice program, repeals the pending 15
percent reduction in home health reimbursements, improves
payments for skilled nursing facilities and dialysis centers,
provides Medicare coverage for several new preventative
benefits, eases administrative burdens and reforms Medicare's
regulatory, contracting and appeals processes.
Legislative History
On June 18, 2002, H.R. 4954 was introduced by Mrs. Johnson,
and additionally, by Mr. Bilirakis. Pursuant to the order of
the House of June 18, 2002, H.R. 4954 was referred jointly to
the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means.
On June 19, 20, and 21, 2002, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce met in open markup session and ordered reported
Committee Prints that were originally introduced as part of
H.R. 4954. The Committee Prints were ordered reported as
followed: on June 19, 2002, a Committee Print on Medicaid,
Public Health, and Other Health Provisions by a roll call vote
of 29 yeas and 20 nays, without amendment, and introduced as
H.R. 4961; on June 19, 2002, a Committee Print on Rural Health
Care Improvements by voice vote, and introduced as H.R. 4962;
on June 21, 2002, a Committee Print on a Medicare Prescription
Drug Benefit by a roll call vote of 30 yeas and 23 nays, as
amended, and introduced as H.R. 4984; on June 21, 2002, a
Committee Print on Medicare+Choice Revitalization and
Competition Program and Provisions Relating to Part A, without
amendment, by a roll call vote of 26 yeas and 15 nays; and
introduces as H.R. 4985; on June 21, 2002, a Committee Print on
Provisions Relating to Part B by voice vote, as amended, and
introduced as H.R. 4986; on June 21, 2002, a Committee Print on
Provisions Relating to Parts A and B by voice vote, as amended,
and introduced as H.R. 4987; and, on June 21, 2002, a Committee
Print on Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments by
voice vote, without amendment, and introduced as H.R. 4991.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the following
bills to the House on June 26, 2002: H.R. 4961 (H. Rpt. 107-
544); H.R. 4962 (H. Rpt. 107-540, Part I); H.R. 4984 (H. Rpt.
107-551, Part I); H.R. 4985 (H. Rpt. 107-550, Part I); H.R.
4986 (H. Rpt. 107-549, Part I); H.R. 4987 (H. Rpt. 107-541,
Part I); and, H.R. 4991 (H. Rpt. 107-547).
No further action was taken on any of the bills in the
107th Congress, but these bills were all subsequently modified
and incorporated into H.R. 4954 as considered by the House. The
Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 4954 to the House on
June 26, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-539, Part I).
On June 27, 2002, H.R. 4954 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 465. The bill passed the
House by a roll call vote of 221 yeas and 208 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate, read the first time,
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time on July 10, 2002. On July 15, 2002, it was read the second
time, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders
No further action was taken on H.R. 4954 in the 107th
Congress.
MEDICARE BENEFITS ADMNINISTRATION
(H.R. 4988)
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish the Medicare Benefits Administration within the
Department of Health and Human Services, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4988 amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social
Security Act to establish within the Department of Health and
Human Services the Medicare Benefits Administration, headed by
a Medicare Benefits Administrator who shall carry out Medicare
parts C (Medicare+Choice) and D (Prescription Drug Benefit) and
provisions relating to the Medicare prescription drug discount
card endorsement program. The bill directs the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to establish within the Medicare
Benefits Administration an Office of Beneficiary Assistance to
coordinate functions relating to outreach and education of
Medicare beneficiaries. It also establishes within the Medicare
Benefits Administration the Medicare Policy Advisory Board to
advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the
Administrator with respect to the administration of Medicare
parts C and D. The bill also establishes a grant program to
assist pharmacies in implementing the new prescription drug
benefit under Medicare part D.
Legislative History
On June 21, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and favorably ordered reported a Committee Print on
Medicare Benefits Administration by a roll call vote of 27 yeas
and 15 nays, as amended. The Committee Print was introduced as
an original measure, H.R. 4988, to reflect the Committee's
action.
H.R. 4988 was introduced by Mr. Tauzin on June 21, 2002,
and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4988 to
the House on June 26, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-542, Part I).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4988 in the 107th
Congress.
ELECTRONIC PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAMS
(H.R. 4989)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
grants to health care providers to implement electronic
prescription drug programs.
Summary
H.R. 4989 authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to make grants for the purpose of assisting health
care professionals who prescribe drugs and biologics in
implementing electronic prescription programs. Grants may only
be made pursuant to a grant application submitted in a time,
manner, and form approved by the Secretary.
Legislative History
On June 20, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and favorably ordered reported a Committee Print on
Promotion of Electronic Prescription by voice vote. The
Committee Print was introduced as an original measure, H.R.
4989, to reflect the Committee's action.
H.R. 4989 was introduced by Mr. Tauzin on June 21, 2002,
and was referred to the Committee Energy and Commerce. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4989 to the
House on June 26, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-545).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4989 in the 107th
Congress.
INTERNET PHARMACIES
(H.R. 4990)
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
establish requirements with respect to the sale of, or the
offer to sell, prescription drugs through the Internet, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4990 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
to require each interstate Internet seller to comply with
requirements of this Act with respect to the sale or offer of
prescription drugs. It requires the seller to: (1) post visibly
on its web site home page its street address, the States in
which it is authorized as a pharmacy, certain prescriber
information, and a statement it will dispense prescription
drugs only upon a valid prescription; and (2) disclose such
information to State licensing boards.
The bill further directs the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to: (1) engage in activities to educate the public
about the dangers of purchasing prescription drugs from
unlawful Internet sources; and (2) recommend to Congress the
coordination of activities of Federal agencies regarding
Internet sellers that operate from foreign countries with the
activities of such foreign governments.
Legislative History
On June 21, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and favorably ordered reported a Committee Print on
Internet Pharmacies by voice vote. The Committee Print was
introduced as an original measure, H.R. 4990, to reflect the
Committee's action.
H.R. 4990 was introduced by Mr. Tauzin on June 21, 2002,
and was referred to the Committee Energy and Commerce. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4990 to the
House on June 26, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-546).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4990 in the 107th
Congress.
PRACTICE OF PHARMACY
(H.R. 4992, S. 1806)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish health
professions programs regarding the practice of pharmacy.
Summary
H.R. 4992 amends the Public Health Service Act to establish
health professions programs regarding the practice of pharmacy
and grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services
additional authority to respond to the pending pharmacist
shortage. H.R. 4992 includes three provisions to generate
interest in the pharmacy profession and improve pharmacy
education. Public service announcements are designed to inform
the public about the essential role pharmacists play in the
delivery of health care services and encourage individuals to
join the pharmacist profession. A demonstration project is
included to expand the participation level of pharmacists in
the National Health Service Corps loan repayment program.
Finally, new information technology grants are permitted for
schools of pharmacy to enhance computer-based systems for
pharmaceutical education and encourage the development of
distance education programs for schools of pharmacy.
Legislative History
On June 20, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and favorably ordered reported a Committee Print on
Certain Health Professions Programs Regarding Practice of
Pharmacy, as amended, by voice vote. The Committee Print was
introduced as an original measure, H.R. 4992, to reflect the
Committee's action.
H.R. 4992 was introduced by Mr. Tauzin on June 21, 2002,
and was referred to the Committee Energy and Commerce. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4992 to the
House on June 26, 2002 (H. Rpt. 107-548).
No further action was taken on H.R. 4992 in the 107th
Congress.
TUBEROUS SCLEROSIS
(H. Con. Res. 25)
To express the sense of Congress that the federal
government should increase public awareness of tuberous
sclerosis.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 25 expresses the sense of Congress that all
Americans should take an active role in the fight against
tuberous sclerosis; the efforts of national and community
organizations and health care providers should be applauded for
promoting awareness; the Federal government has a
responsibility to raise awareness, increase funding for
research and consider ways to improve access for detection and
treatment of tuberous sclerosis; and the Director of the
National Institutes of Health should take a leadership role in
the fight against tuberous sclerosis and provide Congress a
five-year research plan.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 25 was introduced in the House by Mrs. Kelly
on February 8, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On June 27, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing
on H. Con. Res. 25. The Subcommittee received testimony from an
organization concerning tuberous sclerosis.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, to
the Full Committee by voice vote. The Full Committee met in
open markup session on July 19, 2001 and ordered H. Con. Res.
25 reported to the House, as amended, by unanimous consent. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill to the House
on August 1, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-181).
The House considered H. Con. Res. 25 on December 4, 2001
under suspension of the rules, and passed the bill by voice
vote.
On December 5, 2001, H. Con. Res. 25 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions. On December 12, 2001, the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions ordered H. Con. Res. 25
to be discharged by unanimous consent, and the bill was agreed
to by the Senate without amendment and with a preamble, by
unanimous consent, on December 12, 2001.
NATIONAL DONOR DAY
(H. Con. Res. 31)
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the
importance of organ, tissue, bone marrow, and blood donation
and supporting National Donor Day.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 31 confirms congressional support of the goals
and ideas of National Donor Day. It also encourages all
Americans to learn about the importance of organ, tissue, bone
marrow, and blood donation and requests that the President
issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States
to conduct appropriate activities to demonstrate support for
organ, tissue, bone marrow, and blood donation.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 31 was introduced by Mrs. Thurman on February
13, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On February 28, 2001, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H. Con. Res. 31 reported to the House by
voice vote. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the
bill to the House on March 6, 2001 (H Rpt. 107-10).
The House considered H. Con. Res. 36 on March 7, 2001 under
suspension of the rules, and passed the bill by a roll call
vote of 418 yeas and 0 nays.
On March 8, 2001, H. Con. Res. 31 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 31 in the 107th
Congress.
JUVENILE DIABETES RESEARCH
(H. Con. Res. 36)
To express the sense of Congress that Federal funding for
diabetes research should be increased so that a cure for
juvenile (type 1) diabetes can be found.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 36 expresses the sense of Congress that
Federal funding for diabetes research should be increased
annually as recommended by the Diabetes Research Working group
so that a cure for juvenile (type 1) diabetes can be found.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 36 was introduced in House by Mr. Green of
Texas and 41 cosponsors on February 14, 2001, and was referred
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 27, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing
on H. Con. Res. 36. The Subcommittee received testimony from
the father of a boy with juvenile (type 1) diabetes.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H. Con. Res. 36, as amended, to
the Full Committee by voice vote. The Full Committee met in
open markup session on July 19, 2001 and ordered H. Con. Res.
36 reported to the House, as amended, by unanimous consent. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill to the House
on August 1, 2001 (H Rpt. 107-182).
The House considered H. Con. Res. 36 on June 4, 2002 by
unanimous consent, and passed the bill without objection.
On June 5, 2002, H. Con. Res. 36 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 36 in the 107th
Congress.
NATIONAL REFLEX SYMPATHETIC DYSTROPHY AWARENESS MONTH
(H. Con. Res. 61)
Expressing support for a National Reflex Sympathetic
Dystrophy (RSD) Awareness Month.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 61 expresses the sense of Congress that all
Americans should take an active role in combating reflex
sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), national and community
organizations should be recognized for their work in promoting
awareness about RSD, and health care providers should continue
to increase their efforts to diagnose the disease in its
earliest possible stages to increase the likelihood of
remission. The resolution states that Federal Government has a
responsibility to endeavor to raise awareness about the
importance of the early detection and proper treatment of RSD;
work to increase research funding so that the causes of, and
improved treatment and cure for, RSD may be discovered; and
consider ways to improve access to and delivery of health care
services for RSD.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 61 was introduced by Mr. Barrett on March 13,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H. Con. Res. 61 to the Full
Committee by voice vote. The Full Committee met in open markup
session on July 19, 2001 and ordered H. Con. Res. 61 reported
to the House by voice vote. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported the bill to the House on August 1, 2001 (H
Rpt. 107-183).
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 61 in the 107th
Congress.
RED RIBBON WEEK
(H. Con. Res. 84)
Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in promoting drug-
free communities.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 84 expresses the sense of Congress that the
goals of Red Ribbon Week should be supported. The resolution
encourages all Americans to promote drug-free communities and
to participate in drug prevention activities to show support
for healthy, productive, drug-free lifestyles.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 84 was introduced by Mr. Baca on March 27,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H. Con. Res. 84 to the Full
Committee by voice vote. The Full Committee met in open markup
session on July 19, 2001, and ordered H. Con. Res. 84 reported
to the House by voice vote. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported the bill to the House on September 5, 2001 (H
Rpt. 107-197).
H. Con. Res. 84 was considered in the House by unanimous
consent on September 24, 2002, and passed the House without
objection.
The bill was received in the Senate on September 25, 2002,
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
On November 18, 2002, Senate agreed to the bill without
amendment and with a preamble by unanimous consent.
AUTISM
(H. Con. Res. 91)
Recognizing the importance of increasing awareness of the
autism spectrum disorder, and supporting programs for greater
research and improved treatment of autism and improved training
and support for individuals with autism and those who care for
them.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 91 confirms that the Congress supports the
Autism Awareness Day and Month and increased Federal funding
for research on autism. The bill also urges the Department of
Health and Human Services to continue to implement the
Children's Health Act of 2000. In addition, the bill stresses
the need to begin early intervention services soon after a
child has been diagnosed with autism; supports the goal of
federally funding 40 percent of the costs of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act to States and local school
districts. H. Con. Res. 91 urges Federal, state, and local
governments to allocate sufficient resources to teacher
training initiatives. Finally, the bill recognizes the
importance of worker training programs that are tailored to the
needs of developmentally disabled persons, including those with
autism.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 91 was introduced by Mr. Smith of New Jersey
on March 29, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions
as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On May 1, 2001, H. Con. Res. 91 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 418 yeas and 1 nay.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 2, 2001, and
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 91 in the 107th
Congress.
FIBROID TUMORS
(H. Con. Res. 165)
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding fibroid
tumors.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 165 expresses the sense of Congress that the
medical community should explore alternatives to eliminating
recurring fibroids by hysterectomy. The resolution also
encourages women to make regular obstetrician and gynecological
visits and encourages better communication so that women and
physicians know of all safe options available for the
prevention and cure of fibroids.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 165 was introduced by Mrs. Millender-McDonald
on June 19, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On April 24, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 165 reported to
the House by unanimous consent.
H. Con. Res. 165 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on May 20, 2002, and passed the House
by a roll call vote of 363 yeas and 0 nays. The title of the
measure was amended, removing the word ``cancer,'' and agreed
to without objection.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 21, 2002, and
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 165 in the
107th Congress.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS
(H. Con. Res. 170)
Encouraging corporations to contribute to faith-based
organizations.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 170 calls for U.S. corporations to make
greater contributions to faith-based organizations battling
societal challenges. It expresses the sense of Congress that
such corporations are important partners with government in
efforts to overcome social problems, and they should not adopt
policies that prohibit contributions to faith-based
organizations that are successfully advancing philanthropic
causes.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 170 was introduced by Mr. Green of Wisconsin
on June 20, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
H. Con. Res. 170 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on July 10, 2001, and passed the House
by a roll call vote of 391 yeas, 17 nays, and 3 present.
The bill was received in the Senate on July 11, 2002, and
referred to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 170 in the
107th Congress.
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
(H. Con. Res. 271)
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the
importance of health care coverage.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 271expresses the sense of Congress that a
National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month should be
established to promote a multifaceted educational effort about
the importance of health care coverage, to increase awareness
of available health care coverage options, and to include
efforts to inform eligible persons on how to access public
insurance programs.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 271 was introduced by Mrs. Wilson on November
15, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 271
reported to the House by unanimous consent.
H. Con. Res. 271 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on May 7, 2002, and passed the House by
a roll call vote of 402 yeas, 1 nay, and 1 present.
The bill was received in the Senate on May 8, 2002, and
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 271 in the
107th Congress.
ENDOMETRIOSIS
(H. Con. Res. 291)
Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the
disease endometriosis.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 291 expresses that Congress strongly supports
efforts to raise public awareness of endometriosis throughout
the medical and lay communities, and it recognizes the need for
better support of patients with endometriosis, the need for
physicians to better understand the disease, the need for more
effective treatments, and ultimately, the need for a cure.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 291 was introduced by Mr. McKeon on December
18, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 291
reported to the House by unanimous consent.
H. Con. Res. 291 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on October 1, 2002, and passed the
House by a voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on October 2, 2002.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 291 in the
107th Congress.
CERVICAL CANCER
(H. Con. Res. 309)
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding cervical cancer.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 309 recognizes the importance of good cervical
health and early cervical cancer detection and the courage of
cervical cancer survivors. The resolution urges medical
institutions to continue to raise public awareness about
cervical cancer and early detection.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 309 was introduced by Mrs. Millender-McDonald
on January 29, 2002, and was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On April 24, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 309 reported to
the House by unanimous consent.
H. Con. Res. 309 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on May 20, 2002, and passed the House
by a roll call vote of 361 yeas and 0 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on May 21,
2002.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 309 in the
107th Congress.
SCLERODERMA
(H. Con. Res. 320)
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding scleroderma.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 320 expresses the sense of the Congress for:
(1) recognition of private organizations and health care
providers for promoting awareness and research on scleroderma;
(2) greater awareness of the symptoms of scleroderma and
contributions to the fight against it; (3) the National
Institutes of Health to continue to take a leadership role in
research efforts regarding the fight against scleroderma and to
allow for broad dissemination of the information learned from
such research; and (4) the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to consider additional methods to improve disease
surveillance of scleroderma.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 320 was introduced by Mr. Gutierrez on
February 7, 2002, and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 320
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
H. Con. Res. 320 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on September 10, 2002, and passed the
House by a roll call vote of 369 yeas and 2 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on
September 11, 2002.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 320 in the
107th Congress.
BETTER HEARING AND SPEECH MONTH
(H. Con. Res. 358)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Better Hearing
and Speech Month.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 358 supports the goals and ideals of National
Better Hearing and Speech Month. The resolution commends the 41
states that have implemented routine hearing screenings for
every newborn before they leave the hospital. The resolution
also commends the efforts of speech and hearing professionals
in their efforts to improve the speech and hearing development
of children. Finally, the resolution encourages Americans to
have their hearing checked regularly and to avoid environmental
noise that can lead to hearing loss.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 358 was introduced by Mr. Ryun on March 19,
2002, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On April 24, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 358 reported to
the House by unanimous consent.
H. Con. Res. 358 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on April 30, 2002, and passed the House
by voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on May 1,
2002.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 358 in the
107th Congress.
OVARIAN CANCER
(H. Con. Res. 385)
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding ovarian cancer
screening techniques.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 385 expresses the sense of Congress that the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the
Director of the National Institutes of Health, should conduct
or support research on the effectiveness of medical screening
techniques for ovarian cancer, including the use of proteomic
patterns in blood serum in combination with other techniques.
The resolution also requires a report to Congress and the
inclusion of such technique in Federal health care programs and
group and individual health plans if it proves effective.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 385 was introduced by Mr. Israel on April 23,
2002, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 11, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 385 reported to
the House by voice vote.
H. Con. Res. 385 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules on July 22, 2002, and passed the House
by voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on July 23,
2002.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 385 in the
107th Congress.
HEALTH DISPARITIES
(H. Con. Res. 388)
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding health
disparities.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 388 encourages the establishment of a
``National Minority Health and Health Disparities Month'' to
promote educational efforts on the health problems currently
facing minorities and other health disparity populations. The
resolution asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as
authorized by the Minority Health and Health Disparities
Research and Education Act of 2000, to present public service
announcements on health promotion and disease prevention among
minorities and other health disparity populations educate
health care professionals about health disparities. It requests
that the President issue a proclamation recognizing the
immediate need to reduce health disparities in the United
States and encouraging all health organizations and Americans
to conduct appropriate programs to promote healthfulness in
minority and other health disparity communities. The resolution
encourages federal, state, and local governments to work in
concert with the private and nonprofit sector to emphasize the
recruitment and retention of qualified individuals from racial,
ethnic, and gender groups that are currently underrepresented
in health care professions. Finally, the resolution calls on
the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to continue to
collect and report data on health disparities and share this
information with all health care professionals so that they may
better communicate with all patients, regardless of race or
ethnicity, without bias or prejudice.
Legislative History
On April 24, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session to consider a Committee Print to express
the sense of the Congress regarding health disparities. This
committee print was ordered to be reported to the House by
unanimous consent.
On April 25, 2002, Mrs. Christensen introduced the
Committee Print which was given the number H. Con. Res. 388. H.
Con. Res. 388 was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On April 30, 2002, H. Con. Res. 388 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by
voice vote.
On May 1, 2002, the resolution was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On October 3,
2002, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged the
resolution by unanimous consent.
The Senate agreed to the resolution without amendment and
with a preamble by unanimous consent on October 3, 2002.
A message on Senate action was received by the House on
October 4, 2002.
CANDACE NEWMAKER RESOLUTION OF 2002
(H. Con. Res. 435)
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the therapeutic
technique known as rebirthing is a dangerous and harmful
practice and should be prohibited.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 435 expresses the sense of Congress that the
therapeutic technique known as rebirthing, an attachment
therapy used to try to forge new bonds between adoptive parents
and their adopted children, is dangerous and harmful and that
each state should enact a law that prohibits such technique.
The resolution defines ``rebirthing'' as a therapy to reenact
the birthing process that includes restraint and the practice
of which may cause physical harm to or kill a patient.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 435 was introduced by Mrs. Myrick on July 8,
2002, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 5, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 435
reported to the House by unanimous consent.
September 17, 2002, H. Con. Res. 435 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 397 yeas and 0 nays.
The bill was received in the Senate on September 18, 2002,
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 435 in the
107th Congress.
TUBERCULOSIS
(H. Res. 67)
Recognizing the importance of combating tuberculosis on a
worldwide basis, and acknowledging the severe impact that TB
has on minority populations in the United States.
Summary
H. Res. 67 expresses the sense of Congress regarding the
importance of increasing U.S. investment in international
tuberculosis control within the foreign aid budget for fiscal
year 2002. It also calls for expanding domestic efforts to
eliminate tuberculosis in the United States.
Legislative History
H. Res. 67 was introduced by Mr. Reyes on February 27,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on International
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On March 20, 2001, H. Res. 67 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 405 yeas and 2 nays.
FRAGILE X
(H. Res. 398)
Recognizing the devastating impact of fragile X, urging
increased funding for research on fragile X, and commending the
goals of National Fragile X Research Day, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H. Res. 398 recognizes the devastating impact of fragile X,
and calls for increased funding for research on fragile X. The
resolution also commends the goals of National Fragile X
Research Day.
Legislative History
H. Res. 398 was introduced by Mr. Watkins on April 25,
2002, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 25, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 398 reported to
the House by unanimous consent.
On October 2, 2002, H. Res. 398 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice
vote.
MENS HEALTH AND OBESITY
(H. Res. 438)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
improving men's health through fitness and the reduction of
obesity should be a priority.
Summary
H. Res. 438 recognizes that being overweight or obese is a
major health concern in the United States. The resolution
commends and supports the work of all organizations that are
taking steps to combat this health problem, and urges all
governmental, state, and private organizations to do everything
in their power to promote a healthy lifestyle.
Legislative History
H. Res. 438 was introduced by Mr. Toomey on June 6, 2002,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 11, 2002, was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call
vote of 400 yeas and 2 nays.
MANDATORY STEROID TESTING OF BASEBALL PLAYERS
(H. Res. 496)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players
Association should implement a mandatory steroid testing
program.
Summary
H. Res. 496 expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that Major League Baseball and the Major League
Baseball Players Association should implement a mandatory
steroid testing program; and that such a program would send a
clear message to our Nation's children that steroids are
dangerous, illegal, and morally offensive to our country's
competitive spirit and one of our most cherished sports.
Legislative History
H. Res. 496 was introduced by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut
on July 22, 2002, and it was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. That same day, the bill was considered in
the House under suspension of the rules, and passed by voice
vote.
STRENGTHENING SUCCESSFUL 1996 WELFARE REFORMS
(H. Res. 525)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the 107th Congress should complete action on and present to the
President, before September 30, 2002, legislation extending and
strengthening the successful 1996 welfare reforms.
Summary
H. Res. 525 refers back to the welfare reform law (P.L.
104-193), which was responsible for promoting record increases
in work and earnings among current and former welfare
recipients, reducing the number of children in poverty by
nearly 3,000,000 and achieving record low rates of child
poverty among African-American children and children raised by
single mothers, and lifting 3,000,000 families from welfare
dependence as part of a decline in national welfare rolls of
more than 50 percent. Despite these unprecedented gains,
2,000,000 low-income families remain dependent on welfare,
challenging the Congress to build upon that success by putting
even more Americans on the path to self-reliance. H. Res. 525
states that changes to the welfare reform law are needed to
better promote the creation and maintenance of strong two-
parent families and to improve the quality and availability of
childcare.
Legislative History
H. Res. 525 was introduced by Ms. Northup on September 17,
2002, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and
in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education
and the Workforce, Agriculture, and Financial Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On September 19, 2002, H. Res. 569 was considered in the
House pursuant to H. Res. 527. H. Res. 569 passed the House by
a roll call vote of 283 yeas and 123 nays.
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL
(H. Res. 569)
Expressing support for the President's 2002 National Drug
Control Strategy to reduce illegal drug use in the United
States.
Summary
H. Res. 569 expresses the support of the House of
Representatives for the President and the Office of National
Drug Control Policy in the goal to reduce drug use in America
by 10 percent during the next two years and 25 percent during
the next five years. The resolution calls on Americans to
reduce illegal drug use by talking to children about the
dangers and consequences of using illegal drugs. It also urges
the President and other specified officials to effectively
implement the 2002 National Drug Control Strategy and to work
to improve coordination among various actors, including the
different levels of government, to reduce the demand in the
United States for the international supply of drugs. Further,
H. Res. 569 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives
that narcotics control is an integral part of homeland security
and should be a priority mission for any new Department of
Homeland Security. Finally, the resolution reaffirms the
importance of upholding the Controlled Substances Act.
Legislative History
H. Res. 569 was introduced by Mr. Souder on October 2,
2002, and was referred to the Committee on Government Reform,
and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On October 7, 2002, H. Res. 569 was considered under
suspension of the rules and agreed to by voice vote.
HONORING MAUREEN REAGAN
(H. J. Res. 60)
To honor Maureen Reagan on the occasion of her death.
Summary
H. J. Res. 60 honors Maureen Reagan on the occasion of her
death, recognizes her as a forceful champion for action to cure
Alzheimer's disease and expresses condolences to her family.
Legislative History
H. J. Res. 60 was introduced in the House by Mr. Markey on
September 6, 2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On December 4, 2001, H. J. Res. 60 was considered under
suspension of the rules and agreed to, as amended, by voice
vote.
On December 5, 2001, H. J. Res. 60 was received in the
Senate, read twice and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H. J. Res. 60 in the 107th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
On February 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held the
first in a series of hearings on Medicare Reform. The purpose
of this hearing was to allow the Subcommittee to gain a better
understanding of the delivery methods seniors currently utilize
to obtain prescription drugs, and to gain information and
suggestions regarding models that could be used to craft a
federal benefit within the Medicare program. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from several representatives of delivery
systems through which seniors currently receive prescription
drugs, an Assembly representative from the state of Nevada, a
representative of a public policy organization and a
representative from a seniors organization.
On May 16, 2001, the Subcommittee held the second hearing
in the series. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office, from a patients'
group, a professor of health management and policy, and a
biotechnology association.
On April 17, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held a
hearing on creating a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The
purpose of this hearing was to focus specifically on
initiatives currently being pursued by the Administration,
states and the private sector to provide assistance to low
income seniors with their drug costs, and how these proposals
might be incorporated into a comprehensive reform package as
well as offer interim relief until a comprehensive benefit can
be implemented. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the
Council of Economic Advisors, and representatives from a
healthcare services company, the Office of the Governor of
Nevada, chain drug companies, an independent philanthropy
focusing on health care issues, a patients' group, and a
professor.
CMS MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
On March 1, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a joint
hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
This was the first in a series of hearings on affordable health
coverage. The purpose of the series 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.
Specifically, this first hearing examined the current processes
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has in
place to determine how it pays for medical devices and new
technologies. The Subcommittees heard testimony from two
panels. The first panel included representatives from a
nationwide grassroots senior advocacy group, a professor and
doctor of diagnostic radiology, and a cardiologist. The second
panel included the Director of the Office of Clinical Standards
and Quality at HCFA, a senior scientist from a health care
consulting group, and the executive director of the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission.
On April 4, 2001, the Subcommittees held the second hearing
in the series. The purpose of this hearing was to examine how
providers currently receive information from CMS and its
contractors concerning Medicare policies, and how the provider
education process can be improved. The Subcommittees heard
testimony from CMS, the Office of the Inspector General within
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a doctor,
and representatives from a health care organization
administrator, a non-profit health insurance corporation, and a
health care provider.
On May 10, 2001, the Subcommittees held the third hearing
in the series. The Subcommittees heard testimony from four
former administrators of CMS, then know as the Health Care
Financing Administration. Their testimony focused on ways to
bring more efficiencies to CMS to help keep pace with the
evolving 21st century health care marketplace.
On June 28, 2001, the Subcommittees held the last hearing
in the series. The purpose of this hearing was to learn more
about the current contracting complexities unique to the
Medicare program, the extent to which such complexities are
affecting the efficiency and integrity of the Medicare system,
and what role Congress can play in addressing these concerns.
The Subcommittees heard testimony from two panels, the first
including CMS, HHS, and the General Accounting Office. The
second panel included a health care provider, a Medicare
intermediary, and a Seniors group.
MANAGED CARE
On March 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to address some of the main issues in the
managed care debate: (1) Federal and state roles in regulation
of managed care and (2) liability for wrongful denial of
benefits. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels. The
first panel included a state insurance commissioner, a state
senator, and a national organization for health care consumers.
The second panel included a non-profit HMO, a representative
from Honeywell, a physicians group, and a health policy group.
THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
On March 22, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to assess the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and how the Federal medical
record privacy regulations could be improved. The purpose of
this hearing was to focus on the benefits and unintended
consequences of the Clinton Administration's regulations to
implement HIPAA medical record privacy provisions. The
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives from an
Ohio clinic and a Wisconsin clinic, a nurses' group, a public
medical university, a pharmacy, a private university, and a
health care insurer.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
On April 26, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the priorities of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) as reflected in the fiscal year 2002
Budget. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
On March 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the 2003 Budget. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
THE FOOD AND DRUG MODERNIZATION ACT
On May 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to consider whether the reforms contained in
the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997
(``FDAMA'') have improved the regulation of drugs, devices and
food, among other things, and specifically whether the
pediatric exclusivity provision of Title I has resulted in
better pharmaceutical dosing information for the benefit of
children. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels. The
first panel included the Senior Associate Commissioner of the
FDA, and representatives from the medical device industry and
the food processing industry. The second panel included
representatives from a children's clinic, a laboratory,
patient's groups, and a research-based pharmaceutical and
biotechnology company.
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
On June 13, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the recent developments which may impact
consumer access to, and demand for, pharmaceuticals. The
purpose of this hearing was to provide the Subcommittee with
the opportunity to consider three Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) matters which have received considerable attention of
late: direct-to-consumer (DTC) broadcast advertising; the
process whereby prescription drugs can be switched to over-the-
counter (OTC) status over the objection of drug manufacturers;
and the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act
of 1984, otherwise known as the Hatch-Waxman, or Waxman-Hatch,
Act. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Director of
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, a physician, an
attorney, a representative from the generic pharmaceutical
industry, a Hispanic health and human service provider, and
representatives from the private sector.
MEDICARE REFORM
On June 14, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on Medicare reform. The purpose of this
hearing was to address some of the fundamental issues in the
Medicare reform debate, specifically how merging Parts A and B
of the Medicare program may affect (1) the financial
sustainability of the program, (2) the cost-sharing liability
of Medicare beneficiaries, and (3) the management and delivery
of high quality services to beneficiaries. This hearing was
intended to help to improve the quality of any final
legislative reform of the Medicare program through thoughtful
evaluation of the challenging issues inherent in any reform
proposal. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the General
Accounting Office, representatives from a health insurers
group, a Seniors group, a nonprofit nonpartisan policy research
and educational organization, and a private sector health care
representative.
On July 26, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on Medicare modernization. The purpose of
this hearing was to learn more about the President's recently
announced principles for the modernization of the Medicare
program, the administrative changes that will be occurring at
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and what
role Congress should play in the establishment of a
prescription drug benefit and the modernization of the Medicare
program. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
On March 20, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on Medicare modernization. The purpose of
this hearing was to examine how the Federal Employees Health
Benefit Program (``FEHBP'') currently works and whether FEHB
should serve as a model for reforming the Medicare Program. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from HHS, and representatives from
a non-profit, nonpartisan policy research group, a non-profit
HMO, a research and educational institute, and a seniors' grass
roots education and advocacy organization.
SAFETY NET PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS
On August 1, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on authorizing safety net public health
programs. The purpose of this hearing was to focus on issues
related to authorizing Community Health Centers, the National
Health Service Corps, and whether it is feasible and necessary
to address health care worker shortages through Federal
remedies. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels of
witnesses. The first panel included the Acting Director of the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRS, and
representatives from clinics and community health centers, and
a state senator. The second panel included a witness from
General Accounting Office (GAO), representatives from a
patient's group, a health care provider, a private hospital, a
pharmacist, and a registered nurse.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE
On September 21, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held a
joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations on Medicare drug reimbursements. The
Subcommittees received testimony from three panels. The first
panel included the General Accounting Office, the Deputy
Inspector General for Health and Human Services (HHS), and a
pharmacy representative. On the second panel, the Subcommittees
heard testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The third panel included
representatives from a physicians' group, a pharmacy and home
health care provider, a homecare association, and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH).
PUBLIC HEALTH
On November 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing raising health awareness by examining the
issues of benign brain tumors, alpha one, and breast implant
issues. The purpose of this hearing was to consider various
legislative proposals pertaining to the public health. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from public and private sector
witnesses including, two breast implant recipients, and
representatives from a women's health policy research group,
and other patients' groups.
MEDICARE PAYMENT POLICY
On February 14, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on Medicare payment policy. The purpose of
this hearing was to focus on the formula used to update payment
rates for individual physician services under Medicare's
physician fee schedule. In 2002, health care professionals paid
under this fee schedule experienced the largest across-the-
board payment cut since the fee schedule was first put in place
a decade ago. The Subcommittee investigated the concern that
the current update formula is flawed and may, at times, put at
risk beneficiaries' access to critical health care services.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Administrator of
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the General
Accounting Office, and representatives from several physicians'
and nurses' groups, a seniors' grass roots education and
advocacy organization, and a clinic.
THE UNINSURED
On February 28, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the uninsured and affordable health care
coverage. The purpose of this hearing was to address the
problems of access to affordable health coverage, various
individual state initiatives, and some of the legislative
proposals to help more Americans get insurance. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from various public and private
sector witnesses, including a doctor, a bi-partisan health
policy institute, a not-for-profit research and educational
organization that focuses on health policy, a patients' group,
a patients advocacy group, a dean of public policy, and a
research institute.
THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG USER FEE ACT
On March 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing of the reauthorization of the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). The purpose of this hearing was to
consider whether the Act has met its purpose of speeding the
review of drugs and biologics without compromising patient
safety. Further, the hearing allowed the Subcommittee to learn
more about the recent agreement between Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and industry on the performance goals they
have developed which they hope will accompany PDUFA III. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the Deputy Commissioner of
FDA, a research laboratory, a pharmaceutical company, and
school of medicine.
WELFARE REFORM
On April 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on welfare reform to review abstinence
education and transitional medical assistance. The purpose of
this hearing was to focus on two welfare reform issues that are
within the Committee's jurisdiction. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from the General Accounting Office and private sector
witnesses.
PATIENT SAFETY
On May 8, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to focus on efforts that the private sector
has employed to reduce the number of medical errors. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of a health
care provider, a provider of diagnostic testing and
information, a private sector accrediting body, a standards and
information group, and a nurses' group.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
On June 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to examine how the National Institutes of
Health is investing additional taxpayer dollars to improve and
expand research activities. This hearing reviewed the
activities of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and
the National Institutes of Neurological Disorders of Stroke,
with an emphasis on heart, blood, and stroke research. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute, the National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke, and representatives from the private and
public sector.
HEALTH CARE ETHICS
On July 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to focus on two health care ethics issues.
The Subcommittee heard testimony from two panels of witnesses
from both the public and private sector. Witnesses on the first
panel discussed whether health care providers should be forced
to provide services that they consider morally objectionable.
Witnesses serving on the second panel discussed whether a
parent should be denied information when a minor they are
legally responsible for is permitted access to contraceptives.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
On July 16, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health conducted a
joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials. The focus on this hearing was the
legality and effectiveness of moving the EPA Hazardous Waste
Ombudsman from the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) to its Office of
Inspector General (OIG). The Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials had requested a study from the General
Accounting Office on this matter. Witnesses included EPA's OIG
and its Office of General Counsel. In addition, witnesses from
the GAO testified on its report and the former Ombudsman and a
citizen advocate spoke as well.
MEDICAL LIABILITY
On July 17, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to review issues pertaining to the evolving
medical liability crisis in several states, its effect on
patient access to care, and whether there is a need to enact
medical liability reform. The Subcommittee heard testimony from
two panels of witnesses. The first panel focused on how medical
malpractice insurance is affecting patient access to care and
provider availability. The panel consisted of representatives
from a Pennsylvania hospital, a public university health
science center, a family physician and clinical professor, a
consumer rights group, and a patients' group. The second panel
provided different perspectives on the causes of recent
increases in medical malpractice premiums and the effect of
tort reform on providers and injured patients. Witnesses
included representatives from a national physician-owned
medical liability insurer providing coverage for health care
providers in all fifty states, consumer rights groups, an
actuaries group, and the co-author of a tort law casebook and
advocate of tort reform.
MENTAL HEALTH
On July 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to focus on recent proposals to provide
mental health benefits on a ``parity'' basis with medical and
surgical benefits. The Subcommittee heard testimony from a
single panel consisting of the representatives from HMO's, a
manufacturers group, a doctor's group, an independent oil and
gas exploration and production company, and a behavioral health
nurse.
DRUG REIMPORTATION
On July 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing examining prescription drug reimportation to
review a proposal to allow third arties to reimport
prescription drugs. The hearing examined a proposal by
Representative Jack Kingston intended to allow: (1) personal
importation of drugs which appear to be approved by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and (2) third parties to reimport
FDA-approved drugs into the United States. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from FDA, a representative from a public
university's college of pharmacy, a nonprofit physician health
system organization, a pharmacies' group, and a food and drug
law attorney.
GENERIC DRUG ENTRY PRIOR TO PATENT EXPIRATION
On October 9, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to consider whether there exists adequate
competition amongst brand and generic drugs, and whether
improvements allowing for greater competition in the drug
marketplace are necessary. Further, this hearing allowed the
Subcommittee to learn more about how generic manufacturers seek
access to the market prior to the expiration of brand drug
patent protection. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), a representative from a generic
pharmaceuticals group, a physician and attorney of FDA
regulatory law, a pediatrician, and a patient.
Hearings Held
Medicare Reform: Providing Prescription Drug Coverage for
Seniors.--Oversight hearing on Medicare Reform: Providing
Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Hearing held on
February 15, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-1.
Patients First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality
and Affordable Health Coverage.--Joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Patients
First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality and Affordable
Health Coverage. Hearings held on March 1, April 4, and May 10,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-23.
A Smarter Health Care Partnership for American Families:
Making Federal and State Roles in Managed Care Regulation and
Liability Work for Accountable and Affordable Health Care
Coverage.--Oversight hearing on a Smarter Health Care
Partnership for American Families: Making Federal and State
Roles in Managed Care Regulation and Liability Work for
Accountable and Affordable Health Care Coverage. Hearing held
on March 15, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-9.
Assessing HIPAA: How Federal Medical Record Privacy
Regulations Cab Be Improved.--Oversight hearing on Assessing
HIPAA: How Federal Medical Record Privacy Regulations Cab Be
Improved. Hearing held on March 22, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-15.
Priorities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Reflected in the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget.--Oversight
hearing on Priorities of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Reflected in the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget.
Hearing held on April 26, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-44.
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act.--Oversight hearing on
Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act. Hearing held on May 3, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-51.
Medicare Reform: Providing Prescription Drug Coverage for
Seniors.--Oversight hearing on Medicare Reform: Providing
Prescription Drug Coverage for Seniors. Hearing held on May 16,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-28.
Recent Developments Which May Impact Consumer Access to,
and Demand for, Pharmaceuticals.--Oversight hearing on Recent
Developments Which May Impact Consumer Access to, and Demand
for, Pharmaceuticals. Hearings held on June 13, 2001. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-34.
Medicare Reform: Modernizing Medicare and Merging Parts A
and B.--Oversight hearing on Medicare Reform: Modernizing
Medicare and Merging Parts A and B. Hearings held on June 14,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-40.
Human Cloning Prohibition Act and Cloning Prohibition
Act.--Hearing on H.R. 1644, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act
and H.R. --------, the Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. Hearing
held on June 20, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-41.
Advancing the Health of the American People: Addressing
Various Public Health Needs.--Hearing on H.R. 293, to elevate
the position of Director of the Indian Health Service within
the Department of Health and Human Services to Assistant
Secretary for Indian Health, and for other purposes; H.R. 632,
the Men's Health Act of 2001; H.R. 717, the Duchenne Muscular
Dystrophy Childhood Assistance, Research and Education
Amendments of 2001; H.R. 1340, the Biomedical Research
Assistance Voluntary Option Act; H. Con. Res. 25, Expressing
the sense of the Congress regarding tuberous sclerosis; H. Con
Res. 36, Urging increased Federal funding for juvenile (type I)
diabetes research; H. Con. Res. 61, Expressing support for a
National Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD) Awareness Month;
and H. Con. Res. 84, Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week in
promoting drug-free communities. Hearing held on June 27, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-32.
Patients First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality
and Affordable Health Coverage.--Joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Patients
First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality and Affordable
Health Coverage. Hearings held on June 28, 2001. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-52.
Medicare Modernization: Examining the President's Framework
for Strengthening the Program.--Oversight hearing on Medicare
Modernization: Examining the President's Framework for
Strengthening the Program. Hearing held on July 26, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-53.
Authorizing Safety Net Public Health Programs.--Oversight
hearing on Authorizing Safety Net Public Health Programs.
Hearing held on August 1, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-57.
Medicare Drug Reimbursements: A Broken System for Patients
and Taxpayers.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations on Medicare Drug
Reimbursements: A Broken System for Patients and Taxpayers.
Hearing held on September 21, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
65.
Raising Health Awareness Through Examining Benign Brain
Tumor Cancer, Alpha One and Breast Implant Issues.--Oversight
hearing on Raising Health Awareness Through Examining Benign
Brain Tumor Cancer, Alpha One and Breast Implant Issues.
Hearing held on November 15, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
75.
Medicare Payment Policy: Ensuring Stability and Access
Through Physician Payments.--Oversight hearing on Medicare
Payment Policy: Ensuring Stability and Access Through Physician
Payments. Hearing held on February 14, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-91.
The Uninsured and Affordable Health Care Coverage.--
Oversight hearing on the Uninsured and Affordable Health Care
Coverage. Hearing held on February 28, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-98.
Reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.--
Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act. Hearing held on March 6, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-93.
The 2003 Budget: A Review of the HHS Health Care
Priorities.--Oversight hearing on The 2003 Budget: A Review of
the HHS Health Care Priorities. Hearing held on March 13, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-100.
Medicare Modernization: Examining the Federal Employees
Health Benefit Program as a Model for Seniors.--Oversight
hearing on Medicare Modernization: Examining the Federal
Employees Health Benefit Program as a Model for Seniors.
Hearing held on March 20, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-105.
Creating a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit: Assessing
Efforts to Help America's Low-Income Seniors.--Oversight
hearing on Creating a Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit:
Assessing Efforts to Help America's Low-Income Seniors. Hearing
held on April 17, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-101.
Welfare Reform: A Review of Abstinence Education and
Transitional Medical Assistance.--Oversight hearing on Welfare
Reform: A Review of Abstinence Education and Transitional
Medical Assistance. Hearing held on April 23, 2002. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-104.
Reducing Medical Errors: A Review of Innovative Strategies
to Improve Patient Safety.--Oversight hearing on Reducing
Medical Errors: A Review of Innovative Strategies to Improve
Patient Safety. Hearing held on May 8, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-112.
The National Institutes of Health: Investing in Research to
Prevent and Cure Disease.--Oversight hearing on the National
Institutes of Health: Investing in Research to Prevent and Cure
Disease. Hearing held on June 6, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-122.
Protecting the Rights of Conscience of Health Care
Providers and a Parent's Right to Know.--Oversight hearing on
Protecting the Rights of Conscience of Health Care Providers
and a Parent's Right to Know. Hearing held on July 11, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-126.
Recent Developments in the EPA Office of the Ombudsman.--
Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials on Recent Developments in the EPA
Office of the Ombudsman. Hearing held on July 16, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-123.
Harming Patient Access to Care: The Impact of Excessive
Litigation.--Oversight hearing on Harming Patient Access to
Care: The Impact of Excessive Litigation. Hearing held on July
17, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-127.
Insurance Coverage of Mental Health Benefits.--Oversight
hearing on Insurance Coverage of Mental Health Benefits.
Hearing held on July 23, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-118.
Examining Prescription Drug Reimportation: a Review of a
Proposal to Allow Third Parties to Reimport Prescription
Drugs.--Oversight hearing on Examining Prescription Drug
Reimportation: a Review of a Proposal to Allow Third Parties to
Reimport Prescription Drugs. Hearing held on July 25, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-135.
Examining Issues Related to Competition in the
Pharmaceutical Marketplace: A Review of the FTC Report,
``Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration''.--Oversight
hearing on Examining Issues Related to Competition in the
Pharmaceutical Marketplace: A Review of the FTC Report,
``Generic Drug Entry Prior to Patent Expiration''. Hearing held
on October 9, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-140.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
(Ratio 18-15)
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOE BARTON, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman ANNA G. ESHOO, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California GENE GREEN, Texas
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, JANE HARMAN, California
Mississippi RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
VITO FOSSELLA, New York SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri TOM SAWYER, Ohio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire (Ex Officio)
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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.
Legislative Activities
UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS
REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM (USA PATRIOT ACT) ACT OF
2001
Public Law 107-56 (H.R. 3162, H.R. 3016, S. 1510)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and
around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory
tools, and for other purposes.
Summary
Section 211 of H.R. 3162 amends section 631 of the
Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that a governmental
entity's access to information collected and maintained by a
cable operator, relating to the selection of video programming
is governed exclusively by the provisions of section 631(h) of
the Communications Act of 1934. This will ensure that there is
continued heightened protection for consumer's passive video
programming activities. However, when a cable operator acts as
a telephone company or an Internet service provider, it must
comply with the same laws, found in Title 18 of the United
States Code governing the interception and disclosure of wire
and electronic communications that apply to any other telephone
company or Internet service provider. Under Title 18, providers
of wire and electronic communications are not required to
provide notice to their subscribers when disclosing information
to a governmental entity, and in certain cases may disclose
information without a court order. However, law enforcement's
ability to obtain information related to a subscriber's
selection of video programming is still governed exclusively by
the Communications Act.
Section 211 of H.R. 3162 also clarifies that a government
entity may obtain information collected and maintained by a
cable operator concerning the selection of video programming by
a subscriber pursuant to a court order only if, in the court
proceeding relevant to such court order, such entity offers
clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the
information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal
activity and that the information sought would be material
evidence in the case; the subject of the information is
afforded the opportunity to appear and contest such entity's
claim; and the subscriber is notified of such order by the
person to whom the order is directed.
Legislative History
On October 3, 2001, the Full Committee on Energy and
Commerce met in open markup session and favorably ordered
reported a Committee Print to clarify the application of cable
television system privacy requirements to new cable services,
as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Committee also agreed to a unanimous consent request by
Chairman Tauzin to incorporate the Committee Print, along with
two other Committee Prints, into a bill to be introduced, H.R.
3016, and to allow for the Committee to file a report on the
introduced bill.
On October 3, 2001, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 3016, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3016 to
the House on October 9, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-231, Part I).
The Committee on the Judiciary was granted an extension for
further consideration of the bill for a period ending not later
than Oct. 16, 2001. Following an exchange of letters between
the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation, the
Committee on the Judiciary was discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 3016 on October 16, 2001.
On November 6, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
filed a supplemental report to the House on H.R. 3016 (H. Rpt.
107-231, Part I).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce took no further action
on H.R. 3016, but worked with other committees to include the
telecommunication provisions, as modified, from H.R. 3016 into
the bill H.R. 3162.
On October 23, 2001, H.R. 3162 was introduced by Mr.
Sensenbrenner and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent
Select), Financial Services, International Relations, Energy
and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On October 23, 2001, H.R. 3162 was considered under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call
vote of 357 yeas and 66 nays.
H.R. 3162 was received in the Senate on October 24, 2001
and read twice.
On October 25, 2001, the Senate passed H.R. 3162 by a vote
of 98 yeas and 1 nay, clearing it for the White House and the
bill was presented to the President. On October 25, 2001, the
President signed H.R. 3162 into law (Public Law 107-56).
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-155 (H.R. 2356, S. 27)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to
provide bipartisan campaign reform.
Summary
Section 315(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 (the
``Act'') requires television broadcast stations, radio
broadcast stations, cable systems, and DBS providers to charge
``legally qualified candidates'' for public office, during the
45 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election,
no more than the lowest unit charge (LUC) of the station for
the same class and amount of time for the same period. The LUC
allows a candidate the benefit from all discounts offered to
the most favored commercial advertiser for the same class and
amount of time for the same period, without regard to the
frequency of use by the candidate, thus giving the politician
the advantages of a ``bulk discount'' price without having to
purchase the bulk. As introduced, section 305 of H.R. 2356
amended Section 315 (b) of the Act by changing the LUC to ``the
lowest charge of the station (at any time during the 180-day
period preceding the date of the use) for the same amount of
time for the same period.'' However, section 305 of H.R. 2356
ultimately was struck from the bill on the House floor (see
infra). Section 306 of H.R. 2356 amends section 315(b) of the
Act by requiring affirmative obligations of candidates for
political office in order to receive the LUC for television and
radio broadcasts.
Legislative History
On June 20, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing entitled, Campaign
Finance: Proposals Impacting Broadcasters, Cable Operators and
Satellite Providers.
H.R. 2356 was introduced by Mr. Shays on June 28, 2001 and
referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On July 10, 2001 the Committee on House Administration
reported H.R. 2356 adversely to the House (H. Rpt. 107-131,
Part I), and the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the
Judiciary were granted an extension for a period ending not
later than July 10, 2001. On July 10, 2001, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary were
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2356.
On July 12, 2001, the Committee on Rules reported a
resolution, H. Res. 188, providing for the consideration of
H.R. 2356. H. Res. 188 failed by a roll call vote of 203 yeas
and 228 nays.
On July 19, 2001, a discharge petition was filed providing
for the consideration of H.R. 2356. On February 7, 2002,
pursuant to H. Res. 203, the Committee on Rules reported a
resolution, H. Res. 344, providing for the consideration of
H.R. 2356. H. Res. 344 passed the House by a voice vote on
February 12, 2002.
On February 13, 2002, the House considered H. Amdt. 419
offered by Mr. Green of Texas, to amend the bill by striking
section 305 and modifying section 306. The amendment was agreed
to by a roll call vote of 327 yeas and 101 nays.
On February 14, 2002, the House passed H.R. 2356 by a roll
call vote of 240 yeas and 189 nays.
On February 26, 2002 H.R. 2356 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time. On February 27, 2002 it was read the
second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders, Calendar No. 318.
On March 19, 2002, H.R. 2356 was considered by Senate, and
on March 20, 2002, H.R, 2356 passed the Senate without
amendment by a record vote of 60 yeas and 40 nays.
On March 20, 2002 a message on Senate action sent to the
House, and H.R. 2356 was cleared for the White House. On March
22, 2002, pursuant to the provisions of H. Con. Res. 361,
enrollment corrections on H.R. 2356 were made.
On March 26, 2002, H.R. 2356 was presented to President,
and on March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356 was signed by President
(Public Law 107-155).
FARM SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT
Public Law 107-171 (H.R. 2646, S. 1731)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs
through fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Summary
Section 6103 of the Conference report to accompany H.R.
2646 contains provisions dealing with telecommunications
matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce relating to the creation of a loan and loan guarantee
program to assist in the deployment of broadband facilities and
services in rural communities with a population less than
20,000 people. Section 6103 of restricts the availability of
the program in a manner that excludes large telephone companies
from eligibility, and that only permits a state or local
governmental entity to participate in the program if no private
entity is offering, or has committed to offer, broadband
service in a qualifying community.
Legislative History
H.R. 2646 was introduced by Mr. Combest on July 26, 2001,
and the Committee on Agriculture favorably ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended, on July 27, 2001. On August
2, 2001, the Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 2646 to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-191, Part I). On August 31, 2001, the
Committee on Agriculture filed a supplemental report to the
House (H. Rpt. 107-191, Part II).
On August 2, 2001, H.R. 2646 was referred sequentially to
the House Committee on International Relations for a period
ending not later than September 7, 2001 for consideration of
such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(j), rule X.
The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill
reported to the House, as amended on September 6, 2001, and was
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than September 10, 2001. On September 10, 2001, the Committee
on International Relations reported H.R. 2646 to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-191, Part III).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Agriculture exchanged correspondence on September 28, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on H.R.
2646.
On October 3, 4, and 5, 2001, the House considered H.R.
2646 pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 248. The House
passed the bill, as amended, by a roll call vote of 291 yeas
and 120 nays.
On February 13, 2002, H.R. 2646 was considered in the
Senate by unanimous consent, struck all after the Enacting
Clause, and substituted the language of S. 1731, as amended.
The Senate then passed H.R. 2646, as amended, by a record vote
of 58 yeas and 40 nays. The Senate insisted on its amendment
and requested a conference on February 13, 2002.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference requested by the Senate.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of matters contained in the
Senate amendment and modifications committed to conference
falling within the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Committee on Conference met on April 9 and 10, 2002,
and on May 1, 2002 the conference report was filed. The House
considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H.
Res. 403, on May 1, 2001 by a roll call vote of 280 yeas and
141 nays.
The Senate considered the conference report on May 7 and 8,
2002, and agreed to the conference report by a record vote of
64 yeas and 35 nays on May 8, 2002.
On May 10, 2002, H.R. 2646 was cleared for the White House
and presented to the President. On May 13, 2002, the President
signed H.R. 2646 (Public Law No: 107-171).
PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM RESPONSE ACT OF 2001
Public Law 107-188 (H.R. 3448)
(Telecommunications Provisions)
To improve the ability of the United States to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to bioterrorism and other public
health emergencies.
Summary
In an effort to further promote the orderly transition to
digital television, and to promote the equitable allocation and
use of digital channels by television broadcast permittees and
licensees, section 531 of H.R. 3448 directs the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), at the request of an eligible
licensee or permittee, to, within 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, allot, if necessary, and assign a
requested and identified paired digital television channel to
that licensee or permittee. The FCC shall only do this if such
channel can be allotted and assigned without further
modification of the tables of allotments as set forth in
sections 73.606 and 73.622 of the Commission's regulations (47
CFR 73.606, 73.622) and such allotment and assignment is
consistent with the Commission's technical rules (47 CFR part
73). The only licensees or permitees eligible for this digital
allotment are those that are full power television broadcast
licensee or permittee (or its successor in interest) that had
an application pending for an analog television station
construction permit as of October 24, 1991, which application
was granted after April 3, 1997; and as of the date of
enactment of this Act, is the permittee or licensee of that
station. This provision enables such licensees or permittees an
opportunity to realize their expectations created by prior FCC
action to foster a digital audience during the transition
period to digital television without having to terminate
abruptly analog service now enjoyed by their viewers. Section
531 of H.R. 3448 also imposes a hard 18-month deadline for the
construction of the digital facility from the time of the FCC's
issuance of the construction permit for the new digital
channel. In this regard, eligible licensees are absolutely
prohibited from obtaining or receiving an extension of time
from the Commission pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 73.624(d)(3). In
addition, section 531 prohibits eligible licensees from using
the newly granted ``in-core'' digital channel allotment and
assignment to provide analog television service.
Legislative History
H.R. 3448 was introduced on December 11, 2001 by Mr. Tauzin
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 12, 2001, H.R. 3448 was considered in the House
under suspension of the Rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 418 yeas and 2 nays.
H.R. 3448 was received in the Senate and read twice on
December 18, 2001. The bill passed the Senate, amended, by
unanimous consent on December 20, 2001. The Senate insisted
upon its amendment, asked for a conference, and appointed
conferees.
On February 28, 2002, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and appointed conferees
The conference report was filed on May 21, 2002 (H. Rpt.
107-481), and pursuant to H. Res. 427, the conference report
was considered in the House on May 22, 2002. The conference
report passed the House by a roll call vote of 425 yeas and 1
nay.
On May 23, 2002, the conference report was considered in
the Senate and agreed to by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0
nays, and cleared for the White House.
S. Con. Res. 117 passed the Senate on May 23, 2002 by
unanimous consent. The bill was received in the House and held
at the desk on May 23, 2002. On June 4, 2002, S. Con. Res. 117
passed the House by unanimous consent. S. Con. Res. 117
provided for corrections in the enrolled version of H.R. 3448.
H.R. 3448 was presented to the President on June 7, 2002,
and was signed by the President on June 12, 2002 (Public Law
107-188).
THE AUCTION REFORM ACT
Public Law 107-195 (H.R. 4560)
To eliminate the deadlines for spectrum auctions of
spectrum previously allocated to television broadcasting.
Summary
H.R. 4560 removes the statutory deadlines for the receipt
of revenues derived from the auctioning of the 700 MHz band.
Second, the bill prohibits the Federal Communications
Commission (the Commission) from commencing or conducting
Auctions #31 and #44 on June 19, 2002. Third, H.R. 4560
requires the Commission to report to Congress one year after
the date of enactment regarding when the Commission intends to
conduct Auctions #31 and #44 as well as the progress that has
been made in the digital television transition and the
assignment and allocation of spectrum for advanced mobile
communications services.
Legislative History
H.R. 4560 was introduced on April 24, 2002 by Mr. Tauzin
and fifty-one cosponsors. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 2, 2002, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R 4560 favorably reported to the House,
without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present. On
May 7, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R.
4560 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-443).
On May 7, 2002, the House suspended the rules and passed
H.R. 4560 by voice vote.
On May 8, 2002, H.R. 4560 was received in the Senate. On
May 9, 2002, H.R. 4560 was read for the first time and placed
on the Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
On May 17, 2002, H.R. 4560 was read the second time and placed
on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders,
Calendar No.380. .
On June 18, 2002, H.R. 4560 was laid before Senate by
unanimous consent. Senator Daschle, on behalf of Senator
Ensign, proposed an amendment that was agreed to by unanimous
consent. The Senate then passed H.R. 4560 with an amendment by
unanimous consent.
On June 18, 2002, Chairman Tauzin asked unanimous consent
that the House agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4560. The
motion was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On June 18, 2002, H.R. 4560 was cleared for the White House
and presented to the President. The President signed H.R. 4560
into law on June 19, 2002 (Public Law No. 107-195).
INTELSAT
Public Law 107-233 (S. 2810)
A bill to amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to
extend the deadline for the INTELSAT initial public offering.
Summary
Under the ``Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment
of International Telecommunications (ORBIT) Act'', INTELSAT is
required to privatize. As part of that effort, INTELSAT is to
conduct an initial public offering (IPO) by December 31, 2002.
As detailed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
INTELSAT has made significant progress in its privatization
efforts. Moreover, INTELSAT has made substantial preparations
to conduct its statutorially-mandated IPO. However, volatility
in the financial markets in general, and the telecommunications
sector specifically, make this statutory deadline unrealistic.
Equally important, such an ill-timed IPO runs counter to one of
the central policy objectives of ORBIT--dilution of foreign
government ownership. S. 2810 would give INTELSAT an additional
year in which to conduct its IPO, and provides the FCC
authority to allow an additional extension of time if warranted
by market conditions.
Legislative History
On July 26, 2002 S. 2810 was introduced in the Senate by
Senator Hollings, read twice, considered, read the third time,
and passed without amendment by unanimous consent. On September
4, 2002, a message on Senate action sent to the House, and S.
2810 was received in the House and held at the desk.
On September 10, 2002, S. 2810 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and was agreed to by voice vote
and cleared for White House.
S. 2810 was presented to the President on September 19,
2002, and on October 1, 2002 the bill was signed by the
President (Public Law 107-233).
DOT KIDS IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2002
Public Law 107-317 (H.R. 3833, S. 2537)
To facilitate the creation of a new, second-level Internet
domain within the United States country code domain that will
be a haven for material that promotes positive experiences for
children and families using the Internet, provides a safe
online environment for children, and helps to prevent children
from being exposed to harmful material on the Internet, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3833 amends the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Organization Act to direct the
Secretary of Commerce to assign to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
responsibility for providing for the establishment, and
overseeing operation, of a second-level Internet domain within
the U.S. country-code domain that provides access only to
materials suitable for, and not harmful to, minors. H.R. 3833
requires NTIA to publicize the availability of the new domain
and to educate parents of minors to utilize the domain in
coordination with filtering or blocking technologies. H.R. 3833
authorizes NTIA to suspend the operation of the new domain if
the registry is found not to be serving its intended purpose.
Legislative History
H.R. 3833 was introduced in the House by Mr. Shimkus and
seven cosponsors on March 4, 2002. The bill was referred solely
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 7, 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet met in open markup session and approved H.R.
3833 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice
vote, a quorum being present. On May 8, 2002, the Full
Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3833
reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present. On May 8, 2002, The Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 3833 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-449). The
House considered H.R. 3833 under suspension of the rules on May
21, 2002, and passed H.R. 3833 by a roll call vote of 406 yeas
to 2 nays.
On May 22, 2002, H.R. 3833 was received in the Senate and
read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. The Committee held a hearing on the
legislation on September 12, 2002.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
discharged H.R. 3833 by unanimous consent, and the Senate
passed H.R. 3833, with an amendment by unanimous consent on
November 13, 2002.
On November 15, 2002, H.R. 3883 passed the House by
unanimous consent and was cleared for the White House. On
November 15, 2002, the bill was presented to the President, and
on December 4, 2002, H.R. 3833 was signed by the President
(Public Law 107-317).
KNOW YOUR CALLER ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 90)
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. 90 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to make it
unlawful for any person making a telephone solicitation to: (1)
interfere with or circumvent a caller identification service
from accessing or providing the call recipient with identifying
information about the call; or (2) fail to provide caller
identification information that is accessible by a caller
identification service, if such person has the capability to
provide such information. H.R. 90 also provides a cause of
action for a person or entity, or a State attorney general on
behalf of its residents, for violations of such prohibition or
regulations and requires the Federal Communications Commission
to study and report to Congress with respect to the
transmission capabilities of caller identification information.
Legislative History
H.R. 90 was introduced in the House by Mr. Frelinghuysen on
January 3, 2001. H.R. 90 was referred solely to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
On February 28, 2001, the Full Committee on Energy and
Commerce met in open markup session to and ordered H.R. 90
favorably reported to the House, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present. The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported
H.R. 90 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-13) on March 12, 2001. The
House considered H.R. 90 under suspension of the rules on
December 4, 2001 and passed the bill by a voice vote.
On December 5, 2001, H.R. 90 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. 90 in the 107th
Congress.
INDEPENDENT TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 496)
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. 496 reduces or eliminates regulations imposed upon
mid-sized local exchange carriers by the Federal Communications
Commission (the Commission). H.R. 496 also requires the
Commission to approve or disapprove a merger involving mid-
sized local exchange carriers within sixty days from the date
on which a merger application is filed.
Legislative History
H.R. 496 was introduced by Mrs. Cubin and four cosponsors
on February 7, 2001. H.R. 496 was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On February 28, 2001, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 496 favorably reported to the House,
as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. The
Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 496 to the House
(H. Rpt. 107-20) on March 13, 2001.
The House considered H.R. 496 under suspension of the rules
on March 21, 2001, and passed H.R. 496, as amended, by voice
vote.
On March 22, 2001, H.R. 496 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. 496 in the 107th
Congress.
THE UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC MAIL ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 718)
To protect individuals, families, and Internet service
providers from unsolicited and unwanted electronic mail, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
Summary
H.R. 718, the Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of
2001, is to prohibit the initiation and transmission of
unsolicited commercial electronic mail messages unless the
initiator of such message provides a valid electronic mail
return address and provides the recipient of such messages the
opportunity not to receive future mailings. In addition, the
bill allows Internet access service providers (ISP) to decline
further unsolicited commercial electronic mail (UCE) messages,
if the ISP has a policy of no UCE or the ISP has received a
significant number of complaints from its customers. Under H.R.
718, the Federal Trade Commission is authorized to enforce the
Act. Further, state or local laws that are inconsistent with
the Act are preempted, except in the case of any civil remedy
under state trespass or contract law, any state or local law
relating to acts of computer fraud and abuse arising from the
unauthorized transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic
mail messages, or any state criminal law regarding obscenity or
risk of injury to children. H.R. 718 is narrowly drawn to
protect freedom of speech on the Internet and legitimate
commercial uses of electronic mail messages.
Legislative History
H.R. 718 was introduced by Mrs. Wilson on February 14,
2001, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
and the Committee on the Judiciary.
On March 21, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet met in open markup session and approved H.R.
718 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice
vote. On March 28, 2001, the Full Energy and Commerce Committee
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 718 reported to the
House with a favorable recommendation, as amended, by a voice
vote, a quorum being present. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 718 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-41, Part
I) on March 13, 2001.
On April 4, 2001, the Committee on the Judiciary was
granted an extension for consideration of the bill ending not
later than June 5, 2001. On June 5, 2001, the Committee on the
Judiciary reported the bill to the House (H. Rpt. 107-41, Part
II).
No further action was taken on H.R. 718 in the 107th
Congress.
INTERNET FREEDOM AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACT
(H.R. 1542)
To deregulate the Internet and high-speed data services,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1542 preempts, with certain narrow exceptions, State
and federal regulation of high-speed data services, Internet
backbone services, and Internet access services. Second, the
bill clarifies that Internet backbone and high-speed data
services are not subject to the interLATA restriction in
section 271 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Third, the
bill ensures freedom of choice to Internet users by requiring
each incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) to allow Internet
service providers to interconnect with the ILEC's high-speed
data service for the provision of Internet access service.
Legislative History
H.R. 1542 was introduced by Chairman Tauzin and 74
cosponsors on April 24, 2002. The bill was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Full Committee held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1542
on April 25, 2001. The Committee received testimony from the
telecommunications industry, the financial services industry,
and a nonprofit Community Action Agency.
On Thursday, April 26, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet met in open markup session
and approved H.R. 1542, as amended, by a roll call vote of 19
yeas and 14 nays for Full Committee consideration, a quorum
being present. On Wednesday May 9, 2001, the Full Committee met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1542 favorably reported
to the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 32 to 23, a
quorum being present. H.R. 1542 was reported to the House (H.
Rpt. 107-83, Part I) on May 24, 2001.
The bill was referred sequentially to the Committee on
Judiciary for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce
as propose to narrow the purview of the Attorney General under
section 271 of the Communications Act of 1934 on May 24, 2001.
The Committee on Judiciary held a hearing on H.R. 1542 on June
5, 2001. The Committee on Judiciary met in open markup session
and ordered H.R. 1542 reported unfavorably on June 13, 2001.
The Committee on Judiciary reported H.R. 1542 adversely on June
18, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-83, Part II).
The Committee on Rules met on February 26, 2002 and granted
a rule providing for the consideration of H.R 1542. The rule
was filed in the House as H. Res. 350. On February 27, 2002,
the House passed H. Res. 350 by a roll call vote of 282 yeas to
142 nays.
The House considered H.R. 1542 on February 27, 2002 and
passed the bill, amended, by a roll call vote of 273 yeas to
157 nays.
On February 28, 2002, H.R. 1542 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. 1542 in the 107th
Congress.
FCC ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO COMMON CARRIERS
(H.R. 1765)
To increase penalties for common carrier violations of the
Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1765 amends the Communications Act of 1934 (the
``Act''), to enhance the Federal Communications Commission's
(``Commission'') enforcement authority in several ways with
respect to common carriers. The bill enhances the forfeiture
penalties which the Commission can assess under Section
503(b)(2)(B) of the Act against a common carrier for
``willfully or repeatedly fail[ing] to comply with any of the
provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission under [the] Act . . .''. H.R. 1765
enhances forfeiture penalties to up to $1,000,000 for each
violation or each day of a continuing series of violations and
to up to $10,000,000 for any continuing violation. The bill
also increases these enhanced penalties to up to $2,000,000 for
each violation or each day of a continuing violation and to up
to $20,000,000.
In addition, H.R. 1765 provides the Commission with ``cease
and desist'' authority as an additional enforcement tool;
extends the statute of limitations for the Commission to bring
a forfeiture proceeding from one year to two years under
Section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act; streamlines state public
utility commission (``PUC'') procedures for resolution of
disputes regarding interconnection agreements; clarifies that
state PUCs have the authority to ensure timely and effective
compliance with any interconnection agreement, including the
imposition of service quality performance requirements; and
requires the Commission to evaluate the affect of the increased
remedies on common carrier compliance with the Commissions
rules, regulations, and orders.
Legislative History
H.R. 1765 was introduced in the House by Mr. Upton and
thirteen cosponsors on May 8, 2001. The bill was referred to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On Thursday, May 17, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on H.R.
1765. The Subcommittee received testimony from the FCC, the
president of a state PUC, several representatives of
telecommunications companies, and an expert on the FCC's
enforcement authority.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1765 in the 107th
Congress, but the provisions contained in the bill were
incorporated as an amendment that was offered and withdrawn by
Mr. Upton at both the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
Internet (April 26, 2001) and the full Committee (May 9, 2001)
mark-ups of H.R. 1542. Certain provisions of H.R. 1765 were
offered by Mr. Upton and Mr. Green as an amendment (H. Amdt.
433) to H.R. 1542 during House consideration of the bill on
February 27, 2002. The amendment was adopted by a roll call
vote of 421 yeas to 7 nays.
NATIONAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE PARTNERSHIP ACT
(H.R. 1858)
To make improvements in mathematics and science education,
and for other purposes.
Summary
Section 704 of H.R. 1858 requires the Director of the
National Science Foundation, in consultation with appropriate
federal agencies and educational entities, to study and report
to Congress about the status of broadband network access in
schools and libraries, including, among other things,
consideration of the effect that specific or regional
circumstances may have on the ability of such institutions to
acquire such access in order to achieve universal connectivity
as an effective tool in the educational process and options and
recommendations to address challenges and issues identified
within the report. As such, the study and report under section
704 would create a substantive foundation which could affect
changes in existing federal policies that promote and enable
broadband access in schools and libraries.
Legislative History
H.R. 1858 was introduced by Mr. Boehlert on May 16, 2001
and was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition
to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
On June 13, 2001, the Committee on Science met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 1858 reported to the House, as
amended. During the markup, the bill was amended to include
section 704. The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Committee on Science exchanged correspondence on July 9, 2001
concerning each Committee's jurisdictional prerogatives on
section 704 of H.R. 1858.
The Committee on Science reported the bill to the House on
July 11, 2001 (H. Rpt. 107-134, Part I), and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce Granted an extension for further
consideration ending not later than July 11, 2001. On the same
day, the Committee on Education and the Workforce was
discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1858.
The bill was considered in the House under suspension of
the rules on July 30, 2001, and passed the House by voice vote.
On July 31, 2001, the bill was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1858 in the 107th
Congress.
DOT KIDS NAME ACT OF 2001
(H.R. 2417)
To facilitate the creation of a new global top-level
Internet domain that will be a haven for material that will
promote positive experiences of children and families using the
Internet, to provide a safe online environment for children,
and to help prevent children from being exposed to harmful
material on the Internet, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2417 directs the Secretary of Commerce to jointly with
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), develop a plan for ICANN to establish a kids-friendly
top-level Internet domain, make such plan publicly available,
and enter into an appropriate agreement with ICANN to carry out
the plan. The domain must be available for voluntary use as a
location of material only suitable for minors. H.R. 2417 also
requires the full operation of the new domain within six months
after contract award, new domain approval by ICANN, and
provides liability protections for any operation and
maintenance of the domain. Under H.R. 2417, the Secretary is
required to carry out a program to publicize the availability
of the new domain and to educate parents of minors regarding
the process for utilizing the domain in combination with
hardware and software technologies that filter or block
unsuitable materials.
Legislative History
H.R. 2417 was introduced in the House by Mr. Shimkus and
one cosponsor on June 28, 2001. The bill was referred solely to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On November 1, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 2417. The Subcommittee
received testimony from representatives from National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, children's
Internet providers, and children's advocacy groups.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2417 in the 107th
Congress.
COMBATING ILLEGAL GAMBLING REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT
(H.R. 3215)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand and
modernize the prohibition against interstate gambling, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3215 amends the Federal criminal code to revise
provisions regarding interstate gambling by prohibiting (with
exceptions) any person engaged in a gambling business from
knowingly using a communication facility for the transmission:
(1) of bets or wagers, or betting information, in interstate or
foreign commerce, within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, or to or from any place
outside the jurisdiction of any nation regarding any
transmission to or from the United States, or (2) of a
communication in such interstate or foreign commerce which
entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result
of bets or for information assisting in the placing of bets.
The bill prohibits, with exceptions, any person engaged in a
gambling business from knowingly accepting credit, an
electronic fund transfer, a check, or the proceeds of certain
other forms of financial transaction as the Secretary may
prescribe in connection with the transmission of such a
communication of information assisting the placing of bets.
H.R. 3215 includes exceptions, including certain: (1)
transmissions of information assisting in the placing of bets,
and (2) uses of communication facilities for the transmission
of bets. In addition H.R. 3215 bars imposition of damages,
penalties, or forfeiture against any person or entity for an
act done in compliance with notice received from a law
enforcement agency.
Legislative History
H.R. 3215 was introduced in the House by Mr. Goodlatte and
twenty-seven cosponsors on November 1, 2001. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Judiciary and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On November 29, 2001, the Subcommittee on Crime of the
Committee on Judiciary held a hearing on H.R. 3833. On March
12, 2002, the Subcommittee on Crime met in open markup to
consider H.R. 3833 and approved the bill, without amendment, by
a voice vote, a quorum being present. On May 8, June 13, and
June 18, 2002, the Full Judiciary Committee met in open markup
to consider H.R. 3833. The bill was approved, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 18 yeas to 12 nays. On July 18, 2002, H.R.
3215 was reported to the House (107-591, Part I).
On July 18, 2002, H.R. 3215 was referred sequentially to
the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending
not later than July 19, 2002 for consideration of such
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
On July 19, 2002, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
discharged H.R. 3215.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3215 in the 107th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
ICANN
On February 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight on whether or not the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) new
generation of Internet domain name selection process was
thwarting competition. The hearing focused on the process by
which ICANN, in November 2000, approved seven new top level
domain (TLD) names (i.e., ``.aero'', ``.coop'', ``.info'',
``.museum'', ``.name'', ``.pro.'', and ``.biz''), and examined
whether ICANN's selection process was open, fair, and one which
adequately promoted competition in the TLD name marketplace.
The Subcommittee received testimony from ICANN, companies whose
TLD applications were accepted and rejected by ICANN, a company
which chose not to apply at all because it considered ICANN's
application process to be flawed, and a law professor who
specializes in Internet governance.
TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
On March 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on technology and
education: a review of Federal, state, and private sector
programs. The hearing focused on Federal, state/local, and
private sector investments in programs which promote the use of
technology to improve education and examined what the programs
are, how the programs work, who benefits from the programs, and
what levels of funding are associated with such programs.
Witnesses included representatives from Federal, state and
local governments, as well as representatives of several
notable private sector programs.
DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION
On March 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on digital
television: a private sector perspective on the transition. The
hearing focused on the progress that the various involved
industries were making in the transition from analog to digital
television and the obstacles slowing the transition. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives of broadcast
networks, commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters,
consumer electronics manufacturers, consumer electronics
retailers, small and large cable operators, and major
television studios.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REFORM
On March 29, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight on Federal Communications
Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell's agenda and plans for
reform of the FCC. The hearing focused on Chairman Powell's
plans for structural reform of the FCC and addressed a wide
range of issues raised by the Subcommittee members related to
matters within the FCC's jurisdiction. Chairman Powell was the
sole witness.
E-RATE AND FILTERING
On April 4, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on E-Rate and
filtering: a review of the Children's Internet Protection Act
(CHIPA). The hearing focused on the implementation and
effectiveness of provisions in CHIPA that require public
libraries which receive federal subsidies (e.g., through the E-
Rate program) to implement filtering/blocking technologies in
its Internet-enabled computers in order to protect children
from inappropriate content on the Internet. The Subcommittee
received testimony from representatives of family groups,
public libraries, civil liberties groups, a librarian, and
Internet filtering technology companies.
ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY CALLING SYSTEMS
On June 14, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the progress of
ensuring compatibility with enhanced 911 emergency calling
systems. The hearing focused on the progress that wireless
carriers and public safety answering points (PSAPs) are making
in their efforts to deploy Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
Systems (which will provide a wireless phone user's location
information to a PSAP when 911 is dialed), within the deadlines
and parameters established by the FCC. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau Chief, representatives of location technology
manufacturers, wireless telecommunications companies, and a
representative of the public safety community.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: PROPOSALS IMPACTING BROADCASTERS, CABLE
OPERATORS, AND SATELLITE PROVIDERS
On June 20, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on campaign finance
reform: proposals impacting broadcasters, cable operators and
satellite providers. The hearing focused on various campaign
finance reform proposals to provide federal candidates with
additional financial assistance for the purchase of television
advertising spots and how such proposals would impact various
providers of television broadcasts, not to mention non-federal
candidates and commercial entities seeking to purchase
television advertising spots. In addition, the
constitutionality of such proposals was examined. Witnesses
included industry representatives of broadcasters, cable
operators, and satellite television providers, a law professor
who specializes in First Amendment law, and a campaign finance
reform advocacy group representative.
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY'S EFFORTS TO CURB CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO VIOLENT
CONTENT
On July 20, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing examining the
entertainment industry's efforts to curb children's exposure to
violent content. The hearing focused on the Federal Trade
Commission's examination of the extent to which various
entertainment media industries (i.e., recording, video game,
and motion picture) and retailers were marketing violent
content to children and what, if any, actions such industries
were taking to prevent such marketing. The Subcommittee
received testimony from a representative of the Federal Trade
Commission, representatives of the motion picture, video game,
and recording industries, a major retail chain, and a parents'
advocacy group representative.
On October 1, 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the recording
industry marketing practices: a check-up. This hearing was a
follow-up to the July 20th, 2001 hearing and focused on FTC's
examination of the extent to which the recording industry
marketed violent content to children and what, if any, actions
the recording industry was taking to prevent such marketing.
Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee included the FTC,
a pediatrics association, a representative of the recording
industry; a representative of the hip-hop community, and music
retailer representatives.
U.S. DEPLOYMENT OF THIRD GENERATION WIRELESS SERVICES
On July 24, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on when and where
the U.S. deployment of third generation wireless services will
take place. The hearing focused on the progress being made by
the Bush Administration and the FCC with respect to allocation
and assignments of additional spectrum for the deployment of 3G
wireless services. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included
the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the
Federal Communications Commission, a representative of the
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) community, and
representatives of the commercial wireless telecommunications
industry.
MULTI-CHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING DISTRIBUTION
On December 4, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the status of
competition in the multi-channel video programming distribution
(MVPD) marketplace. The hearing focused on potential changes in
the MVPD marketplace occasioned by proposed corporate mergers
therein. The Subcommittee heard testimony from two Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS) providers seeking to merge (EchoStar
and DirecTV), representatives of: big and small cable
television operators, broadcasters, and resellers of DBS
services in rural areas.
SPECTRUM LICENSES
On December 11, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on the settlement agreement between the U.S. Government and
Nextwave, Inc. to resolve disputed spectrum licenses. The
hearing focused on the specific provisions of the settlement
seeking to resolve conflicting claims to certain spectrum
licenses. The licenses at issue were won by Nextwave in the
Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) so-called ``C-Block''
auction in 1996, which were subsequently reauctioned by the FCC
(due to Nextwave's filing for bankruptcy protection and
subsequent failure to make requisite installment payments for
the licenses) and won by various other carriers in the FCC's
so-called ``Auction 35'' in 2000. The dispute over the licenses
was subject of then-pending, protracted litigation. Witnesses
testifying at the hearing included the FCC, the Department of
Justice, Nextwave, a wireless carrier which won licenses in
``Auction 35,'' and a wireless carrier in similar situation as
Nextwave seeking a similar settlement with the government.
CONTENT PROTECTION IN THE DIGITAL ERA
On April 25 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on ensuring content
protection in the digital era. The hearing focused on the
transition from analog to digital television and the unique
challenges this transition presented with respect to protecting
digital content from Internet piracy. In addition, the hearing
examined what, if any, content protection technologies were
appropriate to implement to ensure the release of digital
content (for the sake of advancing the transition to digital
television) while balancing consumer expectations with respect
to the functionality of their consumer electronics equipment.
Witnesses included content providers, consumer electronics
manufacturers, a digital consumer rights group, and digital
rights management software manufactures.
CHATTING ON-LINE: A DANGEROUS PROPOSITION FOR CHILDREN
On May 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
the Internet conducted an oversight field hearing in Kalamazoo,
Michigan on the dangers to children when chatting on-line. The
focus of the hearing was on the dangers, such as sexual
predation, involved with children using two-way interactive
services (``chatting'') on-line and ways to protect children
from such dangers. Witnesses giving testimony at the hearing
included an adult who, as a minor, was the victim of an adult
sexual predator whom she met on-line; the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children; an Internet Service Provider
which offers parental controls and child-friendly spaces; a
non-profit foundation whose mission is to empower individuals
to fight cyber predators; and a father from Kalamazoo,
Michigan, whose daughter was preyed-upon by an adult on-line.
THE FCC'S SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT PROCESS
On June 5, 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
the Internet conducted an oversight hearing on the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) ultra-wideband (UWB)
proceeding: an examination of the government's spectrum
management process. The hearing focused on the FCC's February
14, 2002 final rule which permitted, with certain restrictions,
the operation of UWB devices under the FCC's Part 15
regulations. In particular, the hearing focused on the
appropriateness of the restrictions placed by the FCC on the
operation of UWB devices under the final rule, whether the
growth of the nascent UWB industry would be impeded by those
restrictions, and the general statutory delineation between the
spectrum management responsibilities of the FCC and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the U.S. Department of Defense, the NTIA,
the FCC, and several UWB technology companies.
AREA CODE EXHAUSTION
On June 26, 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on what are the
solutions to area code exhaustion. The hearing focused on the
burdens to consumers and businesses caused by area code changes
and efforts by Federal and state governments and
telecommunications service providers to conserve
telecommunications numbering resources. Witnesses testifying at
the hearing included the Federal Communications Commission, the
California State Public Utility Commission, the North America
Numbering Plan Administrator, a local chamber of commerce, and
telecommunications service providers.
CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING
On July 10, 2002, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting and a look into public broadcasting in
the digital era. The hearing focused on numerous aspects of the
Committee's jurisdiction with respect to the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting (CPB), which funds both the Public
Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Topics included the digital television conversion, ancillary
commercial use of spectrum, and alleged bias at NPR. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the CPB, PBS, NPR, a
coalition dealing with traditional values, and a public
television association
Hearings Held
Is ICANN's New Generation of Internet Domain Name Selection
Process Thwarting Competition?--Oversight hearing on is ICANN's
New Generation of Internet Domain Name Selection Process
Thwarting Competition? Hearing held on February 8, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-4.
Technology and Education: A Review of Federal, State, and
Private Sector Programs.--Oversight hearing on Technology and
Education: A Review of Federal, State, and Private Sector
Programs. Hearing held on March 8, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-18.
Digital Television: A Private Sector Perspective on the
Transition.--Oversight hearing on Digital Television: A Private
Sector Perspective on the Transition. Hearing held on March 15,
2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-20.
FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell: Agenda and Plans for Reform
of the FCC.--Oversight hearing on FCC Chairman Michael K.
Powell: Agenda and Plans for Reform of the FCC. Hearing held on
March 29, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-21.
E-Rate and Filtering: a Review of the Children's Internet
Protection Act.--Oversight hearing on E-Rate and Filtering: a
Review of the Children's Internet Protection Act. Hearing held
on April 4, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-33.
A Bill to increase penalties for common carrier violations
of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes.--
Hearing on H.R. 1765, a bill to increase penalties for common
carrier violations of the Communications Act of 1934, and for
other purposes. Hearing held on May 17, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-27.
Ensuring Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
Systems: A Progress Report.--Oversight hearing on Ensuring
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems: A
Progress Report. Hearing held on June 14, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-31.
Campaign Finance Reform: Proposals Impacting Broadcasters,
Cable Operators and Satellite Providers.--Oversight hearing on
Campaign Finance Reform: Proposals Impacting Broadcasters,
Cable Operators and Satellite Providers. Hearing held on June
20, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-42.
An Examination of the Entertainment Industry's Efforts to
Curb Children's Exposure to Violent Content.--Oversight hearing
on an Examination of the Entertainment Industry's Efforts to
Curb Children's Exposure to Violent Content. Hearing held on
July 20, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-60.
U.S. Deployment of Third Generation Wireless Services: When
Will It Happen and Where Will It Happen?--Oversight hearing on
U.S. Deployment of Third Generation Wireless Services: When
Will It Happen and Where Will It Happen? Hearing held on July
24, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-58.
Dot Kids Name Act.--Hearing on H.R. 2417, the Dot Kids Name
Act. Hearing held on November 1, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-63.
The Status of Competition in the Multi-Channel Video
Programming Distribution Marketplace.--Oversight hearing on the
Status of Competition in the Multi-Channel Video Programming
Distribution Marketplace. Hearing held on December 4, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-77.
The Settlement Between the U.S. Government and Nextwave,
Inc. to Resolve Disputed Spectrum Licenses.--Oversight hearing
on the Settlement Between the U.S. Government and Nextwave,
Inc. to Resolve Disputed Spectrum Licenses. Hearing held on
December 11, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-78.
Ensuring Content Protection in the Digital Age.--Oversight
hearing on Ensuring Content Protection in the Digital Age.
Hearing held on April 25, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-95.
Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children.--
Oversight hearing on Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition
for Children. Hearing held on May 13, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-102.
The FCC's UWB Proceeding: An Examination of the
Government's Spectrum Management Process.--Oversight hearing on
the FCC's UWB Proceeding: An Examination of the Government's
Spectrum Management Process. Hearing held on June 5, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-114.
Area Code Exhaustion: What are the Solutions?--Oversight
hearing on Area Code Exhaustion: What are the Solutions?
Hearing held on June 26, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-115.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting Oversight and a Look
Into Public Broadcasting in the Digital Era.--Oversight hearing
on Corporation for Public Broadcasting Oversight and a Look
Into Public Broadcasting in the Digital Era. Hearing held on
July 10, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-133.
Transition to Digital Television.--Hearing on H.R. --------
, Transition to Digital Television. Hearing held on September
25, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-141.
Recording Industry Marketing Practices: A Check-Up.--
Oversight hearing on Recording Industry Marketing Practices: A
Check-Up. Hearing held on October 1, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-132.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(Ratio 9-7)
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BART STUPAK, Michigan
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
Vice Chairman BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky (Ex Officio)
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(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 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations conducted major inquiries with respect to
virtually all Federal agencies within the Committee's
jurisdiction, including the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Commerce, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and
the Environmental Protection Agency. The Subcommittee's
oversight has exposed improper and illegal governmental and
corporate activities, uncovered waste, fraud and abuse of
taxpayer dollars, strengthened our national security and our
defenses against terrorist attacks, improved health care and
environmental protection, and enhanced protection of American
consumers and investors. These investigations have provided the
basis for enactment of corrective legislation in the 107th
Congress and will provide the foundation for legislative action
in the 108th 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.
Oversight Activities
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO HEALTH AND HEALTH
CARE
Hearings
HUMAN CLONING RESEARCH
On March 28, 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on issues raised by human cloning
research. The purposes of the hearing were to: (1) assess the
status of cutting-edge science relevant to human cloning
research; (2) examine scientific, medical, ethical, and moral
issues raised by human cloning research; and (3) determine
whether Federal legislation was needed to regulate or ban human
cloning research. The first panel of witnesses consisted of
scientists involved in cloning research, including
representatives from two scientific teams that have expressed
an intention to clone a human being. The second panel featured
witnesses from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Director of
the Hastings Center testifying for the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission. The third panel featured witnesses who
discussed the ethical, religious, and policy issues in the area
of human cloning research.
The hearing highlighted the moral and scientific concerns
over human cloning research and spurred consideration of
different types of legislation limiting or banning cloning
research. Ultimately, the House passed H.R. 2505 in July 2001
banning all forms of human cloning research.
SECURITY OF PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION
On May 23, 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the security of private
medical information. The hearing reviewed the Committee's
oversight of cyber security practices at the Health Care
Financing Administration, now known as the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services (CMS), and featured testimony from CMS
computer security officials and private cyber experts who had
examined the CMS Medicare computer network. As a result of the
hearing, CMS officials altered the agency's network
configuration to eliminate a significant vulnerability
uncovered by the Committee that could have exposed private
Medicare information to unauthorized users or hackers, and
pledged to take a series of additional actions to address the
Committee's other findings.
MEDICARE+CHOICE PREMIUM AND BENEFIT VARIATIONS
On May 31, 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing in Levittown, Pennsylvania on
Medicare+Choice plan payment methodology. The hearing was held
in response to the Committee's concern over drastically
different premiums offered by Medicare+Choice in adjacent
geographical areas--a situation exemplified in the Levittown
area. The hearing focused on the statutory mechanisms of
Medicare+Choice that can lead to variations in reimbursement
methodology, which in turn can lead to differing levels of
benefits and premiums from county to county. The hearing also
highlighted possible structural flaws in the Medicare+Choice
program's reimbursement procedures.
The first panel of witnesses included several
Medicare+Choice program beneficiaries and a resident insurance
manager at a local continuing care facility. The second panel's
witnesses included representatives from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, Independence Blue Cross, Aetna
U.S. Healthcare, and the Medicare+Choice research director on
the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
IMPORTED PHARMACEUTICALS
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing on June 7, 2001, to examine continuing concerns over
imported pharmaceuticals, including through Internet-based
pharmacies--a subject of inquiry during the 106th Congress as
well. This hearing examined four areas of interest: (1)
personal imports of controlled substances; (2) overseas mail
deliveries of prescription drugs; (3) counterfeit bulk-drug
imports; and (4) the global counterfeiting and diversion threat
in the pharmaceutical market. The purposes of the hearing were
to highlight the safety concerns with imported prescription
drugs, and to examine actions taken in response to the
Committee's previous oversight on this topic. The first panel
of witnesses featured parents of a young man who apparently had
died from an overdose or interaction involving prescription
drugs he ordered without a prescription from a foreign-based
Internet pharmacy. The second panel featured governmental
witnesses from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the
Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, and the Virginia State Police. The third panel
featured witnesses from the University of Texas College of
Pharmacy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Novartis
Pharmaceuticals; GlaxoSmithKline; a consultant on controlled
drugs and chemical law, policy, administration and enforcement;
and an international trade lawyer who had closely studied
counterfeiting and diversion in the pharmaceutical trade.
Testimony during the hearing focused on the danger to the
public health from FDA's use of enforcement discretion that
resulted in personal imports of drugs of unknown origin into
the United States at the rate of two million per year and
increasing. While these imports entered primarily through the
mails and contract carriers of overnight parcels, there also
was extensive testimony regarding personal imports,
particularly of controlled substances over the Mexican border.
The FDA witness testified that the Department of Health and
Human Services was considering proposals to address this issue,
which may require Congressional action.
The Committee's oversight in this area was highlighted in
House floor debate of an Agriculture Appropriation amendment
that would have allowed for commercial re-importation of
prescription drugs from foreign countries. That amendment was
defeated.
USE AND ABUSE OF OXYCONTIN
In early 2001, the Committee began investigating abuse of
the prescription drug OxyContin. The drug is a form of the
narcotic oxycodone, a morphine-like pain killer, and is used
primarily to treat cancer patients. However, the drug can be
easily compromised and transformed into a potent narcotic
producing heroin-type effects on users. Concern over the drug's
misuse has been rising due to the increasing number of
oxycodone-related deaths since 1996, and reports of OxyContin
becoming more prevalent on the black market. In response to
these concerns, the Subcommittee held a field hearing on
OxyContin on August 28, 2001, in Bensalem Township,
Pennsylvania--where a local pharmacist was arrested and
indicted for illegally selling Oxycontin prescriptions to
anyone with $60. At the hearing, Federal, state and local law
enforcement officers, as well as representatives from the
medical community and Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of
Oxycontin, addressed both the palliative and pernicious effects
of Oxycontin. Witnesses included representatives from the Drug
Enforcement Administration; the Office of the Pennsylvania
Attorney General, Drug Strike Force Legal Service Section; the
Delaware County District Attorney's Office; the Bucks County
District Attorney's Office; the Philadelphia Police Department
Narcotics Intelligence Unit; Purdue Pharma, L.P.; the Foxchase
Cancer Center; and the Office of Drug Evaluation of the Food
and Drug Administration. In addition, the Subcommittee received
testimony from a registered psychiatric nurse who treats young
adults with OxyContin addiction.
Subsequent to this hearing, the Subcommittee Chairman
requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) study
prescription drug monitoring programs in states across the
country to determine their effectiveness. The GAO report was
completed in May 2002, and found that States with such programs
benefited by reducing doctor-shopping and improving state
investigations into drug diversions.
MEDICARE DRUG REIMBURSEMENTS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
focus on oversight of reimbursement practices for drugs
currently covered by the Medicare program, particularly how
such practices may permit medical providers and drug
manufacturers to profit at the expense of beneficiaries and
taxpayers. Medicare currently provides a very limited
prescription drug benefit, under which coverage is restricted
primarily to those drugs either administered by a physician or
provided in conjunction with durable medical equipment. Under
Federal law, Medicare reimburses the providers of these drugs
at 95 percent of the drug's Average Wholesale Price (AWP). On
September 21, 2001, the Subcommittees on Health and Oversight
and Investigations conducted a joint hearing that examined
abuses prevalent in the current Medicare drug benefit. The
hearing featured the testimony of several witnesses, including
a plaintiff in an ongoing qui tam lawsuit against several drug
manufacturers, and the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Also testifying were the
director of health care issues for the General Accounting
Office (GAO), a deputy Inspector General of the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Chief of the Bioethics
Department at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and
representatives from three health care provider groups that
administer Medicare-covered drugs.
The hearing testimony, along with information uncovered in
the course of the Committee's two-year investigation into this
issue, demonstrated how some drug manufacturers caused inflated
AWPs to be reported and used to set Medicare's reimbursement
rates, and then marketed their drugs to providers based on the
``spread'' between the reported AWP--upon which provider
reimbursement and beneficiary co-payments are calculated--and
the price at which the drug company actually sold the drug to
the providers, which generally was significantly lower. These
inflated AWPs have caused the Medicare program and its
beneficiaries to pay each year billions of extra dollars in
reimbursements and co-payments to providers who administer
Medicare-covered drugs. Based on the information revealed in
the hearing, the Committee worked to develop legislation that
would reform the Medicare drug benefit and eliminate the
overpayments. In addition, on December 3, 2002, CMS sent a
program memorandum to its Medicare carriers announcing that, as
of January 1, 2003, it would use a single drug pricer to
determine the AWPs that Medicare pays for covered drugs. Each
carrier currently calculates its own AWPs from published data,
which has led to discrepancies in reimbursements for the same
drugs among multiple carriers. This new policy will implement a
change first requested by the Committee during the 106th
Congress as part of its oversight of the AWP issue, and is a
first step towards reform of the AWP reimbursement process.
MEDICARE'S PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
On May 23, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine how well Medicare's
clinical preventive benefits serve seniors and how the next
generation of preventive medical treatment will be incorporated
and promoted in the health care system. The hearing focused on
a General Accounting Office (GAO) report, which was requested
by Subcommittee Chairman James Greenwood in July 2001 and
publicly released at the hearing. The GAO report examined the
extent to which Medicare beneficiaries use covered preventive
services and what actions the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS) had taken to increase use of such services among
the Medicare population. GAO found that, while use of
preventive services offered under Medicare has increased over
time, use of these services varied widely by type of service
and state, and also by ethnic group, income, and education. The
report identified a number of actions taken by CMS to expand
the program, and identified limitations to increasing usage of
preventive services. The Subcommittee heard from two panels of
witnesses on the role of preventive medicine, its potential to
control costs, and the findings of the GAO report. The
witnesses represented GAO, CMS, the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, as well as various academic and advocacy groups.
As a result of the hearing testimony, on September 25,
2002, the Subcommittee Chairman requested that GAO perform a
follow-up inquiry to examine in greater depth the issues
surrounding beneficiary use and cost-effectiveness of Medicare
preventive services. The GAO study is scheduled for completion
in the 108th Congress.
THE IMCLONE CANCER DRUG INQUIRY
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held
hearings on June 13 and September 10, 2002, as part of the
Committee's inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the
surprise rejection of ImClone Systems' highly-touted cancer
drug, Erbitux, by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These
events attracted national attention because of the pre-market
publicity about the drug, ImClone's record-setting $2 billion
alliance with Bristol-Myers Squibb to market Erbitux, the
controversy over the accuracy of ImClone's public descriptions
of FDA's concerns in a non-public letter to the company, and
multi-million dollar stock trades by ImClone insiders and
others in the weeks and days before FDA's negative decision.
Some of these activities subsequently became the subject of
investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York. The Committee undertook an examination of the ImClone
matter as a case study of how drugs are developed and approved
on an expedited basis by FDA and potential flaws in that
process.
The initial hearing opened with testimony from two
individuals that had been enlisted to assist the Committee in
investigating this matter, including the preparation of a
preliminary Committee staff report. These individuals had
reviewed the clinical research issues that surrounded the
Erbitux application and its subsequent rejection, and provided
the Subcommittee with background information and key facts
uncovered in the Committee's investigation. The witnesses
described issues of flawed study design as well as failed
execution, the questionable ImClone communications to the
investing public and desperate patients about the promise of
the drug and its progress toward FDA expedited approval, and
ImClone stock trades by ImClone officers and directors and
potentially others with inside information just prior to the
FDA rejection. The hearing's second panel featured Dr. Samuel
Waksal (the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ImClone),
who appeared pursuant to subpoena and exercised his Fifth
Amendment right not to testify. The third panel featured the
current CEO of ImClone, who is the brother of Samuel Waksal,
and an executive from Bristol-Myers Squibb, both of whom
testified regarding the Erbitux application and the due
diligence done by the companies prior to FDA submission.
Finally, the Subcommittee heard testimony from five FDA
witnesses, four of whom were involved in the review of Erbitux
and worked at FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research.
There was no dispute at the hearing among these FDA
witnesses regarding the unacceptability of the application;
however, the decision to permit expedited review was the
subject of considerable controversy. The Committee learned that
in August 2000 the FDA medical reviewer was overruled by her
supervisor and ImClone was given permission to go forward with
the filing for expedited consideration based on a study that
was unlikely to meet the criteria for such accelerated
approval. The head of the Oncology Division in the FDA Center
for Drugs advised the Committee that he would not have
permitted the study to be submitted to his Center as the basis
for expedited approval, and instead would have worked with the
company to develop a more acceptable methodology to support an
expedited application. In September 2002, FDA announced that it
would consolidate the review and approval of most drugs in the
Center for Drugs in order to improve consistency and
efficiency.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
second hearing on October 10, 2002, to review the Committee's
continuing inquiry into the ImClone matter, and, in particular,
the failure of ImClone's officers and board of directors to
adequately oversee both the recent insider stock sales and the
questionable conduct of Samuel Waksal. Six witnesses associated
with ImClone--three members of the Board and three company
officers--testified with respect to the actions ultimately
taken by ImClone to improve its ethics and accountability
rules. The Subcommittee also heard from the Deputy Commissioner
of FDA regarding ways to improve the drug development and
approval process.
In addition, on September 10, 2002, the Committee's
bipartisan leadership sent a criminal referral to the
Department of Justice regarding possible false statements made
by Ms. Martha Stewart--a close friend of Samuel Waksal--to the
Committee, through her counsel, concerning her sale of ImClone
stock the day before the FDA rejection of ImClone's
application.
AMERICA'S BLOOD SUPPLY IN THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Following up on oversight in past Congresses, on September
10, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held
a hearing that examined safety and supply issues confronting
the nation's blood supply, in the context of lessons learned
from the September 11th tragedies. The first hearing panel
included witnesses from the Office of Public Health Emergency
Preparedness, Department of Health and Human Services; the
Office of Blood Research and Review at the Food and Drug
Administration; the Armed Services Blood Program; and the
General Accounting Office (GAO). The second panel included
witnesses from the American Association of Blood Banks, the
American Red Cross, America's Blood Centers, and the Society
for the Advancement of Blood Management.
The panels addressed several related issues, including the
response to the events of September 11th; the capability of and
preparation by the Federal government and the nation's blood
suppliers to ensure supply following future disasters or
terrorist attacks; factors that affect the stability of the
blood supply, such as the impact of new blood-donor exclusion
policies (such as new variant Creuztfeldt-Jakob Disease
(nvCJD), known as Mad Cow Disease); and prospects for creating
and maintaining a stable and adequate blood supply amidst
growing demand. As part of this inquiry, GAO released a report,
requested by Subcommittee Chairman James Greenwood, raising
issues regarding the adequacy of the current supply, trends in
supply and demand, the response to the events of September 11th
and subsequent emergency planning, the potential impact of new
donor restrictions, and changes in the price of blood.
ACCUTANE
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
examination of safety concerns related to the prescription acne
drug, Accutane (isotretinoin). The investigation focused on two
safety concerns: birth defects and psychiatric side effects
such as depression and suicide. In September 2001, the
Committee requested additional information from the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) concerning Accutane, in order to
better understand some of the potential side effects of the
drugs and the actions taken by FDA to address these concerns.
In 2002, the Committee requested additional records from Roche
Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Accutane.
On December 11, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine the safety issues
relating to Accutane. Witnesses included representatives from
FDA and Roche Pharmaceuticals, as well as the March of Dimes,
the Organization of Teratology Information Services, a
dermatologist, the parents of sons who committed suicide while
on Accutane, and a patient and a mother of a patient who had
positive experiences with Accutane.
PATIENTS' FIRST: QUALITY AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
series of joint hearings on quality and affordable health
coverage with the Subcommittee on Health on March 1, April 4,
May 10, and June 28, 2001. For a description of these hearings,
entitled ``Patients' First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure
Quality and Affordable Health Coverage,'' refer to the
Subcommittee on Health section of this report.
Investigative Activities
MAD COW DISEASE
In January 2001, the Committee initiated a review of the
adequacy of the measures instituted by the Federal government
to protect the United States from bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. The
Committee requested and received budgetary and programmatic
information and briefings from the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and reviewed the adequacy of the resources and efforts
devoted to ensuring compliance with FDA's guidance and rules to
help prevent the spread of BSE.
BREAST IMPLANTS
On July 11, 2002, the Committee requested certain records
from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relating to saline
breast implant studies, and FDA's investigation of the Mentor
Corporation, one of the two U.S. manufacturers of saline breast
implants. After being advised that FDA had closed its four-year
criminal investigation of Mentor Corporation without taking
action, Subcommittee Chairman James Greenwood wrote to the FDA
Commissioner on September 25, 2002, requesting additional
records relating to the FDA's criminal investigation of Mentor
Corporation and concerns over the integrity of breast implant
safety data. The Committee has received responsive records and
has begun a further review of this matter.
ACTIVITIES OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SYSTEMS
On December 20 2000, retiring Committee Chairman Tom Bliley
and Congressman Greenwood requested that the General Accounting
Office (GAO) review the class-action lawsuit activities of the
Protection and Advocacy (P&A) systems authorized by the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act.
Subsequently, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Chairman Greenwood wrote to the Commissioner of the
Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) on January
23, 2002, requesting data on P&A legal activities. After
receiving the data, Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood requested
that GAO examine the extent to which P&A systems in selected
States: (1) engage in class-action lawsuits on behalf of
persons with developmental disabilities that are related to
transferring people from institutional to community-based
settings; (2) consult with legal guardians in actions that P&A
systems take on behalf of persons with developmental
disabilities; and (3) have processes for monitoring the health
and welfare of persons with developmental disabilities who are
transferred from institutional to community-based settings as a
result of P&A class-action lawsuits.
OFFICE OF RESEARCH ANTEGRITY
In February 2001, the Committee launched an inquiry into
possible administrative procedure violations by the Office of
Research Integrity (ORI) within the Department of Health and
Human Services. ORI had issued a final policy that imposed new
requirements on the nation's research institutions for all
research funded by the Public Health Service, but neither the
proposed policy nor the final policy were published in the
Federal Register as required by the Administrative Procedure
Act. As a result of the concerns raised by the Committee, ORI
withdrew the final policy.
THE CHIMP ACT
In December 1999, the Committee and the Congress passed the
CHIMP Act, setting up a program to build retirement sanctuaries
for chimpanzees used in medical and governmental research. In
the 107th Congress, the Committee monitored the implementation
of this Act by the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
particularly with respect to the Act's deadlines for finding
the appropriate organization to build the first sanctuary and
to begin construction. In the Fall of 2002, NIH announced that
it had awarded both the contract and a construction grant to
Chimp Haven, with construction due to begin promptly.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO ENERGY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Hearings
MTBE IN REFORMULATED GASOLINE
On November 1, 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the use of MTBE in
reformulated gasoline. The purpose of the hearing was to
continue the Committee's examination of issues arising from the
contamination of drinking water supplies by a constituent of
reformulated gasoline, as well as the air quality achievements
of the reformulated gasoline program. The Subcommittee received
testimony from officials representing the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the General
Accounting Office, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The
Subcommittee also received testimony from a state environmental
agency official, a homeowner with a contaminated drinking water
well, and representatives from an environmental organization
and groups involved with the production of reformulated
gasoline.
THE FREEDOMCAR PROGRAM
On June 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on the Department of Energy's
(DOE) FreedomCAR program. Specifically, the hearing reviewed
the respective roles of DOE and the auto industry in the
FreedomCAR research and development partnership; the
partnerships' creation and goals; benchmarks by which to assess
program progress and cost-effectiveness in developing advanced
automobile technologies, especially fuel cell-based systems;
potential benefits of intermediate advanced automobile
technologies, such as advanced lean burn diesel; and lessons
learned from related government-sponsored automotive research
initiatives, including the program's predecessor--the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. The hearing also
examined the challenges--technological and marketplace--that
must be overcome for the program to achieve its stated goals of
a reduction both in the nation's oil dependence and in
undesirable air pollution and CO2 emissions. The hearing's two
panels featured a DOE assistant secretary and representatives
from the General Accounting Office, the National Research
Council, and the auto, oil, and fuel cell industries.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CLEANUP PROGRAM
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its review
of several major nuclear weapons waste cleanup projects managed
by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental
Management, in order to ensure that DOE proceeds in a timely
and effective manner to reduce these environmental threats. As
part of this review, on May 14, 2002, Subcommittee Chairman
James Greenwood sent a letter to the General Accounting Office
requesting a review of DOE's management of its high-level waste
program; the review should be completed in early to mid-2003.
In addition, on July 19, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review DOE's
implementation of its new accelerated cleanup reform program
and the status of state-based cleanup agreements. The hearing
featured testimony from DOE's Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management about the accelerated cleanup reform
efforts, and testimony from the General Accounting Office on
its report on state-based compliance agreements. Other
witnesses included representatives from the States of
Washington, Idaho, and Tennessee.
REVIEW OF CLIMATE MODELING FOR PREDICTING CLIMATE CHANGE
On July 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine the use of climate
model simulations in the U.S. National Assessment of the
Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change--an
assessment that was initiated in 1997 to fulfill a mandate of
the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The National Assessment
was coordinated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program,
which is a national research effort that operates under the
auspices of the President's Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The hearing examined whether use of the primary climate
models in the National Assessment projected a picture of
potential climate change that is useful for public
understanding and legislative or regulatory action by policy
makers.
Witnesses at the hearing included two co-chairs of the
National Assessment, three state climatologists, and a
representative from an environmental group. The witnesses
testified to the suitability and accuracy of climate models in
assessing climate change impacts, especially at the national
and regional level. They provided information on the prospects
for improving climate modeling, as well as alternative public
policy approaches to climate change assessments.
Investigative Activities
GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
(including the national nuclear security administration and the
national laboratories)
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
comprehensive oversight of the Department of Energy's (DOE)
operations and management. As part of the Committee's broader
inquiry into the procurement practices of agencies within our
jurisdiction, the Committee examined DOE's policies and
practices regarding the use of government purchase and/or
credit cards by agency and contractor personnel. (For a more
complete description of these activities, see the Miscellaneous
Hearings section of this report.) Further, in November 2002,
the Committee launched a related inquiry into specific
allegations of misuse of government money through purchase
cards, blanket purchase agreements, and other procurement
vehicles at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The
Committee requested information from LANL and University of
California officials about the specific allegations as well as
more general information on procurement processes and
oversight, and Committee staff have been conducting interviews
of relevant officials and employees.
In addition, the Committee conducted oversight of site
characterization and licensing activities at the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository site. Committee staff obtained numerous
briefings and made several site visits to Yucca Mountain as
part of this review during the 107th Congress. The Committee
also continued its review of DOE's use and management of
performance-based incentive (PBI) contracting. Committee staff
obtained briefings and updates on Fiscal Year 2001 PBI
contracts at each major DOE site, including information on
base, incentive, and performance fee payments made to each
contractor. In August 2001, the Committee sent a letter to DOE
requesting detailed information on how DOE incentivizes site
safeguard and security activities at sites with category I and
II special nuclear materials. The Department provided
documents, including PBI contract language, and classified
briefings from the Office of Environmental Management and the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on DOE policies and practices
with respect to reimbursement of its contractors' legal fees
when they are defending lawsuits alleging retaliation by safety
or security whistleblowers. In the 107th Congress, the
Committee continued to monitor DOE's activities in this area,
and initiated a related review of DOE's policies and practices
with respect to approval of contractor-initiated lawsuits
against private sector competitors.
NUCLEAR SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES
The Committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Energy's (DOE) nuclear and worker safety programs in the 107th
Congress. Committee staff requested and received several
briefings, and obtained responses to a series of questions,
regarding the impact of the Department's July 26, 2001
Department-wide reorganization on the Office of Environment,
Safety, and Health, the Price-Anderson nuclear safety
enforcement program, and the Office of Independent Oversight.
Committee staff also obtained information and briefings
regarding radiological exposures to workers at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL), because of concerns about the
delayed response of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to a recommended Notice of Violation
(NOV) from the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health.
Subsequently, NNSA officials approved the NOV, which promptly
was issued to the University of California, which operates LANL
under contract with DOE.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY
In October 2001, the Committee sent a letter to Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Richard Meserve regarding
the structural integrity of reactor penetration nozzles. The
letter was in response to recent revelations of cracked and
leaking vessel head penetration nozzles, including control rod
drive mechanism nozzles, at four U.S. pressurized water
reactors. This review led to a more extensive Committee
examination of nozzle leakage at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power
Plant. In May 2002, the Committee sent a letter to the NRC
regarding Davis Besse, and Committee staff received several
briefings and made a site visit to the plant.
OTHER NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT
In addition to its oversight of security and safety at
facilities regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), the Committee reviewed matters relating to the NRC's
budget and management. In April 2001, the Committee sent a
letter to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve requesting information
about the NRC's ability to respond to the significant increase
in licensing activities at operating nuclear power reactors, as
well as potential future licensing activities associated with
applications for new site permits and new reactor licenses.
After receiving the requested information, Committee staff
interviewed NRC officials on several occasions to discuss the
adequacy of its plan. On November 7, 2001, the Committee also
sent a letter to the General Accounting Office requesting a
review of the risk and security of commercial spent nuclear
fuel facilities, and the transportation of spent nuclear fuel.
This report is scheduled for completion in early to mid-2003.
THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS
In May 2002, the Committee began to examine electricity
supply and market problems experienced by California and the
potential impact of these problems on other western states. The
Committee's continuing investigation of the financial collapse
of the Enron Corporation and contemporaneous news accounts had
indicated that certain energy-related companies may have
engaged in trading schemes designed to manipulate electric
energy and natural gas markets in the western United States or
to boost their reported revenues and trading volumes. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) had issued three
data requests, as well as an Order to Show Cause, to various
parties who may have had information about these alleged
trading schemes. In June 2002, the Committee requested that
FERC produce all the data it had acquired from these data
requests, in order to assist with the Committee's review.
Committee staff reviewed the data as part of its examination of
the California electricity crisis, as well as its investigation
of Enron.
The Committee also conducted a review of the steps taken by
California to address power supply shortage, including issues
surrounding California's negotiation of bilateral, long-term
electricity purchasing contracts on behalf of the state's
utilities.
INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REPORTING AND MONITORING
Because past reviews by the General Accounting Office (GAO)
concerning international climate treaty compliance have not
been encouraging, the Committee examined the current state of
international emissions reporting and monitoring during the
107th Congress. In August 2001, the Committee requested that
GAO undertake a study to determine: (1) how the United Nations
and U.S. assess the quality of data on greenhouse gases for the
Framework Convention on Climate Change; (2) how the quality of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions data compares with such data from
selected developed and developing countries; and (3) what steps
can and are planned to be taken to improve the quality and
monitoring of these emissions data. GAO plans to complete this
study for the Committee in the 108th Congress. In the meantime,
the Committee continued its assessment of international
compliance with such treaty obligations by analyzing the
completeness, reliability, and consistency of emissions data
reported from participating countries.
ROLE OF AIR POLLUTANTS IN GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Current debate on global climate change has focused
primarily on the role of carbon dioxide. Because some
researchers assert that there has been insufficient attention
given to emissions of other ``greenhouse gases'' and pollutants
as contributors to potential climate change, the Committee
undertook an examination in the 107th Congress of the relative
contribution of these other substances--principally black
carbon, sulfate aerosols, and ground level ozone--to potential
global climate change. In August 2001, the Committee requested
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) determine the state of
scientific understanding of the substances' varying climate
change contributions, past and future trends in emissions/
concentrations of these substances in selected developed and
developing countries, and the factors that influence these
trends. The Committee also asked GAO to examine what steps
certain foreign governments are taking to reduce emissions/
concentrations of these other substances. The GAO report is
scheduled for completion in early 2003. Committee staff, in the
meantime, continued to interview scientific experts and to
monitor developments in research on this front throughout the
107th Congress.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Investigative Activities
HOTEL/MOTEL TELEPHONE CALLING PRACTICES
In the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed compliance
and enforcement activities relating to the rate and disclosure
practices of telephone calling cards, in an effort to ensure
adequate consumer protections. In recent years, many consumers
have found frustration and disappointment with exorbitant
telephone rates when making telephone calls from payphones
using calling cards, particularly those phones located in hotel
and motel rooms. Some consumers using calling cards to make
calls on payphones or at hotels and motels later receive their
calling card bills, only to find their phone conversations had
cost far more than they had anticipated. Under Federal law,
callers making calls away from home must have the opportunity
to use an operator service provider (OSP) of their choice. In
addition, OSPs are required to provide rate and billing
information on request to consumers calling from hotels,
motels, and payphones.
Committee majority staff met with representatives from the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review what the FCC
had done to ensure that the applicable requirements were being
enforced. Committee staff received briefings on recent consent
decrees in this area between the FCC and USLD Communications,
AT&T Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc., as well as FCC citations
to 97 entities, mainly hotels and motels, for non-compliance
with the requirements. Committee staff also learned that the
American Hotel and Motel Association had agreed with the FCC to
implement an operator service education and compliance campaign
for the hospitality industry.
INTERNET DURABILITY/ELECTRICITY NETWORK RELIABILITY
In March 2001, the Committee began a review of network
reliability issues associated with increased Internet use,
including the construction of Internet hotels and their effect
on the power grid as a whole. Committee staff toured several of
these facilities, and interviewed officials of the companies
overseeing them. Committee staff also met with several trade
organizations and agencies in order to understand their efforts
to reduce and respond to potential network problems associated
with increased Internet use.
The Committee's review subsequently expanded to look at
potential concerns with the reliability of the national
electricity power grid, upon which the Internet relies. The
Committee's review was prompted in part by an increased number
of electricity black outs and brown outs across the nation. The
Committee sent document requests to several of the larger U.S.
electricity providers to gather data on the problem and to
determine the adequacy of industry efforts to ensure the
reliability of electric power. Committee staff also interviewed
several industry officials on these issues.
SIGNAL BLEED
During the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the
implementation of Sections 503 and 504 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. These provisions address what
is commonly known as ``signal bleed,'' in which cable customers
may experience some transmission of cable programming that they
did not request or would prefer to be blocked entirely (such as
adult-themed programming). Subcommittee Chairman James
Greenwood sent a request to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to determine the extent of the signal bleed
problem and ascertain what types of notice cable operators were
providing parents about their rights under Federal law to be
protected against signal bleed. In response to the Committee's
inquiries, the FCC issued two notices--one notice informed
parents of their rights to have objectionable programming
blocked, and the second notice reminded cable providers of
their responsibilities under the Act. In addition, the FCC
collected additional data in order to better ascertain the
extent of the signal bleed problem.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Hearings
TIRE/VEHICLE SAFETY
During the 106th Congress, the Committee's oversight of the
Firestone tire recall led to the passage of legislation
mandating that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) institute rulemakings to require the
submission of data on safety-related problems, claims, and
lawsuits (whether foreign or domestic) from manufacturers of
products within NHTSA's purview, including tires and vehicles.
The law also required that NHTSA update its standards for tires
and tire testing. During the 107th Congress, the Committee
continued its review of tire/vehicle safety issues, as well as
NHTSA's implementation of these legislative provisions.
Specifically, the Committee gathered and reviewed tire
safety data from virtually every major tire maker for more than
250 separate tire lines mounted as original equipment on sport
utility vehicles, station wagons, and minivans. On June 19,
2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also
held a hearing on the Ford Motor Company's May 1, 2001
announcement of a unilateral and voluntary tire recall, broader
than the previous year's recall, covering all Firestone
Wilderness AT tires on Ford vehicles. The Committee examined
claims and testing data provided by Ford and Firestone about
the subject tires, as well as those tire lines Ford planned to
use as replacements for the recalled Firestone tires. Lead
executives from both companies testified at the hearing, as did
the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation. As a
result of the hearing, NHTSA and Ford pledged to undertake
expedited reviews of the proposed replacement tires, including
additional and more vigorous testing of the replacement tires
by Ford to ensure their safety. Ford also voluntarily removed
one tire line from its replacement tire program, even though
NHTSA determined that the tire was not defective.
COMPUTER SECURITY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
In June 1999, the Committee initiated a review of computer
security policies and practices at the Department of Commerce.
Because of preliminary concerns over the possible extent of
problems at the Department, the Committee requested that the
General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a more comprehensive
review of the Department's computer security. On August 3,
2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing to review the findings of the GAO's work, which found
systemic and serious vulnerabilities in the Department's
management of cyber security. GAO and the Deputy Secretary of
the Department of Commerce testified at the hearing, and the
Department pledged to undertake significant reforms of its
security policies and practices. Subsequent to the hearing,
Committee staff continued to monitor the Department's efforts
in this area through briefings from agency computer officials.
Investigative Activities
ACQUISITION OF SILICON VALLEY GROUP BY FOREIGN INTERESTS
In March 2001, the Committee began a review of the proposed
acquisition of the Silicon Valley Group (SVG)--a leading
domestic producer of semiconductor lithography equipment and
optics technology critical to the national and economic
security of the United States--by ASM Lithography Holding N.V.
(ASML) of the Netherlands. The Committee was concerned that the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)--
an inter-agency group chaired by the Treasury Department that
reviews such acquisitions--planned to approve the acquisition
without conducting the more thorough, 45-day investigation
provided for under law in situations involving significant
national security issues. The Committee Chairman and Ranking
Member, in joint letters to the Secretary of Treasury and the
President's National Security Advisor, urged that a full, 45-
day review be conducted to ensure that there was adequate
review of the potential loss of domestically-owned, cutting-
edge technologies in these crucial areas, and the potential for
these dual-use technologies to be shared with or transferred to
other less-friendly nations following the ASML acquisition.
Committee staff also interviewed relevant officials at the
Departments of Defense and Commerce, as well as industry
representatives. Subsequent to the Committee's involvement,
ASML withdrew their application for acquisition approval, re-
submitting it after further review with the relevant agencies
and after modifications were made to the proposal to respond to
national security concerns.
AFTER-MARKET CAR PARTS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed whether
certain insurance companies were improperly requiring that
repair shops use cheaper, after-market parts instead of
original equipment replacement parts produced by the car
manufacturer. Committee staff met with repair shop owners
critical of such insurance requirements, as well as after-
market parts manufacturers.
CPSC REVIEW OF POTENTIAL BB GUN DEFECT
In September 2001, Subcommittee Chairman James Greenwood
sent a letter to the then-chairman of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) requesting documents relating to
CPSC's investigation into allegations of a potentially deadly
defect present in certain BB guns manufactured by Daisy
Manufacturing Company. The purported defect enables a BB to
become lodged in the magazine area, permitting the gun to be
shaken without hearing a BB and to be fired without expelling a
BB, thus leading the user to believe the gun is empty when it
is not. This purported defect has been claimed responsible for
over 44 serious brain injuries and deaths, in addition to
hundreds of other less serious injuries. The Subcommittee
Chairman sent the letter out of concern that CPSC was not
investigating the matter in a sufficiently thorough and speedy
manner. Committee staff met with CPSC staff and representatives
of Daisy Manufacturing to assess the extent of the potential
defect, the adequacy of Daisy's efforts to address the
potential defect, and the adequacy of the CPSC's efforts to
investigate and monitor Daisy's activities in this regard.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO HOMELAND SECURITY
AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Hearings
PROTECTION OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURES
In the 106th Congress, the Committee began a review of
Federal and private sector efforts to secure the nation's
critical infrastructures from attack or disruption, as promoted
under Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63. During the
107th Congress, the Committee continued and expanded this
review, examining the progress of Federal agencies in
identifying their own critical assets, analyzing
interdependencies between and among such assets and other
public and private sector systems, and taking corrective action
to mitigate vulnerabilities of the identified assets.
As part of this review, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on April 5, 2001, focusing on
critical Federal agency computer systems, and the lack of
progress various agencies were making in identifying and
protecting their critical systems. At the hearing, expert cyber
hackers from the Department of Energy demonstrated for the
Subcommittee the ease with which government computer systems
could be penetrated by unauthorized users via the Internet. The
first witness panel included representatives from the General
Services Administration (GSA), which monitors computer security
incidents at Federal agencies, the National Infrastructure
Protection Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which
assists Federal agencies and the private sector in monitoring
and responding to computer security incidents, and a private
company that develops technology to track and prevent such
incidents. The second panel of witnesses included
representatives from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and
the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) of the
Department of Commerce, which serves as a liaison to other
Federal agencies and the private sector in encouraging the
identification of critical systems and the performance of
vulnerability assessments of such systems. Subsequent to the
hearing, Committee staff continued to receive briefings from
various agency officials and the CIAO Director about efforts
and progress in this area.
Immediately following the September 11th terrorist attacks,
Committee Members were briefed by representatives from key
industries within the Committee's jurisdiction to discuss the
private sector efforts underway to strengthen protection of
critical infrastructures, including the electricity, oil & gas,
nuclear, telecommunications, and information technology
industries. Committee staff followed up with further visits to
industry sites and other briefings from industry and Federal
agency officials on this topic. In the area of chemical
facility security, the Committee also requested that GAO
conduct a review of both Federal and private sector efforts to
strengthen chemical facility security in the wake of the
terrorist attacks of September 11th. The GAO report is
scheduled for completion in March 2003.
The Committee also engaged in significant oversight
activity in the area of drinking water facility security, which
led to the passage of corrective legislation. Committee staff
interviewed EPA and industry officials regarding progress in
establishing a critical infrastructure information sharing and
analysis center for the drinking water sector, potential
threats to the water supply, and the status of vulnerability
assessment modeling and performance. The Committee subsequently
developed on a bipartisan basis legislation designed to enhance
the security of drinking water systems by requiring such
systems to conduct vulnerability assessments. This legislation
passed the Congress in June 2002 as part of the ``Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act.'' For
a description of the relevant provisions of this legislation,
refer to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials Legislation section of this report. During the 107th
Congress, Committee majority staff also monitored EPA's
subsequent implementation of these new provisions.
FEDERAL BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS PROGRAMS
In May 2001, the Committee launched an examination of the
ability of Federal, state, and local public health officials to
respond to acts of bioterrorism or other disease outbreaks or
disasters with mass care consequences. As part of this review,
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing
on October 10, 2001, to examine the effectiveness of Federal
programs designed to improve the ability of state and local
public health departments and hospitals to respond to such
threats. The hearing focused on the testimony of various state
and local witnesses, who raised concerns about the manner in
which Federal assistance programs have been structured and
implemented. The first panel consisted of representatives from
the American Hospital Association, the American College of
Emergency Physicians, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Healthcare Organizations, the Boston Emergency Medical
Services, the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management,
and several other experts in the area of public health and
terrorism preparedness. The second panel consisted of officials
from the General Accounting Office, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The Subcommittee held a second hearing on this topic on
November 1, 2001, focusing on the development of early warning
public health surveillance systems. This hearing featured
witnesses from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the Boston and Denver public health departments, who
discussed efforts by these agencies to implement advanced
surveillance systems. The hearing also featured testimony from
private and non-profit developers of such systems.
Subsequently, the Committee developed and the Congress
passed the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,'' which will greatly
enhance bioterrorism preparedness activities at the Federal,
state and local levels For a description of the relevant
provisions of this law, refer to the Subcommittee on Health
Legislation section of this report.
SECURITY OF NIH AND CDC FACILITIES
As part of the Committee's oversight of security at
sensitive, bioterrorism research facilities, Committee Members
and staff visited the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) main campus, located outside Atlanta,
Georgia, following the events of September 11th and the anthrax
attacks on Florida, New York City, and Washington, D.C. The
Committee also sent a number of written requests for
information on this topic and worked with the Inspector General
of the Department of Health and Human Services in order to
assess the security at both CDC and National Institutes of
Health (NIH) facilities. On October 30, 2001, Committee Members
were briefed on this topic by the Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services.
On November 7, 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing that focused on the findings and
recommendations contained in the Inspector General's draft
report on security-related deficiencies at facilities operated
by CDC and NIH. Based on consultations with the Inspector
General and the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Subcommittee closed the hearing to the public. Witnesses who
testified were the Inspector General of the Department of
Health and Human Services, and appropriate officials from NIH
and CDC. At the hearing, NIH and CDC officials testified that
they were in the process of implementing enhanced security
measures at their facilities, particularly those storing or
handling dangerous biological agents or toxins.
SECURITY AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th terrorist
attacks, Committee Members received a classified briefing from
the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on
October 3, 2001, to discuss the status of security at NRC-
licensed nuclear power plants. In addition, as part of the
Committee's broader review of nuclear security issues, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held two hearings
during the 107th Congress to review security issues at nuclear
power plants. The hearings were held on December 5, 2001, and
April 1, 2002, and focused on the NRC's efforts to increase
security requirements, and develop a new design basis threat,
for nuclear power plants regulated by NRC, as well as the
efforts of the nuclear industry to implement the new security
requirements. Due to the classified nature of these hearings,
both hearings were closed to the public. Witnesses at the
December 5, 2001 hearing included representatives from NRC, the
nuclear industry, and a public interest group. Witnesses at the
April 11, 2002 hearing included four of the five NRC
Commissioners, and representatives from the nuclear industry.
Subsequent to these hearings, the Committee continued to review
the reasons for a delay in establishing a new design basis
threat for nuclear facilities, which currently is expected to
be completed in early 2003.
CREATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
On June 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held the first day of its two-part hearing on
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The
purpose of the hearing was to review those aspects of President
Bush's proposed Department that impacted matters within the
Committee's jurisdiction--mainly, public health emergency
preparedness and response, counter-terrorism research and
development, and critical infrastructure protection. The first
day of the hearing focused on Title V of the Administration's
proposal, dealing with emergency response capabilities proposed
for transfer to the new Department. The hearing featured four
panels of witnesses, including the Honorable Tom Ridge,
Director of the White House Office of Homeland Security; the
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS); and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA). Other witnesses testifying represented
the General Accounting Office (GAO), Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL), Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL), Sandia National Laboratories, the North Carolina
Division of Emergency Management, the Washington Area National
Medical Response Team, the American Society for Microbiology,
the Center for Biodefense Studies at John Hopkins University,
and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The second day of this hearing was held on July 9, 2002,
and featured testimony from six panels of witnesses, focused on
Titles II and III of the Administration's proposal, dealing
with critical infrastructure protection and counter-terrorism
research and development. Witnesses included representatives of
the HHS Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness, the
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of
Commerce, the Energy Security and Assurance Office of the
Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Customs Service, NNSA, the
U.S. Postal Service, GAO, several DOE national laboratories,
corporations and advocacy groups, and the information sharing
and analysis centers for relevant critical infrastructure
sectors.
Based on this testimony, the Committee developed and
ordered reported a bipartisan Committee Print making
modifications to the Administration's proposal, which was
forwarded under the guidelines of H. Res. 449 to the Select
Committee on Homeland Security as the Committee's official
recommendations concerning the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security. The Select Committee adopted virtually all
of the Committee's key recommendations. For a discussion of the
Committee Print and subsequent House legislation creating the
Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005), refer to the Full
Committee Legislation section of this report.
NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
In the 107th Congress, the Committee conducted a
comprehensive investigation of the Federal government's
response to the potential of nuclear terrorism and the
unauthorized importation of radioactive or nuclear materials.
In the months following the September 11th terrorist attacks,
Committee staff traveled to three foreign countries and a dozen
major U.S. ports and border points of entry, and worked closely
with the Office of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy
(DOE), the U.S. Customs Service, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA), and the Department of Transportation in
order to assess the Federal government's approach to protecting
the country's ports and borders from a devastating terrorist
attack, or from serving as entry ways for terrorists to smuggle
in radioactive or nuclear materials. In addition, Committee
staff met with and visited private firms such as FedEx and
United Parcel Service whose operations could be used as a
mechanism to ship such weapons or materials, in order to assess
their efforts to prevent such activity. The Committee staff
also met with numerous private firms that manufacture
technology that can detect radiological or nuclear materials in
order to assess the availability and potential uses of such
technologies at the country's ports and borders.
Due to the large volume of imports and limited resources,
the Customs Service inspects approximately two percent of all
cargo containers entering the country each year. Customs also
is forced to rely on vague and inconsistent manifest data about
the entering shipments in determining which containers to
inspect, which hurts Customs' ability to accurately target
suspect shipments. While sophisticated technological devices
could assist Customs' inspectors in targeting potential
shipments of nuclear or radiological material or weapons, the
Committee review focused on the fact that the Customs Service
had not installed such devices at U.S. ports and border
crossings with Mexico and Canada.
Subsequently, in April 2002, the Customs Service tasked
Pacific Northwest Labs (PNNL), a DOE laboratory, with assessing
currently-available technology and deploying detection devices
at various U.S. ports and borders. The Committee's review,
however, found that several other DOE/NNSA laboratories were
working on developing and testing such devices for DOE and NNSA
as part of their nuclear non-proliferation programs, and that
the Customs Service and DOE were inadequately coordinating
their efforts. To highlight these problems, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on July 9, 2002, as
part of its review of the Administration's proposal to create a
Department of Homeland Security (discussed earlier in this
section of this report). The last two panels of this hearing
focused on nuclear terrorism readiness and testimony was closed
to the public. Subsequent to the hearing, NNSA's Acting
Administrator formally offered Customs the expertise and
manpower of the NNSA and its laboratories, and Committee staff
continued to follow up on this issue with Customs and the White
House Office of Homeland Security to ensure that these agencies
worked together to expeditiously address this issue.
The Committee's continued oversight of government efforts
to protect America from nuclear terrorism led to a second
hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on
October 17, 2002. The hearing was held in response to
continuing concerns about the Customs Service's efforts to
deploy radiological and nuclear detection equipment at
America's ports and border entries. While opening statements by
Members and witnesses were open to the public, the hearing went
into executive session for Member questioning of witnesses.
Witnesses at the hearing included the Honorable Robert C.
Bonner, Commissioner of the United States Customs Service, as
well as representatives from NNSA, the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, the General Accounting Office, and the Inspector
General's Office of the Department of Treasury. At the hearing,
Customs pledged to expedite its deployment of detection devices
at ports and border entry points. Subsequent to this hearing,
Committee staff continued to meet with Customs and DOE
personnel to assess the status of recently deployed portal
monitoring systems and Customs' plan to deploy additional
detection systems at vulnerable entry points along the U.S.
borders.
Investigative Activities
SECURITY AT DOE/NNSA NUCLEAR FACILITIES
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of security matters at Department of Energy (DOE) and
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) national
laboratories and other nuclear facilities. Committee Members
and majority staff obtained numerous briefings and conducted
several site visits to NNSA laboratories and other facilities
to review physical and cyber security protections in the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, including
site visits to Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratories, the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the
Nevada Test Site. The Committee monitored the development and
implementation of enhanced security policies and measures,
including the delay in the development of a new design basis
threat for such facilities, which is expected to be completed
in early 2003.
DOE'S NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its review
of the Department of Energy's (DOE) non-proliferation programs,
and in particular the U.S./Russian Highly Enriched Uranium
(HEU) Agreement. On January 30, 2001, the Committee sent a
letter to the President's National Security Advisor requesting
that the National Security Council (NSC) review the proposed
amendment to the HEU agreement between the United States
Enrichment Corporation and its Russian counterpart, Tenex.
Committee staff received several briefings from DOE, the lead
Federal agency for the HEU Agreement, and the NSC on issues
relating to the proposed amendment. Subsequently, the amendment
was rescinded, and certain changes to the amendment were made
before it was re-approved in 2002.
CDC SELECT AGENT PROGRAM
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of the management of the select agent registration
program by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). The select agent program regulates the transfer of
dangerous biological agents, such as anthrax, ebola, and the
plague, and imposes safety and security requirements on
recipients of the agents. Committee staff received regular
briefings from CDC and the General Accounting Office on the
status of reforms to the program, and developed corrective
legislation that became law as part of the ``Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002.'' In part, this law required the registration of all
possessors of select agents, the imposition of enhanced
security measures on such possessors, and the creation of a
national database of such agents. The law also imposed more
stringent Federal criminal and civil penalties for failure to
register or to comply with security requirements. For a
description of the relevant provisions, see the Subcommittee on
Health Legislation section of this report.
THREATS TO THE FOOD SUPPLY
As part of the Committee's broader examination of terrorist
threats during the 107th Congress, the Committee sought
information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
concerning expert assessments of the various threats to the
safety and security of the nation's food supply posed by
terrorists. The Committee also obtained information about FDA
food inspection resources and efforts, particularly at ports of
entry into the United States. The Committee's oversight in this
area contributed to the passage of enhanced food safety
protections in the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.'' For a description of
the relevant provisions, see the Subcommittee on Health
Legislation section of this report.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO CORPORATE
ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND OVERSIGHT
Hearings
THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE OF ENRON
In the 107th Congress, the Committee conducted an extensive
investigation into the surprising financial collapse of the
Enron Corporation and the related accounting issues, which
resulted in five days of hearings held by the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations in the early part of 2002. The
Committee commenced its investigation in December 2001, and
staff conducted a detailed review of hundreds of boxes of
documents obtained from Enron and other related entities,
including Andersen LLP, Enron's external auditor. Committee
staff also conducted scores of interviews of Enron and Andersen
executives and employees, accountants, and attorneys, as well
as executives from several international banks and financial
institutions and other key players in the multiple transactions
and business schemes that contributed to Enron's ultimate
bankruptcy.
Information uncovered in the investigation revealed
deliberate efforts by Enron, with the assistance of Andersen
and several financial institutions, to manipulate and
misrepresent Enron's financial condition over several years.
The investigation also contributed to the discovery of
Andersen's destruction of documents relevant to Enron
investigations by the Committee, the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), and Federal criminal investigators. The
Committee's efforts highlighted significant problems that
ultimately led to the passage of corporate governance and
accounting reform legislation in mid-2002. In addition,
subsequent to the Committee's hearings, Federal criminal
charges were brought against Andersen, one of its senior
partners, and several former Enron executives and international
financiers. Federal criminal investigations continue.
The first Subcommittee hearing occurred on January 24,
2002, focusing on the destruction of audit-related documents by
Andersen personnel working on the Enron account. At the
hearing, Andersen's senior management and its lead in-house
counsel handling the Enron matter--Ms. Nancy Temple--were
questioned at length about the destruction of Enron documents,
and Andersen's policies and practices with respect to retention
and destruction of records relevant to potential governmental
investigations or private litigation. Andersen's lead Enron
auditor, David Duncan, appeared at the hearing but asserted his
Fifth Amendment right to not testify. In December 2002, the
Committee's bipartisan leadership sent a criminal referral to
the Department of Justice regarding possible perjury and/or
materially false statements made by Ms. Temple in her testimony
regarding whether she counseled the destruction of Enron-
related documents by Andersen personnel or anticipated
governmental investigations or litigation at the time she
instructed continued compliance with normal document retention
and destruction practices.
The second Subcommittee hearing occurred on February 5,
2002, at which the only witness was William C. Powers, Jr., the
dean of the University of Texas School of Law who was hired by
Enron's Board of Directors to conduct an independent
examination of the related-party transactions and special
purpose entities (SPEs) that caused Enron's collapse, and to
prepare a report for the Board on his findings. Mr. Powers
testified regarding the report's conclusion that these SPEs
were created and effectively controlled by senior Enron
executives and employees in order for Enron to have friendly,
third-party entities with which Enron could engage in various
financial transactions in order to improve Enron's balance
sheet by either transferring debt, enhancing earnings, or both.
Mr. Powers discussed in detail the formation, structure, and
legal/accounting concerns associated with Enron's multiple
related-party partnerships, and offered significant criticism
of Enron's senior management, its Board of Directors, and its
outside accountants and attorneys for approving the
questionable transactions and for failing to provide adequate
oversight.
On February 7, 2002, the Subcommittee continued its hearing
into the financial collapse of Enron. Senior Enron and Andersen
executives (including Jeffrey Skilling, Enron's former Chief
Executive Officer) and members of Enron's Board of Directors
appeared before the Subcommittee to discuss their role in and
knowledge surrounding Enron's financial collapse. During the
hearing, four then-current and former Enron executives invoked
their Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Since the hearing,
two of the executives have been charged with multiple counts of
Federal fraud and conspiracy violations. One of the former
executives, Michael Kopper, pled guilty to the charges against
him, while the other--former Chief Financial Officer Andrew
Fastow--has pled not guilty to 48 criminal counts and is
awaiting trial.
On February 14, 2002, the Subcommittee continued its
hearing, receiving testimony from Ms. Sharron Watkins, an
executive at Enron who had warned Enron's Chief Executive
Officer Kenneth Lay in August 2001 that Enron was going to
``implode in a wave of accounting scandals.'' Her letter to Mr.
Lay was discovered and first revealed as a result of the
Committee's investigation. Ms. Watkins testified regarding her
accounting and ethical concerns, her efforts to address them
internally at Enron, and her skepticism concerning an internal
investigation of her allegations by the law firm of Vinson &
Elkins.
On March 14, 2002, the Subcommittee held the last day of
its hearing on the Enron collapse, focusing on the role of
Enron's in-house and outside counsel in approving and
overseeing the questionable transactions and the public
disclosures relating to them. Witnesses included partners at
Vinson & Elkins and current and former in-house counsel for
Enron, who were questioned about Enron's internal processes for
approving related-party transactions, addressing potential
conflicts of interest, and ensuring adequate investor
disclosures. Vinson & Elkins' representatives also were
questioned extensively about the adequacy of the firm's
internal investigation of Ms. Watkins' allegations.
As part of its investigation into the collapse of Enron,
the Committee also sought information on the role of major
financial institutions in structuring transactions that had
significant impact on Enron's financial statements, and those
of other energy industry corporations. Specifically, the
Committee obtained information from major financial
institutions and law firms involved in the structuring of these
transactions, as well as the three major credit rating
agencies, accounting and financial experts, corporations from
the insurance and energy sectors, and several Federal agencies,
including the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Departments
of Justice and Energy. Committee staff conducted numerous
interviews, and reviewed several thousand pages of documents on
this separate matter, including information regarding the
involvement of these entities with Enron and LJM2--a privately-
held investment group associated with Andrew Fastow--which
played a central role in the questionable related-party
transactions that forced Enron's bankruptcy.
The Committee learned that several of the banks had multi-
million dollar investments in or commitments to LJM2. Merrill
Lynch also provided the opportunity to certain senior domestic
officers to invest in LJM2; 97 Merrill Lynch officers/
executives invested over $17 million in LJM2. Several of the
banks have been the subject of further investigation by the
Department of Justice, several state Attorneys General, and the
SEC. In addition, the Committee reviewed the extent to which
certain financial institutions facilitated the use of pre-paid/
forward gas and/or oil contracts by Enron as a means to inflate
Enron's revenue and hide the company's debt.
CAPACITY SWAP ACCOUNTING BY GLOBAL CROSSING AND QWEST
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held two
hearings on reciprocal capacity sale transactions between
Global Crossing and Qwest, as part of the Committee's inquiry
into whether these were sham transactions designed to boost
revenue and mislead investors about the deteriorating financial
conditions of the two firms. Beginning in March 2002, Committee
staff commenced extensive document review and conducted
numerous interviews of company executives and key players in
the transactions in question. Although the investigation
focused primarily on transactions between these two companies,
Committee staff also looked into similar transactions between
these companies and other telecommunications companies to
determine the scope of the potential problem industry-wide. The
investigation uncovered the existence of oral and written side
agreements in several of these swap-type transactions that were
not shared with relevant accounting personnel and caused
serious accounting problems once discovered, particularly for
Qwest. Information uncovered in the investigation also raised
significant questions as to the legitimacy of these capacity
swaps overall. During the course of the Committee's
investigation, both Qwest and Global Crossing announced that
they would restate their financial results due to improper
accounting for these swap transactions.
The first hearing was held on September 24, 2002, and had
witnesses from Global Crossing and Qwest, as well as FLAG
Telecom, another company that engaged in swap transactions with
Qwest. The witnesses were either current or ex-employees who
dealt directly with either the approval or negotiation of the
swap transactions in question. The second hearing was held on
October 1, 2002, and also had witnesses from both Qwest and
Global Crossing. The first panel consisted of two ex-employees,
one from each company, who lost significant amounts of their
retirement funds due to the companies' financial troubles. The
second panel of witnesses consisted of senior executives and
board members from both companies.
Investigative Activities
ACCOUNTING FRAUD AT WORLDCOM, INC.
As part of the Committee's overall examination of corporate
governance and accounting issues, the Committee launched a
separate inquiry into WorldCom's announcement that it would
restate its prior earnings results by $3.9 billion, due to
improper accounting for certain expenditures. Committee staff
conducted several interviews with witnesses employed by, or
associated with, WorldCom in the United States and the United
Kingdom, and reviewed thousands of pages of requested
documents--including transactional documents, WorldCom internal
e-mails, accounting documents, and financial statements. The
Committee investigation revealed internal WorldCom documents
showing the company's efforts to prop up its financial
performance in the face of rapidly eroding telecommunications
business. The internal documents dated back as early as July
2000 and showed internal WorldCom discussions among its finance
and accounting officers, including those at the highest levels
of WorldCom management, concerning ways to reduce operational
expenses to maximize its earnings reports, such as by re-
classifying some operational expenditures as capital costs
despite a lack of accounting justification for such re-
classification. The Committee's efforts highlighted significant
problems that ultimately led to the passage of corporate
governance and accounting reform legislation in mid-2002.
The company subsequently filed for bankruptcy, and adjusted
its financial restatement from $3.9 billion to over $9 billion.
WorldCom executives have since been indicted on securities
fraud and other charges, and others have pled guilty to related
offenses. Civil and criminal investigations by Federal and
state authorities continue in the areas addressed by the
Committee's investigation.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND SEC OVERSIGHT
In the second year of the 107th Congress, the Committee
began a review of corporate governance issues in light of the
increasing number of alleged business accounting scandals and
failures. To varying degrees, Committee staff conducted
interviews and reviewed records relating to the corporate
practices of 14 companies: Adelphia Communications; Enron
Corp.; Global Crossing Ltd.; ImClone Systems, Inc.; Kmart
Corporation; MicroStrategy Incorporated; Peregrine Systems,
Inc.; Qwest Communications; Rite Aid Corporation; Sunbeam
Corporation; Tyco International, Ltd.; Waste Management, Inc.;
WorldCom, Inc.; and Xerox Corporation. The Committee reviewed
such issues as board of directors' management oversight and
conflict and compensation matters within such boards. The
materials and information developed in this inquiry also
supported and enhanced the Committee's more specific
investigations into several of these same companies, such as
ImClone, Global Crossing, Qwest, and WorldCom.
The Committee also reviewed the role of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to the oversight of the
above-reference matters. Committee staff reviewed documentation
and conducted interviews with relevant SEC officials concerning
the SEC's own reviews and investigations of these companies
over the course of several years, examining the extent to which
the SEC scrutinized these companies' financial reports in the
years leading up to the recent allegations of financial
impropriety.
MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES
Hearings
USE OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS BY SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM FUNDS
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
Committee began an investigation into how effectively and
efficiently the charitable organizations collecting money for
the victims of the events of September 11 were distributing the
money, and what actions the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was
taking to protect contributors from fraudulent charitable
schemes. Victims of the attacks had raised concerns that they
were not getting the assistance they needed, in spite of the
fact that over $1 billion had been collected on their behalf by
various charities. On November 6, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on these issues.
Executives from several of the leading charitable organizations
testified, including representatives from the American Red
Cross and the United Way. Two widows who lost their husbands in
the World Trade Center attack also testified, describing the
complications they dealt with in trying to obtain assistance
from these organizations. Other witnesses included the Director
of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Attorney
General of New York, and representatives from other victim
advocacy groups. Much of the hearing focused on the Red Cross'
October 29, 2001 announcement that only $320 million of the
$547 million it had collected in its Liberty Fund would be used
for disaster assistance related to the attacks of September 11.
Shortly after the hearing, on November 14, 2001, the Red Cross
announced that all contributions to the Liberty Fund would be
used exclusively to meet the immediate and long-term needs of
people directly affected by the September 11 tragedies.
REVIEW OF FEDERAL AGENCY COMPUTER SECURITY PROGRAMS
Pursuant to Title 14 of the Defense Authorization Act of
2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was provided
substantial new authority and responsibilities to ensure that
computer and information resources maintained by the Federal
government are protected from cyber attacks, viruses and other
threats. OMB's responsibilities include enhancing government-
wide policies for computer security, overseeing the development
of Federal agency security plans, as well as reviewing the
results of Federal agency efforts to conduct vulnerability
assessments and penetration tests of their computer defenses.
Under the law, each agency is required to develop comprehensive
information security plans and conduct internal vulnerability
audits. These audits also must be subject to external
verification.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the
efforts of Federal agencies within its jurisdiction to comply
with the new government-wide cyber security law. In March 2001,
the Committee sent detailed information requests to each of the
Federal departments, agencies, and commissions within its
jurisdiction, including the Departments of Commerce, Energy and
Health and Human Services; the Food and Drug Administration;
the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS); the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; the Federal Trade Commission; the Federal
Communications Commission; the Consumer Product Safety Board;
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Committee staff
reviewed scores of boxes of responsive materials from these
agencies relating to their computer security policies,
practices, and audits, and conducted interviews of numerous
computer security officials at many of these agencies. The
Committee's review of agency compliance with computer security
requirements spurred corrective actions by many of these
agencies during the 107th Congress.
As part of this comprehensive review, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations also held two hearings focusing on
computer security problems at CMS and the Department of
Commerce, respectively, as discussed earlier in this report.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PURCHASE CARD PROGRAM
During the 107th Congress, the Committee launched a review
of the Federal government's oversight and management of its
purchase card program for agency procurements due to reports of
fraud and misuse of such programs by Federal personnel, and a
lack of sufficient administrative oversight and controls.
Committee staff interviewed officials from the General Services
Administration (GSA) and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to determine the impetus for the program, to understand
more clearly how it was supposed to function, and to determine
their roles in the oversight of the agency programs. Committee
staff also conducted interviews with the Inspectors General
(IG) from each of the agencies within its jurisdiction, as well
as agency procurement staff, to determine what controls, if
any, existed at each agency, and how well each agency was
managing its purchase card program.
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a hearing on the oversight and
management of the government purchase card program at several
agencies within its jurisdiction, including the Department of
Energy, Department of Commerce, and the Department of Health
and Human Services. Witnesses at the hearing included both IG
and agency procurement officials, as well as individuals from
GSA, OMB, and the General Accounting Office. Subsequent to the
hearing, the Director of OMB directed each agency to send OMB a
plan for overseeing its purchase card programs, and organized a
task force to assist the agencies in this area.
Investigative Activities
AGENCY TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
During the first year of the 107th Congress, the Committee
began a review of international travel by personnel of Federal
agencies within the Committee's jurisdiction. The focus of the
review was on the frequency, expense, and necessity of certain
international trips. In early 2002, the Committee requested
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct an audit of
the travel card program at the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The GAO report is scheduled for completion in
early 2003.
Hearings Held
Patients First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality
and Affordable Health Coverage.--Joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Health on Patients First: A 21st Century
Promise to Ensure Quality and Affordable Health Coverage.
Hearings held on March 1, April 4, and May 10, 2001. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-23.
Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research.--Oversight hearing
on Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research. Hearing held on
March 28, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-5.
Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures: How Secure
Are Government Computer Systems?--Oversight hearing on
Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures: How Secure Are
Government Computer Systems? Hearing held on April 5, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-13.
How Secure is Private medical Information? A Review of
Computer Security at the Health Care Financing Administration
and Its Medicare Contractors.--Oversight hearing on How Secure
is Private medical Information? A Review of Computer Security
at the Health Care Financing Administration and Its Medicare
Contractors. Hearing held on May 23, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-29.
Has Medicare+Choice Reduced Variation in the Premiums and
Benefits Offered by Participating Health Plans? A Review of
Medicare+Choice Plan Payment Methodology.--Oversight hearing on
Has Medicare+Choice Reduced Variation in the Premiums and
Benefits Offered by Participating Health Plans? A Review of
Medicare+Choice Plan Payment Methodology. Hearing held on May
31, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-39.
Continuing Concerns Over Imported Pharmaceuticals.--
Oversight hearing on Continuing Concerns Over Imported
Pharmaceuticals. Hearing held on June 7, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-30.
Ford Motor Company's Recall of Certain Firestone Tires.--
Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection on Ford Motor Company's Recall
of Certain Firestone Tires. Hearing held on June 19, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-45.
Patients First: A 21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality
and Affordable Health Coverage.--Joint oversight hearing with
the Subcommittee on Health on Patients First: A 21st Century
Promise to Ensure Quality and Affordable Health Coverage.
Hearing held on June 28, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-23.
How Secure is Sensitive Commerce Department Data and
Operations? A Review of the Department's Computer Security
Policies and Practices.--Oversight hearing on How Secure is
Sensitive Commerce Department Data and Operations? A Review of
the Department's Computer Security Policies and Practices.
Hearing held on August 3, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-56.
OxyContin: Its Use and Abuse.--Oversight hearing on
OxyContin: Its Use and Abuse. Hearing held on August 28, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-54.
Medicare Drug Reimbursements: A Broken System for Patients
and Taxpayers.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee
on Health on Medicare Drug Reimbursements: A Broken System for
Patients and Taxpayers. Hearing held on September 21, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-65.
A Review of Federal Bioterrorism Preparedness Programs from
a Public Health Perspective.--Oversight hearing on a Review of
federal Bioterrorism Preparedness Programs from a Public Health
Perspective. Hearing held on October 10, 2001. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-70.
A Review of Federal Bioterrorism Preparedness Programs:
Building an Early Warning Public Health Surveillance System.--
Oversight hearing on a Review of Federal Bioterrorism
Preparedness Programs: Building an Early Warning Public Health
Surveillance System. Hearing held on November 1. PRINTED,
Serial Number 107-71.
Issues Concerning the Use of MTBE in Reformulated Gasoline:
An Update.--Oversight hearing on Issues Concerning the Use of
MTBE in Reformulated Gasoline: An Update. Hearing held on
November 1, 2001. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-73.
Charitable Contributions for September 11: Protecting
against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.--Oversight hearing on
Charitable Contributions for September 11: Protecting against
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. Hearing held on November 6, 2001.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-67.
HHS Inspector General's Review of Security at NIH and CDC
Facilities.--Oversight hearing on HHS Inspector General's
Review of Security at NIH and CDC Facilities. Hearing held on
November 7, 2001. NOT PRINTED.
A Review of Security Issues at Nuclear Power Plants.--
Oversight hearing on A Review of Security Issues at Nuclear
Power Plants. Hearing held on December 5, 2001. NOT PRINTED.
The Destruction of Enron-Related Documents by Andersen
Personnel.--Oversight hearing on The Destruction of Enron-
Related Documents by Andersen Personnel. Hearing held on
January 24, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-80.
The Findings of Enron's Special Investigative Committee
With Respect to Certain Transactions Between Enron and Certain
of its Current and Former Officers and Employees.--Oversight
hearing on the Findings of Enron's Special Investigative
Committee With Respect to Certain Transactions Between Enron
and Certain of its Current and Former Officers and Employees.
Hearing held on February 5, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-
86.
The Financial Collapse of Enron Corporation: Certain
Transactions Between Enron and Certain of its Current and
Former Officers.--Oversight hearing on the Financial Collapse
of Enron Corporation: Certain Transactions Between Enron and
Certain of its Current and Former Officers. Hearing held on
February 7, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-88.
The Financial Collapse of Enron Corporation.--Oversight
hearing on the Financial Collapse of Enron Corporation. Hearing
held on February 14, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-89.
The Financial Collapse of Enron Corporation, Focusing on
Enron's Inside and Outside Counsel.--Oversight hearing on the
Financial Collapse of Enron Corporation, Focusing on Enron's
Inside and Outside Counsel. Hearing held on March 14, 2002.
PRINTED, Serial Number 107-90.
A Review of Enhanced Security Requirements at NRC Licensed
Facilities.--Oversight hearing on a Review of Enhanced Security
Requirements at NRC Licensed Facilities. Hearing held on April
11, 2002. NOT PRINTED.
Oversight and Management of the Government Purchase Card
Program: Reviewing Its Weaknesses and Identifying.--Oversight
hearing on Oversight and Management of the Government Purchase
Card Program: Reviewing Its Weaknesses and Identifying. Hearing
held on May 1, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-96.
Assessing America's Health Risks: How Well Are Medicare's
Clinical Preventive Benefits Serving America's Seniors? How
Will the Next Generation of Preventive Medical Treatments be
Incorporated and Promoted in the Health Care System?--Oversight
hearing on Assessing America's Health Risks: How Well Are
Medicare's Clinical Preventive Benefits Serving America's
Seniors? How Will the Next Generation of Preventive Medical
Treatments be Incorporated and Promoted in the Health Care
System? Hearing held on May 23, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number
107-110.
DOE's FreedomCAR: Hurdles, Benchmarks for Progress, and
Role in Energy Policy.--Oversight hearing on DOE's FreedomCAR:
Hurdles, Benchmarks for Progress, and Role in Energy Policy.
Hearing held on June 6, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-111.
An Inquiry into the ImClone Cancer-Drug Story.--Oversight
hearings on An Inquiry into the ImClone Cancer-Drug Story.
Hearings held on June 13 and October 10, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
No. 107-142.
Creating the Department of Homeland Security: Consideration
of the Administration's Proposal.--Oversight hearings on
Creating the Department of Homeland Security: Consideration of
the Administration's Proposal. Hearings held on June 25 and
July 9, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-113.
A Review of DOE's Accelerated Cleanup Program and State-
Based Compliance Agreements.--Oversight hearing on A Review of
DOE's Accelerated Cleanup Program and State-Based Compliance
Agreements. Hearing held on July 19, 2002. PRINTED, Serial
Number 107-124.
The U.S. National Climate Change Assessment: Do the Climate
Models Project a Useful Picture of Regional Climate?--Oversight
hearing on the U.S. National Climate Change Assessment: Do the
Climate Models Project a Useful Picture of Regional Climate?
Hearing held on July 25, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-117.
America's Blood Supply in the Aftermath of September 11,
2001.--Oversight hearing on America's Blood Supply in the
Aftermath of September 11, 2001. Hearing held on September 10,
2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-137.
Capacity Swaps by Global Crossing and Qwest: Sham
Transactions Designed to Boost Revenues?--Oversight hearing on
Capacity Swaps by Global Crossing and Qwest: Sham Transactions
Designed to Boost Revenues? Hearings held on September 24 and
October 1, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-129.
Securing America: The Federal Government's Response to
Nuclear Terrorism at Our Nation's Ports and Borders.--Oversight
hearing on Securing America: The Federal Government's Response
to Nuclear Terrorism at Our Nation's Ports and Borders. Hearing
held on October 17, 2002. PRINTED, Serial Number 107-143.
Committee on Energy and Commerce Oversight Plan for the 107th Congress
Clause 2(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 107th 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 to
the Committee on House Administration.
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 at noon 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 action taken thereon.
Part A of this section contains the Committee on Energy and
Commerce Oversight Plan for the 107th Congress, which was
considered and adopted by a voice vote of the Full Committee on
February 14, 2001, a quorum being present.
Part B of this section contains a summary of the actions
taken by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to implement the
Oversight Plan for the 107th Congress and the recommendations
made with respect to this plan.
PART A
Committee on Energy and Commerce Oversight Plan
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
107th congress
CONGRESSMAN W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, 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 Energy and
Commerce for the 107th Congress. It includes the areas in which
the Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 107th
Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of
additional matters as the need arises.
----------
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
CONSUMER PRIVACY
One of the primary concerns of on-line users is the
protection of sensitive consumer information collected and
transmitted over the Internet or other computer networks. As
increasing numbers of consumers interface with the Internet to
conduct electronic transactions, there are concerns that
personal information collected by web sites, such as sensitive
medical or financial information, may be misused or poorly
protected. To alleviate these concerns, the private sector has
undertaken self-regulatory efforts to create enforceable
standards to protect the privacy of its customers. The
Committee will examine existing privacy protections, evaluate
the efforts of the private sector and the Federal Trade
Commission to promote greater consumer privacy, and assess
potential options to increase the privacy protections afforded
the users of Internet and other electronic networks.
Further, international privacy efforts, like the European
Union Privacy Directive, are having an impact on U.S. Internet
companies and American consumers. Privacy policies developed
worldwide may be creating de facto standards for the U.S. The
Committee plans to examine the international implications of
on-line privacy, its impact on American society, and
international coordination efforts.
TIRE/VEHICLE SAFETY
During the 106th Congress, the Committee's oversight of the
Firestone tire recall matter led to the passage of legislation
mandating that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) institute rulemakings to require the
submission of data on safety-related problems, claims, and
lawsuits (whether foreign or domestic) from manufacturers of
products within NHTSA's purview, including tires and vehicles.
The new law also requires that NHTSA update its standards for
tires and tire testing. The Committee intends to continue its
review of tire/vehicle safety issues during the 107th Congress,
as well as NHTSA's implementation of these legislative
provisions.
FILTERING/BLOCKING TECHNOLOGIES
While the Internet opens doors to a world of information
that was not available in the analog world, it also makes
available pornography and other material that may be
inappropriate for children. Congress recently enacted
legislation to promote the use of filtering and blocking
technologies for those entities that receive Federal funds
under specific programs. The Committee will look into how these
filtering and blocking technologies are implemented at the
Federal level. Additionally, the Committee will evaluate the
effectiveness of differing filtering and blocking technologies.
TELEMARKETING
Telemarketing has been, and continues to be, a
controversial marketing practice. While telemarketing can
provide benefits for consumers, it also can be an intrusive
nuisance and promote consumer confusion. In some instances,
rogue telemarketers can take advantage of this confusion to
commit fraud against consumers, particularly against senior
citizens. The Committee plans a general examination of
telemarketing practices in light of existing law, and the range
of potential safeguards to protect the privacy, safety, and
pocketbooks of consumers. The Committee will also look at
current enforcement and regulatory practices by the Federal
Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.
Further, the Committee will examine the practices of some
telemarketers to evaluate their harm to consumers and society.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN HIGH TECH AND OTHER POLICY
AREAS
While the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authority to
protect consumers from deceptive practices and advertising over
various mediums, including the Internet and electronic
networks. The Committee plans to review the FTC's exercise of
its authority in the high tech and e-commerce areas, as well as
in other areas within the Committee's jurisdiction, such as
energy policy, healthcare policy, and the regulation of food
and drugs.
VIOLENT CONTENT IN THE MEDIA AND MARKETING TO CHILDREN
Over the past few decades, American media outlets have
increased the amount of violent content, including gratuitous
violence, within the overall programming offered to consumers.
A number of recent studies detailing the effects media violence
has on American society, especially on children, have concluded
that there may be a link between the violent nature of media
content and violent behavior. In addition, while opinions vary,
the popular view today is that media violence does, in some
way, influence impressionable young viewers. The Committee
intends to review the practices and policies of all media
sources, including television, motion pictures, audio
recordings, video games, radio, and the Internet, to evaluate
differing approaches to violent content. The Committee will
review existing studies on the effects of media violence to
determine their accuracy and methodology. Further, the
Committee plans to examine the reasons for the inclusion of
increased violent content in media programming, and different
ways to empower parents to protect their children from such
content.
In addition, the Committee will continue to closely monitor
the Federal Trade Commission's work in the area of marketing of
violent media content to children by the entertainment
industry, and its efforts to promote industry self-regulation
in this area.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
The Committee will continue its efforts to monitor and
examine World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and
activities affecting important segments of the U.S. economy,
such as telecommunications, electronic commerce, food and
drugs, the services industry, and commerce with foreign
countries generally. The Committee also will continue to review
the efforts of other nation's to comply with their trade
obligations and open their markets to American companies,
products and services.
Pursuant to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) reviews and
requests comment on the operation, effectiveness, and
implementation of international telecommunications trade
agreements. USTR will release its annual assessment of these
trade agreements on March 31, 2001. In order to evaluate the
impact on the U.S. telecommunications industry, the Committee
plans to examine the USTR's assessment of the international
telecommunications trade, and review whether these trade
agreements are being properly implemented. Further, the
Committee will examine the issue of foreign government
ownership and overall foreign ownership of U.S.
telecommunications companies to determine whether existing law
and policy in these areas needs to be changed.
TELEPHONE CALLING CARD PRACTICES AND RATES
Over the last few years, the telecommunications industry
has undergone considerable change with the advent of new
services, products, and rate plans by telecommunications
companies. Telephone calling cards are one example of a
relatively new telecommunications service that has become
extremely popular with consumers. Telephone calling cards
offered by or in partnership with telecommunications providers
are very attractive to consumers because of their convenience
and ease of operation. However, many consumers have found
frustration and disappointment with exorbitant telephone rates,
lack of information on policies and practices with respect to
service and rates, and poor customer relations services. The
Committee plans to review the use and potential abuses of these
telephone calling cards to ensure adequate consumer
protections.
HOTEL/MOTEL TELEPHONE CALLING RATES
The excessive rates, added charges, and lack of choice of
telephone service in certain hotels and motels is an increasing
problem for consumers, who in essence are a captured audience.
These charges often include operator assistance fees and access
charges to a long distance company. This problem can be
exacerbated with increased use of the Internet by hotel and
motel guests. The Committee plans to examine the excessive
rates, added charges, and lack of choice for telecommunications
service in certain hotels and motels.
LIABILITY REFORM
The Committee will continue to examine the need for further
liability reform in a number of areas, including medical
malpractice, product liability, and punitive damages generally.
The Committee also will examine the proper relationship of
Federal reform efforts to State laws, and the benefits and
disadvantages of various models of liability reform.
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
The Committee will continue to review the management,
operations, and activities of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission in safeguarding consumers, and particularly their
children, from faulty or dangerous products. In particular, the
Committee will review the adequacy of the CPSC's data gathering
and dissemination efforts with respect to products within its
jurisdiction.
FTC CYBER SECURITY
The FTC, as a law enforcement and regulatory body, is privy
to sensitive and proprietary information provided by the
parties it regulates. Further, the Commission generates vast
amounts of internal documents, many of which are law-
enforcement sensitive. Accordingly, protection of the FTC's
computer networks and non-public data is important to ensure
that this information is not accessed by or shared with
unauthorized parties. The Committee will examine what steps the
Commission takes to protect the integrity and security of its
network systems and confidential data, and whether further
efforts in this area are necessary.
CYBER SECURITY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
In June 1999, the Committee initiated a review of cyber-
security policies and practices at the Department of Commerce.
The Committee also requested last year that the General
Accounting Office conduct a more comprehensive review of
computer security practices at the Department, which is now
underway. In the 107th Congress, the Committee will continue to
review cyber security at the Department and evaluate the
findings of GAO's work.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE CYBER-SECURITY PROGRAM
Pursuant to Title 14 of the Defense Authorization Act of
2001, enacted in October 2000, the OMB Deputy Director of
Management was provided substantial new authority and
responsibilities to ensure that computer and information
resources maintained by the Federal government are protected
from cyber-attacks, viruses and other threats. The Deputy
Director's responsibilities include enhancing government-wide
policies for computer security, overseeing the development of
Federal agency security plans, as well as reviewing the results
of Federal agency efforts to conduct vulnerability assessments
and penetration tests of their computer defenses. Under the
law, each agency is required to develop comprehensive
information security plans and conduct internal vulnerability
audits. These audits must also be subject to external
verification. In the 107th Congress, the Committee will review
the efforts of Federal agencies within its jurisdiction to
comply with the new government-wide cyber-security law.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In 1997, the President's Council on Critical Infrastructure
Protections recommended that the Federal government initiate
increased efforts to ensure that critical infrastructures
within the United States, including the electric power grid,
telecommunications and transportation systems, and water
supplies, are adequately secure from threats posed by malicious
actors, foreign governments, and terrorists. Partially in
response to this report, the President issued Presidential
Decision Directive 63 and created the Critical Infrastructure
Assurance Office, which is currently housed within the
Department of Commerce. In addition, the President formed the
National Infrastucture Assurance Council (NIAC) to provide
advice on various infrastructure assurance efforts. The
Committee has closely followed the efforts to improve critical
infrastructure protections, and, in the 107th Congress, the
Committee intends to continue to review infrastructure
assurance efforts that affect areas within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
ON-LINE AUCTIONS
The Committee will examine the conduct of on-line auctions
for goods and services. It will examine the effectiveness of
these auctions in fulfilment of customer orders, the
transparency of pricing, protection of consumers from abusive
practices like shilling, and the treatment of items of value
generated as part of auction sales (such as market data). The
Committee will examine whether legislation is needed specifying
the obligations of auctions to consumers and third parties.
ACCOUNTING RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS
The Committee seeks to ensure that the Financial Accounting
Standards Board's (FASB) private-sector standard setting
process that develops changes to accounting rules for U.S.
companies is independent, open and thorough, and results in
unbiased financial information that reflects economic reality
and promotes transparency. The Committee will conduct oversight
of existing accounting rules and proposed changes to examine
the effect that the rules have on transparency, as well as on
the domestic and global competitiveness of U.S. companies.
Additionally, the Committee understands the value of high-
quality international accounting standards and will monitor the
progress of the newly-established London-based International
Accounting Standards Board. To the extent that such a single
set of accounting standards could be accepted worldwide,
especially by major countries, it would reduce the compliance
costs for multinational companies and make it easier for
investors to compare companies in different countries.
The Committee will examine the independence and standard
setting process of FASB, including the ongoing FASB
deliberations on the treatment of mergers and acquisitions. The
Committee will explore how the disclosure of information
related to the creation of value in businesses and capital
markets, including intangible items like knowledge and
software, can be improved. In addition, the Committee will seek
to determine the extent to which the Federal regulatory
agencies use interpretive or similar authority to provide
guidance on existing accounting rules and regulations to
registrants.
GOVERNMENT-FORCED DIVESTITURES
The Committee will examine the effects on competition and
domestic and international commerce of government-forced
divestitures or other restrictions placed upon business
activities. The Committee will examine whether Federal agencies
have acted in such manner outside the scope of their Federally-
granted authority or without sufficient economic analysis.
ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Over the past year, energy consumers have experienced a
significant increase in oil and natural gas prices. Oil and
gasoline prices have risen dramatically from historically low
levels in 1999. Natural gas prices have more than tripled in
some areas. In addition, several regions also have seen
increased electricity prices and diminished reliability. During
the 107th Congress, the Committee will continue to examine some
of the factors that have led to these price increases and
reliability concerns. The Committee also will undertake an
examination of national energy policy, examining U.S. policies
as they relate to the production and consumption of
electricity, oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power,
and nuclear power. The Committee also will review the outlook
for new power plant construction in the U.S., and the impact
state and Federal regulations and other regional constraints
have on the timing and cost for new power plant construction.
EVALUATION OF STATE RETAIL RESTRUCTURING PLANS
As many as 26 States have enacted legislation implementing
retail competition in electricity markets. The Committee will
examine key aspects of the various state restructuring programs
to determine whether these programs have resulted in consumer
benefits and improved interstate electricity markets.
THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS
The Committee will continue an in-depth examination of the
California electricity crisis and the attempts to resolve the
crisis by the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the California State Legislature, the
California Public Utilities Commission, utilities, and other
market participants. The Committee will conduct oversight to
examine the causes of the crisis and look for long-term
solutions to ensure that electricity consumers have access to
reliable and affordable electricity.
RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL POWER GRID
The California electric power crisis and other power
constraints in the Western U.S. highlight an increasingly
important issue: the reliability of the national power grid.
Electric power supply problems experienced by the Mid-west and
New York State over the past few summers also raise serious
questions about the reliability of the national grid. As the
reliability of the grid is essential to our national economic
strength, the Committee will closely examine the current state
of the national power grid.
INCREASING U.S. ENERGY SECURITY
The Committee will examine the impact government policies
are having on the exploration, production and development of
domestic energy resources. The Committee also will look at the
Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy to ensure that
its programs and resources are being directed to the areas of
greatest need within the domestic petroleum industry. In
addition, the Committee will examine other issues relating to
the nation's current energy infrastructure and how it can be
enhanced.
VIABILITY OF THE DOMESTIC URANIUM INDUSTRY
The electricity generated at 104 domestic nuclear power
plants provide approximately 20% of the country's total
electricity supply. Thus, the maintenance of a viable domestic
uranium industry--the source of fuel used in nuclear power
plants--is necessary for the country's energy security. Due to
a recent worldwide oversupply of enriched uranium, the domestic
uranium industry (which includes uranium mining, conversion,
and enrichment service providers) has suffered a severely
depressed market that threatens its future viability. The
Committee will continue the review it began in the 106th
Congress of the crisis facing the domestic uranium industry,
and the impact further deterioration could have on domestic
energy security.
THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Last year, the Secretary of Energy released 30 million
barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, despite
the lack of an oil shortage. In the 106th Congress, the
Committee began an examination of the use of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in non-shortage situations. The Committee
also began an examination of the bidding process used by the
Department to sell the oil from the Reserve. During the 107th
Congress, the Committee will continue its examination of the
appropriate uses of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES
With the quadrupling of natural gas prices and the
continuous increase in demand for natural gas, the Committee
will examine the availability and efficacy of other energy
sources. One such source, which is abundant in the U.S., is
coal. The Committee will review recent technological advances
making ``clean-coal'' possible. In the very recent past, some
of these technologies have begun to attract private capital.
Still, many of those technologies have yet to reach economic
viability for various reasons. The Committee will examine
whether the government has a role in the expedited deployment
of ``clean-coal'' technologies.
NATURAL GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAMS
The natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety
programs are due for Congressional renewal. Pipeline accidents
over the past several years indicate a need to review the
efficacy of the existing programs. The Committee will look at
the existing pipeline safety programs and determine how they
should be updated and modified.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The Committee will continue to monitor international
negotiations on global climate change. The Committee review
will consider whether international agreements are achievable,
effective, and fair to U.S. interests. The Committee also will
consider whether the agreements on climate change are
scientifically well-grounded and economically sound. 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.
THE 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 sweeping changes in the
industry. Some of the specific areas the Committee may examine
are FERC's implementation of Order 2000 on Regional
Transmission Organizations, and its series of orders regarding
the California electricity program. The Committee also will
examine FERC's procedures concerning the construction of
interstate natural gas pipelines and the relicensing of
hydropower facilities.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
The Committee will continue to conduct oversight of the
Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear
Security Administration, to ensure improvements in management
of the Department and its many contractors.
DOE'S BUDGET REQUEST
The Committee will review the Department of Energy's (DOE)
budget requests for Fiscal Year 2002 and 2003. The Committee
will examine the DOE budget requests and determine whether they
are consistent with the Committee's priorities.
DOE'S MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES
The Committee will continue to examine whether DOE is
effectively managing the contractors that operate the national
laboratories. The Committee will review proposals to improve
management of the labs and other related matters.
DOE'S SECURITY AND NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
During the 106th Congress, the Committee conducted
extensive oversight of security matters at DOE sites,
particularly the national nuclear weapon laboratories. The
Committee will continue to conduct such oversight in the 107th
Congress to ensure that continuing improvements are made in the
protection of such critical national assets. The Committee also
will review DOE's various nuclear non-proliferation programs to
determine their effectiveness.
CYBER SECURITY AT DOE HEADQUARTERS
The Committee's past oversight in this area revealed that
the Department's own headquarters offices have not yet
implemented the computer security upgrades and policy changes
DOE required of its contractors over the past two years. DOE
pledged to promptly improve cyber security policies and
practices at its own headquarters to better protect classified
information on its network systems. In the 107th Congress, the
Committee will review the Department's activities in this
regard.
NUCLEAR SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES
As a result of the Committee's oversight of nuclear safety
matters at DOE facilities in the 106th Congress, the Department
issued new regulations to improve its nuclear safety program
and further protect workers engaged in nuclear activities. The
Committee will continue its oversight of DOE's implementation
of nuclear safety regulations for its contractor employees. As
part of this review, the Committee will closely monitor the
National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) efforts to
coordinate with the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
to ensure that investigations are initiated and enforcement
actions are taken whenever nuclear safety violations occur at
facilities managed by NNSA.
DOE'S OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The Committee will continue its review of several major
nuclear waste cleanup projects managed by DOE's Office of
Environmental Management (EM). Major projects such as the
Hanford Spent Nuclear Fuel Project, the Hanford Radioactive
Tank Waste Program, and the Oak Ridge K-25 Decommissioning
Project have experienced severe cost and schedule problems
revealed by the Committee in the 105th and 106th Congresses.
These and other major cleanup projects and policies will be
monitored by the Committee in the 107th Congress to ensure that
DOE proceeds in a timely and effective manner to reduce these
environmental threats.
DOE'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) 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. 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. As a result of
the Committee's ongoing review through the 106th Congress, some
improvements in the OST program and an increase in deployments
have occurred. The Committee will continue its oversight of OST
in the 107th Congress to ensure that DOE's $3 billion
investment in OST results in cheaper, faster and safer cleanups
throughout the DOE nuclear waste complex.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Current law directs Federal agencies to cut their energy
consumption by 20 percent through 2000 and 30 percent through
2005. The Committee will examine whether Federal agencies met
the goals for 2000, and whether Federal accounting of energy
savings is accurate. The Committee also will examine ways the
Federal government, as a major energy user, can further reduce
its own consumption of energy.
DOE'S ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM
Current law directs DOE to develop an alternative fuels
program that displaces 10 percent of petroleum motor fuels by
2000 and 30 percent by 2010. Currently, the United States uses
alternative fuels for roughly four percent of its need, well
short of the law's goals. The Committee will examine the
alternative fuels program to determine why DOE has failed to
meet these goals to date, whether DOE will meet the future
goals, and whether reforms to the existing program are needed.
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs DOE
to establish energy efficiency standards for various appliances
and to consider revisions to these standards that would reduce
pollution and save a significant amount of energy. During the
107th Congress, the Committee will review standards issued by
DOE and their impact on consumers, manufacturers, and
conservation.
FEDERAL ENERGY DATA COLLECTION
The Energy Information Administration is a statistical
agency of the Department of Energy. EIA provides policy-
independent data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound
policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding
regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and
environment. In the past, EIA has provided useful information
for a heavily regulated energy industry. In light of the
national trend toward competitive energy markets, EIA is
undertaking a comprehensive review of Federal data collection,
analysis, and dissemination. The Committee will review these
efforts to ensure that they strike the right balance between
privacy concerns and the need for useful information to monitor
and promote market development.
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety
through regulation of commercial nuclear power plants; non-
power 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, and
will examine the Commission's licensing procedures for
commercial nuclear power plants.
EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
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 late 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit invalidated certain elements of EPA's 1997
revisions to the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for particulate matter and ozone. In Spring 2001, the Supreme
Court is expected to rule on EPA's appeal of that case.
Additionally, EPA is in the process of a statute-mandated five-
year scientific review of the 1997 standards. 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 in the 107th Congress.
EPA'S DIESEL ENGINE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
EPA and the Department of Justice are parties to a consent
decree 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. An additional issue is
recent discord between EPA and the manufacturers regarding the
emission performance required under the consent decree and
proposed changes to the decree. During the 105th and 106th
Congresses, the Committee requested and reviewed documentary
information concerning this enforcement activity. The Committee
will continue to monitor this situation in the 107th Congress
EPA'S REGIONAL HAZE PROGRAM
In April 1999, EPA established a program to address
``regional haze'' affecting visibility in Federal parks. EPA
has indicated that its regional haze program gives States
considerable flexibility to develop alternative implementation
techniques to accomplish the visibility improvements required
under the Clean Air Act. In early 2001, EPA issued a proposed
regulation raising issues for the States' regional haze
planning process. Given the significance of this program to the
environment and to States, local governments, and private
entities, the Committee will continue its oversight of EPA's
regional haze program in the 107th Congress.
EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL SULFUR STANDARDS
Last year, EPA issued regulations revising the sulfur
content standards for both gasoline and diesel fuel used in
motor vehicles. Both of these revised programs contained
measures intended to increase flexibility to the regulated
community and reduce costs, while achieving the environmental
benefits required by the Clean Air Act. In the 107th Congress,
the Committee will review implementation of gasoline and diesel
fuel sulfur reduction programs to ensure that the flexibility
and environmental benefits intended by EPA are achieved.
EPA'S NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM
During the 106th Congress, the Committee continued its
examination of Clean Air Act regulations establishing EPA's
``new source review'' program. Among other things, this EPA
program determines when alterations to existing facilities
trigger a requirement that the facilities meet the air
pollution standards for ``new'' facilities. To date, EPA has
not issued formal recommendations for improvements to the new
source review program. Given the significance of this program
to the environment and to States, local governments, and
private entities, the Committee will continue its oversight of
EPA's new source review program in the 107th Congress.
MACT DEADLINES
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) required EPA to
establish Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards for over 180 different sources of hazardous air
pollutants. In order to ensure that these standards were set on
a timely basis, the 1990 CAAA established 2, 5, 7 and 10-year
deadlines for the promulgation of MACT standards, with the last
deadline having occurred on November 15, 2000. EPA, however,
failed to meet the statutory deadline for setting the majority
of ``10 year'' MACT standards. The Committee will review the
status of the MACT standards, including reasons why the
statutory deadline was missed.
STATE FUNDING/FLEXIBILITY IN CLEAN AIR PROGRAMS
The Clean Air Act encourages cooperative activities by
States and local governments for the prevention and control of
air pollution. The Act authorizes, among other activities,
training grants, research and development grants, and other
financial assistance to air pollution control agencies and
other appropriate public or private agencies. The Committee
will review past implementation of these programs, the present
level of effort and cooperation, and opportunities for future
innovation.
ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES
EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee intends to
continue its general oversight of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), including reviewing EPA's mission and identifying
programs or initiatives that deviate from that mission, and
evaluating the operation of the 10 regional offices and the
interaction of the regional offices with each other and with
EPA Headquarters. In addition, the Committee will review EPA's
structure to learn whether the Agency is properly staffed to
support its mission and objectives. The Committee also will
review the Agency's budget and funding decisions, resource
allocation, grants, research activities, enforcement actions,
relations with State and local governments, and program
implementation.
INNOVATIVE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
The Committee will continue to examine progress in
innovation from the States' environmental programs, and
evaluate whether there are Federal or State barriers to further
success in these areas.
EPA'S OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
In 1998, EPA created the Office of Environmental
Information to develop agency-wide information policies
(including policies for handling sensitive and confidential
information and providing Freedom of Information Act
disclosure), and to manage more effectively the Agency's
information systems and resources, such as EPA's key data bases
and wide area networks. In the 107th Congress, the Committee
will continue to actively monitor the Agency's efforts to
improve the quality, accuracy, and usefulness of EPA's
information resources, to reduce the paperwork burden imposed
upon recipients of EPA data requests, and to improve
integration of its information resources.
EPA CYBER SECURITY REVIEW
During the 106th Congress, the Committee conducted a
detailed evaluation of computer security at EPA to determine
the extent to which the Agency was adequately protecting its
information systems and resources from loss, damage, misuse and
unauthorized access. A detailed review of various Agency
audits, policies, and plans by Committee staff revealed that
the Agency had serious cyber-security problems. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) reaffirmed that conclusion when it
completed a comprehensive assessment of computer security at
the Agency and found it riddled with security vulnerabilities.
Thereafter, working with GAO and the Committee, EPA implemented
a series of reforms designed to bolster its computer security.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee will continue to oversee
the Agency's efforts to respond to the deficiencies identified
by the Committee and by GAO.
EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTIVITIES
In February 1998, 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 States from issuing,
permits in these areas, which often are in neighborhoods with
large minority populations. The Committee raised concerns with
EPA and sought information from the Agency about environmental
justice matters during the 105th and 106th Congresses. The
Committee 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
on this important matter, and that EPA's actions in this regard
do not negatively affect state and local urban revitalization
efforts.
EPA'S BROWNFIELDS INITIATIVE
During the past several Congresses, the Committee has
conducted extensive oversight of EPA's various brownfields-
related programs. The Committee will continue to review
progress in the programs, and whether EPA is properly managing
them. The Committee intends to continue monitoring EPA's
activities in this area during the 107th Congress.
EPA TESTING AND OTHER NON-STATUTORY INITIATIVES
Beginning in 1996, EPA launched a series of non-statutory
testing initiatives to encourage the increased testing of new
chemicals and products. These ``voluntary'' chemical testing
initiatives include the High Production Volume Testing
Initiative and the Children's Health Testing Initiative. In the
107th Congress, the Committee will monitor EPA's development
and implementation of these, and similar, non-statutory
initiatives.
EPA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATES
In a report released in January 2001, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) identified EPA's relationship with the
States as a ``major performance and accountability challenge,''
citing disagreements over respective roles and
responsibilities, priorities, and the proper conduct of Federal
oversight. The Committee will monitor efforts by EPA to address
this management challenge, including the progress of the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System
(``NEPPS''), which was created in 1995 to address these same
issues.
THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
In past Congresses, the Committee has conducted an
extensive review of EPA's Superfund program, including
evaluations of regional enforcement and implementation of the
cleanup program, concerns identified by EPA's IG about program
management, and EPA expenditures from the Superfund Trust Fund.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee will continue its detailed
review of the status and management of the Superfund program.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT IMPLEMENTATION
The Committee will review EPA's relationship to the States'
toxic waste cleanup programs, and whether Federal program
reforms under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are
necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste sites.
EPA RISK ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
The Committee will conduct oversight with respect to EPA
risk assessment practices to ensure they are consistent with
the ``Best Management Practices'' of the Office of Management
and Budget, the Recommendations of the President's Commission
on Risk Assessment and Risk Management , and the risk
assessment provisions of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act.
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee
examined EPA 's implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments. The Committee held hearings on the conduct and
adequacy of safe drinking water research and state funding of
drinking water programs. The Committee will continue its review
of the 1996 Amendments and pay close attention to projections
of an infrastructure ``gap'' between identified resources and
identified needs for drinking water systems.
HEALTH ISSUES
HCFA'S MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) was created
in 1977 in order to consolidate the administration of Medicare
and Medicaid in one agency. The Committee will review various
Medicare reform proposals, and conduct oversight of how the
Agency currently operates and manages the delivery of health
care to nearly 80 million Americans.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE
The Committee will continue its efforts to identify and
expose instances or patterns of waste, fraud, and abuse in the
Medicare and Medicaid programs, or opportunities for such
activities due to inadequate policies, procedures, or controls.
This oversight will focus on a range of program areas,
including those specifically described in this oversight plan.
PROBLEMS WITH THE MEDICAID PROGRAM
Medicaid, which receives funding from both States and the
Federal government, pays for the health expenses of
approximately 40 million Americans, consisting primarily of
low-income individuals such as mothers with children, the
elderly, the blind and other disabled persons. Committee
hearings last year revealed that the cost of the Medicaid fraud
problem could exceed $17 billion every year. This year, the
Committee will examine ways in which States could adopt more
rigorous enrollment controls to keep unscrupulous providers out
of their programs and improve their program integrity
standards. The Committee also will examine whether specific
Federal regulations may create disincentives for States to
vigorously pursue fraud and abuse. In addition, the Committee
will review the Section 1115 Medicaid waiver process, with
respect to children's health insurance, assisted suicide, and
other Medicaid-related matters.
HCFA'S MANAGEMENT OF ITS MEDICARE CONTRACTORS
The Committee will continue to assess HCFA's management of
the fiscal intermediaries and carriers that are responsible for
processing all Medicare claims and payments. Although HCFA
provides overall policy guidance for the administration of
Medicare, day-to-day operation of the program is dependent on
contractors who process beneficiary claims and make Medicare
payments to healthcare providers. The Committee's prior
oversight revealed how several of these contractors
fraudulently misrepresented their performance, submitted false
financial data, rigged audits, and destroyed relevant documents
in order to receive greater incentive payments from HCFA--and
how HCFA failed to detect these activities due to lax oversight
coupled with complex and often contradictory directives issues
from HCFA's Headquarters and regional offices. In response,
HCFA initiated significant efforts to reform its management of
Medicare contractors, and has sought new authority to expand
the types of entities that can serve as Medicare contractors.
The Committee will continue to review HCFA's oversight of these
contractors and examine the current contractor eligibility
requirements and the Medicare claims payment system.
HCFA'S EFFORTS ON ANTI-FRAUD BILLING SOFTWARE
During the 106th Congress, the Committee conducted a review
of HCFA's failure to implement pre-payment, anti-fraud software
in its Medicare claims systems, despite years of reports by the
Department of Health and Human Services 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 evaluate such
systems, and the Committee will monitor the agency's activities
in this regard during the 107th Congress.
HCFA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT, THE BALANCED BUDGET
REFINEMENT ACT, AND THE BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT
During the 107th Congress, the Committee will continue to
monitor HCFA's implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (BBA), as well as the subsequently passed Balanced Budget
Refinement Act (BBRA) and the Benefits Improvement and
Protection Act (BIPA). Many of the changes required by these
bills will help modernize Medicare, save money, and open the
program to a wider range of private health plans. In addition,
these bills contain provisions having an impact on the Medicaid
and State Children's Health Insurance Program as well.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
The Committee will conduct a comprehensive examination of
the pharmaceutical market and policies that affect it. The
review will examine methods to encourage additional access to
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries and price competition
consistent with equitable and efficient policies to promote
innovation. The review will include taxpayer-funded research,
product review and approval, and post-marketing activities.
MEDICARE SELF-REFERRAL LAWS
Originally enacted in 1989 and amended in 1993, the
physician self-referral laws prohibit a physician from making a
referral to a provider for certain designated Medicare services
if the physician has a financial relationship with that
provider. These laws were designed to reduce overutilization
and gaming of the Medicare program. HCFA recently issued
complex and lengthy final regulations on this issue, seven
years after the law's passage, but many questions have been
raised about how the self-referral laws will be interpreted and
enforced by HCFA. This year, the Committee will continue to
oversee the implementation of the self-referral laws in a
manner that assures program integrity and minimizes physicians'
regulatory compliance costs.
TELEMEDICINE/ON-LINE HEALTH CARE
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee
followed the development of a number of on-line health care
issues. In particular, a growing number of companies are now
distributing 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 continue to examine the growth of on-line health care, its
costs and benefits, and the variety of new consumer protection
issues that have arisen in relation to this emerging field.
Relatedly, despite tremendous growth in telemedicine
activity, current law may continue to impede this promising new
health care delivery mechanism. In the 106th Congress, the
Committee focused on ways to eliminate barriers to the practice
of telemedicine in the Medicare program. This year, the
Committee will expand this oversight to include the Medicaid
program as well as private payors. Specifically, the Committee
will examine the differences in state licensing requirements
for telemedicine, and whether modernization of these rules
could improve patient care.
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 (SCHIP). Under this Title, funds are provided to States
to enable them to initiate and expand health assistance to
uninsured, low-income children. SCHIP 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
SCHIP program, an SCHIP-financed Medicaid expansion, or a
combination of the two. HCFA is charged with approving and
reviewing States' plans for implementing the SCHIP program
prior to their receiving SCHIP funds. The Committee will
continue to oversee HCFA's implementation of this program.
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 fully used to the benefit of all Americans.
In particular, the Committee successfully pushed last year
for the enactment of laws expanding activities relating to the
prevention, surveillance, and treatment of cervical cancer.
Cervical cancer is most often caused by the Human Pampilloma
Virus, a viral infection that kills more women in America than
even HIV, the cause of AIDS. 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. Continuing oversight of the Centers for Disease Control
and HCFA, the Federal agencies charged with implementation of
these laws, is necessary.
HUMAN GENOME DEVELOPMENTS
The Human Genome Project is an international effort begun
in 1990. The goals of the project are to discover all the
approximate 100,000 human genes, make them accessible for
further biological study, and determine the complete sequence
of the three billion DNA subunits. In June 2000, the completion
of the ``rough draft'' of the human genome sequence was
announced. Scientists involved in the Human Genome Project
reported that this rough draft consists of overlapping
fragments covering 97% of the human genome, and a sequencing of
85% of the genome. This breakthrough means that, within years,
doctors may be able to discern individual susceptibilities to
common disorders, allowing the design of a program of effective
individualized preventive medicine or cures. Because of the
importance of this discovery, the Committee will continue to
oversee this Project.
ORGAN ALLOCATION REFORMS
The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) governs organ
distribution policy in the United States. Since the law's
enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has
contracted with an organ procurement and transplantation
network (OPTN) to determine how the organs are to be allocated.
In 1998, the Clinton Administration promulgated a rule that
would, in effect, transfer final authority over organ
distribution policies from the OPTN to the Secretary. The
Committee will review implementation of the rule to insure that
state and regional organ procurement and transplantation
systems operate in the best interests of current and future
patients.
THE NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK
The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) was created in
1990. The purpose of the NPDB is to serve as a repository for
information pertaining to medical practitioners. The
information in the NPDB contains a listing and description of
disciplinary actions taken by medical societies and state
licensing boards, medical malpractice payments, clinical
privileges actions, and Medicare and Medicaid program
exclusions. By law, the information in the NPDB is not
available to the public. The Committee will continue to
evaluate ways to improve the data gathered in the data bank and
make it more useful for medical boards, hospitals, and
insurers.
ADOPTION
The Committee will continue to conduct oversight 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.
Such a review will include the adoption awareness programs
authorized by the Children's Health Act of 2000, which provides
for grants to adoption organizations to train the staff of
eligible health centers in providing adoption information and
referrals based on guidelines developed by the adoption
community. It further mandates that, not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of the Children's Health Act of
2000, the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees
of the Congress a baseline report evaluating the extent to
which adoption information and referrals are provided by
eligible health centers. The Act also mandates a second report
to Congress on the effect of the adoption information and
referral training. Oversight of the baseline study and effects
of the training program are needed to ensure HHS compliance
with Congressional intent.
PALLIATIVE CARE
As the American health system has reduced the rates of
death by trauma or infection, long-term causes of death
accompanied by persistent and debilitating pain are on the
increase relative to other causes of death. But there is
concern in the medical and patient communities that pain
control has been a neglected area of inquiry in the health
profession. The Committee will review programs within its
jurisdiction to understand how better pain management can be a
priority objective.
THE HEALTHY START PROGRAM
Authorized by the Children's Health Act of 2000, Healthy
Start is designed to reduce the rate of infant mortality and
improve perinatal outcomes by providing grants to areas with a
high rate of infant mortality and low birth weight infants.
This Act authorizes a new grant program for research and
additional services to enhance access to health care for
pregnant women and infants, including increased access to
prenatal care, ultrasound services, and prenatal surgery. The
Committee plans to conduct oversight of the implementation of
this Act.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEALTH CARE PRIVACY RULE
Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) issued regulations, required by law, addressing the
confidentiality of individual identifiable health information
stored or transmitted electronically. These regulations are not
yet legally binding, however, and will be the subject of
Committee oversight in the 107th Congress.
HHS PROGRAMS AFFECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Committee will continue to conduct oversight of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grant programs
that affect the health of children and families. According to
some estimates, HHS funding for programs related to the health
of children and families is more than $10 billion annually. The
Committee's 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 107th Congress.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WELFARE REFORM ACT OF 1996
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, 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
non-custodial parents. The Committee will continue to 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 non-custodial parents who have not fulfilled their
child support obligations. The Committee also will continue its
review of the Title V Abstinence Education program, which was
authorized by the Welfare Reform Act. Prior oversight
identified problems and concerns in the implementation of this
program, which the Committee will continue to assess in
preparation for reauthorization of welfare reform in the 107th
Congress.
DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT AND PREVENTION
In the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee worked to
broaden the war on drug abuse by focusing on innovative
solutions to the area of drug treatment. 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 the
incentives for developing anti-addictive medications and the
potential of other methods of drug addiction treatment. The
Committee also will inquire into Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) funding for research in the drug abuse area, and
will evaluate state and local initiatives that may provide
insights on successful programs. 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, and will examine the relationship between
HHS programs and other Federal anti-drug initiatives, and their
overall impact on public health.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT ENFORCEMENT
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, 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 healthcare industry. In response to the
Committee's review, DOJ issued new guidance on fair and
appropriate use of the False Claims Act in this area. In the
107th Congress, the Committee will monitor DOJ's application of
the False Claims Act in order to evaluate the impact of the new
guidelines.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
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's management structure and research grant programs,
and assess how to improve the overall efficiency and
accountability of the Institute.
PUBLIC EDUCATION ON HEPATITIS C
The Committee's past oversight revealed that the Surgeon
General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had
failed to launch a promised nationwide public campaign to
educate persons infected with the deadly Hepatitis C virus
infection. This virus affects nearly four million Americans,
many of whom do not know they have it and thus are not taking
actions that could save their lives. In response to the
Committee's oversight, the Surgeon General joined with Members
of the Committee to launch a Hepatitis C public education
campaign through Congressional communications to constituents.
The Committee plans to review the Hepatitis C problem further,
and whether a more extensive national public education campaign
is still needed.
BIOENGINEERED FOODS
Bioengineered foods are crop plants created for human or
animal consumption using the latest molecular biology
techniques. The genetic code of these plants have been modified
in the laboratory to enhance desired traits, such as increased
resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures the safety of all
domestic and imported foods for man or other animals, and
bioengineered foods must adhere to the same standards of safety
that apply to their conventionally-bred counterparts. FDA's
view is that bioengineered foods are substantially equivalent
to unmodified ``natural'' foods, and therefore no FDA pre-
approval is necessary prior to marketing. However, since 1992
FDA has had a voluntary policy pursuant to which producers meet
with FDA to review the science being used to alter the foods.
FDA recently proposed a rule that would make the voluntary
process established in 1992 a mandatory process. Further,
questions have been raised about whether bioengineered foods
should have special labeling requirements. The Committee
intends to review such matters in the 107th Congress.
FDAMA/PDUFA IMPLEMENTATION
In 1997, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA). Contained within that legislation
was a five year reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act (PDUFA), which was originally passed in 1992. FDAMA
changed the FDA mission statement to ensure that FDA emphasizes
the timeliness of FDA's review of foods, drugs, devices and
cosmetics, and the Act allowed for third-party review of
certain medical devices if the quality of the review would not
be compromised. To ensure that FDA is accomplishing its mission
to approve safe and effective products in a timely manner, and
that it is hiring the personnel necessary to accomplish this
objective, continued oversight of FDAMA and PDUFA
implementation is necessary. In particular, the Committee
intends to review the recent slow down in the drug approval
process, and how to promote innovation while maintaining public
confidence in drug safety.
The Committee also 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. In consultation with FDA and other
public health resources, the Committee will review ways to
provide more information to patients on clinical trials and
other related matters.
IDENTIFICATION OF FDA-REGULATED ENTITIES
Two recent reports suggest that FDA has failed in its
responsibility to identify entities subject to its regulation.
A January 2001 Office of Inspector General report, and a
January 2001 General Accounting Office report both found that
FDA was unable to even identify and locate all the tissue
banks, medical device reprocessing facilities, and foreign
pharmaceutical facilities that it was supposed to inspect. The
Committee intends to review these matters during the 107th
Congress in order to ensure that FDA can promptly and fully
identify the entities it is supposed to be regulating.
IMPORTED DRUGS
Over the last decade, there has been a surge in shipments
of drug products from overseas. With brand name prescription
drugs costs so high, many Americans have come to rely on
cheaper generic alternatives. Nearly 80 percent of drugs in the
U.S. (especially generic drugs) have ingredients that have been
manufactured in other countries. This trend has implications
for the public health and the ability of FDA to ensure the
safety and efficacy of such imported 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 the
problem with counterfeit bulk drugs.
The Committee's prior investigation into the FDA's
oversight of counterfeit foreign bulk drugs uncovered a total
failure by FDA to identify and pursue counterfeit drug makers
and distributors, despite internal FDA documents highlighting
the dangers posed by specific imported medicines. The Committee
plans to continue monitoring the problem and FDA's commitment
to significantly upgrade its information technology and
enforcement actions on imported drug products.
THE SPREAD OF MAD COW DISEASE
Federal health officials are getting increasingly worried
about mad cow disease because of new evidence of the spread of
the disease throughout Europe. It is believed that millions of
cows will have to be destroyed to contain the spread, and the
concern is that some European farmers will try to contain their
losses by selling the tainted meat under false labeling,
transshipment, or selling or commingling some of the tainted
beef to be used in animal feed or dietary supplements in the
U.S. In January 2001, FDA reported that nearly a quarter of
large companies involved in manufacturing animal feed are not
complying with regulations meant to prevent the emergence and
spread of mad cow disease. Because of FDA's weak import
controls (see Imported Drugs above) and lack of adequate
oversight of the animal feed industry, the U.S. may be
vulnerable to imported European products with mad cow disease.
The Committee will conduct oversight to ensure that the Federal
government is adequately responding to this potential public
health threat.
STUDIES OF DRUGS IN CHILDREN
In 1997, as part of the FDA Modernization Act, Congress
enacted a new law that provides marketing incentives to
manufacturers who conduct studies of drugs in children. This
law, which provides six months market exclusivity in return for
conducting pediatric studies, is commonly known as the
pediatric exclusivity provision. The purpose of the provision
was to address the dearth of information about the effects of
drugs and biological products in children. The provision has a
sunset date of January 1, 2002. FDA recently reported to
Congress that the pediatric exclusivity provision has been
highly effective in generating pediatric studies on many drugs
and in providing useful new information in product labeling.
However, FDA contends that some categories of drugs and some
age groups remain inadequately studied, despite the new
incentives. The Committee will review the nature of these study
gaps and whether there is a public health need to address them
through appropriate modifications to current law.
HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTS IN CLINICAL TRIALS
During the last Congress, the Committee investigated the
adequacy of Federal oversight with respect to the protection of
human research subjects in gene transfer clinical trials. One
question reviewed by the Committee was whether financial
conflicts of interest may affect the conduct of gene transfer
clinical trials. The Committee found that FDA did not gather or
maintain aggregate data from on-site inspections of clinical
sites about financial conflicts of interest, but was actively
considering such a collection of data. The Committee will
continue to monitor this area and oversee the implementation of
recommendations by the HHS Inspector General on strengthening
institutional review boards, improving recruiting practices for
human research subjects, and strengthening FDA oversight of
clinical investigators.
Recently, in January 2001, FDA proposed a rule that would
make safety data about gene transfer experiments available to
the public. Under the proposal, FDA would disclose certain
types of information now regarded as confidential. Such
information includes how animals fared when given the
experimental drug and any serious side effects suffered by
people enrolled in human trials of the medicines. This proposed
rule is in response to concern about the adequacy of Federal
oversight of experimental medicine after a death in a gene
transfer experiment, but concerns have been raised that the
proposed rule might have negative consequences for such
research. Given the potential that gene therapies hold, the
Committee will review this matter to ensure that the recently
proposed rule is promulgated in a fashion that maximizes public
health.
FOOD SAFETY
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) directed the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reassess the safe
level of all pesticide residues allowable on food crops using
updated risk assessment standards. The law also required EPA to
create an endocrine disruptor screening program. In the 107th
Congress, the Committee will continue to actively review EPA,
FDA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's efforts to
implement and enforce the new law. The Committee will continue
its detailed review of FQPA implementation, focusing on the
agencies' FQPA policies, the scientific validity of the
tolerance reassessments, and the impact of individual
reassessment actions.
The Committee also will review food safety programs at the
FDA. Particular emphasis will be placed upon the adequacy of
inspection procedures for imported agricultural products.
FDA CYBER SECURITY
In July 1999, the Committee initiated a detailed review of
cyber security at FDA. In the 107th Congress, the Committee
will continue its evaluation of FDA's computer security
programs and review the Agency's ongoing efforts to improve its
cyber-security protections.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Congress created the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in 1934 for the express purpose of regulating interstate
and foreign communication via wire and radio. In 1996, Congress
passed the most significant alteration of existing
telecommunications law by enacting the Telecommunications Act
of 1996. However, while the Telecommunications Act moved the
telecommunications industry toward greater deregulation, it did
little to alter the structure and functions of the FCC.
Accordingly, the Commission has been implementing the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 with a pre-1996 mind-set. In
particular, the Commission has imposed regulations or provided
regulatory relief for some parts of the telecommunications
industry while not doing the same for other parts of the
industry. This lack of regulatory parity is creating financial
benefits and arbitrage opportunities for select parts of the
telecommunications industry. Further, it is creating barriers
to the development of free and open competition in the
industry. The Committee will conduct a top-to-bottom review of
the FCC to determine ways to improve its structure, functions,
mission, operations and management. The Committee will examine
ways to reform the FCC, including altering existing law or
promoting reform from within the FCC using existing authority.
The Committee will also conduct a thorough examination of FCC
rules to determine whether they may be outdated, unnecessary,
or stifling the development of competition and new services.
Moreover, the Committee will evaluate complaints that the FCC
is too bureaucratic, overreaching, and over-regulatory. In
particular, the Committee will evaluate the Commission's role
in reviewing mergers of companies in which there is a change in
ownership or control of spectrum, including the slow pace with
which the Commission has reviewed mergers and the demands
placed on businesses participating in the FCC's merger review
process.
THE NETWORKS' ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE
The Committee will continue its investigation into the
numerous errors, irregularities, and inconsistencies in the
network's reporting of results in the Presidential election on
election night, November 7, 2000. Specifically, the Committee
will review whether changes in the networks' policies and
practices with respect to gathering and reporting of polling
and voting data are necessary to ensure a fair election outcome
and maximize voter turnout.
ICANN
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), which governs the management and registration of
``generic top-level domain'' names (gTLDs) such as .com or
.gov., recently completed the process of approving seven new
Internet suffixes. The application and selection process for
the new gTLDs has raised controversy as some applicants argue
that the gTLD selection process was unfair. The Committee plans
to examine whether the selection process was open, fair, and
competitive. In addition, the Committee plans to examine the
structure and operations of ICANN, its effort to privatize the
domain name system, and its effort to determine the rightful
ownership of the root server.
DIGITAL TELEVISION
In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress directed that
the FCC authorize broadcasters to convert from analog to
digital signals by 2006, and possibly beyond 2006 (in markets
where a sufficient number of households cannot access a digital
television signal). While many digital stations already are in
operation in major metropolitan areas, the overall conversion
to digital television has been criticized as being slow,
unorganized and unrealistic. The FCC is currently in the
process of considering whether ``must carry'' rules should
apply to digital television channels during the transition, and
if so, to what extent. The Committee intends to monitor the
FCC's process on this and related matters in order to ensure
the rapid deployment of digital television in all areas of the
country in accordance with the schedule set forth in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Further, the Committee plans an
in-depth review of the transition to digital television to
determine what barriers exist to its full development and
deployment.
AVAILABILITY OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
The increase in use of the Internet and electronic commerce
has led to an increase in the demand for faster networks and
faster delivery of content. Today, consumers and businesses are
frustrated by the slow speeds for connecting to and accessing
information from the Internet. In addition, the creation of new
advanced Internet applications--such as digital music and
videos--creates a further demand for faster Internet
connections. While new technologies and faster networks are
being developed and deployed in some parts of the country and
with some success, barriers exist that prevent these
technologies from being available to all consumers. The
Committee will examine all barriers--whether regulatory,
market-based, or statutory in nature--to determine what factors
are preventing the full deployment of broadband technologies to
the American people. In particular, the Committee will examine
whether additional deregulatory steps can be taken to improve
the speed of broadband deployment nationwide.
TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
As the technology industry continues to develop new and
innovative products and services, the educational community is
finding that these products and services can have a positive
impact on the education of our students. U.S. children can
benefit from the vast array of telecommunications and Internet
technologies available today, if they are implemented into the
academic curriculum properly. For instance, the Internet brings
a wide array of information from various sources that can be
extremely helpful to students conducting research. Today, the
Federal government runs a number of programs targeted at
improving the use of technology in classrooms and by America's
youth. These programs, however, often require burdensome
paperwork requirements that can delay or prevent funding from
reaching the intended parties. Further, these programs often
target specific technologies or can be used for specific
purposes only, which can be limiting and frustrating to school
administrators and teachers. The Committee will examine the
different Federal education technology programs with a goal of
determining the best way to combine the many differing and
competing programs into a single funding mechanism. Further,
the Committee will examine ways to ease the application process
to obtain funding for such purposes.
EFFICIENT USE OF SPECTRUM AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
Management of spectrum within the U.S. is shared between
the FCC (governing private sector use of the spectrum) and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) (governing governmental use of the spectrum). In the
U.S., virtually all of the usable spectrum already has been
allocated for a particular purpose. The recent popularity and
growth of the wireless telecommunications industry has
increased demand for the allocation and assignment of
additional spectrum in order to provide new services, such as
third generation (``3G'') wireless services. The tension
created by the current shortfall has a significant impact on
the U.S. economy and the ability of U.S. wireless providers to
compete with wireless companies in other nations that are
rushing to offer new wireless services. The Committee plans an
extensive and comprehensive review of spectrum management
functions to ensure efficient use of spectrum, particularly by
Federal government users. In addition, the Committee will
review efforts to promote spectrum sharing that may be
beneficial to the promotion of new wireless technologies.
Further, the Committee will review current spectrum polices,
such as the FCC's spectrum cap, to determine whether these
policies are still appropriate in today's marketplace.
BROADCAST DEREGULATION
The broadcasters have traditionally been heavily regulated
by the FCC due to the scarcity of spectrum available in the
U.S. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 mandated that the FCC liberalize its
broadcast ownership rules. While the FCC has made some progress
in reducing broadcast regulations, there still are at least two
major areas that remain heavily regulated by FCC rules: the
national ownership cap and the newspaper/broadcast station
cross ownership restriction. The national ownership cap, which
sets a maximum percentage of homes that a national network may
reach (35%), is a key point of controversy between the networks
and their affiliates. The cap was set by the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, but authority was given to the FCC to relax the
cap on a going forward basis.
In 1975, the FCC adopted a regulation prohibiting the grant
of a broadcast license to anyone who owns a newspaper in the
same market. The newspaper publishing companies note that
almost every other broadcast ownership regulation has been
updated in the past several years, except for the newspaper
ownership prohibition. However, supporters of the restriction
point to the consolidation of news sources available within a
market as the reason to keep this regulation in place. The
Committee intends to closely monitor the FCC's implementation
of these two provisions, and to evaluate whether it faithfully
comports with Congressional intent.
COPYRIGHT RELATIONSHIP TO E-COMMERCE
The exponential growth of the Internet raises questions
about the protection of intellectual property that never
existed in an analog world. Because digital copies are as
perfect as originals, questions arise as to how to protect
copyrighted works in a digital age. These fundamental questions
are critically important to the content providing community,
including the motion picture industry, the recording industry,
and the software industry--as they all create material
protected by copyright. However, overprotection of copyrights
may stifle e-commerce and the further development of the
Internet. The Committee intends to examine how developing
technologies affect traditional copyright protections. Further,
the Committee will determine whether traditional copyright
protections warrant any changes, and whether new mechanisms are
necessary to strike the proper balance between protecting works
and encouraging the continued growth of the digital economy.
Specifically, the Committee will examine the recent explosion
of Internet music-sharing products (e.g., Napster), and the
development of similar technologies for the sharing of movies.
THE 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.
Furthermore, the Committee intends an in-depth examination of
the estimated transition costs of the public broadcasters for
converting from analog to digital television.
CYBER CRIME/CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
American and multinational businesses are becoming more
reliant on the infrastructure of the Internet and other
electronic communications networks to conduct valuable
transactions and to communicate. A well placed ``attack'' on
this infrastructure could have a devastating impact on the
American public and could paralyze vital functions. In
addition, smaller attacks, such as hacking into a company's
network, could be very costly and disruptive as well. The
Committee will examine the existing and potential threats to
this existing infrastructure, whether law enforcement is
sufficiently combating existing and potential threats to the
appropriate networks, whether the industry is prepared to
handle threats to the infrastructure, whether the current
agencies of the Federal government are properly coordinating
with one another, and whether current law needs to be altered
to deal with these issues.
WIRELESS PRIVACY/WIRELESS WIRETAPPING
Personal wireless telecommunications devices are currently
converting from analog to digital technologies. The increased
capabilities of digital communications create new issues that
are not present in the analog environment. For instance, the
law enforcement community is presented with new technological
obstacles when exercising its wiretapping authority. Further,
privacy of wireless communications can be compromised when
wireless tracking and location information is provided to
wireless companies and then potentially shared with third
parties. The Committee plans an extensive review of the policy
impact of the conversion to digital communications. This review
will include an examination of the costs and technological
needs of the law enforcement community with regards to the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). This
examination also will look at specific efforts proposed to
improve the privacy protections afforded wireless
telecommunications users with respect to location information.
VIOLENT CONTENT IN THE MEDIA
Over the past few decades, American media outlets have
increased the amount of violent content, including gratuitous
violence, within the overall programming offered to consumers.
A number of recent studies detailing the effects media violence
has on American society, especially on children, have concluded
that there may be a link between the violent nature of media
content and violent behavior. In addition, while opinions vary,
the popular view today is that media violence does, in some
way, influence impressionable young viewers. The Committee
intends to review the practices and policies of all media
sources, including television, motion pictures, audio
recordings, video games, radio, and the Internet, to evaluate
differing approaches to violent content. The Committee will
review existing studies on the effects of media violence to
determine their accuracy and methodology. Further, the
Committee plans to examine the reasons for the inclusion of
increased violent content in media programming, and different
ways to empower parents to protect their children from such
content.
FCC CYBER SECURITY
The FCC is privy to sensitive and proprietary information
provided by the telecommunications industry. Further, the
Commission generates vast amounts of internal documents and
work product of a sensitive, non-public nature. Protection of
the Commission's computer network is thus important to ensure
that non-public information is not shared with unintended
parties. For instance, as a result of a press leak regarding a
high-profile merger before the Commission last year, the FCC
examined whether the information was obtained through a breach
in computer security. The Committee will examine what steps the
Commission takes to protect the integrity and security of its
network systems and confidential data, and whether further
efforts in this area are necessary.
THE STATE OF THE HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY
Over the last several years, the growth of e-commerce has
been a significant catalyst for the success of the American
economy overall. The high tech industry has seen considerable
growth and innovation that has had ripple effects throughout
many sectors of American business. However, no longer fueled by
a turbo-charged Nasdaq or exuberant consumer spending, the
tech-driven economy has experienced recent fluctuations.
Recently, many ``dot com'' companies experienced lower than
expected profits and defaults on debt, a trend that also has
affected another pillar of the new economy--telecommunications.
Experts differ over whether the high tech boom is officially
over or merely delayed for a short period of time. The
Committee will examine the causes and potential solutions to
the economic malaise affecting the e-commerce industry.
Further, the Committee will examine the success and failures of
specific high tech industries to determine if there are any
discernable patterns.
PART B
Implementation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Overisght Plan
for the 107th Congress
----------
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
CONSUMER PRIVACY
One of the primary concerns of on-line users is the
protection of sensitive consumer information collected and
transmitted over the Internet or other computer networks. As
increasing numbers of consumers interface with the Internet to
conduct electronic transactions, there are concerns that
personal information collected by web sites, such as sensitive
medical or financial information, may be misused or poorly
protected.
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held a series of six oversight hearings in the 107th
Congress, beginning in March 1, 2001, in which the Subcommittee
examined a large array of issues relating to consumer
information privacy in the commercial context. The Subcommittee
took extensive testimony on the following subjects: the
limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution to regulating free
speech; the implications of the European Union (EU) Directive
on Data Protection on U.S. law and private sector activity;
existing Federal laws in the area of privacy; the value and
results of opinion surveys on the subject of privacy; the best
practices of companies and new technological solutions to
protecting consumer privacy; and the real uses of consumer
information by companies. Witnesses included constitutional
scholars, representatives from a variety of industries and
consumer groups, and representatives from foreign governments.
The hearings, which were held on March 1, 2001, March 8, 2001,
April 3, 2001, May 8, 2001, June 21, 2001, and July 26, 2001,
highlighted a number of information privacy issues relating to
commercial activities and the potential for additional
legislation to protect American consumers' privacy in the
commercial context.
TIRE/VEHICLE SAFETY
During the 106th Congress, the Committee's oversight of the
Firestone tire recall led to the passage of legislation
mandating that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) institute rulemakings to require the
submission of data on safety-related problems, claims, and
lawsuits (whether foreign or domestic) from manufacturers of
products within NHTSA's purview, including tires and vehicles.
The law--entitled the ``Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation Act'' (TREAD)--also required
that NHTSA update its standards for tires and tire testing.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its review
of tire/vehicle safety issues, as well as NHTSA's
implementation of these legislative provisions.
Specifically, the Committee gathered and reviewed tire
safety data from virtually every major tire maker for more than
250 separate tire lines mounted as original equipment on sport
utility vehicles, station wagons, and minivans. On June 19,
2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also
held a hearing on the Ford Motor Company's May 1, 2001
announcement of a unilateral and voluntary tire recall, broader
than the previous year's recall, covering all Firestone
Wilderness AT tires on Ford vehicles. The Committee examined
claims and testing data provided by Ford and Firestone about
the subject tires, as well as those tire lines Ford planned to
use as replacements for the recalled Firestone tires. Lead
executives from both companies testified at the hearing, as did
the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Transportation. As a
result of the hearing, NHTSA and Ford pledged to undertake
expedited reviews of the proposed replacement tires, including
additional and more vigorous testing of the replacement tires
by Ford to ensure their safety. Ford also voluntarily removed
one tire line from its replacement tire program, even though
NHTSA determined that the tire was not defective.
In addition, on February 28, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight
hearing on NHTSA and the implementation of the TREAD Act one
year following enactment. Testimony was received from
representatives of NHTSA, the Office of Management and Budget,
and the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector
General. Committee staff also met with NHTSA officials to
discuss the implementation of the many TREAD rulemakings
throughout the 107th Congress.
FILTERING/BLOCKING TECHNOLOGIES
While the Internet opens doors to a world of information
that was not available in the analog world, it also makes
available pornography and other material that may be
inappropriate for children. As part of the Committee's
continuing oversight in this area, on April 4, 2001, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a
hearing entitled ``E-Rate and Filtering: A Review of the
Children's Internet Protection Act (CHIPA).'' The hearing
focused on the implementation and effectiveness of provisions
in CHIPA that require public libraries receiving Federal
subsidies (e.g., through the E-Rate program) to implement
filtering/blocking technologies in its Internet-enabled
computers in order to protect children from inappropriate
content on the Internet. Witnesses included representatives of
family value advocacy groups, public libraries, civil liberties
groups, and two Internet-filtering technology companies.
TELEMARKETING
Telemarketing has been, and continues to be, a
controversial marketing practice. While telemarketing can
provide benefits for consumers, it also can be an intrusive
nuisance and promote consumer confusion. In some instances,
rogue telemarketers can take advantage of this confusion to
commit fraud against consumers, particularly against senior
citizens. In the 107th Congress, the Committee undertook a
general examination of telemarketing practices in light of
existing law, and the range of potential safeguards to protect
the privacy, safety, and pocketbooks of consumers.
As part of this effort, the Committee monitored the Federal
Trade Commission's (FTC) proposed national do-not-call list
through regular FTC briefings. The Committee also considered
legislation on this matter introduced in the House by Mr.
Frelinghuysen. On February 28, 2001, the Full Committee on
Energy and Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.R.
90, approved the bill by a voice vote that same day, and
reported H.R. 90 to the House (H. Rpt. 107-13) on March 12,
2001. The House considered H.R. 90 under suspension of the
rules on December 4, 2001, and passed H.R. 90 by a voice vote.
On December 5, 2001, H.R. 90 was received in the Senate and
read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN HIGH TECH AND OTHER POLICY
AREAS
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has authority to protect
consumers from deceptive practices and advertising over various
mediums, including the Internet and electronic networks. In the
107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the FTC's exercise of
its authority in various areas within the Committee's
jurisdiction.
The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
held an oversight hearing on November 7, 2001, focused on the
challenges facing the FTC. The Subcommittee received testimony
from the new Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, the
Honorable Timothy Muris, who outlined the Commission's agenda
under his leadership, specifically the Commission's enforcement
and programmatic priorities.
In addition, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on June 25, 2002,
concerning the FTC's 23-year-old Franchise Rule. The hearing
examined whether the rule needed to be revisited in light of
changes in franchising that had occurred since its
promulgation. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the FTC, a state attorney general's office,
franchise associations, and a franchise operators' association.
VIOLENT CONTENT IN THE MEDIA AND MARKETING TO CHILDREN
Over the past few decades, American media outlets have
increased the amount of violent content, including gratuitous
violence, within the overall programming offered to consumers.
Several studies detailing the effects of media violence on
American society, especially on children, have concluded that
there may be a link between the violent nature of media content
and violent behavior.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the practices
and policies of various media sources, including television,
motion pictures, audio recordings, video games, radio, and the
Internet, to evaluate differing approaches to handling violent
content. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet held a hearing on July 20, 2001, entitled ``Media
Violence: An Examination of the Entertainment Industry's
Efforts to Curb Children's Exposure to Violent Content.'' The
hearing focused on the findings of a series of reports prepared
by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on the subject. Witnesses
included representatives from the FTC, the motion picture,
video game, and recording industries, a major retail chain, and
a parents' advocacy group. In conjunction with the Committee's
review, Committee staff also received briefings from the FTC
upon the release of each version of its reports on the topic.
The Subcommittee held a follow-up hearing on October 1,
2002, to examine recording industry practices for labeling and
marketing violent/explicit content to minors, because of the
industry's poor marks from the FTC and its different approach
to the problem as compared to its counterparts in the motion
picture and video games industries. Witnesses included
representatives from the FTC, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the Recording Industry Association of America, the
Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, and two music retailer
representatives. Eight members of the Committee sent a follow-
up letter to the Recording Industry Association of America to
inquire whether more of its members would adopt the more
stringent labeling system adopted by one of its members.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its efforts
to monitor and examine trade agreements and activities
affecting important segments of the U.S. economy, such as
telecommunications. On October 9, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight
hearing that focused on the inclusion of market access
provisions for telecommunications services in bilateral and
multilateral trade agreements. Witnesses included the Assistant
United States Trade Representative for Industry and
Telecommunications, a representative from a public policy
research group, a trade lawyer, and an economics professor.
TELEPHONE CALLING CARD PRACTICES AND RATES
Over the last few years, the telecommunications industry
has undergone considerable change with the advent of new
services, products, and rate plans by telecommunications
companies. Telephone calling cards are one example of a
relatively new service that has become extremely popular with
consumers. Telephone calling cards offered by or in partnership
with telecommunications providers are very attractive to
consumers because of their convenience and ease of operation.
However, many consumers have found frustration and
disappointment with exorbitant telephone card rates, lack of
information on policies and practices with respect to service
and rates, and poor customer relations services. In the 107th
Congress, the Committee reviewed the use and potential abuses
of these telephone calling cards to ensure adequate consumer
protections. For more detail, see discussion of ``Hotel/Motel
Telephone Calling Rates' below.
HOTEL/MOTEL TELEPHONE CALLING RATES
In the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed compliance
and enforcement activities relating to the rate and disclosure
practices of telephone calling cards, in an effort to ensure
adequate consumer protections. In recent years, many consumers
have found frustration and disappointment with exorbitant
telephone rates when making telephone calls from payphones
using calling cards, particularly those phones located in hotel
and motel rooms. Some consumers using calling cards to make
calls on payphones or from hotel and motel rooms later receive
their calling card bills, only to find their phone
conversations had cost far more than they had anticipated.
Under Federal law, callers making calls away from home must
have the opportunity to use an operator service provider (OSP)
of their choice. In addition, OSPs are required to provide rate
and billing information on request to consumers calling from
hotels, motels, and payphones.
Committee majority staff met with representatives from the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to review what the FCC
had done to ensure that the applicable requirements were being
enforced. Committee staff received briefings on recent consent
decrees in this area between the FCC and USLD Communications,
AT&T Corporation, and WorldCom, Inc., as well as FCC citations
to 97 entities, mainly hotels and motels, for non-compliance
with the requirements. Committee staff also learned that the
American Hotel and Motel Association had agreed with the FCC to
implement an operator service education and compliance campaign
for the hospitality industry.
LIABILITY REFORM
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to examine
the need for further liability reform in a number of areas,
particularly medical malpractice. The Committee undertook in a
number of activities with respect to medical liability reform,
engaging relevant stakeholders, and examining legislative
initiatives to address the increasing costs of liability
insurance. On June 22, 2002, Health Subcommittee Chairman
Michael Bilirakis held a community field forum in the Tampa,
Florida area to hear from providers about the need for
liability reform. Individual doctors, nursing home executives,
patients, and hospital executives discussed the impact of
liability premium increases. Following the forum, on July 17,
2002, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to further
examine issues related to the medical liability subject. At the
hearing, the Subcommittee took testimony from a number of
experts in both the medical field and the insurance industry,
who discussed the impact of litigation on health care providers
and whether tort reform measures would impact medical liability
insurance costs. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from
patient advocates concerned about the impact of liability
reform on victim compensation and the quality of care.
On September 18, 2002, the Committee favorably reported
H.R. 4600, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely
Health Care (HEALTH) Act of 2002, which addressed medical
malpractice reform. On September 26, 2002, the House passed
H.R. 4600, the HEALTH Act of 2002.
THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
In the 107th Congress, the Committee examined matters
relating to the performance and activities of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC). On September 4, 2002, the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held
an oversight hearing on CPSC. The hearing focused on the issues
facing the Commission, and the priorities and agenda of the new
Commission Chairman, who testified at the hearing.
In addition, in September 2001, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations Chairman James Greenwood sent a letter to
CPSC requesting documents relating to the CPSC's investigation
into allegations of a potentially deadly defect present in
certain BB guns manufactured by Daisy Manufacturing Company.
The purported defect enables a BB to become lodged in the
magazine area, permitting the gun to be shaken without hearing
a BB and to be fired without expelling a BB, thus leading the
user to believe the gun is empty when it is not. This purported
defect has been claimed responsible for over 44 serious brain
injuries and deaths, in addition to hundreds of other less
serious injuries. The Subcommittee Chairman sent the letter out
of concern that CPSC was not investigating the matter in a
sufficiently thorough and speedy manner. Committee staff met
with CPSC staff and representatives of Daisy Manufacturing to
assess the extent of the potential defect, the adequacy of
Daisy's efforts to address the potential defect, and the
adequacy of the CPSC's efforts to investigate and monitor
Daisy's activities in this regard.
FTC CYBER SECURITY
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), as a law enforcement
and regulatory body, is privy to sensitive and proprietary
information provided by the parties it regulates. Further, the
Commission generates vast amounts of internal documents, many
of which are law-enforcement sensitive. Accordingly, protection
of the FTC's computer networks and non-public data is important
to ensure that this information is not accessed by or shared
with unauthorized parties. During the 107th Congress, the
Committee began an examination of the steps the Commission
takes to protect the integrity and security of its network
systems and confidential data, as part of its overall review of
computer security policies and practices at Federal agencies
within its jurisdiction.
CYBER SECURITY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
In June 1999, the Committee initiated a review of computer
security policies and practices at the Department of Commerce.
Because of preliminary concerns over the possible extent of
problems at the Department, the Committee requested that the
General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct a more comprehensive
review of the Department's computer security. On August 3,
2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing to review the findings of the GAO's work, which found
systemic and serious vulnerabilities in the Department's
management of cyber security. GAO and the Deputy Secretary of
the Department of Commerce testified at the hearing, and the
Department pledged to undertake significant reforms of its
security policies and practices. The Committee continued to
monitor the Department's efforts in this area during the 107th
Congress through briefings from relevant agency computer
officials.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE CYBER-SECURITY PROGRAM
Pursuant to Title 14 of the Defense Authorization Act of
2001, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was provided
substantial new authority and responsibilities to ensure that
computer and information resources maintained by the Federal
government are protected from cyber attacks, viruses and other
threats. OMB's responsibilities include enhancing government-
wide policies for computer security, overseeing the development
of Federal agency security plans, as well as reviewing the
results of Federal agency efforts to conduct vulnerability
assessments and penetration tests of their computer defenses.
Under the law, each agency is required to develop comprehensive
information security plans and conduct internal vulnerability
audits. These audits also must be subject to external
verification.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the
efforts of Federal agencies within its jurisdiction to comply
with the new government-wide cyber security law. In March 2001,
the Committee sent detailed information requests to each of the
Federal departments, agencies, and commissions within its
jurisdiction, including the Departments of Commerce, Energy,
and Health and Human Services; the Food and Drug
Administration; the National Institutes of Health; the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; the Environmental Protection
Agency; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission; the Federal Trade Commission; the
Federal Communications Commission; the Consumer Product Safety
Board; the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; and
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Committee staff
reviewed scores of boxes of responsive materials from these
agencies relating to their computer security policies,
practices, and audits, and conducted interviews of numerous
computer security officials at many of these agencies. The
Committee's review of agency compliance with computer security
requirements spurred corrective actions by many of these
agencies during the 107th Congress.
As part of this comprehensive review, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held two hearings focusing on
computer security problems at CMS and the Department of
Commerce, respectively, as discussed elsewhere in this report.
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In 1997, the President's Council on Critical Infrastructure
Protection recommended that the Federal government initiate
increased efforts to ensure that critical infrastructures
within the United States, including the electric power grid,
telecommunications and transportation systems, and water
supplies, are adequately secure from threats posed by malicious
actors, foreign governments, and terrorists. Partially in
response to this report, President Clinton issued Presidential
Decision Directive (PDD) 63 and created the Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO), which is currently
housed within the Department of Commerce.
In the 106th Congress, the Committee began a review of
Federal and private sector efforts to secure the nation's
critical infrastructures from attack or disruption, as promoted
under PDD 63. During the 107th Congress, the Committee
continued and expanded this review, examining the progress of
Federal agencies in identifying their own critical assets,
analyzing interdependencies between and among such assets and
other public and private sector systems, and taking corrective
action to mitigate vulnerabilities of the identified assets.
As part of this review, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on April 5, 2001, entitled
``Protecting America's Critical Infrastructures: How Secure Are
Government Computer Systems?'' The hearing focused on critical
Federal agency computer systems, and the lack of progress
various agencies were making in identifying and protecting
their critical systems. At the hearing, expert cyber hackers
from the Department of Energy demonstrated for Subcommittee
Members the ease with which government computer systems could
be penetrated by unauthorized users via the Internet. The first
witness panel included representatives from the General
Services Administration (GSA), which monitors computer security
incidents at Federal agencies, the National Infrastructure
Protection Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which
assists Federal agencies and the private sector in monitoring
and responding to computer security incidents, and a private
company that develops technology to track and prevent such
incidents. The second panel of witnesses included
representatives from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and
CIAO of the Department of Commerce. Subsequent to the hearing,
Committee staff continued to receive briefings from various
agency officials and the CIAO Director about efforts and
progress in this area.
Immediately following the September 11th terrorist attacks,
Committee Members were briefed by representatives from key
industries within the Committee's jurisdiction to discuss the
private sector efforts underway to strengthen protection of
critical infrastructures, including the electricity, oil & gas,
nuclear, telecommunications, and information technology
industries. Committee staff followed up with further visits to
industry sites and other briefings from industry and Federal
agency officials on this topic. In the area of chemical
facility security, the Committee also requested that GAO
conduct a review of both Federal and private sector efforts to
strengthen chemical facility security in the wake of the
terrorist attacks on September 11th. The GAO report is
scheduled for completion in March 2003.
The Committee also engaged in significant oversight
activity in the area of drinking water facility security, which
led to the passage of corrective legislation. Committee staff
interviewed EPA and industry officials regarding progress in
establishing a critical infrastructure information sharing and
analysis center for the drinking water sector, potential
threats to the water supply, and the status of vulnerability
assessment modeling and performance. The Committee subsequently
developed on a bipartisan basis legislation designed to enhance
the security of drinking water systems by requiring such
systems to conduct vulnerability assessments. This legislation
passed the Congress in June 2002 as part of the ``Public Health
Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act.'' For
a description of the relevant provisions of this legislation,
refer to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials Legislation section of the Committee's Activity
Report for the 107th Congress. During the 107th Congress,
Committee majority staff also monitored EPA's subsequent
implementation of these new provisions.
ON-LINE AUCTIONS
In the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade
and Consumer Protection held a hearing on May 23, 2001, to
examine on-line fraud, including auction fraud. Full Committee
Chairman W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin also held a public forum with
the chief executive officer of an Internet auction site on June
27, 2001, to highlight problems of auction fraud and potential
solutions. The forum was followed up with a letter by Members
of the Committee to three Internet auction sites, requesting a
review of auction fraud and tools used to combat the fraud. The
letter also requested information on state impediments to on-
line auctions.
ACCOUNTING RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS
The Committee seeks to ensure that the Financial Accounting
Standards Board's (FASB) process that develops changes to
accounting rules for U.S. companies is independent, open and
thorough, and results in unbiased financial information that
reflects economic reality and promotes transparency. During the
107th Congress, the Committee and Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade and Consumer Protection held several hearings on FASB-
related issues. Specifically, the Committee reviewed FASB
independence, the FASB standard-setting process, as well as
FASB standards. The Committee developed and passed out of the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
legislation making improvements to FASB and several standards
found to be deficient as a result of the Committee's
investigations into corporate failures and subsequent review of
particular accounting standards. The FASB placed many of these
issues on their agenda for further review and discussion.
The Committee also participated in the House-Senate
Conference Committee for H.R. 3763, a bill to protect investors
by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate
disclosures. H.R. 3763, which was passed into law, reaffirms
the Securities and Exchange Commission's oversight of FASB and
provides a funding mechanism for FASB.
GOVERNMENT-FORCED DIVESTITURES
Although the Committee did not take any direct oversight
action with respect to this matter, the Committee continued to
monitor developments in this area during the 107th Congress.
ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
During the 107th Congress, the Committee undertook a
thorough examination of our Nation's energy policy, including
issues such as the production and consumption of electricity,
oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power, and nuclear
power. The Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee held the first
in a series of oversight hearings on national energy policy on
February 28, 2001. This initial hearing focused on issues
relating to natural gas. On March 14, 2001, the Subcommittee
held a hearing on coal and related issues. On March 27, 2001,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on nuclear energy. On March 30,
2001, the Subcommittee continued its oversight with a hearing
on crude oil and refined petroleum products. On May 15, 2001,
the Subcommittee held a hearing on consumer perspectives on
national energy policy, and on June 13, 2001, the Secretary of
Energy testified at an oversight hearing to examine the
President's National Energy Policy Report. Additional national
energy policy hearings were held by the Subcommittee on June
22, 2001 (conservation and energy efficiency), and on June 27,
2001 (hydroelectric re-licensing and nuclear energy, including
reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act's nuclear industry
liability caps). The Subcommittee also examined the nation's
electric power industry in oversight hearings on July 27,
September 20, and October 10 of 2001.
As part of the Committee's ongoing examination of national
energy policy, on June 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a hearing on the Department of Energy's
(DOE) FreedomCAR initiative, which the Administration launched
in 2001 to ``reduce dependence on foreign oil by dramatically
changing how we one day power our cars and light trucks.''
Specifically, the hearing reviewed the respective roles of DOE
and the auto industry in the FreedomCAR research and
development partnership; the partnerships' creation and goals;
benchmarks by which to assess program progress and cost-
effectiveness in developing advanced automobile technologies,
especially fuel cell-based systems; the potential benefits of
intermediate advanced automobile technologies, such as advanced
lean burn diesel; and lessons learned from related government-
sponsored automotive research initiatives, including the
program's predecessor--the Partnership for a New Generation of
Vehicles. The hearing also examined the challenges--
technological and marketplace--that must be overcome for the
program to achieve its stated goals of a reduction both in the
nation's oil dependence and in undesirable air pollution and
CO2 emissions. The hearing's two panels featured a DOE
assistant secretary and representatives from the General
Accounting Office, the National Research Council, and the auto,
oil, and fuel cell industries.
EVALUATION OF STATE RETAIL RESTRUCTURING PLANS
As part of the Committee's oversight of the California
electricity crisis, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing on February 15, 2001, comparing
California's experience with electricity restructuring to the
experience in other states. The hearing was entitled
``Electricity Markets: Lessons Learned from California.'' The
hearing examined the factors contributing to the high energy
prices facing California and Western consumers, and the
difference between California's market structure and other
state's restructuring programs, including those in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Maryland.
THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CRISIS
In addition to the February 15, 2001 hearing on the
California electricity market (discussed above), the Committee
examined the California electricity crisis through other
hearings and oversight. On March 6, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality held a two-part oversight hearing
regarding the status of electricity markets in California and
the West, and the need for a comprehensive national energy
policy. The Subcommittee continued its oversight of California
electricity markets with two days of hearings on March 20 and
22, 2001. The hearing focused on the causes of the electric
supply and pricing problems in California, the state and
Federal governments' responses, and potential short- and long-
term solutions. On June 12, 2001, Committee Members sent a
letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
requesting that FERC take additional, immediate action to help
mitigate wholesale electricity prices in California and the
region and keep power flowing into California. On February 13,
2002, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the effects
of the Enron bankruptcy on energy prices and supplies,
including those in California and other western states. On May
24, 2002, the Committee sent a letter to FERC requesting
information and answers to specific questions regarding the
Commission's investigation into electricity markets in
California and the West. Committee staff reviewed the FERC data
as part of its examination of the California electricity
crisis, as well as its investigation of Enron.
The Committee also conducted a review of the steps taken by
the State of California to address power supply shortages,
including issues surrounding California's negotiation of
bilateral, long-term electricity purchasing contracts on behalf
of the state's utilities.
RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL POWER GRID
The California electric power crisis and other power
constraints in the western United States highlighted an
increasingly important issue: the reliability of the national
power grid. Electric power supply problems experienced by the
Mid-west and New York State over the past few summers also
raised serious questions about the reliability of the national
grid. As the reliability of the grid is essential to our
national economic strength, the Committee examined its current
state during the 107th Congress. Specifically, the Committee
sent document requests to several of the larger U.S.
electricity providers to gather data on the problem and to
determine the adequacy of industry efforts to ensure the
reliability of electric power. Committee staff also interviewed
several industry officials on these issues.
In addition, on October 10, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality held an oversight hearing on the status
and outlook for our Nation's electricity transmission system.
The hearing addressed matters relating to the capacity and
efficient use of the nation's electric transmission
infrastructure, including reliability of the grid. Witnesses
included representatives from the North American Electric
Reliability Council, public and private energy producers and
providers, and several consumer advocacy groups and state
electric power regulators.
INCREASING U.S. ENERGY SECURITY
Following the events of September 11, 2001, witnesses
testifying at the September 20, 2001 Subcommittee hearing on
Federal government perspectives on national electricity policy
also were asked to address the status of the U.S. electric
power infrastructure, the ability of that infrastructure to
sustain a similar terrorist attack, and measures the Federal
government was undertaking to protect the integrity of that
infrastructure against future terrorist incidents. In addition,
on November 7, 2001, a Committee Members' briefing was held
with representatives from the energy industry regarding
critical infrastructure protection. The energy sectors
represented included electricity, oil and natural gas, nuclear,
pipelines, refineries, liquefied natural gas, and hydropower.
VIABILITY OF THE DOMESTIC URANIUM INDUSTRY
The electricity generated at 104 domestic nuclear power
plants provides approximately 20% of the country's total
electricity supply. Thus, the maintenance of a viable domestic
uranium industry--the source of fuel used in nuclear power
plants--is necessary for the country's energy security. While
the Committee did not take any direct oversight action, it
continued to monitor developments in this area during the 107th
Congress, including as part of its review of the Highly-
Enriched Uranium agreement between the United States and
Russia.
THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
In October 2001, Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Chairman Barton met with representatives of the Department of
Energy to discuss the status and security of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in light of the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. In addition, on April 12, 2002, members of
the Committee sent a bipartisan letter to President Bush
commending his decision to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
to capacity. The letter cited increasing tensions in the Middle
East, such as the announced Iraqi oil embargo, as well as the
governmental uncertainties and domestic unrest in Venezuela,
and underscored the importance of the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve as a vital economic and national security resource.
CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES
On March 14, 2001, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality continued its series of oversight hearings on national
energy policy with a hearing that focused on the role of coal
in a comprehensive national energy policy. The hearing
addressed the current and future role of coal as a fuel for the
generation of electricity, impacts on the supply of coal, and
the use of new technologies to reduce emissions of pollutants
from coal-fired electric power plants. The Subcommittee
received testimony from representatives of an electric utility,
an environmental group, a state public service commission, a
state environmental protection agency, a coal production
company, the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency,
a university center for coal and minerals processing, and the
United Mine Workers.
The Committee also reviewed the clean coal technology
program in connection with its legislative activity on H.R. 4,
the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. This
legislation included authorization of $200 million each year in
fiscal years 2002 through 2011 for public/private projects to
utilize coal meeting certain cost and performance goals.
Authorized funding for such projects under H.R. 4 was
restricted to projects that advanced efficiency, environmental
performance, and costcompetitiveness well beyond current
technologies. In addition, the legislation restricted 80% of
funds utilized to coal gasification projects.
NATURAL GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAMS
On March 19, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a hearing on the reauthorization of the Natural
Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the Hazardous Liquids Pipeline
Safety Act. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Administrator of the Research and Special Programs
Administration of the Department of Transportation, the
Director of the Office of Railroad, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Investigations of the National Transportation Safety
Board, the Director of Physical Infrastructure of the General
Accounting Office, the National Vice-Chairperson of the
National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, and
representatives from oil and natural gas trade associations, a
non-profit organization related to construction damage issues,
an insurance company, a labor union, and an environmental
organization.
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to
examine the state of current scientific understanding as to the
extent to which human-induced emissions of non-carbon dioxide
``greenhouse gases'' and pollutants may contribute to the
earth's warming. In August 2001, the Committee requested that
the General Accounting Office (GAO) review this matter, as well
as past and future trends in emissions/concentrations of these
substances in selected developed and developing countries and
the factors that influence these trends. The Committee also
asked GAO to examine what steps certain foreign governments are
taking to reduce emissions/concentrations of these other
substances. The GAO report is scheduled for completion in 2003.
Committee staff, in the meantime, continued to interview
scientific experts and to monitor developments in research on
this front throughout the 107th Congress.
The Committee also examined the current state of
international emissions reporting and monitoring during the
107th Congress. In August 2001, the Committee requested that
GAO undertake a study to determine: (1) how the United Nations
and U.S. assess the quality of data on greenhouse gases for the
Framework Convention on Climate Change; (2) how the quality of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions data compares with such data from
selected developed and developing countries; and (3) what steps
can and are planned to be taken to improve the quality and
monitoring of these emissions data. GAO plans to complete this
study for the Committee in the 108th Congress.
Moreover, in connection with the Committee's ongoing review
of the components of the U.S. Global Change Research Program
(GCRP), the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
hearing to examine the use of climate model simulations in the
U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of
Climate Variability and Change, which was initiated in 1997 to
fulfill a mandate of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and
which is coordinated by the GCRP. The hearing examined whether
use of the primary climate models in the National Assessment
projected a picture of potential climate change that is useful
for the public and policy makers.
THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates
electric utilities, hydropower facilities, and natural gas and
oil pipelines. The Committee exercised oversight of FERC during
the 107th Congress, much of it focusing on the Commission's
handling of the California energy crisis. The Committee held
four hearings on the energy situation in California early in
the 107th Congress, and took other related action (see
``California Electricity Crisis'' oversight summary above).
In addition to following FERC's handling of the California
situation, the Committee monitored the development of regional
electricity markets throughout the country. The Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality held several hearings on national
electricity policy, including hearings on: barriers to
competitive generation markets on July 27, 2001; Federal
government perspectives on electricity policy on September 20,
2001; and electric transmission policy on October 10, 2001.
Much of these hearings focused on the formation of Regional
Transmission Organizations pursuant to FERC Order 2000. More
recently, the Committee has initiated a review of FERC's
proposed Standard Market Design (SMD) rulemaking. If finalized,
the SMD rule would have significant effects on the nation's
wholesale electric power markets, transmission infrastructure,
and ultimately consumers, as reflected in the numerous comments
from States and other stakeholders.
GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
comprehensive oversight of the Department of Energy's (DOE)
operations and management. As part of the Committee's broader
inquiry into the procurement practices of agencies within our
jurisdiction, the Committee examined DOE's policies and
practices regarding the use of government purchase and/or
credit cards by agency and contractor personnel. Further, in
November 2002, the Committee launched a related inquiry into
specific allegations of misuse of government money through
purchase cards, blanket purchase agreements, and other
procurement vehicles at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).
The Committee requested information from LANL and University of
California officials about the specific allegations as well as
more general information on procurement processes and
oversight, and Committee staff have been conducting interviews
of relevant officials and employees.
In addition, the Committee conducted oversight of site
characterization and licensing activities at the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository site. Committee staff obtained numerous
briefings and made several site visits to Yucca Mountain as
part of this review during the 107th Congress. The Committee
also continued its review of DOE's use and management of
performance-based incentive (PBI) contracting. Committee staff
obtained briefings and updates on Fiscal Year 2001 PBI
contracts at each major DOE site, including information on
base, incentive, and performance fee payments made to each
contractor. In August 2001, the Committee sent a letter to DOE
requesting detailed information on how DOE incentivizes site
safeguard and security activities at sites with category I and
II special nuclear materials. The Department provided
documents, including PBI contract language, and classified
briefings from the Office of Environmental Management and the
National Nuclear Security Administration.
In the 106th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on DOE policies and practices
with respect to reimbursement of its contractors' legal fees
when they are defending lawsuits alleging retaliation by safety
or security whistleblowers. In the 107th Congress, the
Committee continued to monitor DOE's activities in this area,
and initiated a related review of DOE's policies and practices
with respect to approval of contractor-initiated lawsuits
against private sector competitors.
DOE'S BUDGET REQUEST
As part of its general oversight over responsibilities, the
Committee reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) budget
requests for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003, and provided its views
and estimates with respect thereto.
DOE'S MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to examine
whether DOE was effectively managing the contractors that
operate the national laboratories, as discussed in detail
elsewhere in this report.
DOE'S SECURITY AND NON-PROLIFERATION PROGRAMS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of security matters at Department of Energy (DOE) and
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) national
laboratories and other nuclear facilities. Committee Members
and majority staff obtained numerous briefings and conducted
several site visits to NNSA laboratories and other facilities
to review physical and cyber security protections in the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, including
site visits to Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National
Laboratories, the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the
Nevada Test Site. The Committee monitored the development and
implementation of enhanced security policies and measures,
including the delay in the development of a new design basis
threat for such facilities, which is expected to be completed
in early 2003.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its review
of the Department of Energy's (DOE) non-proliferation programs,
and in particular the U.S./Russian Highly Enriched Uranium
(HEU) Agreement. On January 30, 2001, the Committee sent a
letter to the President's National Security Advisor requesting
that the National Security Council (NSC) review the proposed
amendment to the HEU agreement between the United States
Enrichment Corporation and its Russian counterpart, Tenex.
Committee staff received several briefings from DOE, the lead
Federal agency for the HEU Agreement, and the NSC on issues
relating to the proposed amendment. Subsequently, the amendment
was rescinded, and certain changes to the amendment were made
before it was re-approved in 2002.
CYBER SECURITY AT DOE HEADQUARTERS
The Committee's past oversight in this area revealed that
the Department of Energy's (DOE) own headquarters offices have
not yet implemented the computer security upgrades and policy
changes DOE required of its contractors over the past two
years. DOE pledged to promptly improve cyber security policies
and practices at its own headquarters to better protect
classified information on its network systems. During the 107th
Congress, the Committee continued to review the Department's
activities in this regard, receiving several briefings on the
status of DOE actions to improve cyber security at DOE
headquarters, as well as at its other facilities.
NUCLEAR SAFETY AT DOE FACILITIES
The Committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Energy's (DOE) nuclear and worker safety programs in the 107th
Congress. Committee staff requested and received several
briefings, and obtained responses to a series of questions,
regarding the impact of the Department's July 26, 2001
Department-wide reorganization on the Office of Environment,
Safety, and Health, the Price-Anderson nuclear safety
enforcement program, and the Office of Independent Oversight.
Committee staff also obtained information and briefings
regarding radiological exposures to workers at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory (LANL), because of concerns about the
delayed response of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) to a recommended Notice of Violation
(NOV) from the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health.
Subsequently, NNSA officials approved the NOV, which promptly
was issued to the University of California, which operates LANL
under contract with DOE.
DOE'S OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its review
of several major nuclear weapons waste cleanup projects managed
by the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental
Management, in order to ensure that DOE proceeds in a timely
and effective manner to reduce these environmental threats. As
part of this review, on May 14, 2002, Subcommittee Chairman
James Greenwood sent a letter to the General Accounting Office
requesting a review of DOE's management of its high-level waste
program; the review should be completed in early to mid-2003.
In addition, on July 19, 2002, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review DOE's
implementation of its new accelerated cleanup reform program
and the status of state-based cleanup agreements. The hearing
featured testimony from DOE's Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management about the accelerated cleanup reform
efforts, and testimony from the General Accounting Office on
its report on state-based compliance agreements. Other
witnesses included representatives from the States of
Washington, Idaho, and Tennessee.
DOE'S OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) was created by
the Department of Energy (DOE) in response to a Congressional
directive in 1989 to begin a program to fund the development of
innovative environmental technologies that would make DOE's
cleanup activities faster, cheaper, and safer. 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. As a result of the Committee's ongoing review through
the 106th Congress, some improvements in the OST program and an
increase in deployments have occurred. Although the Committee
did not engage in direct oversight activity in the 107th
Congress, the Committee continued to monitor developments in
this area.
FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Current law directs Federal agencies to cut their energy
consumption by 20 percent through 2000 and 30 percent through
2005. As part of the Committee's oversight in this area in the
107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
conducted a national energy policy hearing on June 22, 2001,
which focused on conservation and energy efficiency. The
hearing addressed the role of energy efficiency and
conservation in helping manage the U.S.'s long-term energy
needs. The hearing examined ways to promote continued increases
in energy efficiency and conservation, including a review of
programs to increase the energy efficiency of the Federal
government and its agencies.
DOE'S ALTERNATIVE FUELS PROGRAM
Current law directs the Department of Energy to develop an
alternative fuels program that displaces 10 percent of
petroleum motor fuels by 2000 and 30 percent by 2010. In the
107th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor progress in
this area.
APPLIANCE STANDARDS
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) directs the
Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy efficiency
standards for various appliances and to consider revisions to
these standards that would reduce pollution and save a
significant amount of energy. During the 107th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality conducted a national
energy policy hearing on June 22, 2001, focusing on ways to
promote continued increases in energy efficiency and
conservation, including a review of programs to develop
appliance efficiency standards.
FEDERAL ENERGY DATA COLLECTION
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is a
statistical agency of the Department of Energy. EIA provides
policy-independent data, forecasts, and analyses to promote
sound policy making, efficient markets, and public
understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the
economy and environment.
On February 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing on the effect of the Enron
collapse on energy markets. As part of that hearing, the
Committee considered issues of transparency and information
disclosure in competitive energy markets. Witnesses included
Federal and State government representatives, investor-owned
utilities, independent power producers, an independent oil and
gas exploration and development company, a consumer
perspective, and a private energy and economic consultant. In
addition, during the 107th Congress, the Committee monitored
regulations recently promulgated at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to enhance its ability to collect
information regarding sales and financial data.
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety
through regulation of commercial nuclear power plants; non-
power 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.
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th terrorist
attacks, Committee Members received a classified briefing from
the NRC Chairman on October 3, 2001, to discuss the status of
security at NRC-licensed nuclear power plants. In addition, as
part of the Committee's broader review of nuclear security
issues, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held
two hearings during the 107th Congress to review security
issues at nuclear power plants. The hearings were held on
December 5, 2001, and April 1, 2002, and focused on the NRC's
efforts to increase security requirements, and develop a new
design basis threat, for nuclear power plants regulated by NRC,
as well as the efforts of the nuclear industry to implement the
new security requirements. Due to the classified nature of
these hearings, both hearings were closed to the public.
Witnesses at the December 5, 2001 hearing included
representatives from NRC, the nuclear industry, and a public
interest group. Witnesses at the April 11, 2002 hearing
included four of the five NRC Commissioners, and
representatives from the nuclear industry. Subsequent to these
hearings, the Committee continued to review the reasons for a
delay in establishing a new design basis threat for nuclear
facilities, which currently is expected to be completed in
early 2003.
With respect to nuclear safety, in October 2001, the
Committee sent a letter to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve
regarding the structural integrity of reactor penetration
nozzles, in response to recent revelations of cracked and
leaking vessel head penetration nozzles, including control rod
drive mechanism nozzles, at four U.S. pressurized water
reactors. This review led to a more extensive Committee
examination of nozzle leakage at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power
Plant. In May 2002, the Committee sent a letter to the NRC
regarding Davis Besse, and Committee staff conducted several
briefings and a site visit to the plant.
In addition to its oversight of security and safety at NRC-
regulated facilities, the Committee reviewed matters relating
to the Commission's budget and management. In April 2001, the
Committee sent a letter to NRC Chairman Richard Meserve
requesting information about the NRC's ability to respond to
the significant increase in licensing activities at operating
nuclear power reactors, as well as potential future licensing
activities associated with applications for new site permits
and new reactor licenses. After receiving the requested
information, Committee staff interviewed NRC officials on
several occasions to discuss the adequacy of its plan. On
November 7, 2001, the Committee also sent a letter to the
General Accounting Office requesting a review of the risk and
security of commercial spent nuclear fuel facilities, and the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel. This report is scheduled
for completion in early to mid-2003.
EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
The Committee has closely followed the promulgation of the
1997 air quality standards, holding a series of hearings on
this matter during 1998. In addition, the Committee sent many
separate inquiries to EPA and other Federal departments and
agencies concerning their actions in considering and setting
the new air standards. On March 26, 2002, the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected
claims that national ambient air quality standards for ozone
and particulate matter, promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in 1997, were set in an ``arbitrary and
capricious'' manner.
With the legal status of the new standards resolved during
the 107th Congress, the Committee changed its focus to
reviewing implementation of the new standards, including
designation of new nonattainment areas and the timelines for
compliance.
EPA'S DIESEL ENGINE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Justice are parties to a consent decree with the
manufacturers of heavy-duty diesel engines for alleged Clean
Air Act (CAA) violations. EPA alleged 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. During the 105th and
106th Congresses, the Committee requested and reviewed
documentary information concerning this enforcement activity.
The Committee continued to monitor this situation in the 107th
Congress, including the establishment of nonconformance
penalties for diesel engines unable to meet 2004 model year
standards (i.e., under the 1999 consent decree, such standards
were applied to affected engines beginning in October 2002).
The nonconformance penalties were finalized by EPA in August
2002.
EPA'S REGIONAL HAZE PROGRAM
In April 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
established a program to address ``regional haze'' affecting
visibility in Federal parks. In early 2001, EPA issued a
proposed regulation raising issues for the states' regional
haze planning process. The Committee continued to monitor
developments in this area in the 107th Congress.
EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF GASOLINE AND DIESEL SULFUR STANDARDS
Tier II regulations regarding the sulfur content of
gasoline were published as a final rule by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on February 10, 2000. A final rule
concerning the sulfur content of diesel was published by EPA in
the Federal Register on January 18, 2001, and reaffirmed by the
EPA on February 28, 2001. Full compliance with Tier II gasoline
standards is required for most refiners by 2006. Diesel fuel
meeting the new sulfur standards must be produced by June 1,
2006, although early compliance is encouraged through banking
and trading, and flexibility for fuel not meeting a 15 ppm
sulfur standard is allowed under temporary compliance, small
refiner, and hardship options. In the 107th Congress, the
Committee reviewed the implementation of gasoline and diesel
fuel sulfur reduction programs as contained in these rules.
EPA'S NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM
In 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
commenced a regulatory process to revise certain regulations
issued under the Clean Air Act governing ``new source review,''
the process by which actions undertaken at existing stationary
sources of air emissions can trigger certain additional
obligations under the Act. On November 22, 2002, EPA issued
final regulations implementing a number of the proposals from
the 1996 proposed rule. EPA also issued a new proposed rule
regarding the interpretation of the ``routine maintenance''
provision of the new source review program. During the 107th
Congress, Committee staff met with EPA officials on a regular
basis regarding the status of these provisions. Committee staff
initiated a review of the EPA final and proposed rules in
preparation for Committee activity in the 108th Congress.
MACT DEADLINES
Section 112 (e) of the Clean Air Act requires that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgate by November
15, 2000, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standards for sources of air toxics listed under section
112(c). Yet EPA's Fiscal Year 2003 budget submission indicated
that at least nine MACT standards would remain in preproposal
stage through May 2002, and that final rules for MACT standards
would be promulgated through Fiscal Year 2004, or nearly four
years past the statutory deadline. The Committee contacted EPA
several times during the 107th Congress to monitor and assess
progress in this area.
STATE FUNDING/FLEXIBILITY IN CLEAN AIR PROGRAMS
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing
on June 5, 2002, to review the experience of state and local
environmental regulators in implementing the Clean Air Act. At
that hearing, representatives of state and local governments
provided testimony and suggestions for changes to the Clean Air
Act in order to provide increased flexibility that would allow
states to pursue additional air pollutant reductions in a
timely and efficient manner.
ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES
EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
general oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Committee staff obtained briefings on various EPA actions and
activities, and the Committee sent numerous letters to the
Agency requesting information regarding the Agency's operations
in all areas under the jurisdiction of the Committee, including
drinking water, hazardous and solid waste, and citizen liaison
programs.
INNOVATIVE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to
examine progress in innovation in the states' environmental
programs, and to evaluate whether there were Federal or state
barriers to further success in these areas, particularly with
respect to brownfield redevelopment. The Subcommittee on
Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on March 7,
2001, on removing barriers to brownfields cleanups. This
hearing examined the work that the states were performing to
help protect human health and the environment and recycle
contaminated land. In addition, on August 1, 2001, and May 21,
2002, the Subcommittee held hearings to explore state solutions
to solid waste management and groundwater remediation of MTBE.
EPA'S OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
In 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created
the Office of Environmental Information to develop agency-wide
information policies (including policies for handling sensitive
and confidential information and providing Freedom of
Information Act disclosure), and to manage more effectively the
agency's information systems and resources, such as EPA's key
databases and wide area networks. In the 107th Congress, the
Committee continued to actively monitor the agency's efforts to
improve the quality, accuracy, and usefulness of EPA's
information resources, to reduce the paperwork burden imposed
upon recipients of EPA data requests, and to improve
integration of its information resources. The Committee
monitored the development by EPA and the Department of Justice,
in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, of
appropriate information sharing guidelines to protect sensitive
information, especially information maintained on EPA's cyber
systems. In addition, the Committee addressed controls on
drinking water facility security information as part of Title
IV of the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,'' which is described in
relevant part in the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials Legislation section of the Committee's Activity
Report for the 107th Congress.
EPA CYBER SECURITY REVIEW
During the 106th Congress, the Committee and, at the
Committee's request, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
conducted a detailed evaluation of computer security at the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine the extent
to which EPA was adequately protecting its information systems
and resources from loss, damage, misuse and unauthorized
access. Thereafter, working with GAO and the Committee, EPA
implemented a series of reforms designed to bolster its
computer security. In the 107th Congress, the Committee
continued to oversee EPA's efforts to respond to the
deficiencies identified by the Committee and by GAO, and
received additional documents and briefings from agency
personnel on this matter.
EPA'S ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACTIVITIES
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. During the 107th Congress, the
Committee continued to monitor developments in this area. In
addition, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials held a hearing on brownfields legislation on June 28,
2001, in which EPA's Deputy Administrator discussed the current
status of environmental justice programs at EPA and whether the
agency required additional resources for this task.
EPA'S BROWNFIELDS INITIATIVE
During the past several Congresses, the Committee has
conducted extensive oversight of the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) various brownfields-related programs. During the
107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials held one oversight and one legislative hearing on
this matter, in addition to continuing general oversight of
agency progress in promoting brownfields redevelopment. These
activities led to the drafting, passage, and enactment of H.R.
2869, to promote enhanced redevelopment of such areas.
EPA TESTING AND OTHER NON-STATUTORY INITIATIVES
Beginning in 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) launched a series of non-statutory testing initiatives to
encourage the increased testing of new chemicals and products.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its monitoring
of EPA's development and implementation of ``voluntary''
chemical testing initiatives, including the High Production
Volume Testing Initiative and the Children's Health Testing
Initiative, as well as other non-statutory initiatives.
EPA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATES
In a report released in January 2001, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) identified the relationship between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states as a
``major performance and accountability challenge,'' citing
disagreements over respective roles and responsibilities,
priorities, and the proper conduct of Federal oversight. During
the 107th Congress, the Committee monitored efforts by EPA to
address this management challenge, including the Subcommittee
on Environment and Hazardous Materials's hearings on drinking
water needs, brownfields cleanups, and tank cleanups of MTBE.
THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
In past Congresses, the Committee has conducted an
extensive review of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Superfund program, including evaluations of regional
enforcement and implementation of the cleanup program, concerns
identified by EPA's Inspector General about program management,
and EPA expenditures from the Superfund Trust Fund. In the
107th Congress, the Committee continued its review of the
status and management of the Superfund program. The
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held
meetings and a hearing on March 7, 2001, to review the need for
legislation to protect small businesses that may have disposed
of small amounts of regular household trash in Superfund sites
from being held responsible under the Superfund liability
system. In addition, the Subcommittee, on July 16, 2002, held
an oversight hearing on the independence and operation of the
EPA Ombudsman's Office, which reviews complaints about
Superfund-related activities.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT IMPLEMENTATION
During the 107th Congress, Committee staff conducted
reviews of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
activities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as
well as explored the relationship between EPA actions and the
states' toxic waste cleanup programs.
EPA RISK ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
The Committee Chairman requested and received a General
Accounting Office (GAO) report reviewing risk assessment
practices within the Federal government. This report led to a
series of meetings between Committee majority staff and various
agency offices, as well as letters of comment from Committee
Members to the Office of Management and Budget and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to EPA risk
assessment practices and the Federal rulemaking on ``Best
Management Practices.''
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee
examined the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
In the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held hearings on March 28, 2001, and April
11, 2002, on the financial needs of drinking water delivery
systems. In the hearings, representatives from EPA, the General
Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and water
utilities provided their analyses of the situation, including
the adequacy of Federal and state funding of drinking water
programs. In addition, the Committee worked with EPA to find
provisions within the Safe Drinking Water Act that needed
amendment in order to address terrorist threats, leading to the
passage of Title IV of the ``Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.'' The
relevant provisions of this law are described in the
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials Legislation
section of the Committee's Activity Report for the 107th
Congress.
HEALTH ISSUES
HCFA'S MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 107th Congress, the Committee initiated a
comprehensive review of the major programs, policies, and
operations of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS), formerly called the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA). This initiative became known as ``Patients First: A
21st Century Promise to Ensure Quality and Affordable Health
Coverage.'' The ``Patients First'' project has been aimed at
improving the quality of health care delivered by CMS programs
to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
As part of this project, the Committee held hearings,
requested and obtained information from relevant parties, and
organized stakeholder and work group meetings. In particular,
the Subcommittee on Health held four joint hearings with the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations as part of the
``Patients First'' initiative during the 107th Congress.
The first hearing, held on March 1, 2001, examined
Medicare's processes for determining coverage, assigning
billing codes, and setting payment levels. The Subcommittees
received testimony from representatives of CMS, the United
Seniors Association, the University of Michigan Medical Center,
Brigham and Women's Hospital, a research and consulting
organization, and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
The second hearing, held on April 4, 2001, focused on how
CMS interacts with health care providers regarding the rules
and regulations that guide the Medicare program. The
Subcommittees received testimony from representatives of CMS,
the Office of Inspector General in the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), the Pinellas County (Florida) Medical
Society, the Medical Group Management Association, the Mayo
Foundation, and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
The third hearing, held on May 10, 2001, featured the
testimony of four former HCFA administrators to discuss what
works at the agency and what can be improved. The Subcommittees
received testimony from Mr. William L. Roper, Dean of the
School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill; Dr. Gail R. Wilensky, John M. Olin Senior Fellow, Project
HOPE, and Chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission;
Dr. Bruce C. Vladeck, Senior Vice President for Policy,
Institute for Medicare Practice, Mount Sinai School of
Medicine; and Ms. Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, the immediate former
HCFA Administrator.
The fourth hearing, held on June 28, 2001, examined
Medicare's existing contracting authority and proposals to
refine this authority to secure the efficient and responsive
delivery of high-quality services to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Subcommittees received testimony from the Honorable Thomas
Scully, CMS Administrator, as well as the Acting HHS Inspector
General and representatives from the General Accounting Office
(GAO), the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, United
Government Services, LLC, and the Health Care Rights Project of
the Center for Medicare Advocacy.
In addition to this series of hearings, the Committee
initiated an effort to identify concerns and burdens that
Medicare beneficiaries and health care providers face on a
daily basis. The Committee disseminated two surveys--one for
beneficiaries and the other for health care providers--that
were designed to elicit input about ways the delivery of
quality health care could be improved and waste, mismanagement,
and bureaucratic delays could be eliminated. The informal
surveys asked Medicare's stakeholders--beneficiaries and health
care providers--to report on their interactions with the
Medicare program and identify areas in which problems existed.
The provider survey also asked physicians, practitioners,
facilities, and suppliers to identify some of the most
burdensome regulations with which they routinely face, as well
as to provide recommendations to improve the Federal health
care system. The Committee received more than 3,500 survey
responses.
Through the ``Patients First'' project, the Committee
documented and identified many of the complexities of the
Medicare program and the systemic problems faced by Medicare
beneficiaries and health care providers. This information
formed the basis for a letter sent by Chairman Tauzin,
Subcommittee on Health Chairman Bilirakis, and Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations Chairman Greenwood to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on July 31, 2001,
setting forth suggestions to improve the Medicare program
administratively.
The ``Patients First'' project also contributed to the
development of legislation to streamline Medicare's regulatory
process, ease paperwork burdens, and improve Medicare's
responsiveness to beneficiaries and health care providers
(i.e., H.R. 3046, the ``Medicare Regulatory, Appeals,
Contracting, and Education Reform Act of 2001,'' and H.R. 3391,
the ``Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of
2001''). On December 4, 2001, H.R. 3391 was considered by the
House under suspension of the rules. The motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill was unanimously agreed to by a roll
call vote of 408 yeas and 0 nays.
In addition to the ``Patients First'' project, the
Committee continued to conduct oversight of CMS management and
operations in other areas, including computer security,
prescription drug reimbursements, and other matters discussed
elsewhere in this report.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE
During the 107th Congress, the Committee held several
hearings and conducted extensive oversight on the need to
reduce fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
In particular, the Committee continued its focus on oversight
of reimbursement practices for drugs currently covered by the
Medicare program, particularly how such practices may permit
medical providers and drug manufacturers to profit at the
expense of beneficiaries and taxpayers. Medicare currently
provides a very limited prescription drug benefit, under which
coverage is restricted primarily to those drugs either
administered by a physician or provided in conjunction with
durable medical equipment. Under Federal law, Medicare
reimburses the providers of these drugs at 95 percent of the
drug's Average Wholesale Price (AWP). On September 21, 2001,
the Subcommittees on Health and Oversight and Investigations
conducted a joint hearing that examined abuses prevalent in the
current Medicare drug benefit. The hearing featured the
testimony of several witnesses, including a plaintiff in an
ongoing qui tam lawsuit against several drug manufacturers, and
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS). Also testifying were the director of health
care issues for the General Accounting Office (GAO), a deputy
Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human
Services, the Chief of the Bioethics Department at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), and representatives from three
health care provider groups that administer Medicare-covered
drugs.
The hearing testimony, along with information uncovered in
the course of the Committee's two-year investigation into this
issue, demonstrated how some drug manufacturers caused inflated
AWPs to be reported and used to set Medicare's reimbursement
rates, and then marketed their drugs to providers based on the
``spread'' between the reported AWP--upon which provider
reimbursement and beneficiary co-payments are calculated--and
the price at which the drug company actually sold the drug to
the providers, which generally was significantly lower. These
inflated AWPs have caused the Medicare program and its
beneficiaries to pay each year billions of extra dollars in
reimbursements and co-payments to providers who administer
Medicare-covered drugs. Based on the information revealed in
the hearing, the Committee worked to develop legislation that
would reform the Medicare drug benefit and eliminate the
overpayments. Further, on December 3, 2002, CMS sent a program
memorandum to its Medicare carriers announcing that, as of
January 1, 2003, it would use a single drug pricer to determine
the AWPs that Medicare pays for covered drugs. Each carrier
currently calculates its own AWPs from published data, which
has led to discrepancies in reimbursements for the same drugs
among multiple carriers. This new policy will implement a
change first requested by the Committee during the 106th
Congress as part of its oversight of the AWP issue, and is a
first step towards reform of the AWP reimbursement process.
In addition, the Committee examined the need to modernize
and strengthen the Medicare program overall. The Subcommittee
on Health held a hearing on July 26, 2001, which featured the
testimony of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson. As part of this testimony, Secretary Thompson
identified procedures that the Administration intended to
pursue for streamlining current administrative structures,
while reducing instances of fraud and abuse.
The Committee also sought to reduce the overall number of
improper Medicare fee-for-service payments. On April 5, 2001,
Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell and the Chairmen and
Ranking Members of the Health and Oversight & Investigations
Subcommittees wrote to the Acting CMS Deputy Administrator
requesting that CMS identify what steps it was taking to
curtail improper Medicare payments.
PROBLEMS WITH THE MEDICAID PROGRAM
The Medicaid program, which is funded by both states and
the Federal government, pays for the health expenses of
approximately 40 million Americans, consisting primarily of
low-income individuals such as mothers with children, the
elderly, the blind and other disabled persons. Committee
hearings last year revealed that the cost of the Medicaid fraud
and improper payment problem could exceed $17 billion every
year. During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to
examine ways in which states could adopt more rigorous controls
to improve their program integrity standards. In June 2001, the
Committee released a General Accounting Office (GAO) report,
prepared at the Committee's request, which provided an analysis
of state efforts to curb fraud and abuse within their Medicaid
programs. The report, which reflected information obtained in a
GAO survey requested by the Committee, revealed that lax
administration, uneven funding, and insufficient Federal
guidance have combined to undercut effective efforts to reduce
fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.
HCFA'S MANAGEMENT OF ITS MEDICARE CONTRACTORS
The day-to-day operations of the Medicare program are
managed by contractors who process beneficiary claims and make
Medicare payments to health care providers. In the 107th
Congress, the Committee's ``Patients First'' project (described
in more detail above) included a review of Medicare's existing
contracting authority and ways to refine it to secure the
efficient and responsive delivery of high quality services to
Medicare beneficiaries.
The ``Patients First'' project also contributed to the
development of legislation to reform Medicare's contracting
authority (H.R. 3046, the ``Medicare Regulatory, Appeals,
Contracting, and Education Reform Act of 2001,'' and H.R. 3391,
the ``Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of
2001''). On December 4, 2001, H.R. 3391 was considered by the
House under suspension of the rules. The motion to suspend the
rules and pass the bill was unanimously agreed to by a roll
call vote of 408 yeas and 0 nays.
In addition, the Committee conducted oversight of the
computer security practices of the contractors of the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (formerly known as the
Health Care Financing Administration, or HCFA), including the
adequacy of CMS oversight of such practices.
HCFA'S EFFORTS ON ANTI-FRAUD BILLING SOFTWARE
During the 106th Congress, the Committee conducted a review
of the failure of the Health Care Financing Administration (now
known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) to
implement pre-payment, anti-fraud software in its Medicare
claims systems, despite years of reports by the Department of
Health and Human Services 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. Although the Committee did not take any direct
oversight action on this matter, it continued to monitor
developments in the agency's activities in this regard during
the 107th Congress.
HCFA'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT, THE BALANCED BUDGET
REFINEMENT ACT, AND THE BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT
In the 107th Congress, the Committee's ``Patients First''
project (described in more detail above) included a review of
Federal agency actions taken to implement health legislation
enacted within the last several years. Through stakeholder and
work group meetings, the Committee focused on Medicare's
appeals and coverage processes and changes enacted in the
Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000. This
examination led to the submission of a bipartisan request for a
General Accounting Office study in 2002, which will be
completed in the 108th Congress. In addition, the ``Patients
First'' project led to the incorporation of modifications to
Medicare's coverage process in legislation, which the Committee
considered and the House passed this year.
The Committee also conducted extensive oversight of the
implementation of the hospital outpatient prospective payment
system, which was first authorized under the Balanced Budget
Act, and substantially modified by the Balanced Budget
Refinement Act. Committee majority staff convened several
meetings with drug and device manufacturers, as well as
hospitals and patient advocates, to assess the impact of the
new prospective payment rates on patients' access to quality
care in the hospital outpatient setting. Based on the
information obtained in these meetings, Chairman Tauzin and
Ranking Member Dingell, along with the Chairman and Ranking
Members of the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees,
sent a December 12, 2001 letter to the Administrator of the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (formerly
known as the Health Care Financing Administration, or HCFA),
requesting that CMS delay implementation of the proposed new
payment rates. On December 31, 2001, CMS published its final
rule, which delayed implementation of the 2002 payment rates
until April 1, 2002.
As part of the Committee's continuing oversight of the
implementation of the new hospital outpatient payment system,
Chairman Tauzin, along with Ways and Means Committee Chairman
Thomas and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Grassley,
wrote a letter to the CMS Administrator on October 21, 2002,
identifying concerns relating to some of the dramatic changes
in reimbursement rates for certain drugs and devices, as well
as the need to continue to assess and improve the accuracy of
the claims data used by CMS to set new rates. The letter also
requested that CMS consider setting reimbursement corridors for
certain drugs and devices, which would limit the overall
reimbursement reductions for these products. In the published
final rule for 2003, CMS established corridors that limited the
reductions for products that would otherwise have had their
reimbursements decreased by more than 15 percent.
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
As part of an ongoing effort to create a comprehensive
prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, the
Committee focused its oversight activities on several related
issues that were explored during the 107th Congress. Through
various oversight efforts, the Committee gathered information
relating to ways to provide Medicare beneficiaries with access
to prescription drug coverage and harness competitive market
forces to lower the cost of these drugs. On February 15 and May
16, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health held two hearings that
examined these and other related issues. These hearings
featured the testimony of witnesses representing health
insurance plans, employers, pharmacies, state programs
providing assistance to low-income seniors, beneficiaries,
academia, health care foundations, a biotechnology association,
and the Congressional Budget Office. This testimony highlighted
many of the issues associated with prescription drug coverage
offered by private and employer-sponsored plans, as well as the
provision of assistance to Medicare beneficiaries who currently
lack such coverage.
In addition, on April 17, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health
held a hearing to specifically examine efforts to assist low-
income Medicare beneficiaries with the costs of their
prescription drugs. The hearing featured testimony that focused
upon the Administration's proposal to create new discount cards
for Medicare beneficiaries, as well as other state-developed
alternatives that are attempting to lower prescription drug
costs for eligible persons.
MEDICARE SELF-REFERRAL LAWS
Originally enacted in 1989 and amended in 1993, the
physician self-referral laws prohibit a physician from making a
referral to a provider for certain designated Medicare services
if the physician has a financial relationship with that
provider. These laws were designed to reduce overutilization
and gaming of the Medicare program. Although the Committee did
not engage in any direct oversight action on this topic during
the 107th Congress, it continued to monitor developments in
this area.
TELEMEDICINE/ON-LINE HEALTH CARE
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee
followed the development of a number of on-line health care
issues, in particular, the growing number of companies that are
distributing prescription pharmaceuticals on-line. The
Committee also focused on ways to eliminate barriers to the
practice of telemedicine in the Medicare program. While the
Committee did not engage in any direct oversight activity on
this topic during the 107th Congress, it continued to monitor
developments in this area. In addition, as part of the
Committee's review of ``Imported Drugs'' described below, the
Committee examined safety concerns with respect to foreign
Internet pharmacies.
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 (SCHIP). Under this Title, funds are provided to States
to enable them to initiate and expand health assistance to
uninsured, low-income children. Because of provisions included
in the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, states
were given additional time to spend their 1998 and 1999
allotments. This extension expired on October 1, 2002, and all
unspent 1998 and 1999 funds reverted to the Federal Treasury.
As a result, Committee staff convened several meetings and
briefings during the 107th Congress to understand the impact of
the loss of this funding, as well as the effect of a full
redistribution of unspent 2000 funds (as required under current
law). Based upon this information, Committee Chairman Tauzin
and Ranking Member Dingell introduced legislation to extend the
availability of unspent funds and institute a more balanced
approach to redistribute unspent funds.
CANCER RESEARCH
While the Committee did not engage in any direct oversight
activity on this topic during the 107th Congress, it continued
to monitor developments in this area.
HUMAN GENOME DEVELOPMENTS
While the Committee did not engage in any direct oversight
activity on this topic during the 107th Congress, it continued
to monitor developments in this area.
ORGAN ALLOCATION REFORMS
The National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) governs organ
distribution policy in the United States. Since the law's
enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has
contracted with an organ procurement and transplantation
network (OPTN) to determine how the organs are to be allocated.
In 1998, HHS promulgated a rule that would, in effect, transfer
final authority over organ distribution policies from the OPTN
to the Secretary. The Committee reviewed implementation of the
rule during the 107th Congress, and advanced legislation (H.R.
624, the ``Organ Donation Improvement Act of 2001'') that would
create new incentives for people to become organ donors and
expand demonstration projects to encourage organ donation
education efforts across the country.
THE NATIONAL PRACTITIONER DATA BANK
The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) was created in
1990. The purpose of the NPDB is to serve as a repository for
information pertaining to medical practitioners. It contains a
listing and description of disciplinary actions taken by
medical societies and state licensing boards, medical
malpractice payments, clinical privileges actions, and Medicare
and Medicaid program exclusions. By law, the information in the
NPDB is not available to the public. In the 106th Congress, the
Committee evaluated ways to improve the data gathered in the
data bank and make it more useful for medical boards,
hospitals, and insurers. While the Committee did not take any
direct oversight action on this topic during the 107th
Congress, it continued to monitor developments in this area.
ADOPTION
While the Committee did not engage in any direct oversight
activity on this topic during the 107th Congress, it continued
to monitor developments in this area.
PALLIATIVE CARE
While the Committee did not engage in any direct oversight
activity on this topic during the 107th Congress, it continued
to monitor developments in this area.
THE HEALTHY START PROGRAM
Authorized by the Children's Health Act of 2000, Healthy
Start is designed to reduce the rate of infant mortality and
improve perinatal outcomes by providing grants to areas with a
high rate of infant mortality and low birth weight infants.
While the Committee did not engage in any direct oversight
activity on this topic during the 107th Congress, it continued
to monitor developments in this area.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEALTH CARE PRIVACY RULE
In 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
issued regulations, required by law, addressing the
confidentiality of individual identifiable health information
stored or transmitted electronically. As part of an ongoing
effort to ensure that health care privacy regulations are
workable and balance the need for privacy with efficient
operation of the health care system, the Subcommittee on Health
held a hearing regarding the privacy regulations on March 22,
2001. The purpose of this hearing was to focus on the benefits
and unintended consequences of the HHS regulations to implement
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act's
(HIPAA) medical record privacy provisions. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from representatives of the public and private
sector, including the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the American
Nurses Association, the Marshfield Clinic, the University of
Massachusetts Medical School, CVS Pharmacy, Georgetown
University, and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield.
In addition, Health Subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis and
Vice-Chairman Norwood sent a letter to the HHS Secretary on
March 6, 2002, encouraging the Secretary to issue a new
proposal to revise the HHS privacy regulations on certain
points. Another letter, sent on April 30, 2002, was signed by
Full Committee Chairman Tauzin, Health Subcommittee Chairman
Bilirakis, and Mssrs. Upton, Stearns, Greenwood, Burr, Norwood,
Shadegg, Bryant, and Buyer. This letter provided an extensive
set of comments on the Department's notice of proposed
rulemaking. Many of the recommendations of these Committee
Members were adopted in the final HHS regulation.
In addition, on May 23, 2001, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a hearing on the security of private
medical information. The hearing reviewed the Committee's
oversight of cyber security practices at HCFA, now known as the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and featured
testimony from CMS computer security officials and private
cyber experts who had examined the CMS Medicare computer
network. As a result of the hearing, CMS officials altered the
agency's network configuration to eliminate a significant
vulnerability uncovered by the Committee that could have
exposed private Medicare information to unauthorized users or
hackers, and pledged to take a series of additional actions to
address the Committee's other findings.
HHS PROGRAMS AFFECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
During the 107th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of programs of the Department of Health and Human
Services that affect children and families, as described in
more detail in the discussion of ``Implementation of the
Welfare Reform Act of 1996'' below.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WELFARE REFORM ACT OF 1996
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as the Welfare
Reform Act, imposed strict work requirements and eligibility
time limits on welfare recipients, and established strict child
support obligations on non-custodial parents. It also included
a mandatory appropriation of $50 million over five years for
abstinence-only sex education, and provided transitional
medical assistance to those who move off welfare to work.
The 1996 welfare reform law was due to be reauthorized
during the second half of the 107th Congress. As part of this
process, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing
on April 23, 2002. This hearing focused on two welfare reform
issues within the Committee's jurisdiction--abstinence
education and transitional medical assistance. Witnesses
included a title V abstinence education state block grant
recipient, a gynecologist who is directing the Medical
Institute for Sexual Health, a pediatrician who is the head of
the adolescent medicine department at Children's Hospital, a
senior fellow at the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the
Uninsured, and the director of health care issues for the
General Accounting Office (GAO).
This hearing contributed to the development of legislation
that the Committee considered on April 24, 2002. The Committee
considered two Committee Prints pertaining to welfare reform--
one extending the authorization of transitional medical
assistance for one year, and the other extending abstinence
education funding through fiscal year 2007. Both Committee
Prints were favorably reported by the Committee, and were later
introduced by Representative Upton as H.R. 4584 and H.R. 4585.
Provisions of H.R. 4584 and H.R. 4585, as ordered reported from
the Committee on April 24, 2002, were incorporated into H.R.
4737, the ``Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion
Act of 2002.'' On May 16, 2002, H.R. 4737 was considered by the
House and passed by a recorded vote of 229 yeas and 197 nays.
DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT AND PREVENTION
In the 105th and 106th Congresses, the Committee worked to
broaden the war on drug abuse by focusing on innovative
solutions to the area of drug treatment. During the 107th
Congress, the Committee reviewed several substance abuse
programs managed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration. Recent reports have raised concerns
about the effectiveness of drug abuse programs, especially
among adolescents seeking drug treatment. The Committee,
working in cooperation with the Committee on the Judiciary,
included a provision in the reauthorization of the Department
of Justice that requested that the President, in consultation
with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Secretary of Education, and other appropriate
Federal officers, review all Federal drug treatment,
prevention, education, and research programs and recommend to
Congress ways in which those programs could be streamlined. The
reauthorization bill, which also authorized the expansion of
current and ongoing interdisciplinary research and clinical
trials relating to drug abuse and addiction, was signed by the
President and became P.L. 107-752.
FALSE CLAIMS ACT ENFORCEMENT
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, 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 healthcare industry. In response to the
Committee's review, DOJ issued new guidance on fair and
appropriate use of the False Claims Act in this area. In the
107th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor DOJ's
application of the False Claims Act in order to evaluate the
impact of the new guidelines.
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports the
research of scientists in universities, medical schools,
hospitals, and research institutes throughout the country.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee held a hearing on June
6, 2002, to review NIH's management structure and research
grant programs, and to assess how to improve the overall
efficiency and accountability of the Institutes. Two NIH
Directors--the Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute, and the Acting Director of the National Institute
for Neurological Disorders and Stroke--presented testimony to
the Subcommittee about how their respective Institutes were
utilizing the additional Federal dollars appropriated over the
past five fiscal years.
PUBLIC EDUCATION ON HEPATITIS C
The Committee's past oversight revealed that the Surgeon
General and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had
failed to launch a promised nationwide public campaign to
educate persons infected with the deadly Hepatitis C virus
infection. In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to
monitor developments in this area, although it did not engage
in any direct oversight activity on this topic.
BIOENGINEERED FOODS
Bioengineered foods are crop plants created for human or
animal consumption using molecular biology techniques. These
foods are bioengineered in that their genetic code is modified
in the laboratory to enhance desired traits. In the 107th
Congress, the Committee worked with stakeholder groups and
government agencies to evaluate issues relating to mandatory
labeling of bioengineered foods and the possible prohibition on
Federal funds from being used to approve bioengineered fish for
human consumption. In addition, the Committee also worked to
secure inclusion in a new Federal agricultural law language
allowing all foods treated with a process producing pathogen
elimination at the same level as the pasteurization process to
be labeled as ``pasteurized.''
FDAMA/PDUFA IMPLEMENTATION
In 1997, Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA). Contained within that legislation
was a five-year reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act (PDUFA), which was originally passed in 1992. FDAMA
changed the FDA mission statement to ensure that FDA emphasizes
the timeliness of FDA's review of foods, drugs, devices and
cosmetics, and the Act allowed for third-party review of
certain medical devices if the quality of the review would not
be compromised.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee actively
considered the implementation of FDAMA and PDUFA through a
number of actions. First, on May 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Health conducted a hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of
FDAMA. Second, because the ``pediatric exclusivity'' provision
of FDAMA (providing incentives for drug manufacturers to
conduct testing of their drugs in pediatric populations) was
set to expire in 2001, the Committee undertook a review of this
aspect of the legislation. A reauthorization bill was
introduced, and then passed by the Subcommittee on Health, then
the full Committee. The bill then passed the House under
suspension of the rules. Following negotiations with the
Senate, this reauthorization, entitled ``The Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act,'' was passed by the House and
Senate and signed into law by the President on January 4, 2002.
Another aspect of FDAMA considered by the Committee was
comprehensive device reforms. In reviewing the reforms enacted
in FDAMA, the Committee determined that more needed to be done
to ensure that safe and effective medical devices were reviewed
and approved by FDA in a timely manner. As a result of this
consideration, reform legislation was introduced. This bill was
subsequently signed into law.
The Committee also reauthorized the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act (PDUFA), a law under which industry pays fees for
review of drug and biologics applications. Since passage of
this Act in 1992, the review times for drugs and biologics had
decreased dramatically. Because the authority to collect fees
expired in 2002, the Committee engaged in reauthorization
activity. First, on March 6, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health
conducted a hearing on PDUFA reauthorization. This
reauthorization subsequently was negotiated and then included
in the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness
and Response Act of 2002,'' which was ultimately signed into
law in June 2002.
IDENTIFICATION OF FDA-REGULATED ENTITIES
Two reports from January 2001 suggested that the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had failed in its responsibility to
identify entities subject to its regulation, and thus to ensure
compliance. In the 107th Congress, the Committee oversaw
efforts to ensure that FDA had better tools to identify the
entities it is required to regulate. After the events of
September 11, 2001, the Committee considered initiatives to
better protect both the food and drug supplies. This effort
ultimately resulted in certain legislative provisions being
included in the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,'' to enhance FDA's
ability to identify and inspect entities and shipments subject
to its regulations.
IMPORTED DRUGS
Over the last decade, there has been a surge in shipments
of drug products from overseas, both finished dosage forms and
raw materials. With brand name prescription drugs costs so
high, many Americans have come to rely on cheaper generic
alternatives. Nearly 80 percent of drugs in the U.S.
(especially generic drugs) have ingredients that have been
manufactured in other countries. This trend has implications
for the public health and the ability of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and efficacy of such
imported drugs. In the 106th Congress, the Committee examined
FDA's foreign drug inspections, the Mutual Recognition
Agreement (MRA) between the U.S. and the European Union on drug
inspections, and FDA's oversight of the importation of
potentially counterfeit bulk drugs.
As part of the Committee's oversight on this topic in the
107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on June 7, 2001, to examine
continuing concerns over imported pharmaceuticals, including
through Internet-based pharmacies--a subject of inquiry during
the 106th Congress as well. This hearing assessed four areas of
interest: (1) personal imports of controlled substances; (2)
overseas mail deliveries of prescription drugs; (3) counterfeit
bulk-drug imports; and (4) the global counterfeiting and
diversion threat in the pharmaceutical market. The purposes of
the hearing were to highlight the safety concerns with imported
prescription drugs, and to examine actions taken in response to
the Committee's previous oversight on this topic. The first
panel of witnesses featured parents of a young man who
apparently had died from an overdose or interaction involving
prescription drugs he ordered without a prescription from a
foreign-based Internet pharmacy. The second panel featured
governmental witnesses from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs
Service, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Virginia State Police. The
third panel featured expert witnesses from the University of
Texas College of Pharmacy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company;
Novartis Pharmaceuticals; GlaxoSmithKline; a consultant on
controlled drugs and chemical law, policy, administration and
enforcement; and an international trade lawyer who had closely
studied counterfeiting and diversion in the pharmaceutical
trade. Testimony during the hearing focused on the danger to
the public health from FDA's use of enforcement discretion that
resulted in personal imports of drugs of unknown origin into
the United States at the rate of two million per year and
increasing. While these imports entered primarily through the
mails and contract carriers of overnight parcels, there also
was extensive testimony regarding personal imports,
particularly of controlled substances over the Mexican border.
The FDA witness testified that the Department of Health and
Human Services was considering proposals to address this issue,
which may require Congressional action.
In this Congress, the Committee also conducted a number of
Member and staff briefings to further consider the risks and
benefits of allowing third parties to reimport into the United
States FDA-approved drugs. Along with these numerous briefings,
on July 25, 2002, the Subcommittee on Health conducted a
hearing entitled ``Examining Prescription Drug Reimportation: A
Review of a Proposal to Allow Third Parties to Reimport
Prescription Drugs.'' At this hearing, the Committee heard from
interested stakeholders who described the consequences of
legalizing third-party reimportation and the personal
importation of prescription drugs from foreign countries.
The Committee's oversight in this area was highlighted in
House floor debate of an Agriculture Appropriation amendment
that would have allowed for commercial re-importation of
prescription drugs from foreign countries. That amendment was
defeated.
THE SPREAD OF MAD COW DISEASE
In January 2001, the Committee initiated a review of the
adequacy of the measures instituted by the Federal government
to protect the United States from bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. The
Committee requested and received budgetary and programmatic
information and briefings from the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and reviewed the adequacy of the resources and efforts
devoted to ensuring compliance with FDA's guidance and rules to
help prevent the spread of BSE.
STUDIES OF DRUGS IN CHILDREN
In 1997, as part of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act (FDAMA), Congress enacted a new law that
provides marketing incentives to manufacturers who conduct
studies of drugs in children. This law, which provides six
months market exclusivity in return for conducting pediatric
studies, is commonly known as the ``pediatric exclusivity''
provision. The provision had a sunset date of January 1, 2002.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had reported to Congress
that the pediatric exclusivity provision was effective in
generating pediatric studies on many drugs and in providing
useful new information in product labeling. However, FDA also
noted that some categories of drugs and some age groups remain
inadequately studied, despite the new incentives.
As part of the Committee's oversight of this matter during
the 107th Congress, on May 3, 2001, the Subcommittee on Health
conducted a hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of FDAMA,
which in part considered the ``pediatric exclusivity''
provision of FDAMA. A reauthorization bill was introduced, and
then passed by the Committee. The bill then passed the House
under suspension of the rules. Following negotiations with the
Senate, this reauthorization, entitled ``The Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act,'' was passed by the House and
Senate and signed into law by the President on January 4, 2002.
HUMAN RESEARCH SUBJECTS IN CLINICAL TRIALS
During the last Congress, the Committee investigated the
adequacy of Federal oversight with respect to the protection of
human research subjects in gene transfer clinical trials. In
this Congress, the Committee convened multiple stakeholder
briefings, and then led negotiations, on this subject,
resulting in the introduction of legislation intended to
provide all Federal agencies, including FDA, with greater
authority to ensure the protection of human subjects involved
in clinical trials. Further, the legislation would offer a vast
array of new protections to human subjects involved in clinical
trials, irrespective of whether the research is funded
Federally or privately. Relatedly, the Committee also conducted
oversight of the FDA Office of Research Integrity.
FOOD SAFETY
The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) directed the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reassess the safe
level of all pesticide residues allowable on food crops using
updated risk assessment standards. The law also required EPA to
create an endocrine disruptor screening program. Enacted in
1996, FQPA was intended to improve the overall safety of both
raw and processed food products by requiring the reassessment
of all pesticide tolerances, based on an analysis of the best
available scientific data by both EPA and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA).
As part of the Committee's continuing oversight of the
FQPA, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous materials
held a field hearing in Bowling Green, Ohio, on March 25, 2002.
The hearing featured the testimony of senior officials from
both EPA and USDA, along with witnesses from groups
representing farmers, environmentalists, and other
stakeholders. The testimony provided at the hearing was used to
assist the Committee's efforts to determine whether the FQPA is
being properly implemented in an open and transparent manner,
using sound science, with proper consultation with the public
and affected stakeholders. Committee staff also received
briefings from various agency and industry officials with
respect to FQPA matters during the 107th Congress.
In addition, as part of the Committee's broader examination
of terrorist threats during the 107th Congress, the Committee
sought information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
concerning expert assessments of the various threats to the
safety and security of the nation's food supply posed by
terrorists. The Committee also obtained information about FDA
food inspection resources and efforts, particularly at ports of
entry into the United States. The Committee's oversight in this
area contributed to the passage of enhanced food safety
protections in the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002,'' which is more fully
described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of
the Committee's Activity Report for the 107th Congress.
FDA CYBER SECURITY
In July 1999, the Committee initiated a review of cyber
security at FDA. In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued
its evaluation of FDA's computer security programs and reviewed
the Agency's ongoing efforts to improve its cyber-security
protections.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Congress created the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) in 1934 for the express purpose of regulating interstate
and foreign communication via wire and radio. In 1996, Congress
passed the most significant alteration of existing
telecommunications law by enacting the Telecommunications Act
of 1996. However, while the Telecommunications Act moved the
telecommunications industry toward greater deregulation, it did
little to alter the structure and functions of the FCC.
Accordingly, the Commission has been implementing the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 with a pre-1996 mind-set.
As part of the Committee's oversight of the general
management and operations of the FCC, on March 29, 2001, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet conducted a
hearing at which FCC Chairman Michael Powell presented his plan
for the structural reform of the Commission. The Subcommittee
also held a number of hearings on specific FCC proceedings and
regulations, and Committee staff closely monitored the FCC's
continuing implementation of the Telecommunications Act
deregulation mandates. Furthermore, 52 Members of the Committee
objected to the FCC's intent to auction frequencies in the so-
called 700 MHz band, which is heavily encumbered by broadcasts
from television stations. When the FCC announced that it would
conduct the auction despite the Committee's objection, the
Committee passed legislation to prohibit the FCC from
conducting the auction. The legislation, the Auction Reform Act
of 2002, was signed into law on June 19, 2002. In addition to
prohibiting the FCC from conducting the 700 MHz auction in the
timeframe envisioned by the Commission, the legislation
fundamentally changed the manner in which auctions are
conducted by the FCC by removing all statutory deadlines
regarding when auctions must occur.
THE NETWORKS' ELECTION NIGHT COVERAGE
Shortly after the November 2000 Presidential election, the
Committee began a critical review of the media's coverage of
Election Night 2000, concerned about a series of incorrect
projections made by the major television and cable networks
during the evening and potential bias in polling and reporting
practices. The Committee sent information requests to CBS, NBC,
ABC, Fox, CNN, the Associated Press (AP), and the Voter News
Service (VNS)--the exit polling and vote-gathering conglomerate
owned by all the major networks and the AP--requesting
documentation on their polling and reporting systems, including
how and why they ``called'' certain states for a Presidential
candidate and the role that exit polls and incorrect and
incomplete VNS data played in their projections. Committee
staff met with representatives of the networks and VNS to
discuss the problems and their plans to avoid similar ones in
the future.
On February 14, 2001, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing on the problems that arose on
election night in November 2000. Witnesses at the hearing
included the heads of all the major networks, as well as top
officials from the AP and VNS. Also testifying at the hearing
were several experts who performed independent reviews of the
problems that occurred on election night. At the hearing, the
networks made a variety of pledges to the Committee regarding
how they intended to report on future elections, including
promises not to call any state for a particular candidate until
all of the polls within that state were closed, to use a
secondary source of voting and polling data to serve as a check
on VNS, and to either reform VNS' operations or refrain from
using its data. Recently, Committee majority staff contacted
the networks prior to the November 2002 elections to discuss
the status of these corrective actions.
ICANN
Two year ago, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN), which governs the management and
registration of ``generic top-level domain'' names (gTLDs) such
as .com or .gov., approved seven new Internet suffixes. The
application and selection process for the new gTLDs raised a
controversy, as some applicants argued that the gTLD selection
process was unfair. In the 107th Congress, the Committee
examined whether the selection process was open, fair, and
competitive.
Specifically, on February 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
focused on the process by which the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), approved the seven new top
level domain (TLD) names (i.e., ``.aero'', ``.coop'',
``.info'', ``.museum'', ``.name'', ``.pro.'', and ``.biz''),
and examined whether ICANN's selection process adequately
promoted competition in the TLD name business. Testimony was
received from ICANN, two companies whose TLD applications were
accepted by ICANN, two companies whose TLD applications were
not accepted by ICANN, one company which chose not to apply at
all because it considered ICANN's application process to be
flawed, and a law professor who specializes in Internet
governance. In addition, the Committee sent to Department of
Commerce Secretary Evans two letters (March 13, 2002, and June
20, 2002) expressing the Committee's displeasure with the lack
of transparency and accountability in the ICANN reform process,
and to communicate the Committee's concerns relating to the
fairness in selecting new generic top-level domains.
DIGITAL TELEVISION
In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress directed that
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorize
broadcasters to convert from analog to digital signals by 2006,
and possibly beyond 2006 (in markets where a sufficient number
of households cannot access a digital television signal). While
many digital stations already are in operation in major
metropolitan areas, the overall conversion to digital
television has been criticized as being slow, unorganized and
unrealistic. In January 200l, the FCC issued two decisions in
an effort to resolve issues critical to the rapid conversion to
digital television: the Report and Order in its first periodic
review of the digital television transition, and the Report and
Order in the Digital Must Carry proceeding.
On March 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held a hearing intended to explore why the
television industry's transition from analog to digital was
``off-track'' and how to put it back on track. The hearing
examined the recent policy decisions made by the FCC and
reviewed a number of issues still outstanding. Subsequently,
Chairman Tauzin, along with other Subcommittee Members, hosted
a series of six roundtable discussions on the transition, which
included participants from the relevant private industries as
well as the FCC. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet held a hearing September 25, 2002, to discuss a
proposed staff discussion draft addressing the outstanding
issues relating to the transition to digital television.
AVAILABILITY OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
The increase in use of the Internet and electronic commerce
has led to an increase in the demand for faster networks and
faster delivery of content. Today, consumers and businesses are
frustrated by the slow speeds for connecting to and accessing
information from the Internet. In addition, the creation of new
advanced Internet applications--such as digital music and
videos--creates a further demand for faster Internet
connections. While new technologies and faster networks are
being developed and deployed in some parts of the country and
with some success, barriers exist that prevent these
technologies from being available to all consumers.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee continued to examine
all barriers--regulatory, market-based, and statutory in
nature--to determine what factors are preventing the full
deployment of broadband technologies to the American people. To
ensure that all broadband service providers have the maximum
incentive to invest in broadband equipment and technology, the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee
introduced H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband
Deployment Act of 2001. The Committee conducted a hearing and
favorably reported the bill in April 2001. The House of
Representatives passed H.R. 1542 on February 27, 2002.
TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
As the technology industry continues to develop new and
innovative products and services, such products and services
can be effectively used in the education of our students, if
they are implemented into the academic curriculum properly. The
Federal government currently runs a number of programs targeted
at improving the use of technology in classrooms and by
America's youth. These programs, however, often require
burdensome paperwork requirements that can delay or prevent
funding from reaching the intended parties. Further, these
programs often target specific technologies or can be used for
specific purposes only, which can be limiting and frustrating
to school administrators and teachers.
As part of the Committee's oversight on this issue in the
107th Congress, on March 8, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing focused on
Federal, state and local government and private sector
investments in programs that promote the use of technology to
improve education, and examined what the programs are, how the
programs work, who benefits from the programs, and what levels
of funding are associated with such programs.
EFFICIENT USE OF SPECTRUM AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
Management of spectrum within the United States is shared
between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (governing
private sector use of the spectrum) and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
(governing governmental use of the spectrum). Virtually all of
the usable spectrum in this country already has been allocated
for a particular purpose. The recent popularity and growth of
the wireless telecommunications industry has increased demand
for the allocation and assignment of additional spectrum in
order to provide new services and public safety, such as third
generation (``3G'') wireless services. The tension created by
the current shortfall has a significant impact on the U.S.
economy and the ability of domestic wireless providers to
compete with wireless companies in other nations that are
rushing to offer new wireless services, as well as the ability
of the public safety community to perform its duties
efficiently. The FCC currently is reviewing the needs of the
public safety community in numerous proceedings.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee conducted vigorous
oversight of the spectrum management operations of the FCC and
NTIA. Based in part on this oversight, the Committee and the
Congress passed H.R. 4560 (P.L. 107-195), which removed all
statutory deadlines regarding when spectrum auctions must be
conducted. Because of the bill's enactment, auctions will be
conducted according to sound spectrum management policy, rather
than according to budgetary considerations. In addition, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet conducted a
hearing on June 5, 2002 on the FCC's progress with respect to
the allocation and assignment of additional spectrum for the
deployment of third-generation wireless services. Subsequently,
the Bush Administration and the FCC announced the allocation
and assignment of additional spectrum for such purposes. The
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet also
conducted a hearing on the FCC's ultra-wideband (UWB)
proceeding. The hearing also explored whether the statutory
delineation between the spectrum management responsibilities of
the FCC and NTIA had been breached during the UWB proceeding.
BROADCAST DEREGULATION
The broadcasters have traditionally been heavily regulated
by the FCC due to the scarcity of spectrum available in the
U.S. Both the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 mandated that the FCC liberalize its
numerous broadcast ownership rules. While the FCC has made some
progress in reducing broadcast regulations, there still are at
least two major areas that remain heavily regulated by FCC
rules: the national ownership cap and the newspaper/broadcast
station cross-ownership restriction. The national ownership
cap, which sets a maximum percentage of homes that a national
network may reach (35%), is a key point of controversy between
the networks and their affiliates. The cap was set by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, but authority was given to the
FCC to relax the cap on a going forward basis. In 1975, the FCC
adopted a regulation prohibiting the grant of a broadcast
license to anyone who owns a newspaper in the same market. The
newspaper publishing companies note that almost every other
broadcast ownership regulation has been updated in the past
several years, except for the newspaper ownership prohibition.
However, supporters of the restriction point to the
consolidation of news sources available within a market as the
reason to keep this regulation in place. In 2001, the FCC began
rulemaking proceedings on two of its broadcast ownership rules
- the Broadcast-Newspaper Cross-Ownership Rule and the Local
Radio Ownership Rule. Then in September of 2002, the Commission
issued a Biennial Review Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM)
in which it sought comment on its four other broadcast
ownership rules: the Television-Radio Cross-Ownership Rule; the
Dual Network Rule; the Local Television Ownership Rule; and the
National Television Ownership Rule. The September NPRM
consolidated all three proceedings into a single Biennial
Review for all broadcast ownership rules.
During the 107th Congress, the Committee closely monitored
the FCC's progress on the Biennial Review, which is expected to
be completed by the Spring of 2003. Chairman Tauzin and various
members of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet have sent letters to the FCC urging swift action on
various media ownership rules on the following dates: April
2001; Sept 2001; June 4, 2002; and June 26, 2002. Moreover, on
February 22, 2002, Chairman Tauzin and Rep. Bonilla sent a
letter to the FCC expressing concern over its application of a
``flagging'' process to broadcast radio ownership transfer
applications, in apparent violation of the ownership limits set
forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
COPYRIGHT RELATIONSHIP TO E-COMMERCE
The exponential growth of the Internet raises questions
about the protection of intellectual property that never
existed in an analog world. Specifically, the protection of
high quality content played a substantial part of the
Committee's examination of the transition to digital
television. On March 15, 2002, the Subcommittee held a hearing
on the digital television transition that focused greatly on
content protection issues in the digital age. Subsequently,
Chairman Tauzin, along with other Members of the Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and the Internet, hosted a series of six
roundtable discussions on the transition, which included
participants from the relevant private industries as well as
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Content protection
in the digital age comprised a paramount part of these
discussions. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet held a hearing on April 25, 2002, entitled ``Ensuring
Content Protection in the Digital Age,'' in order to further
address the issue. Additionally, the topic was a focal point in
a Subcommittee hearing held on Septmber 25, 2002, to discuss a
proposed staff discussion draft on the transition to digital
television.
The Committee also worked throughout the 107th Congress on
the issue of database protection. Since a 1990 Supreme Court
decision was handed down, pure facts comprised in databases
have not been afforded copyright protection. A series of public
meetings were hosted by the Committee, in conjunction with
other relevant House committees, throughout the 107th Congress.
These 11 months of public meetings culminated in a staff
discussion draft, which served as the basis for negotiations
between committees.
THE 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 continued
its oversight and authorization roles relating to CPB
throughout the 107th Congress. In October 2001, the Committee
sent a letter to the FCC regarding its Order on the use of
ancillary and supplemental digital spectrum for public
broadcasters. Committee staff met with representatives of CPB
and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) to examine how the
Community Service grant program intersected with the dues that
public television stations are required to pay to receive a
national programming service. These meetings helped to spur a
change in the formulation utilized by both organizations. The
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet also held a
general hearing about public broadcasting on July 10, 2002, and
the Committee sent a letter to PBS in late July 2002, inquiring
about a press report concerning controversial content proposed
for a popular children's program.
CYBER CRIME/CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
American and multinational businesses are becoming more
reliant on the infrastructure of the Internet and other
electronic communications networks to conduct valuable
transactions and to communicate. A well placed ``attack'' on
this infrastructure could have a devastating impact on the
American public and could paralyze vital functions. In
addition, smaller attacks, such as hacking into a company's
network, could be very costly and disruptive as well. During
the 107th Congress, the Committee examined the existing and
potential threats to this existing infrastructure, whether law
enforcement is sufficiently combating existing and potential
threats to the appropriate networks, whether the industry is
prepared to handle threats to the infrastructure, whether the
current agencies of the Federal government are properly
coordinating with one another, and whether current law needs to
be altered to deal with these issues.
The Committee's focus on cyber crime and protecting the
country's critical infrastructure expanded after the events of
September 11, 2001. Very soon after those attacks, the
Committee held a roundtable discussion with representatives
from the telecommunications and high technology industries to
discuss not only how to protect the infrastructure within their
own industries, but how their infrastructure affects the
physical security of other major industries around the country.
Members of the Committee also traveled to New York City soon
after the September 11th attacks to view how the
telecommunications infrastructure was affected and rebuilt in
order to facilitate business operations in New York City and
around the world, both during and after the crisis.
In addition, on November 15, 2001, the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection held a hearing,
entitled ``Cyber Security: Private-Sector Efforts Addressing
Cyber Threats.'' The hearing examined how security is handled
by the private sector, and how comfortable consumers and
businesses feel with how information is protected based on the
levels of security utilized by American industries.
WIRELESS PRIVACY/WIRELESS WIRETAPPING
Although the Committee took no direct oversight action on
this topic during the 107th Congress, the Committee monitored
developments in the area of wireless privacy and security, and
Committee staff received briefings from industry
representatives on this topic.
VIOLENT CONTENT IN THE MEDIA
Over the past few decades, American media outlets have
increased the amount of violent content, including gratuitous
violence, within the overall programming offered to consumers.
Several studies detailing the effects of media violence on
American society, especially on children, have concluded that
there may be a link between the violent nature of media content
and violent behavior.
In the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the practices
and policies of various media sources, including television,
motion pictures, audio recordings, video games, radio, and the
Internet, to evaluate differing approaches to handling violent
content. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet held a hearing on July 20, 2001, entitled ``Media
Violence: An Examination of the Entertainment Industry's
Efforts to Curb Children's Exposure to Violent Content.'' The
hearing focused on the findings of a series of reports prepared
by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on the subject. Witnesses
included representatives from the FTC, the motion picture,
video game, and recording industries, a major retail chain, and
a parents' advocacy group. In conjunction with the Committee's
review, Committee staff also received briefings from the FTC
upon the release of each version of its reports on the topic.
The Subcommittee held a follow-up hearing on October 1,
2002, to examine recording industry practices for labeling and
marketing violent/explicit content to minors, because of the
industry's poor marks from the FTC and its different approach
to the problem as compared to its counterparts in the motion
picture and video games industries. Witnesses included
representatives from the FTC, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the Recording Industry Association of America, the
Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, and two music retailer
representatives. Eight members of the Committee sent a follow-
up letter to the Recording Industry Association of America to
inquire whether more of its members would adopt the more
stringent labeling system adopted by one of its members.
FCC CYBER SECURITY
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is privy to
sensitive and proprietary information provided by the
telecommunications industry. Further, the Commission generates
vast amounts of internal documents and work product of a
sensitive, non-public nature. Protection of the Commission's
computer network is thus important to ensure that non-public
information is not shared with unintended parties. In the 107th
Congress, the Committee examined what steps the Commission
takes to protect the integrity and security of its network
systems and confidential data, as part of the Committee's
overall review of Federal agency computer security policies and
practices.
THE STATE OF THE HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY
Although the Committee took no direct oversight action on
this topic, the Committee monitored developments in this area
during the 107th Congress, particularly as part of the
Committee's review of corporate governance and accounting
issues involving the telecommunications industry.
APPENDIX I
Legislative Activities
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Summary of Committee Activities
Total Bills and Resolutions Referred to Committee................ 1131
Public Laws...................................................... 41
Bills and Resolutions Reported to the House...................... 52
Hearings Held:
Days of Hearings............................................. 162
Full Committee........................................... 4
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 32
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................... 25
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...... 8
Subcommittee on Health................................... 33
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...... 20
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 39
Hours of Sitting.............................................537:31
Full Committee........................................... 23:47
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 81:42
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................... 91:52
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...... 24:42
Subcommittee on Health...................................117:09
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...... 57:16
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.............141:03
Legislative Markups:
Days of Markups.............................................. 45
Full Committee........................................... 25
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 4
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................... 8
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...... 1
Subcommittee on Health................................... 4
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...... 3
Hours of Sitting............................................. 97:33
Full Committee........................................... 64:54
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 2:10
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................... 17:31
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...... 0:12
Subcommittee on Health................................... 6:42
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...... 6:04
Business Meetings:
Days of Meetings............................................. 2
Full Committee........................................... 1
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 1
Hours of Sitting............................................. 0:27
Full Committee........................................... 0:16
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 0:11
Executive Sessions:
Days of Meetings............................................. 4
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 4
Hours of Sitting............................................. 8:16
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations............. 8:16
APPENDIX II
This list includes: (1) legislation on which the Committee
on Energy and Commerce acted directly; (2) 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: 41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Public Law Number Approved Bill Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
107-9 5/24/2001 S. 700 Animal Disease
Risk Assessment,
Prevention and
Control Act of
2001
107-56 10/26/2001 H.R. Uniting and
3162 Strengthening
America by
Providing
Appropriate Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism (USA
PATRIOT ACT) Act
of 2001
107-82 12/14/2001 H.R. To extend the
2291 authorization of
the Drug-Free
Communities
Support Program
for an additional
5 years, to
authorize a
National
Community
Antidrug
Coalition
Institute, and
for other
purposes.
107-84 12/18/2001 H.R. MD-CARE Act
717
107-105 11/16/2001 H.R. Administrative
3323 Simplification
Compliance Act
107-107 12/28/2001 S. National Defense
1438 Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2002
107-109 1/4/2002 S. Best
1789 Pharmaceuticals
for Children Act
107-118 1/11/2002 H.R. Small Business
2869 Liability Relief
and Brownfields
Revitalization
Act
107-121 1/15/2002 S. Native American
1741 Breast and
Cervical Cancer
Treatment
Technical
Amendment Act of
2001
107-155 3/27/2002 H.R. Bipartisan
2356 Campaign Reform
Act of 2002
107-171 5/13/2002 H.R. Farm Security and
2646 Rural Investment
Act of 2002
107-172 5/14/2002 S. Hematological
1094 Cancer Research
Investment and
Education Act of
2002
107-174 5/15/2002 H.R. Notification and
169 Federal Employee
Antidiscriminatio
n and Retaliation
Act of 2002
107-188 6/12/2002 H.R. Public Health
3448 Security and
Bioterrorism
Preparedness and
Response Act of
2002
107-195 6/19/2002 H.R. Auction Reform Act
4560 of 2002
107-200 7/23/2002 H. J. Approving the site
Res. at Yucca
87 Mountain, Nevada,
for the
development of a
repository for
the disposal of
high-level
radioactive waste
and spent nuclear
fuel, pursuant to
the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of
1982.
107-204 7/23/2002 H.R. Sarbanes-Oxley Act
3763 of 2002
107-205 8/1/2002 H.R. Nurse Reinvestment
3487 Act
107-210 8/6/2002 H.R. Trade Act of 2002
3009
107-220 8/21/2002 H.R. To amend the
24417 Public Health
Service Act to
redesignate a
facility as the
National Hansen's
Disease Programs
Center, and for
other purposes.
107-222 8/21/2002 H.R. To amend title X
3343 of the Energy
Policy Act of
1992, and for
other purposes.
107-230 10/01/2002 H.R. To provide a
3880 temporary waiver
from certain
transportation
conformity
requirements and
metropolitan
transportation
planning
requirements
under the Clean
Air Act and under
other laws for
certain areas in
New York where
the planning
offices and
resources have
been destroyed by
acts of
terrorism, and
for other
purposes.
107-233 10/1/2002 S. A bill to amend
2810 the
Communications
Satellite Act of
1962 to extend
the deadline for
the INTELSAT
initial public
offering.
107-250 10/26/2002 H.R. Medical Device
5651 User Fee and
Modernization Act
of 2002
107-251 10/26/2002 S. Health Care Safety
1533 Net Amendments of
2002
107-260 10/29/2002 S. Benign Brain Tumor
2558 Cancer Registries
Amendment Act
107-273 11/2/2002 H.R. 21st Century
2215 Department of
Justice
Appropriations
Authorization Act
107-280 11/6/2002 H.R. Rare Diseases Act
4013 of 2002
107-281 11/6/2002 H.R. Rare Diseases
4014 Orphan Product
Development Act
of 2002
107-296 11/25/2002 H.R. Homeland Security
5005 Act of 2002
107-298 11/26/2002 H.R. Real Interstate
2546 Driver Equity Act
of 2002
107-313 12/2/2002 H.R. Mental Health
5716 Parity
Reauthorization
Act of 2002
107-314 12/2/2002 H.R. Bob Stump National
4546 Defense
Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2003
107-317 12/4/2002 H.R. Dot Kids
3833 Implementation
and Efficiency
Act of 2002
107-318 12/4/2002 H.R. Anton's Law
5504
107-319 12/4/2002 H.R. To amend the
727 Consumer Product
Safety Act to
provide that low-
speed electric
bicycles are
consumer products
subject to such
Act.
107-322 12/4/2002 S. A bill to extend
1010 the deadline for
commencement of
construction of a
hydroelectric
project in the
State of North
Carolina.
107-345 12/17/2002 H.R. To amend title 10,
2187 United States
Code, to make
receipts
collected from
mineral leasing
activities on
certain naval oil
shale reserves
available to
cover
environmental
restoration,
waste management,
and environmental
compliance costs
incurred by the
United States
with respect to
the reserves.
107-355 12/17/2002 H.R. Pipeline
3609 Infrastructure
Protection To
Enhance Security
and Safety Act
107-360 12/17/2002 H.R. To amend the
5738 Public Health
Service Act with
respect to
special diabetes
programs for Type
I diabetes and
Indians.
107-376 12/17/2002 H.R. To extend the
5436 deadline for
commencement of
construction of a
hydroelectric
project in the
State of Oregon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix III
part a
Printed Hearings of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing
Serial No. Hearing Title Date(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
107-1 Medicare Reform: February
Providing Prescription 15, 2001
Drug Coverage for
Seniors (Subcommittee on
Health)
107-2 National Energy Policy: March 14,
Coal (Subcommittee on 2001
Energy and Air Quality)
107-3 The Airline Mergers and March 21,
Their Effect on American 2001
Consumers (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-4 Is ICANN's New Generation February 8,
of Internet Domain Name 2001
Selection Process
Thwarting Competition?
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-5 Issues Raised by Human March 28,
Cloning Research 2001
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-6 Electricity Markets: March 20,
California (Subcommittee 2001
on Energy and Air March 22,
Quality) 2001
107-7 Electricity Markets: February
Lessons Learned from 15, 2001
California (Subcommittee
on Energy and Air
Quality)
107-8 Congressional March 6,
Perspectives on 2001
Electricity Markets in
California and the West
and National Energy
Policy (Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality)
107-9 A Smarter Partnership for March 15,
American Families: 2001
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-10 National Energy Policy: March 27,
Nuclear Energy 2001
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-11 National Energy Policy February
(Subcommittee on Energy 28, 2001
and Air Quality)
107-12 National Energy Policy: March 30,
Crude Oil and Refined 2001
Petroleum Products
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-13 Protecting America's April 5,
Critical Infrastructure: 2001
How Secure Are
Government Computer
Systems? (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations)
107-14 Consumer Perspectives on May 15,
Energy Policy 2001
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-15 Assessing HIPAA: How March 22,
Federal Medical Record 2001
Privacy Regulations Can
Be Improved
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-16 Privacy in the Commercial March 1,
World (Subcommittee on 2001
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-17 A Smarter Partnership: March 7,
Removing Barriers to 2001
Brownfields Cleanups
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-18 Technology and Education: March 8,
A Review of Federal, 2001
State, and Private
Sector Programs
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-19 The EU Data Protection March 8,
Directive: Implications 2001
for the U.S. Privacy
Debate (Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-20 Digital Television: A March 15,
Private Sector 2001
Perspective on the
Transition (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications
and the Internet)
107-21 FCC Chairman Michael K. March 29,
Powell: Agenda and Plans 2001
for Reform of the FCC
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-22 An Examination of April 3,
Existing Federal 2001
Statutes Addressing
Information Privacy
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-23 Patients First: A 21st March 1,
Century Promise to 2001
Ensure Quality and April 4,
Affordable Health 2001
Coverage (Subcommittee May 10,
on Health and the 2001
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-24 The Internet Freedom and April 25,
Broadband Deployment Act 2001
of 2001 (Full Committee)
107-25 Election Night 2000 February
Coverage by the Networks 14, 2001
(Full Committee)
107-26 The Electricity Emergency May 1,
Act of 2001 2001,
(Subcommittee on Energy May 3,
and Air Quality) 2001
107-27 Increase Penalties for May 17,
Common Carrier 2001
Violations of the
Communications Act of
1934 (Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-28 Medicare Reform: May 16,
Providing Prescription 2001
Drug Coverage for
Seniors (Subcommittee on
Health)
107-29 How Secure is Private May 23,
Medical Information? 2001
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-30 Continuing Concerns Over June 7,
Imported Pharmaceuticals 2001
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-31 Ensuring Compatibility June 14,
with Enhanced 911 2001
Emergency Calling
Systems: A Progress
Report (Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-32 Advancing the Health of June 27,
the American People: 2001
Addressing Various
Public Health Needs
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-33 E-Rate and Filtering: A April 4,
Review of the Children's 2001
Internet Protection Act
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-34 Recent Developments Which June 13,
May Impact Consumer 2001
Access to, and Demand
for Pharmaceuticals
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-35 Opinion Surveys: What May 8, 2001
Consumers Have to Say
About Information
Privacy (Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-36 Impediments to Digital May 22,
Trade (Subcommittee on 2001
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-37 On-Line Fraud and Crime: May 23,
Are Consumers Safe? 2001
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-38 Information Privacy: June 21,
Industry Best Practices 2001
and Technological
Solutions (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-39 Has Medicare+Choice May 31,
Reduced Variation in the 2001
Premiums and Benefits
Offered by Participating
Health Plans? A Review
of Medicare+Choice Plan
Payment Methodology
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-40 Medicare Reform: June 14,
Modernizing Medicare and 2001
Merging Parts A and B
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-41 The Human Cloning June 20,
Prohibition Act of 2001 2001
and the Cloning
Prohibition Act of 2001
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-42 Campaign Finance Reform: June 20,
Proposals Impacting 2001
Broadcasters, Cable
Operators and Satellite
Providers (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications
and the Internet)
107-43 Brownfields Legislation: June 28,
``The Brownfields 2001
Revitalization and
Environmental
Restoration Act of
2001,'' and ``Gillmor
Discussion Draft,'' and
``Democratic Discussion
Draft'' (Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-44 Priorities of the Dept of April 26,
HHS as Reflected in the 2001
FY 2001 Budget
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-45 Ford Motor Company's June 19,
Recall of Certain 2001
Firestone Tires
(Subcommittees on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection and
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-46 The Potential for July 11,
Discrimination in Health 2001
Insurance Based on
Predictive Genetic Tests
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-47 National Energy Policy June 13,
Report of the National 2001
Energy Policy
Development Group
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-48 Current Issues Before the July 31,
Financial Standards 2001
Accounting Board
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-49 ``How do Businesses Use July 26,
Customer Information: Is 2001
the Customer's Privacy
Protected?''
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-50 National Energy Policy: June 22,
Conservation and Energy 2001
Efficiency (Subcommittee
on Energy and Air
Quality)
107-51 Evaluating the May 3, 2001
Effectiveness of the FDA
Modernization Act
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-52 Patients First: A 21st June 28,
Century Promise to 2001
Ensure Quality and
Affordable Health Care
Coverage (Subcommittee
on Health and
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-53 Modernizing Medicare: July 26,
(Subcommittee on Health) 2001
107-54 Oxycontin: Its Use and August 28,
Abuse (Subcommittee on 2001
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-55 Hydroelectric Relicensing June 27,
and Nuclear Energy 2001
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-56 How Secure Is Sensitive August 3,
Commerce Dept. Data and 2001
Operations? A Review of
the Dept's. Computer
Security Policies and
Practices (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations)
107-57 Authorizing Safety Net August 1,
Public Health Programs 2001
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-58 U.S. Deployment of Third July 24,
Generation Wireless 2001
Services: When Will It
Happen and Where Will It
Happen? (Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-59 Drinking Water Needs and March 28,
Infrastructure 2001
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-60 An Examination of the July 20,
Entertainment Industry's 2001
Efforts to Curb
Children's Exposure to
Violent Content
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-61 Perspectives on August 1,
Interstate and 2001
International Shipment
of Municipal Solid Waste
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-62 National Electricity July 27,
Policy: Barriers to 2001
Competitive Generation
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-63 Dot Kids Name Act of 2001 November 1,
(Subcommittee on 2001
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-64 Electric Transmission October 10,
Policy: Regional 2001
Transmission
Organizations, Open
Access, and Federal
Jurisdiction
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-65 Medicare Drug September
Reimbursements: A Broken 21, 2001
System for Patients and
Taxpayers (Subcommittee
on Health and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-66 The State of the U.S. October 17,
Tourism Industry 2001
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-67 Charitable Contributions November 6,
for September 11: 2001
Protecting Against
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-68 Challenges Facing the November 7,
Federal Trade Commission 2001
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-69 Reauthorization of the September
Price-Anderson Act 6, 2001
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-70 A Review of Federal October 10,
Bioterrorism 2001
Preparedness Programs
From a Public Health
Perspective
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-71 A Review of Federal November 1,
Bioterrorism 2001
Preparedness Programs:
Building an Early
Warning Public Health
Surveillance System
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-72 Bioterrorism and November
Proposals to Combat 15, 2001
Bioterrorism (Full
Committee)
107-73 Issues Concerning the Use November 1,
of MTBE in Reformulated 2001
Gasoline (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations)
107-74 Cyber Security: Private- November
Sector Efforts 15, 2001
Addressing Cyber Threats
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-75 Raising Health Awareness November
Through Examining Brain 15, 2001
Tumor Cancer, Alpha One,
and Breast Implant
Issues (Subcommittee on
Health)
107-76 National Electricity September
Policy: Federal 20, 2001
Government Perspectives
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-77 The Status of Competition December 4,
in the Multi-Channel 2001
Video Programming
Distribution Marketplace
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-78 The Settlement Between December
the U.S. Government and 11, 2001
Nextwave Telecom Inc. to
Resolve Disputed
Spectrum Licenses
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-79 Electronic Communication December
Networks in the Wake of 19, 2001
September 11
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-80 Destruction of Enron- January 24,
Related Documents by 2002
Andersen Personnel
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-81 The Electric Supply and December
Transmission Act of 2001 12, 2001
(Subcommittee on Energy December
and Air Quality) 13, 2001
107-82 The Effect of the February
Bankruptcy of Enron on 13, 2002
the Functioning of
Energy Markets
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-83 Lessons Learned from February 6,
Enron's Collapse: 2002
Auditing the Accounting
Industry (Full
Committee)
107-84 Are Current Financial February
Accounting Standards 14, 2002
Protecting Investors?
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-85 Challenges Facing Amateur February
Athletics (Subcommittee 13, 2002
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-86 The Financial Collapse of February 5,
Enron--Part 1 2002
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-87 Reauthorization of the March 19,
Natural Gas Pipeline 2002
Safety Act and the
Hazardous Liquid
Pipeline Safety Act
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-88 The Financial Collapse of February 7,
Enron--Part 2 2002
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-89 The Financial Collapse of February
Enron--Part 3 14, 2002
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-90 The Financial Collapse of March 14,
Enron--Part 4 2002
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-91 Medicare Payment Policy: February
Ensuring Stability and 14, 2002
Access Through Physician
Payments (Subcommittee
on Health)
107-92 The Implementation of the February
TREAD Act: One Year 28, 2002
Later (Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-93 Reauthorization of the March 6,
PDUFA (Subcommittee on 2002
Health)
107-94 The Protection of Lawful April 18,
Commerce in Arms Act 2002
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-95 Ensuring Content April 25,
Protection in the 2002
Digital Age
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-96 Oversight and Management May 1, 2002
of the Government
Purchase Card Program:
Reviewing Its Weaknesses
and Identifying
Solutions (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations)
107-97 The Status of March 25,
Implementation of the 2002
Food Quality Protection
Act of 1996
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-98 The Uninsured and February
Affordable Health Care 28, 2002
Coverage (Subcommittee
on Health)
107-99 A Review of the April 18,
President's 2002
Recommendation to
Develop a Nuclear Waste
Repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-100 The 2003 Budget: A Review March 13,
of the HHS Health Care 2002
Priorities (Subcommittee
on Health)
107-101 Creating a Medicare April 17,
Prescription Drug 2002
Benefit: Assessing
Efforts to Help
America's Low-income
Seniors
107-102 Chatting On-Line: A May 13,
Dangerous Proposition 2002
for Children
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-103 The American Travel May 23,
Promotion Act 2002
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-104 Welfare Reform: A Review April 23,
of Abstinence Education 2002
and Transitional Medical
Assistance (Subcommittee
on Health)
107-105 Medicare Modernization: March 20,
Examining FEHBP as a 2002
Model for Seniors
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-106 Accomplishments of the May 1, 2002
Clean Air Act
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-107 Drinking Water Needs and April 11,
Infrastructure 2002
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-108 MTBE Contamination in May 21,
Groundwater: Identifying 2002
and Addressing the
Problem (Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-109 The Financial Accounting June 26,
Standards Board Act 2002
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-110 Assessing America's May 23,
Health Risks: 2002
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-111 DoE's FreedomCAR: June 6,
Hurdles, Benchmarks for 2002
Progress, and Role in
Energy Policy
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-112 Reducing Medical Errors: May 8, 2002
A Review of Innovative
Strategies to Improve
Patient Safety
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-113 Creating the Department June 25,
of Homeland Security 2002
(Subcommittee on July 9,
Oversight and 2002
Investigations)
107-114 FCC's UWB Proceeding: June 5,
(Subcommittee on 2002
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-115 Area Code Exhaustion: June 26,
(Subcommittee on 2002
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-116 FTC's Franchise Rule: June 25,
(Subcommittee on 2002
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-117 U.S. National Climate July 25,
Change Assessment: 2002
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-118 Insurance Coverage of July 23,
Mental Health Benefits 2002
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-119 Clean Air Act June 5,
Implementation: 2002
(Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality)
107-120 Are All Online Travel July 18,
Sites Good for the 2002
Consumer: (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-121 Oath Taking, Truth July 26,
Telling, and Remedies in 2002
the Business World
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-122 The NIH: Investing in June 6,
Research (Subcommittee 2002
on Health)
107-123 Recent Developments in July 17,
the EPA Office of the 2002
Ombudsman (Subcommittee
on Health and the
Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials)
107-124 DoE's Accelerated Cleanup July 19,
(Subcommittee on 2002
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-125 Sports Agent June 5,
Responsibility and Trust 2002
Act (Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-126 Protecting the Rights of July 11,
Conscience of Health 2002
Care Providers and a
Parents Right to Know
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-127 Harming Patient Access to July 17,
Care: The Impact of 2002
Excessive Litigation
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-128 The CPSC: The New September
Chairman's Agenda 4, 2002
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-129 Capacity Swaps by Global September
Crossing: (Subcommittee 24 and
on Oversight and October 1,
Investigations) 2002
107-130 State Impediments to E- September
Commerce: (Subcommittee 26, 2002
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-131 The Consumer Privacy September
Protection Act of 2002 24, 2002
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-132 Recording Industry October 1,
Marketing Practices: 2002
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-133 CPB Oversight July 10,
(Subcommittee on 2002
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-134 ECNs and Market October 17,
Structure: (Subcommittee 2002
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-135 Examining Prescription July 25,
Drug Importation 2002
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-136 Steel Industry Relief Act September
of 2002 (Subcommittee on 10, 2002
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-137 Americas Blood Supply September
After 9-11 (Subcommittee 10, 2002
on Oversight and
Investigations)
107-138 Telecommunications and October 9,
Trade Promotion 2002
Authority (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection)
107-139 Securing America: October 17,
(Subcommittee on 2002
Oversight and
Investigations)
107-140 Examining Issues Related October 9,
to Competition in the 2002
Pharmaceutical
Marketplace
(Subcommittee on Health)
107-141 Transition to Digital September
(Subcommittee on 25, 2002
Telecommunications and
the Internet)
107-142 Inquiry Into Imclone June 13,
(Subcommittee on 2002 and
Oversight and October
Investigations) 10, 2002
107-143 Safety of Accutane December
(Subcommittee on 11, 2002
Oversight and
Investigations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
part b
Committee Prints
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
107-A Committee Rules
107-B Compilation of Selected
Energy-Related Legislation--
Oil, Gas, and Nonnuclear
Fuels
107-C Compilation of Selected
Energy-Related Legislation--
Organization and
Miscellaneous Laws
107-D Compilation of Selected
Acts--Food, Drug, and
Related Law
107-E Compilation of Selected
Energy-Related Legislation--
Electricity
107-F Compilation of Selected
Energy-Related Legislation--
Energy Conservation, Low-
Income Assistance, and
Related Matters
107-G Compilation of Selected
Energy-Related Legislation--
Nuclear Energy and
Radioactive Waste
107-H Compilation of Selected
Acts--Environmental Law--
Vol. 1
107-I Compilation of Selected
Acts--Communications Law
107-J Compilation of Selected
Acts--Health Law
107-K Compilation of Selected
Acts--Consumer Protection
Law
107-L Compilation of Selected
Acts--Environmental Law--
Vol. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
Union Calendar No. 503
107th Congress
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
107-802
_______________________________________________________________________
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
January 2, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
?
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
One Hundred Seventh Congress
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG GANSKE, Iowa BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TOM SAWYER, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TOM DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
(ii)
?
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2003.
Hon. Jeff Trandahl
Clerk,
House of Representatives
H-154, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Trandahl: Purusant 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 Energy and Commerce
for the 107th Congress, including the Committee's review and
study of legislation within its jurisdiction and the oversight
activities undertaken by the Committee.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman,
(iii)
?
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Jurisdiction................................................. 1
Rules for the Committee...................................... 2
Members and Organization..................................... 21
Legislative and Oversight Activity........................... 27
Full Committee............................................... 29
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection..... 37
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality....................... 55
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.......... 83
Subcommittee on Health....................................... 99
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.......... 163
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations................. 187
Oversight Plan for the 107th Congress........................ 221
Appendix I--Legislative Summary.............................. 301
Appendix II--Public Laws..................................... 303
Appendix III--Publications of the Committee.................. 305
(v)