[House Report 109-751]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 453
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-751
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FOR THE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
January 2, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2007
31-394
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
One Hundred Ninth Congress
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Vice Chairman EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES NORWOOD, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi, Vice Chairman TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California TOM ALLEN, Maine
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JIM DAVIS, Florida
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARY BONO, California HILDA L. SOLIS, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 2, 2007.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith a
report on the activity of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
for the 109th Congress, including the Committee's review and
study of legislation within its jurisdiction and the oversight
activities undertaken by the Committee.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton, Chairman.
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......... 35
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality........................... 61
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.............. 97
Subcommittee on Health........................................... 121
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.............. 205
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................... 231
Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress............................ 265
Appendix I--Legislative Summary.................................. 307
Appendix II--Public Laws......................................... 309
Appendix III--Publications of the Committee...................... 311
Union Calendar No. 453
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-751
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE FOR THE
109TH CONGRESS
_______
January 2, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Barton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 109th CONGRESS
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 non-nuclear
facilities and of use of non-nuclear 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, 109th 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, is nondebatable
and privileged in the Committee and its subcommittees.
(b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the
Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the
authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so
far as applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee, not
inconsistent with the Rules of the House, shall be binding on
each subcommittee of the Committee.
Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings.
(a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the
fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration
of bills, resolutions, and other business, if the House is in
session on that day. If the House is not in session on that day
and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee
shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the
House is again in session. The chairman of the Committee may,
at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required
under this section, after consultation with the ranking
minority member.
(b) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and convene,
as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee
for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before
the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business.
The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that
call of the chairman.
(c) Vice Chairmen; Presiding Member. The chairman shall
designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice
chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority
member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each
subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or
subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any meeting
or hearing during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the
chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are
not present at any meeting or hearing, the ranking member of
the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting
or hearing.
(d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Except as provided by the
Rules of the House, each meeting of the Committee or any of its
subcommittees for the transaction of business, including the
markup of legislation, and each hearing, shall be open to the
public including to radio, television and still photography
coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule XI of the
Rules of the House.
Rule 3. Agenda.
The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee meeting
(other than a hearing), setting out the date, time, place, and
all items of business to be considered, shall be provided to
each member of the Committee at least 36 hours in advance of
such meeting.
Rule 4. Procedure.
(a)(1) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter
of any hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees
shall be announced at least one week in advance of the
commencement of such hearing, unless the Committee or
subcommittee determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House that there is good cause to
begin the hearing sooner.
(2)(A) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter
of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday,
Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session, shall
be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session
on such days) in advance of the commencement of such meeting.
(B) Other Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject
matter of a meeting (other than a hearing or a meeting to which
subparagraph (A) applies) shall be announced at least 72 hours
in advance of the commencement of such meeting.
(3) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to
day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24
hours), and to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a
bill or resolution if printed copies are available shall be
decided without debate.
(b)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to
appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with
the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in
advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as
determined by the chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee,
of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to
provide to members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee,
the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to
the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such
written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the
chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation
to a brief summary of the argument. The chairman of the
Committee or of a subcommittee, or the presiding member, may
waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof.
(2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest
extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness
appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a
curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by
agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof)
or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the
current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years
by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness.
(c)(1) Questioning Witnesses. The right to interrogate the
witnesses before the Committee or any of its subcommittees
shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each
member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of
witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has had
an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be
recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a
witness until each member of the Committee present has been
recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee or
subcommittee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the
interrogation of witnesses, the chairman shall recognize in
order of appearance members who were not present when the
meeting was called to order after all members who were present
when the meeting was called to order have been recognized in
the order of seniority on the Committee or subcommittee, as the
case may be.
(2) Questions for the Record. Each member may submit to the
Chairman of the Committee or the subcommittee additional
questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who
have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the
questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the Committee
no later than ten business days following a hearing. The
Chairman shall transmit all questions received from members of
the Committee or the subcommittee to the appropriate witness,
and include the transmittal letter and the responses from the
witnesses in the hearing record.
(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. (1) All written opening statements
at hearings conducted by the committee or any of its
subcommittees shall be made part of the permanent hearing
record.
(2) Statements 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. With the consent of the
Committee, prior to the recognition of the first witness for
testimony, any Member, when recognized for an opening
statement, may completely defer his or her opening statement
and instead use those three minutes during the initial round of
questioning.
(3) At any hearing of the full Committee, the chairman may
limit opening statements for Members (including, at the
discretion of the Chairman, the chairman and ranking minority
member) to one minute. At any hearing conducted by any
subcommittee, the chairman of that subcommittee, with the
consent of its ranking minority member, may reduce the time for
statements by members or defer statements until the conclusion
of testimony.
Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Layover Requirements.
Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by
a majority of those present and voting (a majority being
present) of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be.
Rule 6. Quorum.
Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing
at which there are present not fewer than two members of the
Committee or subcommittee in question. A majority of the
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the
purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a
subpoena, or of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause
2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided
in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)). For the purposes of taking any
action other than those specified in the preceding sentence,
one-third of the members of the Committee or subcommittee shall
constitute a quorum.
Rule 7. Official Committee Records.
(a)(1) Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be
recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show
those present at each meeting, and include a record of the vote
on any question on which a record vote is demanded and a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition voted. A copy of the journal shall be furnished to
the ranking minority member.
(2) Record Votes. A record vote may be demanded by one-
fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a
quorum, by any one member. No demand for a record vote shall be
made or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a record
vote or in the apparent absence of a quorum. The result of each
record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made
available in the Committee office for inspection by the public,
as provided in Rule XI, clause 2(e) of the Rules of the House.
(b) Archived Records. The records of the Committee at the
National Archives and Records Administration shall be made
available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the
Rules of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking
minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or
clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a record otherwise
available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee
for a determination on the written request of any member of the
Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking minority
member on any communication from the Archivist of the United
States or the Clerk of the House concerning the disposition of
noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of the Rule.
Rule 8. Subcommittees.
There shall be such standing subcommittees with such
jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party
caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of
the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party
caucus prior to the start of the process for establishing
subcommittee chairmanships and assignments.
Rule 9. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees.
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive testimony, 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 one-third of the members of the Committee request
in writing that the Committee formally act on such a contract,
if the request is made within 10 days after the latest date on
which such chairman or chairmen, and such ranking minority
member or members, approve such contract.
Rule 15. Supervision, Duties of Staff.
(a) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and
clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority
shall be under the supervision and direction of the chairman
who, in consultation with the chairmen of the subcommittees,
shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of
such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines
appropriate.
(b) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and
clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the
supervision and direction of the minority members of the
Committee, who may delegate such authority as they determine
appropriate.
Rule 16. Committee Budget.
(a) Preparation of Committee Budget. The chairman of the
Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member
of the Committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall
for the 109th Congress prepare a preliminary budget for the
Committee, with such budget including necessary amounts for
professional and clerical staff, travel, investigations,
equipment and miscellaneous expenses of the Committee and the
subcommittees, and which shall be adequate to fully discharge
the Committee's responsibilities for legislation and oversight.
Such budget shall be presented by the chairman to the majority
party caucus of the Committee and thereafter to the full
Committee for its approval.
(b) Approval of the Committee Budget. The chairman shall
take whatever action is necessary to have the budget as finally
approved by the Committee duly authorized by the House. No
proposed Committee budget may be submitted to the Committee on
House Administration unless it has been presented to and
approved by the majority party caucus and thereafter by the
full Committee. The chairman of the Committee may authorize all
necessary expenses in accordance with these rules and within
the limits of the Committee's budget as approved by the House.
(c) Monthly Expenditures Report. Committee members shall be
furnished a copy of each monthly report, prepared by the
chairman for the Committee on House Administration, which shows
expenditures made during the reporting period and cumulative
for the year by the Committee and subcommittees, anticipated
expenditures for the projected Committee program, and detailed
information on travel.
Rule 17. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings.
Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be
covered in whole or in part by radio or television or still
photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI
of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any hearing or other
proceeding of the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by
television, radio, or still photography shall be under the
direct supervision of the chairman of the Committee, the
subcommittee chairman, or other member of the Committee
presiding at such hearing or other proceeding and may be
terminated by such member in accordance with the Rules of the
House.
Rule 18. Comptroller General Audits.
The chairman of the Committee is authorized to request
verification examinations by the Comptroller General of the
United States pursuant to Title V, Part A of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163), after consultation
with the members of the Committee.
Rule 19. Subpoenas.
The Committee, or any subcommittee, may authorize and issue
a subpoena under clause 2(m)(2)(A) of Rule XI of the House, if
authorized by a majority of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee (as the case may be) voting, a quorum being
present. Authorized subpoenas may be issued over the signature
of the chairman of the Committee or any member designated by
the Committee, and may be served by any person designated by
such chairman or member. The chairman of the Committee may
authorize and issue subpoenas under such clause during any
period for which the House has adjourned for a period in excess
of 3 days when, in the opinion of the chairman, authorization
and issuance of the subpoena is necessary to obtain the
material set forth in the subpoena. The chairman shall report
to the members of the Committee on the authorization and
issuance of a subpoena during the recess period as soon as
practicable but in no event later than one week after service
of such subpoena.
Rule 20. Travel of Members and Staff.
(a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense
resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have
been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside for
the Committee for any member or any staff member shall be paid
only upon the prior authorization of the chairman. Travel may
be authorized by the chairman for any member and any staff
member in connection with the attendance of hearings conducted
by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof and meetings,
conferences, and investigations which involve activities or
subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee.
Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to
the chairman in writing the following: (1) the purpose of the
travel; (2) the dates during which the travel is to be made and
the date or dates of the event for which the travel is being
made; (3) the location of the event for which the travel is to
be made; and (4) the names of members and staff seeking
authorization.
(b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In
the case of travel by minority party members and minority party
professional staff for the purpose set out in (a), the prior
approval, not only of the chairman but also of the ranking
minority member, shall be required. Such prior authorization
shall be given by the chairman only upon the representation by
the ranking minority member in writing setting forth those
items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (a).
Clauses 2 and 4 or Rule XI and Clauses 2 and 3 of Rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives for the 109th Congress
JANUARY 4, 2005
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.
(3) A committee may adopt a rule providing that the
chairman be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule
XXII whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.
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 hereof 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.
(4)(A) Each committee may adopt a rule authorizing the
chairman of a committee or subcommittee--
(i) to postpone further proceedings when a record
vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure
or matter or on adopting an amendment; and
(ii) to resume proceedings on a postponed question at
any time after reasonable notice.
(B) A rule adopted pursuant to this subparagraph shall
provide that when proceedings resume on a postponed question,
notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the
question was postponed.
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)) 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 NINTH CONGRESS
(Ratio 31-26)
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Vice Chairman
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
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
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
GENE GREEN, Texas CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio Mississippi, Vice Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado VITO FOSSELLA, New York
LOIS CAPPS, California ROY BLUNT, Missouri*
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JIM DAVIS, Florida CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
HILDA L. SOLIS, California MARY BONO, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JAY INSLEE, Washington LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
*Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) resigned from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce on October 26, 2005. Representative J. Gresham Barrett (R-
SC) was elected to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 26,
2005, pursuant to H. Res. 513. Representative J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
resigned from the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 7, 2006.
Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) was elected to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce on February 8, 2006, pursuant to H. Res. 671.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(Ratio 16-13)
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas MARY BONO, California
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JIM DAVIS, Florida MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas Vice Chairman
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
(Ex Officio) TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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); product liability; motor
vehicle safety; regulation of travel, tourism, and time; and, homeland
security-related aspects of the foregoing, including cybersecurity.
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
(Ratio 18-15)
RALPH HALL, Texas, Chairman
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York Vice Chairman
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
LOIS CAPPS, California Mississippi
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania VITO FOSSELLA, New York
TOM ALLEN, Maine GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JIM DAVIS, Florida MARY BONO, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
(Ex Officio) JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JOE BARTON, Texas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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; all laws, programs, and
government activities affecting such matters; and, homeland security-
related aspects of the foregoing.
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
(Ratio 16-13)
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman
HILDA L. SOLIS, California RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
LOIS CAPPS, California Vice Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania VITO FOSSELLA, New York
TOM ALLEN, Maine CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington MARY BONO, California
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
(Ex Officio) JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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; noise pollution control; and, homeland
security-related aspects of the foregoing.
Subcommittee on Health
(Ratio 18-15)
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, Chairman
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
BART GORDON, Tennessee CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JIM DAVIS, Florida MARY BONO, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan Vice Chairman
(Ex Officio) MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction;
mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection
in general, including Medicaid and national health insurance; food and
drugs; drug abuse; and, homeland security-related aspects of the
foregoing.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
(Ratio 18-15)
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JAY INSLEE, Washington JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey Mississippi
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio VITO FOSSELLA, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Vice Chairman
BART STUPAK, Michigan GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan LEE TERRY, Nebraska
(Ex Officio) MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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; and
homeland security-related aspects of the foregoing.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(Ratio 9-7)
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman
BART STUPAK, Michigan CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Mississippi
JAY INSLEE, Washington CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin GREG WALDEN, Oregon
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Vice Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersy
(Ex Officio) MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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
C. H. ``Bud'' Albright, Jr., Staff
Director
David L. Cavicke, General Counsel/
Chief Counsel for Commerce
Andy Black, Deputy Staff Director
for Policy
Lawrence A. Neal, Deputy Staff
Director for Communications
David J. McCarthy, Chief Counsel
for Energy and Environment
Mark A. Paoletta, Chief Counsel
for Oversight and Investigations
Howard Waltzman, Chief Counsel for
Telecommunications
Michael Abraham, Legislative
Clerk/Assistant Systems
Administrator
Ryan Ambrose, Legislative Clerk
Courtney Anderson, Counsel
Kelli Andrews, Counsel
Melissa Bartlett, Counsel
Kurt W. Bilas, Counsel
Michael D. Bloomquist, Deputy
General Counsel
Annie Caputo, Professional Staff
Member
Krista L. Carpenter, Counsel
William Carty, Professional Staff
Member
Dwight Cates, Professional Staff
Member
Karen E. Christian, Counsel
Brandon J. Clark, Policy
Coordinator
Sean Corcoran, Documents Clerk
Julie Cordell, Analyst
Gerald Couri, Policy Coordinator
Whitney Drew, Special Assistant
Thomas Feddo, Counsel
Julie Fields, Special Assistant
Neil R. Fried, Counsel
Chad Grant, Legislative Clerk
Garrett J. Golding, Staff
Assistant
John P. Halliwell, Policy
Coordinator
William Harvard, Legislative Clerk
Thomas Hassenboehler, Counsel
Eric M. Hutchins, Energy Assistant
Matthew P. Johnson, Legislative
Clerk
Nandan Kenkeremath, Senior Counsel
Peter E. Kielty, Legislative Clerk
Terry Lane, Deputy Communications
Director
Theresa Lavery, Associate
W. Christopher Leahy, Policy
Coordinator
Ryan Long, Counsel
Katherine J. Martin, Professional
Staff Member
Clayton Matheson, Research Analyst
Stephanie Mayfield, Staff
Assistant
Christine McCarty, Press Assistant
Brian McCollough, Professional
Staff Member
Jean McGinley, Director of
Information Technology
Lisa Miller, Deputy Communications
Director
Anh Nguyen, Legislative Clerk
William D. O'Brien, Legislative
Analyst for Health Policy
Randolph Pate, Counsel
Scott Schmidt, Energy Assistant
Kevin Schweers, Communications
Director
Jerome Sikorski, Archivist
Robert E. Simison, Professional
Staff Member
Chase Simmons, Senior Staff
Assistant
Alan M. Slobodin, Deputy Chief
Counsel for Oversight and
Investigations
Andrew L. Snowdon, Counsel
Peter Spencer, Professional Staff
Member
Elizabeth Stack, Policy
Coordinator
Ryan Thompson, Assistant to the
Chairman
Linda Walker, Administrative and
Human Resources Coordinator
Shannon Weinberg, Professional
Staff Member
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, Deputy Chief
Minority Clerk/LAN Administrator
Jonathan Brater, Minority Staff
Assistant
Jonathan J. Cordone, Minority
Deputy General Counsel
Angela Davis-West, Minority
Secretary
Elizabeth B. Ertel, Minority
Senior Staff Assistant
Peter J. Filon, Minority Counsel
John P. Ford, Minority Counsel
Richard A. Frandsen, Senior
Minority Counsel
William Garner, Minority
Professional Staff Member
Alec Gerlach, Minority Research
Assistant/Press Assistant
Amy B. Hall, Minority Professional
Staff Member
Bruce Harris, Minority
Professional Staff Member/Policy
Coordinator
Voncille Trotter Hines, Minority
Research Assistant
Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel
Carla R.V. Hultberg, Minority
Assistant Clerk-Administrative/
Assistant LAN Administrator
Purvee Kemph, Minority Counsel
Raymond R. Kent, Jr., Minority
Finance Assistant
Christopher Knauer, Minority
Investigator
Jessica A. McNiece, Minority
Research Assistant
David W. Nelson, Minority
Investigator/Economist
Lorie J. Schmidt, Minority Counsel
Annie Scott, Minority Staff
Assistant
Jodi Seth, Minority Communications
Director
Johanna M. Shelton, Minority
Counsel
Sue D. Sheridan, Senior Minority
Counsel
Bridgette E. Taylor, Minority
Professional Staff Member/Chief
Health Finance Advisor
Christopher A. Treanor, Minority
Staff Assistant
David A. Vogel, Minority Research
Assistant
Consuela M. Washington, Senior
Minority Counsel
LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE
During the 109th Congress, 1319 bills and resolutions were
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Full
Committee reported 53 measures to the House (not including
conference reports). There were 55 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, less expensive, and more
accountable government that better serves all Americans.
The following is a summary of the legislative and oversight
activities of the Committee on Energy and Commerce during the
109th Congress. This report includes a summary of the
activities taken by the Committee to implement its Oversight
Plan for the 109th 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)
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Vice Chairman
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
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
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
GENE GREEN, Texas CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio Mississippi, Vice Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado VITO FOSSELLA, New York
LOIS CAPPS, California ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JIM DAVIS, Florida CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
HILDA L. SOLIS, California MARY BONO, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JAY INSLEE, Washington LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Oversight Activities
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET PROPOSAL AND THE
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal
Year 2006 Budget Proposal and the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The hearing focused on the Administration's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2006, and also on the Department of Energy's
comments on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee
received testimony from the Secretary of U.S. Department of
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and representatives of consumers,
industry, and other stakeholders.
A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2006 HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES
On February 17, 2005, the Committee on Energy Commerce held
an oversight hearing to examine the President's Proposed FY
2006 Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The sole witness was Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
MEDICAID REFORM: THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION'S BIPARTISAN
ROADMAP
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce held an oversight hearing to examine the National
Governors Association's (NGA) interim Medicaid reform policy
and continuing efforts to refine policy proposals. There was
one panel consisting of NGA Chairman and Governor of the State
of Virginia and NGA Vice Chairman Governor of the State of
Arkansas.
LEGISLATION TO REAUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
On July 19, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
an oversight hearing on legislation to reauthorize the NIH. The
National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the Federal government's
principal medical research agency, armed with a mission to
advance research in pursuit of fundamental knowledge that will
lead to better health outcomes for all. Funding for the NIH
represents nearly half of the discretionary budget of the
Department of Health and Human Services. The Director of NIH
was the only witness.
HURRICANE KATRINA'S EFFECT ON GASOLINE SUPPLY AND PRICES
On September 7, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing on the impact and recovery efforts in
States affected by Hurricane Katrina. The hearing focused
specifically on issues related to energy and communications
infrastructure. The committee received testimony from the
Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration,
the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications
Commission, the Governor of the State of Mississippi, the State
of Louisiana, consumer and environmental advocates, and
representatives involved in the pricing of gasoline along the
gasoline supply chain: production, refining, pipeline,
marketing, and futures trading.
MEDICAID: EMPOWERING BENEFICIARIES ON THE ROAD TO REFORM
On September 8, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and
Commerce held an oversight hearing to examine Medicaid reform
proposals and explore the effect of these proposals on
beneficiary access to health care services, create incentives
for the better utilization of existing services, improve health
outcomes and reduce instances of beneficiaries improperly
transferring assets in order to gain Medicaid coverage for
institutional care. The Committee heard testimony from several
advocacy groups and professional health service providers.
ASSESSING THE NATIONAL PANDEMIC FLU PREPAREDNESS PLAN
On November 8, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing to look into the national pandemic
flu preparedness plan. The hearing followed two recent actions
by the Administration. On Tuesday, November 1, 2005, the
President gave a speech outlining a national strategy to
prepare for the risk of pandemic flu and requested $7 billion
in new spending to support this strategy. The President's
proposal also included legislation to limit the liability of
vaccine manufacturers and others with respect to pandemic flu.
On November 2, 2005 HHS also released its detailed Pandemic
Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan. The sole witness was
Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2007 HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES
On February 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing to examine the President's Proposed
FY 2007 Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services.
The FY 2007 budget for the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) totals $698 billion in outlays. This was an
increase of $58 billion over the President's Proposed FY 2006
budget. The sole witness was Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET PROPOSAL
On March 9, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year
2007 Budget Proposal. The Committee received testimony from the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.
H.R. ------, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) TO SET PASSENGER FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS
On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a
hearing on H.R. __, a bill to authorize the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel
economy standards. The committee received testimony from a
Member of Congress, the Secretary of Transportation, and other
stakeholders.
WORLD CRUDE OIL PRICING
On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
an oversight hearing on World Crude Oil Pricing. The hearing
examined the role of supply and demand fundamentals on world
oil pricing, as well as geopolitical concerns that also affect
price. The Committee received testimony from the Energy
Information Administration, Cambridge Energy Research
Associates, New York Mercantile Exchange, and the Government
Accountability Office.
GASOLINE: SUPPLY, PRICE, AND SPECIFICATIONS
On May 10 and 11, 2006, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce held an oversight hearing on gasoline supply, price,
and specifications in the wake of rising domestic gasoline
prices. The hearing focused on fuel specification transitions,
logistics, infrastructure, and transportation, and how boutique
fuels affect gasoline prices. The Committee received testimony
from representatives from Federal government and State and
local air quality officials. The Committee also received
testimony from the motor fuels industry, focusing on
production, refining, transportation, and retail sales.
DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ------, BOUTIQUE FUEL REDUCTION ACT OF 2006
On June 7, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
a hearing on a discussion draft entitled H.R. __, Boutique
Fuels Reduction Act of 2006, which would amend the Clean Air
Act by providing for a reduction in the number of boutique
fuels. The discussion draft sought to build on the limitation
placed on the number of boutique fuels eligible for use in
State Implementation Plans, established in the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, by requiring EPA, in coordination with DOE, to
promulgate an approvable Federal fuels list of no more than 3
gasoline fuels each with a different Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP).
The discussion draft also sought to clarify temporary waiver
authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in extreme and
unusual fuel supply or fuel additive supply circumstances to
include unexpected problems with distribution or delivery
equipment necessary for transportation and delivery of fuel or
fuel additives. The Committee received testimony from
representatives from the Federal government, State and local
air quality officials, and the motor fuels industry.
GROWTH, OPPORTUNITY, COMPETITION--AMERICA GOES TO WORK
On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will
held an oversight hearing on Growth, Opportunity, Competition--
America Goes to Work. The purpose of the hearing was to explore
the Department of Commerce's mission to promote foreign and
domestic commerce of the United States. The Department of
Commerce has taken the responsibility to promote economic
development and technological advancement in the U.S. through
its various programs and bureaus. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Commerce.
EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON THE MEDICAID PROGRAM AND
OUR HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM
The Committee on Energy and Commerce had a two-day field
hearing to provide Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee
with a forum within which to examine the impact of illegal
immigration on the health delivery systems of the areas
surrounding Brentwood, Tennessee, and Dalton, Georgia, and how
recent legislative efforts may impact this growing problem.
Specifically, witnesses at the field hearing provided testimony
on how Sec. 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Improved
Enforcement of Documentation Requirements) is being implemented
in Tennessee and Georgia, and any State plans to potentially
implement Sec. 6043 of the DRA (Emergency Room Co-payments for
Non-emergency Room Care). The first day of the field hearing
took place on August 10, 2006, in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the
Committee received testimony from Tennessee State
Representatives and Senators, CMS, Tenncare, and several local
hospitals.
The second day of the hearing took place on August 15, 2006
in Dalton, Georgia. The Committee received testimony from
Georgia State Representatives and Senators, Georgia Department
of Human Resources (DHR), CMS, and several local hospitals.
IMPROVING NIH MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION: A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE
NIH REFORM ACT OF 2006
On September 19, 2006 the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing to encourage legislation on NIH
reauthorization. The Committee received testimony from Johns
Hopkins Medicine, the American Heart Association, the American
Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and the Association
of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Director of the
NIH.
Hearings Held
Combating Spyware: H.R. 29, the Spy Act.--Hearing on
Combating Spyware: H.R. 29, the Spy Act. Hearing held on
January 26, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-10.
Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal and
the Energy Policy Act of 2005: Ensuring Jobs for Our Future
with Secure and Reliable Energy.--Oversight hearing on
Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal and the
Energy Policy Act of 2005: Ensuring Jobs for Our Future with
Secure and Reliable Energy. Hearing held on February 9, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-3.
A Review of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Health
Care Priorities.--Oversight hearing on A Review of the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Health Care Priorities.
Hearing held on February 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
35.
Competition in the Communications Marketplace: How
Technology is Changing the Structure of the Industry.--
Oversight hearing on Competition in the Communications
Marketplace: How Technology is Changing the Structure of the
Industry. Hearing held on March 2, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number
109-13.
Medicaid Reform: The National Governors Association's
Bipartisan Roadmap.--Oversight hearing on Medicaid Reform: The
National Governors Association's Bipartisan Roadmap. Hearing
held on June 15, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-22.
Legislation to Reauthorize the National Institutes of
Health.--Hearing on Legislation to Reauthorize the National
Institutes of Health. Hearing held on July 19, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-40.
Hurricane Katrina's Effect on Gasoline Supply and Prices.--
Oversight hearing on Hurricane Katrina's Effect on Gasoline
Supply and Prices. Hearing held on September 7, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-32.
Medicaid: Empowering Beneficiaries on the Road to Reform.--
Oversight hearing on Medicaid: Empowering Beneficiaries on the
Road to Reform. Hearing held on September 8, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-49.
Assessing the National Pandemic Flu Preparedness Plan.--
Oversight hearing on Assessing the National Pandemic Flu
Preparedness Plan. Hearing held on November 8, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-59.
Phone Records For Sale: Why Aren't Phone Records Safe From
Pretexting?--Oversight hearing on Phone Records For Sale: Why
Aren't Phone Records Safe From Pretexting? Hearing held on
February 1, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-53.
The Administration's FY '07 Health Care Priorities.--
Oversight hearing on The Administration's FY '07 Health Care
Priorities. Hearing held on February 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-113.
Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal.--
Oversight hearing on Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007
Budget Proposal. Hearing held on March 9, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-82.
H.R. __, a bill to authorize the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel economy
standards.--Hearing on H.R. __, a bill to authorize the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set
passenger car fuel economy standards. Hearing held on May 3,
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-95.
World Crude-Oil Pricing.--Oversight hearing on World Crude-
Oil Pricing. Hearing held on May 4, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-96.
Gasoline: Supply, Price, and Specifications.--Oversight
hearings on Gasoline: Supply, Price, and Specifications.
Hearings held on May 10, 2006, and May 11, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-94.
Discussion draft providing for a reduction in the number of
boutique fuels.--Hearing on a Discussion draft providing for a
reduction in the number of boutique fuels. Hearing held on June
7, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-106.
Growth, Opportunity, Competition--America Goes to Work.--
Oversight hearing on Growth, Opportunity, Competition--America
Goes to Work. Hearing held on June 29, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-116.
Examining the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Medicaid
Program and Our Healthcare Delivery System.--Oversight hearing
on Examining the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Medicaid
Program and Our Healthcare Delivery System. Hearings held on
August 10, 2006, and August 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number
109-134.
Improving NIH Management and Operation: A Legislative
Hearing on the NIH Reform Act of 2006.--Hearing on Improving
NIH Management and Operation: A Legislative Hearing on the NIH
Reform Act of 2006. Hearing held on September 19, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-140.
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
(Ratio 16-13)
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas MARY BONO, California
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JIM DAVIS, Florida MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas Vice Chairman
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
(Ex Officio) TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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); product liability; motor
vehicle safety; regulation of travel, tourism, and time; and, homeland
security-related aspects of the foregoing, including cybersecurity.
Legislative Activities
WOOL SUIT FABRIC LABELING FAIRNESS AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
CONFORMING ACT
Public Law 109-428 (H.R. 4583)
To amend the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 to revise
the requirements for labeling of certain wool and cashmere
products.
Summary
H.R. 4583 amends the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939,
revising the labeling requirements for certain wool and
cashmere products. By revising the labeling requirements, the
bill protects consumers and industry participants from
deceptively labeled or mislabeled wool or cashmere products by
establishing a legal standard for labeling superfine wool and
cashmere products based on internationally accepted standards.
Legislative History
H.R. 4583 was introduced in the House by Mrs. Blackburn on
December 16, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On January 3, 2006, H.R. 4583 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4583 reported to the
House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 8, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4583 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-644).
On September 19, 2006, H.R. 4583 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by
voice vote.
On September 20, 2006, H.R. 4583 was received in the Senate
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 4583 was discharged from the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by unanimous
consent, and passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous
consent, clearing H.R. 4583 for the White House.
On December 11, 2006, H.R. 4583 was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on December 20, 2006
(Public Law 109-428).
UNDERTAKING SPAM, SPYWARE, AND FRAUD ENFORCEMENT WITH ENFORCERS BEYOND
BORDERS ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-455 (S. 1608)
A bill to enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement
against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and
deception, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 1608 provides the Federal Trade Commission with new
authority to combat cross border fraud. Specifically, the Act
amends the FTC Act definition of ``unfair or deceptive acts or
practices'' to include acts of foreign commerce that: (1) cause
or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the
United States; or (2) involve material conduct occurring within
the United States. S. 1608 creates remedies for such unfair and
deceptive acts or practices, including restitution to domestic
or foreign victims. S. 1608 also permits the FTC to provide
assistance to and share information with foreign government law
enforcement agencies in the investigation and enforcement of
violations of anti-fraud laws.
Additionally, S. 1608 requires a report by the FTC on its
actions with any recommendations for additional legislation.
Legislative History
S. 1608 was introduced by Senator Smith on July 29, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On December 15, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation met in open markup session and ordered S.
1608 reported without amendment.
On March 14, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported S. 1608 without amendment, with written
report No. 109-219, and it was placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 372.
On March 16, 2006, S. 1608 passed the Senate by unanimous
consent.
The House received S. 1608 on March 28, 2006, and S. 1608
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee.
On April 19, 2006, S. 1608 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On December 9, 2006, S. 1608 passed the House, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House
amendment to S. 1608, and S. the bill was cleared for the White
House.
On December 20, 2006, S. 1608 was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on December 22, 2006
(Public Law 109-455).
SECURELY PROTECT YOURSELF AGAINST CYBER TRESPASS ACT (SPY ACT)
(H.R. 29)
To protect users of the Internet from unknowing
transmission of their personally identifiable information
through spyware programs, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 29, the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber
Trespass, or SPY ACT, makes it unlawful for any person who is
not the owner or authorized user (user) of a protected computer
(a computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution
or the U.S. Government, or a computer used in interstate or
foreign commerce or communication) to engage in unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in connection with specified
conduct, including: (1) taking unsolicited control of the
computer; (2) modifying computer settings; (3) collecting
personally identifiable information; (4) inducing the owner or
authorized user to disclose personally identifiable
information; (5) inducing the unsolicited installation of
computer software; and (6) removing or disabling a security,
anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology.
Further, the bill makes it unlawful for a person to: (1)
transmit to a protected computer any information collection
program (a program that collects personally identifiable
information and uses the information to send advertising),
unless such program provides notice required by the Act before
execution of any of the program's collection functions; or (2)
execute any collection information program installed on a
protected computer unless, before execution, the user has
consented to such execution under notice requirements of the
Act. The SPY ACT provides an exception with respect to Web
pages visited within a particular website when the information
collected is sent only to the provider of the website accessed.
The bill provides for enforcement of violations as unfair
or deceptive acts or practices. It also makes the Act
inapplicable with respect to: (1) law enforcement actions; (2)
monitoring undertaken for network security; and (3) Good
Samaritan actions (actions taken in good faith, and with the
user's consent, by a computer software or service provider to
remove or disable a program which violates this Act).
H.R. 29 directs the Federal Trade Commission to report to
Congress: (1) annually on enforcement actions taken under the
Act; (2) regarding the use of computer tracking cookies in the
delivery or display of advertising to computer owners and
users; and (3) concerning information collection programs
installed before the effective date of the Act. The bill
becomes effective 12 months after its enactment, and is
inapplicable after December 31, 2011.
Legislative History
H.R. 29 was introduced by Ms. Bono and referred to the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 4, 2005.
On January 26, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held a hearing on H.R. 29. The Committee received testimony
from two high-tech companies, a company specializing in
cybersecurity; and a technology think tank.
On February 4, 2005, H.R. 29 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
On February 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session to consider
H.R. 29, and the bill was forwarded by the Subcommittee to Full
Committee, amended, by a voice vote.
On March 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 29 reported to the
House, amended, by a record vote of 43 yeas and 0 nays, a
quorum being present.
On April 12, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 29 to the House (H. Rept. 109-32), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 15.
On May 23, 2005, H.R. 29 was considered under suspension of
the rules and passed the House, as amended, by a roll call vote
of 393 yeas and 4 nays.
On May 24, 2005, H.R. 29 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. 29 in the
109th Congress.
TO AMEND THE HORSE PROTECTION ACT
(H.R. 503)
To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping,
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing,
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to
be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 503 amends the Horse Protection Act to define: (1)
``human consumption'' as ingestion by people as a source of
food; and (2) ``slaughter'' as the killing of one or more
horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the
flesh for human consumption. The bill also sets forth
additional congressional findings.
H.R. 503 prohibits the shipping, transporting, moving,
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for
human consumption. The bill authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to detain for examination, testing, or the taking
of evidence: (1) any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition,
or horse sale or auction which is sore or which the Secretary
has probable cause to believe is sore; and (2) any horse or
other equine which the Secretary has probable cause to believe
is being shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received,
possessed, purchased, sold, or donated in violation of such
prohibition. Finally, this legislation increases the annual
authorization of appropriations for administration of the Horse
Protection Act from $500,000 to $5,000,000.
Legislative History
H.R. 503 was introduced by Mr. Sweeney and referred to the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 1, 2005.
On February 25, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On July 13, 2006, the bill was also referred to the
Committee on Agriculture, pursuant to a unanimous consent
request for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker.
On July 25, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 503. The
Subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress, a
businessman from Texas, a professor of veterinary medicine, two
practicing veterinarians, the owner of a horse farm, and an
equine slaughterhouse business.
On September 6, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 503.
On September 6, 2006, the Committee on Agriculture received
an unfavorable executive comment on the bill from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
On September 6, 2006, the Committee on Agriculture met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 503 reported adversely to
the House, amended, by a record vote of 37 yeas and 3 nays.
That same day, the Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 503
to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-617, Part I), and H.R.
503 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 357.
On September 7, 2006, H.R. 503 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 981, and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 263 yeas, 146 nays, and 1 present.
On September 8, 2006, H.R. 503 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
On September 11, 2006, H.R. 503 was read the second time
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 603.
On September 18, 2006, the Senate's previous actions were
vitiated by unanimous consent, and H.R. 503 was returned to the
House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1011 by unanimous
consent.
On September 20, 2006, H.R. 503 was received in the Senate,
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time.
On September 21, 2006, H.R. 503 was read the second time
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 631.
No further action was taken on H.R. 503 in the 109th
Congress.
UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT
(H.R. 1065)
To establish the United States Boxing Commission to protect
the general welfare of boxers and to ensure fairness in the
sport of professional boxing.
Summary
H.R. 1065 establishes a Federal Boxing Commission within
the Department of Commerce to oversee all professional boxing
in the United States and requires the commission to promulgate
uniform standards for professional boxing and license boxing
personnel, among other things.
Legislative History
H.R. 1065 was introduced by Mr. Stearns on March 2, 2005,
and 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 March 14, 2005, H.R. 1065 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection met in open markup session and H.R. 1065
was forwarded to full Committee on Energy and Commerce,
amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 29, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 1065 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 25 yeas and
16 nays, a quorum being present.
On July 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1065 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-209,
Part I.).
On July 28, 2005, H.R. 1065 was referred sequentially to
the Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later
than September 30, 2005, for consideration of such provisions
of the bill and the amendment as fall within the jurisdiction
of that committee pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X.
On July 28, 2005, the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce was granted an extension for further consideration
ending not later than September 30, 2005.
On September 29, 2005, the Judiciary Committee met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 1065 to be reported without
recommendation, amended, by voice vote.
On September 30, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary reported
H.R. 1065 to the House, amended, without recommendation (H.
Rept. 109-209, Part II).
The Committee on Education and the Workforce was discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 1065 on September 30, 2005,
and H.R. 1065 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
134.
On November 16, 2005, H.R. 1065 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 553. H.R. 1065 failed by a roll
call vote of 190 yeas and 233 nays.
No further Action was taken on H.R. 1065 in the 109th
Congress.
THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 1078)
Summary
H.R. 1078 prohibits the sale or purchase of Social Security
numbers and provides for enforcement of the Act. The Federal
Trade Commission is directed to promulgate regulations
restricting the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers
and unfair or deceptive acts in connection with the sale or
purchase of Social Security numbers. Additionally, the FTC is
directed to include exceptions in their regulations for certain
permissible purposes. Enforcement is conducted by the FTC and
permits State enforcement of the Act with certain limitations.
Legislative History
Mr. Markey introduced H.R. 1078 on March 3, 2005, and it
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 March 14, 2005, H.R. 1078 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1078 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1078 to the House, as amended, (H. Rept. 109-708
Part I), and the Committee on Ways and Means was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
November 17, 2006.
On November 17, 2006, Committee on Ways and Means was
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than December 8, 2006.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1078 in the 109th
Congress.
DRUG FREE SPORTS ACT
(H.R. 1862, H.R. 2829, H.R. 3084)
To direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations
requiring testing for steroids and other performance-enhancing
substances for certain sports associations engaged in
interstate commerce.
Summary
H.R. 1862, the Drug Free Sports Act directs the Secretary
of Commerce to issue regulations requiring professional sports
associations to adopt and enforce policies and procedures for
testing athletes for the use of performance-enhancing
substances. The regulations include the substances to be tested
and the procedures for testing athletes. The legislation also
provides for penalties and fines for violations by athletes or
sports leagues for failure to comply with the Act. The Act also
provides for certain studies on steroids to be conducted.
Legislative History
On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1862 was introduced by Mr. Stearns
(FL) in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 1862, the Drug Free
Sports Act of 2005. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of United States Anti-Doping Agency, and the
major professional sports leagues and their respective players
associations.
On May 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection continued its hearing on H.R. 1862, the
Drug Free Sports Act of 2005. The Subcommittee received
testimony from additional major professional sports leagues and
their respective players associations.
On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved
H.R. 1862 for Full Committee consideration, amended, by voice
vote, a quorum being present.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1862 in the 109th
Congress.
On June 28, 2005, H.R. 3084 was introduced by Mr. Stearns
and 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 June 29, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3084 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 38 yeas and
2 nays, a quorum being present.
On July 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3084 to the House (H. Rept. 109-210 Part I), and
the Committee on Education and the Workforce was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
September 30, 2005.
On September 30, 2005, Committee on Education and the
Workforce was discharged, and H.R. 3084 was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 133.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3084 in the 109th
Congress.
H.R. 2829 was introduced by Mr. Souder on June 9, 2005, and
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition
to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and
Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 16, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On June 17, 2005, H.R. 2829 was referred to Energy and
Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health.
On November 18, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315
Part I). The Amended version included Title II, which provided
the Office of National Drug Control Policy authority to
promulgate rules regarding steroid policies and testing
procedures for professional sports leagues.
On November 18, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, and Intelligence (Permanent Select) were
granted an extension until December 17, 2005. In addition H.R.
2829 was referred sequentially to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce for a period ending not later than December
17, 2005, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(e), rule X.
On December 17, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until
December 31, 2005.
On December 31, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until
February 3, 2006.
On February 3, 2006, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until
March 3, 2006.
On February 16, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the
House, without recommendation, amended, by voice vote. H.R.
2829 was amended by striking Title II and replacing it with the
text of H.R. 3084, as reported by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On March 2, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R.2829 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote.
On March 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315,
Part II.). Similarly, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended. (H. Rept. 109-315, Part
III.). The Committees on Intelligence (Permanent) and Education
and Workforce both were discharged from further consideration
of H.R. 2829, and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar
No. 209.
On March 9, 2006, H.R. 2829 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 713. H.R. 2829 passed the House
by a roll call vote: 399 yeas and 5 nays.
On March 16, 2006, H.R. 2829 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2829 in the 109th
Congress.
THE MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER'S RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT
(H.R. 2048)
To protect the rights of consumers to diagnose, service,
and repair motor vehicles in the United States, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2048 requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold
or introduced into commerce in the United States to disclose to
the vehicle owner or to a repair facility of the motor vehicle
owner's choosing the information necessary to diagnose,
service, or repair the vehicle. This information includes the
same diagnostic tools and capabilities related to vehicle
repair that are made available to franchised dealerships shall
be made available to independent repair facilities.
The bill also sets forth protections for trade secrets and
stipulates that nothing in the Act should be interpreted to
require the disclosure of trade secrets.
Under H.R. 2048, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is
instructed to prescribe a uniform methodology for manufacturer
disclosure in writing and on the Internet. However, it
prohibits the FTC from prescribing rules that interfere with
the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency regarding motor vehicle emissions control
diagnostics systems.
A violation, including manufacturer noncompliance with this
Act, constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair
or deceptive act or practice affecting commerce. This is within
the purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act and all
penalties available to it under the Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 2048 was introduced by Mr. Barton on May 3, 2005, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 13, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing regarding the
state of industry negotiations to reach a non-legislative
solution on November 10, 2005. The purpose of the hearing was
to examine the status of industry negotiations to reach a non-
legislative solution regarding the availability of service and
repair information. Specifically, the industry participants
held a series of meetings--facilitated by the Council of Better
Business Bureaus--during August and September 2005 in an effort
to reach agreement. Witnesses included the Federal Trade
Commission, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the
Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, the AAA Auto Repair Network, the Automotive
Service Association, the National Federation of Independent
Business, Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, and
the National Automobile Dealers Association.
The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on May 17,
2006, on H.R. 2048. Witnesses included Federal Trade
Commission, the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the National
Automotive Task Force.
On May 25, 2006, the Subcommittee met in open markup
session and H.R. 2048 was forwarded to the Full Committee,
amended, by a record vote of 14 yeas and 13 nays.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2048 in the 109th
Congress.
AMERICAN SPIRIT FRAUD PREVENTION ACT
(H.R. 3675)
To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil
penalties for violations involving unfair or deceptive acts or
practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or
major disaster, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission
to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought
under section 13 of that Act.
Summary
The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act amends the Federal
Trade Commission Act to double the existing statutory civil
penalty for a violation involving an unfair or deceptive act or
practice in either a national emergency period or disaster
period, or relating to an international disaster, if the act or
practice exploits popular reaction to the national emergency or
major disaster.
H.R. 3675 directs the court, in such a case, to hold the
relevant person, partnership, or corporation liable for a civil
penalty of not more than $22,000 for each such violation.
Legislative History
On September 7, 2005, H.R. 3675 was introduced by Mr. Bass
and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 19, 2005, H.R. 3675 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On October 25, 2005, H.R. 3675 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 399 yeas and 3 nays.
On October 26, 2005, H.R. 3675 was received in the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On September 27, 2006, H.R. 3675 was ordered reported
favorably, without amendment, by the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On December 5, 2006, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation reported H.R. 3675 without amendment, without
written report, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 669.
No further action taken on H.R. 3675 in the 109th Congress.
DATA ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUST ACT
(H.R. 3997, H.R. 4127)
To protect consumers by requiring reasonable security
policies and procedures to protect computerized data containing
personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in
the event of a security breach.
Summary
The Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA) requires the
Federal Trade Commission ( FTC) to promulgate regulations that
require each person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or
possesses data in electronic form containing personal
information to establish and implement policies and procedures
regarding security practices for the treatment and protection
of such information. The Act also provides for the terms of
notification to consumers when their data is breached.
Additional provisions provide for the conduct and obligations
of data brokers. The Act stipulates penalties for violations
and remedies for consumers. Finally, the Act provides for the
relationship between Federal and State laws governing
information security and notification practices.
Legislative History
On July 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a hearing on a Discussion Draft of
Data Protection Legislation. The subcommittee received
testimony from representatives of companies in the private
sector.
H.R. 3997 was introduced October 6, 2005, by Mr. LaTourette
and referred to the Committee on Financial Services.
On March 16, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3997 reported to the
House, amended, by a record vote of 48 yeas and 17 nays.
On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services
reported H.R. 3997 to the House, as amended, (H. Rept. 109-454
Part I). H.R. 3997 was referred sequentially to the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later
than June 2, 2006, 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 May 24, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3997 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 42 yeas and 0 nays,
a quorum being present.
On June 2, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3997 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-454
Part II), and H.R. 3997 was placed on the Union Calendar,
Calendar No. 269.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3997 in the 109th
Congress.
H.R. 4127 was introduced by Mr. Stearns and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 25, 2005.
On November 1, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On November 3, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and
forwarded H.R. 4127 to the full Committee on Energy and
Commerce, amended, by a record vote of 13 yeas and 8 nays.
On March 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4127 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 41 yeas and 0 nays,
a quorum being present.
On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4127 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-453,
Part I), and H.R. 4127 was referred jointly and sequentially to
the Committee on Financial Services for a period ending not
later than June 2, 2006, for consideration of such provisions
of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of
that committee pursuant to clause 1(g), rule X, and the
Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than
June 2, 2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill
and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(1), rule X.
On May 24, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4127 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 25, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 4127 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote.
On May 26, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 4127 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-453, Part II).
On June 2, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services
reported H.R. 4127 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-453,
Part III).
On June 2, 2006, H.R. 4127 was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 270.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4127 in the 109th
Congress.
PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO PHONE RECORDS ACT
(H.R. 4943)
To prohibit fraudulent access to telephone records.
Summary
The Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act
makes it unlawful to attempt to obtain, or cause to be
disclosed to any person, customer proprietary network
information (CPNI) relating to any other person by: (1) making
a false or fraudulent statement to an officer, employee, or
agent of a telecommunications carrier; or (2) providing any
document or other information to such officer, employee, or
agent that the presenter knows or should have known to be
forged, lost, stolen, or otherwise fraudulently obtained, or to
contain a false or fraudulent statement or representation. The
legislation also prohibits: (1) the solicitation of another
person to fraudulently obtain such information; and (2) the
sale or other disclosure of CPNI obtained under false
pretenses. H.R. 4943 further provides for enforcement through
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The legislation also amends the Communications Act of 1934
to expand the responsibilities of telecommunications carriers
with respect to the confidentiality of subscriber (customer)
calling records. The legislation directs the FCC to prescribe
regulations adopting more stringent security standards for CPNI
(including detailed customer telephone records) to detect and
prevent the fraudulent discloser of such information.
Legislative History
On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held a hearing on the fraudulent sale of
telephone records. The Committee received testimony from the
Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade
Commission, the Attorney General of Illinois, and
representatives of telecommunications providers and privacy
groups.
On March 8, 2006, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered a Committee Print favorably reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. A
request by Mr. Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill
to be introduced by Mr. Barton, and that the actions of the
Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, was agreed to by
unanimous consent.
On March 14, 2006, H.R. 4943 was introduced by Mr. Barton
in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On March 16, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4943 (H. Rept. 109-398) which was placed on the
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 217.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4943 in the 109th
Congress.
FEDERAL ENERGY PRICE PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5253)
To prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel
fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5253 requires the FTC to promulgate rules against the
unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal
Trade Commission Act for any person to sell crude oil,
gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, or any biofuel at a
price that constitutes price gouging. The bill contains
guidelines for enforcement as well as civil and criminal
penalties for violations.
Legislative History
H.R. 5253 was introduced by Ms. Wilson (NM) on May 2, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and on
the same day referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection.
On May 3, 2006, H.R. 5253 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules and passed by a roll call vote of 389
yeas and 34 nays.
On May 4, 2006, H.R. 5253 was received in the Senate.
On May 26, 2006, H.R. 5253 was read the first time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time.
On June 5, 2006, H.R. 5253 was read the second time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 461.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5253 in the 109th
Congress.
REFORM OF NATIONAL SECURITY REVIEWS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS ACT
(H.R. 5337)
To ensure national security while promoting foreign
investment and the creation and maintenance of jobs, to reform
the process by which such investments are examined for any
effect they may have on national security, to establish the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5337 strengthens the process for reviewing foreign
investment transactions in U.S. companies, clarify the role of
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS) and its membership, and improve transparency in the
process. The bill establishes CFIUS and its membership as a
standing inter-agency Committee chaired by the Secretary of
Commerce and sets forth requirements for reviews and
investigations and the timing thereof. H.R. 5337 provides
criteria and requirements for reviews and automatic
investigations of foreign government controlled transactions as
well as covered transactions. Additionally, the bill sets forth
reporting requirements for CFIUS on its activities to
Congressional leadership and the Congressional Committees of
jurisdiction.
Legislative History
H.R. 5337 was introduced in the House on May 10, 2006, by
Mr. Blunt and was referred to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, and 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.
On June 5, 2006, H.R. 5337 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
On June 14, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5337 reported to the
House, amended, by a record vote of 64 yeas and 0 nays.
On June 22, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services
reported H.R. 5337 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-523,
Part I).
On June 22, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Committee on International Relations was granted an extension
for further consideration ending not later than July 17, 2006.
On July 11, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5337.
Witnesses included representatives from the Business
Roundtable, the Emergency Committee on American Trade, United
States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and a
trade expert.
On July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5337 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On July 17, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5337 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-523,
Part II).
The Committee on International Relations discharged H.R.
5337 on July 17, 2006, and the bill was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 329.
On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5337 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 424 yeas and 0 nays.
On July 27, 2006, H.R. 5337 was received in the Senate and
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
(Calendar No. 538.)
No further action was taken on H.R. 5337 in the 109th
Congress.
POOL AND SPA SAFETY ACT OF 2006
(S. 3718)
A bill to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by
requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and
pool and spa drainage systems, by establishing a swimming pool
safety grant program administered by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to encourage States to improve their pool and
spa safety laws and to educate the public about pool and spa
safety, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 3718 establishes swimming pool and spa safety
requirements, and authorizes State and local governments to
enforce these requirements. Violators are subject to the same
penalties that would apply for violations of related State and
local laws. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) to establish recommended minimum State law
standards for swimming pools and spas requiring: (1) that any
outdoor swimming pool or spa is enclosed by an appropriate
fence or other barrier to prevent children from gaining
unsupervised access; and (2) that any swimming pool or spa with
a main drain is equipped with at least one anti-entrapment
device.
S. 3718 also directs the CPSC to require, at a minimum, one
or more of the following: (1) a safety vacuum release system;
(2) a suction-limiting vent system; (3) a gravity drainage
system; (4) an automatic pump shut-off system; or (5) some
device or system that disables the drain.
S. 3718 requires the CPSC to establish: (1) a state
swimming pool safety grant program to provide assistance to
States in hiring and training State and local government
employees in implementing and enforcing State swimming pool
standards, educating the public, and administering safety
programs; and (2) an education program to inform the public of
methods to prevent drownings and entrapment in swimming pools
and spas.
Finally, S. 3718 authorizes $10 million to be appropriated
to fund a CPSC grant program to incentivize the States to pass
these minimum requirements, and authorizes $5 million to fund a
CPSC consumer education program. Both of these authorizations
of annual appropriations would extend for 5 years.
Legislative History
S. 3718 was introduced by Senator Allen on July 24, 2006,
and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On September 27, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation met in open markup session and ordered S.
3718 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably.
On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation reported S. 3718 with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute with written report No. 109-357. S. 3718
was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 654.
On December 6, 2006 the Senate passed S. 3718 by unanimous
consent.
The House received S. 3718 on December 7, 2006, and it was
held at the desk.
On December 9, 2006, S. 3718 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and S. 3718 failed by a roll
call vote of 191 yeas and 109 nays.
No further action was taken on S. 3718 in the 109th
Congress.
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE PUBLICATION OF THE VIDEO GAME
`GRANT THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS' TO DETERMINE IF THE PUBLISHER
INENTIONALLY DECEIVED THE ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE RATINGS BOARD TO AVOID
AN `ADULTS-ONLY' RATING.
(H. Res. 376)
Summary
H. Res. 376 expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives that: (1) the Federal Trade Commission should
investigate the publication of the video game ``Grand Theft
Auto: San Andreas'' to determine if the publisher, Rockstar
Games, intentionally deceived the Entertainment Software
Ratings Board to avoid an ``Adults-Only'' rating; and (2) if it
determines Rockstar Games to have committed such deception or
fraud, the Commission should apply the toughest of penalties.
Legislative History
H. Res. 376 was introduced by Mr. Upton and referred to the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 22, 2005.
On July 25, 2005, H. Res. 376 was considered under
suspension of the rules and passed the House, amended, by a
roll call vote of 355 yeas, 21 nays, and 1 voting present.
Oversight Activities
STEROIDS IN SPORTS: CHEATING THE SYSTEM AND GAMBLING YOUR HEALTH
On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Steroids in
Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your Health. The
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
examined the effect of increased use and availability of
steroids on the health of the individuals and integrity of the
competitions. Additionally, the Subcommittee examined methods
to combat the use of steroids. Witnesses included a current
Congressman, a parent of a deceased high school athlete who
used steroids, health experts and researchers, the U.S. anti-
doping agency, and representatives of professional, collegiate,
and high school athletic leagues and associations.
PROTECTING CONSUMER'S DATA: POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY CHOICEPOINT
On March 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Protecting
Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to data
security and identity theft. The Subcommittee examined whether
existing law provides sufficient protection for consumer
information. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Federal Trade Commission, two data brokers, a cybersecurity
expert, and an expert on privacy law.
THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
On April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Dominican
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, a representative from the U.S. business
industry, a labor group, an advocate for free trade, American
manufacturers, the American sugar industry, an economics
professor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and an environmental
group.
SECURING CONSUMERS' DATA: OPTIONS FOLLOWING SECURITY BREACHES
On May 11, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Securing
Consumers' Data: Options Following Security Breaches. This
hearing continued the Subcommittee's examination of consumer
data security practices and consumer identify theft. The
Subcommittee's primary focus was on whether existing law
provides adequate protection for consumers and their data. The
Subcommittee received testimony from two data brokers, a credit
card company, a company specializing in digital encryption, and
a law professor.
ISSUES BEFORE THE US-CHINA JOINT COMMISSION ON COMMERCE AND TRADE
(JCCT)
On June 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on issues before
the JCCT. Under Secretary Dudas was Chair of the Intellectual
Property Rights Working Group of the JCCT and thus the focus of
the hearing centered on IP infringement to U.S. businesses that
are estimated to be $2.5 to 3.5 billion in lost sales in 2004.
Specifically, China's obligation as a member of the WTO and its
commitments to prevent piracy and protect IP were examined,
including China's commitments made at the prior meeting of the
JCCT. The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Jon W.
Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property,
Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
On June 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The purpose of the hearing was to inform
Subcommittee Members about the pending reauthorization language
in the Senate Transportation bill, and the potential inclusion
of that language in the Transportation Conference report. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration, the insurance industry, the
automobile manufacturers, a public interest association that
deals with automobile issues, an interest group that
specializes in safety with regard to children.
PRODUCT COUNTERFEITING: HOW FAKES ARE UNDERMINING U.S. JOBS,
INNOVATION, AND CONSUMER SAFETY
On Wednesday, June 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs,
Innovation, and Consumer Safety. The purpose of the hearing was
to examine issues related to the effects of product
counterfeiting on the U.S. economy and consumers. The
Subcommittee received testimony demonstrating the global
marketplace for counterfeit goods has increased to $600 billion
annually, regardless of quality of the product. The witnesses
also described the safety implications for consumers and
businesses who unknowingly buy or sell fake goods that do not
meet safety regulations, such as faulty brake pads and
counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Witnesses included representatives
from a range of businesses engaged in manufacturing consumer
products and pharmaceuticals, trade associations, and coalition
of businesses formed to combat counterfeiting.
THE COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IMPLICATIONS OF HURRICANE KATRINA
On September 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on The
Commerce and Consumer Protection Implications of Hurricane
Katrina. This hearing focused on the implications of Hurricane
Katrina for the U.S. economy, as well as what might be done to
protect consumers from deception and fraud that may arise from
the disaster. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the
manufacturing industry, the travel industry, and a think tank.
PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS AFTER KELO
On October 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Protecting
Property Rights After Kelo. The hearing examined the impact on
property rights for homeowners and businesses of the Supreme
Court decision in the Kelo et al v. New London Development
Corporation case. Specifically, the use of eminent domain was
examined in light of the interpretation to permit condemnation
for economic development, or ``public benefit,'' rather than
the traditional constitutional interpretation of ``public
use.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from a law
professor, property rights advocates, civil rights groups,
think tanks, and an association representing property
developers.
RIGHT TO REPAIR: INDUSTRY DISCUSSIONS AND LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS
On November 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Right
to Repair: Industry Discussions and Legislative Options. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine the status of industry
negotiations to reach a non-legislative solution regarding the
availability of service and repair information. Specifically,
the industry participants held a series of meetings--
facilitated by the Council of Better Business Bureaus--during
August and September 2005 in an effort to reach agreement.
Witnesses included the Federal Trade Commission, the Council of
Better Business Bureaus, the Coalition for Auto Repair
Equality, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the AAA
Auto Repair Network, the Automotive Service Association, the
National Federation of Independent Business, Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers, Automotive Aftermarket
Industry Association, and the National Automobile Dealers
Association.
FAIR USE: ITS EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY
On November 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Fair Use:
Its Effects on Consumers and Industry. The hearing focused on
the concept of ``fair use'' of copyrighted works: what it is
and how it affects consumers and industry. The Subcommittee
received testimony from a law professor, the consumer
electronics industry, the research libraries; the internet
community, two think tanks, the video game industry, and
representative from the writing community.
DETERMINING A CHAMPION ON THE FIELD: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE BCS
AND POSTSEASON COLLEGE FOOTBALL
On December 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review of
the BCS and Postseason College Football. The purpose of the
hearing was to examine the current system for determining a
national champion for Division I college football. Included in
the discussion of whether the system was fair was the financial
impact the bowl system and BCS system have on BCS and non-BCS
teams and conferences. The Subcommittee received testimony from
witnesses representing bowl coalitions, athletic conferences, a
university chancellor, and individual bowls including a BCS
bowl and a non-BCS bowl.
LAW AND ECONOMICS OF INTERCHANGE FEES
On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Law
and Economics of Interchange Fees. The hearing explored what
these fees are, how payment systems are structured, and how
they affect consumers, small businesses, and others. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the electronic payments
industry, the convenience store industry, a coalition of small
businesses, and a public interest group.
CAR TITLE FRAUD: ISSUES AND APPROACHES FOR KEEPING CONSUMERS SAFE ON
THE ROAD
On March 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine Car
Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe
on the Road. Specifically, the Subcommittee examined the safety
and fraud aspects for consumers that results when a damaged car
receives a new title from another State that does not show the
damage and is then sold to consumers fraudulently representing
or hiding its actual condition. Witnesses described
alternatives to the Federal regulatory regimes and the previous
attempts to provide uniform Federal titling laws. The
subcommittee received testimony from witnesses representing a
State Department of Motor Vehicles, a consumer group, and
industry participants.
THE INTERSECTION OF THE CONTENT INDUSTRIES AND THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
INDUSTRY
On March 29 and May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a two-part oversight
hearing exploring the intersection of the content industry and
the consumer electronics industry, both how they are
interdependent now and how they will continue to be in the
future. The March 29, 2006, hearing focused on the video side
of the industry, and the Subcommittee received testimony from
two consumer electronics companies, the motion picture
industry, and the video game industry. The May 3, 2006, hearing
focused on the audio side of the industry, and the Subcommittee
received testimony from a satellite radio company, the
recording industry, the broadcasters; the songwriters, and a
high-tech company.
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS IN COMMERCE: RECONCILING BENEFICIAL USES WITH
THREATS TO PRIVACY
On May 11, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Social
Security Numbers In Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with
Threats to Privacy. The hearing focused on privacy threats with
regard to the dissemination of Social Security Numbers. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, the financial industry, an expert in pensions, a
lawyer, and an expert in consumer privacy.
VIOLENT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES: INFORMING PARENTS AND PROTECTING
CHILDREN
On June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Violent &
Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents & Protecting Children.
The hearing focused on the content of video games and the
system of rating those games. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the Federal Trade Commission, a large retailer,
the video game industry, the video games rating group, a
professor of risk analysis and decision science, an expert in
technology for children, and a media review public interest
group.
PRIVACY IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD II
On June 20, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Privacy in the
Commercial World II. The hearing focused on the state of
privacy protections in commercial transactions. The
Subcommittee received testimony from an online auction site, a
think tank, a law professor, a high-tech company, and an expert
in consumer privacy.
MOTOR VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND THE CONSUMER: VIEWS FROM THE NATIONAL
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
On July 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Motor Vehicle
Technology and the Consumer: Views from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. The hearing was about new
technologies developing in the world of automobiles. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration.
CONTACT LENS SALES: IS MARKET REGULATION THE PRESCRIPTION?
On September 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Contact
Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the Prescription? The focus of
the hearing was the current state of the contact lens market.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, the Attorney General of the State of Utah, a
contact lens retailer, a contact lens manufacturer, a
representative of the American Academy of Ophthalmology; and a
representative of the American Optometric Association.
ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE: IS IT WORKING?
On September 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to examine
issues related to ICANN. Specifically the Subcommittee examined
the trade-related issues of the current structure for U.S.
businesses and the consumer benefits of non multi national
governmental entity supervising or regulating the Internet, as
had been proposed by some countries. The Subcommittees received
testimony from the Department of Commerce, the chief executive
officer of ICANN, and representatives of the software and
information industry as well as public policy organizations.
EDITING HOLLYWOOD'S EDITORS: CLEANING FLICKS FOR FAMILIES
On September 26, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Editing
Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for Families. The hearing
focused on different methods and new technologies that allow
consumers to view movies while muting or removing content that
some viewers may find offensive or unnecessarily explicit. The
Subcommittee received testimony from a consumer electronics
company, the motion picture industry, a representative of the
creative community, and a high-tech think tank.
Hearings Held
United States Boxing Commission Act.--Hearing on United
States Boxing Commission Act. Hearing held on March 3, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-6.
Steroids in Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your
Health.--Oversight hearing on Steroids in Sports: Cheating the
System and Gambling Your Health. Hearing held on March 10,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-65.
Protecting Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by
ChoicePoint.--Oversight hearing on Protecting Consumer's Data:
Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint. Hearing held on March 15,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-76.
Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement.--
Oversight hearing on Dominican Republic-Central America Free
Trade Agreement. Hearing held on April 28, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-18.
Securing Consumers' Data: Options Following Security
Breaches.--Oversight hearing on Securing Consumers' Data:
Options Following Security Breaches. Hearing held on May 11,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-14.
The Drug Free Sports Act of 2005.--Hearings on The Drug
Free Sports Act of 2005. Hearings held on May 18, 2005, and May
19, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-15.
Issues Before the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce
and Trade.--Oversight hearing on Issues Before the U.S.-China
Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. Hearing held on June 9,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-73.
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S.
Jobs, Innovation, and Consumer Safety.--Oversight hearing on
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs,
Innovation, and Consumer Safety. Hearing held on June 15, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-26.
Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.--Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hearing held on
June 23, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-27.
Data Security: The Discussion Draft of Data Protection
Legislation.--Hearing on Data Security: The Discussion Draft of
Data Protection Legislation. Hearing held on July 28, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-48.
The Commerce and Consumer Protection Implications of
Hurricane Katrina.--Oversight hearing on The Commerce and
Consumer Protection Implications of Hurricane Katrina. Hearing
held on September 22, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-74.
Protecting Property Rights After Kelo.--Oversight hearing
on Protecting Property Rights After Kelo. Hearing held on
October 19, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-55.
Right to Repair: Industry Discussions and Legislative
Options.--Oversight hearing on Right to Repair: Industry
Discussions and Legislative Options. Hearing held on November
10, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-81.
Fair Use: Its Effects on Consumers and Industry.--Oversight
hearing on Fair Use: Its Effects on Consumers and Industry.
Hearing held on November 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
78.
Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review
of the BCS and Postseason College Football.--Oversight hearing
on Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review
of the BCS and Postseason College Football. Hearing held on
December 7, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-42.
The Law and Economics of Interchange Fees.--Oversight
hearing on The Law and Economics of Interchange Fees. Hearing
held on February 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-61.
Car Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping
Consumers Safe on the Road.--Oversight hearing on Car Title
Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe on the
Road. Hearing held on March 1, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number
109-64.
Digital Content and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the
21st Century Consumer.--Oversight hearings on Digital Content
and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 21st Century Consumer.
Hearings held on March 29, 2006, and May 3, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-90.
Social Security Numbers in Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial
Uses with Threats to Privacy.--Oversight hearing on Social
Security Numbers in Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with
Threats to Privacy. Hearing held on May 11, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-91.
H.R. 2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of
2005.--Hearing on H.R. 2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to
Repair Act of 2005. Hearing held on May 17, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-93.
Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and
Protecting Children.--Oversight hearing on Violent and Explicit
Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children. Hearing
held on June 14, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-105.
Privacy in the Commercial World II.--Oversight hearing on
Privacy in the Commercial World II. Hearing held on June 20,
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-99.
CFIUS Reform: H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security
Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act.--Hearing on CFIUS
Reform: H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of
Foreign Direct Investments Act. Hearing held on July 11, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-110.
Motor Vehicle Technology and the Consumer: Views from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.--Oversight
hearing on Motor Vehicle Technology and the Consumer: Views
from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Hearing held on July 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-111.
H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act.
Hearing held on July 25, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-127.
Contact Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the
Prescription?.--Oversight hearing on Contact Lens Sales: Is
Market Regulation the Prescription? Hearing held on September
15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-139.
ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working?.--Joint oversight
hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet on ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working? Hearing
held on September 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-142.
Editing Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for
Families.--Oversight hearing on Editing Hollywood's Editors:
Cleaning Flicks for Families. Hearing held on September 26,
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-144.
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
(Ratio 18-15)
RALPH HALL, Texas, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Vice Chairman
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
(Ex Officio)
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JIM DAVIS, Florida
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
(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; all laws, programs, and
government activities affecting such matters; and, homeland security-
related aspects of the foregoing.
Legislative Activities
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-58 (H.R. 6, H.R. 1640)
To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and
reliable energy.
Summary
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) includes a wide
variety of provisions intended to increase energy supply and
encourage energy efficiency. Provisions within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce are highlighted below.
EPAct 2005 provides for incentive-based electric
transmission rates, allows transmission owners in certain
instances with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
approval to exercise the right of eminent domain to site new
transmission lines, and gives new, but limited, authority to
FERC over municipal and cooperative transmission systems. In
addition, EPAct 2005 repeals the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935 (PUHCA) and gives FERC and State public utility
commissions access to books and records, prospectively repeals
the mandatory purchase requirement of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), and establishes market
transparency rules.
EPAct 2005 also authorizes FERC to certify an electric
reliability organization to develop and enforce reliability
standards for the bulk transmission system. The Act also
provides for a system to improve transparency of electricity
markets, prohibits round trip trades, and increases civil and
criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act.
EPAct 2005 also amends procedures for the relicensing of
hydroelectric dams.
Additionally, EPAct 2005 reauthorizes the Price-Anderson
Act nuclear liability system through December 31, 2025. Under
Price-Anderson, commercial reactor accident damages are paid
through a combination of private-sector insurance and a nuclear
industry self-insurance system. Price-Anderson also authorizes
the Department of Energy (DOE) to indemnify its nuclear
contractors.
With regard to transportation, EPAct 2005 creates a
renewable fuel standard (RFS) requiring in 2006 the blending of
4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel with gasoline sold or
dispensed to consumers. This number increases to 7.5 billion
gallons in 2012. Qualifying as renewable fuel are ethanol (both
cellulosic and waste-derived), biodiesel, and other renewable
feedstocks. EPAct 2005 amends the Clean Air Act by eliminating
the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline while
maintaining the emissions reductions gained by the reformulated
gasoline program.
EPAct 2005 also provides new Federal authorities and
requirements for the Federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank
program. For example, it requires onsite inspections of
underground storage tanks every three years, establishes
operator-training programs where they do not already exist, and
institutes a specific new funding category to clean up tank-
related releases of oxygenated fuel additives in gasoline, like
MTBE.
EPAct 2005 also authorizes EPA, in consultation with DOE,
to temporarily waive motor fuel requirements under certain
motor fuel supply emergencies and to limit the number of fuels
permitted for use in State Implementation Plans.
With regard to energy conservation, EPAct 2005 directs DOE
to set efficiency standards for various appliances and sets
standards for various commercial appliances. EPAct 2005 also
requires progressive annual reductions in energy use by Federal
buildings from FY 2003 levels, culminating in a 20% reduction
by FY 2015. Furthermore, EPAct 2005 amends the starting and
ending dates for Daylight Savings Time beginning in 2007, and
authorizes Energy Savings Performance Contracts through 2016.
EPAct 2005 also authorizes the filling of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve to a capacity of one billion barrels.
With regard to technology advancement, EPAct 2005 provides
incentives through cost sharing to improve and bring to market
new clean coal technologies, and also provides authorization
for new programs to develop hydrogen fuel infrastructure. In
addition, EPAct 2005 also provides incentives for the
development of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind
energy.
EPAct 2005 provides authorizations for DOE's fossil fuel
program for existing and new coal-based research and
development, and provides authorization for the Secretary of
Energy to carry out the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which will
provide funding to those projects that can demonstrate advanced
coal-based power generating technologies that achieve
significant reductions in emissions, and where at least 70
percent of this authorization will be used for projects related
to coal-based gasification technology.
Finally, EPAct 2005 launches a program to support hydrogen-
powered automobiles on the road by 2020, along with the
necessary infrastructure to provide for the safe delivery of
hydrogen fuels.
Legislative History
On February 9, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and
Commerce held a legislative hearing on the Energy Policy Act of
2005. The Committee received testimony from the Secretary of
Energy.
On February 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality conducted a legislative hearing to examine the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The perspectives of the Department of
Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and various representatives of the energy
industry were considered. The Subcommittee received testimony
from energy representatives of the Federal government, private
industry, consumers, and other stakeholders.
On February 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a legislative hearing to examine the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss oil and
gas issues, motor fuels and ethanol, nuclear energy, and coal.
Also discussed was renewable energy, specifically
hydroelectric, hydrogen and solar energy. The subcommittee
received testimony from representatives of the oil and gas
industry as well as the nuclear power and coal industries,
representatives from consumer groups, environmental advocates
and advocates for the various types of renewable energy.
On April 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered a Committee
Print reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 39
yeas and 16 nays, a quorum being present. A request by Mr.
Barton that the Committee be permitted to file a report on a
bill to be introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be
deemed as action on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous
consent.
H.R. 1640 was introduced by Mr. Barton on April 14, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in
addition, to the Committees on Science, Resources, Education
and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial
Services, and Agriculture, 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. 1640, as
amended, to the House, pursuant to the unanimous consent
request, on July 29, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-215, Part I).
All Committees were discharged from further consideration
of the bill on July 29, 2005, and no further action on H.R.
1640 was taken in the 109th Congress.
On April 18, 2005, Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6, which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce,
Financial Services, Agriculture, Resources, Science, Ways and
Means, and 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. 6 contained provisions that were
substantially similar to provisions in H.R. 1640, as well as
H.R. 1530, H.R. 1533, and H.R. 1705.
On April 20 and April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 was considered in
the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 219.
On April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the House, as amended, by
a roll call vote of 249 yeas and 183 nays.
H.R. 6 was received in the Senate on April 26, 2005. On
June 9, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 124.
H.R. 6 was considered in the Senate on June 14, 15, 16, 20,
21, 22, and 23, 2005.
On June 23, 2005, the Senate invoked cloture on H.R. 6 by a
record vote of 92 yeas and 4 nays.
On June 28, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the Senate with an
amendment by a record vote of 85 yeas and 12 nays, and on July
1, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the House and
appointed conferees.
On July 13, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference. On July 14, 2005, 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 July 14, 19, 21, and 24,
2005. The conferees agreed to file the conference report on
July 26, 2005, and the conference report was filed on July 27,
2005 (H. Rept. 109-190).
The House considered and agreed to the conference report,
pursuant to H. Res. 394, on July 28, 2005, by a vote of 275
yeas and 156 nays.
On July 28, 2005, the conference report was considered in
the Senate by unanimous consent, and on July 29, 2005, the
conference report was agreed to by a record vote of 74 yeas and
26 nays and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 6 was presented to the President on August 4, 2005,
and was signed by the President on August 8, 2005 (Public Law
109-58).
SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A
LEGACY FOR USERS
Public Law 109-59 (H.R. 3)
Summary
Titles I and IV of the Safe Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,
contain provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Title I expands the projects
and programs eligible for funding under the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).
Additional eligible projects include advanced truck stop
electrification, the purchase of alternative fuels, and diesel
retrofits, which are given priority along with other cost-
effective congestion mitigation activities. It amends Section
108 of the Clean Air Act to limit eligibility of transportation
control measures and projects to those that are likely to
contribute to a high level of effectiveness in reducing air
pollution. Title VI amends Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act
governing transportation conformity. It adjusts the frequency
of conformity determinations for Metropolitan Transportation
Plans and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) including
statewide transportation improvement plans to every four years
in nonattainment and maintenance areas, unless a metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) elects to update the plan or TIP
more frequently or conformity is triggered by an EPA SIP
action. The length of time into the future an MPO must examine
when determining conformity is also adjusted from 20 years to
10 years in certain circumstances. A one year grace period of
12 months is permitted before a conformity lapse shall be
considered to exist and the consequences of a conformity lapse
apply. Furthermore certain barriers are removed for regions
implementing transportation control measures (TCMs) to improve
regional air quality. In addition, Title VI directs EPA to
conduct a study of the ability of monitors to differentiate
coarse particulate matter and requires EPA to promulgate
regulations permitting Governors to petition EPA to exclude air
quality data directly due to events such as forest fires or
volcanic eruptions from determinations of whether a region is
meeting its air quality goals as required under the Clean Air
Act. Title VI also includes provisions establishing an EPA
program to award grants for the retrofit or replacement of
school buses to help localities reduce emissions.
Legislative History
H.R. 3 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on February 9,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3, to discuss the
provisions that would amend the Clean Air Act. The purpose of
the hearing was to allow the subcommittee to seek methods of
conformity and how those adjustments in the conformity process
as described by H.R. 3 will aid in developing transportation
plans that meet air quality goals. The subcommittee received
testimony from Federal government officials, as well as
individuals from the private sector.
On March 2, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
On March 7, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3 to the House, amended (H. Rept.
109-12, Part I).
On March 8, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure filed a supplemental report for H.R. 3 to the
House, amended (H. Rept. 109-12, Part II).
On March 9 and 10, 2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 140 and H. Res. 144.
On March 10, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the House, as amended, by
a roll call vote of 417 yeas and 9 nays.
H.R. 3 was received in the Senate on March 20, 2005. On
April 6, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.
On April 26, 2005, cloture on motion to proceed to
consideration of H.R. 3 was invoked in Senate by a record vote
of 94 yeas and 6 nays.
On April 27 and 28, and May 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17,
2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the Senate.
On May 17, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the Senate with an amendment
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 11 nays.
On May 26, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the
House and appointed conferees.
On May 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for consideration of provisions in the House bill and Senate
amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of
transportation planning contained in secs. 6001 and 6006 of the
House bill, and sections 6005 and 6006 of the Senate amendment;
and sections 1210, 1824, 1833, 5203, and 6008 of the House
bill, and sections 1501, 1511, 1522, 1610-1619, 1622, 4001,
4002, 6016, 6023, 7218, 7223, 7251, 7252, 7256-7262, 7324,
7381, 7382, and 7384 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference.
The conference committee met on June 9, 2005, and the
conferees agreed to file the conference report on July 28, 2005
(H. Rept. 109-203).
The House considered and agreed to the conference report,
pursuant to H. Res. 399, on July 29, 2005, by a roll call vote
of 412 yeas and 8 nays.
On July 29, 2005, the conference report was considered in
the Senate, agreed to by a record vote of 91 yeas and 4 nays,
and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3 was presented to and signed by the President on
August 10, 2005 (Public Law 109-59).
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Section 3201 of both bills authorized funds for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Legislative History
H.R. 1815 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 26, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 20, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 1815.
On May 20, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 1815 to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 109-89). H.R. 1815
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
On May 25, 2005, H.R. 1815 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 293, and passed the House, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 390 yeas and 39 nays.
H.R. 1815 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2005, read
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On November 15, 2005, H.R. 1855 was laid before the Senate
and passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On December 15, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and on December 16,
2005, the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, for consideration of sections 314, 601,
1032, and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 312, 1084, 2893,
3116, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference.
On December 18, 2005, the conferees filed the conference
report (H. Rept. 109-360).
On December 18, 2005, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1815 was considered in the House, and on December 19,
2005, the conference report as unfinished business, and passed
the House by a roll call vote of 374 yeas and 41 nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report was considered
in the Senate, agreed to by a voice vote, and cleared for the
White House.
H.R. 1815 was presented to the President on January 3,
2006, and signed by the President on January 6, 2006 (Public
Law 109-163).
TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE ENERGY
POLICY ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-168 (H.R. 4637)
To make certain technical corrections in amendments made by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Summary
H.R. 4637 makes technical corrections to Title XVII of
Energy Policy Act of 2005 in Section 1703(c)(4) by striking
``clean coal power initiative under subtitle A of title IV
for'' and inserting ``Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power
Initiative for Fischer-Tropsch'' and in Section 1704(b) by
striking ``clean coal power initiative under subtitle A of
title IV'' and inserting ``Clean Coal Power Initiative''.
Legislative History
H.R. 4637 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on December 18,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 19, 2005, H.R. 4637 was discharged from the
Committee on Energy and Commerce by unanimous consent, and the
bill was considered and passed by the House by unanimous
consent.
H.R. 4637 was received in the Senate on December 19, 2005,
and read twice. On December 22, 2005, H.R. 4637 passed the
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent and was cleared
for the White House.
H.R. 4637 was presented to the president on January 3,
2006, and signed by the President on January 10, 2006 (Public
Law 109-168).
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-171 (S. 1932, H.R. 4241)
(Title IX--LIHEAP Provisions)
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006
(H. Con. Res. 95).
Summary
Section 1301 amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 to reduce FY 2007 funding for the renewable energy
systems and energy efficiency improvements program.
Title IX appropriates to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services for one-time only obligation and expenditure for low-
income energy assistance: (1) $250 million for FY2007; and (2)
$750 million for FY2007. A sunset date of September 30, 2007 is
established for the provisions of this section.
Legislative History
On October 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print
entitled Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina energy
relief, as amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 22 nays. A
motion by Mr. Barton to transmit the recommendations of the
Committee, and all appropriate accompanying material including
additional, supplemental, or dissenting views, to the House
Committee on the Budget, in order to comply with the
reconciliation directive included in Section 201(a) of the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H.
Con. Res. 95, and consistent with Section 310 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, was
agreed to by a voice vote.
On October 27, 2005, Mr. Gregg introduced S. 1932 and the
Senate Committee on the Budget reported without a written
report.
On November 3, 2005, S. 1932 was passed and agreed to in
the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 nays.
On November 7, 2005, Mr. Nussle introduced H.R. 4241, which
included the Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina
energy relief, and the House Committee on The Budget reported
an original measure (H. Rept. 109-276).
On November 17, 2005, H.R. 4241 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 560, and passed the House on November 18,
2005, by a roll call vote of 217 yeas and 215 nays. No further
action was taken on H.R. 4241 in the 109th Congress.
On November 18, 2005, S. 1932 was considered in the House
by unanimous consent, and was agreed to, amended, without
objection.
On December 14, 2005, the Senate disagreed to the amendment
of the House, and requested a conference on S. 1932 by
unanimous consent.
On December 15, 2005, the Senate appointed conferees.
On December 16, 2005, Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent
that the House insist upon its amendment, and agree to a
conference. The request was agreed to without objection.
On December 16, 2005, the Speaker of the House appointed
conferees for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House
amendment thereto, and modifications committed to conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of title III and title VI of the
Senate bill and title III of the House amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Deal (GA),
and Dingell.
On December 19, 2005, the conference report to accompany S.
1932 (H. Rept. 109-362) was filed, considered under the
provisions of H. Res. 640, and the House agreed to the
conference report by a roll call vote of 212 yeas and 206 nays.
On December 19, 20, and 21, 2005, the conference report was
considered in the Senate.
On December 21, 2005, Senate concurred in the House
amendment with an amendment by a record vote of 51 yeas and 50
nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report was defeated by
operation of the Budget Act.
On January 31, 2006, the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res.
653 provided for consideration of S. 1932, upon adoption of the
resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
On February 1, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate
amendment to the House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653.
On February 7, 2006, S. 1932 was presented to the President
and was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006
(Public Law 109-171).
A BILL TO MAKE AVAILABLE FUNDS INCLUDED IN THE DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF
2005 FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR
2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Public Law 109-204 (S. 2320)
A bill to make available funds included in the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 2320 makes available $1 billion in additional LIHEAP
funds for fiscal year 2006. The funds are allocated as $500
million in regular funds and $500 million in contingency funds.
These funds were reallocated and moved to fiscal year 2006 from
fiscal year 2007 as provided in Title IX of the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005.
Legislative History
S. 2320 was introduced by Ms. Snowe on February 16, 2006,
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
On February 17, 2006, S. 2320 was read twice and placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar
No. 363.
On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed a motion to waive the
Budget Act with respect to the measure by a record vote of 66
yeas and 31 nays.
On March 2, 3, and 7, 2006, S. 2320 was considered by the
Senate, and on March 7, 2006, the Senate invoked cloture on the
bill by a record vote of 75 yeas and 25 nays.
On March 7, 2006, S. 2320 passed the Senate by voice vote.
S. 2320 was received in the House on March 7, 2006, and
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 March 16, 2006, S. 2320 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, passed by a roll call vote of
287 yeas and 128 nays, and cleared for the White House.
S. 2320 was presented to the President on March 17, 2006,
and signed by the President on March 20, 2006 (Public Law 109-
204).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Public Law 109-295 (H.R. 5441)
Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Title IV of H.R. 5441 contained language, relevant to the
jurisdiction of the Committee, that prohibited reimbursement of
other Federal agencies with Federal funds in fiscal year 2009
and that not more than $3,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation purposes. In addition, Title IV
prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from obtaining
$15 million unless the Domestic Nuclear Detention Office had
officially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with each Federal entity and organization that such MOU
included a description of the role, responsibilities, and
resource commitment of each Federal entity or organization for
the global architecture. Finally, Title IV prohibited Federal
funding of the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitors (ASPM)
until the Department of Homeland Security could certify that a
significant increase in operational effectiveness for the ASPM
will be achieved.
As part of the General Provisions of H.R. 5441, and related
to Rule X, Clause 1(f)(6) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, Section 533 requires the Director of the
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to operate extramural and
intramural research, development, demonstrations, testing and
evaluation programs so as to distribute funding through grants,
cooperative agreements, other transactions and contracts.
In addition, in Section 611 of H.R. 5441, relating to the
Committee's public health jurisdiction, Sections 501 and 504 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.)
concerning the Nuclear Incident Response Team were transferred
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and subsumed into
other sections of Title V, including Section 517 under that
Act.
Legislative History
On May 22, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations
reported an original measure, (H. Rept. 109-476), which was
introduced by Mr. Rogers (KY) as H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441 was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 264.
On May 25, 2006 and June 6, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered
in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 836. On June 6,
2006, H.R. 5441 passed the House by a roll call vote of 389
yeas and 9 nays.
On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 5441 reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations reported
by Senator Gregg with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, with written report No. 109-273, and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No.
503.
On July 11, 12, and 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by
Senate, and on July 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 passed the Senate with
an amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. The
Senate insists on its amendment, asked for a conference, and
appointed conferees.
On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference.
On September 25, 2006, the conferees agreed to file
conference report.
On September 28, 2006, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 5441 was filed (H. Rept. 109-699).
The conference report to accompany H.R. 5441 was considered
in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1054 on
September 29, 2006, and passed the House by a roll call vote of
412 yeas and 6 nays.
On September 29, 2006, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 5441 was considered in the Senate, agreed to by a voice
vote, and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 5441 was presented to the President on October 3,
2006, and signed by the President on October 4, 2006 (Public
Law 109-295).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF ALASKA
Public Law 109-297 (S. 176)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.
Summary
S. 176 extends the time in the project license to begin
construction on the 5 MW Reynolds Creek hydroelectric project
in Alaska for three additional two-year periods that begin four
years after the original license was issued by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
Legislative History
S. 176 was introduced by Ms. Murkowski on January 26, 2005,
read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources ordered S. 176 reported without amendment favorably.
On March 10, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With
written report No. 109-29. S. 176 was placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 42.
On July 26, 2006, S. 176 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 176 was received in the House on July 27, 2005, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On August 5, 2006, S. 176 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality.
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a two part hearing. The first half of the hearing
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R.
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee
received testimony from Members of Congress and a
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered S. 176 favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported S. 176 to the House (H. Rept. 109-681), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 411.
On September 26, 2006, S. 176 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed by voice vote.
S. 176 was cleared for the White House on September 26,
2006, and presented to the President on September 28, 2006. The
President signed S. 176 on October 5, 2006 (Public Law 109-
297).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF WYOMING
Public Law 109-298 (S. 244)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.
Summary
S. 244 extends the time in the project license to begin
construction on the 1.5 MW Swift Creek hydroelectric project in
Wyoming for three additional two-year periods that begin four
years after the original license was issued by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
Legislative History
S. 244 was introduced by Mr. Thomas (WY) on February 1,
2005, read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources ordered S. 244 reported without amendment favorably.
On March 10, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With
written report No. 109-32. S. 244 was placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 45.
On July 26, 2006, S. 244 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 244 was received in the House on July 27, 2005, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing
on the bill on September 13, 2006.
On August 5, 2006, S. 244 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality.
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a two part hearing. The first half of the hearing
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R.
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee
received testimony from Members of Congress and a
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered S. 244 favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported S. 244 to the House (H. Rept. 109-682), and it was
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 412.
On September 26, 2006, S. 244 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice
vote.
S. 244 was cleared for the White House on September 26,
2006, and presented to the President on September 28, 2006. The
President signed S. 244 on October 5, 2006 (Public Law 109-
298).
SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT
Public Law 109-347 (H.R. 4954)
To improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced
layered defenses, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4954 authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to
establish programs to increase the security of maritime
commerce and the international supply chain including
provisions to improve detection of biological or radiological
threats, coordinate responses to those threats among several
agencies including the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and protocols for the resumption of
trade following an incident.
Legislative History
H.R. 4954 was introduced by Mr. Lundgren on March 14, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
On April 26, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4954 reported to the
House, as amended, by voice vote.
On April 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and
the Committee on Homeland Security exchanged correspondence
relating to H.R. 4954.
On April 28, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security
reported H.R. 4954 to the House (H. Rept. 109-447, Part I.).
H.R. 4954 was referred sequentially to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for a period ending not later
than May 1, 2006, for consideration of such provisions of the
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clause 1(r), rule X.
On May 1, 2006, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure was discharged from further consideration of
H.R. 4954.
On May 4, 2006, pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 789,
H.R. 4954 was considered by the House and passed by a roll call
vote of 421 yeas and 2 nays.
On May 8, 2006, H.R. 4954 was received in the Senate.
On May 15, 2006, H.R. 4954 was read the first time, and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under read the First
Time.
On May 16, 2006, H.R. 4954 was read the second time, and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 432.
On September 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 2006, H.R. 4954 was
considered in the Senate.
On September 14, 2006, cloture was invoked in Senate by a
record vote of 98 yeas and 0 nays, and H.R. 4954 passed the
Senate with an amendment by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0
nays.
On September 19, 2006, the Senate requested a conference
with the House and appointed conferees.
On September 28, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference. The Speaker appointed
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for
consideration of Titles VI and X and section 1104 of the Senate
amendment, and modifications committed to conference.
The conference report to accompany H.R. 4954 (H. Rept. 109-
711) was filed on September 29, 2006.
On September 29, 2006, pursuant to the provisions H. Res.
1064, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4954 was
considered in the House and on September 30, 2006, the
conference report was agreed to by a roll call vote of 409 yeas
and 2 nays.
The Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous
consent on September 30, 2006, and cleared H.R. 4954 for the
White House.
H.R. 4954 was presented to the President on October 3,
2006, and was signed by the President on October 13, 2006,
(Public Law No. 109-347).
JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122, S. 2766)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5122 directs the Secretary to designate energy
performance goals for DOD military transportation and support
systems and installations consistent with the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The bill requires the Secretary to include
consideration of alternate energy initiatives for vehicles and
military support equipment. It authorizes the Secretary to
consider longer positive net value returns for certain
equipment upgrades supporting industrial processes. In
addition, it requires the Secretary to ensure that energy-
efficient products meeting DOD's requirements, if cost-
effective over the life cycle of the product and readily
available, be used in new facility construction in connection
with such systems and installations.
The bill authorizes appropriations to the Department of
Energy (DOE) for FY2007 for: (1) activities of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in carrying out programs
necessary for national security, with specified allocations for
weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation
activities, naval reactors, and the Office of the Administrator
for Nuclear Security; and (2) environmental restoration and
waste management activities in carrying out national security
programs, with specified allocations for defense environmental
cleanup, other defense activities, and defense nuclear waste
disposal.
Legislative History
H.R. 5122 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 6, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House,
amended, by a record vote of 60 yeas and 1 nay.
On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 5122 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-452). H.R.
5122 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
On May 9, 2006, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 5122.
On May 10 and 11, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5122
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 806 and H. Res. 811. On
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5122, passed the House by a roll call vote
of 396 ayes and 31 nays.
On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5122 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 431.
On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5122 was laid before the Senate and
passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On September 7, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for consideration of sections 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117,
and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 332-335, 352, 601,
722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
The Conference Committee met on September 12, 2005, and the
conferees filed the conference report to accompany H.R. 5122 on
September 29, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-702).
On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5122 pursuant to the provisions of H.
Res. 1062, and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 398 yeas
and 23 nays.
On September 30, 2006, the conference report was considered
in the Senate, agreed to by unanimous consent, and cleared for
the White House. H.R. 5122 was presented to the President on
October 5, 2006, and signed by the President on October 17,
2006 (Public Law 109-364).
TO EXTEND THE TIME REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HYDROELECTRIC
PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Public Law 109-393 (H.R. 4377)
To extend the time required for construction of a
hydroelectric project, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4377 extends the time in the project license to begin
construction on the 15 MW Arrowrock hydroelectric project in
Idaho by three years from the date of enactment of the bill.
Legislative History
H.R. 4377 was introduced by Mr. Otter on November 17, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 2, 2005, H.R. 4377 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a two-part hearing. The first half of the hearing
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R.
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee
received testimony from Members of Congress and a
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4377 favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4377 to the House (H. Rept. 109-684), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 414.
On September 26, 2006, H.R 4377 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice
vote.
H.R. 4377 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006,
read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 643.
On November 16, 2006, H.R. 4377 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent.
H.R. 4377 was presented to the President on December 5,
2006, and signed by the President on December 13, 2006 (Public
Law 109-393).
TO STUDY AND PROMOTE THE USE OF ENERGY EFFICIENT COMPUTER SERVERS IN
THE UNITED STATES
Public Law 109-431 (H.R. 5646)
To study and promote the use of energy efficient computer
servers in the United States.
Summary
H.R. 5646 is a bill to study and promote energy efficient
data centers and computer servers. It calls on the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the Energy Star
program, to submit to Congress within 180 days a study
analyzing the growth and energy consumption of data centers.
Specifically, the study, with public input, should include
items such as growth trends associated with data centers,
analysis of industry usage of energy efficient microchips,
potential cost savings associated with the use of energy
efficient data centers and servers, potential cost savings to
the energy supply chain associated with energy efficient data
centers and servers, the use of stationary fuel cells, and
their impact on the electric grid, overview of current
government incentives, and recommendations for incentives and
voluntary programs to encourage use of energy efficient data
centers and computing. The bill also states that it is the
sense of Congress that it is in the best interest of the United
States for purchasers of computer servers to give a high
priority to energy efficiency.
Legislative History
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered a Committee Print, to study
and promote the use of energy efficient computer servers in the
United States, reported to the House by a voice vote, a quorum
being present. A request by Mr. Barton to allow a report to be
filed on a bill to be introduced by Mr. Rogers, and that the
actions of the Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, was
agreed to by unanimous consent.
H.R. 5646 was introduced by Mr. Rogers (MI) on June 20,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5646 to the House, pursuant to the unanimous
consent request, (H. Rept. 109-538), and it was placed on the
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 302.
On July 12, 2006, H.R 5646 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 417 ayes and 4 nays.
H.R. 5646 was received in the Senate on July 13, 2006, and
on August 4, 2006, was read twice and referred to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
On December 7, 2006, H.R. 5646 was discharged by the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by unanimous consent,
and passed the Senate by unanimous consent, clearing H.R. 5646
for the White House.
On December 11, 2006, H.R. 5646 was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on December 20, 2006
(Public Law 109-431).
THE PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-468 (H.R. 5782)
To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for
enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline
transportation, to provide for enhanced reliability in the
transportation of the Nation's energy products by pipeline, and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5782 adds a new Federal requirement to existing one-
call civil enforcement provisions in the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act (PSIA) for any person who engages in
demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction. The bill
amends the State Pipeline Safety Program Certification Section
of PSIA (Sec 60105 (b)) to require States to show they are
encouraging, promoting, and establishing State programs
designed to prevent damage by demolition, excavation,
tunneling, or construction activity with appropriate penalties.
The bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary)
to pay for up to 80 percent of the cost of personnel,
equipment, and activities the State authority requires during
the calendar year. It also requires the Secretary to issue
regulations subjecting low stress hazardous liquid pipelines to
the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid
pipelines, except for the limited exceptions. The bill also
authorizes studies, including one with DOE, in consultation
with DOT, to review and analyze the domestic transport of crude
oil and other petroleum products by pipeline and identify areas
where reliability concerns exist or where failure or unplanned
loss of individual pipeline facilities may cause shortages of
crude oil, petroleum products, or price disruptions. Finally,
H.R. 5782 requires the Secretary of DOT to provide a monthly
updated summary to the public of all gas and liquid pipeline
enforcement actions taken by the Secretary or PHMSA, from the
time a notice commencing an action is issued until the
enforcement action is final.
Legislative History
H.R. 5782 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on July 13,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, 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 19, 2006, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered the bill
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
On July 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality conducted a hearing to examine proposed legislation
that would reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of
2002, a Committee Print and H.R. 5782, the Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of 2006. The subcommittee received testimony
from a representative of the Department of Transportation,
State and industry representatives, and a safety advocate.
On August 1, 2006, H.R. 5782 was referred to the Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
On September 27, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5782 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported
H.R. 5782 to the House on December 5, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-717,
Part I).
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 5782 to
the House on December 5, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-717, Part II), and
H.R. 5782 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 429.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5782 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5782 was received in the Senate
and read twice.
On December 7, 2006, H.R. 5782 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White
House.
H.R. 5782 was presented to the President on December 20,
2006, and was signed by the President on December 29, 2006
(Public Law 109-468).
TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS IN CONNECTICUT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(H.R. 971)
To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of
certain hydroelectric projects in Connecticut, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 971 extends the time in the project licenses to begin
construction on three hydroelectric projects in Connecticut
until May 30, 2007. The three projects are the 440 kW Hale
project, the 373 kW Collinsville Upper and the 1.1 MW
Collinsville Lower project. The bill also authorizes the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the construction
start date for the projects for two additional two-year
periods.
Legislative History
H.R. 971 was introduced by Mr. Simmons on February 17,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 14, 2005, H.R. 971 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a two part hearing. The first half of the hearing
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R.
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee
received testimony from Members of Congress and a
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 971 favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
report H.R. 971 to the House (H. Rept. 109-683), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 413.
On September 26, 2006, H.R. 971 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice
vote.
H.R. 971 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006.
On November 13, 2006, H.R. 971 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
No further action was taken on H.R. 971 during the 109th
Congress.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
(H.R. 1817)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1817 mandates the Department of Homeland Security to
create a plan and report on how to protect the Nation's
``critical infrastructure,'' including energy, financial
services, water, and transportation networks.
Legislative History
On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1817 was introduced by Mr. Cox in
the House and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security
Committee reported H.R. 1817 (H. Rept. 109-71, Part I) and H.R.
1817 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, Committee on Government Reform, Committee
on the Judiciary, Committee on Science, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Ways and Means,
and Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period
ending not later than May 13, 2005, for consideration of such
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X.
On May 11, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 12, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote.
On May 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. Rept. 109-71, Part II). The
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H.
Rept. 109-71, Part III). On the same day, the Committee on
Government Reform, Committee on Science, Committee on
Transportation, Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on
Intelligence (Permanent) were discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 1817.
On May 18, 2005, H.R. 1817 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 283 and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 424 yeas and 4 nays.
On May 19, 2005, H.R. 1817 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1817 in the 109th
Congress.
UNITED STATES-ISRAEL ENERGY COOPERATION ACT
(H.R. 2730)
To authorize funding for eligible joint ventures between
United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons, to
establish the International Energy Advisory Board, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2730 establishes the framework for a grant program
within the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy under existing DOE authorities.
The grants are to promote and facilitate joint ventures between
the United States and Israel concerning renewable energy,
alternative energy, and energy efficiency. Specifically, it
directs the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), to consult with
the United States-Israel Binational Industrial Research and
Development Foundation (BIRD) and the United States-Israel
Binational Science Foundation (BSF) on the development of the
program, the application process, the determination of entities
eligible to receive grants and the amount of the grants. It
also provides the Secretary with the discretion to seek
recoupment of grants from grant recipients where the project
has led to a product or process which is marketed or used. The
bill also establishes an International Energy Advisory Board
within DOE to advise the Secretary on criteria for recipients
of the grants and the amounts of the grants. The Board is to be
composed of two members from the United States and two members
from Israel. The Board members are not paid, except for travel
expenses and per diem. The grant program and the Board
established under the Act terminate seven years after enactment
of the Act. H.R. 2730 authorizes $20 million per year for
fiscal years 2006 through 2012.
Legislative History
H.R. 2730 was introduced by Mr. Shadegg on May 26, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 3, 2005, H.R. 2730 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2730 favorably reported
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2730 to the House (H. Rept. 109-543). The bill
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 305.
On July 26, 2006, H.R. 2730 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 2730 was received in the Senate on July 27, 2006, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2730 during the 109th
Congress.
GASOLINE FOR AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 3893)
To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in
the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy
for the American people, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3893, the GAS Act, sets forth a statutory framework in
the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to: (1) increase
refinery capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and
jet fuel; (2) modify environmental and other regulations
affecting refineries under the Clean Air Act; and (3)
coordinate permitting requirements and other regulations
affecting refineries at the Federal, State, and local levels.
In particular, the bill includes provisions to encourage the
siting of new refineries by giving States, at the request of
their Governor, the opportunity to use reformed refinery siting
procedures. The bill also directs the President to designate
sites on Federal lands, including closed military
installations, that are appropriate for the purposes of siting
a refinery. Refineries sited pursuant to this Presidential
designation would be eligible to use reformed siting
procedures, which include identifying the DOE as lead agency
for the purposes of coordinating all authorizations required to
site and operate a refinery pursuant to Federal law.
The bill also directs the EPA, under the Clean Air Act New
Source Review program, to use the maximum legal flexibility
under existing law in order to enable energy industry
facilities to undertake projects to maintain, to restore, and
to improve the efficiency, the reliability, or the availability
of such facilities. In addition, the bill provides the
President the authority to temporarily waive Federal, and local
fuel or fuel additive requirements in the event of an extreme
and unusual supply circumstance caused by a natural disaster.
The GAS Act also directs the EPA to develop a Federal Fuels
List comprised of a total of 6 gasoline and diesel fuels for
use in States except California or States dependent on
refineries in California for gasoline or diesel fuel. Section
109 of the GAS Act permits a downwind area to seek, by
petitioning EPA, an attainment date extension 18 months prior
to or within 18 months after its attainment date deadline. The
bill also directs the Secretary of Energy to establish and
carry out a program to encourage the use of carpooling and
vanpooling to reduce the consumption of gasoline and to utilize
the internet for carpool and vanpool outreach and marketing
activities. The Secretary may make grants to Federal and local
governments for carpooling or vanpooling projects.
In addition, H.R. 3893 requires the Federal Trade
Commission to study and investigate nationwide gasoline prices
in the aftermath of Katrina, including any evidence of price
gouging and to study and report to Congress on the effect crude
and gasoline futures trading has on gasoline prices. Finally,
the bill authorizes the creation of a Strategic Petroleum
Reserve Expansion Fund to finance the acquisition of increased
capacity for the Reserve and requires that crude oil sold from
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to refiners be used for
consumption in the United States and not be resold before it
has been refined.
Legislative History
H.R. 3893 was introduced by Mr. Barton on September 26,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Armed Services, 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.
On September 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3893 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On October 6, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3893, as amended, to the House (H. Rept. 109-244,
Part I). The Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Armed Services, and Resources were discharged from further
consideration of the bill at it was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 135.
The House considered H.R. 3893 under the provisions of H.
Res. 481 on October 7, 2005, and passed the bill by a roll call
vote of 212 ayes and 210 nays.
H.R. 3893 was received in the Senate on October 17, 2005,
and on October 24, 2005, the bill was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3893 during the 109th
Congress.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4128)
To protect private property rights.
Summary
H.R. 4128, among other things, prohibits States or their
political subdivisions that receive Federal funds from
exercising their power of eminent domain to further economic
development. The bill would terminate the flow of Federal funds
to any State or political subdivision that violates the
prohibition. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has
jurisdiction over the bill because of its potential impact on
Federal health payments, telecommunications grants, and energy
grant programs, prohibited Federal funds which could include
many items under our jurisdiction.
Legislative History
Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005,
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On October 27, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 109-262), and
H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 143.
On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence
concerning H.R. 1428.
On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rpt. 109-262, Part II).
On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 376 yeas and 38
nays.
H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th
Congress.
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF A LICENSE FOR A CERTAIN FEDERAL
ENERGY REGULATORY PROJECT
(H.R. 4417)
To provide for the reinstatement of a license for a certain
Federal Energy Regulatory project.
Summary
H.R. 4417 reinstates the project license and extends the
time in the project license to begin construction on the 20 MW
Tygart Dam hydroelectric project in West Virginia until
December 31, 2007.
Legislative History
H.R. 4417 was introduced by Mr. Mollohan on November 18,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 2, 2005, H.R. 4417 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a two-part hearing. The first half of the hearing
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R.
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee
received testimony from Members of Congress and a
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4417 favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4417 to the House (H. Rept. 109-685), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 415.
On September 26, 2006, H.R. 4417 was considered in the
Hosue under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by
voice vote.
H.R. 4417 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006,
read twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 644.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4417 during the 109th
Congress.
DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 4761)
To provide for exploration, development, and production
activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental
Shelf, and for other purposes.
Summary
Section 4 of H.R. 4761 amends the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA) to revise the determination of adjacent zones
and planning areas in the subsoil and seabed of the outer
Continental Shelf (OCS).
Section 20 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal
the requirement for a comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and
natural gas resources.
Legislative History
H.R. 4761 was introduced by Mr. Jindal on February 15,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources.
On June 21, 2006, the Committee on Resources met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 4761 reported to the House,
amended, by a record vote of 29 yeas and 9 nays.
On June 26, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Resources concerning H.R. 4761.
On June 26, 2006, the Committee on Resources reported H.R.
4761 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-531), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 295.
On June 29, 2006, the House considered H.R. 4761 under the
provisions of H. Res. 897, and passed the bill by a roll call
vote of 232 ayes and 187 nays.
H.R. 3893 was received in the Senate on July 10, 2006. The
bill was read twice and on September 5, 2006, placed on the
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No.
588.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4761 in the 109th
Congress.
REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT
(H.R. 5254)
To set schedules for the consideration of permits for
refineries.
Summary
H.R. 5254 authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), upon the request of a State Governor,
to provide financial assistance to hire additional personnel to
assist the State with expertise in fields relevant to
consideration of Federal refinery authorizations.
The bill requires a Federal agency responsible for refinery
authorization to provide, upon the request of a State Governor,
technical, legal, or other nonfinancial assistance to
facilitate State consideration of such authorizations.
The bill also directs the President to appoint a Federal
coordinator to facilitate such authorizations.
H.R. 5254 requires the coordinator, upon the request of an
applicant seeking a Federal refinery authorization, to
establish a memorandum of agreement, executed by relevant
Federal and Federal agencies, setting forth the most
expeditious coordinated schedule possible for completion of all
such authorizations.
The bill grants the U.S. District Court for the district in
which the proposed refinery is located exclusive jurisdiction
over any civil action for the review of the failure of an
agency or official to act on a Federal refinery authorization
in accordance with the schedule established pursuant to the
memorandum of agreement, and requires expedited review of the
civil action.
H.R. 5254 instructs the President to designate at least
three closed military installations as potentially suitable for
the construction of a refinery, requires that at least one such
site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of
a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel, and
requires the redevelopment authority, in preparing or revising
the redevelopment plan for each such installation, to consider
the feasibility and practicability of siting a refinery on it.
In addition, H.R. 5254 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005
to repeal its requirements for refinery revitalization.
Legislative History
H.R. 5254 was introduced by Mr. Bass on May 2, 2006, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committee on 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. In addition, the bill
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
On May 3, 2006, H.R. 5254 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules and failed by a roll call vote of 237
yeas and 188 nays.
On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5254 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 842 and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 238 yeas and 179 nays.
H.R. 5254 was received in the Senate on June 8, 2006, read
twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a
hearing on H.R. 5254 on July 13, 2006.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5254 during the 109th
Congress.
TO AMEND THE AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 49, UNITED
STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION TO SET FUEL
ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES BASED ON ONE OR MORE
VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES
(H.R. 5359)
To amend the automobile fuel economy provisions of title
49, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to set fuel economy standards for passenger
automobiles based on one or more vehicle attributes.
Summary
H.R. 5359 amends Federal transportation law to revise
passenger automobile fuel economy standards (CAFE standards) to
require that average fuel economy standards in effect for the
preceding model year for a passenger automobile shall apply to
such model year and beyond if the Secretary of Transportation
does not prescribe new average fuel economy standards for a
given model year. Authorizes the Secretary to prescribe
regulations amending average fuel economy standards for
passenger automobiles to a maximum feasible average fuel
economy level that the Secretary decides automobile
manufacturers can achieve in a model year based on one or more
vehicle attributes related to fuel economy. (Currently, the
Secretary can prescribe average fuel economy standards that the
Secretary decides are the maximum feasible average fuel economy
level for that model year). The bill eliminates the
congressional approval requirement if the Secretary prescribes
an amendment that makes an average fuel economy standard more
stringent.
The bill also directs the Administrator of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a study, and
report the results to Congress and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, on the effects of the
requirement of separate fuel economy calculations for domestic
and foreign automobiles.
Legislative History
On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a
hearing on H.R. __, a bill to authorize the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel
economy standards. The committee received testimony from a
Member of Congress, the Secretary of Transportation, and other
stakeholders.
On Wednesday May 10, 2006, the Full Committee met in open
markup session and ordered a Committee Print entitled to amend
the automobile fuel economy provisions of title 49, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
set fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles based on
one or more vehicle attributes, favorably reported to the
House, amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 26 nays, a
quorum being present. A request by Mr. Barton to allow a report
to be filed on a bill to be introduced by Mr. Barton, and that
the actions of the Committee be deemed as actions on that bill,
was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On May 11, 2006, H.R. 5359 was introduced by Mr. Barton,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 22, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5359 to the House, pursuant to the unanimous
consent request, (H. Rept. 109-475), and it was placed on Union
Calendar No. 263.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5359 during the 109th
Congress.
TO ESTABLISH A GRANT PROGRAM WHEREBY MONEYS COLLECTED FROM VIOLATIONS
OF THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY PROGRAM ARE USED TO EXPAND
INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE
FUELS
(H.R. 5534)
To provide grants from moneys collected from violations of
the corporate average fuel economy program to be used to expand
infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of
alternative fuels.
Summary
H.R. 5534 establishes in the Treasury a Fuel Economy Fund
to be: (1) funded by fines, penalties, and other moneys
obtained through certain enforcement actions; and (2) used by
the Secretary of Energy to implement a grant program for the
construction or expansion of infrastructure necessary to
increase the availability to consumers of alternative fuels.
The bill declares eligible for such grant any entity also
eligible for assistance through the Clean Cities Program of the
Department of Energy, and declares ineligible for such grant
any large, vertically integrated oil company.
H.R. 5534 prohibits any grant award totaling more than
$60,000 in any fiscal year.
Legislative History
H.R. 5534 was introduced by Mr. Rogers (MI) on June 6,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 19, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5534 favorably reported
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5534 to the House (H. Rept. 109-535), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 299.
On July 24, 2006, H.R. 5534 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House a rollcall
vote of 355 yeas and 9 nays.
H.R. 5534 was received in the Senate on July 25, 2006, and
on August 4, 2006, the bill was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5534 during the 109th
Congress.
FUEL CONSUMPTION EDUCATION ACT
(H.R. 5611)
To provide for the establishment of a partnership between
the Secretary of Energy and appropriate industry groups for the
creation of a transportation fuel conservation education
campaign, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5611 directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into a
partnership with: (1) interested industry groups to create a
public education campaign for U.S. drivers about immediate
measures that can be taken to conserve transportation fuel
(limits the Federal share of costs to 50%); and (2) and State
and local governments to create an education campaign that
provides information to such governments and the private sector
about best practices to ensure adequate fuel supplies during
emergency evacuations.
The Bill authorizes the Secretary to expend not more than
$3,000,000 to carry out this section from funds previously
authorized to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
Legislative History
H.R. 5611 was introduced by Mr. Conaway on June 14, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 19, 2006, the bill was refereed to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5611 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5611 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-536),
the was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 300.
On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5611 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
H.R. 5611 was received in the Senate on July 27, 2006, and
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5611 during the 109th
Congress.
TO AMEND CHAPTER 301 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH A
NATIONAL TIRE FUEL EFFICIENCY CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAM, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
(H.R. 5632)
To amend Chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to
establish a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information
program, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5632 amends Federal transportation law to direct the
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate rules establishing a
national motor vehicle tire fuel efficiency consumer
information program to educate consumers about the effect of
tires on automobile fuel efficiency. The bill requires
information to be provided to consumers at the point of sale
and other sites.
The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct periodic
assessments of the rules to determine the utility of such rules
to consumers, the level of cooperation by industry, and the
contribution to national goals with respect to energy
consumption.
In addition, the bill prohibits the Secretary from
requiring permanent labeling concerning tire fuel efficiency
information on a tire.
H.R. 5632 permits a State to enforce a law or regulation on
tire fuel efficiency consumer information in effect on January
1, 2006. The bill allows a State to adopt or enforce a tire
fuel efficiency consumer information law or regulation that is
enacted after January 1, 2006, only if it is identical to the
Federal requirement. The bill prohibits anything in this Act
from being construed to preempt a State from regulating the
fuel efficiency of tires not otherwise preempted under Federal
transportation law.
H.R. 5632 Sets forth a civil penalty for persons who fail
to comply with the consumer information program requirements of
this Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 5632 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus on June 16, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 19, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee
on Energy and Air Quality.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5632 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by voice vote.
On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5632 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-537),
and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 301.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5632 during the 109th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY PROGRAM
On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss and review funding
options for the Yucca Mountain repository program including
guaranteeing that annual Nuclear Waste Fund payments are made
accessible to the program for funding purposes. The Nuclear
Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and its amendments of 1987
established Yucca Mountain as the primary site of long-term
nuclear waste disposal. In February of 2002, the President
recommended to Congress that Yucca Mountain undergo development
into a repository site and instructed the Department of Energy
to proceed with construction licensing. On April 8, 2002,
however, the Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the
House a statement of disapproval regarding the proposed
construction on Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy was
cleared to proceed with construction when on May 8, 2002, the
House passed H.J. Res. 87 which overrode the objections voiced
by the State of Nevada. The subcommittee received testimony
from the State of Nevada as well as from both Federal and State
government organizations.
Other impediments will likely prevent the completion of the
site by 2010. These include establishment of a transportation
program, acquiring Federal land to surround the Yucca Mountain
site, and construction activities. The first goal of this
hearing was to discuss and establish funding options so that
the estimate of commencing operations in 2010 would be met (DOE
later revised this estimate to be 2017 as the earliest
practicable date and this change is reflected in other sections
of this report).
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE
On May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing to discuss and evaluate the structure
of the Administration's Clear Skies Initiative. The goal of the
hearing was to illustrate the relationship of the Clear Skies
Initiative and the Current Clean Air Act and state the policy
goals and principles of the CSI. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Council on Environmental Quality and the
EPA.
EIA'S REPORT ON SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK AND WINTER FUELS OUTLOOK
On October 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss the EIA's
projections for the supply and price of crude oil, gasoline,
heating oil, diesel, natural gas, propane, coal and electricity
for this winter. The subcommittee received testimony from a
representative of the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
NATURAL GAS AND HEATING OIL FOR AMERICAN HOMES
On November 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to investigate the supply and
cost of heating oil and natural gas for the winter season.
These two fuels are primarily used in heating American
households during the winter months. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Energy,
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
representatives of the home heating industry, and advocates of
energy efficiency.
UNDERSTANDING THE PEAK OIL THEORY
On December 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to address the challenges of
``peak oil,'' where the rate of world oil production will not
be able to increase. Experts believe the peak will occur as
early as the year 2025. The subcommittee received testimony
from Members of Congress, representatives of the Association
for the Study of Peak Oil, the Science Applications
International Cooperation, the Cambridge Energy Research
Associates and the Canadian Embassy.
STATUS OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT
On March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss the status of
funding for the development of Yucca Mountain into a repository
site for nuclear waste disposal. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Department of Energy.
PIPELINE SAFETY: A PROGRESS REPORT SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF ``THE
PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002''
On April 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to oversee implications of
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 by the Pipelines
and Hazardous Material Safety Administration as well as Federal
and industry regulators in order to consider reauthorizing the
Act. The subcommittee received testimony from the Department of
Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, the
Government Accountability Office, the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the National Association
of Pipeline Safety Representatives, and from various advocates
of the pipeline industry.
UNLOCKING AMERICA'S ENERGY RESOURCES: NEXT GENERATION
On May 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing to describe and explore current
research into technologies developed for generating electricity
for the future. The hearing was an update for the members of
the subcommittee on renewable electric generation technologies
and the costs associated with such technology as well as
forecast the direction such research is heading. The
subcommittee received testimony from various government and
private representatives of the energy industry.
VEHICLE AND FUELS TECHNOLOGY: NEXT GENERATION
On May 24, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing to examine developments in next
generation vehicle and fuel technology. This included an
evaluation of hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles as well as the
use of diesel fuel, fuel cells, ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas
and coal-to-liquids. The subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the Department of Energy, motor car
manufacturers, and representatives of the fuel industry.
DOE'S REVISED SCHEDULE FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN
On July 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to examine the Department of
Energy's revised schedule for the development of Yucca Mountain
as a nuclear waste repository. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Department of Energy.
NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL POLICY
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to examine nuclear waste
storage and disposal policy including H.R. 5360, the Nuclear
Fuel Management and Disposal Act. The Subcommittee received
testimony from representatives of the Department of Energy, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and several industry and
stakeholder groups.
Hearings Held
The Energy Policy Act of 2005.--Hearings on The Energy
Policy Act of 2005. Hearings held on February 10, 2005, and
February 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-1.
Clean Air Act Transportation Conformity Provisions
Contained in H.R. 3, ``The Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users''.--Hearing on Clean Air Act Transportation
Conformity Provisions Contained in H.R. 3, ``The Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users''. Hearing held on March 2,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-11.
Funding Options for the Yucca Mountain Repository
Program.--Oversight hearing on Funding Options for the Yucca
Mountain Repository Program. Hearing held on March 10, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-37.
The Administration's Clear Skies Initiative.--Oversight
hearing on The Administration's Clear Skies Initiative. Hearing
held on May 26, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-39.
EIA's Report on Short-term Energy Outlook and Winter Fuels
Outlook.--Oversight hearing on EIA's Report on Short-term
Energy Outlook and Winter Fuels Outlook. Hearing held on
October 19, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-80.
Natural Gas and Heating Oil for American Homes.--Oversight
hearing on Natural Gas and Heating Oil for American Homes.
Hearing held on November 2, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
58.
Understanding the Peak Oil Theory.--Oversight hearing on
Understanding the Peak Oil Theory. Hearing held on December 7,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-41.
Status of the Yucca Mountain Project.--Oversight hearing on
the Status of the Yucca Mountain Project. Hearing held on March
15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-71.
Pipeline Safety: A Progress Report Since the Enactment of
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002.--Oversight hearing
on Pipeline Safety: A Progress Report Since the Enactment of
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. Hearing held on
April 27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-84.
Unlocking America's Energy Resources Next Generation.--
Oversight hearing on Unlocking America's Energy Resources Next
Generation. Hearing held on May 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-101.
Vehicle and Fuels Technology: Next Generation.--Oversight
hearing on Vehicle and Fuels Technology: Next Generation.
Hearing held on May 24, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-103.
DOE's Revised Schedule for Yucca Mountain.--Oversight
hearing on DOE's Revised Schedule for Yucca Mountain. Hearing
held on July 19, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-118.
Discussion Draft on the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act
Reauthorization and H.R. 5782, the Pipeline Safety Improvement
Act of 2006.--Hearing on Discussion Draft on the Pipeline
Safety Improvement Act Reauthorization and H.R. 5782, the
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2006. Hearing held on July
27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-133.
Nuclear waste storage and disposal policy, and
hydroelectric license extension and energy efficiency
legislation.--Oversight hearing on Nuclear waste storage and
disposal policy, and hydroelectric license extension and energy
efficiency legislation. Hearing held on September 13, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-138.
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
(Ratio 16-13)
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman
HILDA L. SOLIS, California RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
LOIS CAPPS, California Vice Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania VITO FOSSELLA, New York
TOM ALLEN, Maine CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington MARY BONO, California
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
(Ex Officio) JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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; noise pollution control; and, homeland
security-related aspects of the foregoing.
Legislative Activities
REAL ID ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-13 (H.R. 1268, H.R. 418)
(Environmental Provisions)
To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State
driver's license and identification document security
standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for
inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious
construction of the San Diego border fence.
Summary
Section 102 of H.R. 418 provides the Secretary of Homeland
Security with the authority to waive applicable environmental
law, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act CERCLA, for the purpose of building roads and
barriers.
Legislative History
H.R. 418 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on January 26,
2005, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and, in
addition, to the Committees on Homeland Security and Government
Reform 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 8, 2005, there was an exchange of
correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and
the Committee on the Judiciary concerning H.R. 418.
On February 9, 2005, H.R. 418 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 71.
On February 10, 2005, the bill was considered as unfinished
business in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 75
and passed the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 261
yeas and 161 nays.
H.R. 418 was received in the Senate on February 14, 2005,
and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 418 in the 109th
Congress.
On March 11, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations reported
an original measure to the House (H. Rept. 109-16).
H.R. 1268 was introduced by Mr. Lewis (CA) on March 11,
2005, and placed on the Union Calendar.
On March 16, 2005, the House considered H.R. 1268 pursuant
to the provisions of H. Res. 151, and the text of H.R. 418, as
passed House, was appended as Division B to the end of H.R.
1268. The House passed H.R. 1268, as amended, by a roll call
vote of 388 yeas and 43 nays.
H.R. 1268 was received in the Senate on March 16, 2005,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
On April 6, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1268 reported to the
Senate, amended. The Committee on Appropriations reported by
Senator Cochran with an amendment in the nature of a substitute
and an amendment to the title with written report No. 109-52,
and the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar
under General Orders. Calendar No. 67.
On April 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2005, H.R.
1268 was considered in the Senate.
On April 19, 2005, cloture was invoked in the Senate by a
record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays.
On April 21, 2005, H.R. 1268 passed the Senate by a record
vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays, requested a conference with the
House, and appointed conferees.
On April 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees.
The conference met on April 27 and 28, 2005.
On May 3, 2005, the conference report to accompany H.R.
1268 was filed in the House (H. Rept. 109-72).
The conference report to accompany H.R. 1268 was considered
in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 258 on May
5, 2005, and passed the House by a roll call vote of 368 yeas,
58 nays, and 1 present.
On May 10, 2005, the conference report to accompany H.R.
1268 was considered in the Senate and agreed to by a vote of
100 yeas and 0 nays and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 1268 was presented to and signed by the President on
May 11, 2005 (Public Law 109-13).
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-58 (H.R. 6, H.R. 1640)
To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and
reliable energy.
Summary
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) includes a wide
variety of provisions intended to increase domestic energy
supply and encourage energy efficiency. The bill is based
largely on energy legislation that was passed in differing
forms by the House and Senate in the 108th Congress (H.R. 6),
but ultimately not enacted.
With regard to the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains two
major provisions on issues that fall with the jurisdiction:
hydraulic fracturing and Leaking Underground Storage Tank.
Section 322 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amends Section
1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C.
330h(d)(1)) to exempt the practice of hydraulic fracturing,
unless diesel fuel is the fluid or propping agent used, from
Federal regulation under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act
relating to Underground Injection Control. In addition,
Subtitle B of Title XV (Sections 1521-1533) contains several
provisions that reform the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Program. These include increased funding for underground
storage tank (UST) cleanup efforts, mandatory periodic onsite
inspections of USTs, the institution of delivery prohibitions
for non-compliant tanks, the creation of UST operator training
programs, and options for States to require secondary
containment of USTs or establish financial assurance mechanisms
cleanup of releases caused by UST installers.
Legislative History
On February 9, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and
Commerce held a legislative hearing on the Energy Policy Act of
2005. The Committee received testimony from the Secretary of
Energy.
On February 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality conducted a legislative hearing to examine the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. The perspectives of the Department of
Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and various representatives of the energy
industry were considered. The Subcommittee received testimony
from energy representatives of the Federal government, private
industry, consumers, and other stakeholders.
On February 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a legislative hearing to examine the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss oil and
gas issues, motor fuels and ethanol, nuclear energy, and coal.
Also discussed was renewable energy, specifically
hydroelectric, hydrogen, and solar energy. The subcommittee
received testimony from representatives of the oil and gas
industry as well as the nuclear power and coal industries,
representatives from consumer groups, environmental advocates,
and advocates for the various types of renewable energy.
On April 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered a Committee
Print reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 39
yeas and 16 nays, a quorum being present. A request by Mr.
Barton that the Committee be permitted to file a report on a
bill to be introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be
deemed as action on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous
consent.
H.R. 1640 was introduced by Mr. Barton on April 14, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in
addition, to the Committees on Science, Resources, Education
and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial
Services, and Agriculture, 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. 1640, as
amended, to the House, pursuant to the unanimous consent
request, on July 29, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-215, Part I).
All Committees were discharged from further consideration
of the bill on July 29, 2005, and no further action on H.R.
1640 was taken in the 109th Congress.
On April 18, 2005, Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6, which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce,
Financial Services, Agriculture, Resources, Science, Ways and
Means, and 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. 6 contained provisions that were
substantially similar to provisions in H.R. 1640, as well as
H.R.1530, H.R.1533, and H.R.1705.
On April 20 and April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 was considered in
the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 219.
On April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the House, as amended, by
a roll call vote of 249 yeas and 183 nays.
H.R. 6 was received in the Senate on April 26, 2005. On
June 9, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 124.
H.R. 6 was considered in the Senate on June 14, 15, 16, 20,
21, 22, and 23, 2005.
On June 23, 2005, the Senate invoked cloture on H.R. 6 by a
record vote of 92 yeas and 4 nays.
On June 28, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the Senate with an
amendment by a record vote of 85 yeas and 12 nays, and on July
1, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the House and
appointed conferees.
On July 13, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference. On July 14, 2005, 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 July 14, 19, 21, and 24,
2005. The conferees agreed to file the conference report on
July 26, 2005, and the conference report was filed on July 27,
2005 (H. Rept. 109-190).
The House considered and agreed to the conference report,
pursuant to H. Res. 394, on July 28, 2005, by a vote of 275
yeas and 156 nays.
On July 28, 2005, the conference report was considered in
the Senate by unanimous consent, and on July 29, 2005, the
conference report was agreed to by a record vote of 74 yeas and
26 nays and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 6 was presented to the President on August 4, 2005,
and was signed by the President on August 8, 2005 (Public Law
109-58).
SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A
LEGACY FOR USERS
Public Law 109-59 (H.R. 3)
Summary
H.R. 3, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, authorizes the
Federal programs related to all aspects of multi-modal surface
transportation. There are two major Sections (6017 and 6018)
that contain provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on
Environment and Hazardous Materials. Section 6017 amends
Subtitle F to the Solid Waste Disposal Act to create a new
Section 6005 that requires a federally-funded transportation-
related construction project that uses cement or concrete to
increase the procurement of cement and concrete that contains
recovered materials. Section 6018, which also amends Subtitle F
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, creates a new Section 6006 to
direct the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to establish criteria for the safe and environmentally
protective use of the granular mine tailings from the Tar
Creek, Oklahoma Mining District for cement or concrete
projects, and for federally funded highway construction
projects. The criteria would include an evaluation of whether
to establish numerical standards for the concentration of lead
and other hazardous substances in the tailings, and EPA would
be required to consider their current and past use as an
aggregate for asphalt, as well as the environmental and public
health risks and benefits of their use in transportation
projects.
Legislative History
H.R. 3 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on February 9,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3, to discuss the
provisions that would amend the Clean Air Act. The purpose of
the hearing was to allow the subcommittee to seek methods of
conformity and how those adjustments in the conformity process
as described by H.R. 3 will aid in developing transportation
plans that meet air quality goals. The subcommittee received
testimony from Federal government officials, as well as
individuals from the private sector.
On March 2, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R.
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
On March 7, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3 to the House, amended (H. Rept.
109-12, Part I).
On March 8, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure filed a supplemental report for H.R. 3 to the
House, amended (H. Rept. 109-12, Part II).
On March 9 and 10, 2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 140 and H. Res. 144.
On March 10, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the House, as amended, by
a roll call vote of 417 yeas and 9 nays.
H.R. 3 was received in the Senate on March 20, 2005. On
April 6, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.
On April 26, 2005, cloture on motion to proceed to
consideration of H.R. 3 was invoked in Senate by a record vote
of 94 yeas and 6 nays.
On April 27 and 28, and May 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17,
2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the Senate.
On May 17, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the Senate with an amendment
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 11 nays.
On May 26, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the
House and appointed conferees.
On May 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for consideration of provisions in the House bill and Senate
amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of
transportation planning contained in sections 6001 and 6006 of
the House bill, and sections 6005 and 6006 of the Senate
amendment; and sections 1210, 1824, 1833, 5203, and 6008 of the
House bill, and sections 1501, 1511, 1522, 1610-1619, 1622,
4001, 4002, 6016, 6023, 7218, 7223, 7251, 7252, 7256-7262,
7324, 7381, 7382, and 7384 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
The conference committee met on June 9, 2005, and the
conferees agreed to file the conference report on July 28, 2005
(H. Rept. 109-203).
The House considered and agreed to the conference report,
pursuant to H. Res. 399, on July 29, 2005, by a roll call vote
of 412 yeas and 8 nays.
On July 29, 2005, the conference report was considered in
the Senate, agreed to by a record vote of 91 yeas and 4 nays,
and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3 was presented to and signed by the President on
August 10, 2005 (Public Law 109-59).
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)
(Environmental Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1815 authorizes appropriations for FY2006 for the
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft,
missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition,
shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. Subtitle B
of this legislation had two provisions impacting the
jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Environment and Hazardous Materials. The first provision allows
for the elimination and simplification of certain items
required in the annual Defense Department report on
environmental quality programs and other environmental
activities. The second provision authorizes payment for
activities at former defense property that is subject to
Section 120(h) covenants for additional remedial action under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980.
Legislative History
H.R. 1815 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 26, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 20, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 1815.
On May 20, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 1815 to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 109-89). H.R. 1815
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
On May 25, 2005, H.R. 1815 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 293, and passed the House, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 390 yeas and 39 nays.
H.R. 1815 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2005, read
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On November 15, 2005, H.R. 1815 was laid before the Senate
and passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On December 15, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and on December 16,
2005, the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, for consideration of sections 314, 601,
1032, and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 312, 1084, 2893,
3116, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference.
On December 18, 2005, the conferees filed the conference
report (H. Rept. 109-360).
On December 18, 2005, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 1815 was considered in the House, and on December 19,
2005, the conference report was considered as unfinished
business, and was agreed to by the House by a roll call vote of
374 yeas and 41 nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report was considered
in the Senate, agreed to by a voice vote, and cleared for the
White House.
H.R. 1815 was presented to the President on January 3,
2006, and signed by the President on January 6, 2006 (Public
Law 109-163).
TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE ENERGY
POLICY ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-168 (H.R. 4637)
To make certain technical corrections in amendments made by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Summary
H.R. 4637 makes technical corrections to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with
respect to: (1) regulation of underground storage tanks; and
(2) government-owned tanks.
Legislative History
H.R. 4637 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on December 18,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 19, 2005, H.R. 4637 was discharged from the
Committee on Energy and Commerce by unanimous consent, and the
bill was considered and passed by the House by unanimous
consent.
H.R. 4637 was received in the Senate on December 19, 2005,
and read twice. On December 22, 2005, H.R. 4637 passed the
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent and was cleared
for the White House.
H.R. 4637 was presented to the president on January 3,
2006, and signed by the President on January 10, 2006 (Public
Law 109-168).
USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-177 (H.R. 3199)
(Environmental Provisions)
To extend and modify authorities needed to combat
terrorism, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3199 addresses Federal surveillance programs,
including foreign surveillance programs, as authorized by the
USA PATRIOT Act. Section 742 of the conference report to
accompany H.R. 3199 amends Section 3001 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to require the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), every two years, to submit a report setting forth
information collected by the EPA from law enforcement agencies,
States, and other relevant stakeholders that identifies the
byproducts of the methamphetamine production process and
whether EPA considers each of the byproducts to be a hazardous
waste pursuant to this section and relevant regulations. In
addition, Section 743 of the conference report to accompany
H.R. 3199 addresses the payment of cleanup costs, by
responsible parties, for contamination resulting from
methamphetamine laboratories.
Legislative History
H.R. 3199 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on July 11,
2006, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select),
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 13, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3199 reported to the
House, as amended, by a record vote of 23 yeas and 14 nays.
On July 13, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent
Select) met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3199
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On July 18, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-174, Part I).
On July 18, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent
Select) reported H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept.
109-174, Part II).
On July 21, 2005, pursuant to the provisions H. Res. 369,
the House considered H.R. 3199, and passed the bill by a roll
call vote of 257 ayes and 171 nays.
On July 25, 2005, H.R. 3199 was received in the Senate and
read twice.
On July 29, 2005, H.R. 3199 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate requested a
conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On November 9, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to a conference, and the Speaker appointed
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for
consideration of Sections 124 and 231 of the House bill, and
modifications committed to conference.
On December 8, 2005, the conferees filed the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3199 (H. Rept. 109-333).
On December 14, 2005, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3199 pursuant to the provisions of H.
Res. 595 and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 251 yeas
and 174 nays.
On December 14, 15, and 16, 2005, the Senate considered the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3199.
On December 16, 2005, motion to invoke cloture was not
agreed to in the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47
nays.
On March 1, 2006, motion to proceed to consideration of the
motion to reconsider was agreed to in the Senate by a record
vote of 86 yeas and 13 nays, and upon reconsideration, cloture
invoked in Senate by a record vote of 84 yeas and 15 nays.
The conference report to accompany H.R. 3199 was agreed to
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 10 nays on March 2, 2006, and
cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3199 was presented to the President on March 8, 2006,
and signed by the President on March 9, 2006 (Public Law 109-
177).
COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-241 (H.R. 889)
(Environmental Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal
year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws
administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 889 authorizes appropriations for FY2006 for the Coast
Guard (CG). The bill contains one section that waives the
application of Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) to effectuate an ``as is'' transfer of the Coast Guard
Cutter MACKINAW to the City of Cheboygan, Michigan for use as a
museum. In addition, this section relieves the Federal
government of environmental liability under TSCA regarding PCB
exposure, thereby leaving the local community responsible for
any environmental contamination and ultimate cleanup of PCBs.
Legislative History
H.R. 889 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on February 17,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open markup and ordered H.R. 889 reported
to the House, amended, by voice vote.
On July 28, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported H.R. 889 to the House, amended (H.
Rept. 109-204, Part I), and was referred sequentially to the
House Committee on Homeland Security for a period ending not
later than July 29, 2005, for consideration of such provisions
of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of
that committee pursuant to clause 1(i) of rule X.
On July 29, 2005, Committee on Homeland Security discharged
H.R. 889, and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
124.
On September 15, 2005, H.R. 889 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 440, and passed, as
amended, by a roll call vote of 415 yeas and 0 nays.
On September 19, 2005, H.R. 889 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
On October 27, 2005, H.R. 889 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate requested a
conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On November 3, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for consideration of section 408 of the House bill, and
modifications committed to conference.
The conference committee met on November 16, 2005.
On April 6, 2006, the conference report to accompany H.R.
889 was filed (H. Rept. 109-413).
On June 26, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 889 under suspension of the rules, and
on June 27, 2006, the House passed the conference report by a
roll call vote of 413 yeas and 0 nays.
On June 27, 2006, the Senate agreed to the conference
report to accompany H.R. 889 by unanimous consent.
The Senate vitiated previous adoption of the conference
report, and on June 28, 2006, the Senate agreed to the
conference report by unanimous consent.
H.R. 889 was cleared for the White House on June 28, 2006,
and presented to the President on June 30, 2006. The President
signed H.R. 889 on July 12, 2006 (Public Law 109-241).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Public Law 109-295 (H.R. 5441)
(Environmental Provisions)
Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5441 included the Chemical Facility Security Act of
2006 that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
within 6 months of enactment, to establish risk and performance
based regulations--which may last no longer than three years--
concerning the creation of vulnerability assessments and site
security plans by high risk chemical facilities. DHS is further
given authority under this legislation to approve the use of
chemical facility security regimes developed by other public
and private interests that meet the requirements of the
legislation, but cannot disapprove a specific site security
plan at a facility based on the presence or absence of a
particular security measure. In addition, the bill extends
information protections to the vulnerability assessments and
the site security plans and prohibits unauthorized parties from
obtaining these materials through civil litigation. Finally,
the bill provides DHS the authority to inspect and audit
facilities covered by this legislation and empowers DHS to
temporarily close a recalcitrant chemical facility until it
comes into full compliance with this legislation.
Legislative History
On May 22, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations
reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-476, which was
introduced by Mr. Rogers (KY) as H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441 was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 264.
On May 25, 2006 and June 6, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered
in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 836. On June 6,
2006, H.R. 5441 passed the House by a roll call vote of 389
yeas and 9 nays.
On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 5441 reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations reported
by Senator Gregg with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, with written report No. 109-273, and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No.
503.
On July 11, 12, and 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by
Senate, and on July 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 passed the Senate with
an amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. The
Senate insists on its amendment, asked for a conference, and
appointed conferees.
On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference.
On September 25, 2006, the conferees agreed to file
conference report.
On September 28, 2006, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 5441 was filed (H. Rept. 109-699).
The conference report to accompany H.R. 5441 was considered
in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1054 on
September 29, 2006, and passed the House by a roll call vote of
412 yeas and 6 nays.
On September 29, 2006, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 5441 was considered in the Senate, agreed to by a voice
vote, and cleared for the White House.
H.R. 5441 was presented to the President on October 3,
2006, and signed by the President on October 4, 2006 (Public
Law 109-295).
JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122, S. 2766)
(Environmental Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5122 authorizes appropriations for FY2007 for the
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft,
missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition,
shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. The
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials had five
provisions in this legislation that touched upon its
jurisdiction. House Section 313 and Senate Section 334,
regarding the funding of cooperative agreements under the
Defense Department's Environmental Restoration Program; Senate
Section 332, regarding the extension of requirements under
Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act relating to
importation of foreign manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls;
Senate Section 333, regarding ocean munitions dumping; Senate
Section 335, concerning the reimbursement of the Environmental
Protection Agency for costs incurred at the Moses Lake
Wellfield Superfund site; and Senate Section 352, relating to a
study on drinking water contaminant exposure at Camp Lejeune.
Legislative History
H.R. 5122 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 6, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House,
amended, by a record vote of 60 yeas and 1 nay.
On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 5122 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-452). H.R.
5122 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
On May 9, 2006, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 5122.
On May 10 and 11, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5122
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 806 and H. Res. 811. On
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5122, passed the House by a roll call vote
of 396 ayes and 31 nays.
On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5122 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 431.
On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5122 was laid before the Senate and
passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On September 7, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for consideration of sections 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117,
and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 332-335, 352, 601,
722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
The Conference Committee met on September 12, 2006, and the
conferees filed the conference report to accompany H.R. 5122 on
September 29, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-702).
On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5122 pursuant to the provisions of H.
Res. 1062, and agreed to the conference report by a roll call
vote of 398 yeas and 23 nays.
On September 30, 2006, the conference report was considered
in the Senate, agreed to by unanimous consent, and cleared for
the White House. H.R. 5122 was presented to the President on
October 5, 2006, and signed by the President on October 17,
2006 (Public Law 109-364).
FEDERAL AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT REAL PROPERTY ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-396 (H.R. 3699)
To provide for the sale, acquisition, conveyance, and
exchange of certain real property in the District of Columbia
to facilitate the utilization, development, and redevelopment
of such property, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3699 provides for the sale, acquisition, and
conveyance of title or management responsibilities for certain
real property in the District of Columbia between the District
of Columbia and the Federal government. H.R. 3699 seeks to
statutorily waive environmental liability for the District or
the United States as transferor of the property. Section 101(d)
as reported by the Government Reform Committee limits any
environmental liability, response actions, remediation,
corrective action, damages, costs or expenses for the District
of Columbia associated with any property for which title is
conveyed to the Federal government. This section also provides
that liability, responsibility, remediation, damages and costs
required by applicable Federal, State, and local law including
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Solid Waste
Disposal Act, and other environmental laws shall be borne by
the U.S. In the same way, Section 402 as reported by the
Committee on Government Reform environmental liability and
response actions of the Federal government for any property for
which title is conveyed to the District of Columbia. When the
Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup on February
3, 2006, to consider H.R. 3699, it struck sections 101(d) and
402 before reporting the amended legislation to the House.
Legislative History
H.R. 3699 was introduced by Mr. Davis on September 8, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Government Reform, 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.
On September 29, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3699 reported to
the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On November 18, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform
reported H.R. 3699 to the House, as amended, (H. Rept. 109-316,
Part I), and H.R. 3699 was referred sequentially to the
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Transportation and
Infrastructure for a period ending not later than December 17,
2005, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of the committees
pursuant to Rule X. The committee on Resources was granted an
extension for further consideration ending not later than
December 17, 2005.
On December 7, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R.
3699 reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On December 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3699 reported to
the House, without recommendation, as amended, by voice vote, a
quorum being present.
On December 16, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3699 to the House, as amended (H.
Rept. 109-316, Part II).
On December 17, 2005, Committee on Resources and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce were granted an extension for
further consideration ending not later than December 31, 2005.
On December 31, 2005, Committee on Resources and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce were granted an extension for
further consideration ending not later than February 3, 2006.
On February 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3699 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-316,
Part III), the Committee on Resources was discharged from
further consideration of the bill, and H.R. 3699 was placed on
the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 200
On September 30, 2006, the House considered H.R. 3699 by
unanimous consent, and the bill was passed without objection.
H.R. 3699 was received in the Senate on September 30, 2006.
On November 15, 2006, H.R. 3699 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
On November 16, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs discharged H.R. 3699 by unanimous
consent, and H.R. 3699 was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, who, on the same day, discharged H.R.
3699 by unanimous consent. H.R. 3699 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent
H.R. 3699 was presented to the President on December 5,
2006, and signed by the President on December 15, 2006 (Public
Law 109-396).
RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-451 (S. 895)
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a
rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide
a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural
residents.
Summary
Title I of S. 895 directs the Secretary of the Interior to
set up, in consultation with other Federal agencies, a rural
water supply program for specified ``Reclamation'' states, as
defined under Federal reclamation law. This program is supposed
to identify opportunities for, plan the design of, review and
rank, and approve and oversee the construction of water supply
projects for small communities and rural areas that are
recommended by the Secretary and authorized by Congress.
Title II of S. 895 directs the Secretary of Interior to
develop and publish criteria for determining the eligibility of
a rural water supply or reclamation project for financial
assistance, authorizes the Secretary to make loan guarantees
available to lenders for eligible projects to supplement
private-sector or lender financing, and limits guarantees by
the Secretary to 90 percent of a project's cost.
S. 895 creates a program directly intersecting with and
subject to regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act
as well as buttress the provision of clean and reliable
drinking water to rural communities, as outlined in the
``Background and Need'' and ``Historical Background'' sections
of the Report of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources (Senate Report 109-148).
Legislative History
S. 895 was introduced by Senator Domenici on April 25, 2005
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a
hearing on S. 895 on May 11, 2005 (S.Hrg. 109-105).
On September 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources met in open markup session and ordered S. 895
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
On October 19, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources reported S. 895 with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, with written report No. 109-148, and S. 895 was
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 240.
On November 16, 2005, the Senate passed S. 895 with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On November 17, 2005, S. 895 was received in the House, and
was referred to the Committee on Resources.
On December 2, 2005, S. 895 was referred to the Committee
on Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.
On July 27, 2006, the Committee on Resources Subcommittee
on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 895.
On December 6, 2005, the Committee on Resources and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence
concerning S. 895.
On December 6, 2006, S. 895 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House
amendments to S. 895 by unanimous consent and cleared the
legislation for the White House.
S. 895 was presented to the President on December 20, 2006,
and signed by the President on December 22, 2006 (Public Law
109-451).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
(H.R. 1817)
(Environmental Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1817 mandates the Department of Homeland Security to
create a plan and report on how to protect the Nation's
``critical infrastructure,'' including energy, financial
services, water, and transportation networks.
Legislative History
On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1817 was introduced by Mr. Cox in
the House and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security
Committee reported H.R. 1817 (H. Rept. 109-71, Part I) and H.R.
1817 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, Committee on Government Reform, Committee
on the Judiciary, Committee on Science, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Ways and Means,
and Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period
ending not later than May 13, 2005, for consideration of such
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X.
On May 11, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 12, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote.
On May 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. Rept. 109-71, Part II). The
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H.
Rept. 109-71, Part III). On the same day, the Committee on
Government Reform, Committee on Science, Committee on
Transportation, Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on
Intelligence (Permanent) were discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 1817.
On May 18, 2005, H.R. 1817 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 283 and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 424 yeas and 4 nays.
On May 19, 2005, H.R. 1817 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1817 in the 109th
Congress.
INTERNATIONAL SOLID WASTE IMPORTATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 2491)
To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize States
to restrict receipt of foreign municipal solid waste and
implement the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement
of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada, and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2491 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize
States to enact laws or issue regulations or orders restricting
the receipt and disposal of foreign municipal solid waste, as
defined by this Act, within their borders until the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
issues regulations implementing and enforcing the Agreement
Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste
between the United States and Canada (Agreement). The bill
declares that State actions authorized by this Act shall not be
considered a burden on, or otherwise impede, interstate and
foreign commerce.
H.R. 2491 requires the Administrator to: (1) perform the
functions of the Designated Authority of the United States with
respect to the importation and exportation of municipal solid
waste under the Agreement; (2) implement and enforce the notice
and consent and other provisions of the Agreement; and (3)
issue final regulations on the Administrator's responsibilities
as Designated Authority of the United States.
The legislation also requires the Administrator to give
substantial weight to the views of affected States and local
governments before consenting to the importation of foreign
municipal solid waste into the United States under the
Agreement, and to consider the impact of such importation on:
(1) the continued public support for Federal and local
recycling programs; (2) landfill capacities; (3) air emissions
and road deterioration from increased vehicular traffic; and
(4) homeland security, public health, and the environment.
Finally, H.R. 2491 makes it unlawful for any person to
import, transport, or export municipal solid waste for final
disposal or for incineration in violation of the Agreement and
authorizes the Administrator to assess civil penalties for any
past or current violations of this Act or to commence a civil
action in the U.S. district court.
Legislative History
H.R. 2491 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on May 19, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 3, 2005, H.R. 2491 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
On June 8, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and forwarded
the bill to the full committee, amended, by voice vote, a
quorum being present.
On June 29, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session, and ordered H.R. 2491 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On September 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2491 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-235).
On September 6, 2006, the House considered H.R. 2491 under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill, as amended, by
voice vote.
H.R. 2491 was received in the Senate, read twice and
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on
September 7, 2006.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2491 in the 109th
Congress.
ANTIFREEZE BITTERING ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 2567)
To amend the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to require
engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering agent so
as to render it unpalatable.
Summary
Subject to a study by the Federal Consumer Product Safety
Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, H.R. 2567 requires engine coolant or
antifreeze that is manufactured six months after the enactment
of the bill, and that contains more than 10 percent ethylene
glycol, to include a bittering agent at a minimum of 30 parts
per million and a maximum of 50 parts per million so as to
render the coolant or antifreeze unpalatable.
In addition, H.R. 2567 requires a coolant or antifreeze
manufacturer to maintain records of compliance with this Act.
The bill also limits the liability of manufacturers,
distributors, recyclers, or sellers of engine coolant or
antifreeze who are in compliance with the requirements of the
bill for personal and property loss or damage to the
environment that results from the inclusion of denatonium
benzoate in any coolant or antifreeze.
Finally, H.R. 2567 declares the bill inapplicable to: (1)
the sale of a motor vehicle that contains engine coolant or
antifreeze; or (2) wholesale containers of engine coolant or
antifreeze containing 55 gallons or more of engine coolant or
antifreeze.
Legislative History
H.R. 2567 was introduced by Mr. Ackerman on May 24, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 17, 2005, H.R. 2567 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
On May 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing to address H.R. 2567 and the
issues related to mandating the addition of denatonium benzoate
to antifreeze. The subcommittee received testimony from
Representative Ackerman, officials of the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other private and governmental
organizations.
On July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2567 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 30 yeas and 15 nays,
a quorum being present.
On December 8, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2567 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-730,
Part I). H.R. 2567 was referred jointly and sequentially to the
Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than
December 8, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X, and referred jointly
and sequentially to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for a period ending not later than December 8,
2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(r), rule X. The Committees on the
Judiciary and Transportation and Infrastructure were discharged
from further consideration of H.R. 2567 on December 8, 2006,
and H.R. 2567 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
433.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2567 in the 109th
Congress.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4128)
To protect private property rights.
Summary
H.R. 4128, among other things, prohibits States or their
political subdivisions that receive Federal funds from
exercising their power of eminent domain to further economic
development. The bill would terminate the flow of Federal funds
to any State or political subdivision that violates the
prohibition. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has
jurisdiction over the bill because of its potential impact on
Federal health payments, telecommunications grants, and energy
grant programs, prohibited Federal funds which could include
many items under our jurisdiction.
Legislative History
Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005,
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On October 27, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-262),
and H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
143.
On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence
concerning H.R. 4128.
On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rept. 109-262, Part II).
On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 376 yeas and 38
nays.
H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th
Congress.
STOCKHOLM AND ROTTERDAM TOXICS TREATY ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4591)
To implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants, the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to
the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and
the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade.
Summary
H.R. 4591 amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to
provide for the implementation of three international
environmental agreements: (1) the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention); (2) the
Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the 1979
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP
POPs Protocol); and (3) the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention).
Specifically, H.R. 4591 bans several chemicals, pursuant to
obligations of the United States under the POPs Convention and
the LRTAP POPs Protocol, provides new regulatory authority for
the United States to deal with chemicals added in the future to
the POPs Convention or the LRTAP POPs Protocol, and establishes
notice requirements and other requirements pursuant to the PIC
Convention.
Legislative History
H.R. 4591 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on December 16,
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On January 3, 2006, H.R. 4591 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
On March 2, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Legislation to Implement
the POPs, PIC, and LRTAP POPs Agreements to evaluate the U.S.'s
role as a signatory to these treaties. Congress must enact
enabling legislation to amend current law so the United States
can full implement the POPs and PIC Treaties. The subcommittee
received testimony from officials of the Department of State,
the Environmental Protection Agency, and various State and
private organizations.
On May 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and forwarded
the bill to the full committee, amended, by a record vote of 15
yeas and 10 nays, a quorum being present.
On July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4591 reported to the
House, as amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 15 nays, a
quorum being present.
On November 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4591 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-714),
and was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 426.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4591 in the 109th
Congress.
TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY EXTENSIONS TO CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS TO
THE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS UNDER THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
(H.R. 5863)
To authorize temporary emergency extensions to certain
exemptions to the requirements with respect to polychlorinated
biphenyls under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Summary
H.R. 5863 amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to: (1)
authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend
temporary emergency exemptions to requirements concerning
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for 30 days for the purpose of
authorizing their safe, effective, and efficient shipment into
the United States for disposal, treatment, or storage; and (2)
require any person granted such an exemption to report to
Congress on the status of foreign-manufactured PCBs generated
by or under the control of that person outside of the United
States.
Legislative History
H.R. 5863 introduced by Mr. Barton on July 24, 2006, and
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5863 reported to the
House, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On September 14, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5863 to the House (H. Rept. 109-659), and was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 392.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5863 in the 109th
Congress.
TO PERMIT CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANK TRUST FUND
(H.R. 6131)
To permit certain expenditures from the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Summary
H.R. 6131 amends the Internal Revenue Code to authorize
expenditures from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund to carry out various programs enacted by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 to protect groundwater, including underground
storage tank and piping, secondary containment, maintenance of
government-owned tanks, tank inspection, training for tank
operators, Federal compliance and enforcement activities,
prevention of delivery of a regulated substance into a tank,
and protection of tanks on Indian reservations or tribal lands.
In addition, this legislation makes a technical change in
Section 9014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 6131 was introduced by Mr. Chocola on September 21,
2006, and referred 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 September 26, 2006, the House considered H.R 6131 under
suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice vote.
H.R. 6131 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006.
On November 13, 2006, H.R. 6131 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Finance.
No further action was taken on H.R. 6131 in the 109th
Congress.
Oversight Activities
ELECTRONIC WASTE: AN EXAMINATION OF CURRENT ACTIVITY, IMPLICATIONS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, AND THE PROPER FEDERAL ROLE
The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
conducted a two-part oversight hearing to evaluate the proper
definition of electronic waste and investigate appropriate
methods of regulation. On July 20, 2005, the Subcommittee
discussed the status of both public and private electronic
waste programs in the United States as well as the differences
between three Federal enacted programs. The Subcommittee
received testimony from officials representing the Department
of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
States of Maryland, Maine, and California.
On September 8, 2005, the Subcommittee resumed
consideration of matters related to interstate commerce issues
raised by regulation of electronic waste, the role of the
private sector and non-profits in managing electronic waste,
and environmental concerns with the status quo. The
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of
electronics retailers, electronic product manufacturers,
recycling businesses, environmental groups, and charitable
organizations.
HURRICANE KATRINA: ASSESSING THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS
On September 29, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to evaluate the
current impact of Hurricane Katrina on the environment. The
purpose of the hearing was to assess the damage Hurricane
Katrina caused on the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and
Mississippi and evaluate the role of government agencies in
providing relief to victims of the tragedy. The subcommittee
received testimony from officials representing the U.S. Army,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and officials of various organizations
in the State of Louisiana.
COMPREHENSIVELY COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINES: IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
On October 20, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on Health held a joint
oversight hearing to review the health and environmental
impacts concerning the production and use of methamphetamines.
The subcommittees heard testimony from the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
Department of Health and Human Services, State and local
government officials, and over-the-counter drug industry
representatives.
SUPERFUND LAWS AND ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
On November 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to discuss the
consolidation of livestock and agriculture and evaluate the
risk agricultural inputs, products, and byproducts put on the
environment. The subcommittee received testimony from officials
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other various
environmental and agricultural organizations.
Hearings Held
Electronic Waste: An Examination of Current Activity,
Implications for Environmental Stewardship, and the Proper
Federal Role.--Oversight hearings on Electronic Waste: An
Examination of Current Activity, Implications for Environmental
Stewardship, and the Proper Federal Role. Hearings held on July
20, 2005, and September 8, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-33.
Comprehensively Combating Methamphetamines: Impacts on
Health and the Environment.--Joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Health on Comprehensively Combating
Methamphetamines: Impacts on Health and the Environment.
Hearing held on October 20, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
57.
Hurricane Katrina: Assessing the Present Environmental
Status.--Oversight hearing on Hurricane Katrina: Assessing the
Present Environmental Status. Hearing held on September 29,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-77.
Superfund Laws and Animal Agriculture.--Oversight hearing
on Superfund Laws and Animal Agriculture. Hearing held on
November 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-72.
Legislation to Implement the POPs, PIC, and LRTAP POPs
Agreements.--Hearing on Legislation to Implement the POPs, PIC,
and LRTAP POPs Agreements. Hearing held on March 2, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-63.
H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005.--Hearing
on H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. Hearing
held on May 23, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-89.
Subcommittee on Health
(Ratio 18-15)
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, Chairman
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
BART GORDON, Tennessee CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ANNA G. ESHOO, California JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JIM DAVIS, Florida MARY BONO, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan Vice Chairman
(Ex Officio) MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
(Ex Officio)
Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction;
mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection
in general, including Medicaid and national health insurance; food and
drugs; drug abuse; and, homeland security-related aspects of the
foregoing.
Legislative Activities
WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-4 (H.R. 1160)
Reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
block grant program through June 30, 2005, and for other
purposes
Summary
H.R. 1160 reauthorizes and extends through June 30, 2006,
in the manner authorized for FY2005, the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Program under part A of
title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA), additional grants to
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa,
funding for Federal abstinence education programs under SSA
title V (Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant), and
eligibility for Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) under SSA
title XIX (Medicaid).
The bill also reauthorizes and extends the national random
sample study of child welfare and child welfare waiver
authority through June 30, 2006, in the manner authorized for
FY2005.
Legislative History
Mr. Herger introduced H.R. 1160 on March 8, 2005, and it
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 March 12, 2005, H.R. 1160 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On March 14, 2005, H.R. 1160 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice
vote.
On March 15, 2005, H.R. 1160 was received in the Senate,
read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without
amendment by unanimous consent.
H.R. 1160 was cleared for the White House on March 15,
2005.
H.R. 1160 was presented to the President on March 17, 2005,
and was signed by the President on March 25, 2005 (Public Law
109-4).
PATIENT NAVIGATOR OUTREACH AND CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-18 (H.R. 1812)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a
demonstration grant program to provide patient navigator
services to reduce barriers and improve health care outcomes,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1812 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services to conduct a demonstration program to
promote model ``patient navigator'' programs to improve health
care outcomes for individuals with cancer or other chronic
diseases, with a specific emphasis on health disparity
populations.
H.R. 1812 requires the Secretary to study the program and
report to Congress on the results including an evaluation of
program outcomes and recommendations as to whether such
programs could be used to improve patient outcomes in other
public health areas.
Legislative History
H.R. 1812 was introduced by Mr. Menendez on April 25, 2005,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1812 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and H.R. 1812 was forwarded to the Full
Committee by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in
open markup session and H.R. 1812 was ordered favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 7, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1812 to the House (H. Rept. 109-104), and was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 58.
On June 13, 2005, H.R. 1812 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
On June 14, 2005, H.R. 1812 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
On June 22, 2005, H.R. 1812 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the
President.
On June 27, 2005, H.R. 1812 was presented to the President
and was signed by the President on June 29, 2005 (Public Law
109-18).
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) EXTENSION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-19 (H.R. 3021)
Reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
block grant program through September 30, 2005, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3021 reauthorizes and extends through September 30,
2005, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant Program under part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act (SSA), funding for State abstinence education programs
under SSA title V (Maternal and Child Health Services Block
Grant), and eligibility for Transitional Medical Assistance
(TMA) under SSA title XIX (Medicaid).
The bill reauthorizes and extends the national random
sample study of child welfare and child welfare waiver
authority through September 30, 2005.
Legislative History
Mr. Herger introduced H.R. 3021 on June 22, 2005, and it
was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
On June 29, 2005, H.R. 3021 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
H.R. 3021 was received in the Senate and read twice on June
29, 2005.
The Senate passed H.R. 3021 without amendment by unanimous
consent on June 30, 2006.
H.R. 3021 was cleared for the White House on June 30, 2005,
and presented to and signed by the President on July 1, 2005
(Public Law 109-19).
PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-41 (H.R. 3205, S. 544)
To amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to
provide for the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the
incidence of events that adversely effect patient safety.
Summary
S. 544 encourages the reporting and analysis of medical
errors and health care quality by providing peer review
protection of information reported to patient safety
organizations (PSOs).
S. 544 establishes certification procedures for patient
safety organizations and requires the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to maintain a list of certified PSOs. The bill
would also require the Secretary to develop a uniform database,
establish national standards for the collection and maintenance
of patient safety data, and provide technical assistance to
PSOs.
Legislative History
On March 8, 2005, Senator Jeffords introduced S. 544, it
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On March 9, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S.
544 reported without amendment favorably.
Mr. Bilirakis introduced H.R. 3205 on July 12, 2005, and it
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 14, 2005, H.R. 3205 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On July 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H.R. 3205 to the full Committee by
voice vote a quorum being present.
On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3205 to be favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On July 21, 2005, the Senate passed S. 544 by unanimous
consent, it was received in the House, and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3205 to the House (H. Rept. 109-197), and it was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 117.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3205 in the 109th
Congress.
On July 27, 2005, S. 544 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call
vote of 428 yeas and 3 nays.
On July 28, 2005, S. 544 was presented to the President,
and was signed by the President on July 29, 2005 (Public Law
109-41).
MEDICAL DEVICE USER FEE STABILIZATION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-43 (H.R. 3423)
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with
respect to medical device user fees.
Summary
Subsection (a) addresses amendments to the device user fee
program authorized in Section 738 of the FFDCA. Subsection
(a)(1) eliminates the statutory fee revenue targets for device
user fees in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 in section 738(b).
Subsection (a)(2) eliminates the inflationary, workload,
compensating, and final year adjustments previously used in
annual fee-setting calculations, as provided for in Section
738(c). Subsection (a)(2) also sets the pre-market application
user fee at $259,600 for fiscal year 2006 and $281,600 for
fiscal year 2007, which is an 8.5% increase each year (fees for
other device submissions are then determined as a percentage of
the pre-market application fee, as provided generally in
section 738(a)(2)(A)). Finally, subsection (a)(2) also amends
Section 738(c) to permit FDA to use up to two-thirds of fees
carried over from previous years to supplement fee revenues in
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. FDA must notify Congress if it
intends to use these carryover balances.
Subsection (a)(3) amends Section 738(d) to clarify that the
small business threshold for the purposes of a first-time
waiver of the fee on a pre-market approval application or a
pre-market report remains at $30 million, as under current law.
It raises the small business threshold from $30 million to $100
million for the purposes of fee reductions on all other
applications, reports, and supplements. Subsection (a)(3) also
eliminates the ability of the FDA to reset this new small
business threshold if user fee revenues are reduced by 16
percent because of the small business fee reduction. Subsection
(a)(4) amends section 738(e) to raise the small business
threshold from $30 million to $100 million for the purposes of
fee reductions on pre-market notifications.
Subsection (a)(5) amends Section 738(g) to eliminate the
``trigger'' requirement of additional appropriations in the FY
2003 and FY 2004 for FDA to be able to collect user fees in FY
2006 and FY 2007. It also builds in a 1% tolerance on the
appropriations trigger for FY 2006 and FY 2007, to cushion
against possible across-the-board rescission in the
appropriations process for those years, which would lead to
accidental termination of the program.
Subsection (a)(6) eliminates the statutory authorization
targets for FY 2006 and FY 2007, and subsection (a)(7) makes a
conforming amendment throughout Section 738.
Subsection (c)(1) amends Section 502(u) of the FFDCA to
address the marking and tracking of reprocessed medical devices
intended for single-use by the original manufacturer. Section
502(u) as amended requires reprocessors to mark a reprocessed
device if the original manufacturer has marked the device. If
the original manufacturer does not mark the device, the
reprocessor must still mark the device, but has more
flexibility in how to mark the device, such as by using a
detachable label on the package of the device that is intended
to be placed in the medical record of the patient on whom the
device is used.
Subsection (d) amends Section 301(b) of MDUFMA to make the
amendment made by subsection (c)(1) to Section 502(u) of the
FFDCA effective 12 months after the date of enactment of the
act, or 12 months after the original manufacturer has first
marked its device, if that is later.
Legislative History
On July 25, 2005, Mr. Pitts introduced H.R. 3423, which was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 26, 2005, H.R. 3423 was considered in the House by
unanimous consent which passed the House without objection.
H.R. 3423 was received in the Senate on July 27, 2005, and
was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
without amendment by unanimous consent.
H.R. 3423 was presented to the President on July 29, 2005,
and was signed by the President on August 1, 2005 (Public Law
109-43).
A BILL TO AMEND THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO LIFT THE PATIENT
LIMITATION ON PRESCRIBING DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENTS BY MEDICAL
PRACTITIONERS IN GROUP PRACTICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Public Law 109-56 (H.R. 869, S. 45)
To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient
limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical
practitioners in group practices, and for other purposes.
Summary
In 2000, Congress passed the Drug Addiction Treatment Act.
Section 2(a)(2) of the Act establishing a new waiver mechanism
for schedule IV or V treatment programs. The waiver is
available to qualified physicians for maintenance treatment and
detoxification treatment using approved schedule IV or V
narcotic drugs, either alone or in combination.
Subject to regulatory adjustment by the Secretary, neither
sole practitioners nor any collection of physicians practicing
as a group may treat more than 30 patients at any one time.
H.R. 869 lifts the 30 patient limitation for group
practices. The individual physician limitation of 30 patients
remains in place.
Legislative History
On February 15, 2005, Mr. Souder introduced H.R. 869, 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.
On March 14, 2005, H.R. 869 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H.R. 869 to the Full Committee by
voice vote, a quorum being present.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 869 favorably reported to
the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 869 to
the House on June 9, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part I).
On June 23, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in
open markup session and H.R. 869 and forwarded to Full
Committee by voice vote.
On June 29, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 869 reported to the House,
without amendment, by a voice vote.
The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 869 to the
House on July 11, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part II), and H.R.
869 was placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 100).
No further action was taken on H.R. 869 in the 109th
Congress.
On January 24, 2005, Mr. Levin introduced S. 45, and was
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
On February 1, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions discharged S. 45 by unanimous consent.
On February 1, 2005, S. 45 was referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
On July 19, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary discharged
S. 45 by unanimous consent.
On July 19, 2005, S. 45 passed the Senate without amendment
by unanimous consent.
S. 45 was received in the House on July 21, 2005, and held
at the desk.
On July 27, 2005, S. 45 was considered by the House under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a rollcall vote
of 429 yeas and 0 nays.
On July 29, 2005, S. 45 was presented to the President, and
was signed by the President on August 2, 2006 (Public Law 109-
56).
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES EXPORT REFORM ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-57 (H.R. 184, S. 1395)
To amend the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to
provide authority to the Attorney General to authorize any
controlled substance that is in schedule I or II or is a
narcotic drug in schedule III or IV to be exported from the
United States to a country for subsequent export from that
country to another country, if certain conditions are met.
Summary
S. 1395 amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act to authorize the Attorney General to allow any controlled
substance that is in schedule I or II or that is a narcotic
drug in schedule III or IV to be exported from the United
States to a country (first country) for subsequent export to
another country (second country) if: (1) both such countries
are parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961,
and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; (2) each
of such countries has maintained an adequate system of
substance import controls; (3) the substance is consigned to a
holder of permits or licenses required under the first
country's laws and a permit to import the substance has been
issued; (4) substantial evidence that the substance is to be
consigned to a permit holder as required under the second
country's laws is furnished, a permit to import it is to be
issued, the substance is to be applied exclusively to
legitimate uses within that country, and it will not be re-
exported; (5) within 30 days after export from the first
country, the person who exported it from the United States
certifies that re-export has occurred; and (6) the Attorney
General has issued a permit to export the substance from the
United States.
Legislative History
On January 4, 2005, Mr. Pitts introduced H.R. 184, 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.
On February 4, 2005, H.R. 184 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session forwarded H.R. 184 to the Full Committee by a
voice vote, a quorum being present.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 184 favorably reported to
the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 184 to
the House on June 9, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part I).
On June 23, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in
open markup session and H.R. 184, as amended, was forwarded by
the Subcommittee to Full Committee by voice vote.
On June 29, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 184 to be reported to the
House, as amended, by voice vote.
The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 184 to the
House on July 11, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part II), and H.R.
184 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 99.
No further action was taken on H.R. 184 in the 109th
Congress.
On July 13, 2005 Senator Hatch introduced S. 1395, which
was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed
without amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 1395 was received in the House on July 14, 2005 and held
at the desk.
On July 27, 2005, S. 1395 was considered by the House under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice vote.
On July 29, 2005, S. 1395 was presented to the President,
and was signed by the President on August 2, 2006 (Public Law
109-57).
NATIONAL ALL SCHEDULES PRESCRIPTION ELECTRONIC REPORTING ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-60 (H.R. 1132)
To provide for the establishment of a controlled substance
monitoring program in each State.
Summary
H.R. 1132 provides grants through the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) to the States to establish and operate
prescription drug monitoring programs. The Act requires the
Secretary of HHS to develop minimum requirements for states to
ensure security of information collected, database accuracy,
and the use and disclosure of information.
The bill also requires the Secretary to complete a study
and report to Congress three years after enactment of the
legislation on the progress of States establishing and
implementing controlled substance monitoring programs.
Legislative History
On March 3, 2005, Mr. Whitfield introduced H.R. 1132, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 22, 2005, H.R. 1132 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On June 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H.R. 1132 to the Full Committee by
voice vote.
On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5574 reported to the
House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1132 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-191),
and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 115.
On July 27, 2005, H.R. 1132 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
H.R. 1132 was received in the Senate on July 28, 2005, and
read twice.
On July 29, 2005, H.R. 1132 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent.
H.R. 1132 was presented to the President on August 4, 2005,
and was signed by the President on August 11, 2005 (Public Law
109-60).
QI, TMA, AND ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS EXTENSION AND HURRICANE KATRINA
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-91 (H.R. 3971)
To extend Medicare cost-sharing for qualifying individuals
through September 2007, to extend transitional medical
assistance and the program for abstinence education through
December 2005, to provide unemployment relief for States and
individuals affected by Hurricane Katrina, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3971 amends Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social
Security Act to extend from September 2005 through September
2007 the qualified individual program, under which medical
assistance is available for Medicare cost-sharing for
individuals who would be qualified Medicare beneficiaries but
for the fact that their income exceeds the State-established
income level, and is between 120% and 135% of the official
poverty line. It also prescribes additional allocations for
such program for the extended period.
H.R. 3971 extends through December 31, 2005, Transitional
Medical Assistance (TMA) and the separate program for
abstinence education, and eliminates Medicare and Medicaid
coverage under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act
of drugs used for the treatment of sexual or erectile
dysfunction, beginning in 2007.
H.R. 3971 amends Title IX of the Social Security Act to
direct the Secretary to transfer from the Federal unemployment
account: $15 million to the account of Alabama in the
Unemployment Trust Fund; $400 million to the account of
Louisiana in the Unemployment Trust Fund; and $85 million to
the account of Mississippi in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and
authorizes any Federal to use any amounts received by such
Federal pursuant to Title III of the Social Security Act to
assist in the administration of claims for compensation on
behalf of any other State, if a major disaster was declared
with respect to such other Federal or any area within it, under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, by reason of Hurricane Katrina.
Legislative History
H.R. 3971 was introduced in the House by Mr. Deal on
October 6, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means 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 6, 2005, H.R. 3971 was considered by the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice
vote.
On October 7, 2005, H.R. 3971 was received in the House and
passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent.
On October 19, 2005, the House agreed to the Senate
amendment with amendments pursuant to H. Res. 501.
On October 19, 2005, the Senate agreed to the amendments of
the House by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the
President.
On October 20, 2005, H.R. 3971 was presented to and signed
by the President (Public Law 109-91).
A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT TO PROVIDE FOR
THE REGULATION OF ALL CONTACT LENSES AS MEDICAL DEVICES, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Public Law 109-96 (S. 172)
A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical
devices, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 172 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to:
(1) regulate all contact lenses as medical devices; and (2)
state that such regulation shall not be construed as having any
legal effect on any other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-
regulated article.
Legislative History
On January 26, 2005, Senator Mike DeWine introduced S. 172
and it was referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
On March 9, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and S. 172 was
ordered to be reported favorably without amendment.
On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions reported by Senator Enzi with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute with written report (No. 109-110)
and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders.
On July 29, 2005, the Senate passed S. 172 with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On September 6, 2005, S. 172 was referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
On September 19, 2005, S. 172 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On October 26, 2005, S. 172 was considered by the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice
vote.
On October 28, 2005, S. 172 was presented to the President,
and on November 9, 2005, S. 172 was signed by the President
(Public Law 109-96).
A BILL TO EXTEND THE SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH
FOR 2 YEARS
Public Law 109-100 (S. 37)
A bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast
cancer research for 2 years.
Summary
S. 37 extends the U.S. Postal Service's authority to issue
special postage stamps to help provide funding for breast
cancer research through December 31, 2007.
Legislative History
On January 24, 2005, Ms. Feinstein introduced S. 37, which
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
On June 22, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs met in open markup session and ordered S.
37 to be reported to the Senate without amendment favorably.
On September 26, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security
and Government Affairs reported by Senator Collins without
amendment with written report (No. 109-140), and was placed on
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar
No. 221).
On September 27, 2005, S. 37 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 37 was received by the House on September 28, 2005, and
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, 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 20, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform met
in open markup session and ordered S. 37 reported to the House
by unanimous consent.
On October 27, 2005, S. 37 was considered in the House by
unanimous consent and passed the House without objection.
On October 11, 2005, S. 37 was presented to the President,
and was signed by the President on October 11, 2005 (Public Law
109-100).
STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-129 (H.R. 2520)
To provide for the collection and maintenance of human cord
blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research,
and to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the
C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.
Summary
H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of
2005 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
contract with qualified cord blood stem cell banks to assist in
the collection and maintenance of 150,000 new units of high-
quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation
through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.
H.R. 2520 also requires the Secretary to establish a three-
year demonstration project under which qualified cord blood
banks may use a portion of the funding received under a
contract for the collection and storage of cord blood units for
a family where a relative has been diagnosed with a condition
that will benefit from transplantation at no cost to such
family.
H.R. 2520 requires the Secretary to establish and maintain
the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program to increase
the number of transplants for recipients suitably matched to
biologically unrelated donors of bone marrow and cord blood,
and requires the Secretary to establish a related advisory
council on Program activities. It also requires the Secretary
to recognize one or more accreditation entities for the
accreditation of cord blood banks and, through a public
process, examine issues of informed consent, including the
timing of such consent and the information provided to the
maternal donor regarding all of her medically appropriate cord
blood options.
H.R. 2520 requires the Secretary to ensure that health care
professionals and patients are able to search electronically
for and facilitate access to cells from bone marrow donors and
cord blood units through a single point of access.
It also requires the Secretary to establish and maintain an
office of patient advocacy and requires the Secretary to
establish and maintain a scientific database of information
relating to recipients of a stem cell therapeutics product,
including bone marrow and cord blood, from a donor.
H.R. 2520 requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a
report on the progress made by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) in developing requirements for the licensing of cord
blood units.
Legislative History
H.R. 2520 was introduced by Mr. Smith (NJ) on May 23, 2005,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 24, 2005, H.R. 2520 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Health.
On May 24, 2005, H.R. 2520 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 431 yeas and 1 nay.
On May 25, 2005, H.R. 2520 was received in the Senate.
On October 24, 2005, H.R. 2520 was read twice and placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No.
256
On December 16, 2005, H.R. 2520 was passed the Senate, as
amended, by unanimous consent.
On December 17, 2005, H.R. 2520 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended
by the Senate, by a roll call vote of 413 yeas and 0 nays,
clearing H.R. 2520 for the President.
On December 19, 2005, H.R. 2520 was presented to the
President and on December 20, 2005, H.R. 2520 signed by the
President (Public Law 109-129).
PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-148 (H.R. 2863)
Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 2863 provides authority for the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services to declare and provide
for targeted liability protections for pandemic, epidemic, and
other security countermeasures. The law further provides for a
Covered Countermeasure Process Fund for purposes of providing
timely, uniform, and adequate compensation to eligible
individuals for covered injuries directly caused by the
administration or use of a covered countermeasure pursuant to
such declaration.
Legislative History
Mr. Young introduced and the House Committee on
Appropriations reported H.R. 2863 on June 10, 2005 (H. Rept.
109-119), and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
67.
On June 20, 2005, the H.R. 2863 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 315, and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 398 yeas and 19 nays.
On June 21, 2005, H.R. 2863 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
On September 26, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense met in open markup session and approved
for full committee consideration with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute favorably.
On September 28, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations met
in open markup session and ordered H.R 2863 to be reported with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. The
Committee on Appropriations reported by Senator Stevens with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, without written
report, and H.R. 2863 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under General Orders. Calendar No. 230.
On September 29, 2005, Senator Stevens from Committee on
Appropriations filed written report (Report No. 109-141).
H.R. 2863 was considered in the Senate on September 30,
2005, October 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2005. On October 5, 2005,
Cloture was invoked in the Senate by a record vote of 95 yeas
and 4 nays.
On October 7, 2005, H.R. 2863 passed Senate, with an
amendment, by a record vote of 97 yeas and 0 nays. The Senate
insisted on its amendment, and asked for a conference.
On December 14, 2005 the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference.
On December 18, 2005 the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2863 was filed (H. Rept. 109-359).
On December 19, 2005, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2863 under the provisions of H. Res.
639, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 2863 passed
the House by a roll call vote of 308 yeas, 106 nays, and 2
present.
On December 19 and 21, 2005, the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2863 was considered in the Senate.
On December 21, 2005, cloture on the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2863 not invoked in Senate by a record vote of
56 yeas and 44 nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 2863 passed the Senate, by a record vote of 93 yeas and 0
nays.
On December 28, 2005, H.R. 2863 was presented to the
President, and on December 30, 2005, the President signed H.R.
2863 (Public Law 109-148).
EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PRESERVATION ACT
Public Law 109-151 (H.R. 4579)
To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by one year
provisions requiring parity in the application of certain
limits to mental health benefits.
Summary
H.R. 4579 extends through 2006 mental health parity
provisions, which require group health plans to treat equally
mental health benefits and medical and surgical benefits for
purposes of lifetime limits or annual limits on benefits
covered by the plan
Legislative History
Mr. Boehner introduced H.R. 4579 on December 16, 2005, and
it was referred to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and
Commerce, 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 December 17, 2005, H.R. 4579 was considered by the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice
vote.
H.R. 4579 was received in the Senate and read twice on
December 17, 2005.
On December 22, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 4579 without
amendment by unanimous consent.
H.R. 4579 was presented to the President on December 28,
2005, and was signed by the President on December 30, 2005
(Public Law 109-151).
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)
(Health Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Section 601 authorized the Public Health Service Corps to
receive the same pay raise as the rest of the uniformed
services.
Legislative History
H.R. 1815 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 26, 2005,
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 20, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 1815.
On May 20, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 1815 to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 109-89). H.R. 1815
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
On May 25, 2005, H.R. 1815 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 293, and passed the House, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 390 yeas and 39 nays.
H.R. 1815 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2005, read
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On November 15, 2005, H.R. 1855 was laid before the Senate
and passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On December 15, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and on December 16,
2005, the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, for consideration of sections 314, 601,
1032, and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 312, 1084, 2893,
3116, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications
committed to conference.
On December 18, 2005, the conferees filed the conference
report (H. Rept. 109-360).
On December 18, 2005, the conference report to accompany
H.R. 18144 was consider in the House, and on December 19, 2005,
the conference report as unfinished business, and passed the
House by a roll call vote of 374 yeas and 41 nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report was considered
in the Senate, agreed to by a voice vote, and cleared for the
White House.
H.R. 1815 was presented to the President on January 3,
2006, and signed by the President on January 6, 2006 (Public
Law 109-163).
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-164 (H.R. 972)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007
for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 972 amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 to direct The United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), the Department of State (Department), and
the Department of Defense (DOD) to incorporate anti-trafficking
and protection measures for vulnerable populations,
particularly women and children, into their post-conflict and
humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities.
H.R. 972 also amends the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 to extend the sexually violent offender
registration program to foreign offenses. It also amends the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to revise the
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking (Task
Force) membership and minimum standards for the elimination of
trafficking, includes HIV/AIDS within the health risk research
on the effects of trafficking, requires the Human Smuggling and
Trafficking Center to report to the appropriate congressional
committees respecting research initiatives on domestic and
international trafficking, and requires that the Secretary's
annual trafficking report include information on measures taken
by the United Nations (U.N.), the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), and other multilateral organizations in which the
United States participates to prevent the involvement of the
organization's employees, contractor personnel, and
peacekeeping forces in trafficking.
It also directs the Secretary, prior to voting for a
peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate committees
respecting measures taken to prevent peacekeeping personnel
from involvement in trafficking or sexual exploitation, and
amends the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to require foreign
service training to include instruction on international
documents and U.S. policy on trafficking.
The legislation authorizes the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to make grants (75% maximum Federal share) to
states, Indian tribes, local government, and nonprofit,
nongovernmental victims' service organizations to establish or
expand assistance programs for U.S. citizens or permanent
resident aliens who are the subject of sex trafficking or
severe forms of trafficking that occurs in the United States.
This section authorizes FY2006-FY2007 appropriations to carry
out such purposes.
H.R. 972 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to: carry out a pilot program to establish residential
treatment facilities in the United States for juveniles
subjected to trafficking; and submit an implementation report
to Congress. Section 203 authorizes FY2006-FY2007
appropriations to carry out these purposes.
Legislative History
Mr. Smith (NJ) introduced H.R. 972 on February 17, 2005,
and it was referred to the Committee on International
Relations, in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, the
Judiciary, and 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 10, 2005, the Committee on International Relations
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International
Relations met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 972 to
the full committee, amended, by voice vote.
On March 14, 2005, H.R. 972 was referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
On October 7, 2005, the Committee on International
Relations met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 972
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
On November 18, 2005, the Committee on International
Relations reported H.R. 972 to the House, as amended (H. Rept.
109-317, Part I). The Committees on Armed Services and Energy
and Commerce were discharged from further consideration of H.R.
972, and the Committee on Judiciary was granted an extension
for further consideration ending not later than December 8,
2005.
On December 8, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 972 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote. On the same day, the Committee on the
Judiciary reported H.R. 972 to the House, as amended (H. Rept.
109-317, Part II), and H.R. 972 was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 183.
On December 14, 2005, the H.R. 972 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as
amended, by a roll call vote of 426 yeas and 0 nays.
On December 15, 2005, H.R. 972 was received in the Senate
and read twice.
On December 22, 2005, H.R. 972 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent.
On January 3, 2006, H.R. 972 was presented to the President
and was signed by the President on January 10, 2006 (Public Law
109-164).
TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-165 (H.R. 2017)
To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to
authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and
foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of
torture, and for other purposes
Summary
H.R. 2017 authorizes the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to provide grants to programs in the United
States to cover the costs of services provided by domestic
treatment centers in the rehabilitation of victims of torture
(including treatment of the physical and psychological effects
of torture), social and legal services, and research and
training of health care providers outside of treatment centers
or programs to enable them to provide such services; grants to
treatment centers and programs in foreign countries that carry
out projects and activities specifically designed to treat
victims of torture for the physical and psychological effects
of torture; and voluntary contributions to the United Nations
Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.
Legislative History
H.R. 2017 was introduced by Mr. Smith (NJ) on April 28,
2005, and it 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 May 13, 2005, H.R. 2017 was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
On May 19, 2005, H.R. 2017 was referred to the Committee on
International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human
Rights and International Relations.
On June 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human
Rights and International Relations met in open markup session
and H.R. 2017 was forwarded to the Full Committee by voice
vote.
On June 30, 2005, the Committee on International Relations
met in open markup session and the Committee Agreed to Seek
Consideration under suspension of the rules, by unanimous
consent.
On December 6, 2005, H.R. 2017 was considered in the Hosue
under suspension and passed the Hosue by voice vote.
H.R. 2017 was received in the Senate on December 12, 2005.
On December 22, 2005, H.R. 2017 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent.
On January 3, 2006, H.R. 2017 was presented to the
President, and was signed by the President on January 10, 2006
(Public Law 109-165).
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-171 (S. 1932, H.R. 4241)
(Title V and Title VI--Health Provisions)
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006
(H. Con. Res. 95).
Summary
The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) makes no changes to current
law with respect to reimbursement for single source drugs.
However, average manufacturer price (AMP) data will be made
available to states and to the public so that there will be
greatly increased pricing transparency. For multiple source
drugs, the new Federal upper limit will be increased to 250% of
the lowest AMP. Under current law, the Federal upper limit is
150% of the lowest published price.
The DRA makes no changes to current law with respect to
dispensing fees. States have the ability to set the dispensing
fee at the appropriate amount. AMP data will be available to
States and made public on a Web site, and reported on a monthly
basis, creating greater transparency in prescription drug
pricing. This transparency should improve market competition,
bring prices down for consumers, and protect the taxpayer from
needless waste.
In the DRA, wholesalers' customary prompt pay discounts
will be excluded from the calculation of AMP, which will
increase the AMP number. Additionally, the Secretary may
contract with a vendor to determine retail survey prices (RSP)
for prescription drugs, to further ensure that pharmacies are
being reimbursed fairly. States must annually report to the
Secretary on their pharmacy payment rates, dispensing fees, and
utilization data for non-innovator multiple source (generic)
drugs.
There is some ambiguity in current law as to the treatment
of generic drugs that are produced by the brand manufacturer.
These drugs are commonly referred to as ``authorized generic''
drugs. The Medicaid drug rebate program includes different
calculations for brand name products and generics. For brand
name drugs, the rebate amount is the greater of 15.1% of the
AMP or the AMP minus the manufacturer's best price. The generic
drug rebate is 11% of the AMP. When manufacturers produce both
a brand name version of a drug and a generic version of the
drug, the generic versions of the drugs are not included in the
price that is calculated for the rebate. This provision
modifies the existing drug price reporting requirements to
require manufacturers to include authorized generics in their
average manufacturer price and best price.
Current law states that under the 340(B) drug discount
program, certain health care providers, including community
health centers and disproportionate share hospitals, are
allowed access to prescription drug prices that are similar to
the prices paid by Medicaid agencies after being reduced by
manufacturer rebates. The DRA adds Children's Hospitals to the
list of providers that may have access to the 340(B) discounted
prices.
The DRA makes changes to the collection and submission of
utilization data for certain physician administered drugs. This
provision requires States to submit the utilization and coding
information for these drugs so that rebates can be collected.
In certain hardship cases, the Secretary may delay the
application of the reporting requirements for a Federal that
requires additional time to implement these reporting systems.
The DRA would allow states to impose premiums and cost
sharing on certain groups of individuals, subject to
restrictions. It indexes nominal cost-sharing to medical
inflation and increases cost sharing limits on prescription
drugs and emergency room visits. For some higher income
populations states would be permitted to charge higher premiums
with a cap of 5 percent of a family's income. The DRA would
allow states to permit providers participating in Medicaid to
require a beneficiary to pay authorized cost-sharing. However,
a provider would be allowed to reduce or waive cost-sharing
requirements on a case by case basis. The DRA increases state
flexibility by allowing them to provide Medicaid beneficiaries
alternative benefit packages.
Prior to the Deficit Reduction Act, states were only
required to obtain documentary evidence from individuals who
declared that they were not citizens or nationals. Under
changes made by the DRA, States now must obtain documentary
evidence of both citizenship and identity from individuals who
declare that they are citizens or nationals (with certain
exceptions) in order to receive Federal reimbursement for
Medicaid services provided to these individuals.
DRA also expanded Medicaid eligibility to low and middle
income families with children with disabilities. These children
are exempted from being mandated into benefit flexibility
packages.
The DRA lengthens the look-back period for Medicaid
eligibility and implements changes in beginning date for the
period of ineligibility. The look-back period for all transfers
is increased to five years. The current penalty rules are
modified so that the current penalty period may begin when the
person is determined eligible for Medicaid, rather than from
the time they transferred the asset.
This provision is prospective only and shall apply to
transfers made on or after the date of enactment. Under the
DRA, each State would be required to provide a hardship waiver
process. A hardship would exist when the application of the
transfer of assets provision would deprive the individual of
medical care that would endanger their health or life or
deprive them of food, clothing, shelter, or other necessities
of life. Determinations under the hardship waiver process must
be timely and there must be process to appeal an adverse
determination.
The DRA increases the look-back period from 3 to 5 years
for general transfers so it is now the same as the look-back
for period for certain trusts. Additionally, the penalty rule
for improper transfers would begin most often when an
individual would otherwise be eligible and receiving care
rather than at the time the asset was transferred.
The DRA similarly strengthens Medicaid asset transfer
policies by: Not allowing states to ``round down,'' or not
include in the ineligibility period the quotient amounts that
are less than one month, as is under current law. Allowing
States to determine the penalty period for individuals who
dispose of multiple fractional transfers of assets in more than
one month for less than fair market value on or after the
applicable look-back date as the total as one transfer. Adding
additional assets that would be subject to the look-back
period, and thus a penalty, if established or transferred for
less than fair market value. Such assets would include funds
used to purchase a promissory note, loan or mortgage, as well
as life estate interest in another individual's home.
To protect seniors making transfers for a non-Medicaid
purpose, the conference agreement does not impose a penalty or
affect access to Medicaid for those transfers. Even if the
senior cannot document the non-Medicaid purpose for the
transfer, the conference agreement codifies existing hardship
procedure so no one is denied vital care.
The DRA limits Medicaid eligibility so that an individual
with more than $500,000 in home equity cannot qualify, and
provides the states with the option to increase this limit to
$750,000. This limit doesn't apply when there is a spouse,
minor, or disabled child living in the home or in the case of a
demonstrated hardship.
States would be authorized to provide home and community-
based services as an optional State plan benefit without a
waiver to seniors, the disabled, persons with a developmental
disability, mental retardation or a related condition. States
could also offer self-directed personal assistance services
(e.g., ``Cash & Counseling'') as an optional State plan benefit
without requiring a waiver. Participants can purchase eligible
services and hire, fire, supervise and manage service providers
who can now include spouses and parents.
The DRA allows every State to establish a Long-Term Care
Partnership whereby states offer enhanced asset protection for
purchasers of long-term care insurance if insured ever applies
for Medicaid.
Title V, Subtitle A, amends Title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to require hospitals that do not submit certain
required data to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in
fiscal year 2007 and each subsequent year to have the
applicable market basket percentage reduced by two percentage
points. It also provides that, for discharges occurring on or
after October 1, 2008, the diagnosis-related group (DRG)
assigned for a described discharge shall be a DRG that does not
result in higher payment based on the presence of a secondary
described diagnosis code. It requires a hospital to report an
individual's secondary diagnosis at admission with the
information submitted with respect to the individual's
discharge in order for payment to be made, and requires the
Secretary to select diagnosis codes associated with at least
two conditions.
Title V, Subtitle A, also permits the Secretary to include
inpatient hospital days of patients eligible for medical
assistance under a certain demonstration waiver in the Medicare
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment calculation,
and ratifies certain existing regulations. It extends the
Medicare dependent hospital (MDH) status for qualifying rural
hospitals through discharges occurring before October 1, 2011.
It authorizes an MDH, with respect to discharges occurring on
or after October 1, 2006, to elect payments based on its fiscal
year 2002 hospital-specific costs, if that would result in
higher Medicare payments. It bases MDH payments on 75 percent
of their adjusted hospital-specific costs starting for
discharges on October 1, 2006.
It also reduces payments to skilled nursing facilities for
allowable bad debts attributable to Medicare coinsurance by 30
percent for those individuals who are not dually eligible for
Medicare and Medicaid. It directs the Secretary to apply
certain applicable percentages in the classification criterion
used to determine whether a hospital or hospital unit is an
inpatient rehabilitation facility for Medicare purposes. It
directs the Secretary to develop a strategic and implementing
plan regarding physician investment in specialty hospitals that
address issues related to proportionality of investment return,
bona fide investments, annual disclosure of investment
information, and the provision of Medicaid and charity care by
specialty hospitals. It directs the Secretary to establish a
qualified gainsharing demonstration program for projects to:
(1) test and evaluate methodologies and arrangements between
hospitals and physicians designed to govern the utilization of
inpatient hospital resources and physician work to improve the
quality and efficiency of care provided to Medicare
beneficiaries; and (2) develop improved operational and
financial hospital performance with sharing of remuneration as
specified in the project. It directs the Secretary to establish
a demonstration program for the purposes of understanding costs
and outcomes across different post-acute care sites.
Title V, Subtitle B, amends title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to: (1) require the supplier to transfer the title
of durable medical equipment (DME) in the capped rental
category to the beneficiary after a thirteen month rental
period; (2) eliminate automatic payments to the supplier every
six months for maintenance and servicing; and (3) allow
reasonable and necessary payments (for parts and labor not
covered by the supplier's or manufacturer's warranty). It
requires the supplier of oxygen equipment (including portable
oxygen equipment) to transfer the title to the beneficiary
after a 36-month rental period. It allows reasonable and
necessary payments for maintenance and servicing of the
equipment.
It provides that reduced expenditures attributable to the
multiple procedure payment reduction for imaging (under the
final rule published November 21, 2005) shall not be taken into
account for purposes of the budget neutrality calculation for
2006 and 2007. It declares that, for specified imaging services
furnished on or after January 1, 2007, if the technical
component (including the technical component of a global fee)
exceeds the Medicare outpatient department (OPD) fee schedule
amount established under the prospective payment system (PPS)
for such service, the Secretary shall substitute the Medicare
OPD fee schedule amount, adjusted by the relevant geographic
adjustment factor. It requires that ambulatory care surgery
centers (ASC) be paid the Medicare OPD fee schedule amount
whenever the ASC facility payment (without application of any
geographic price differences) is greater than the Medicare OPD
fee schedule amount for the same service.
Title V, Subtitle B, also provides that the update to the
single conversion factor for physicians' services for 2006
shall be 0 percent, and requires the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC) to report to Congress on mechanisms that
could be used to replace the sustainable growth rate system. It
requires an increase in Medicare payments for covered OPD
services in calendar 2006-2008 to non-sole community small
rural hospitals with no more than 100 beds, if their OPD
payments under the PPS are less than under the prior
reimbursement system. It directs the Secretary to increase the
amount of the composite rate component of the basic case-mix
adjusted PPS for dialysis services furnished on or after
January 1, 2006, by 1.6 percent above the amount of such
component for such services furnished on December 31, 2005. It
directs the Secretary to implement an exceptions process with
respect to physical therapy, speech language pathology, and
occupational therapy caps for expenses incurred in 2006. It
directs the Secretary to implement clinically appropriate code
edits with respect to Medicare part B payments for physical
therapy services, occupational therapy services, and speech-
language pathology services in order to identify and eliminate
improper payments.
The legislation also revises requirements for the reduction
in Medicare part B premium subsidy based on income, and
increases the monthly adjustment amounts and accelerates their
phase-in for higher income enrollees, with the provision fully
effective in 2009. It authorizes Medicare coverage of
ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms for an
individual meeting certain criteria. It makes the part B
deductible inapplicable to colorectal cancer screening tests.
It adds diabetes self-management training and medical nutrition
therapy services to those that may be covered under the all-
inclusive per visit payment rate for federally qualified health
centers (FQHCs). It permits delayed enrollment under Medicare
part B without a delayed enrollment penalty to individuals who:
(1) serve as volunteers outside the United States through a
program sponsored by a tax-exempt organization that covers at
least 12 months; and (2) demonstrate health insurance coverage
while serving in the program. It creates a special six-month
special part B enrollment period for such individuals beginning
on the first day of the month they were no longer in the
program.
Title V, Subtitle C, revises requirements for home health
payments, eliminating the update for home health payments in
2006. It requires a home health agency to submit certain
quality data to the Secretary annually, or incur a 2% reduction
in the fiscal year market basket update, and requires MedPAC to
report to Congress on a detailed structure of value based
payment adjustments for home health services under the Medicare
program. It lengthens from 26 days to 28 days after a claim is
received the period during which a Medicare administrative
contract for the disbursement of funds must prohibit the
payment of a claim not submitted electronically. It delays
Medicare part A and B payments by nine days. It increases the
Medicare Integrity Program funding amounts by $100 million for
fiscal year 2006.
Title V, Subtitle D, provides for the phase-out of risk
adjustment budget neutrality over 2007 through 2010 in
determining the amount of payments to Medicare Advantage
Organizations. It directs the Secretary to establish a process
and criteria to award site development grants to qualified
Programs of All-inclusive Care for Elderly (PACE) providers
that have been approved to serve a rural area.
The Deficit Reduction Act provides for hurricane Katrina
health care relief. The conference agreement appropriates $2
billion, in addition to any funds made available for the
National Disaster Medical System, for use by the Secretary of
HHS to pay eligible states (those who have provided care to
affected individuals or evacuees under a Section 1115 project).
These funds may be used for the non-Federal share of
expenditures for health care provided to affected individuals
and evacuees under approved multi-state Section 1115
demonstration projects; reasonable administrative costs related
to such projects; the non-Federal share of expenditures for
medical care provided to individuals under existing Medicaid
and SCHIP Federal plans; and other purposes, if approved by the
Secretary, to restore access to health care in impacted
communities.
Additionally the conference agreement provides funding for
State high risk health insurance pools For FY2006, $75 million
is authorized and appropriated for the losses incurred by a
State in connection with the operation of their qualified high
risk pool. There is also $15 million in FY2006 authorized and
appropriated to fund seed grants to States to create, and
initially fund, a high risk pool. This funding will also apply
upon the enactment of the State High Risk Pool Funding
Extension Act.
Legislative History
On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print
entitled Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina energy
relief, as amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 22 nays. A
motion by Mr. Barton to transmit the recommendations of the
Committee, and all appropriate accompanying material including
additional, supplemental, or dissenting views, to the House
Committee on the Budget, in order to comply with the
reconciliation directive included in Section 201(a) of the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H.
Con. Res. 95, and consistent with Section 310 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, was
agreed to by a voice vote.
On October 27, 2005, Mr. Gregg introduced S. 1932 and the
Senate Committee on the Budget reported without a written
report.
On November 3, 2005, S. 1932 was passed and agreed to in
the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 nays.
On November 7, 2005, Mr. Nussle introduced H.R. 4241, which
included the Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina
energy relief, and the House Committee on the Budget reported
an original measure (H. Rept. 109-276).
On November 17, 2005, H.R. 4241 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 560, and passed the House on November 18,
2006, by a roll call vote of 217 yeas and 215 nays. No further
action was taken on H.R. 4241 in the 109th Congress.
On November 18, 2005, S. 1932 was considered in the House
by unanimous consent, and was agreed to, amended, without
objection.
On December 14, 2005, the Senate disagreed to the amendment
of the House, and requested a conference on S. 1932 by
unanimous consent.
On December 15, 2005, the Senate appointed conferees.
On December 16, 2005, Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent
that the House insist upon its amendment, and agree to a
conference. The request was agreed to without objection.
On December 16, 2005, the Speaker of the House appointed
conferees for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House
amendment thereto, and modifications committed to conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of title III and title VI of the
Senate bill and title III of the House amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Deal (GA),
and Dingell.
On December 19, 2005, the conference report to accompany S.
1932 (H. Rept. 109-362) was filed, considered under the
provisions of H. Res. 640, and the House agreed to the
conference report by a roll call vote of 212 yeas and 206 nays.
On December 19, 20, and 21, 2005, the conference report was
considered in the Senate.
On December 21, 2005, Senate concurred in the House
amendment with an amendment by a record vote of 51 yeas and 50
nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report was defeated by
operation of the Budget Act.
On January 31, 2006, the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res.
653 provided for consideration of S. 1932, upon adoption of the
resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
On February 1, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate
amendment to the House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653.
On February 7, 2006, S. 1932 was presented to the President
and was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006
(Public Law 109-171).
STATE HIGH RISK POOL FUNDING EXTENSION ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-172 (H.R. 4519, H.R. 3204)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend funding
for the operation of State high risk health insurance pools.
Summary
H.R. 4519 extends funding for the operation and
establishment of State high risk health insurance pools. The
bill increases the maximum allowable premium charged under a
qualified high risk pool to 200% of the premium for applicable
standard risk rates. It changes the allocation of such grants
to give 40% to eligible states equally, 30% based on the number
of uninsured individuals in a State relative to all States, and
30% based on the number of enrollees in a State's qualified
high risk pool relative to all States. The bill also requires a
State which charges premiums that exceed 150% of the premium
for applicable standard risks to use at least 50% of the grant
amount to reduce premiums for enrollees.
Legislative History
On July 12, 2005, Mr. Shadegg introduced H.R. 3204 and it
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 14, 2005, H.R. 3204 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health, and the Subcommittee on Health met in
open markup session, and forwarded H.R. 3204 to the Full
Committee by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3204 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3204 to
the House, as amended, on July 27, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-192).
On July 27, 2005, H.R. 3204 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on July 28, 2005, read
twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. Calendar No. 181.
On October 19, 2005, H.R. 3204 passed the Senate, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3204 in the 109th
Congress.
On December 13, 2005, Mr. Shadegg introduced H.R. 4519 and
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 17, 2005, H.R. 4519 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice
vote.
The bill was received in the Senate on December 17, 2005.
On January 27, 2006, H.R. 4519 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On February 1, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions discharged H.R. 4519 by unanimous consent,
and H.R. 4519 passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
H.R. 4519 was presented to the President on February 3,
2006, and was signed by the President on February 10, 2006
(Public Law 109-172).
USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-177 (H.R. 3199)
(Health Provisions)
Summary
H.R. 3199 included provisions dealing with combating
methamphetamine abuse. It reduces the exemption to reporting
requirements for individual sales of pseudoephedrine and
phenylpropanolamine from 9 grams to 3.6 grams per transaction
and eliminates the reporting exemption for blister packs, and
extends the Attorney General's existing authority to set
production quotas for certain controlled substances to
methamphetamine precursor chemicals.
H.R. 3199 also extends the Attorney General's existing
authority to set import quotas for controlled substances to
methamphetamine precursor chemicals, closes the loophole in the
spot market for imports and exports of precursor chemicals for
methamphetamine, and extends the current reporting
requirements--as well as the current exemption for regular
importers, exporters, and customers--to post-import or export
transactions.
Legislative History
H.R. 3199 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on July 11,
2006, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select),
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 13, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open mark session and ordered H.R. 3199 reported to the House,
as amended, by a record vote of 23 ayes and 14 nays.
On July 13, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent
Select) met in open mark session and ordered H.R. 3199 reported
to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On July 18, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-174, Part I).
On July 18, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent
Select) reported H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept.
109-174, Part II).
On July 21, 2005, pursuant to the provisions H. Res. 369,
the House considered H.R. 3199, and passed the bill by a roll
call vote of 257 ayes and 171 nays.
On July 25, 2005, H.R. 3199 was received in the Senate and
read twice.
On July 29, 2005, H.R. 3199 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate requested a
conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On November 9, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to a conference, and the Speaker appointed
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for
consideration of Sections 124 and 231 of the House bill, and
modifications committed to conference.
On December 8, 2005, the conferees filed the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3199 (H. Rept. 109-333).
On December 14, 2005, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 3199 pursuant to the provisions of H.
Res. 595 and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 251 yeas
and 174 nays.
On December 14, 15, and 16, 2005, the Senate considered the
conference report to accompany H.R. 3199.
On December 16, 2005, motion to invoke cloture was not
agreed to in the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47
nays.
On March 1, 2006, motion to proceed to consideration of the
motion to reconsider agreed to in Senate by a record vote of 86
yeas and 13 nays, and upon reconsideration, cloture invoked in
Senate by a record vote of 84 yeas and 15 nays.
The conference report to accompany H.R. 3199 was agreed to
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 10 nays on March 2, 2006, and
cleared for the White House.
H.R. 3199 was presented to the President on March 8, 2006,
and signed by the President on March 9, 2006 (Public Law 109-
177).
TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL
FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
Public Law 109-245 (S. 655)
A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect
to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Summary
S. 655 amends Section 399G of the Public Health Service Act
(PHSA) to provide increased flexibility in the amounts of
Federal funding and support services allocated to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Foundation and
requires the Foundation to: (1) include an accounting of the
use of funds transferred from the CDC to the Foundation in its
annual report; and (2) submit such reports to the appropriate
congressional committees.
Legislative History
S. 655 was introduced on March 17, 2005, in the Senate by
Senator Johnny Isakson, and it was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S.
655 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably.
On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions reported by Senator Enzi with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute with written report (No. 109-91),
and S. 655 was paced on Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 140.
On July 27, 2005, S.655 passed the Senate with an amendment
by unanimous consent.
S. 655 was received in the House on July 28, 2005, and was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On August 5, 2005, S. 655 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Health.
On June 8, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded S. 655 to the full Committee
without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered S. 655 favorably reported to
the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported S. 655 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-510), and
S. 655 was Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 286.
On July 11, 2006, S. 655 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by
voice vote.
On July 13, 2006, the Senate agreed to the House amendment
by unanimous consent, clearing S. 655 for the President.
On July 18, 2006, S. 655 was presented to the President and
was signed by the President on July 26, 2006 (Public Law 109-
245).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Public Law 109-295 (HR 5441)
(Health Provisions)
Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5441 establishes the office of the Chief Medical
Officer in the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation
also authorizes $60 million for the Metropolitan Medical
Response System. Finally, H.R. 5441 permanently transferred the
National Disaster Medical System from the Department of
Homeland Security to the Department Health and Human Services.
Legislative History
On May 22, 2006, Mr. Rogers (KY) reported an original
measure (H. Rept. 109-476) to the House.
On May 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5441 and on June
6, 2006, the House reconvened to consider H.R. 5441 as
unfinished business and passed H.R. 5441 by a roll call vote of
389 yeas and 9 nays.
On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
On June 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved favorably for full
committee consideration with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations
ordered H.R. 5441 to be reported favorably with an amendment in
the nature of a substitute with written report no. 109-273.
On July 11, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by the Senate
and on July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441 with an
amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. On July 13,
2006, the Senate insisted on its amendment, and asked for a
conference and appointed conferees.
On July 17, 2006, H.R. 5814, Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, was introduced
by Mr. King (NY) and referred to the House Committee on
Homeland Security.
On July 19, 2006, the House Committee on Homeland Security
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 5814 to be
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
On November 9, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security
reported H.R. 5814 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-713,
Part I), and it was referred jointly and sequentially to the
Committee on Ways and Means for a period ending not later than
November 17, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X, and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than November
17, 2006 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.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5814 in the 109th
Congress.
On July 20, 2006, H.R. 5852 was introduced by Mr. Reichert
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and, in
addition to the Committee on Homeland Security.
On July 24, 2006, H.R. 5852 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
On July 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5852 under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call
vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays.
On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5852 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. No further action was taken on H.R. 5852 in the 109th
Congress.
On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 5441, and agreed to a conference by voice
vote. The Speaker appointed conferees.
On September 25, 2006, Conferees agreed to file a
conference report, and on September 28, 2006, the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) was filed,
which included H.R. 5852 as a provision within the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) under the
provisions of H. Res. 1054, and agreed to the conference report
by a roll call vote of 412 yeas and 6 nays. On the same day,
the Senate agreed to the conference report by voice vote.
On October 3, 2006, H.R. 5441 was presented to the
President, and on October 4, H.R. 5441 was signed by the
President (Public Law 109-295).
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL GME SUPPORT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-307 (H.R. 5574)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize
support for graduate medical education programs in children's
hospitals.
Summary
H.R. 5574 reauthorizes the Children's Hospital Graduate
Medical Education program from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal
year 2011.
Legislative History
Mr. Deal introduced H.R. 5574 on June 9, 2006, and it was
referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 5574 for Full Committee
consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5574 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5574 to the House (H. Rept 109-508).
On June 21, 2006, H.R. 5574 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 421 yeas and 4 nays.
On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5574 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 5574 passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous
consent on September 26, 2006.
On September 28, 2006, the House considered the Senate
amendment to H.R. 5574 under suspension of the rules, and
passed the House by voice vote.
H.R. 5574 was presented to the President on September 29,
2006, and was signed by the President on October 6, 2006
(Public Law 109-307).
JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122, S. 2766)
(Health Provisions)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Section 601 authorized the Public Health Service Corps to
receive the same pay raise as the rest of the uniformed
services.
Legislative History
H.R. 5122 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 6, 2006,
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House,
amended, by a record vote of 60 yeas and 1 nay.
On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 5122 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-452). H.R.
5122 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
On May 9, 2006, there was an exchange of correspondence
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 5122.
On May 10 and 11, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5122
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 806 and H. Res. 811. On
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5122, passed the House by a roll call vote
of 396 ayes and 31 nays.
On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5122 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under
General Orders. Calendar No. 431.
On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5122 was laid before the Senate and
passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
On September 7, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
for consideration of sections 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117,
and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 332-335, 352, 601,
722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference.
The Conference Committee met on September 12, 2005, and the
conferees filed the conference report to accompany H.R. 5122 on
September 29, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-702).
On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5122 pursuant to the provisions of H.
Res. 1062, and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 398 yeas
and 23 nays.
On September 30, 2006, the conference report was considered
in the Senate, agreed to by unanimous consent, and cleared for
the White House. H.R. 5122 was presented to the President on
October 5, 2006, and signed by the President on October 17,
2006 (Public Law 109-364).
RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS TREATMENT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-415 (H.R. 6143)
To amend title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend the program for providing life-saving care
for those with HIV/AIDS.
Summary
H.R. 6143 requires that grantees under Titles I, II, and
III of the Ryan White Care program spend not less than 75
percent of their funds on core medical services with the
opportunity for eligible entities to receive a waiver from this
requirement if certain conditions are met. States would be able
to spend the remaining 25 percent of funds on support services
if the Secretary determines the services are needed for
individuals with HIV/AIDS to achieve their medical outcomes.
H.R. 6143 also makes changes to the Title I and Title II
formulas, basing both on the number of cases of HIV/AIDS rather
than estimated living AIDS cases. H.R. 6143 changes the
distribution for funds for Title I funds so that two-thirds of
the funds will be awarded through a formula and one-third would
be through supplement grants, and allows a hold harmless for
EMAs at 95 percent of their FY 2006 award for FY 2007 and a
hold harmless for FY 2008 and FY 2009 at 100 percent of the FY
2007 award. H.R. 6143 provides a three-year transition period
for grandfathered EMAs that no longer meet a required incidence
and prevalence of AIDS cases threshold.
The calculation of the Title II formula distribution is
also changed from a .80/.20 calculation to a .75/.20, with an
additional 5 percent of the funding distribution reserved for
States with no Title I entities. All States receive a hold
harmless at 95 percent of their FY 2006 award beginning in FY
2007 and a hold harmless at 100 percent of their FY 2007 award
for FY 2008 and FY 2009. H.R. 6143 provides an opportunity in
all three years of the reauthorization for States (and Title I
entities) that lose formula funds to apply for prioritized
supplemental awards. H.R. 6143 also prevents otherwise
potentially severe losses in funding under current law for FY
2007 for States (and Title I entities) with code-based HIV
reporting systems.
H.R. 6143 increases the authorization levels for Titles I,
II, and III by 3.7 percent. Administrative expenses are capped
at 10 percent for each entity receiving funds through Titles I-
IV. In addition, H.R. 6143 includes $70 million in new money in
the Title II base for 2007. New carryover provisions help keep
funds awarded to entities within the Ryan White program rather
than being returned to the Treasury. H.R. 6143 creates a new
Title II supplemental award and disconnects the ADAP
supplemental award from funding a Title II hold harmless
provision should it be triggered. H.R. 6143 creates a minimum
list drug list for antiretrovirals for ADAPs, and increases the
ADAP set aside for the ADAP supplement from a 3 percent to a 5
percent set aside.
H.R. 6143 also codifies, in part, the Minority AIDS
Initiative. In addition, it provides the Administration with
the flexibility to address emergencies, to address emerging
needs, and to promote the development of health information
technology. H.R. 6143 also strengthens the Ryan White program
by providing more accountability and transparency through more
statewide coordination of funding. H.R. directs the Secretary
to develop a severity of need index by September 30, 2008 and
submit it to Congress (or a report on its progress if not
ready). The reauthorization is for three years with the entire
program to sunset FY 2010.
Legislative History
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered a Committee Print
entitled the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of
2006 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a record vote
of 38 yeas and 10 nays, a quorum being present. A request by
Mr. Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill to be
introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be deemed as
actions on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On September 21, 2006, Ms. Bono introduced H.R. 6143, and
it was solely referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 25, 2006, H.R. 6143 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On September 28, 2006, pursuant to the unanimous consent
request on September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 6143 to the House (H. Rept. 109-695) and
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 420.
On September 28, 2006, H.R. 6143 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 325 yeas and 98 nays.
On September 29, 2006, H.R. 6143 was received in the
Senate.
On November 13, 2006, H.R. 6143 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 6143 was discharged by the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions by
unanimous consent, and passed the Senate with an amendment by
unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, the House concurred in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 6143 by unanimous consent, clearing the bill
for the White House.
H.R. 6143 was presented to the President on December 15,
2006, and signed by the President on December 19, 2006 (Public
Law 109-415).
THE COMBATTING AUTISM ACT
Public Law 109-416 (S. 843)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to combat autism
through research, screening, intervention and education.
Summary
S. 843 requires the Director of NIH to expand, intensify,
and coordinate autism spectrum disorder-related research. It
allows the Director to consolidate program activities under
this section to improve program efficiencies and outcomes.
S. 843 also requires the Secretary of HHS, acting through
the NIH Director, to conduct an NIH-wide review of centers of
excellence and report to Congress with the following
information with regard to the centers: (1) a performance and
outcomes evaluation; (2) recommendations for promoting
information coordination; and, (3) recommendations for
improving effectiveness, efficiency, and outcomes.
In addition S. 843 grants the Secretary of HHS, acting
through the Director of CDC, the authority to award grants for
the collection, analysis, and reporting of state-level
epidemiological data on autism spectrum disorder and other
developmental disabilities. In addition, the Secretary, acting
through the CDC Director, may award grants for the
establishment of regional centers of excellence in autism
spectrum disorder epidemiology. S. 843 directs the Secretary to
establish and evaluate activities to: (1) provide information
and education to increase public awareness of autism's early
warning signs; (2) promote early screening of those at higher
risk for autism; (3) increase the number of health care
professionals able to diagnose autism; (4) increase the number
of professionals offering treatments for autism; and 5) promote
the use of evidence-based interventions for those at higher
risk for autism.
S. 843 directs the Secretary of HHS to collaborate with the
Secretary of the Department of Education to provide culturally
competent information on ASD, including risk factors,
characteristics, and evidence-based interventions to treat ASD.
Such information shall be made available to the public through
federal programs such as Head Start, Early Start, Healthy
Start, the Child Care Development Block Grant, and other
programs.
Finally, S. 843 establishes and expands an existing
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) to coordinate
all efforts within HHS concerning ASD. The IACC will annually
report on scientific advances in ASD research, monitor federal
ASD-related activities, develop a strategic plan for ASD
research, including proposed budgetary requirements, and make
recommendations to the Secretary regarding appropriate changes
to such activities and public participation. The IACC will also
create, update, and report to Congress annually a strategic
plan for addressing autism at the federal level.
Legislative History
S. 843 was introduced on April 19, 2005, in the Senate by
Senator Santorum, and it was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On July 19, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S.
843 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably.
On August 3, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 843i with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute with written report (No. 109-318), and
S. 843 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. Calendar No. 578.
On August 3, 2006, S. 843 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 843 was received in the House on September 6, 2006, and
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 25, 2006, S. 843 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 6, 2006, S. 843 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
On December 7, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing S. 843 for the
President.
On December 11, 2006, S. 843 was presented to the President
and was signed by the President on December 19, 2006 (Public
Law 109-416).
PANDEMIC AND ALL-HAZARDS PREPAREDNESS ACT
Public Law 109-417 (S. 3678)
To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to
public health security and all-hazards preparedness and
response, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 3678 reauthorizes the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
188) to protect the public more effectively and efficiently by
responding to public health emergencies with a clear line of
authority from local to State to Federal officials. It also
builds on the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-276) to
accelerate advanced research and development of drugs and
vaccines to protect the United States from health emergencies,
such as bird flu. By building on the lessons we have learned
from Hurricane Katrina and September 11th, this bill will
improve our public health and medical preparedness and response
capabilities for emergencies.
Among other items S. 3678 (1) identifies the Secretary of
Health and Human Services as the lead Federal official in
charge of public health and medical preparedness and response
during a public health emergency; (2) requires States to meet
preparedness benchmarks and performance standards; (3) promotes
the use of Health Information Technology; (4) enhances HHS
advanced development and procurement activities for medical
countermeasures; and (5) provides a limited antitrust exemption
to allow the Secretary of HHS and the Director of BARDA to
collaborate and consult, as needed, with agency leaders,
academia, and industry on developing needed medical
countermeasures.
Legislative History
Senator Burr introduced S. 3678 on July 18, 2006, it was
read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
On July 19, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S.
3678 reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute
favorably.
On August 3, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 3678 with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute, with written report No. 109-319, and S.
3678 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. Calendar No. 583.
On December 5, 2006, S. 3678 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On December 6, 2006, S. 3678 was received in the House and
held at the desk.
On December 9, 2006, S. 3678 passed the House by unanimous
consent, and was cleared for the White House.
On December 14, 2006, S. 3678 was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on December 19, 2006
(Public Law 109-417).
SOBER TRUTH ON PREVENTING UNDERAGE DRINKING ACT
Public Law 109-422 (H.R. 864)
To provide for programs and activities with respect to the
prevention of underage drinking.
Summary
H.R. 864 requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to: (1) formally establish an existing interagency
coordinating committee to guide policy and program development
across the Federal Government on underage drinking; (2) issue
an annual report summarizing the activities of each State in
enacting, enforcing, and creating laws, regulations, and
programs to prevent or reduce underage drinking; (3) develop a
set of outcome measures for the report in (2) above, including
the strictness of the minimum drinking age laws and the number
of compliance checks conducted; (4) fund and oversee a national
adult-oriented media public service campaign; (5) award grants
to reduce the rate of underage alcohol use and binge drinking
among students at institutions of higher education; and (6)
collect data on, and conduct or support research on, underage
drinking, including the impact alcohol use and abuse has upon
adolescent brain development, the scope of the underage
drinking problem, and progress in preventing and treating
underage drinking.
H.R. 864 also requires the Director of the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Agency to award grants to design, test,
evaluate, and disseminate strategies to maximize the
effectiveness of community-wide approaches to preventing and
reducing underage drinking.
Finally, H.R. 864 requires the Secretary to collect data on
and conduct and support research on: (1) compiling information
on every unnatural death of persons ages 12 to 20 for alcohol
involvement; (2) obtaining new epidemiological data that
identifies alcohol use and attitudes about alcohol use during
pre- and early adolescence; and (3) developing or identifying
successful clinical treatment for youth with alcohol problems.
Legislative History
On February 16, 2005, H.R. 864 was introduced by Ms.
Roybal-Allard, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On March 14, 2005, H.R. 864 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On November 14, 2006, H.R. 864 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by a roll call vote of 373 yeas and 23 nays.
On November 15, 2006, H.R. 864 was received in the Senate
and read twice.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 864 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On December 7 2006, H.R. 864 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and the House concurred in the
Senate amendment by voice vote clearing H.R. 864 for the White
House.
H.R. 864 was presented to the President on December 11,
2006, and signed by the President on December 20, 2006 (Public
Law 109-422).
AN ACT TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO EXTEND EXPIRING
PROVISIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Public Law 109-432 (H.R. 6111, H.R. 6408)
An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 6111 replaces the scheduled 5 percent cut for
physician payment for 2007 with additional funds without
adjusting the conversion factor under current law and provides
an additional 1.5 percent bonus payment for physicians and
other practitioners who report quality measures to the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2007. H.R. 6111
sets up a separate pool of funds available for physician
assistance and quality initiatives for 2008. H.R. 6111 also
provides: a one-year extension of the exceptions process for
therapy services for beneficiaries expected to exceed the
annual cap and direct billing for the technical component for
certain physician pathology services by independent
laboratories; an extension of reasonable costs payment for lab
tests furnished in small rural hospitals; a composite rate
update of 1.6 percent for end stage renal disease (ESRD)
facilities for 2007; and no changes to brachytherapy device
payment methodology for 2007 and better coding for such
products.
H.R. 6111 also corrects the mid-year expiration of the
Medicare hospital wage index reclassifications, requires the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and CMS to issue reports
on the wage index, and eliminates unnecessary reports. It
revises payment processing requirements in the Competitive
Acquisition Program to allow for more efficient payment to
providers for services delivered for administration of a Part B
drug to a beneficiary. H.R. 6111 also establishes quality
reporting for hospital outpatient and ambulatory care services,
and requires reporting of anemia quality indicators for cancer
anti-anemia drugs.
H.R. 6111 provides reimbursement under Medicare Part B for
the administration of vaccines for 2007, and payment through
Medicare Part D for administering these vaccines beginning in
2008. It requires an OIG study regarding the prevalence of and
payment for medical services that directly harm Medicare
patients (referred to as ``never events''), and creates a
three-year Medical Home Demonstration program to examine the
ability to manage targeted and coordinated care to patients
suffering from one or more chronic conditions. H.R. 6111 also
reduces Medicare overpayments by extending and expanding the
recovery audit contractor program, and provides updated funding
for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account to help
reduce or eliminate fraud and abuse.
H.R. 6111 extends the Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA)
and abstinence education programs for six months, and
authorizes grants to develop a vaccine against Valley Fever.
H.R. 6408 reduces the limit on provider taxes from 6 percent to
5.5 percent from January 1, 2008, to September 30, 2011, and
includes Medicare and Medicaid Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
technical corrections. H.R. 6408 also provides DSH allotments
for fiscal year 2007 for Tennessee and Hawaii and a
clarification of a Nevada hospice satellite designation. H.R.
6111 reduces payments to the Medicare Advantage stabilization
fund to help offset Medicare provider payments.
Legislative History
On September 19, 2006, Ms. Tauscher introduced H.R. 6111
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
On December 5, 2006, H.R. 6111 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 6111 was received in the Senate
and read twice.
On December 7, 2006, H.R. 6111 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent
H.R. 6408 was introduced on December 7, 2006 by Congressman
Bill Thomas, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce,
Resources, Education and the Workforce, and Government Reform,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.
No further action was taken on H.R. 6409 in the 109th
Congress.
On December 8, 2006, H.R. 6111 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 1099, and agreed to the Senate
amendment with amendments.
On December 9, 2006, H.R. 6111 was received in the Senate
and held at the desk.
On December 9, 2006, motion to invoke cloture to concur in
the House amendment to the Senate amendment agreed to by a
record vote of 78 yeas and 10 nays.
On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House
amendment to the Senate amendment by a record vote of 79 yeas
and 9 nays.
On December 8, 2006, Mr. Thomas moved that the House agree
with amendments to the Senate amendment of H.R. 6111, and Mr.
Markey moved to amend the House amendment to the Senate
amendment of H.R. 6111, which failed by roll call vote of 205
yeas and 207 nays. The House amendment to the Senate amendment
of H.R. 6111 was agreed to by a roll call vote of 367 yeas and
45 nays.
On December 9, 2006, the Senate agreed to the House
amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 6111 by a roll call
vote of 79 yeas and 9 nays, and agreed to the House amendment
to the title by unanimous consent, and H.R. 6111 was cleared
for the White House.
On December 19, 2006, H.R. 6111 was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on December 20, 2006
(Public Law 109-432).
LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-442 (H.R. 3248)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
program to assist family caregivers in accessing affordable and
high-quality respite care, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3248 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to State Aging
and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs) to develop lifespan
respite care programs at the State and local levels; provide
planned or emergency respite services for family caregivers of
children and adults; training and recruiting respite workers
and volunteers; provide information to caregivers about
available respite and support services; and assist caregivers
in gaining access to such services.
H.R. 3248 limits grants to five years.
H.R 3248 directs the Secretary of HHS to award a grant or
cooperative agreement to a public or private nonprofit entity
to establish the National Resource Center on Lifespan Respite
Care to: (1) maintain a national database on lifespan respite
care; (2) provide training and technical assistance to Federal,
community, and nonprofit respite care programs; and (3) provide
information, referral, and educational programs to the public
on lifespan respite care.
Legislative History
H.R. 3248 was introduced by Mr. Ferguson on July 12, 2005,
and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 29, 2006, H.R. 3248 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3248 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On December 5, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3248 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-716),
and H.R. 3248 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
428.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 3248 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
H.R. 3248 was received in the Senate on December 6, 2006.
On December 8, 2006, H.R. 3248 passed the Senate, without
amendment, by voice vote, clearing it for the President.
H.R. 3248 was presented to the President on December 20,
2006, and signed by the President on December 21, 2006 (Public
Law 109-442).
PREMATURITY RESEARCH EXPANSION AND EDUCATION FOR MOTHERS WHO DELIVER
INFANTS EARLY (PREEMIE) ACT
Public Law 109-450 (S. 707)
A bill to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of
pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy,
and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity.
Summary
S. 707 expands research into the causes and prevention of
prematurity and increases education and support services
related to prematurity. S. 707 expands Federal research related
to preterm labor and delivery, treatment, and outcomes of
preterm and low birthweight infants. Additionally, S. 707
provides for public and health care provider education and
support service grants. In addition, the bill establishes an
Interagency Coordinating Council on Prematurity and Low
Birthweight.
S. 707 also waives the Head Start regulation that requires
all Head Start children to be transported only on school buses
or school bus-like vehicles. S. 707 will allow the 6 percent of
Head Start children nationwide who are transported in
paratransit vehicles, which would otherwise not qualify as a
school-bus like vehicle, to continue to use this option of
transportation until June 30, 2007.
Legislative History
S. 707 was introduced on April 5, 2005 in the Senate by
Senator Alexander, read twice, and referred to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S.
707 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute favorably.
On July 31, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 707 with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute with written report No. 109-298, and S.
707 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. Calendar No. 541.
On August 1, 2006, S. 707 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
S. 707 was received in the House on August 2, 2006, and was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 9, 2006, S. 707, was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, as amended, and failed by voice
vote.
On December 9, 2006, S. 707 passed the House, with an
amendment, by unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House
amendment by unanimous consent, and S. 707 was cleared for the
White House.
On December 20, 2006, S. 707 was presented to the President
and was signed by the President on December 22, 2006 (Public
Law 109-450).
DIETARY SUPPLEMENT AND NONPRESCRIPTION DRUG CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
Public Law 109-462 (S. 3546)
A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary
supplements and nonprescription drugs, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 3546 requires manufacturers and distributors of
supplements and Over the Counter drugs to report all serious
adverse events, such as death, life-threatening conditions,
hospitalization, a persistent or significant disability or
incapacity, or a congenital anomaly or birth defect, to the
FDA. The bill requires manufacturers to keep all adverse event
records for six years, and allows the FDA to inspect these
records. It also sets a 15-day time limit for manufacturers to
give the FDA the reports of serious adverse events they
receive. S. 3546 contains two rules of construction that state
the submission of any adverse event report in compliance with
this section shall not be construed as an admission that the
dietary supplement or over the counter drug involved caused or
contributed to the adverse event.
Legislative History
S. 3546 was introduced on June 21, 2006, in the Senate by
Senator Hatch, and it was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S.
3546 to be favorably reported with an amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
On September 5, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 3546 with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute with written report No. 109-324, and S.
3546 was paced on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders. Calendar No. 140.
On December 6, 2006, S. 3546 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, S. 3546 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by a roll call vote of 203 yeas to 98 nays, and S. 3546 was
cleared for the White House.
On December 20, 2006, S. 3546 was presented to the
President and was signed by the President on December 22, 2006
(Public Law 109-462).
GYNECOLOGIC CANCER EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-475 (H.R. 1245)
To provide for programs to increase the awareness and
knowledge of women and health care providers with respect to
gynecologic cancers.
Summary
H.R. 1245, the Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness
Act of 2005 or Johanna's Law, Directs the Secretary of Health
and Human Services to carry out a national campaign to increase
the awareness and knowledge of women with respect to
gynecologic cancers, which shall include: (1) maintaining a
supply of written materials to provide information to the
public on gynecologic cancers; and (2) developing and placing
public service announcements to encourage women to discuss
their risks of gynecologic cancers with their physicians.
H.R. 1245 requires the Secretary, within 6 months of
enactment, to report to the Congress on HHS's activities with
respect to informing and educating the public and health care
providers about different types of cancer, including
gynecologic cancers.
H.R. 1245 contains language directing CDC and FDA to
enforce current law regarding condom labeling dealing with HPV
virus.
Legislative History
On March 3, 2005, H.R. 1245 was introduced by Mr. Issa and
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 22, 2005, H.R. 1245 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On November 14, 2006, H.R. 1245 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House as amended,
by voice vote.
On November 15, 2006, H.R. 1245 was received in the Senate
and read twice.
On December 8, 2006, H.R. 1245 passed the Senate with an
amendment by unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, the House concurred in the Senate
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing H.R. 1245 for the
White House.
H.R. 1245 was presented to the President on December 22,
2006, and signed by the President on January 12, 2006 (Public
Law 109-475).
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-469 (H.R. 6344, H.R. 2829)
To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Act.
Summary
H.R. 6344 repeals the sunset provision of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 making
such Act permanent. It requires the Office of National Drug
Policy Control to evaluate the effectiveness of national drug
control policy and programs by developing and applying specific
goals and performance measurements. The legislation also grants
executive branch rank and status to the Director of the Office.
Legislative History
H.R. 2829 was introduced by Mr. Souder on June 9, 2005, and
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition
to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and
Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 16, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On June 17, 2005, H.R. 2829 was referred to Energy and
Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health.
On November 18, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315
Part I). The Amended version included Title II, which provided
the Office of National Drug Control Policy authority to
promulgate rules regarding steroid policies and testing
procedures for professional sports leagues.
On November 18, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, and Intelligence (Permanent Select) were
granted an extension until December 17, 2005. In addition H.R.
2829 was referred sequentially to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce for a period ending not later than December
17, 2005, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(e), rule X.
On December 17, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until
December 31, 2005.
On December 31, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until
February 3, 2006.
On February 3, 2006, the Committees on the Judiciary,
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until
March 3, 2006.
On February 16, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the
House, without recommendation, amended, by voice vote. H.R.
2829 was amended by striking Title II and replacing it with the
text of H.R. 3084, as reported by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On March 2, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On March 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315,
Part II.). Similarly, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended. (H. Rept. 109-315, Part
III.). The Committees on Intelligence (Permanent) and Education
and Workforce both were discharged from further consideration
of H.R. 2829, and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar
No. 209.
On March 9, 2006, H.R. 2829 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 713. H.R. 2829 passed the House
by a roll call vote: 399 yeas and 5 nays.
On March 16, 2006, H.R. 2829 was received in the Senate,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 2829 in the 109th
Congress.
On December 5, 2006, Mr. Souder introduced H.R. 6344, which
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, the
Judiciary, Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select),
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 7, 2006, H.R. 6344 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice
vote.
On December 7, 2006, H.R. 6344 was received in the Senate
and read twice.
On December 8, 2006, H.R. 6344 passed the Senate without
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White
House.
On December 19, 2006, H.R. 6344 was presented to the
President on December 19, 2006, and was signed by the President
on December 29, 2006 (Public Law 109-469).
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REFORM ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-482 (H.R. 6164)
To amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to
revise and extend the authorities of the National Institutes of
Health, and for other purposes.
Summary
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the Federal
government's principal medical research agency, armed with a
mission to advance research in pursuit of fundamental knowledge
that will lead to better health outcomes for all. Funding for
the NIH represents nearly half of the discretionary budget of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
H.R. 6164 increases of the overall authorization levels for
NIH that would increase each year of the authorization period
beginning at a $2 billion increase in fiscal year 2007, a $2.5
billion increase for fiscal year 2008, and for such sums as
necessary in fiscal year 2009. The legislation does not
authorize specific line items for individual institutes and
centers in the bill, nor will it combine line items for
existing institutes and centers.
H.R. 6164 establishes a new agency-wide electronic
reporting system to catalogue all of the research activities of
the NIH in a standardized format.
Established within the bill is a formal strategic planning
process for the entire research portfolio of the agency that
transcends the research planning activities of individual
institutes and centers through the establishment of the
Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic
Initiatives. The Office of the Director will be allocated a
specific line item authorization of appropriations. This does
not change the authority of individual institutes and centers
to conduct their individual planning, priority setting, and
research activities.
H.R. 6164 also establishes a ``common fund'' to provide a
permanent funding mechanism for trans-NIH research projects
identified through the Division. The common fund is a reserve
account that may be competitively drawn down by institutes,
centers, and independent investigators to advance trans-NIH
research.
In addition, H.R. 6164 establishes a formal, public process
to review the structural organizational design of the agency
every seven years. A ``scientific management review'' group
comprised of institute and center directors and other
scientific experts will evaluate the structural design of the
existing institutes and centers at NIH, and proposed new
institutes, and recommend necessary restructuring plans. After
a series of statutorily required public meetings, the
scientific management review board must issue its first report
to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the
bill. The scientific management review board must conduct a
review of the agency and issue a report at least once every
seven years.
Included in H.R. 6164 is language relating to the
redistribution of certain unused State Children's Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP) allotments for fiscal years 2004 and
2005 to reduce funding shortfalls for fiscal year 2007. The
legislation states that the Secretary may redistribute unused
funds from states carrying surplus SCHIP dollars from fiscal
year 2004. These redistributed funds are to be allocated to the
states reaching shortfall status beginning in January 2007.
Funds may also be used for redistribution from states with
fiscal year 2005 unused funds at the end of the first half of
fiscal year 2007. No state may be responsible for fiscal year
2005 unused allotments greater than $20 million or half of the
estimated unexpended allotment from fiscal year 2005. For
expenditures for which redistributed fiscal year 2005 funds are
used, the enhanced federal matching rate cannot apply to any
parties other than children or pregnant women.
Legislative History
On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered a Committee
Print entitled the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of
2006 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a record vote
of 42 yeas and 1 nay, a quorum being present. A request by Mr.
Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill to be introduced
by Mr. Barton, and that the actions of the Committee be deemed
as actions on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On September 25, 2006, Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6164, and
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 26, 2006, pursuant to the unanimous consent
request on September 30, 2006, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 6164 to the House (H. Rept. 109-687),
and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 417.
On September 26, 2006, H.R. 6164 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays.
On September 27, 2006, H.R. 6164 was received in the
Senate.
On November 13, 2006, H.R. 6164 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On December 8, 2006, H.R. 6164 was discharged by the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions by
unanimous consent, and passed the Senate with an amendment by
unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, the House concurred in the Senate
amendment to H.R. 6164 by unanimous consent, clearing the bill
for the White House.
H.R. 6164 was presented to the President on December 22,
2006, and signed by the President on January 15, 2006 (Public
Law 109-482).
HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTH CARE (HEALTH) ACT
OF 2005
(H.R. 5)
To improve patient access to health care services and
provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden
the liability system places on the health care delivery system.
Summary
H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely
Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005, sets forth provisions
regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims concerning
the provision of health care goods or services or any medical
product affecting interstate commerce.
H.R. 5 does not limit the recovery of economic damages, and
limits non-economic damages to $250,000, requires court
supervision over payment arrangements to protect against
conflicts of interest, and allows the court to restrict the
payment of attorney contingency fees and limits the fees to a
percentage based on the amount awarded.
H.R. 5 prohibits a punitive damage award, with exceptions,
in a product liability suit against a manufacturer,
distributor, or supplier of a medical product that has been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or that is
generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and
effective pursuant to conditions established by the FDA. It
also prohibits a product liability suit against a medical care
provider who prescribes or dispenses such a medical product
approved by the FDA.
H.R. 5 provides for periodic payments of future damage
awards over $50,000, exempts civil actions brought for vaccine-
related injuries from this act to the extent that they are
covered by the Public Health Service Act, and preempts State
law to an extent.
H.R. 5 expresses the sense of Congress that a health
insurer should be liable for damages for harm caused when it
makes a decision as to what care is medically necessary and
appropriate.
Legislative History
Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 5 on July 21, 2005 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 July 21, 2005, H.R. 5 was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Chairman.
On July 28, 2005, H.R. 5 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 385 and passed the House
by a roll call vote of 230 yeas, 194 nays, and two present.
On July 29, 2005, H.R. 5 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5 in the 109th
Congress.
STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 810)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human
embryonic stem cell research.
Summary
H.R. 810 requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human
embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem
cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics; were
created for the purposes of fertility treatment; were in excess
of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and
would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be
discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals
seeking fertility treatment); and were donated by such
individuals with written informed consent and without any
financial or other inducements. H.R. 810 requires the Secretary
to issue final guidelines to carry out this Act within 60 days
and submit annual reports on activities and research conducted
under this Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 810 was introduced by Mr. Castle on February 15, 2005,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 24, 2005, H.R. 810 was considered in the House
pursuant to a previous order. On that day, H.R. 810 passed the
House by a roll call vote of 238 yeas and 194 nays.
On May 26, 2005, H.R. 810 was received in the Senate, read
the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under
Read the First Time.
On June 6, 2005, H.R. 810 was read the second time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 119.
On July 18, 2006, H.R. 810 passed the Senate without
amendment by a record vote of 63 yeas and 37 nays, clearing it
for the President.
On July 19, 2006, H.R. 810 was presented to the President.
That day, the President vetoed H.R. 810. The President's veto
message was laid before the House on July 19, 2006. The
question of passage, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding, failed to reach the required two-
thirds majority by a roll call vote of 235 yeas and 193 nays.
On July 19, 2006, the House agreed, without objection, to a
motion to refer the bill and the accompanying veto message to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
No further action was taken on H.R. 810 in the 109th
Congress.
FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 1544)
To provide faster and smarter funding for first responders,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 1544 requires the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to appoint ex officio members and coordinate with the
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the selection of
emergency medical professionals to serve as members of a task
force on terrorism preparedness. In addition, the bill requires
that, in establishing any national voluntary consensus
standards for first responder equipment or training that
involve or relate to health professionals, the Secretary of
Homeland Security must coordinate with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
Legislative History
Mr. Cox introduced H.R. 1544 on April 12, 2005, and it was
referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
On April 19, 2005 the Subcommittee on Emergency
Preparedness, Science, and Technology met in open markup
session, and forwarded H.R. 1544 to the full committee by
unanimous consent.
On April 21, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1544 reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote.
On April 28, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security and
the Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence
concerning H.R. 1544.
On April 28, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security
reported H.R. 1544 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 109-65),
and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 32.
On May 12, 2005, H.R. 1544 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 269, and passed the
House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 409 yeas and 10 nays.
H.R. 1544 was received in the Senate, read twice, and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs on May 12, 2005.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1544 in the 109th
Congress.
THE CHRISTOPHER REEVE PARALYSIS ACT
(H.R. 1554)
Summary
H.R. 1554 grants discretion to the Director of CDC to
create innovative programs intended to improve quality of life
and rehabilitation programs related to paralysis. The bill
contains a Sense of Congress on the importance of trans-NIH
research with respect to paralysis.
Legislative History
H.R. 1554 was introduced on April 12, 2005, by Mr.
Bilirakis and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, 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 April 22, 2005, H.R. 1554 was referred to the Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
On December 9, 2006, H.R. 1554 passed the House by
unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, H.R. 1554 was received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1554 in the 109th
Congress.
HEALTH CARE CHOICE ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 2355)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage
offered in interstate commerce.
Summary
H.R. 2355 would allow an insurer to designate a primary
State whose covered laws would apply to that individual health
insurance coverage offered by the insurer. It would then allow
the insurer to offer that coverage in any secondary State. H.R.
2355 would exempt a health insurer from the covered laws of the
secondary State with respect to the regulation of its insurance
products. It would also allow secondary States to require an
insurer to (1) pay applicable premium and other taxes
(including high risk pool assessments) that are levied on
insurers under the laws of the State; (2) register with and
designate the State insurance commissioner as its agent for the
purposes of receiving service of legal documents or process;
(3) submit to an examination of its financial condition by the
State insurance commissioner if the insurance commissioner of
the primary State has not done an examination within a period
of time recommended by the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners (NAIC) and in accordance with its examiner's
handbook; (4) comply with a lawful order issued in a voluntary
dissolution proceeding, or in a delinquency proceeding
commenced by the State insurance commissioner where there has
been a finding of financial impairment; (5) comply with an
injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon
petition by the State insurance commissioner alleging that the
issuer is in hazardous financial condition; (6) participate, on
a nondiscriminatory basis, in any insurance insolvency guaranty
association or similar association to which a health insurance
issuer in the State is required to belong; (7) comply with any
State law regarding fraud and abuse (as defined in the bill),
except that if the State seeks an injunction regarding
fraudulent conduct, such an injunction must be obtained from a
court of competent jurisdiction; and, (8) comply with any State
law regarding unfair claims settlement practices (as defined in
the bill).
H.R. 2355 requires a health insurer to inform purchasers in
a secondary State that the policy is governed by the laws and
regulations of the primary State. The bill would also prohibit
insurers from offering health insurance in a secondary State
unless that coverage is currently offered for sale in the
primary State.
Legislative History
Mr. Shadegg introduced H.R. 2355 on May 12, 2005, and it
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 23, 2005, H.R. 2355 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Health.
On June 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing
on H.R. 2355, the Health Care Choice Act of 2005. The purpose
of this hearing was to examine legislation that would allow
health insurers to sell their products across Federal lines,
but only be subject to the insurance regulations imposed by the
Federal that they designate as their primary Federal of
operations. The subcommittee received testimony from several
advocacy groups.
On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2355 reported to the
House, amended, by a record vote of 24 yeas and 23 nays, a
quorum being present.
On February 16, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3204 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-378).
No further action was taken on H.R. 2355 in the 109th
Congress.
METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 3889)
To further regulate and punish illicit conduct relating to
methamphetamine, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 3889 reduces the exemption to reporting requirements
for individual sales of pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine
from 9 grams to 3.6 grams per transaction and eliminates the
reporting exemption for blister packs. The legislation extends
the Attorney General's existing authority to set production
quotas for certain controlled substances to methamphetamine
precursor chemicals.
Additionally, the bill extends the Attorney General's
existing authority to set import quotas for controlled
substances to methamphetamine precursor chemicals. It closes
the loophole in the spot market for imports and exports of
precursor chemicals for methamphetamine, and extends the
current reporting requirements--as well as the current
exemption for regular importers, exporters, and customers--to
post-import or export transactions.
H.R. 3889, requires the Secretary of Transportation (DOT)
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to consult with the Attorney General prior to the
issuance of new regulations for the listing of methamphetamine
by-products as hazardous materials under DOT rules and
hazardous waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
It clarifies existing law imposing the obligation of
restitution for environmental cleanup costs on persons involved
in methamphetamine production and trafficking.
Legislative History
On September 22, 2005, Mr. Souder introduced H.R. 3889
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, International
Relations, and 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 October 7, 2005, H.R. 3889 was referred to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
On November 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3889 favorably
reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
On September 26, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security. The Subcommittee held a hearing on September
27, 2005.
On November 3, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in
open markup session and H.R. 3889, as amended, was forwarded to
Full Committee by a recorded vote of 8 yeas and 2 nays.
On November 9, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 3889 reported to the
House, as amended, by a recorded vote of 31 yeas and 0 nays.
On November 16, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary reported
H.R. 3899 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-299, Part I).
On November 17, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 3899 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-299,
Part II), and the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Transportation were discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 3889, and it was placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 167.
No further action was taken on H.R. 3899 in the 109th
Congress.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4128)
To protect private property rights.
Summary
HR 4128 prohibits States or their political subdivisions
that receive Federal funds from exercising their power of
eminent domain to further economic development. The bill would
terminate the flow of Federal funds to any State or political
subdivision that violates the prohibition.
Legislative History
Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005,
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On October 27, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 109-262), and
H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 143.
On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence
concerning H.R. 1428.
On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rpt. 109-262, Part II).
On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed
the House, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 376 yeas and 38
nays.
H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th
Congress.
HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 4157)
To promote a better health information system.
Summary
H.R 4157 codifies and expands the authorities and duties of
the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology
(National Coordinator) at the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The bill also requires that certain Federal
health information collection systems be capable of receiving
information in a form consistent with any guidelines endorsed
by the National Coordinator within three years of endorsement.
The bill provides that the President take steps to promote the
use of non-identifiable electronic health information for
health and health care research. In addition, the bill provides
for a report on the work conducted by the American Health
Information Community (Community) and its role in the future as
well as a report on financing incentives. In addition, the bill
provides grants to help integrated health systems relay health
information and better coordinate the delivery of care for
uninsured, underinsured and medically underserved populations.
The bill also contains a demonstration program to promote
adoption of health IT in the small physician setting.
H.R. 4157 also makes revisions to Section 1173 of the
Social Security Act and streamlines the process for updating
additions and modifications to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) electronic financial and
administrative healthcare transaction standards. The bill also
sets deadlines for upgrading certain other electronic
transaction standards and codes.
H.R. 4157 creates safe harbors for providing certain health
IT or related services under both Section 1128B of the Social
Security Act (anti-kickback law) and Section 1877 of the Social
Security Act (the physician referral law), contingent on a
number of conditions in such safe harbors.
Legislative History
H.R. 4157 was introduced H.R. 4157 on October 27, 2005, and
it was referred to the House 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 November 4, 2005, H.R. 4157 was referred to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
On June 8, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 4157 for Full Committee
consideration, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being
present.
On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4157 favorably reported
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 14 nays,
a quorum being present.
On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4157 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 109-601
Part I); the Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 4157 to
the House, as amended, on July 26, 2006 (H. Rpt. 109-601 Part
II), and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 347.
On July 27, 2006, H.R. 4157 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 952, and H.R. 4157 passed
the House by a rollcall vote of 270 yeas and 148 nays.
H.R. 4157 was received in the Senate on July 28, 2006.
On August 3, 2006, H.R. 4157 was read the first time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time.
On September 5, 2006, H.R. 4157 was read the second time
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 587.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4157 in the 109th
Congress.
NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4167)
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for uniform food safety warning notification
requirements, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 4167 establishes a uniform system of food label
warnings. H.R. 4167 exempts from uniform labeling laws relating
to freshness dating, open date labeling, grade labeling, a
State inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling, organic or
natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit pricing,
a statement of geographic origin, dietary supplements, or a
consumer advisory relating to food sanitation imposed on a food
establishment or recommended by the Secretary.
H.R. 4167 provides that this Act only takes effect if the
Secretary certifies to Congress that its implementation will
pose no additional risk to the public health or safety from
terrorist attacks relating to the food supply. Additionally,
the legislation excludes from the scope of this Act any State
law, regulation, proposition, or other action that establishes
a notification requirement regarding the presence or potential
effects of mercury in fish and shellfish.
Legislative History
On October 27, 2005, Mr. Rogers introduced H.R. 4167, which
was then referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On November 4, 2005, the bill was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4167 favorably
reported to the House by a recorded vote of 30 yeas and 18
nays, a quorum being present.
On February 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 4167 to the House (H. Rept. 109-379), and H.R.
4167 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 208.
On March 2, 2006, H.R. 4167 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 702.
On March 8, 2006, was considered in the House pursuant to
the provisions of H. Res. 710. H.R. 4167 passed the House by a
recorded vote of 283 yeas and 139 nays.
On March 9, 2006, the Senate received H.R. 4167 and it was
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4167 in the 109th
Congress.
PROFICIENCY TESTING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4568)
To improve proficiency testing of clinical laboratories.
Summary
H.R. 4568 prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human
Services from conducting laboratory proficiency testing of
individuals involved in screening or interpreting cytological
preparations for one year. It also requires the Secretary,
within one year and before resuming testing, to revise such
proficiency testing to: (1) reflect the collaborative clinical
decision-making of laboratory personnel involved in screening
or interpreting cytological preparations; (2) revise grading or
scoring criteria to reflect current practice guidelines; (3)
provide for such testing to be conducted no more than every two
years; and (4) make such other revisions as necessary to
reflect changes in laboratory operations and practices since
the standards were promulgated.
Legislative History
H.R. 4568 was introduced by Mr. Deal on December 16, 2005,
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On December 17, 2005, H.R. 4568 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice
vote.
On January 27, 2006, H.R. 4568 was referred to the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4568 in the 109th
Congress.
DEXTROMETHORPHAN DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5280)
To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with
respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, and
for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5280 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prohibit
the distribution of bulk dextromethorphan to any person other
than a registered producer of drugs and devices in order to
protect the public health.
Legislative History
H.R. 5280 was introduced by Mr. Upton on May 3, 2006, and
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5280 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Health.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5280 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
On December 7, 2006, H.R. 5280 was received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5280 in the 109th
Congress.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY COORDINATION ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5438)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to transfer the
National Disaster Medical System to the Department of Health
and Human Services, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5438 transfers the functions, personnel, assets, and
liabilities of the National Disaster Medical System to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The legislation
designates HHS as the primary agency for the coordination of
Federal assistance to supplement State, local, and tribal
resources for preparing for or responding to a bioterrorist
attack or other public health or medical emergency.
Legislative History
Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 5438 on May 22, 2006, and it was
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition
to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 24, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5438 favorably reported
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5438 in the 109th
Congress.
NATIONAL BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER EARLY DETECTION PROGRAM
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5472)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide waivers
relating to grants for preventive health measures with respect
to breast and cervical cancers.
Summary
H.R. 5472, the National Breast and Cervical Early Detection
Reauthorization Act of 2006, reauthorizes the National Breast
and Cervical Early Detection Program for five years. The bill
requires the Secretary of HHS to create a demonstration program
whereby up to five State grantees may receive waivers from the
usual 60/40 requirement for spending program funds (60% must be
spent on screening, up to 40% on outreach, education, and other
program aspects). States must demonstrate that the waiver will
expand the number of women served and that quality of services
will improve. The bill authorizes $1.25 billion over five years
for the program.
Legislative History
On May 24, 2006, Ms. Myrick introduced H.R. 5472 and it was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 5, 2006, H.R. 5472 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Health.
On September 27, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5472 favorably
reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 45 yeas and
0 nays, a quorum being present.
On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5472 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-705),
and was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 424.
On December 9, 2006, H.R. 5472 passed the House, as
amended, by unanimous consent.
On December 9, 2006, H.R. 5472 was received in the Senate.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5472 in the 109th
Congress.
BIODEFENSE AND PANDEMIC VACCINE AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5533)
To prepare and strengthen the biodefenses of the United
States against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of
illness, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5533 strengthens the biodefenses of the United States
against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of
illness. H.R. 5533 provides a single point of authority within
the Department of Health and Human Services for the advanced
research and development of medical countermeasures to make
important procurement decisions. The legislation provides
authorization to fund advanced research and development
activities that were not covered by Project Bioshield.
Additionally, the legislation will provide for further
purchasing and contractual flexibility. Finally H.R. 5533 would
authorize the appropriation of $160 million for each of fiscal
years 2007 and 2008 for advanced countermeasure development
activities.
Legislative History
Mr. Rogers of Michigan introduced H.R. 5533 on June 6,
2006, and it was referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 23, 2006, H.R. 5533 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
ordered H.R. 5533 favorably reported to the House, amended, by
a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5533 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-686),
and was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 416. H.R.
5533 was considered in the House under suspension of the rules
and passed the House, as amended, by voice vote.
On September 27, 2006, H.R. 5533 was received in the
Senate.
On November 13, 2006, H.R. 5533 was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5533 in the 109th
Congress.
HEALTH CENTERS RENEWAL ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5573)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
additional authorizations of appropriations for the health
centers program under section 330 of such Act.
Summary
H.R. 5573 reauthorizes the existing Community Health Center
Program for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. The Health Centers
Renewal Act will ensure that community health centers can
continue to offer health care services to millions of medically
underserved and uninsured people.
Legislative History
Mr. Deal introduced H.R. 5573 on June 9, 2006, and it was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and approved H.R. 5573 for full committee
consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present.
On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5573 favorably reported
to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum
being present
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5573 to the House (H. Rept. 109-509).
On June 21, 2006, H.R. 5573 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 424 yeas and 3 nays.
On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5573 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. 5573 in the 109th
Congress.
TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT TO MODIFY THE PROGRAM FOR THE
SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES BY TERMINATING THE AUTHORITY
FOR REMOVAL OF CHIMPANZEES FROM THE SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES
(H.R. 5798)
To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the
program for the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees by
terminating the authority for removal of chimpanzees from the
system for research purposes.
Summary
Current law establishes a sanctuary system for surplus
chimpanzees, but allows removal of chimpanzees for research
under very limited and protective conditions. H.R. 5798
eliminates the removal authority.
Legislative History
Mr. McCrery introduced H.R. 5798 on July 18, 2006, which
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On August 1, 2006, H.R. 5798 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5798 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice
vote.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5798 in the 109th
Congress.
ESTATE TAX AND EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5970)
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the
unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion
equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset provision for
the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to extend
expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5970 prescribes guidelines under which certain related
persons and successors in interest are relieved of liability if
health or death benefits or unassigned beneficiaries' premiums
are prepaid; and modifies guidelines governing Federal
transfers under mining laws and the board of trustees of the
Combined Fund.
Legislative History
Mr. Thomas introduced H.R. 5970 on July 28, 2006, and it
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education
and Workforce, 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.
On July 28, 2006, H.R. 5970 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 966, and passed the House
by a roll call vote of 230 yeas, 180 nays, and 1 present.
On July 31, 2006, H.R. 5970 was received in the Senate and
deemed read the first time on July 28, (Legislative Day July
26) 2006, pursuant to the order of July 28.
On July 31, 2006, H.R. 5970 was read a second time and
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 562.
On August 3, 2006, cloture on the motion to proceed was not
invoked in the Senate by a recorded vote of 56 yeas and 42
nays.
On August 3, 2006, motion to reconsider the vote by which
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R.
5970 was not agreed to by a record vote of 56 yeas and 42 nays.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5970 in the 109th
Congress.
UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 6099)
To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed
regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.
Summary
H.R. 6099 requires an abortion provider who knowingly
performs an abortion of a pain-capable unborn child to follow
certain procedures. A pain-capable unborn child is defined as
an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of development
of 20 weeks or more after fertilization. First, the abortion
provider is to inform the woman of the probable age of the
child. Second the provider is to make available to the woman an
Unborn Child Pain Awareness. Third, information is to be
provided that pain medicine administered to the mother may not
prevent pain in the child, but in some cases anesthesia or
pain-reducing drugs can be administered directly to the child.
Fourth, the provider is to give the woman the best medical
judgment of the risks and costs of such anesthesia or
analgesic. Lastly, the provider is to obtain the woman's
signature on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form and
her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of
drugs to the child.
H.R. 6099 would require the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to develop the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure,
which is to include a statement that there is substantial
evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will
cause the unborn child pain and that the mother has the option
of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the
child.
H.R. 6099 also establishes civil penalties for willfully
failing to comply with this Act by authorizing the Attorney
General to bring a civil action under this Act; and private
rights of action for violations of this Act.
Legislative History
H.R. 6099 was introduced in the House by Mr. Chris Smith on
September 19, 2006 and was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On September 25, 2006, H.R. 6099 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 6, 2006, H.R. 6099 was considered by the House
under suspension of the rules and failed by a roll call vote of
250 yeas and 162 nays.
No further action was taken on H.R. 6099 in the 109th
Congress.
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SUN SAFETY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(H. Res. 169)
Recognizing the importance of sun safety, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H. Res. 169 resolves that the House of Representatives
recognizes the importance of sun safety. The Resolution also
encourages all Americans to protect themselves and their
children from the dangers of excessive sun exposure. Further,
H. Res. 169 congratulates organizations like the Sun Safety
Alliance for their efforts to promote sun safety and prevent
skin cancer and it supports the goals and ideals of National
Sun Safety Week (June 5-June 11, 2005).
Legislative History
H. Res. 169 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis on March 17,
2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 22, 2005, H. Res. 169 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open
markup session and forwarded H. Res. 169, as amended, to the
Full Committee by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H. Res. 169 favorably reported,
as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 7, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H. Res. 169 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-
103).
On June 7, 2005, H. Res. 169 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
RECOGNIZING THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, DR. JONAS SALK, THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND DR. THOMAS FRANCES, JR., ON THE FIFTIETH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE DISCOVERY AND DECLARATION THAT THE SALK VACCINE WAS
POTENT, VIRTUALLY ELIMINATING THE DISEASE AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS
(H. Res. 208)
Recognizing the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Jonas Salk,
the University of Michigan, and Dr. Thomas Frances, Jr., on the
fiftieth anniversary of the discovery and the declaration that
the Salk vaccine was potent, virtually eliminating the disease
and its harmful effects.
Summary
H. Res. 208 recognizes the University of Pittsburgh and the
University of Michigan on the 50th anniversary of the discovery
of the Salk polio vaccine. It also recognizes the pioneering
achievement of Dr. Jonas Salk and his University of Pittsburgh
research team in the vaccine's development and the field trials
conducted by Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr., and his University of
Michigan team of statisticians and epidemiologists. H. Res. 208
expresses appreciation to the University of Pittsburgh for the
elimination of the disease, the members of Dr. Salk's research
team, the individuals, a majority of whom were Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, residents, who agreed to participate in
the vaccine clinical trials, the family members of Dr. Salk for
their participation in medical history, the University of
Michigan for its efforts in proving the vaccine was safe and
effective, and the members of Dr. Francis' team.
Legislative History
H. Res. 208 was introduced in the House by Mr. Murphy on
April 12, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On April 18, 2005, H. Res. 208 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On April 20, 2005, H. Res. 208 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by a roll call vote of 422 yeas and 0 nays. The title of the
measure was amended.
RECOGNIZING AMERICA'S BLOOD CENTERS AND ITS MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS FOR
THEIR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING OVER HALF THE NATION WITH A SAFE AND
ADEQUATE VOLUNTEER DONOR BLOOD SUPPLY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(H. Res. 220)
Recognizing America's Blood Centers and its member
organizations for their commitment to providing over half the
Nation with a safe and adequate volunteer donor blood supply,
and for other purposes.
Summary
H. Res. 220 recognizes America's Blood Centers and its
members for providing blood to patients, ensuring the safety of
the blood supply, and promoting blood donor initiatives. It
also acknowledges the efforts made by member community blood
centers and other blood organizations to promote and protect
the safety and adequacy of blood components provided to
patients. Finally, H. Res. 220 recognizes the need to promote a
stable blood supply and increase volunteer participation of
blood donors.
Legislative History
Mr. Boustany introduced H. Res. 220 on April 19, 2005, and
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 220 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 220 favorably
reported, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On October 25, 2005, H. Res. 220 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as
amended, by voice vote.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL NURSES WEEK
(H. Res. 245)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week.
Summary
H. Res. 245 expresses support for the goals and ideals of
National Nurses Week.
Legislative History
Ms. Johnson of Texas introduced this resolution on April
27, 2005 and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 245 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On May 3, 2006, the H. Res. 245 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL HEPATITIS B AWARENESS WEEK
(H. Res. 250)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Hepatitis B
Awareness Week.
Summary
H. Res. 250 expresses support for the goals and ideals of
Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month (September). The resolution
expresses the sense of Congress that the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of
Women's Health should coordinate efforts to establish a
National Gynecologic Cancer Awareness and Education Campaign
targeting the medical community and all women regardless of
ethnic or socioeconomic background.
Legislative History
Mr. Murphy introduced H. Res. 250 on April 28, 2005 and it
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 2, 2005, H. Res. 250 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in
open markup session and ordered H. Res. 250 favorably reported
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On May 5, 2005, H. Res. 250 was considered in the House by
unanimous consent and passed the House without objection.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT
THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR
IMPLEMENTING THE MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO ASSESS THE QUALITY
OF CARE OF CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING CHEMOTHERAPY, AND SHOULD EXTEND
THE PROJECT THROUGH 2006, SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS
(H. Res. 261)
Resolution expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services should be commended for implementing the Medicare
demonstration project to assess the quality of care of cancer
patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend the project
through 2006, subject to any appropriate modifications.
Summary
H. Res. 261 urges the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services to: (1) extend through 2006 the Medicare demonstration
project to assess the quality of care for patients undergoing
chemotherapy by collecting data on the impact of chemotherapy
on cancer patients' quality of life; (2) thoroughly review the
merits of the demonstration project; and (3) use the results of
the project to develop a system to pay for chemotherapy
services under Medicare based on the quality of care delivered
and the resources used to deliver that care.
H. Res. 261 also calls for: (1) the demonstration project
to be modified to accumulate even more useful data relating to
quality of care; and (2) the continuation of payments to
physicians for participation in the demonstration project to
facilitate continued access of Medicare patients with cancer to
chemotherapy treatment of the highest quality.
Legislative History
H. Res. 261 was introduced by Mr. Hall on May 4, 2005, and
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 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 May 13, 2005, H. Res. 261 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 261 favorably
reported to the House, with amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present.
On October 6, 2005, H. Res. 261 was considered by the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by a voice vote. The title of the measure was amended.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL OSTEOPOROSIS AWARENESS AND
PREVENTION MONTH
(H. Res. 265)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Osteoporosis
Awareness and Prevention Month.
Summary
H. Res. 265 expresses support for the goals and ideals of
National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month.
Legislative History
Ms. Berkley and introduced H. Res. 265 on May 5, 2005 it
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 265 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On June 6, 2006, H. Res. 265 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by a voice vote.
SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO INCREASE CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS, TREATMENT,
AND RESEARCH
(H. Res. 323)
Supporting efforts to increase childhood cancer awareness,
treatment, and research.
Summary
H. Res. 323 calls for Congress to support efforts to
promote awareness of cancer in children; investment in
childhood cancer research; efforts to encourage medical
trainees and investigators to enter the field of pediatric
oncology; efforts to encourage the development of drugs and
biologics designed to treat pediatric cancers; policies that
encourage participation in clinical trials; medical education
curricula designed to improve pain management for cancer
patients; and enhanced education, services, and other resources
related to late effects from cancer treatment.
Legislative History
H. Res. 323 was introduced on June 15, 2006, by Ms. Pryce
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 21, 2006, H. Res. 323 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by a roll call vote of 393 yeas and 0 nays.
EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL EPIDERMOLYSIS
BULLOSA AWARENESS WEEK
(H. Res. 335)
Summary
Epidermolysis bullosa is a rare disease characterized by
the presence of extremely fragile skin that results in the
development of recurrent, painful blisters, open sores, and in
some forms of the disease, in disfiguring scars, disabling
musculoskeletal deformities, and internal blistering. H. Res.
335 supports the goals and ideals of a National Epidermolysis
Bullosa Awareness Week to raise public awareness and
understanding of epidermolysis bullosa and of the need for a
cure.
Legislative History
H. Res. 335 was introduced on June 21, 2005, in the House
by Mr. Bishop, and it was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On July 1, 2005, H. Res. 335 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 9, 2006, H. Res. 335 passed the House by
unanimous consent.
RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990
(H. Res. 378)
Recognizing and honoring the 15th anniversary of the
signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Summary
H. Res. 378 recognizes the 15th anniversary of the signing
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the work of the
individuals and organizations who fought to advance the cause
of people with disabilities. The resolution declares that the
House of Representatives reaffirms its commitment to promoting
the rights of Americans with disabilities, recognizes the
important role of the Federal courts in securing those rights,
and strongly supports the purposes and goals of such Act.
Legislative History
H. Res. 378 was introduced on July 25, 2005, by Mr.
Sensenbrenner Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce,
Transportation and Infrastructure, and 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 27, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 378 reported to the House
by voice vote, and the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.
Res. 378 to the House (H. Rept. 109-196, Part I). The
Committees on Education and the Workforce, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce were discharged from
further consideration and H. Res. 378 was placed on the House
Calendar, Calendar No. 73.
No Further action was taken on H. Res. 378 in the 109th
Congress.
GYNECOLOGICAL RESOLUTION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF OVARIAN CANCER EDUCATION
(H. Res. 444)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer
Awareness Month.
Summary
H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement
of Ovarian Cancer Education, expresses support for the goals
and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month
(September 2005). The resolution calls for funding ovarian
cancer research so that a reliable screening test can be
developed and a cure can be found.
Legislative History
On September 15, 2005, Mr. Hall introduced H. Res. 444
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 19, 2005, H. Res. 444 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On November 7, 2005, the House considered H. Res. 44 under
suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by a
roll call vote of 348 yeas and 0 nays.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS OF RED RIBBON WEEK
(H. Res. 485)
Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week.
Summary
H. Res. 485 expresses support for the goals of Red Ribbon
Week (October 23-October 31). The resolution encourages
children and teens to live a drug-free life and the promotion
of drug-free communities and participation in drug prevention
activities.
Legislative History
H. Res. 485 was introduced by Mr. Souder on October 6, 2005
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On October 17, 2005, H. Res. 485 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On October 25, 2005, H. Res. 485 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as
amended by voice vote.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF OBSERVING THE YEAR OF POLIO
AWARENESS
(H. Res. 526)
Supporting the goals and ideals of observing the Year of
Polio Awareness.
Summary
H. Res. 526 recognizes the need for every child to be
vaccinated against polio. The resolution urges all appropriate
Federal departments and agencies to take steps to educate
Americans about the need for polio vaccination and U.S. polio
survivors and medical professionals about the cause and
treatment of post-polio sequelae. Finally, H. Res. 526
expresses support for the goals and ideals of observing the
Year of Polio Awareness.
Legislative History
H. Res. 526 was introduced by Mr. Rothman on November 1,
2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On September 19, 2006, the House considered H. Res. 526, as
amended, under suspension of the rules and the resolution was
agreed to by voice vote.
ENCOURAGING ALL ELIGIBLE MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE NOT YET
ELECTED TO ENROLL IN THE NEW MEDICARE PART D BENEFIT TO REVIEW THE
AVAILABLE OPTIONS AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN BEST MEETS THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS FOR
PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE
(H. Res. 802)
Encouraging all eligible Medicare beneficiaries who have
not yet elected to enroll in the new Medicare Part D benefit to
review the available options and to determine whether
enrollment in a Medicare prescription drug plan best meets
their current and future needs for prescription drug coverage.
Summary
H. Res. 802 encourages all Medicare beneficiaries who are
not yet enrolled in part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit
Program) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act
to: (1) review carefully all of the options available to them;
and (2) determine whether enrollment in a Medicare prescription
drug plan best meets their current and future needs for
prescription drug coverage.
Legislative History
On May 9, 2005, H. Res. 802 was introduced by Mrs. Johnson
(CT), 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 May 9, 2005, H. Res. 802 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On May 10, 2005, H. Res. 802 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 406 yeas and 0 nays.
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH REGARD TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH WEEK, WHICH PROMOTES AWARENESS OF
DISEASES THAT AFFECT WOMEN AND TO TAKE PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO ENSURE
GOOD HEALTH
(H. Res. 833)
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with
regard to the importance of National Women's Health Week, which
promotes awareness of diseases that affect women and which
encourages women to take preventive measures to ensure good
health.
Summary
H. Res. 833 recognizes the importance of preventing
diseases that commonly affect women and programs that provide
research and collect data on common diseases in women. The
resolution calls for people to use National Women's Health Week
as an opportunity to learn about health issues that face women
and women to observe National Women's Check-Up Day by receiving
preventive screenings from their health care providers.
Legislative History
H. Res. 833 was introduced by Mr. Hinchey on November May
23, 2006 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On June 5, 2006, H. Res. 833 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On June 6, 2006, H. Res. 833 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended,
by voice vote.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF PLAN AHEAD WITH AN ADVANCE DIRECTIVE
WEEK
(H. Res. 934)
Summary
H. Res. 934 expresses support for the goals and ideals of
Plan Ahead with an Advance Directive Week. The resolution
encourages people who are over the age of 18 to prepare advance
directives; and also nonprofit organizations to encourage
individuals to prepare advance directives to ensure that their
wishes and rights with respect to end-of-life care are
protected.
Legislative History
H. Res. 934 was introduced in the House on July 20, 2006,
in the by Mr. Gingrey, and it was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On August 1, 2006, H. Res. 934 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On December 7, 2006, H. Res. 934 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, by
voice vote.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE
AWARENESS WEEK
(H. Res. 982)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Peripheral
Arterial Disease Awareness Week.
Summary
H. Res. 982 expresses support for the goals and ideals of
National Peripheral Arterial Disease Awareness Week and efforts
to educate people about the disease, the consequences if it is
not diagnosed and treated, and the need to seek appropriate
care as a serious health issue. The resolution also
acknowledges the importance of peripheral arterial disease
awareness to improve national cardiovascular health.
Legislative History
Ms. Capps introduced H. Res. 982 on September 6, 2006 and
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 19, 2006, H. Res. 982 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice
vote.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL BLACK HIV/AIDS AWARENESS
DAY
(H. Con. Res. 30)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS
Awareness Day.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 30 expresses support for the goals and ideals
of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (February 7) and
recognizes the fifth anniversary of its observation. The
resolution encourages: State and local governments to recognize
such day, publicize its importance among their communities, and
encourage individuals to undergo HIV testing; media
organizations to carry messages in support of such day;
enactment of effective HIV prevention programs; and States to
enact HIV surveillance programs consistent with recognized
infectious disease control methods to ensure accurate data,
better targeting of resources, and improved delivery of health
services to those living with HIV. The resolution commends the
President for highlighting HIV/AIDS in the State of the Union
Address and for emphasizing the importance of addressing HIV/
AIDS in the African-American community.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 30 was introduced on January 26, 2005 and was
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On February 25, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On February 9, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as
amended, by a roll call vote of 422 yeas and 0 nays.
On February 14, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was received in the
Senate.
On February 17, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was referred to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 30 in the 109th
Congress.
EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR ENHANCED PUBLIC AWARENESS OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN
INJURY AND SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY
AWARENESS MONTH
(H. Con. Res. 99)
Expressing the need for enhanced public awareness of
traumatic brain injury and support for the designation of a
National Brain Injury Awareness Month.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 99 expresses support for the designation of
National Brain Injury Awareness Month.
Legislative History
On March 15, 2005, H. Con. Res. 99 was introduced by Mr.
Pascrell and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On March 22, 2005, H. Con. Res. 99 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On May 3, 2006, H. Con. Res. 99 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice
vote.
On May 4, 2006, H. Con. Res. 99 was received in the Senate
and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 99 in the 109th
Congress.
RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO PURSUE RESEARCH INTO THE CAUSES, A TREATMENT,
AND AN EVENTUAL CURE FOR IDIOPATHIC PULMONARY FIBROSIS, SUPPORTING THE
GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL IDIOPATHIC PULMONARY FIBROSIS AWARENESS
WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
(H. Con. Res. 178)
Recognizing the need to pursue research into the causes, a
treatment, and an eventual cure for idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis, supporting the goals and ideals of National
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 178 recognizes the need to pursue research
into the causes of, and a treatment and an eventual cure for,
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The resolution expresses support
for the work of advocates and organizations in educating,
supporting, and providing hope for individuals who suffer from
the disease and designation of National Idiopathic Pulmonary
Fibrosis Awareness Week. Finally, H. Con. Res. 178
congratulates advocates and organizations for their efforts to
educate the public about the disease.
Legislative History
On June 14, 2005, Mr. Norwood introduced H. Con. Res. 178,
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 1, 2005, H. Con. Res. 178 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On September 28, 2005, the House considered H. Con. Res.
178 under suspension of the rules, and passed the House on
September 29, 2005, as amended, by a roll call vote of 401 yeas
and 0 nays.
On September 30, 2005, H. Con. Res. 178 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. 178 in the
109th Congress.
SUPPORTING THE GOAL OF ELIMINATING SUFFERING AND DEATH DUE TO CANCER BY
THE YEAR 2015
(H. Con. Res. 210)
Supporting the goal of eliminating suffering and death due
to cancer by the year 2015.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 210 expresses support for the goal of
eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by 2015.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 210 was introduced by Mr. Shaw on July 18,
2005 and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On July 29, 2005, H. Con. Res. 210 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On September 19, 2006, H. Con. Res. 210 was considered in
the House under suspension of the rules and passed the House,
as amended, by a roll call vote of 403 yeas and 0 nays.
On September 20, 2006, H. Con. Res. 210 was received in the
Senate and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 210 in the
109th Congress.
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS
MONTH
(H. Con. Res. 357)
Supporting the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis
Awareness Month.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 357 honors the goals and ideals of National
Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month. It also expresses support for
research to find a cure for cystic fibrosis by fostering an
enhanced research program through a strong Federal commitment
and expanded public-private partnerships.
Legislative History
Mr. Stearns introduced H. Con. Res. 357 on March 14, 2006,
and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On March 17, 2006, H. Con. Res. 357 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On March 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 357 favorably
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
On April 25, 2006, H. Con. Res. 357 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by
voice vote.
On May 1, 2006, H. Con. Res. 357 was received in the Senate
and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
On May 24, 2006, the resolution was considered in the
Senate and passed without amendment and with a preamble by
unanimous consent.
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO HONORING THE GOALS
AND IDEALS OF ALEX'S LEMONADE STAND DAYS, JUNE 9 THROUGH 11, 2006
(H. Con. Res. 368)
Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to
honoring the goals and ideals of Alex's Lemonade Stand Days,
June 9 through 11, 2006.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 368 honors the goals and ideals of Lemonade
Stand Days, and Alex's Lemonade Stand Days were designated as
the second weekend in June by the Alex's Lemonade Stand
Foundation, which was established in the memory of Alexandra
Scott, a pediatric cancer patient and childhood cancer
advocate. The resolution commends the Foundation's fundraising
efforts for childhood cancer research.
Legislative History
Mr. Gerlach introduced H. Con. Res. 368 on March 29, 2006
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 12, 2006, H. Con. Res. 368 was considered in the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by
voice vote.
On June 13, 2006, H. Con. Res. 368 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 368 in the
109th Congress.
HONORING MARY ELIZA MAHONEY, AMERICA'S FIRST PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED
AFRICAN AMERICAN NURSE
(H. Con. Res. 386)
Honoring Mary Eliza Mahoney, America's first professionally
trained African-American nurse.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 386 honors Mary Eliza Mahoney, the first
African-American nurse, for an outstanding nursing career and
exemplary contributions to professional nursing organizations
and other African-American nurses who practice nursing with
distinction. The resolution expresses support for the goals and
activities of National Nurses Week and strategies to counteract
the shortage of nurses.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 386 was introduced on April 6, 2006, by Ms.
Johnson of Texas and it was referred to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
On April 19, 2006, H. Con. Res. 386 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Health.
On September 19, 2006, H. Con. Res. 386, was considered in
the House under suspension of the rules and passed the House as
amended, by voice vote.
On September 20, 2006, H. Con. Res. 386 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. 386 in the
109th Congress.
RECOGNIZING THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON THE OCCASION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE PASSAGE OF THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT FOR THE IMPORTANT SERVICE IT
PROVIDES TO THE NATION
(H. Con. Res. 426)
Recognizing the Food and Drug Administration of the
Department of Health and Human Services on the occasion of the
100th anniversary of the passage of the Food and Drugs Act for
the important service it provides to the Nation.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 426 recognizes the United States Food and Drug
Administration and its employees for: (1) 100 years of service
in ensuring the safety of our food and the safety and efficacy
of our medical products; (2) providing leadership to the world
in the regulatory sciences; and (3) their hard work and
extraordinary dedication to the protection and promotion of our
nation's public health.
Legislative History
H. Con. Res. 426 was introduced by Mr. Barton on June 12,
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On June 15, 2006, the Energy and Commerce Committee met in
open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 426 favorably
reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a
quorum being present.
On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H. Con. Res. 426 to the House (H. Rpt. 109-511), and
was placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 197.
On June 21, 2006, H. Con. Res. 426 was considered by the
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by
voice vote.
On June 22, 2006, H. Con. Res. 426 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Senate and referred to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
On June 29, 2006, H. Con. Res. 426 passed the Senate
without amendment by unanimous consent.
Oversight Activities
CURRENT ISSUES RELATED TO MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM
On February 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the need to enact medical liability
reform. The hearing focused on identifying the factors that
have led to the current medical liability crisis and the
potential impact of medical liability reforms. The subcommittee
received testimony from a patient perspective, as well as
industry expert witnesses on medical liability legislation.
SETTING THE PATH FOR REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT AT
THE NIH
On March 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing to examine how the Office of the Director of
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) manages the research
portfolio of the 27 distinct research Institutes and Centers
that form the NIH. Because the organizational structure of NIH
largely determines how NIH research priorities are set and
budgets determined, this hearing highlighted how the authority
of the NIH Director impacts the management of the agency and
the allocation of resources. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Director of NIH.
LONG-TERM CARE AND MEDICAID: SPIRALING COSTS AND THE NEED FOR REFORM
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing that examined long-term care within the
context of Medicaid and entitlement spending generally and
explored ideas to promote private long-term care financing
options. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research
Service, and several other expert witnesses from the industry.
SPECIALTY HOSPITALS: ASSESSING THEIR ROLE IN THE DELIVERY OF QUALITY
HEALTH CARE
On May 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on specialty hospitals, particularly
the expiration of the moratorium on physician referrals to
specialty hospitals. The subcommittee received testimony from
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, the Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, and several doctors in the specialty hospital
profession.
INCREASING GENERIC DRUG UTILIZATION: SAVING MONEY FOR PATIENTS
On May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the issue of generic drugs and their role
in decreasing health care costs for patients. The hearing
featured one panel of witnesses from advocacy groups and also
private industry.
THE THREAT OF AND PLANNING FOR PANDEMIC FLU
On May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing in regards to pandemic flu. The hearing
stressed that States have a major role in the event of a
pandemic and are preparing for it by developing pandemic
influenza plans or revising existing plans to be stronger and
more effective. The key elements of these plans include
surveillance, vaccination, antiviral drug use, community
containment measures, communications, response of the health
care system, and ability to maintain essential public services.
The subcommittee received testimony from the Department of
Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health,
the Government Accountability Office, and expert witnesses in
the pandemic flu community.
PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY INITIATIVES
On June 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on patient safety. The purpose of the hearing
was to focus on public and private sector initiatives to reduce
the number of medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and
improve quality. The hearing is intended to provide a broad
overview of the general topic, an update on ongoing initiatives
and identify options for possible further Congressional action.
Last Congress, the House and Senate each passed legislation
intended to improve patient safety by encouraging the creation
of patient safety organizations and providing protections for
certain communications to and from patient safety
organizations. The subcommittee received testimony from the
research and advocacy community.
MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: EXAMINING OPTIONS FOR PAYMENT REFORM
On June 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing that examined the Medicaid payments for
prescription drugs. Witnesses at this hearing provided
information about options that the States and Federal
government have to ensure that there is more accuracy and
transparency in prescription drug payments in the Medicaid
program. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability
Office, and other Medicaid prescription drug experts.
ASSESSING PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE DELIVERY OF CARE IN THE WAKE OF KATRINA
On September 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation held a joint
oversight hearing on how hurricane Katrina devastated lives,
families, homes, businesses, and infrastructure. The purpose of
this hearing was to provide an introduction to the public
health and health care situation on the ground. The focus was
to understand current health care activities and the current
needs of the health care infrastructure. The subcommittees
received testimony from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and representatives of hospitals, doctors, health
centers, nurses, pharmacists, and the American Red Cross.
COMPREHENSIVELY COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINES: IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
On October 20, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health and the
Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials held a
joint oversight hearing to review issues relating to the
production and use of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is an
addictive stimulant drug that strongly activates certain
systems in the brain. The drug can be swallowed in pill form,
snorted in powder form, smoked or, injected. Users may become
addicted quickly, and will use the drug with increasing
frequency and in increasing doses to produce the same effect.
The subcommittees received testimony from witnesses in
environmental, health and enforcement sectors of the government
from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, and from enforcement associations and
groups who sell the over-the-counter drugs that are used in the
production of methamphetamines.
MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT: HOW TO BUILD A MORE EFFICIENT PAYMENT
SYSTEM
On November 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on Medicare physician payment. The hearing
focused on Medicare fee-for-service payments for physicians in
2006 and beyond and assessed their impact on beneficiary access
to health care. In addition, the hearing provided a forum for
discussing how to design a more stable reimbursement system
that controls over utilization of services while ensuring
patients receive efficient and effective quality health care.
The subcommittee received testimony from the Administrator of
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Chairman of the
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and several
specialty surgeons and researchers.
IMPROVING AMERICA'S HEALTH: EXAMINING FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORTS FOR
PULMONARY HYPERTENSION AND CHRONIC PAIN
On December 8, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing examining Federal research efforts for
pulmonary hypertension and chronic pain. The purpose of this
hearing was to raise awareness about chronic pain and pulmonary
hypertension and examine what the National Institutes of Health
and others are doing to study these conditions and improve
patient outcomes. The subcommittee received testimony from
experts in these areas and also witnesses suffering from
hypertension and chronic pain.
MEDICARE PART D: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW DRUG BENEFIT
On March 1, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on the implementation of the new
Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The subcommittee
received testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), experts, a beneficiary, and
a representative from a State Governor's office.
WHAT'S THE COST? PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE CONSUMERS WITH BETTER INFORMATION
ABOUT HEALTHCARE SERVICE COSTS
On March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing that focused on the issue of price and
quality transparency in the healthcare market. This hearing
provided an opportunity for subcommittee members to examine the
issue of transparency in our healthcare market. Witnesses
reflected various perspectives on the role and utility of
transparency in improving costs and quality of healthcare
services. These individuals provided the Committee with input
on both the economics of price transparency, but also give
first-hand accounts of systems in the market today that are
working to accomplish the goal of transparency in healthcare.
The subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress
who sponsored related legislation in the area of transparency
and also received testimony from several think tanks,
economists, and representatives of the insurance industry.
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS AND A
SMARTER HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM
On March 16, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health had an
oversight hearing on electronic health records. The hearing
explored issues relating to the adoption of health information
systems, the promise these systems hold for improving America's
healthcare system and barriers that have slowed the adoption of
such systems by hospitals, doctors, and other providers of
healthcare. The hearing explored legislative proposals and
ideas to help fulfill this promise and remove barriers to
adoption. The subcommittee received testimony from industry
leaders and healthcare providers.
PROJECT BIOSHIELD REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES
On April 6, 2006, The Subcommittee on Health had an
oversight hearing to lay out where the current Project
Bioshield Act of 2004 stands in relation to other Federal
program activities to research, develop, and acquire
countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological and
nuclear threats. The subcommittee received testimony from the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S.
Department of Defense, and professionals in the biosecurity and
biotechnology industries.
REAUTHORIZING THE RYAN WHITE CARE ACT: HOW TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM TO
ENSURE ACCESS TO CARE
On April 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on the reauthorization of the Ryan
White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. The
Ryan White CARE Act (RWCA) makes Federal funds available to
States, eligible metropolitan areas (EMAs), and certain
providers to assist in the health care costs and support
services for persons with acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The
subcommittee received testimony from the Health Resources and
Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and the Government Accountability Office.
THE CRITICAL ROLE OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS
On May 4, 2006, Subcommittee on Health held an oversight
hearing that examined issues related to the reauthorization of
Community Health Centers which expires at the end of this year.
The subcommittee received testimony from the Health Resources
and Services Administration and numerous leaders of community
health centers.
EXAMINING THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM
On May 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing that examined issues related to the
reauthorization of the CHGME program. The Children's Hospital
Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) program was established on
December 16, 1999, as part of the Public Health Services Act
(P.L. 106-129) and was later amended by the Children's Health
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310). The authorization expired at the
end of FY 2005. The program is administered by the Health
Resources and Service Administration (HRSA). The subcommittee
received testimony from the Health Resources and Services
Administration and two Chief Executive Officers from children's
hospitals.
PLANNING FOR LONG-TERM CARE
On May 17, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing examining the growing number of options for
Americans to plan ahead for potential LTC costs thereby
delaying or avoiding Medicaid dependency. The hearing also
examined issues related to donated and paid care giving and
caregiver training. The subcommittee received testimony from
the National Council on Aging, American Health Insurance Plans,
American Council of Life Insurers, RTI International, AARP,
American Red Cross, Schmieding Center for Senior Health and
Education, and a union.
EXAMINING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICA'S
PHARMACISTS
On May 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on the concerns raised by
pharmacists in recent months. The pharmacists expressed
concerns regarding services rendered under the new Medicare
Part D prescription drug benefit. Specifically, pharmacists
assert that prescription drug plans (PDPs) are not promptly
reimbursing pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions. In
addition, pharmacists allege that the Medication Therapy
Management (MTM) program as prescribed by the Medicare
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) is not being effectively
administered and could be improved. Pharmacists also voiced
concerns with regards to the listing of pharmacies on the
beneficiary Part D card (referred to as ``co-branding''). Long-
term care pharmacists raised implementation concerns specific
to the long-term care population including: network access
issues, compliance with CMS marketing guidelines, and delays in
payment due to glitches in Part D dual eligible enrollment. The
subcommittee received testimony from the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services and several industry leaders in the
pharmacist's community.
MENTAL HEALTH AND BRAIN DISEASE: DISPELLING MYTHS AND PROMOTING
RECOVERY THROUGH AWARENESS AND TREATMENT
On June 28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on mental health and brain disease. This
hearing focused on treatment for and recovery from severe
mental illness (also called brain disease). The hearing helped
to raise public awareness about the biological nature of mental
illnesses; to reduce the stigma associated with severe mental
illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder, and
schizophrenia; to inform the public of effective treatment and
prevention measures for mental illnesses; to emphasize the hope
of recovery for those struggling with severe mental illness;
and to highlight current research initiatives in the mental
health field. The subcommittee received testimony from the
National Institute of Mental Health, university professors, and
three witnesses, all of whom have been affected by severe
mental illness.
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO MEDICAL LIABILITY
On July 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on innovative proposals for
improving the performance of the medical liability system. The
subcommittee heard testimony about the performance of the
medical liability system in compensating injured patients,
deterring negligent conduct, and ensuring access to quality
medical care. Additionally, the witnesses discussed non-
traditional and innovative medical liability reform proposals
from leading experts in the field. The subcommittee received
testimony from several legal scholars and a health care
accreditation organization.
USE OF IMAGING SERVICES: PROVIDING APPROPRIATE CARE FOR MEDICARE
BENEFICIARIES
On July 18, 2006 the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on the growth in use of imaging
services in Medicare and ways to address improper growth. The
subcommittee received testimony from the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, doctors, imaging companies, and professional
societies and organizations in the area of imaging.
MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT: HOW TO BUILD A PAYMENT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES
QUALITY, EFFICIENT CARE FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES
On July 25 and 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held
oversight hearings on Medicare physician payment. The hearing
focused on the current Medicare physician payment system, the
projected reductions to physician payment under the current
payment formula, and the need to measure the quality and
efficiency of physician services to pay accordingly. On July
25, 2006, the hearing focused on the Medicare physician payment
system. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability
Office, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and the
Program on Medicare's Future for The Commonwealth Fund. On July
27, 2006, the hearing focused on quality measurement activities
and the concept of pay-for-performance in physician payment.
The subcommittee received testimony from the Administrator of
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and several physician-
group representatives.
MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENTS: 2007 AND BEYOND
On September 28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on addressing the impending Medicare
physician payment cuts in 2007 and subsequent years. Physicians
face a 5.1 percent cut in Medicare fee-for-service payment for
2007 and 4-5 percent cuts are projected for each of the next
several years. In July, the Subcommittee on Health held a
series of physician payment hearings, and Dr. Burgess
introduced a physician payment bill that would permanently
replace the current physician payment formula (known as
sustainable growth rate or the ``SGR'') with payments adjusted
by inflation (known as the Medicare Economic Index or ``MEI'')
minus 1 percent. Ranking Member Dingell introduced a bill, H.R.
5916, that would provide a two-year period of stable positive
payments to physicians, to allow Congress time to explore a
permanent solution to the physician payment problem. The
subcommittee received testimony from different advocacy groups.
Hearings Held
Current Issues Related to Medical Liability Reform.--
Oversight hearing on Current Issues Related to Medical
Liability Reform. Hearing held on February 10, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-36.
Setting the Path for Reauthorization: Improving Portfolio
Management at the NIH.--Oversight hearing on Setting the Path
for Reauthorization: Improving Portfolio Management at the NIH.
Hearing held on March 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-20.
Long-Term Care and Medicaid: Spiraling Costs and the Need
for Reform.--Oversight hearing on Long-Term Care and Medicaid:
Spiraling Costs and the Need for Reform. Hearing held on April
27, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-24.
Specialty Hospitals: Assessing Their Role in the Delivery
of Quality Health Care.--Oversight hearing on Specialty
Hospitals: Assessing Their Role in the Delivery of Quality
Health Care. Hearing held on May 12, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-38.
Increasing Generic Drug Utilization: Saving Money for
Patients.--Oversight hearing on Increasing Generic Drug
Utilization: Saving Money for Patients. Hearing held on May 18,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-16.
The Threat of and Planning for Pandemic Flu.--Oversight
hearing on The Threat of and Planning for Pandemic Flu. Hearing
held on May 26, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-21.
Patient Safety and Quality Initiatives.--Oversight hearing
on Patient Safety and Quality Initiatives. Hearing held on June
9, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-17.
Medicaid Prescription Drugs: Examining Options for Payment
Reform.--Oversight hearing on Medicaid Prescription Drugs:
Examining Options for Payment Reform. Hearing held on June 22,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-25.
The Health Care Choice Act.--Hearing on The Health Care
Choice Act. Hearing held on June 28, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-23.
Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care in the
Wake of Katrina.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations on Assessing Public Health and
the Delivery of Care in the Wake of Katrina. Hearing held on
September 22, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-50.
Comprehensively Combating Methamphetamines: Impacts on
Health and the Environment.--Joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials on
Comprehensively Combating Methamphetamines: Impacts on Health
and the Environment. Hearing held on October 20, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-57.
Medicare Physician Payment: How to Build a More Efficient
Payment System.--Oversight hearing on Medicare Physician
Payment: How to Build a More Efficient Payment System. Hearing
held on November 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-75.
Improving America's Health: Examining Federal Research
Efforts for Pulmonary Hypertension and Chronic Pain.--Oversight
hearing on Improving America's Health: Examining Federal
Research Efforts for Pulmonary Hypertension and Chronic Pain.
Hearing held on December 8, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
43.
Medicare Part D: Implementation of the New Drug Benefit.--
Oversight hearing on Medicare Part D: Implementation of the New
Drug Benefit. Hearing held on March 1, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-129.
What's The Cost?: Proposals to Provide Consumers With
Better Information About Healthcare Service Costs--Oversight
hearing on What's The Cost?: Proposals to Provide Consumers
With Better Information About Healthcare Service Costs. Hearing
held on March 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-70.
Legislative Proposals to Promote Electronic Health Records
and a Smarter Health Information System.--Hearing on
Legislative Proposals to Promote Electronic Health Records and
a Smarter Health Information System. Hearing held on March 16,
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-114.
Project Bioshield Reauthorization Issues.--Oversight
hearing on Project Bioshield Reauthorization Issues. Hearing
held on April 6, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-97.
Reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act: How to Improve the
Program to Ensure Access to Care.--Oversight hearing on
Reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act: How to Improve the
Program to Ensure Access to Care. Hearing held on April 27,
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-88.
The Critical Role of Community Health Centers in Ensuring
Access to Care.--Oversight hearing on The Critical Role of
Community Health Centers in Ensuring Access to Care. Hearing
held on May 4, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-86.
Examining the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical
Education Program.--Oversight hearing on Examining the
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program. Hearing
held on May 9, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-87.
Planning for Long-Term Care.--Oversight hearing on Planning
for Long-Term Care. Hearing held on May 17, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-100.
Examining the Federal Government's Partnership with
America's Pharmacists.--Oversight hearing on Examining the
Federal Government's Partnership with America's Pharmacists.
Hearing held on May 23, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-102.
Mental Illness and Brain Disease: Dispelling Myths and
Promoting Recovery Through Awareness and Treatment.--Oversight
hearing on Mental Illness and Brain Disease: Dispelling Myths
and Promoting Recovery Through Awareness and Treatment. Hearing
held on June 28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-120.
Innovative Solutions to Medical Liability.--Oversight
hearing on Innovative Solutions to Medical Liability. Hearing
held on July 13, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-117.
Use of Imaging Services: Providing Appropriate Care for
Medicare Beneficiaries.--Oversight hearing on Use of Imaging
Services: Providing Appropriate Care for Medicare
Beneficiaries. Hearing held on July 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-132.
Medicare Physician Payment: How to Build a Payment System
that Provides Quality, Efficient Care for Medicare
Beneficiaries.--Oversight hearings on Medicare Physician
Payment: How to Build a Payment System that Provides Quality,
Efficient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries. Hearings held on
July 25, 2006, and July 27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
130.
Medicare Physician Payments: 2007 and Beyond.--Oversight
hearing on Medicare Physician Payments: 2007 and Beyond.
Hearing held on September 28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
147.
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
(Ratio 18-15)
FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JAY INSLEE, Washington JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey Mississippi
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio VITO FOSSELLA, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Vice Chairman
BART STUPAK, Michigan GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan LEE TERRY, Nebraska
(Ex Officio) MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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; and
homeland security-related aspects of the foregoing.
Legislative Activities
JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-21 (S. 714)
To amend section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 227) relating to the prohibition on junk fax
transmissions.
Summary
S. 174 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit a
person from using any telephone facsimile (fax) machine,
computer, or other device to send, to another fax machine, an
unsolicited advertisement to a person who has requested that
such sender not send such advertisements, or to any other
person, unless: (1) the sender has an established business
relationship with the person; (2) the sender obtained the fax
number through voluntary communication from the recipient or
from an Internet directory or site to which the recipient
voluntarily made the fax number available for public
distribution; and (3) the advertisement contains a conspicuous
notice on its first page that the recipient may request not to
be sent any further unsolicited advertisements, and such notice
includes a domestic telephone and fax number (neither of which
can be a pay-per-call number) for sending such a request.
This Act requires the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to provide that a request not to send unsolicited
advertisements complies with FCC requirements if: (1) the
request identifies the recipient fax number to which the
request relates; (2) the request is made to the telephone or
fax number of the sender; and (3) the person making the request
has not subsequently provided express invitation or permission
to have such advertisements sent. The Act authorizes the FCC
to: (1) allow professional tax-exempt trade associations to
send unsolicited advertisements to their members in furtherance
of association purposes; and (2) establish a time limit on
established business relationships for purposes of this Act.
This Act requires the: (1) FCC to report annually to
Congress on the enforcement of the above requirements; and (2)
Comptroller General to study, and report to specified
congressional committees on, complaints received by the FCC
concerning unsolicited advertisements sent to fax machines.
Legislative History
On April 6, 2005, S. 714 was introduced by Mr. Smith and
was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic
Development held a hearing on S. 714.
On June 7, 2005, S. 714 was favorably ordered reported by
Mr. Stevens with amendments and placed on Senate Legislative
Calendar under General Orders.
On June 24, 2005, S. 714 passed the Senate by unanimous
consent with amendments, was sent to the House, and held at the
desk.
On June 28, 2005, S. 714 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice vote.
S. 174 was presented to the President on June 30, 2005, and
on July 9, 2005, S. 714 was signed by the President (Public Law
109-21).
A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF 1962 TO STRIKE THE
PRIVATIZATION CRITERIA FOR INTELSAT SEPARATED ENTITIES, REMOVE CERTAIN
RESTRICTIONS ON SEPARATED AND SUCCESSOR ENTITIES TO INTELSAT, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Public Law 109-34 (S. 1282)
To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to strike
the privatization criteria for INTELSAT separated entities,
remove certain restrictions on separated and successor
entities, and for other purposes.
Summary
S. 1282 amends Title VI (Open-market Reorganization for the
Betterment of International Telecommunications Act or ORBIT
Act) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to permit the
re-affiliation of INTELSAT separated entities with INTELSAT,
and to remove other regulatory restrictions on such separated
entities. The legislation also requires the United States to
preserve the space segment capacity of the GMDSS (Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System), and it directs the
Federal Communications Commission to review competitive market
conditions of domestic and international satellite
communications services and include in an annual report an
analysis of those conditions.
Legislative History
On June 21, 2005, S. 1282 was introduced by Mr. Burns in
the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and
passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent and received in
the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On June 29, 2005, S. 1282 was discharged from the Committee
on Energy and Commerce and passed the House without objection.
S. 1282 was presented to the President on June 30, 2005,
and on July 12, 2005, was signed by the President (Public Law
109-34).
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-171 (S. 1932, H.R. 4241)
(Title III--Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act)
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006
(H. Con. Res. 95).
Summary
Title III of Public Law 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005, creates a firm deadline for completion of full-power
broadcasters' transition to digital television (DTV) while
helping consumers to continue to use their analog televisions,
and makes spectrum available for commercial and public safety
mobile communications.
First, Title III directs the Federal Communication
Commission (FCC) to take all steps necessary to require that
full-power television stations stop analog broadcasting by
midnight, February 17, 2009, and broadcast exclusively in
digital format on channels 2 to 36 and 38 to 51. This enables
channels 52 to 62 and 65 to 67 to be auctioned, and channels
63, 64, 68, and 69 to be used for public-safety purposes.
Second, Title III extends the FCC's auction authority
through September 30, 2011. By January 28, 2008, the FCC is
required to auction the spectrum recovered as a result of the
end of analog broadcasting by full-power stations. On September
30, 2009, $7.36 billion of the auction revenues is to be
transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.
Third, to help consumers who wish to continue receiving
broadcast programming over-the-air using analog-only
televisions, Title III authorizes the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to
create a digital-to-analog converter box program. The NTIA is
initially allocated up to $990 million of the spectrum auction
revenues to create a program to provide up to two $40 coupons
to each U.S. household that requests to participate in the
program. If, as the program progresses, NTIA certifies to
Congress that it cannot operate the program without more money,
the funds available for the program increase to $1.5 billion.
Fourth, Title III makes $1 billion in grants available to
our nation's first responders for the purchase of mobile
communications equipment that can utilize existing channels 63,
64, 68, and 69 for interoperable emergency communications.
Title III also makes (1) up to $30 million available to New
York City broadcasters to build interim digital broadcast
facilities until facilities can be built atop the Freedom
Tower; (2) up to $10 million available to low-power translator
stations for devices to help them convert signals back to
analog format for their viewers that continue to use analog
televisions, and (3) up to $65 million available to help
convert low-power television stations and television translator
stations from analog to digital transmissions.
Legislative History
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held three hearings on the digital television transition during
the first session of the 109th Congress. The Subcommittee
received testimony in an oversight hearing on February 17,
2005, regarding the expected costs of digital-to-analog
converter boxes and various potential digital-to-analog
converter-box programs from representatives of the electronics
and broadcasting industries and the Government Accountability
Office.
On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee received testimony in
an oversight hearing regarding consumer education efforts for
the DTV transition. The Committee received testimony from
representatives of retailers and consumer groups.
On May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee received testimony in a
legislative hearing on a staff draft of DTV transition
legislation from government officials from the Federal
Communications Commission, Government Accountability Office,
and the Montgomery County Maryland 911 Emergency Communications
Center, and representatives of the cable, broadcasting,
broadband, and manufacturing industries, and consumer groups.
On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print
entitled Digital Television Transition Act of 2005, as amended,
by a record vote of 33 yeas and 17 nays. A motion by Mr. Barton
to transmit the recommendations of the Committee, and all
appropriate accompanying material including additional,
supplemental, or dissenting views, to the House Committee on
the Budget, in order to comply with the reconciliation
directive included in Section 201(a) of the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95,
and consistent with Section 310 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, was agreed to by a voice vote.
On October 27, 2005, Mr. Gregg introduced S. 1932 and the
Senate Committee on the Budget reported without a written
report.
On November 3, 2005, S. 1932 was passed and agreed to in
the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 nays.
On November 7, 2005, Mr. Nussle introduced H.R. 4241, which
included the Digital Television Transition Act, and the House
Committee on The Budget reported an original measure (H. Rept.
109-276).
On November 17, 2005, H.R. 4241 was considered in the House
pursuant to H. Res. 560, and passed the House on November 18,
2006, by a roll call vote of 217 yeas and 215 nays. No further
action was taken on H.R. 4241 in the 109th Congress.
On November 18, 2005, S. 1932 was considered in the House
by unanimous consent, and was agreed to, amended, without
objection.
On December 14, 2005, the Senate disagreed to the amendment
of the House, and requested a conference on S. 1932 by
unanimous consent.
On December 15, 2005, the Senate appointed conferees.
On December 16, 2005, Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent
that the House insist upon its amendment, and agree to a
conference. The request was agreed to without objection.
On December 16, 2005, the Speaker of the House appointed
conferees for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House
amendment thereto, and modifications committed to conference.
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy
and Commerce for consideration of title III and title VI of the
Senate bill and title III of the House amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Deal (GA),
and Dingell.
On December 19, 2005, the conference report to accompany S.
1932 (H. Rept. 109-362) was filed, considered under the
provisions of H. Res. 640, and the House agreed to the
conference report by a roll call vote of 212 yeas and 206 nays.
On December 19, 20, and 21, 2005, the conference report was
considered in the Senate.
On December 21, 2005, Senate concurred in the House
amendment with an amendment by a record vote of 51 yeas and 50
nays.
On December 21, 2005, the conference report was defeated by
operation of the Budget Act.
On January 31, 2006, the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res.
653 provided for consideration of S. 1932, upon adoption of the
resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
On February 1, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate
amendment to the House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653.
On February 7, 2006, S. 1932 was presented to the President
and was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006
(Public Law 109-171).
BROADCAST DECENCY AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005
Public Law 109-235 (H.R. 310; S. 193)
To increase the penalties for violations by television and
radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of
obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other
purposes.
Summary
H.R. 310 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to raise the
maximum penalty cap for broadcast stations, networks and
performers to $500,000 for each indecency violation; gives the
Commission guidance to set penalties so the agency takes into
consideration whether the violator is a small or large
broadcaster, company or individual, and the type of entity
responsible for the indecent programming; allows the Commission
to pursue an individual or network for a first indecency
offense; requires the Commission to complete action on
indecency complaints within 270 days; requires the Commission
to take indecency violations into account during license
application, renewal and modifications; and, after three
indecency violations, requires the Commission to hold a license
revocation hearing to consider revoking the broadcast station's
license.
Legislative History
On January 25, 2005, H.R. 310 was introduced by Mr. Upton
in the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On February 2, 2005, H.R. 310 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and that
same day, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
On February 9, 2005, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 310 favorably reported to the House by
a record vote of 46 yeas and 2 nays, a quorum being present.
On February 14, 2005, H.R. 310 was reported (109-5) by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce and placed on the Union
Calendar, Calendar No. 2.
On February 16, 2005, considered in the House under the
provisions of H. Res. 95, passed the House by a roll call vote
389 yeas and 38 nays, and received in the Senate.
On February 17, 2005, H.R. 310 was read the first time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First
Time.
On February 18, 2005, H.R. 310 was read the second time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 17.
On January 26, 2005, S. 193 was introduced by Mr. Brownback
and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On May 18, 2006, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation discharged S. 193 by unanimous consent and
the same day the Senate passed S. 193 without amendment by
unanimous consent.
On May 19, 2006, S. 193 was referred to the House Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
On June 5, 2006, S. 193 was referred to the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet.
On June 6, 2006, S. 193 was considered in the House under
suspension of the rules.
On June 7, 2006, S. 193 passed the House with a roll call
vote of 379 yeas to 35 nays.
On June 8, 2006, S. 193 was presented to the President, and
on June 15, 2006, was signed by the President (Public Law No:
109-235).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
(Emergency Communications Provisions, 21st Century Emergency
Communications Act of 2006)
Public Law 109-295 (H.R. 5441, H.R. 5814, H.R. 5852)
Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Section 503 provides for the creation of a Federal
Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland
Security. Section 505 transfers into such agency the
Directorate of Preparedness, as constituted on June 1, 2006,
including all of its functions, personnel, assets, components,
authorities, grant programs, and liabilities, and including the
functions of the Under Secretary for Preparedness relating
thereto. However, Section 505 explicitly exempts from such
transfer The Office of Infrastructure Protection, the National
Communications System. The National Cybersecurity Division, the
Office of the Chief Medical Officer, and the functions,
personnel, assets, components, authorities, and liabilities of
each such entity.
Section 671 creates an Office of Emergency Communications
in the Department of Homeland Security that will be responsible
for administering the emergency communications functions of the
Department. Section 671 also requires the head of the Office of
Emergency Communications (the Director for Emergency
Communications) to develop a National Emergency Communications
Plan regarding how the United States should promote the
continued operation of certain governmental communications
operations in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and
the interoperability of emergency communications systems. The
Director is also responsible for assessing and reporting on the
communications capabilities and needs of emergency response
providers and relevant government officials.
Section 672 clarifies the responsibilities of the Director
of the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility. Section
673 provides for a comprehensive research and development
program to support and promote the continued operation of
certain governmental communications operations in the event of
a natural or man-made disaster and the interoperability of
emergency communications systems.
Legislative History
On May 22, 2006, Mr. Rogers (KY) reported an original
measure (H. Rept. 109-476) to the House.
On May 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5441 and on June
6, 2006, the House reconvened to consider H.R. 5441 as
unfinished business and passed H.R. 5441 by a roll call vote of
389 yeas and 9 nays.
On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
On June 27, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved H.R. 5441 favorably
for full committee consideration with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. On June 29, 2006, the Committee on
Appropriations ordered H.R. 5441 to be reported favorably with
an amendment in the nature of a substitute with written report
no. 109-273.
On July 11, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by the Senate
and on July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441 with an
amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. On July 13,
2006, the Senate insisted on its amendment, asked for a
conference, and appointed conferees.
On July 17, 2006, H.R. 5814, Department of Homeland
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, was introduced
by Mr. King (NY) and referred to the House Committee on
Homeland Security.
On July 19, 2006, the House Committee on Homeland Security
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 5814 to be
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
On November 9, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security
reported H.R. 5814 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-713,
Part I), and it was referred jointly and sequentially to the
Committee on Ways and Means for a period ending not later than
November 17, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that
committee pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X, and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than November
17, 2006 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.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5814 in the 109th
Congress.
On July 20, 2006, H.R. 5852 was introduced by Mr. Reichert
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and, in
addition to the Committee on Homeland Security.
On July 24, 2006, H.R. 5852 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
On July 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5852 under
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call
vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays.
On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5852 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs. No further action was taken on H.R. 5852 in the 109th
Congress.
On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 5441, and agreed to a conference by voice
vote. The Speaker appointed conferees.
On September 25, 2006, Conferees agreed to file a
conference report, and on September 28, 2006, the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) was filed,
which included H.R. 5852 as a provision within the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) under the
provisions of H. Res. 1054, and agreed to the conference report
by a roll call vote of 412 yeas and 6 nays. On the same day,
the Senate agreed to the conference report by voice vote.
On October 3, 2006, H.R. 5441 was presented to the
President, and on October 4, H.R. 5441 was signed by the
President (Public Law 109-295).
SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT OR THE SAFE PORT ACT
(Title VI--Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act Provisions)
Public Law No. 109-347 (H.R. 4954, S. 1753, H.R. 5785)
To improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced
layered defenses, and for other purposes.
Summary
H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act,
was the framework for Title VI of H.R. 4954, which creates a
voluntary framework through which commercial mobile service
providers can elect to transmit emergency alerts to
subscribers. Title VI requires the Federal Communications
Commission to complete a proceeding to adopt relevant technical
standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical
requirements based on the recommendations of the Commercial
Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee that will enable
commercial mobile service providers to transmit emergency
alerts. The legislation also provides liability protection to
such providers that transmit emergency alerts.
Legislative History
On September 22, 2005, S. 1753, the Warning, Alert, and
Response Network Act of 2006, was introduced by Mr. DeMint in
the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
On October 20, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation held a markup session and S. 1753 was
ordered favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute. On December 8, 2005, S. 1753 was reported to the
Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute with
written report No. 109-204, and placed on the Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 321.
On March 14, 2006, H.R. 4954 was introduced by Mr. Lungren
and was referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
H.R. 4954 was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity on March
15, 2006.
On March 30, 2006, the Subcommittee met in open mark-up
session and forwarded H.R. 4954 to the Full Committee, amended,
by voice vote.
On April 4, 2006, the Full Committee held a hearing, and on
April 26, 2006, the Full Committee met in open mark-up session
and ordered H.R. 4954 reported to the House, amended, by voice
vote.
On April 28, 2006, the Homeland Security Committee reported
H.R. 4954 to the House (H. Rept. 109-447, Part I) which was
sequentially referred to the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure for a period ending not later than May 1,
2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee. On
May 1, 2006, the Committee on Transportation discharged H.R.
4954.
On May 4, 2006, the House considered H.R. 4954 under the
provisions of H. Res. 789 by a roll call vote of 421 yeas and 2
nays.
On July 13, H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response
Network Act was introduced by Mr. Shimkus and referred to the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
On July 20, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 5785 and received
testimony from government officials from the Federal
Communications Commission and the Maryland Sheriffs'
Association, and representatives of the communications
industry. No further action was taken on H.R. 5785 in the 109th
Congress.
On September 7, 2006, H.R. 4954 was laid before the Senate
by unanimous consent. On September 8, 2006, Mr. Stevens offered
an amendment for Mr. DeMint to establish a unified national
hazard alert system and for other purposes, and the amendment
was agreed to by voice vote. On September 11, 2006, Mr. Stevens
offered a second degree amendment for Mr. DeMint to modify the
previous amendment, and the second degree amendment was agreed
to by unanimous consent.
On September 14, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 4954, as
amended, by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0 nays, and on
September 19, 2006, the Senate insisted on its amendment,
requested a conference, and appointed conferees.
On September 28, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate
amendment, and agreed to a conference, without objection,
moving the House to instruct conferees by a roll call vote of
281 yeas and 140 nays. The Speaker appointed conferees from the
Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of Titles VI
and X and section 1104 of the Senate amendment, and
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Upton, and
Dingell.
On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4954 (H. Rept. 109-711) under the
provisions of H. Res. 1064.
On September 30, 2006, the House agreed to the conference
report by a roll call vote of 409 yeas and 2 nays.
On September 30, 2006, the Senate agreed to the conference
report by unanimous consent.
On October 3, 2006, H.R. 4954 was presented to the
President, and on October 13, 2006, H.R. 4954 was signed by the
President (Public Law 109-347).
THE CALL HOME ACT OF 2006
Public Law 109-459 (S. 2653)
A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to
make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces
personnel deployed overseas.
Summary
S. 2653 amends Section 213 of the Telecommunications
Authorization Act of 1992 to direct the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to take whatever action possible, short of
regulating rates, to reduce the phone bills of military
personnel who are stationed anywhere outside of the United
States, not just in certain selected countries. The FCC must
look at waiving government fees, assessments and other charges
on these phone calls. The FCC must also work with the
Department of Defense and the Department of State to (1)
analyze the cost of military personnel's phone calls; (2)
evaluate ways to reduce rates, including use of new
technologies such as VOIP; (3) encourage carriers to provide
service personnel and their dependents with flexible spending
plans; (4) seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce
international surcharges on telephone calls. S. 2653 also
requires that the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) spend by September 30, 2007 the $1
Billion set aside for Public Safety Interoperability in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Legislative History
S. 2653 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Stevens on
April 26, 2006, with 36 cosponsors, and was referred to the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On December 6, 2206, the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation discharged S. 2653 by unanimous
consent, and passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous
consent.
On December 7, 2006, S. 2653 was received in the House.
On December 9, 2006, S. 2653 passed the House by unanimous
consent, and was cleared for the White House.
On December 20, 2006, S. 2653 was presented to the
President, and on December 22, 2006, S. 2653 was signed by the
President (Public Law 109-459).
A BILL TO CLARIFY CERTAIN LAND USE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
Public Law 109-466 (S. 4092)
A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County,
Colorado.
Summary
S. 4092 authorizes certain television broadcast stations
currently transmitting analog signals from Lookout Mountain in
Jefferson County, Colorado, to modify their antennas and towers
for digital broadcasting, so long as the antennas and towers
are the same height or lower than the tallest existing analog
broadcast antennas or towers on Lookout Mountain.
Legislative History
S. 4092 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Allard on
December 6, 2006, read twice, considered, read the third time,
and passed without amendment by unanimous consent.
On December 7, 2006, S. 4092 was received in the House, and
held at the desk.
On December 9, 2006, S. 4092 passed the House by unanimous
consent, and was cleared for the White House.
On December 20, 2006, S. 4092 was presented to the
President, and on December 22, 2006, S. 4092 was signed by the
President (Public Law 109-466).
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006
(H.R. 1817)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.
Summary
Section 308 includes a Sense of Congress that the
Department of Homeland Security should implement, as
expeditiously as possible, the initiatives assigned to the
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility under section
7303 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004.
Section 312 establishes in the Department of Homeland
Security an Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and assigns
certain responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to the Assistant
Secretary.
Legislative History
On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1817 was introduced by Mr. Cox in
the House and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security
Committee reported H.R. 1817 (H. Rept. 109-71, Part I) and H.R.
1817 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, Committee on Government Reform, Committee
on the Judiciary, Committee on Science, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Ways and Means,
and Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period
ending not later than May 13, 2005, for consideration of such
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X.
On May 11, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On May 12, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote.
On May 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. Rept. 109-71, Part II). The
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H.
Rept. 109-71, Part III). On the same day, the Committee on
Government Reform, Committee on Science, Committee on
Transportation, Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on
Intelligence (Permanent) were discharged from further
consideration of H.R. 1817.
On May 18, 2005, H.R. 1817 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 283 and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 424 yeas and 4 nays.
On May 19, 2005, H.R. 1817 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
No further action was taken on H.R. 1817 in the 109th
Congress.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
(H.R. 4128)
To protect private property rights.
Summary
H.R. 4128, among other things, prohibits States or their
political subdivisions that receive Federal funds from
exercising their power of eminent domain to further economic
development. The bill would terminate the flow of Federal funds
to any State or political subdivision that violates the
prohibition. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has
jurisdiction over the bill because of its potential impact on
Federal health payments, telecommunications grants, and energy
grant programs, prohibited Federal funds which could include
many items under our jurisdiction.
Legislative History
Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005,
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On October 27, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 109-262), and
H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 143.
On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence
concerning H.R. 1428.
On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rpt. 109-262, Part II).
On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 376 yeas and 38
nays.
H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005,
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th
Congress.
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBTION ACT
(H.R. 4411, H.R. 4777)
To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand and
modernize the prohibition against interstate gambling, and for
other purposes.
Summary
Section 3 of H.R. 4777 provides, in part, that a common
carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal
Communications Commission is required to prevent the use of its
facilities for the transmission or receipt of certain gambling
information.
Legislative History
On November 18, 2005, H.R. 4411 was introduced by Mr. Leach
and referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
On January 5, 2006, H.R. 4411 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
On March 15, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4411 reported to the
House, amended, by voice vote.
On April 6, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services
reported H.R. 4411 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-412,
Part I). H.R. 4411 was referred sequentially to the Committee
on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than May 26,
2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee
pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X.
On May 25, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 4411 reported to the House,
amended, by voice vote.
On May 26, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 4411 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-412, Part II),
and H.R. 4411 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No.
267.
On February 16, 2006, H.R. 4777 was introduced by Mr.
Goodlatte and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On March 31, 2006, H.R. 4777 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and on
April 5, 2006, the subcommittee held a hearing on the bill.
On May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security met in open markup session and forwarded H.R.
4777 to the Full Committee by voice vote.
On May 25, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open
markup session and ordered H.R. 4777 reported to the House,
amended, by a record vote of 25 yeas and 11 nays.
On July 10, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary reported
H.R. 4777 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-552, Part I), and
was referred sequentially to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce for a period ending not later than Sept. 15, 2006, 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 September 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later
than Sept. 22, 2006.
On September 22, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
discharged, and H.R. 4777 was placed on the Union Calendar,
Calendar No. 405.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4777 in the 109th
Congress.
On July 11, 2006, H.R. 4411 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 907. H. Res. 907 incorporated
Section 3 from H.R. 4777 into H.R. 4411 under the jurisdiction
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. An exchange of letters
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee
on the Judiciary was entered into the Congressional Record
concerning H.R. 4411. H.R. 4411 passed the House by a roll call
vote of 317 yeas and 93 nays.
On July 12, 2006, H.R. 4411 was received in the Senate,
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar
under Read the First Time.
On July 13, 2006, H.R. 4411 was read the second time and
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.
Calendar No. 519.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4411 in the 109th
Congress.
PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO PHONE RECORDS ACT
(H.R. 4943)
To prohibit fraudulent access to telephone records.
Summary
The Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act
makes it unlawful to attempt to obtain, or cause to be
disclosed to any person, customer proprietary network
information (CPNI) relating to any other person by: (1) making
a false or fraudulent statement to an officer, employee, or
agent of a telecommunications carrier; or (2) providing any
document or other information to such officer, employee, or
agent that the presenter knows or should have known to be
forged, lost, stolen, or otherwise fraudulently obtained, or to
contain a false or fraudulent statement or representation. The
legislation also prohibits: (1) the solicitation of another
person to fraudulently obtain such information; and (2) the
sale or other disclosure of CPNI obtained under false
pretenses. H.R. 4943 further provides for enforcement through
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The legislation also amends the Communications Act of 1934
to expand the responsibilities of telecommunications carriers
with respect to the confidentiality of subscriber (customer)
calling records. The legislation directs the FCC to prescribe
regulations adopting more stringent security standards for CPNI
(including detailed customer telephone records) to detect and
prevent the fraudulent discloser of such information.
Legislative History
On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held a hearing on the fraudulent sale of
telephone records. The Committee received testimony from
government officials from the Federal Communications
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General
of Illinois, and representatives of telecommunications
providers and privacy groups.
On March 8, 2006, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered a Committee Print favorably reported to the
House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. A
request by Mr. Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill
to be introduced by Mr. Barton, and that the actions of the
Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, was agreed to by
unanimous consent.
On March 14, 2006, H.R. 4943 was introduced by Mr. Barton
in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On March 16, 2006, H.R. 4943 the Committee on Energy and
Commerce reported H.R. 4943 (H. Rept. 109-398) which was placed
on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 217.
No further action was taken on H.R. 4943 in the 109th
Congress.
TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5126)
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit
manipulation of caller identification information, and for
other purposes.
Summary
The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006 amends the
Communications Act of 1934 to make it unlawful for any person
in the United States, in connection with any telecommunication
service or VOIP service, to cause any caller identification
service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller
identification information, unless such transmission is
exempted in connection with authorized activities of law
enforcement agencies.
Legislative History
On April 6, 2006, H.R. 5126 was introduced by Mr. Barton in
the House and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce. On April 19, 2006, H.R. 5126 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held a hearing on H.R. 5126 on May 18, 2006. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Wireline Bureau Chief of the
Federal Communications Commission, communications industry
representative, and privacy groups.
On May 24, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5126 reported to the
House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 6, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5126 to the House (H. Rept. 109-489) which was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 274. H.R. 5126 was
considered in the House under suspension of the rules and
passed the House, as amended. by voice vote.
On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5126 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. 5126 in the 109th
Congress.
COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5252)
Summary
The purpose of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion,
and Enhancement Act of 2006 is to promote the deployment of
broadband networks and services. The bill does so by: (1)
creating a streamlined, pro-competitive national process under
which companies can enter the cable service market with new,
advanced networks capable of providing broadband video, voice,
and data services; (2) authorizing the Federal Communications
Commission to enforce its Broadband Policy Statement and the
principles incorporated therein on a case-by-case basis; (3)
facilitating and requiring the provision of 911 and enhanced
911 (E911) services to consumers by Voice Over Internet
Protocol (VOIP) providers; (4) ensuring that municipalities
have the option to provide telecommunications, information, and
cable services to their communities; (5) ensuring consumers
have the option to purchase broadband services on a stand-alone
basis; and (6) facilitating the development of multi-function,
multi-platform wireless devices capable of offering a range of
converging broadband services.
In particular, Title I creates an alternative, national
cable franchise process that companies may opt into in lieu of
the local franchising process. Recognizing the role of
localities, however, the bill: (1) preserves municipalities'
existing authority to collect a franchise fee of up to 5
percent of gross revenues from cable service; (2) preserves the
municipalities' authority to manage their local rights-of-way,
so long as such management is reasonable, competitively-
neutral, and nondiscriminatory; (3) continues to require
carriage of public, educational, and governmental (PEG)
channels and allows municipalities to require holders of
national franchises to increase the number of PEG channels over
time; (4) preserves institutional networks (iNets) used for
governmental and other public safety purposes; (5) allows
municipalities to collect, in addition to the 5 percent
franchise fee, another one percent of gross revenues from cable
services to support PEG channels and institutional networks;
(6) requires the FCC to establish national consumer protection
and customer service standards that the municipalities may
enforce; and (7) creates a strong antidiscrimination provision
that prohibits holders of national franchises from refusing to
provide cable service to a group of consumers based on the
income of that group.
Legislative History
During the first session of the 109th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held four
oversight hearings on how Internet Protocol-enabled services
are changing the face of communications. The Subcommittee held
the first of those oversight hearings on February 9, 2005, and
received testimony from representatives of the communications
industry.
The Subcommittee held the second hearing on March 16, 2005,
to examine the voice marketplace. The Subcommittee received
testimony from representatives of the communications industry
and the Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network, and South
Dakota Network Communications.
On April 20, 2005, the Subcommittee held the third hearing
to examine the video and data services marketplace. The
Subcommittee received testimony from communications industry
executives.
The Subcommittee held the fourth hearing on April 27, 2005.
The hearing focused on a view from government officials. The
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the
American Public Power Association, National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Florida Public Service
Commission, National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates, National Governors Association, and a consumer
group.
During the First Session of the 109th Congress, the
Subcommittee also held one legislative hearing on November 9,
2005, on a staff discussion draft of legislation to create a
statutory framework for Internet Protocol and broadband
services. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the industry and consumer groups.
During the Second Session of the 109th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held one
legislative hearing on March 30, 2006, on a Committee Print
entitled ``The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and
Enhancement Act of 2006.'' The Subcommittee received testimony
from a government official on behalf of the National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the
National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors,
and representatives of the communications industry, public
policy, and consumer groups.
On Tuesday, April 4, 2006, and Wednesday, April 5, 2006,
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet met in
open markup session and approved the Committee Print entitled
the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act
of 2006 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a
record vote of 27 yeas and 4 nays, a quorum being present.
On Tuesday, April 25, 2006, and Wednesday, April 26, 2006,
the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered a
Committee Print entitled the Communications Opportunity,
Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 favorably reported to
the House, as amended, by a record vote of 42 yeas and 12 nays,
a quorum being present. A request by Mr. Barton to allow a
report to be filed on a bill to be introduced by Mr. Barton,
and that the actions of the Committee be deemed as actions on
that bill, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
On May 1, 2006, H.R. 5252 was introduced by Mr. Barton in
the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On May 17, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported H.R. 5252 to the House (H. Rept. 109-470) which was
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 259.
On June 6, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed
a supplemental report to H.R. 5252 (H. Rept. 109-470, Part II).
On June 8, 2006, H. R. 5252 was considered in the House
under the provisions of H. Res. 850, and passed the House by a
roll call vote of 321 yeas and 101 nays.
On June 12, 2006, H.R. 5252 was received in the Senate and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
On June 22, 2006, and June 27, 2006, the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a markup session.
On June 28, 2006, H.R. 5252 was favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation reported by Senator Stevens with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, with a written report
No. 109-355, and additional views, and was placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 652.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5252 in the 109th
Congress.
DELETING ONLINE PREDATORS ACT OF 2006
(H.R. 5319)
An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require
schools and libraries that receive Federal universal service
support to protect minors from commercial social networking
websites and chat rooms.
Summary
H.R. 5319 requires schools and libraries which receive
Federal universal service funding to take protective measures
against allowing students to access Internet social networking
websites or chat rooms, which often allow minors to easily
access obscene or indecent material, or to be easily subject to
unlawful sexual advances from adults. Under the legislation,
schools which receive Federal universal service support funding
could only allow access to such sites for educational purposes,
and libraries which receive funding would need parental consent
prior to allowing minors access to access social networking
sites and chat rooms. This legislation directs the Federal
Communications Commission to define social networking sites and
chat rooms, and the Federal Trade Commission to issue consumer
alerts on the dangers these sites can pose to children.
Legislative History
On May 9, 2006, H.R. 5319 was introduced by Mr. Fitzpatrick
in the House and referred to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5319 was referred to the Subcommittee
on Telecommunications and the Internet.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held a hearing on July 11, 2006, on H.R. 5319. The Subcommittee
received testimony from law enforcement officials including the
Texas Attorney General, and representatives from schools,
libraries, Internet safety advocacy groups, and the Internet
industry.
On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5319 was considered in the House
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll
call vote of 410 yeas and 15 nays.
On July 27, 2006, the bill was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
No further action was taken on H.R. 5319 in the 109th
Congress.
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRSS REGARDING OVERSIGHT OF THE INTERNET
CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
(H. Con. Res. 268)
A resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding
oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers.
Summary
H. Con. Res. 268 expresses the Sense of Congress that: (1)
the United States and other responsible governments should send
clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of
oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and
addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible
benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and (2) the
authoritative root zone server should remain physically located
in the United States, and the Secretary of Commerce should
maintain oversight of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers) so that ICANN can continue to
effectively manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's
domain and addressing system.
Legislative History
On October 18, 2005, H. Con. Res. 268 was introduced by Mr.
Doolittle in the House and referred to the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
On November 4, 2005, H. Con. Res. 268 was referred to the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
On November 16, 2005, was considered under suspension of
the rules and passed the House by a roll call vote of 423 yeas
and 0 nays.
On November 17, 2005, H. Con. Res. 268 was received in the
Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 268 in the
109th Congress.
Oversight Activities
HEALTH OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held a series of hearings to explore the changing
telecommunications marketplace and the regulatory treatment of
broadband services. On February 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on the impact of Internet Protocol-Enabled Services on the
communications industry. The witnesses provided a broad
overview of their IP products and how IP technology has enabled
them to seamlessly offer voice, video, and data services on a
converged platform. The Subcommittee received testimony from
executives of telecommunications equipment manufacturers.
On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on competition in
the communications marketplace. This hearing focused on how
Internet Protocol (IP) and broadband technologies have changed
the dynamics of the communications industry by (1) enabling the
same suite of voice, video, and data services to be offered
over different network platforms and (2) permitting entry into
these markets by ``virtual'' operators that use IP to provide
applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP) to consumers who
subscribe to broadband services. These trends have resulted in
a ``hollowing out'' of some traditional telephone market
segments such as residential and enterprise long-distance
telephone service as well as residential local exchange
service. These industry trends have also led service providers
with complementary IP and broadband assets to merge. The
Subcommittee received testimony from industry executives,
industry analysts, public policy, and research organizations.
On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the impact of
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services on the
communications industry. This hearing examined the public
policy issues related to the provision of VoIP services. The
Subcommittee received testimony from executives of
communications providers, and, and the Greater Harris County
911 Emergency Network.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held an oversight hearing on April 20, 2005, regarding the
impact of Internet Protocol (IP) on video and data services.
This hearing examined the public policy issues surrounding the
delivery of video and data over broadband networks. The
Subcommittee received testimony from executives of the
communications industry.
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing on
government officials' perspectives on the impact of IP
technology on the communications sector. The Subcommittee
received testimony from government officials representing State
and local regulatory bodies and a consumer group
representative.
DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION
On February 17, 2005, The Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
regarding the expected costs of digital-to-analog converter
boxes and various potential digital-to-analog converter-box
programs from representatives of the electronics and
broadcasting industries, and the Government Accountability
Office.
On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing regarding consumer
education efforts for the DTV transition. The Committee
received testimony from representatives of the retailers and
consumer groups.
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
On April 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing to examine the ORBIT
Act and the progress made in privatizing the satellite
communications marketplace. The hearing examined how the
satellite marketplace has changed since the implementation of
the ORBIT Act, and whether Intelsat and Inmarsat should be
permanently certified to be privatized. The Subcommittee
received testimony from officials of the Federal Communications
Commission and the Government Accountability Office, as well as
executives of the satellite industry.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS
On September 29, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on the U.S. public safety communications infrastructure and how
much progress has been made since September 11, 2001, and
Hurricane Katrina in making that infrastructure more robust and
interoperable. The hearing examined the major gaps in
communications among Federal, State, and local officials, the
spectrum needs of our Nation's first responders, interoperable
emergency communications networks, and the vulnerability of
these networks during emergencies. The Subcommittee received
testimony from Federal government officials, State and local
officials, commercial mobile service providers, and equipment
manufacturers.
CONSUMER TELEPHONE RECORDS
On January 23, 2006, Full Committee Chairman Barton,
Ranking Member Dingell, Telecommunications and the Internet
Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Markey sent a letter to FCC Chairman Martin to ask when the
review of the Electronic Privacy Information Center petition
will be complete, and to determine what actions should be taken
in response to the petition. The Members also requested the
Commission to forward the last annual certifications from the 5
largest wireline and wireless carriers regarding their privacy
policies, and their accompanying statements explaining how
their internal procedures protect the confidentiality of
consumer information.
On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the fraudulent
sale of telephone records. The Committee received testimony
from government officials from the Federal Communications
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General
of Illinois, and representatives of telecommunications
providers and privacy groups.
CALLER ID
On April 4, 2006, House Speaker Hastert, House Majority
Leader Boehner, and Full Committee Chairman Barton, sent a
letter to FCC Chairman Martin requesting the Commission respond
to questions regarding what the FCC is doing to prohibit Caller
ID spoofing and whether the FCC has the statutory authority to
enact regulations banning this type of fraud. The Members asked
the Commission to make recommendations for Congress concerning
the authority the FCC would need to combat this type of fraud.
MULTICHANNEL VIDEO COMPETITION
On June 7, 2006, Chairman Barton and Telecommunications and
the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton wrote a letter to
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Martin opposing any
FCC order imposing multicast must-carry requirements on cable
operators or other multichannel video programming distributors.
The letter pointed out that allowing each broadcaster to force
video distributors to carry multiple streams of a broadcaster's
programming would be inconsistent with language in the
Communications Act limiting the must-carry right to each
broadcaster's primary video transmission. Congress would need
to amend the statute before the FCC could require otherwise.
The letter also stated that the balance between the carriage of
broadcast and non-broadcast programming should be left to
consumer preferences and market forces.
On July 19, 2006, Chairman Barton, Telecommunications and
the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Reps. Deal and
Bass hosted a roundtable discussion on retransmission consent.
Under the retransmission consent rules, a television
broadcaster may seek monetary or non-monetary compensation in
exchange for allowing a cable or satellite operator to transmit
the broadcaster's signal to subscribers. Some cable operators,
satellite providers, and independent programmers criticize
certain broadcasters' practices of conditioning carriage of one
channel on carriage of another. The critics argue that such
practices make it harder for video programming distributors to
tailor their program offerings, and for independent programmers
to gain carriage on the systems of such distributors. Broadcast
networks and affiliates counter that retransmission consent is
simply a negotiation based on the value of the programming, and
that regulating the prices, terms or conditions of that
negotiation would be an unwarranted interference with market
forces and the right to contract. They also point out that they
often make an offer of stand-alone carriage in exchange for
cash, but that the cable and satellite operators usually prefer
not to pay money. Moreover, they contend that the bundling of
programming can help launch new programming. Representatives of
cable programmers, broadcast networks, broadcast affiliates,
cable operators, and satellite providers participated in the
roundtable.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM
On June 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the Federal high-
cost portion of the universal service support mechanisms.
Competition and technology have begun to erode the existing
universal service system, and, in the long term, current
universal service policies do not seem sustainable. The hearing
focused on current and future funding mechanisms used to
support consumers in all regions of the Nation to ensure that
access to and rates for telecommunications services are
reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. The Subcommittee
received testimony from Federal and State regulatory bodies as
well as large and small telecommunications companies.
CONTENT PROTECTION
On June 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the audio and
video flags. The hearing examined digital audio and video
content protection technologies; whether content protection can
be negotiated among content owners, service providers, and
device manufacturers; and the appropriateness and impact of any
government regulation. The Subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the music and video broadcasting, and
distribution industries, and a public policy group.
CYBERSECURITY
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on cybersecurity and what can be done to protect America's
critical infrastructure, economy, and consumers. The hearing
focused on whether the U.S., public and private sectors are
prepared to respond to and recover from a major Internet
disruption, and the impact of such a disruption on U.S.
business today. The hearing also examined the recent GAO report
that expressed concerns regarding the Department of Homeland
Security's capabilities to prevent and mitigate cyberattacks.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Federal government
officials and representatives of Internet security
organizations.
ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE
On September 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet and the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight
hearing on Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) Internet Governance. This hearing focused on the
relationship of the Department of Commerce and ICANN. The
Subcommittees received testimony from the Department of
Commerce, the chief executive officer of ICANN, and
representatives of the software and information industry as
well as public policy organizations.
Full Committee Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell,
Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Markey sent a letter on October 2, 2005, to Ambassador Gross
and Assistant Secretary Gallagher in support of the United
States position on Internet governance as the United States
delegation headed to Geneva for the Preparatory Committee for
the United Nation's World Summit on the Information Society.
The letter also urged the United States to take no action that
would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and
efficient operation of the domain name system and that would
maintain its historic role to ensure stability and security of
the Internet domain name system.
Hearings Held
How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the
Face of Communications: A View from Technology Companies.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of Communications: A View from Technology
Companies. Hearing held on February 9, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-12.
The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the
DTV Transition.--Oversight hearing on The Role of Technology in
Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition. Hearing held
on February 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-9.
Preparing Consumers for the End of the Digital Television
Transition.--Oversight hearing on Preparing Consumers for the
End of the Digital Television Transition. Hearing held on March
10, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-5.
How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the
Face of Communications: A Look at the Voice Marketplace.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of Communications: A Look at the Voice
Marketplace. Hearing held on March 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-44.
The Orbit Act: An Examination of Progress Made in
Privatizing the Satellite Communications Marketplace.--
Oversight hearing on The Orbit Act: An Examination of Progress
Made in Privatizing the Satellite Communications Marketplace.
Hearing held on April 14, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-8.
How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the
Face of Communications: A Look at Video and Data Services.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of Communications: A Look at Video and Data
Services. Hearing held on April 20, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-19.
How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the
Face of Communications: A View from Government Officials.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of Communications: A View from Government
Officials. Hearing held on April 27, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-4.
DTV Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV Transition Act of
2005.--Hearing on DTV Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV
Transition Act of 2005. Hearing held on May 26, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-28.
Public Safety Communications from 9/11 to Katrina: Critical
Public Policy Lessons.--Oversight hearing on Public Safety
Communications from 9/11 to Katrina: Critical Public Policy
Lessons. Hearing held on September 29, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-52.
Hearing on a Staff Discussion Draft of the Internet
Protocol and Broadband Services Legislation.--Hearing on a
Staff Discussion Draft of the Internet Protocol and Broadband
Services Legislation. Hearing held on November 9, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-68.
Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act
of 2006.--Hearing on Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and
Enhancement Act of 2006. Hearing held on March 30, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-83.
H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006.--Hearing on
H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006. Hearing held on
May 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-92.
Universal Service: What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1:
The High-Cost Fund.--Oversight hearing on Universal Service:
What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1: The High-Cost Fund.
Hearing held on June 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-109.
The Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and
Technological Innovation Coexist?.--Oversight hearing on The
Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and Technological
Innovation Coexist?. Hearing held on June 27, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-112.
H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006.--
Hearing on H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act of
2006. Hearing held on July 11, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number
109-121.
H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act of
2006.--Hearing on H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response
Network Act of 2006. Hearing held on July 20, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-125.
CyberSecurity: Protecting America's Critical
Infrastructure, Economy, and Consumers.--Oversight hearing on
CyberSecurity: Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure,
Economy, and Consumers. Hearing held on September 13, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-137.
ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working?.--Joint oversight
hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection on ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working?.
Hearing held on September 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
142.
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
(Ratio 9-7)
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman
BART STUPAK, Michigan CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois Mississippi
JAY INSLEE, Washington CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin GREG WALDEN, Oregon
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Vice Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
(Ex Officio) MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOE BARTON, Texas
(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 109th 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 National Institutes of Health, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Trade Commission,
and the Federal Communications Commission. 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 promoted the enhanced protection
of American families, consumers, and investors. These
investigations have provided the basis for enactment of
corrective legislation in the 109th Congress, and will provide
the foundation for legislative action in the 110th Congress. In
addition, the Subcommittee's inquiries have resulted in
meaningful changes in the Executive Branch's implementation and
enforcement of current law and the establishment of cost-saving
measures in the operations of the various departments and
agencies.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO HEALTH AND HEALTH
CARE
Hearings
THE STATE OF READINESS FOR THE 2005-2006 FLU SEASON
On May 4, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to determine the state of
readiness of the United States for the 2005-2006 flu season.
This hearing served to build upon a related investigation and
hearing held on November 18, 2004 (conducted in the 108th
Congress). That hearing related to news in October 2004 that
Chiron, one of the country's two largest producers of influenza
vaccine, would not provide any of its planned 46-48 million
doses of flu vaccine to the United States. These events
prompted Committee review of preparations for the upcoming flu
season and beyond. The Subcommittee heard from a single panel,
comprised of the Directors of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), the National Vaccine Program Office, and
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS
On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of
the community health center program, which operates under
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, in reaching the
medically underserved. Community health centers play a critical
role in the nation's healthcare safety net. At the time of the
hearing, more than 900 community health centers provided a
spectrum of primary health care services through 3,600 urban
and rural sites located in every State and territory. According
to the Bureau of Primary Healthcare, community health centers
in 2003 treated more than 12 million people in medically
underserved areas, including 4.8 million uninsured people. The
hearing sought to examine various aspects of the program,
including the Federal grant process, the role of Medicaid and
Medicare, and ways to improve the delivery of care to the
medically underserved. The Subcommittee took testimony from two
panels of witnesses, consisting of the Administrator of the
Health Resources and Services Administration, the Director of
the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, representatives
of community health centers, a Federal primary care
association, and a primary care policy analyst.
In connection with the Subcommittee's oversight of the
community health center program, on March 21, 2005, the
Subcommittee Chairman requested the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to study how community health
centers improve public health and help reduce health care costs
overall. The study is expected in the 110th Congress.
SUBVERSION OF DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS
On May 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing concerning the subversion of drug
testing programs. This issue involved the manufacture,
distribution, marketing, sale, and use of devices and
substances that are used to substitute ``clean,'' drug-free
urine for drug-positive urine, and/or substances that dilute,
cleanse, or adulterate drug-positive urine to cause a false-
negative drug test. Testimony primarily focused on the extent
of illegal drug use generally and in the workplace, the purpose
and effect of drug testing, and the effect of products that
subvert drug testing as to human, economic, and national
security costs. The hearing featured four panels of witnesses.
The first panel included witnesses from GAO, the Office of
Special Investigations; Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration; the District Attorney of Bexar County,
Texas; the Commonwealth's Attorney, 21st Judicial Circuit,
Kentucky. The second panel included witnesses from the Drug and
Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA); the Substance
Abuse Program Administrators Association (SAPAA); Quest
Diagnostics; University of Texas Health Sciences Center at
Houston; and First Advantage Corporation. The third panel
featured an inmate at the Eastern Correctional Institution,
Westover, Maryland. The fourth panel included representatives
from companies that appeared to be marketing products for the
purpose of subverting drug testing programs. These fourth panel
witnesses were compelled to appear by subpoena, and invoked
their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination not to
testify.
PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF MASS TORT SCREENING
In August 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations began an investigation into the public health
implications of mass tort screenings in the wake of a legal
opinion issued by United States District Court Judge Janis
Graham Jack (In Re: Silica). In that opinion, Judge Jack
detailed how physicians and medical screening companies
generated diagnoses of silicosis, a largely incurable and often
fatal pulmonary disease, for approximately 10,000 patients for
the purpose of personal injury lawsuits. The Subcommittee's
investigation resulted in four hearings on this matter.
The Subcommittee's first several hearings examined the role
of the doctors and screening companies in mass tort screening.
On March 8, 2006, the Subcommittee heard testimony from several
key doctors, the owner of one screening company, and experts on
the medical and legal aspects of mass screening. During this
hearing, three doctors, who generated a combined 1,800
silicosis diagnoses, invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges
when asked whether their work complied with all applicable
medical practices, standards, and ethics. One doctor, credited
with some 3,600 diagnoses, testified that he did not intend to
diagnose any patients and, in fact, did not even know the
criteria to make such a diagnosis. Finally, the owner of the
medical screening company testified that he was paid by at
least one law firm for positive diagnoses only. The second
hearing held on March 31, 2006, included testimony, under
subpoena, from representatives of two law firms who refused to
cooperate with the Committee's requests for information about
their silica-related work. On June 6, 2006, the Subcommittee
heard testimony from representatives of the Mississippi and
Texas Departments of Health and Medical Licensure. These
witnesses testified that several of the screening companies
used in the silicosis litigation were not properly licensed in
Mississippi and Texas and that diagnoses based upon mass tort
screenings constituted the practice of medicine and created a
doctor-patient relationship. Moreover, the owners and operators
of two medical screening companies invoked their Fifth
Amendment privileges and declined to testify.
On July 26, 2006, the Subcommittee held its fourth
silicosis hearing, which focused on the conduct of the
attorneys. Representatives from several law firms with large
numbers of clients in the In Re: Silica litigation testified
concerning, among other things, their roles in the tort
screening process, how their firms identified potential
plaintiffs, and what steps they took to ensure that their
clients received appropriate medical care. In addition, one
doctor who diagnosed over 200 plaintiffs in the In Re: Silica
litigation invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and declined
to testify.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE DELIVERY OF CARE FOLLOWING NATURAL DISASTER
On September 22, 2005 the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Health to assess public health and delivery of care issues
raised by the impact of Hurricane Katrina. For a description,
refer to the Subcommittee on Health section of this report.
ACCESS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OVER THE INTERNET
On December 13, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing about strengthening efforts to
combat the sales of controlled substances over the Internet.
This issue involved the access to highly addictive controlled
substances, which can be imported by consumers of any age,
sometimes without a prescription or consultation with a
physician. Testimony primarily focused on current assessments
concerning the nature and extent of access to controlled
substances over the Internet, current actions being taken to
curtail such access, current restraints on further actions that
could be taken, and identification of possible actions that
would require Federal legislation, administrative action, or
private sector initiatives. The hearing featured two panels of
witnesses. The first panel included witnesses from the Federal
government: the GAO, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, and Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement
Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP); Director, Office of Drug Evaluation
II, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, FDA. The second panel included a witness from
IntegriChain, Inc.; a former official with FDA's Office of
Criminal Investigations; the Senior Vice President, Public
Policy, Visa, U.S.A., Inc.; an outside counsel on behalf of
Mastercard International; the Vice President, Corporate
Security, FedEx Corporation; the Corporate Security Manager,
UPS; the Senior Policy Counsel, Google; and Vice President,
Yahoo! Inc.
340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM
Under the 340B Drug Discount Program (340B Program), drug
manufacturers that participate in the Medicaid Program are
required to provide outpatient drugs to certain covered
entities at or below a specified ceiling price. These covered
entities include community health centers, public hospitals,
and various Federal grantees. Participating 340B entities spent
approximately $3.4 billion on outpatient drugs in calendar year
2003, roughly 1.7 percent of the U.S. drug market. The 340B
Program is administered by the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA), a division of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
On December 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine problems with the
oversight and administration of the 340B Program, as well as
possible solutions to improve efficiency and transparency. Many
of the structural and logistical problems with the 340B Program
were detailed in an October 2005 report prepared by HHS' Office
of Inspector General (OIG), including: (1) systemic problems
with the accuracy and reliability of the government's record of
340B ceiling prices; (2) lack of detailed, written procedures
for calculating the 340B ceiling price; (3) lack of a system
for ensuring that participating entities receive the statutory
discount; (4) failure to compare the government's 340B ceiling
prices to those of the drug manufacturers; (5) lack of
necessary legislative, regulatory, or contractual authority to
enforce compliance; and (6) the inability of participating
entities to verify independently that they were paying at or
below the ceiling price due to confidentiality provisions.
Witnesses at this hearing included representatives of: (1) OIG;
(2) HRSA; (3) the Public Hospital Pharmacy Coalition; (4) the
340B prime vendor; and (5) GlaxoSmithKline, the only
pharmaceutical manufacturer which had agreed to provide ceiling
price calculations to the prime vendor.
HOSPITAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
On January 26, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a field hearing in New Orleans, Louisiana,
to examine issues surrounding hospital disaster preparedness.
The hearing explored assumptions made by hospitals in the New
Orleans flood zone in preparing for Hurricane Katrina, what
happened to those hospitals during the hurricane, and how the
hospitals were able to eventually evacuate patients and staff.
The hearing also explored insights into improving future
disaster preparedness plans for hospitals. The Subcommittee
received testimony from two panels of witnesses, consisting of
the Assistant Secretary of Health for HHS, the Medical Director
and State Health Officer for the Louisiana Department of Health
and Hospitals, representatives of five hospitals in the New
Orleans metro area, and representatives of three national
hospital chains, which participated in New Orleans emergency
operations.
PUBLIC REPORTING OF HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED INFECTION RATES
Hospital-aquired infections (HAIs) are a major health
problem in the United States, resulting in 90,000 deaths and
$4.5 billion in excess healthcare costs annually. In an effort
to reduce these figures, six states have recently passed
legislation requiring mandatory public reporting of hospital-
acquired infections rates, and more than 20 other states have
been studying this issue or have legislation pending. The CDC
currently tracks HAI data, but participation in this program is
voluntary, and the CDC does not make public data for individual
hospitals. On March 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine whether public
reporting is an effective mechanism for reducing HAIs, and
whether it is necessary and appropriate to develop and
implement uniform national standards that will provide
consumers with meaningful, scientifically sound data. Witnesses
at this hearing included: an individual who helped drive
passage of the Missouri public reporting law after his son
contracted a serious HAI; the Director of the CDC's National
Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Healthcare Quality
Promotion; the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Health
Care Cost Containment Council; the Executive Director of the
Michigan Hospital Association's Keystone Center for Patient
Safety and Quality; and representatives of several major
hospitals from whom the Subcommittee had requested HAI data.
HUMAN TISSUE SAMPLES: NIH RESEARCH POLICIES AND PRACTICES
On June 13, 2006, and on June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held hearings about how the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) deals with human tissue
samples in its intramural research programs. The focus of the
hearings concerned a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
scientist who had personally received over $612,000 in
compensation from a drug company for outside activities,
including $285,000 for those that were derived directly from
his official acts in providing the company access to spinal
fluid samples and plasma samples (over 3000 tubes of NIH
property and linked clinical data) and who had also used NIH
employees and resources to provide such access.
The hearing on June 13th featured a witness from the
National Institute of Aging who had raised with Committee staff
the issue about the adequacy of NIH policies on human tissue
samples, and about the NIMH scientist's handling of samples.
The hearing on June 14th featured three panels of witnesses.
The first panel included the Director of the NIMH, accompanied
by the NIMH Clinical Director, the NIMH Executive Officer, and
the NIMH Technology Transfer Officer; and an Alzheimer's
disease researcher formerly with Pfizer, Inc. The second panel
included the NIMH scientist and his database manager formerly
with NIMH. The witnesses on this panel appeared pursuant to a
subpoena to testify and exercised their constitutional rights
against self-incrimination. The third panel featured the Deputy
Director for Intramural Research, NIH.
ETHICS AND MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AT THE NIH AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
COMMISSIONED CORPS
On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held hearings about continuing ethics and
management concerns at the NIH and the Public Health Service
Commissioned Corps (``Commissioned Corps''). The hearing
followed up on two sets of Subcommittee oversight hearings
concerning NIH: hearings held in May and June 2004, in the
108th Congress, on NIH ethics concerns, and the hearings held
in June 2006 on NIH policies on human tissue samples (see item
above).
The hearing on September 13th featured one panel of
witnesses: the Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS, who
testified on issues involving the Commissioned Corps; the
Deputy Director of the NIH; the Director of the NIMH; the
Executive Officer and Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIMH; and the
Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).
Investigative Activities
MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUG REIMBURSEMENT
As part of its continuing oversight of Medicaid
prescription drug reimbursement, the Full Committee Chairman
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent
a letter to the Medicaid directors of all 50 states on February
10, 2005, requesting information to help understand what steps
each was taking to control rising drug expenditures. This
letter asked the states to provide ingredient reimbursement and
dispensing fee information for 20 popular brand and generic
drugs, as well as a description of the steps taken to control
drug spending.
MEDICAID ESTATE PLANNING
In the 109th Congress, the Committee opened an oversight
inquiry into the practice of Medicaid estate planning. This
practice involves potential Medicaid recipients using a variety
of wealth transfers and methods to alter assets and income
streams to obtain eligibility for Medicaid nursing home
coverage. On April 27, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote the
Medicaid officials of the 50 states to learn the extent and
nature of actions the states have been taking with regard to
Medicaid estate planning.
HOSPITAL BILLING AND COLLECTION PRACTICES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued its
oversight of hospital billing and collection practices for
uninsured/self-pay patients. As part of this oversight, on
April 25, 2005 the Full Committee Chairman and Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote ten hospital
corporations seeking information on questions concerning the
clarity of medical consumer billing records and the impact of
hospital ``master'' or ``list'' prices on medical consumers.
These issues were raised in the course of the Committee's
review of the hospital billing practices during the previous
Congress.
FDA DRUG SAFETY DECISION-MAKING
As part of the Committee's ongoing oversight of drug safety
issues, on June 10, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman asked the
GAO to conduct a review of FDA's current organizational
structure and decision-making process for postmarket drug
safety. In March 2006, the GAO issued its report and concluded
that the FDA ``lacks clear and effective processes for making
decisions about'' the safety of medicines that millions of
Americans rely on. Among the GAO's findings:
FDA's postmarket safety decision-making
process is ``complex and iterative.''
The agency ``lacks clear and effective
processes for making decisions about, and providing
management oversight of, postmarket safety issues.''
GAO noted a ``lack of criteria for
determining what safety actions to take and when to
take them.''
While recent initiatives, such as the
establishment of a Drug Safety Oversight Board, offer
promise, they do not address the ``lack of systemic
tracking of ongoing safety issues.''
PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued
to investigate issues surrounding the withdrawal of a non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Cox-2 inhibitor called
rofecoxib, known commercially as Vioxx, by its manufacturer
Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). On September 30, 2004, Merck
publicly announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, a
medicine approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in treating
osteoarthritis and the management of acute pain in adults, and
later, for rheumatoid arthritis. The publicly reported reason
for this withdrawal was new data from a three-year clinical
trial that showed a two-fold increase in cardiovascular adverse
events in patients taking Vioxx. On November 23, 2004,
Committee Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote
Merck and the FDA to request more information and documentation
relating to: (1) FDA knowledge about these cardiovascular
adverse events associated with Vioxx, (2) when FDA learned
about this information, and (3) the action FDA took in response
to cardiovascular safety concerns associated with Vioxx. In
December 2004, Pfizer Inc., announced it was suspending sales
of Celebrex, also a Cox-2 inhibitor drug, based on some recent
data on cardiovascular events in an on-going study. Shortly
thereafter, the Committee wrote Pfizer requesting information
on adverse cardiovascular events occurring in patients that
took Celebrex and Pfizer's other marketed Cox-2 inhibitor,
Bextra. In spring 2005, the FDA advisory committee concluded
that Bextra should be removed permanently from the market,
based primarily on adverse skin reactions occurring with the
drug. Pfizer voluntarily agreed to remove Bextra from the U.S.
market. The FDA advisory committee agreed that Celebrex should
remain on the market with a black box warning concerning
cardiovascular events. Celebrex continues to be on the U.S.
market. The FDA committee was split on the recommendation
concerning Vioxx. However, Merck did not seek to reinstate
Vioxx to the worldwide market.
NIH ETHICS
On August 8, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman requested
a GAO study of internal control procedures over conflicts of
interest, involving employees of the NIH, NIH contractors, and
outside experts. The GAO is undertaking the request, with a
focus on the rules of recusal at the NIH for employees,
contractors, and outside experts, and a description of the
structures that are in place for the application, monitoring,
and enforcement of the rules of recusal among NIH institutes
and centers.
NIH LEASING
On October 14, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman wrote to
the GAO, requesting that the GAO examine certain parts of NIH's
procedures for obtaining leases for real property. The GAO
issued its report in September 2006. It found that the NIH
implemented a formal leasing process that, if carried out
effectively, should comply with budget scorekeeping guidelines
and OMB's requirements for classifying operating and capital
leases. This process should ensure that no Antideficiency Act
violations occur due to leasing. However, NIH had taken no
action to address five prospectus-level leases that were not
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in past
years.
NIH GRANT COMPENSATION
On September 20, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
the HHS Inspector General to request that the OIG determine if
Federal taxpayer dollars have been used by Federal universities
to compensate graduate research assistants for tuition
remission rather than for their actual work on programs funded
by the NIH. In addition, it was requested that, to the extent
such use of funds is substantiated, the OIG determine if such
compensation practices violate any Federal law, regulation, or
policy, or an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. The OIG
agreed to conduct a nationwide, randomized audit of graduate
student compensation as a first step to examine this issue.
NIH GRANTS DIVERSION
In an August 16, 2005 article, The Wall Street Journal
examined allegations that universities misuse Federal grant
money received from the NIH. Some of these allegations have
resulted in recent multi-million dollar settlements between NIH
university grantees and the U.S. Department of Justice. For
example, in a complaint-in-intervention filed June 15, 2005,
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York (U.S. Attorney's office) alleged that a university grantee
failed to comply with NIH guidelines for clinical research
programs and made false statements in applications to NIH for
renewal of its General Clinical Research Center grant. In
particular, the U.S. Attorney's office highlighted the
disparities between the number of research activities projected
by the grantee in its grant applications or grant continuation
applications to NIH, and the actual number of research
activities performed by the grantee after receiving the NIH
grant money, as reflected in the grantee's internal data, and
to some extent, the grantee's annual progress reports submitted
to NIH.
In light of concerns such as those alleged by the U.S.
Attorney's office, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman requested
on September 20, 2005 that the HHS OIG examine whether there
are widespread disparities between the numbers of research
activities grantees projected to obtain taxpayer funds from the
NIH and the numbers of research activities actually performed
with these funds. To that end, it was further requested that
the OIG conduct an audit of some of the largest NIH clinical
research center grants to review the number of research
activities each respective institution projected to the NIH and
what research activities these institutions actually performed.
Given that the General Clinical Research Grant program is being
phased out, the OIG told the Committee staff that the issues
raised in the request letter were being pursued in ongoing work
and that the OIG would consider an audit of this kind with
respect to the Clinical Translational Science Awards program.
NIH POLICYMAKING FROM THE HIVNET 012 STUDY
On April 29, 2004, the bipartisan leadership of the Full
Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
sent the NIH a request concerning questions raised about the
findings of the HIVNET 012 study. In 1997, the Division of
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, National Institute for
Allergies and Infectious Diseases, sponsored HIVNET 012, a
trial comparing two drugs, nevirapine and zidovudine (AZT), and
their efficacy in the prevention of transmission of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus from mother to child. The findings of
this landmark study were relied upon in the establishment of
global strategies for addressing the AIDS crisis. The Committee
asked the NIH to answer the following question: After a
comprehensive review of all records and information relating to
HIVNET 012, does NIH stand behind the findings of HIVNET 012?
In response to the Committee's request, the NIH Director
asked NIH staff to review the records and information relating
to the HIVNET 012 study and other related studies. On July 12,
2004, the NIH Director informed the Committee that he had
decided to ask the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a
more detailed independent review of the HIVNET 012 study
process. The IOM released its report on the HIVNET 012 study on
April 7, 2005. The Committee staff also received a briefing by
members and staff of the IOM on the IOM's review of the HIVNET
012 study. Based on that briefing and on that IOM committee
report, the Committee staff were satisfied that the data and
findings presented in the published papers can, as the report
said, ``be relied upon for scientific and policy-making
purposes.''
FDA DRUG SAFETY LABELING
On August 16, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
FDA about a drug-safety issue arising from the Committee's
oversight of the FDA's regulatory decisions concerning
Palladone, described by FDA as ``a once-a-day pain management
drug containing a very potent narcotic.'' On July 13, 2005, the
FDA requested Purdue Pharma, L.P. (``Purdue'') to withdraw the
painkiller prescription drug, Palladone, from the market
because of concerns that patients could die from taking the
drug together with alcohol. In reviewing how and why the FDA
approved and later requested the withdrawal of Palladone, the
Committee staff learned that while Palladone was still
marketed, FDA posted on its website only safety information
about the risks of alcohol interaction with Palladone as
reflected in the language of the labeling and medication
formally approved by the FDA. However, after approving
Palladone in September 2004 but prior to the product's launch
in November 2004, the FDA permitted Purdue under a special
process called a CBE (Changes Being Effected) supplement, to
use stronger labeling and medication guide language about the
alcohol risks shown in early results of studies conducted by
Purdue that began in early September 2004. That safety
language, which was in fact the actual labeling and medication
guide used in the marketing of Palladone, was reflected on
Purdue's website but not on the FDA's website. While there was
no final FDA approval for the Purdue label with the alcohol
warning language, the Committee requestors were concerned that
patients and practitioners who accessed the FDA website were
not informed of the most current safety risks of Palladone and
alcohol interaction. Updating such information even without
final FDA approval is vital to ensuring the safety of American
consumers taking prescription drugs.
In furtherance of helping the American public get the most
current and accurate drug-safety information from the FDA, the
Chairmen's letter requested the FDA to respond with (1) a list,
as of July 1, 2005, of any other drugs besides Palladone for
which the labeling and medication guide information on the FDA
website has been superceded by new labeling and medication
guide information permitted under a CBE supplement but not
finally approved and (2) the specific actions taken by FDA to
ensure that the agency's website reflects the most current
safety information about approved drugs (or other FDA-approved
products generally). On October 20, 2005 the FDA sent a written
response, acknowledging that FDA's policy has been to post only
approved labeling on its website and that there may be a period
of time during which there may be a discrepancy between the
company's labeling and the FDA's posted labeling. The FDA noted
that the agency was considering a change to this policy to
address this issue. In September 2006, the FDA published a
draft guidance document for comment announcing to holders of
new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, or a
biologics license applications who intend to submit a ``Changes
Being Effected'' supplement (CBE supplement) to make a post-
approval labeling change, that the FDA will make labeling
revisions identified in the CBE supplement publicly available
upon receipt of the supplement by FDA.
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL FDCA
On August 7, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
the Attorney General of the United States, requesting that the
Department of Justice provide its updated views concerning the
application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
to individuals operating outside the United States who sell
counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs to consumers in
the United States, and who cannot be prosecuted on other
statutory grounds.
FEDERAL WORKPLACE DRUG-TESTING
On September 19, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) about efforts to
improve the mandatory drug-testing guidelines for the Federal
Workplace Drug Testing Program (``mandatory guidelines'') by
testing hair, sweat, and oral fluid specimens in addition to
urine specimens.
Federal workplace drug testing policy continues to be based
only on testing of urine specimens, as it has since 1988.
However, alternative drug tests using hair, oral fluid, and
sweat specimens could strengthen security and safety of the
Federal workplace. These tests complement drug detection using
urine specimens and can offer significant advantages that tests
using urine specimens cannot provide.
According to information listed with the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, on June 30, 2006, HHS and SAMHSA withdrew
the final rule on the mandatory guidelines that OMB had
received on April 4, 2006. Given the interest in the timely
improvement of the mandatory guidelines, it was requested that
SAMHSA provide the Committee with more information about what
led to the withdrawal of the final rule and what issues (if
any) are pending for future improvement of the mandatory
guidelines.
CDC OVERSIGHT
On October 23, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
the Director of the CDC to request a briefing on the
reorganization of the CDC. In addition, the request letter
asked for a draft internal assessment of CDC's financial
management office, information about CDC's systems for tracking
human tissue samples, and information about CDC's systems for
tracking certain property.
FDA FOOD SECURITY
On October 24, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations wrote to the
Acting Commissioner of the FDA about the adequacy of FDA's food
safety and food security efforts. In particular, the request
letter asked for certain information gained from the FDA's
Security and Surveillance Assignment conducted in 2004 and how
some of this information was leveraged to prevent and/or detect
outbreaks such as E. coli in spinach.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO ENERGY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
Hearings
MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
On May 5, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review management concerns at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The hearing reviewed a
wide range of ongoing management problems identified by the DOE
Inspector General (DOE IG) and the Defense Nuclear Facility
Safety Board (DNFSB), as well as more recent security and
safety problems that led to the shutdown of operations at LANL.
The laboratory was shut down due to the mishandling of
classified material and a major safety incident that resulted
in the partial blinding of an employee at LANL. In addition to
these problems, the DOE IG described ongoing weaknesses at LANL
including problems with project management, security, and
contract administration. The Chairman of the DNFSB described
significant and complex safety issues at the lab, and
identified several corrective actions needed to improve safety
at the laboratory.
PLUTONIUM CONSOLIDATION AND DISPOSAL AT DOE SITES
On October 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review GAO findings regarding
DOE's efforts to consolidate surplus plutonium inventories.
Consolidation of plutonium inventories to one site would reduce
significant health and safety issues and reduce large security
costs associated with storing this material in multiple
locations. For example, moving plutonium out of the Hanford
site would save the Department more than $85 million annually
in security costs at Hanford. GAO testified that DOE cannot
move forward with plans to consolidate plutonium inventories at
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina due to legal
impediments and insufficient storage areas at the site. GAO
recommended DOE develop a comprehensive plan to stabilize,
store, and dispose of plutonium inventories across the complex.
At the hearing, DOE testified that it would move forward and
develop a plan for plutonium consolidation within two years.
On May 1, 2006, the Committee sent a follow-up letter
requesting that GAO review the extent to which NNSA has
sufficient storage space to store and monitor plutonium pit
storage containers at Pantex safely and cost-effectively, and
the effect of the delays that NNSA is experiencing constructing
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility in its ability to dispose of surplus
weapons-grade plutonium permanently.
PADUCAH SITE OPERATIONS
On January 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a field hearing in Paducah, Kentucky, to
review DOE operations at the Paducah site. The DOE Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management provided testimony on a
range of issues including environmental cleanup challenges at
the site, the conversion of approximately 490,000 tons of
depleted uranium hexafluoride, and DOE's plans to recycle 9,700
tons of scrap nickel at the site. The second panel consisted of
the President of Bechtel Jacobs, an environmental cleanup
contractor at Paducah, as well as representatives from the
Paducah community including the Mayor of Paducah and a local
labor union representing workers at Paducah.
The hearing also focused on DOE's implementation of Section
633 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, concerning the employee
benefits of contractor employees working at the Paducah and
Portsmouth sites. Section 633 provides that, when DOE changes
its contractors at Paducah or Portsmouth, the contractor
employees do not lose their accrued benefits. Subcommittee
Members expressed concern that DOE had not fully implemented
this section. Following the hearing, DOE clarified that it
would fully implement Section 633 for all affected employees.
CYBER SECURITY AT DOE
On June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review cyber security
challenges at DOE. The first panel of witnesses included the
DOE Inspector General, and the Director of DOE's Office of
Security and Safety Performance Assurance, who described
several internal and external reviews that identified
significant weaknesses in both the management processes and the
operational controls relied upon to protect the unclassified
information systems vital to DOE operations. At the hearing,
the Subcommittee revealed that a cyber attack at National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) site resulted in the
removal of a file with personal information on over 1,500 NNSA
contractor employees, including their social security numbers.
The Administrator of NNSA, testified that although he had been
aware of the stolen personnel information for several months,
he only informed the Secretary of the breach two days before
the Subcommittee hearing. After the hearing, NNSA took
immediate steps to inform each employee whose personal
information had been stolen.
In response to overall weaknesses in the Department's cyber
security program, the DOE's Chief Information Officer testified
that he had developed a 12-month plan to revitalize the DOE
cyber security posture. The NNSA Director and the DOE Under
Secretary for Energy, Science, and Environment described their
own efforts to improve cyber security. The DOE IG and the
Director for the Office of Security and Safety Performance
Assurance testified that they will continue to evaluate the
status of DOE cyber security systems.
NRC'S REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS
On June 16, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review NRC's reactor oversight
process (ROP). NRC developed the ROP to regulate the nuclear
industry more effectively and efficiently, by applying more
objective, timely, and risk-informed criteria when assessing
nuclear plant performance. Under the ROP, few nuclear plants
have experienced significant safety performance issues overall,
and even fewer plants have experienced multiple or repetitive
degraded conditions. According to testimony from GAO, of the
4,000 inspection findings between 2001 and 2005, 97 percent of
these findings were of ``very low'' safety significance. GAO
also determined that NRC continues to make improvements to its
reactor oversight process in key areas. NRC testified that it
would continue to improve the ROP by increasing its
transparency and incorporate additional risk informed measures.
CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS
On July 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held the first of two hearings to examine
questions surrounding certain historical temperature studies in
connection with the studies' use in the United Nation's 2001
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third
Assessment Report. The hearing focused on two independent
reports concerning the reliability of two particular studies
that were influential to a finding of the IPCC concerning
millennial temperature trends and what the prominent use of
these studies indicated about the reliability of the IPCC
assessment process. The Subcommittee took testimony from two
panels of witnesses, consisting of the chairman of an Ad Hoc
Committee that had prepared an independent report on the two
studies in question, the chairman of a National Research
Council (NRC) committee that had examined historical
temperature studies, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration witness who oversaw relevant portions of the
IPCC report in question, and three academic and independent
researchers who provided comments on the temperature studies in
question and the IPCC process in general.
At a second hearing, on July 26, 2006, the Subcommittee
received testimony from the president of the National Academy
of Sciences, the lead author of the studies in question, a
representative of an environmental policy organization, a
scientist associated with the aforementioned NRC committee and
the IPCC report, as well as two witnesses returning from the
July 19 hearing.
PIPELINE SPILLS AT THE GREATER PRUDHOE BAY OIL FIELD
On September 7, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing regarding the crude oil
production pipelines on the North Slope of Alaska that are
operated and maintained by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BP).
The hearing focused on the issues surrounding the March 2,
2006, and August 6, 2006, oil spills from corroded crude oil
transmission pipelines for the Greater Prudhoe Bay Oil Field,
including issues related to the adequacy of BP's corrosion
control and monitoring program and BP's failure to inspect and
maintain the pipelines properly. The Subcommittee received
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel's three
witnesses included the Chairman and President of BP America,
Inc., the President of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., and the
former manager of the Corrosion, Inspection, and Chemicals
Group for BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. The second panel's two
witnesses were the head of U.S. Department of Transportation's
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation.
The Subcommittee continued to examine issues related to
pipeline sludge, sediment, and corrosion. On October 6, 2006
the leadership of the Full Committee and the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to BP requesting
further information about BP's prior knowledge of sediment
buildup in the transmission pipelines and the need to conduct
pigging operations in those lines.
Investigative Activities
SAFETY AT DOE LABORATORIES
Los Alamos National Laboratory is not alone in standing
down its facilities. In October 2004, the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center had a stand-down of operations for nearly 5
months following a serious electrical accident. Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory's Plutonium Facility, also operated by the
University of California, had a stand-down in January 2005
because of safety concerns, and resumed reduced activities only
in October 2005. On May 1, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent
a letter to GAO requesting a review of the safety performance
of the DOE's major laboratories. Specifically, we requested (1)
the safety records of these laboratories; (2) nuclear safety
violations and resulting penalties paid by the laboratories
under the Price Anderson Act; (3) the circumstances of recent
stand-downs, including the reasons for and duration of each
stand-down and the process for resuming activities; and (4)
actions taken by DOE to improve the safety performance of its
management and operating contractors.
HANFORD TANK FARMS
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued
its review of DOE's efforts to clean up 177 underground storage
tanks containing radioactive wastes at the Hanford site in
Richland, Washington. On July 12, 2005, the Full Committee
Chairman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Chairman sent a letter to Energy Secretary Bodman requesting
information on the cost and status of the construction of
vitrification plants for the immobilization of the high and
low-level radioactive wastes. DOE has failed to develop a
reliable cost and schedule baseline for the project. As a
result, the initial December 2000 cost estimate for the project
of $4.32 billion has grown to a recent cost estimate of $12.2
billion. DOE has asked the US Army Corps of Engineers to
validate these costs, and the Department is working towards
finalizing a baseline for the project by the Spring of 2007.
YUCCA MOUNTAIN
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has
continued its review of DOE's efforts to submit a license
application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC. DOE missed its
December 2005 deadline for submitting the license application,
and had subsequently announced plans to submit the license
application by June 30, 2008, and open the repository by 2017.
On March 24, 2005, the Committee sent a letter to Energy
Secretary Bodman to obtain documents relating to falsification
of documentation by employees of the United States Geological
Survey at the Yucca Mountain project. The documentation in
question related to computer modeling involving water
infiltration and climate. The Department has taken several
steps to review and analyze the data in question to ensure that
the technical aspects of the repository license application are
not impacted.
CITGO HEATING OIL PROGRAM
On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee sent a letter to
Citgo Petroleum Corp. (Citgo) requesting information about its
proposed discount heating oil program. Citgo is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, which is
controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken
critic of the United States. The Subcommittee's letter
reflected a concern that Chavez's discount heating oil program
was not motivated by altruism, but rather was an improper
attempt to politicize the debate over U.S. energy policy. Citgo
responded to the Subcommittee's letter on March 23, 2006, and
April 21, 2006.
DOMESTIC OIL REFINERY CAPACITY
On May 3, 2006, the Chairman of the Full Committee and
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
wrote the five largest integrated oil companies to gather
information about each company's plans and priorities for
ensuring ample domestic oil refinery capacity and gasoline
supply. A shortage of domestic refining capacity was one of the
primary factors contributing to gasoline price spikes in the
Spring of 2006. The letters requested information concerning
historical capacity levels of each company's domestic
refineries, as affected by maintenance and other factors that
can temporarily restrict refinery supply, and information
concerning long-term priorities for expanding refinery capacity
and for providing a reliable and abundant supply of fuel in the
future.
QUALITY OF FEDERALLY FUNDED CLIMATE RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENTS
In the 109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman and
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman opened an
inquiry into the quality of federally funded climate research
and assessments that may inform the Committee's decision-
making. Portions of this inquiry resulted in hearings
concerning use of historical temperature studies (see Climate
Change Science Assessments, above). On May 19, 2006, the
Chairmen requested that the GAO examine the practices and
policies that support and ensure the underlying quality of
federally funded climate data and research. In particular, the
GAO was asked to examine practices and policies related to the
preservation and sharing of datasets and analyses. A report
from GAO is expected in the 110th Congress.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Hearings
THE E-RATE PROGRAM
On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) management and oversight of the E-rate
program. The E-rate program is the portion of the Universal
Service Fund set up to subsidize telecommunications and
Internet service and infrastructure in qualified schools and
libraries. The hearing examined findings and recommendations by
a GAO review of FCC's management of the program. This review
was initiated at the request of the Full Committee and
Subcommittee Chairmen in the previous Congress during the
Subcommittee's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in
the program. The Subcommittee took testimony from one panel of
witness, representing the GAO, the FCC, and the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) of the FCC.
On October 6, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing to
examine the FCC's plans for E-rate program relief to Gulf Coast
communities recovering from the destruction of Hurricane
Katrina. The Subcommittee took testimony from the FCC Inspector
General, the Chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau,
the CEO of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC),
which administers the E-rate program, and the State E-rate
Coordinator for the Mississippi Department of Information
Technology Services.
In culmination of the Subcommittee of Oversight and
Investigations' two-year investigation into the E-rate program,
the Subcommittee held a business meeting on October 18, 2005,
at which it unanimously adopted the bi-partisan staff report,
``Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the E-rate Program,''
which detailed findings and recommendations from the
investigation to help guide reform of the E-rate program.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a
series of hearings in 2006 examining issues relating to the
sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The purpose
of these hearings was to examine the efforts undertaken by the
following entities to combat the proliferation of sexually
exploitative images of children over the Internet: (1) U.S.
Federal, State, and local law enforcement; (2) Federal
agencies, including the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC); (3) the Internet Service Provider industry; (4) the
financial services industry; (5) social networking sites; (6)
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
and (7) several Internet safety education groups. Through the
Subcommittee's efforts on this topic, several measures were
undertaken by various entities that would enhance the efforts
of law enforcement and industry to detect and stop the
proliferation of sexually exploitative images of children over
the Internet, including: (1) the Internet Service Provider
industry started blocking access to sites that NCMEC determined
had images of child pornography and which do not need to remain
open for law enforcement investigative purposes; (2) a
Technology Coalition consisting of major ISP's including AOL,
Google, Yahoo! and Earthlink was voluntarily formed, with a $1
million donation by each provider, to enhance the technological
capabilities of the industry and law enforcement to detect and
take down these illegal sites; (3) Comcast voluntarily agreed
to lengthen its data retention period for Internet Protocol
(IP) addresses attached to subscriber information from 30 days
to 180 days to assist law enforcement in investigations
involving the exploitation of children over the Internet; (4)
the FCC issued a declaratory ruling that cellular carriers are
subject to the cybertipline reporting requirements, which will
enhance cybertipline reporting of illegal images and content
and (5) the financial services industry formed a Financial
Coalition with NCMEC to enhance the ability of credit card
companies and merchant banks to detect and eliminate on-line
merchants with commercial child pornography sites.
At the April 4 hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony
from the following witnesses: Justin Berry, a 19-year-old who,
beginning at 13 years old, was sexually exploited by various
child predators on the Internet initially through the use of
webcam; Kurt Eichenwald, a reporter for The New York Times, who
wrote investigative articles about child pornography over the
Internet and this child's case in particular, which were
published on December 19 and 20, 2005; a forensic pediatrician
and expert in child sexual abuse cases; the President of NCMEC
and from representatives of two Internet safety groups, I-Safe
and WiredSafety.org. In addition, the Committee subpoenaed a
person that was identified by Justin Berry as someone who
sexually molested him and was involved in running a commercial
child pornography site. That individual declined to testify,
citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Shortly after the hearing, he was arrested by Michigan Federal
authorities on several felony charges relating to Mr. Berry's
public allegations against him, as well as, based on additional
evidence related to child pornography charges. At the April 6
hearing, the Subcommittee focused on the U.S. law enforcement
effort to combat child pornography over the Internet. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives from the U.S.
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service, and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
The Subcommittee also heard testimony from Grier Weeks,
Executive Director for PROTECT, a group that focuses on
enhancing Federal laws relating to crimes against children.
The Subcommittee's May 3 hearing was focused on the
testimony of Masha Allen, a child-victim, whose images of
sexual abuse were posted on the Internet, and on the efforts of
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Innocent Images Section
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat crimes against
children over the Internet. Masha Allen is a 14-year-old girl
who was adopted from Russia when she was 5 years old by a
single man in the United States, and then subsequently sexually
abused by her adoptive father. Her adoptive father posted
images of her sexual abuse on the Internet. Rep. Phil Gingrey
(R-GA), introduced Masha at the hearing and briefly discussed
legislation he introduced in the House (known as Masha's Law),
which was subsequently signed into law by President Bush as
part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
Masha's law increases the civil penalties that victims may
recover for images of their sexual abuse posted on the
Internet, as well as, provides a cause of action for adults who
find out that images of their sexual abuse as a minor are on
the Internet to recover civil damages. A follow up hearing on
the Masha Allen case was held on September 27, 2006 (see
Miscellaneous Hearings and Investigative Activities, below).
At the June 27 hearing, the Subcommittee focused on what
measures the Internet Service Provider industry has taken to
find and remove sexually exploitative images of children on
their network. The Subcommittee heard testimony about the
varied practices among the industry to monitor their network
for child pornography, as well as, to retain IP address and
subscriber information that is critical to law enforcement in
these investigations. The providers all followed a similar
practice with respect to reporting suspected images to the
cybertipline, run by NCMEC. Representatives from the following
Internet Service Providers testified: (1) AOL; (2) Comcast; (3)
Google; (4) Yahoo; (5) Verizon; (6) Microsoft; and (7)
Earthlink. In addition, the Subcommittee heard testimony from
Chris Hansen, an investigative reporter for Dateline NBC, who
headlined a series of reports called ``To Catch a Predator,''
which took place in various towns throughout the United States.
Each episode featured various adult men arriving at a house in
which they believed a minor child, whom they had communicated
with on-line, would engage in sexual activity with them. The
person the adult males were communicating with were not minors,
but persons posing as minors on the Internet.
The Subcommittee's June 28 hearing focused on what measures
social networking sites are taking to protect children from
child predators on their sites, as well as, hearing testimony
from Federal agency representatives and a Federal attorney
general about their roles in regulating the Internet Service
Providers industry and social networking sites. Representatives
from the following social networking sites testified at the
hearing: (1) Myspace.com; (3) Xanga.com and (3) Facebook.com.
In addition, representatives from the FCC and the FTC
testified, as well as the Attorney General for the State of
Connecticut. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from a
Detective from the Rocky Hill, Connecticut Police Department.
On July 10, the Subcommittee held a field hearing in New
Jersey exploring how the State of New Jersey is combating the
sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The
Subcommittee heard testimony from the U.S. Attorney for the
District of New Jersey, representatives from several New Jersey
Federal and local law enforcement agencies and representatives
to address Internet safety programs being taught in schools to
children and parents.
At the September 21 hearing, the Subcommittee focused on
what measures the financial services industry has taken to
eradicate commercial child pornography websites over the
Internet. Representatives from the following credit card
companies testified: (1) American Express; (2) Visa; and (3)
MasterCard. In addition, representatives from PayPal and E-
gold, which are alternative payment mechanisms, also testified.
The President of NCMEC testified about the Financial Coalition,
which consists of members of the financial services industry,
Federal law enforcement and NCMEC to help eradicate commercial
child pornography over the Internet. Representatives from the
largest U.S.-based merchant banks testified, including: (1)
Bank of America; (2) NOVA Information Systems; (3) Chase
Paymentech Solutions and (4) First Data Corporation. A
representative from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
and the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey testified about the
efforts of their respective offices in investigating and
prosecuting individuals involved in a case known as ``Regpay,''
which was a world-wide and large-scale ring of people running
over 60 commercial child pornography sites.
On September 26, the Subcommittee heard testimony from
several experts about the characteristics of a child predator
generally, as well as, specific information about the behaviors
of child predators on-line. In addition to these witnesses,
Kurt Eichenwald of The New York Times, who testified at the
December 19 hearing, testified about his observations of an on-
line pedophile forum that he was able to infiltrate, which was
also published in an article he wrote. The Subcommittee also
heard testimony from a representative of a web-hosting company,
Blue Gravity Communications, and from a domain name registry
company, GoDaddy.com.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Hearings
THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING
On October 18 and November 17, 2005, and May 9, 2006, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings
related to the nation's thoroughbred horse racing industry. In
particular, the purpose of the hearings was to focus on the
state of ``on-track'' injury insurance and other health and
welfare issues that are faced by jockeys, exerciser riders, and
other workers in the thoroughbred horse racing industry.
The October 18 hearing primarily focused on the Jockeys'
Guild--an association of licensed professional jockeys that had
historically taken care of its members' health insurance and
welfare needs, and also provided assistance to permanently
disabled riders. The hearing examined allegations that under
the leadership and direction of the Guild's then-Chief
Executive Officer, the Guild's management had improperly
canceled a catastrophic injury insurance policy, without
notice; and that the then-CEO had mismanaged the Guild's
finances, including several disability funds. The Subcommittee
received testimony from three panels of witnesses. On the first
panel, a former professional jockey who was permanently
paralyzed during a horse race at Mountaineer Park, in West
Virginia, and the jockey's wife, testified. The second panel
consisted of nine current or former professional jockeys,
including Hall of Fame riders, who were then or formerly
involved with management of the Guild. Three witnesses
testified during the third panel, including the Guild's then-
CEO, the Guild's Chief Operating Officer, and the Guild's
General Counsel.
The November 17 hearing focused on efforts by various
stakeholders in the horse racing industry to improve the health
and welfare of jockeys and other workers, including steps taken
to establish better catastrophic insurance coverage or create
workers' compensation programs. The Subcommittee received
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel of
seven witnesses consisted of representatives from five of the
nation's major race track companies, as well as the
Thoroughbred Racing Association and the National Thoroughbred
Racing Association. The second panel of ten witnesses included
representatives of: various trade associations for race horse
trainers, breeders, and owners; the Kentucky Racing Health &
Welfare Fund; the New York State Jockey Injury Compensation
Fund; the California Horse Racing Board; the Delaware
Thoroughbred Racing Commission; and the Jockeys' Guild.
The May 9 hearing focused on the status of the Jockeys'
Guild following its November 15, 2005, decision by its Board of
Directors to fire the then-CEO and his management team, and to
receive further testimony from the head of racing at
Mountaineer Park race track. The Subcommittee received
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel
consisted of three witnesses--the Guild's interim National
Manager, the Guild's Chairman of the Board, and the Guild's
interim General Counsel. On the second panel one witness
testified; the Director of Racing at Mountaineer Race Track &
Gaming Resort, in Chester, West Virginia.
DATA BROKERS AND PRETEXTING
In 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
held three hearings regarding the Internet-based data broker
industry. The purpose of the hearings was to examine the use by
these data brokers and their subcontractors of pretexting or
``social engineering''--that is, deceit, impersonation, and
fraud--to procure and sell consumers' confidential cell phone
calling records and other personal consumer information, such
as bank account activity or credit card statements.
A June 21 hearing focused on the actual data brokers and
how they acquire the information and to whom they sell the
records, and the Subcommittee received testimony from three
panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of one witness
who had been a victim of a data broker that repeatedly procured
his cell phone records without his consent. On the second
panel, two witnesses testified; the former owner of the
Colorado data broker Touch Tone Information, Inc., and a
``skiptracer'' who works for the repossession industry. The
third panel included eleven witnesses, all of whom were data
brokers that the Subcommittee had focused on during its
investigation. All eleven witnesses refused to testify, each
invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination.
A June 22 hearing focused on (1) Federal efforts to combat
illicit data brokers and (2) the use of data brokers by Federal
and local law enforcement agencies to procure phone records.
The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels of
witnesses. The first panel consisted of two assistant attorneys
general--one from the Missouri Attorney General's Office and
another from the Florida Attorney General's Office. The second
panel consisted of representatives from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives, and the Department of Homeland
Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During the
third panel, police officers representing Miami-Dade Police
Department and the Austin (Texas) Police Department testified.
A September 29 hearing focused on progress made by Federal
agencies to combat illicit data brokers, as well as steps being
taken by the nation's largest wireless phone carriers to
protect consumers' phone records from pretexters. The
Subcommittee received testimony from four panels of witnesses.
The first panel's single witness was a private investigator and
frequent data broker customer for calling records, who refused
to testify on the basis of their Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. The second panel's single witness was a
journalist for a major newspaper whose phone records were
procured by a pretexter. The third panel consisted of
representatives of the nation's six largest wireless phone
companies, including Cingular Wireless, Verizon Wireless, T-
Mobile USA, Sprint Nextel, Alltel Wireless, and US Cellular.
The fourth panel received testimony from officials from the FCC
and the FTC.
HEWLETT-PACKARD'S PRETEXTING SCANDAL
On September 28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing related to the use of private
investigators and pretexters by Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) to
investigate its Board of Directors, journalists, employees, and
others. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the methods
and scope of HP's internal investigation into leaks of
corporate information that involved procuring the personal
telephone records of numerous individuals, without their
consent. The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels
of witnesses. The first panel's ten witnesses included HP's
General Counsel, an HP Senior Counsel, HP's Manager of Global
Security Investigations, the managing director of the outside
consultant Security Outsourcing Solutions, Inc., the owner of
the data broker Action Research Group, and five subcontractors
to the data broker--all of whom refused to testify on the basis
of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The
second panel's three witnesses included the former HP Chairman
of the Board, the outside counsel to HP's Board of Directors,
and an HP ``IT Security'' employee. The third panel's single
witness was HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO HOMELAND SECURITY
AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
Hearings
A REVIEW OF SECURITY INITIATIVES AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES
On March 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review security initiatives at
DOE nuclear facilities. In the aftermath of the September 11,
2001, attacks, physical security requirements at DOE and NNSA
sites were dramatically increased to reflect the possibility of
large attacks with terrorist that are willing to die to inflict
massive damage. The hearing reviewed the implementation of
several ongoing security initiatives at NNSA sites, and
specifically reviewed security problems that led to the
shutdown of operations at the LANL. The shutdown at LANL was
also the subject of a subsequent hearing on May 5, 2005. The
Administrator of NNSA provided testimony on NNSA's progress on
improving physical security and the security of classified
material. The Director of the Office of Security and Safety
Performance Assurance, DOE, outlined several security issues
that needed greater attention, including cyber security,
technology deployment, and the consolidation of nuclear
materials. The Director of LANL provided testimony regarding
major incidents that led to the shutdown of the laboratory,
including the mishandling of classified removable electronic
media.
REDUCING THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM
On May 24, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review the DOE's Global Threat
Reduction Initiative (GTRI), a program to secure high-risk
nuclear and radiological materials around the world that could
pose a threat when used in a radiological dispersion device
(RDD or ``dirty bomb'') or in an improvised nuclear devise.
Witnesses from DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
described efforts to recover vulnerable, high-risk nuclear
material worldwide. Domestically, GTRI has targeted 25 research
reactors for conversion from high-risk HEU fuel to lower-risk
LEU fuel. DOE and NRC also discussed their working relationship
to identify and secure radiological sources located in the
United States, including new security requirements for medical
and research facilities, and manufacturers of sealed
radioactive sources.
Investigations
MARITIME ENERGY TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
On January 31, 2005, the Full Committee leadership along
with the leadership of the Committee on Homeland Security sent
a letter to GAO to conduct a review of the vulnerabilities of
foreign and domestic maritime energy transport infrastructure
to terrorist attack, and efforts by governmental and private
sector entities to reduce these vulnerabilities through
enhanced security, planning, and other prevention,
preparedness, and response activities. Although there is no
known terrorist threat to domestic energy transportation
infrastructure, there have been several attacks in Iraq and the
Middle-East. A successful attack could have significant public
health and economic consequences.
MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES
Hearings
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALL-HAZARDS SATELLITE WARNING SYSTEM
On March 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine efforts by the United
States and other countries to implement a Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) all-hazards warning
system. GEOSS represents an initiative to link satellites and
other technology into an integrated system to share data,
enabling improved prediction of weather- and geological-related
events, such as the December 2004 South Asia tsunami. The
Subcommittee received testimony from three panels of witnesses
to consider the benefits of an all-hazards warning system for
the energy, environment, and public health and emergency
preparedness sectors. The Subcommittee heard from the
Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Administrator and representatives from the Department of
Energy, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences,
and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the
Subcommittee heard from representatives of the GEOSS program,
the meteorological community, public health community, and
satellite community, who spoke to specific aspects and
potential of the program.
UNITED NATIONS' OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM
The Committee's oversight of the United Nations' Oil-for-
Food Program (the Program) began in the 106th Congress. As part
of this oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations launched an in-depth investigation into abuses
of the Program by the former Iraqi Regime of Saddam Hussein
(the Regime) during the 108th and 109th Congresses. This
investigation revealed that the Regime exploited lax oversight
of the Program and political divisions within the United
Nations to enrich itself at the expense of the Iraqi
population.
The Subcommittee's investigation of the Program culminated
in two hearings during the 109th Congress. The first hearing,
which took place on May 16, 2005, focused on the Regime's abuse
of the oil allocation process. Documents disclosed at the
hearing--many of which had been translated from Arabic for the
Subcommittee--detailed how the Regime used lucrative oil
allocations to bribe influential individuals and foreign
governments in an effort to undermine sanctions. Witnesses at
this hearing included: an Arabic linguist who was retained by
the Committee to analyze and translate many of the documents,
the author of a comprehensive report on the Program, a
university professor knowledgeable about the Program and
sanctions generally, and the Director of the Office of
Peacekeeping, Sanctions & Counter-Terrorism in the State
Department's International Organizations and Affairs Bureau. On
June 21, 2005, the Subcommittee held a second hearing to
examine how internal divisions within the United Nations'
Security Council adversely impacted the effectiveness of the
Program. Several representatives from the United States Mission
to the United Nations testified about discussions within the
``661 Sanctions Committee,'' which was responsible for general
oversight of the Program. A portion of this hearing was
conducted in executive session due to the classified status of
some of the documents involved.
WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE IN POST KATRINA RECOVERY
On September 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review the oversight plans and
activities of various Inspectors General with regard to
spending for disaster relief and recovery in the Gulf Coast
following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The hearing focused on
efforts to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse and issues
related to such oversight of funding and of programs that will
be involved in long-term rebuilding. The Subcommittee took
testimony from a single panel of witnesses, which was comprised
of a representative of the GAO and the Inspector Generals for
the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Defense (acting), Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Commerce, and Federal Communications
Commission. The Deputy Inspector General for Audits and Deputy
Inspector General for Investigations for the Department of
Health and Human Services also testified. In response to the
Subcommittee Chairman's request at the hearing, the President's
Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and Executive
Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE), the two
coordinating entities for Federal Inspectors General, issued a
90-day progress report to Congress regarding oversight of Gulf
Coast hurricane recovery. The PCIE/ECIE subsequently continued
to provide progress reports in the form of semi-annual
oversight reports of Gulf Coast hurricane recovery.
ISSUES RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF MASHA ALLEN
On September 27, 2006 the Subcommittee held a hearing to
follow-up on issues raised at the May 3, 2006 hearing
concerning the adoption of Masha Allen (see hearings, above,
relating to sexual exploitation of children over the Internet).
At the May 3 hearing, Masha Allen, along with her attorney,
raised questions about what adoption agency was responsible for
her placement with Matthew Mancuso, whether any follow-up was
done by any U.S. agency once she was brought to the U.S. by
Mancuso, and whether there were any red flags in Mancuso's
adoption application that should have been picked up by any of
the U.S. agencies involved in the adoption. At the September 27
hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives
of Families Through International Adoption, the agency that
initially processed Mancuso's preliminary paperwork; Adagio
Health Services, the agency that performed the home study
evaluation of Mancuso prior to his adoption of Masha, and
several current and former employees of Reaching Out Through
International Adoption, the adoption agency that was primarily
responsible for placing Masha with Mancuso and for performing
any required follow-up work associated with an international
adoption. Testimony at the hearing established that Reaching
Out Through International Adoption, a N.J. agency, was not
licensed during the time period when they provided Mancuso with
the referral of Masha and that the agency was responsible for
all material aspects of Mancuso's adoption of Masha, including
ensuring that in-person post-placement reports were conducted
by a licensed agency in Pennsylvania, the State in which Masha
and Mancuso were residents. In addition, the Subcommittee heard
testimony from two witnesses about the general practices
employed by U.S. agencies performing international adoptions.
Investigations
DATA QUALITY ACT IMPLEMENTATION
In the 109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman opened a
review of agency implementation of the Data Quality Act. As
part of this review, on January 13, 2005 the Chairman wrote 15
agencies and commissions within the Committee's jurisdiction,
seeking documents and other information relating to each
agency's implementation of the data-quality guidelines and
procedures required by Section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriates Act for Fiscal 2001, which is commonly
known as the Data Quality Act. Under the Act, each agency is
required to issue guidelines for ``ensuring and maximizing the
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information''
that agencies disseminate. The review seeks to assess agency
implementation as well as the general effectiveness and impact
of the Act's requirements.
REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME RULES AND REGULATIONS
In the 109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman and
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman opened a
review of efforts by Federal agencies to reduce unnecessarily
burdensome regulations, particularly regulations on small
businesses. As part of this review, on April 5, 2005 the
Chairmen wrote ten Federal agencies within the Committee's
jurisdiction, seeking documents and information relating to
each agency's compliance with Section 610 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. Under Section 610, each Federal
agency must plan for, and conduct, the periodic review of its
rules that have or will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, i.e. small businesses,
small government jurisdictions, and other small organizations.
The letters sought information to help determine the general
impact and effectiveness of this regulatory-review requirement
for meeting the goals of RFA. On May 19, 2006, the Chairmen
requested that the GAO examine the impact of Section 610, both
to assess implementation of the provision specifically and to
provide insights into the implementation of retrospective
regulatory reviews in general. A GAO report is expected in the
110th Congress.
Hearings Held
The Implementation of GEOSS: A Review of the All-Hazards
Warning System and its Benefits to Public Health, Energy, and
the Environment.--Oversight hearing on The Implementation of
GEOSS: A Review of the All-Hazards Warning System and its
Benefits to Public Health, Energy, and the Environment. Hearing
held on March 9, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-2.
Problems with the E-Rate Program: GAO Review of FCC
Management and Oversight.--Oversight hearing on Problems with
the E-Rate Program: GAO Review of FCC Management and Oversight.
Hearing held on March 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-7.
A Review of Security Initiatives at DOE Nuclear
Facilities.--Oversight hearing on A Review of Security
Initiatives at DOE Nuclear Facilities. Hearing held on March
18, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-66.
The State of Readiness for the 2005-2006 Flu Season.--
Oversight hearing on The State of Readiness for the 2005-2006
Flu Season. Hearing held on May 4, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number
109-79.
A Review of Ongoing Management Concerns at Los Alamos
National Laboratory.--Oversight hearing on A Review of Ongoing
Management Concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Hearing
held on May 5, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-45.
The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program: Saddam Hussein's
Use of Oil Allocations to Undermine Sanctions and the United
Nations Security Council.--Oversight hearing on The United
Nations Oil-For-Food Program: Saddam Hussein's Use of Oil
Allocations to Undermine Sanctions and the United Nations
Security Council. Hearing held on May 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-29.
Subversion of Drug Testing Programs.--Oversight hearing on
Subversion of Drug Testing Programs. Hearing held on May 17,
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-47.
Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism: A Review of the
Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative.--
Oversight hearing on Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism:
A Review of the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction
Initiative. Hearing held on May 24, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-67.
A Review of Community Health Centers: Issues and
Opportunities.--Oversight hearing on A Review of Community
Health Centers: Issues and Opportunities. Hearing held on May
25, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-31.
The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program: A Review of the
661 Sanctions Committee.--Oversight hearing on The United
Nations Oil-For-Food Program: A Review of the 661 Sanctions
Committee. Hearing held on June 21, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-30.
Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care in the
Wake of Katrina.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee
on Health on Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care
in the Wake of Katrina. Hearing held on September 22, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-50.
Guarding Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Post-Katrina
Relief and Recovery: The Plans of Inspectors General.--
Oversight hearing on Guarding Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse
in Post-Katrina Relief and Recovery: The Plans of Inspectors
General. Hearing held on September 28, 2005. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-51.
FCC's E-Rate Plans to Assist Gulf Coast Recovery: Ensuring
Effective Implementation.--Oversight hearing on FCC's E-Rate
Plans to Assist Gulf Coast Recovery: Ensuring Effective
Implementation. Hearing held on October 6, 2005. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-54.
A Review of GAO's Findings and Recommendations Regarding
the Department of Energy's Efforts to Consolidate Surplus
Plutonium Inventories.--Oversight hearing on A Review of GAO's
Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Department of
Energy's Efforts to Consolidate Surplus Plutonium Inventories.
Hearing held on October 7, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-56.
Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining
On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare
Issues.--Oversight hearing on Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys
and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other
Health and Welfare Issues. Hearing held on October 18, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-34.
Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining
On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare
Issues.--Oversight hearing on Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys
and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other
Health and Welfare Issues. Hearing held on November 17, 2005.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-62.
Safety of Imported Pharmaceuticals: Strengthening Efforts
to Combat the Sales of Controlled Substances Over the
Internet.--Oversight hearing on Safety of Imported
Pharmaceuticals: Strengthening Efforts to Combat the Sales of
Controlled Substances Over the Internet. Hearing held on
December 13, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-46.
Oversight and Administration of the 340B Drug Discount
Program: Improving Efficiency and Transparency.--Oversight
hearing on Oversight and Administration of the 340B Drug
Discount Program: Improving Efficiency and Transparency.
Hearing held on December 15, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
108.
A Review of DOE Paducah Site Operations.--Oversight hearing
on A Review of DOE Paducah Site Operations. Hearing held on
January 19, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-60.
Hospital Disaster Preparedness: Past, Present, and
Future.--Oversight hearing on Hospital Disaster Preparedness:
Past, Present, and Future. Hearing held on January 26, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-115.
The Silicosis Story: Mass Tort Screening and the Public
Health.--Oversight hearings on The Silicosis Story: Mass Tort
Screening and the Public Health. Hearings held on March 8,
2006, March 31, 2006, June 6, 2006, and July 26, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-124.
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What
Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child
Predators.--Oversight hearings on Sexual Exploitation of
Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress
Need to Know About Child Predators. Hearings held on April 4,
2006, April 6, 2006, and May 3, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number
109-126.
Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining
On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare
Issues.--Oversight hearing on Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys
and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other
Health and Welfare Issues. Hearing held on May 9, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-98.
Public Reporting of Hospital-Acquired Infection Rates:
Empowering Consumers, Saving Lives.--Oversight hearing on
Public Reporting of Hospital-Acquired Infection Rates:
Empowering Consumers, Saving Lives. Hearing held on March 29,
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-85.
Cyber Security Challenges at the Department of Energy.--
Oversight hearing on Cyber Security Challenges at the
Department of Energy. Hearing held on June 9, 2006. PRINTED,
Serial Number 109-107.
Human Tissue Samples: NIH Research Policies and
Practices.--Oversight hearings on Human Tissue Samples: NIH
Research Policies and Practices. Hearings held on June 13,
2006, and June 14, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-119.
A Review of NRC's Reactor Oversight Process.--Oversight
hearing on A Review of NRC's Reactor Oversight Process. Hearing
held on June 19, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-104.
Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who Has Access to
Your Private Records?.--Oversight hearings on Internet Data
Brokers and Pretexting: Who Has Access to Your Private Records?
Hearings held on June 21, 2006, June 22, 2006, and September
29, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-131.
Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISPs and
Social Networking Sites.--Oversight hearings on Making the
Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISPs and Social Networking
Sites. Hearings held on June 27, 2006, and June 28, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-123.
Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet: How the
State of New Jersey is Combating Child Predators on the
Internet.--Oversight hearing on Sexual Exploitation of Children
over the Internet: How the State of New Jersey is Combating
Child Predators on the Internet. Hearing held on July 10, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-122.
Questions Surrounding the `Hockey Stick' Temperature
Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments.--
Oversight hearings on Questions Surrounding the `Hockey Stick'
Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change
Assessments. Hearings held on July 19, 2006, and July 27, 2006.
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-128.
BP's Pipeline Spills at Prudhoe Bay: What Went Wrong?.--
Oversight hearing on BP's Pipeline Spills at Prudhoe Bay: What
Went Wrong? Hearing held on September 7, 2006. PRINTED, Serial
Number 109-135.
Continuing Ethics and Management Concerns at NIH and the
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.--Oversight hearing on
Continuing Ethics and Management Concerns at NIH and the Public
Health Service Commissioned Corps. Hearing held on September
13, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-136.
Deleting Commercial Child Pornography Sites From the
Internet: The U.S. Financial Industry's Efforts to Combat This
Problem.--Oversight hearing on Deleting Commercial Child
Pornography Sites From the Internet: The U.S. Financial
Industry's Efforts to Combat This Problem. Hearing held on
September 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-141.
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: The Face
of a Child Predator and Other Issues.--Oversight hearing on
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: The Face of
a Child Predator and Other Issues. Hearing held on September
26, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-143.
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: Follow-
up Issues to the Masha Allen Adoption.--Oversight hearing on
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: Follow-up
Issues to the Masha Allen Adoption. Hearing held on September
27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-145.
Hewlett-Packard's Pretexting Scandal.--Oversight hearing on
Hewlett-Packard's Pretexting Scandal. Hearing held on September
28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-146.
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 109TH CONGRESS
Clause 2(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the 109th 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 109th Congress, which was
considered and adopted by a voice vote of the Full Committee on
February 9, 2005, 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 109th Congress and the recommendations
made with respect to this plan.
PART A
Committee on Energy and Commerce Oversight Plan
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
109TH CONGRESS
CONGRESSMAN JOE BARTON, 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 109th Congress. It includes the areas in which
the Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 109th
Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of
additional matters as the need arises.
----------
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 109th Congress. It includes the areas in which
the Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 109th
Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of
additional matters as the need arises.
----------
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONS CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
management, operations, rulemaking, and enforcement actions of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In particular, the
Committee will review Commission activity with regard to
franchises, business opportunities, telemarketing and identity
theft, as well as actions regarding false and deceptive
advertising in safeguarding consumers.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
management, operations, and activities of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) in safeguarding consumers, and
particularly children, from faulty or dangerous products. This
may include review of the adequacy of the CPSC's authority and
data gathering and dissemination efforts with respect to
products within its jurisdiction, and other activities that
enhance consumer product safety, such as safety standard
organizations.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
management, operations, and activities of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, particularly as they pertain to
motor vehicle-related safety.
INTERSTATE AND E-COMMERCE
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine issues
that substantially impact or affect interstate commerce, with
particular interest in activities that impede such commerce.
The Committee will review consumer information privacy in the
commercial context. The Committee also will examine impediments
to electronic commerce, including Federal legal and regulatory
impediments. In addition, the Committee will review and
consider issues relating to private-sector cyber security,
fraud, and other criminal issues confronting e-commerce.
TRADE
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will monitor and
examine both multilateral trade agreements (including World
Trade Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements as
those agreements relate to services within the Committee's
jurisdiction--including telecommunications, electronic
commerce, food and drugs, and energy. The Committee also will
examine non-tariff trade barriers, such as legal and regulatory
barriers, to electronic commerce and other services within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
TRAVEL AND TOURISM
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review issues
affecting the travel and tourism industries, as well as how the
industries, along with Federal and Federal governments, can
encourage and promote the United States as a travel destination
for international and domestic passengers.
SPORTS
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine issues in
the commerce of professional and amateur sports, including the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (and the recruiting of
athletes). The Committee will also examine the abuse of
steroids by amateur and professional athletes.
ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
During the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine
issues relating to national energy policy, including U.S.
policies that relate to production, supply, and consumption of
electricity, oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power,
nuclear power, and renewable energy. The Committee will examine
the impact of government policies and programs on the
exploration, production, and development of domestic energy
resources. The Committee also will examine global crude oil
supplies in light of potential supply interruptions, and
increasing competition from other countries for swing supply.
The Committee will examine other issues relating to the
nation's current energy infrastructure with a view towards its
expansion.
ELECTRICITY MARKETS
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review
electricity transmission policies of the Federal government to
promote competitive wholesale power markets, transmission, and
generation infrastructure upgrades, and compliance with
relevant statutes. It will examine the activities of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relating to
electric industry restructuring, protection of consumers, and
the development of efficient and vigorous wholesale markets for
electricity.
MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ITS NATIONAL LABORATORIES
The Committee will oversee management and operations issues
at the Department of Energy (DOE), including management and
operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) and the national laboratories. The Committee will also
review DOE management of the contractors that operate the
national laboratories. The Committee's oversight work will
include a review of the implementation of new nuclear security
requirements at NNSA and DOE facilities, ongoing safety and
security problems at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
Office of Environmental Management's accelerated cleanup
program and high-level waste management efforts, and DOE's
progress toward submitting a license application for Yucca
Mountain.
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Committee will review the activities of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee will examine NRC's
budget requests, conduct oversight of how the Commission
discharges its various responsibilities, and review whether the
Commission is an effective regulator of nuclear facilities. In
particular, the Committee will monitor closely the efforts of
NRC to fully implement new security requirements at commercial
nuclear power plants.
CLEAN AIR ACT
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review
significant activities regarding the Clean Air Act and the
success of various efforts in achieving improved air quality in
a manner that allows both administrative flexibility and
improved cost-effectiveness. The Committee's review will
include oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) strategies and actions to attain Clean Air Act standards.
ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES
EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 109th Congress, the Committee intends to conduct
its general oversight of the EPA, including review of the
agency's funding decisions, resource allocation, grants,
research activities, enforcement actions, relations with State
and local governments, and program management and
implementation.
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
efficiency, effectiveness, funding, and pace of progress of the
Superfund program. The Committee will review the EPA's
relationship to the States' toxic waste cleanup programs, and
whether Federal program reforms, additional funding, or
stronger enforcement under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act are necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste
sites. The Committee will conduct and review global hazardous
materials treaties which the United States is a signatory and
monitor compliance of these agreements with Federal and Federal
environmental laws and regulations.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
The Committee will review DOD's environmental activities
and ascertain its record of clean-up effectiveness, ongoing
monitoring, and compliance with Federal and Federal
environmental laws and regulations.
HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
management, operations, and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), including its implementation of relevant
statutes and regulations connected to its mission to ensure the
safety of drugs and the food supply. This will include the
review of issues connected to the approval process and post-
market surveillance of drugs and medical devices, as well as
issues surrounding the innovation and development of vaccines,
drugs, and devices.
CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
management, operations, and activity of the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), including its management
and oversight of the programs it administers. The Committee
will also examine and review Medicare and Medicaid management
and activity as it relates to ongoing Committee efforts to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal health care
programs.
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
management, operations, and activity of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, with particular focus on its work
relating to surveillance and prevention of disease outbreaks.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine the
National Institutes of Health's (NIH) organizational structure,
priority setting, and research activities. This effort will
include oversight of management and operations of internal NIH
programs as well as NIH-funded extramural research.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
During the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its
oversight of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) management
and operations, including the impact of its decisions and
actions on the U.S. economy and economic growth.
AVAILABILITY OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine the
availability of broadband technologies and the deployment of
broadband services and facilities. The Committee will also
evaluate the impact of the Communications Act and FCC
regulations on the deployment of new technologies, services,
and facilities, and whether the law and the regulations are
maximizing the incentives that all entities have to make
investments in broadband networks.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine the FCC's
universal service support policies and evaluate how these
policies can be modernized to reflect the redistribution of
communications traffic among new communications mediums, as
well as the efficacy of utilizing fixed and mobile wireless
technologies to reduce the costs of ensuring that high cost and
low income consumers have reasonable access to
telecommunications services. The Committee will also review
whether the program's structure and internal processes need to
be changed to control waste, fraud and abuse of Universal
Service funds.
DIGITAL TELEVISION
Congress gave each broadcaster an additional 6 MHz
allocation of spectrum in 1997 to transmit television in
digital format while they continue to provide analog broadcasts
on their original 6 MHz channels. Each television broadcast
licensee is supposed to return a 6 MHz channel and transmit
exclusively in digital by Dec. 31, 2006, or once 85 percent of
television households in the market can receive digital
channels, whichever is later. Some of that spectrum has been
earmarked for public-safety use upon return and some for
auction for advanced commercial services, such as wireless
broadband. In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine
the Commission's progress in completing the DTV transition.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FCC'S DECENCY REGULATIONS
During the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its
oversight of the FCC's enforcement of broadcast decency laws
and regulations, including examining how Congress and the FCC
can help broadcasters to reduce the level of indecent material
on television and radio.
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
During the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its
oversight of the FCC's management of the nation's spectrum. An
increasing portion of communications services utilize spectrum
to provide voice, video, and data services to consumers. The
Committee will evaluate the FCC's spectrum-management policies
to ensure that such policies are maximizing the use of the
public airwaves for innovative communications services.
HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee intends to review
infrastructure assurance efforts that affect areas within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will monitor Federal
government and private sector efforts at border crossings,
seaports, and mail facilities. The Committee's review will
analyze and assess Customs' and DOE's efforts and equipment
aimed at detecting and preventing the smuggling of dangerous
commerce, particularly nuclear and radiological weapons of mass
destruction.
BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the
implementation of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), and the coordination between
HHS and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to
setting priorities and goals for bioterrorism-related research
and preparedness activities.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS
During the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine
whether the communications needs of first responders are being
met. The Committee will examine the progress being made to
ensure that first responders have interoperable communications
capabilities with local, Federal, and Federal public safety
officials. The Committee will also consider whether first
responders have an adequate amount of spectrum for voice,
video, and data transmissions. In addition, the Committee will
conduct oversight regarding the implementation of Phase II E911
services, which enable Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)
to pinpoint the location of wireless subscribers who dial 911.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included a separate
legislative provision entitled the Federal Information Security
Management Act, which reauthorized and enhanced a government-
wide cyber security program under the direction of the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). During the 109th Congress, the
Committee will review efforts to ensure that Federal agencies
are complying with the cyber security provisions of the new
Homeland Security Act.
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
UNITED NATION'S OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its
investigation of the United Nation's Oil for Food Program.
FEDERAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT
As part of the Committee's oversight responsibilities
generally and as an expansion of its review of conflict-of-
interest policies in particular, the Committee will examine
ethics policies and practices at Federal agencies and
commissions within the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee
will also examine agency procurement practices and contracts,
as well as agency implementation of laws and regulations. The
Committee will also review agency risk assessment practices and
implementation of the Data Quality Act.
PART B
Implementation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Overisght Plan
for the 109th Congress
----------
COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES
THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review
the management, operations, rulemaking, and enforcement actions
of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As part of this
oversight, the Committee reviewed Commission activity with
regard to identity theft, as well as actions relating to false
and deceptive advertising and consumer protection efforts and
opportunities in general.
On June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Violent &
Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents & Protecting Children.
The hearing focused on the content of video games and the
system of rating those games. The Subcommittee received
testimony from the Federal Trade Commission, a large retailer,
the video game industry, the video games rating group, a
professor of risk analysis and decision science, an expert in
technology for children, and a media review public interest
group. Relatedly, on September 26, 2006, the Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight
hearing on Editing Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for
Families. The hearing focused on different methods and new
technologies that allow consumers to view movies while muting
or removing content that some viewers may find offensive or
unnecessarily explicit. The Subcommittee received testimony
from a consumer electronics company, the motion picture
industry, a representative of the creative community, and a
high-tech think tank.
On September 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Contact
Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the Prescription? The focus of
the hearing was the current state of the contact lens market.
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, the Attorney General of the State of Utah, a
contact lens retailer, a contact lens manufacturer, a
representative of the American Academy of Ophthalmology; and a
representative of the American Optometric Association.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
In the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no direct
oversight action, it continued to review the management,
operations, and activities of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) in safeguarding consumers, and particularly
children, from faulty or dangerous products.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review
the management, operations, and activities of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, particularly as they
pertain to motor vehicle-related safety. As part of this
oversight, on June 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The purpose of the hearing was to inform
Subcommittee Members about the pending reauthorization language
in the Senate Transportation bill, and the potential inclusion
of that language in the Transportation Conference report. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration, the insurance industry, the
automobile manufacturers, a public interest association that
deals with automobile issues, an interest group that
specializes in safety with regard to children.
On July 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Motor Vehicle
Technology and the Consumer: Views from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. The hearing was about new
technologies developing in the world of automobiles. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway
Traffic and Safety Administration.
INTERSTATE AND E-COMMERCE
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to examine
issues that substantially impact or affect interstate commerce,
with particular interest in activities that impede such
commerce. The Committee reviewed consumer information privacy
in the commercial context and also examined impediments to
electronic commerce, including Federal legal and regulatory
impediments. In addition, the Committee reviewed and examined
issues relating to private-sector cyber security, fraud, and
other criminal issues confronting e-commerce.
With regard to information privacy and related issues, on
March 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Protecting
Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint. The
purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to data
security and identity theft. The Subcommittee examined whether
existing law provides sufficient protection for consumer
information. The Subcommittee received testimony from the
Federal Trade Commission, two data brokers, a cybersecurity
expert, and an expert on privacy law. On May 11, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held
an oversight hearing on Securing Consumers' Data: Options
Following Security Breaches. This hearing continued the
Subcommittee's examination of consumer data security practices
and consumer identity theft. The Subcommittee's primary focus
was on whether existing law provides adequate protection for
consumers and their data. The Subcommittee received testimony
from two data brokers, a credit card company, a company
specializing in digital encryption, and a law professor.
Relatedly, in 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held three hearings regarding the Internet-based
data broker industry. The purpose of the hearings was to
examine the use by these data brokers and their subcontractors
of pretexting or ``social engineering''--that is, deceit,
impersonation, and fraud--to procure and sell consumers'
confidential cell phone calling records and other personal
consumer information, such as bank account activity or credit
card statements. A June 21 hearing focused on the actual data
brokers and how they acquire the information and to whom they
sell the records, and the Subcommittee received testimony from
three panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of one
witness who had been a victim of a data broker that repeatedly
procured his cell phone records without his consent. On the
second panel, two witnesses testified; the former owner of the
Colorado data broker Touch Tone Information, Inc., and a
``skiptracer'' who works for the repossession industry. The
third panel included eleven witnesses, all of whom were data
brokers that the Subcommittee had focused on during its
investigation. All eleven witnesses refused to testify, each
invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination. A June 22 hearing focused on (1) Federal efforts
to combat illicit data brokers and (2) the use of data brokers
by Federal and local law enforcement agencies to procure phone
records. The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels
of witnesses. The first panel consisted of two assistant
attorneys general--one from the Missouri Attorney General's
Office and another from the Florida Attorney General's Office.
The second panel consisted of representatives from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Department of
Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
During the third panel, police officers representing Miami-Dade
Police Department and the Austin (Texas) Police Department
testified. A September 29 hearing focused on progress made by
Federal agencies to combat illicit data brokers, as well as
steps being taken by the nation's largest wireless phone
carriers to protect consumers' phone records from pretexters.
The Subcommittee received testimony from four panels of
witnesses. The first panel's single witness was a private
investigator and frequent data broker customer for calling
records, who refused to testify on the basis of their Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination. The second panel's
single witness was a journalist for a major newspaper whose
phone records were procured by a pretexter. The third panel
consisted of representatives of the nation's six largest
wireless phone companies, including Cingular Wireless, Verizon
Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint Nextel, Alltel Wireless, and US
Cellular. The fourth panel received testimony from officials
from the FCC and the FTC.
On May 11, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Social
Security Numbers In Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with
Threats to Privacy. The hearing focused on privacy threats with
regard to the dissemination of Social Security Numbers. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade
Commission, the financial industry, an expert in pensions, a
lawyer, and an expert in consumer privacy. On June 20, 2006,
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
held an oversight hearing on Privacy in the Commercial World
II. The hearing focused on the state of privacy protections in
commercial transactions. The Subcommittee received testimony
from an online auction site, a think tank, a law professor, a
high-tech company, and an expert in consumer privacy.
In connection with the Committee's oversight of issues
affecting interstate commerce, on November 10, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held
an oversight hearing on the Right to Repair: Industry
Discussions and Legislative Options. The purpose of the hearing
was to examine the status of industry negotiations to reach a
non-legislative solution regarding the availability of service
and repair information. Specifically, the industry participants
held a series of meetings--facilitated by the Council of Better
Business Bureaus--during August and September 2005 in an effort
to reach agreement. Witnesses included the Federal Trade
Commission, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the
Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, the AAA Auto Repair Network, the Automotive
Service Association, the National Federation of Independent
Business, Association of International Automobile
Manufacturers, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, and
the National Automobile Dealers Association.
On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Law
and Economics of Interchange Fees. The hearing explored what
these fees are, how payment systems are structured, and how
they affect consumers, small businesses, and others. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the electronic payments
industry, the convenience store industry, a coalition of small
businesses, and a public interest group.
On March 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine Car
Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe
on the Road. Specifically, the Subcommittee examined the safety
and fraud aspects for consumers that results when a damaged car
receives a new title from another State that does not show the
damage and is then sold to consumers fraudulently representing
or hiding its actual condition. Witnesses described
alternatives to the Federal regulatory regimes and the previous
attempts to provide uniform Federal titling laws. The
subcommittee received testimony from witnesses representing a
State Department of Motor Vehicles, a consumer group, and
industry participants.
On March 29 and May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a two-part oversight
hearing exploring the intersection of the content industry and
the consumer electronics industry, both how they are
interdependent now and how they will continue to be in the
future. The March 29, 2006, hearing focused on the video side
of the industry, and the Subcommittee received testimony from
two consumer electronics companies, the motion picture
industry, and the video game industry. The May 3, 2006, hearing
focused on the audio side of the industry, and the Subcommittee
received testimony from a satellite radio company, the
recording industry, the broadcasters, the songwriters, and a
high-tech company.
TRADE
In the 109th Congress, the Committee monitored and examined
both multilateral trade agreements (including World Trade
Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements as those
agreements relate to services within the Committee's
jurisdiction--including telecommunications, electronic
commerce, food and drugs, and energy. The Committee also will
examine non-tariff trade barriers, such as legal and regulatory
barriers, to electronic commerce and other services within the
Committee's jurisdiction.
On April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Dominican
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. The Subcommittee
received testimony from the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative, a representative from the U.S. business
industry, a labor group, an advocate for free trade, American
manufacturers, the American sugar industry, an economics
professor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and an environmental
group.
On June 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on issues before
the JCCT. Under Secretary Dudas was Chair of the Intellectual
Property Rights Working Group of the JCCT and thus the focus of
the hearing centered on IP infringement to U.S. businesses that
are estimated to be $2.5 to 3.5 billion in lost sales in 2004.
Specifically, China's obligation as a member of the WTO and its
commitments to prevent piracy and protect IP were examined,
including China's commitments made at the prior meeting of the
JCCT. The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Jon W.
Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property,
Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
On Wednesday, June 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce,
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs,
Innovation, and Consumer Safety. The purpose of the hearing was
to examine issues related to the effects of product
counterfeiting on the U.S. economy and consumers. The
Subcommittee received testimony demonstrating the global
marketplace for counterfeit goods has increased to $600 billion
annually, regardless of quality of the product. The witnesses
also described the safety implications for consumers and
businesses who unknowingly buy or sell fake goods that do not
meet safety regulations, such as faulty brake pads and
counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Witnesses included representatives
from a range of businesses engaged in manufacturing consumer
products and pharmaceuticals, trade associations, and coalition
of businesses formed to combat counterfeiting.
On September 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing with the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to examine
issues related to ICANN. Specifically the Subcommittee examined
the trade-related issues of the current structure for U.S.
businesses and the consumer benefits of non multi national
governmental entity supervising or regulating the Internet, as
had been proposed by some countries. The Subcommittees received
testimony from the Department of Commerce, the chief executive
officer of ICANN, and representatives of the software and
information industry as well as public policy organizations.
In connection with its oversight of trade as it relates to
U.S. commerce in general, on June 29, 2006, the Committee on
Energy and Commerce will hold an oversight hearing on Growth,
Opportunity, Competition--America Goes to Work. The purpose of
the hearing was to explore the Department of Commerce's mission
to promote foreign and domestic commerce of the United States.
The Department of Commerce has taken the responsibility to
promote economic development and technological advancement in
the U.S. through its various programs and bureaus. The
Subcommittee received testimony from the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
TRAVEL AND TOURISM
In the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no direct
oversight action, it continued to monitor issues affecting the
travel and tourism industries, as well as how the industries,
along with Federal and Federal governments, can encourage and
promote the United States as a travel destination for
international and domestic passengers.
SPORTS
In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined issues in the
commerce of professional and amateur sports, including the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (and the recruiting of
athletes). The Committee will also examine the abuse of
steroids by amateur and professional athletes.
On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Steroids in
Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your Health. The
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
examined the effect of increased use and availability of
steroids on the health of the individuals and integrity of the
competitions. Additionally, the Subcommittee examined methods
to combat the use of steroids. Witnesses included a current
Congressman, a parent of a deceased high school athlete who
used steroids, health experts and researchers, the U.S. anti-
doping agency, and representatives of professional, collegiate,
and high school athletic leagues and associations. On December
7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection held an oversight hearing on Determining a Champion
on the Field: A Comprehensive Review of the BCS and Postseason
College Football. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the
current system for determining a national champion for Division
I college football. Included in the discussion of whether the
system was fair was the financial impact the bowl system and
BCS system have on BCS and non-BCS teams and conferences. The
Subcommittee received testimony from witnesses representing
bowl coalitions, athletic conferences, a university chancellor,
and individual bowls including a BCS bowl and a non-BCS bowl.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held three
hearings related to the nation's thoroughbred horse racing
industry. In particular, the purpose of the hearings was to
focus on the state of ``on-track'' injury insurance and other
health and welfare issues that are faced by jockeys, exerciser
riders, and other workers in the thoroughbred horse racing
industry. An October 18 hearing primarily focused on the
Jockeys' Guild--an association of licensed professional jockeys
that had historically taken care of its members' health
insurance and welfare needs, and also provided assistance to
permanently disabled riders. The hearing examined allegations
that under the leadership and direction of the Guild's then-
Chief Executive Officer, the Guild's management had improperly
canceled a catastrophic injury insurance policy, without
notice; and that the then-CEO had mismanaged the Guild's
finances, including several disability funds. The Subcommittee
received testimony from three panels of witnesses. On the first
panel, a former professional jockey who was permanently
paralyzed during a horse race at Mountaineer Park, in West
Virginia, and the jockey's wife, testified. The second panel
consisted of nine current or former professional jockeys,
including Hall of Fame riders, who were then or formerly
involved with management of the Guild. Three witnesses
testified during the third panel, including the Guild's then-
CEO, the Guild's Chief Operating Officer, and the Guild's
General Counsel. A November 17 hearing focused on efforts by
various stakeholders in the horse racing industry to improve
the health and welfare of jockeys and other workers, including
steps taken to establish better catastrophic insurance coverage
or create workers' compensation programs. The Subcommittee
received testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first
panel of seven witnesses consisted of representatives from five
of the nation's major race track companies, as well as the
Thoroughbred Racing Association and the National Thoroughbred
Racing Association. The second panel of ten witnesses included
representatives of: various trade associations for race horse
trainers, breeders, and owners; the Kentucky Racing Health &
Welfare Fund; the New York State Jockey Injury Compensation
Fund; the California Horse Racing Board; the Delaware
Thoroughbred Racing Commission; and the Jockeys' Guild. A May 9
hearing focused on the status of the Jockeys' Guild following
its November 15, 2005, decision by its Board of Directors to
fire the then-CEO and his management team, and to receive
further testimony from the head of racing at Mountaineer Park
race track. The Subcommittee received testimony from two panels
of witnesses. The first panel consisted of three witnesses--the
Guild's interim National Manager, the Guild's Chairman of the
Board, and the Guild's interim General Counsel. On the second
panel one witness testified; the Director of Racing at
Mountaineer Race Track & Gaming Resort, in Chester, West
Virginia.
ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
During the 109th Congress, the Committee examined issues
relating to national energy policy, including U.S. policies
that relate to production, supply, and consumption of
electricity, oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power,
nuclear power, and renewable energy. The Committee examined the
impact of government policies and programs on the exploration,
production, and development of domestic energy resources. The
Committee also examined global crude oil supplies in light of
potential supply interruptions and increasing competition from
other countries for swing supply. The Committee examined other
issues relating to the nation's current energy infrastructure
with a view towards its expansion.
As part of this oversight, on September 7, 2005, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing on
the impact and recovery efforts in States affected by Hurricane
Katrina. The hearing focused specifically on issues related to
energy and communications infrastructure. The committee
received testimony from the Department of Energy, the Energy
Information Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and
the Federal Communications Commission, the Governor of the
State of Mississippi, the State of Louisiana, consumer and
environmental advocates, and representatives involved in the
pricing of gasoline along the gasoline supply chain:
production, refining, pipeline, marketing, and futures trading.
On October 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss the EIA's
projections for the supply and price of crude oil, gasoline,
heating oil, diesel, natural gas, propane, coal and electricity
for this winter. The subcommittee received testimony from a
representative of the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
On November 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to investigate the supply and
cost of heating oil and natural gas for the winter season.
These two fuels are primarily used in heating American
households during the winter months. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Energy,
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,
representatives of the home heating industry, and advocates of
energy efficiency.
On December 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to address the challenges of
``peak oil,'' where the rate of world oil production will not
be able to increase. Experts believe the peak will occur as
early as the year 2025. The subcommittee received testimony
from Members of Congress, representatives of the Association
for the Study of Peak Oil, the Science Applications
International Cooperation, the Cambridge Energy Research
Associates and the Canadian Embassy.
On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
an oversight hearing on World Crude Oil Pricing. The hearing
examined the role of supply and demand fundamentals on world
oil pricing, as well as geopolitical concerns that also affect
price. The Committee received testimony from the Energy
Information Administration, Cambridge Energy Research
Associates, New York Mercantile Exchange, and the Government
Accountability Office.
On May 10 and 11, 2006, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce held an oversight hearing on gasoline supply, price,
and specifications in the wake of rising domestic gasoline
prices. The hearing focused on fuel specification transitions,
logistics, infrastructure, and transportation, and how boutique
fuels affect gasoline prices. The Committee received testimony
from representatives from Federal government and State and
local air quality officials. The Committee also received
testimony from the motor fuels industry, focusing on
production, refining, transportation, and retail sales.
On May 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing to describe and explore current
research into technologies developed for generating electricity
for the future. The hearing was an update for the members of
the subcommittee on renewable electric generation technologies
and the costs associated with such technology as well as
forecast the direction such research is heading. The
subcommittee received testimony from various government and
private representatives of the energy industry.
On May 24, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
held an oversight hearing to examine developments in next
generation vehicle and fuel technology. This included an
evaluation of hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles as well as the
use of diesel fuel, fuel cells, ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas
and coal-to-liquids. The subcommittee received testimony from
representatives of the Department of Energy, motor car
manufacturers, and representatives of the fuel industry.
In addition, on May 3, 2006, the Chairman of the Full
Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations wrote the five largest integrated oil companies
to gather information about each company's plans and priorities
for ensuring ample domestic oil refinery capacity and gasoline
supply. A shortage of domestic refining capacity was one of the
primary factors contributing to gasoline price spikes in the
Spring of 2006. The letters requested information concerning
historical capacity levels of each company's domestic
refineries, as affected by maintenance and other factors that
can temporarily restrict refinery supply, and information
concerning long-term priorities for expanding refinery capacity
and for providing a reliable and abundant supply of fuel in the
future.
In connection to the Committee's oversight of energy
infrastructure, on April 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality held an oversight hearing to oversee
implications of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 by
the Pipelines and Hazardous Material Safety Administration as
well as Federal and industry regulators in order to consider
reauthorizing the Act. The subcommittee received testimony from
the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation
Safety Board, the Government Accountability Office, the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and
the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives,
and from various advocates of the pipeline industry.
On September 7, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing regarding the crude oil
production pipelines on the North Slope of Alaska that are
operated and maintained by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BP).
The hearing focused on the issues surrounding the March 2,
2006, and August 6, 2006, oil spills from corroded crude oil
transmission pipelines for the Greater Prudhoe Bay Oil Field,
including issues related to the adequacy of BP's corrosion
control and monitoring program and BP's failure to inspect and
maintain the pipelines properly. The Subcommittee received
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel's three
witnesses included the Chairman and President of BP America,
Inc., the President of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., and the
former manager of the Corrosion, Inspection, and Chemicals
Group for BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. The second panel's two
witnesses were the head of U.S. Department of Transportation's
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation. The Subcommittee continued to examine issues
related to pipeline sludge, sediment, and corrosion. On October
6, 2006 the leadership of the Full Committee and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to
BP requesting further information about BP's prior knowledge of
sediment buildup in the transmission pipelines and the need to
conduct pigging operations in those lines.
ELECTRICITY MARKETS
In the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no direct
oversight action, it continued to review electricity
transmission policies of the Federal government to promote
competitive wholesale power markets, transmission, and
generation infrastructure upgrades, and compliance with
relevant statutes. It also continued to examine the activities
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relating to
electric industry restructuring, protection of consumers, and
the development of efficient and vigorous wholesale markets for
electricity.
MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ITS NATIONAL LABORATORIES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to oversee
management and operations issues at the Department of Energy
(DOE), including management and operations of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the national
laboratories. The Committee also reviewed DOE management of the
contractors that operate the national laboratories. The
Committee's oversight work included a review of the
implementation of new nuclear security requirements at NNSA and
DOE facilities, ongoing safety and security problems at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, the Office of Environmental
Management's accelerated cleanup program and high-level waste
management efforts, and DOE's progress toward submitting a
license application for Yucca Mountain.
As part of its oversight efforts, on February 9, 2005, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing on
the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal and
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The hearing focused on the
Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006, and also
on the Department of Energy's comments on the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. The Committee received testimony from the Secretary of
U.S. Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and representatives
of consumers, industry, and other stakeholders. On March 9,
2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held another
oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year
2007 Budget Proposal and received testimony from the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Energy.
On May 5, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review management concerns at
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The hearing reviewed a
wide range of ongoing management problems identified by the DOE
Inspector General (DOE IG) and the Defense Nuclear Facility
Safety Board (DNFSB), as well as more recent security and
safety problems that led to the shutdown of operations at LANL.
The laboratory was shut down due to the mishandling of
classified material and a major safety incident that resulted
in the partial blinding of an employee at LANL. In addition to
these problems, the DOE IG described ongoing weaknesses at LANL
including problems with project management, security, and
contract administration. The Chairman of the DNFSB described
significant and complex safety issues at the lab, and
identified several corrective actions needed to improve safety
at the laboratory.
On October 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to review GAO findings regarding
DOE's efforts to consolidate surplus plutonium inventories.
Consolidation of plutonium inventories to one site would reduce
significant health and safety issues and reduce large security
costs associated with storing this material in multiple
locations. For example, moving plutonium out of the Hanford
site would save the Department more than $85 million annually
in security costs at Hanford. GAO testified that DOE cannot
move forward with plans to consolidate plutonium inventories at
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina due to legal
impediments and insufficient storage areas at the site. GAO
recommended DOE develop a comprehensive plan to stabilize,
store, and dispose of plutonium inventories across the complex.
At the hearing, DOE testified that it would move forward and
develop a plan for plutonium consolidation within two years. On
May 1, 2006, the Committee sent a follow-up letter requesting
that GAO review the extent to which NNSA has sufficient storage
space to store and monitor plutonium pit storage containers at
Pantex safely and cost-effectively, and the effect of the
delays that NNSA is experiencing constructing the Pit
Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and the MOX Fuel
Fabrication Facility in its ability to dispose of surplus
weapons-grade plutonium permanently.
On January 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a field hearing in Paducah, Kentucky, to
review DOE operations at the Paducah site. The DOE Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management provided testimony on a
range of issues including environmental cleanup challenges at
the site, the conversion of approximately 490,000 tons of
depleted uranium hexafluoride, and DOE's plans to recycle 9,700
tons of scrap nickel at the site. The second panel consisted of
the President of Bechtel Jacobs, an environmental cleanup
contractor at Paducah, as well as representatives from the
Paducah community including the Mayor of Paducah and a local
labor union representing workers at Paducah. The hearing also
focused on DOE's implementation of Section 633 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, concerning the employee benefits of
contractor employees working at the Paducah and Portsmouth
sites. Section 633 provides that, when DOE changes its
contractors at Paducah or Portsmouth, the contractor employees
do not lose their accrued benefits. Subcommittee Members
expressed concern that DOE had not fully implemented this
section. Following the hearing, DOE clarified that it would
fully implement Section 633 for all affected employees.
On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss and review funding
options for the Yucca Mountain repository program including
guaranteeing that annual Nuclear Waste Fund payments are made
accessible to the program for funding purposes. The Nuclear
Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and its amendments of 1987
established Yucca Mountain as the primary site of long-term
nuclear waste disposal. In February of 2002, the President
recommended to Congress that Yucca Mountain undergo development
into a repository and instructed the Department of Energy to
proceed with construction licensing. On April 8, 2002, however,
the Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the House a
statement of disapproval regarding the proposed construction on
Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy was cleared to proceed
with construction when on May 8, 2002 the House passed H.J.
Res. 87, which overrode the objections voiced by the State of
Nevada. The subcommittee received testimony from the State of
Nevada as well as from both Federal and State government
organizations. Several other impediments may prevent the
completion of the site by the 2010 deadline. These include
establishment of a transportation program, acquiring Federal
land to surround the Yucca Mountain site, and construction
activities. The first goal of this hearing was to discuss and
establish funding options so the 2010 deadline is met.
Relatedly, on March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Air Quality held another oversight hearing to discuss the
status of funding for the development of Yucca Mountain into a
repository site for nuclear waste disposal. The subcommittee
received testimony from the Department of Energy. And on July
19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held an
oversight hearing to examine the Department of Energy's revised
schedule for the development of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear
waste repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Energy.
Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
has continued its review of DOE's efforts to submit a license
application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC. DOE missed its
December 2005 deadline for submitting the license application,
and had subsequently announced plans to submit the license
application by June 30, 2008, and open the repository by 2017.
On March 24, 2005, the Committee sent a letter to Energy
Secretary Bodman to obtain documents relating to falsification
of documentation by employees of the United States Geological
Survey at the Yucca Mountain project. The documentation in
question related to computer modeling involving water
infiltration and climate. The Department has taken several
steps to review and analyze the data in question to ensure that
the technical aspects of the repository license application are
not impacted.
Los Alamos National Laboratory is not alone in standing
down its facilities. In October 2004, the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center had a stand-down of operations for nearly 5
months following a serious electrical accident. Lawrence
Livermore Laboratory's Plutonium Facility, also operated by the
University of California, had a stand-down in January 2005
because of safety concerns, and resumed reduced activities only
in October 2005. On May 1, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent
a letter to GAO requesting a review of the safety performance
of the DOE's major laboratories. Specifically, we requested (1)
the safety records of these laboratories; (2) nuclear safety
violations and resulting penalties paid by the laboratories
under the Price Anderson Act; (3) the circumstances of recent
stand-downs, including the reasons for and duration of each
stand-down and the process for resuming activities; and (4)
actions taken by DOE to improve the safety performance of its
management and operating contractors.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued
its review of DOE's efforts to clean up 177 underground storage
tanks containing radioactive wastes at the Hanford site in
Richland, Washington. On July 12, 2005, the Full Committee
Chairman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Chairman sent a letter to Energy Secretary Bodman requesting
information on the cost and status of the construction of
vitrification plants for the immobilization of the high and
low-level radioactive wastes. DOE has failed to develop a
reliable cost and schedule baseline for the project. As a
result, the initial December 2000 cost estimate for the project
of $4.32 billion has grown to a recent cost estimate of $12.2
billion. DOE has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
validate these costs, and the Department is working towards
finalizing a baseline for the project by the Spring of 2007.
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Committee reviewed the activities of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee examined NRC's
budget requests, conducted oversight of how the Commission
discharges its various responsibilities, and reviewed whether
the Commission is an effective regulator of nuclear facilities.
In particular, the Committee monitored closely the efforts of
NRC to fully implement new security requirements at commercial
nuclear power plants. On June 16, 2006, the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review NRC's
reactor oversight process (ROP). NRC developed the ROP to
regulate the nuclear industry more effectively and efficiently,
by applying more objective, timely, and risk-informed criteria
when assessing nuclear plant performance. Under the ROP, few
nuclear plants have experienced significant safety performance
issues overall, and even fewer plants have experienced multiple
or repetitive degraded conditions. According to testimony from
GAO, of the 4,000 inspection findings between 2001 and 2005, 97
percent of these findings were of ``very low'' safety
significance. GAO also determined that NRC continues to make
improvements to its reactor oversight process in key areas. NRC
testified that it would continue to improve the ROP by
increasing its transparency and incorporate additional risk
informed measures.
CLEAN AIR ACT
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review
significant activities regarding the Clean Air Act and the
success of various efforts in achieving improved air quality in
a manner that allows both administrative flexibility and
improved cost-effectiveness. The Committee's review included
oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
strategies and actions to attain Clean Air Act standards. In
connection with this, on May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss and
evaluate the structure of the Administration's Clear Skies
Initiative. The goal of the hearing was to illustrate the
relationship of the Clear Skies Initiative and the Current
Clean Air Act and state the policy goals and principles of the
CSI. The subcommittee received testimony from the Council on
Environmental Quality and the EPA.
ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES
EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
During the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no
direct oversight action, it continued to conduct its general
oversight of the EPA, including review of the agency's funding
decisions, resource allocation, grants, research activities,
enforcement actions, relations with State and local
governments, and program management and implementation.
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee reviewed the
efficiency, effectiveness, funding, and pace of progress of the
Superfund program. The Committee also reviewed the EPA's
relationship to the States' toxic waste cleanup programs, and
whether Federal program reforms, additional funding, or
stronger enforcement under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act are necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste
sites. In connection with this, the Subcommittee on Environment
and Hazardous Materials conducted a two-part oversight hearing
to evaluate the proper definition of electronic waste and
investigate appropriate methods of regulation. On July 20,
2005, the Subcommittee discussed the status of both public and
private electronic waste programs in the United States as well
as the differences between three Federal enacted programs. The
Subcommittee received testimony from officials representing the
Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the States of Maryland, Maine, and California. On September
8, 2005, the Subcommittee resumed consideration of matters
related to interstate commerce issues raised by regulation of
electronic regulation of electronic waste, the role of the
private sector and non-profits in managing electronic waste,
and environmental concerns with the status quo. The
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of
electronics retailers, electronic product manufacturers,
recycling businesses, and environmental groups, and charitable
organizations.
On November 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to discuss the
consolidation of livestock and agriculture and evaluate the
risk agricultural inputs, products and byproducts put on the
environment. The subcommittee received testimony from officials
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other various
environmental and agricultural organizations.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
While it took now direct oversight action, the Committee
continued to review DOD's environmental activities and
ascertain its record of clean-up effectiveness, ongoing
monitoring, and compliance with Federal and Federal
environmental laws and regulations.
HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review
the management, operations, and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), including its implementation of relevant
statutes and regulations connected to its mission to ensure the
safety of drugs and the food supply. This included review of
issues connected to the approval process and post-market
surveillance of drugs and medical devices, as well as issues
surrounding the innovation and development of vaccines, drugs,
and devices.
On December 13, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing about strengthening efforts to
combat the sales of controlled substances over the Internet.
This issue involved the access to highly addictive controlled
substances, which can be imported by consumers of any age,
sometimes without a prescription or consultation with a
physician. Testimony primarily focused on current assessments
concerning the nature and extent of access to controlled
substances over the Internet, current actions being taken to
curtail such access, current restraints on further actions that
could be taken, and identification of possible actions that
would require Federal legislation, administrative action, or
private sector initiatives. The hearing featured two panels of
witnesses. The first panel included witnesses from the Federal
government: the GAO, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, and Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement
Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Assistant
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP); Director, Office of Drug Evaluation
II, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, FDA. The second panel included a witness from
IntegriChain, Inc.; a former official with FDA's Office of
Criminal Investigations; the Senior Vice President, Public
Policy, Visa, U.S.A., Inc.; an outside counsel on behalf of
Mastercard International; the Vice President, Corporate
Security, FedEx Corporation; the Corporate Security Manager,
UPS; the Senior Policy Counsel, Google; and Vice
President,Yahoo! Inc.
On May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing on the issue of generic drugs and their role
in decreasing health care costs for patients. The hearing
featured one panel of witnesses from advocacy groups and also
private industry.
As part of the Committee's ongoing oversight of drug safety
issues, in the previous Congress on June 10, 2004, the Full
Committee Chairman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations Chairman asked the GAO to conduct a review of
FDA's current organizational structure and decision-making
process for postmarket drug safety. In March 2006, the GAO
issued its report and concluded that the FDA ``lacks clear and
effective processes for making decisions about'' the safety of
medicines that millions of Americans rely on. Among the GAO's
findings: FDA's postmarket safety decision-making process is
``complex and iterative''; The agency ``lacks clear and
effective processes for making decisions about, and providing
management oversight of, postmarket safety issues''; GAO noted
a ``lack of criteria for determining what safety actions to
take and when to take them''; while recent initiatives, such as
the establishment of a Drug Safety Oversight Board, offer
promise, they do not address the ``lack of systemic tracking of
ongoing safety issues.''
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued
to investigate issues surrounding the withdrawal of a non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Cox-2 inhibitor called
rofecoxib, known commercially as Vioxx, by its manufacturer
Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). On September 30, 2004, Merck
publicly announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, a
medicine approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in treating
osteoarthritis and the management of acute pain in adults, and
later, for rheumatoid arthritis. The publicly reported reason
for this withdrawal was new data from a three-year clinical
trial that showed a two-fold increase in cardiovascular adverse
events in patients taking Vioxx. On November 23, 2004,
Committee Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote
Merck and the FDA to request more information and documentation
relating to: (1) FDA knowledge about these cardiovascular
adverse events associated with Vioxx, (2) when FDA learned
about this information, and (3) the action FDA took in response
to cardiovascular safety concerns associated with Vioxx. In
December 2004, Pfizer Inc., announced it was suspending sales
of Celebrex, also a Cox-2 inhibitor drug, based on some recent
data on cardiovascular events in an on-going study. Shortly
thereafter, the Committee wrote Pfizer requesting information
on adverse cardiovascular events occurring in patients that
took Celebrex and Pfizer's other marketed Cox-2 inhibitor,
Bextra. In spring 2005, the FDA advisory committee concluded
that Bextra should be removed permanently from the market,
based primarily on adverse skin reactions occurring with the
drug. Pfizer voluntarily agreed to remove Bextra from the U.S.
market. The FDA advisory committee agreed that Celebrex should
remain on the market with a black box warning concerning
cardiovascular events. Celebrex continues to be on the U.S.
market. The FDA committee was split on the recommendation
concerning Vioxx. However, Merck did not seek to reinstate
Vioxx to the worldwide market.
In addition, on August 16, 2005, the Full Committee
Chairman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Chairman wrote to FDA about a drug-safety issue arising from
the Committee's oversight of the FDA's regulatory decisions
concerning Palladone, described by FDA as ``a once-a-day pain
management drug containing a very potent narcotic.'' On July
13, 2005, the FDA requested Purdue Pharma, L.P. (``Purdue'') to
withdraw the painkiller prescription drug, Palladone, from the
market because of concerns that patients could die from taking
the drug together with alcohol. In reviewing how and why the
FDA approved and later requested the withdrawal of Palladone,
the Committee staff learned that while Palladone was still
marketed, FDA posted on its website only safety information
about the risks of alcohol interaction with Palladone as
reflected in the language of the labeling and medication
formally approved by the FDA. However, after approving
Palladone in September 2004 but prior to the product's launch
in November 2004, the FDA permitted Purdue under a special
process called a CBE (Changes Being Effected) supplement, to
use stronger labeling and medication guide language about the
alcohol risks shown in early results of studies conducted by
Purdue that began in early September 2004. That safety
language, which was in fact the actual labeling and medication
guide used in the marketing of Palladone, was reflected on
Purdue's website but not on the FDA's website. While there was
no final FDA approval for the Purdue label with the alcohol
warning language, the Committee requestors were concerned that
patients and practitioners who accessed the FDA website were
not informed of the most current safety risks of Palladone and
alcohol interaction. Updating such information even without
final FDA approval is vital to ensuring the safety of American
consumers taking prescription drugs. In furtherance of helping
the American public get the most current and accurate drug-
safety information from the FDA, the Chairmen's letter
requested the FDA to respond with (1) a list, as of July 1,
2005, of any other drugs besides Palladone for which the
labeling and medication guide information on the FDA website
has been superceded by new labeling and medication guide
information permitted under a CBE supplement but not finally
approved and (2) the specific actions taken by FDA to ensure
that the agency's website reflects the most current safety
information about approved drugs (or other FDA-approved
products generally). On October 20, 2005 the FDA sent a written
response, acknowledging that FDA's policy has been to post only
approved labeling on its website and that there may be a period
of time during which there may be a discrepancy between the
company's labeling and the FDA's posted labeling. The FDA noted
that the agency was considering a change to this policy to
address this issue. In September 2006, the FDA published a
draft guidance document for comment announcing to holders of
new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, or
biologics license applications who intend to submit a ``Changes
Being Effected'' supplement (CBE supplement) to make a post-
approval labeling change, that the FDA will make labeling
revisions identified in the CBE supplement publicly available
upon receipt of the supplement by FDA.
On August 7, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
the Attorney General of the United States, requesting that the
Department of Justice provide its updated views concerning the
application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)
to individuals operating outside the United States who sell
counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs to consumers in
the United States, and who cannot be prosecuted on other
statutory grounds.
On October 24, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations wrote to the
Acting Commissioner of the FDA about the adequacy of FDA's food
safety and food security efforts. In particular, the request
letter asked for certain information gained from the FDA's
Security and Surveillance Assignment conducted in 2004 and how
some of this information was leveraged to prevent and/or detect
outbreaks such as E. coli in spinach.
CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee reviewed the
management, operations, and activity of the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), including its management
and oversight of the programs it administers. The Committee
examined and reviewed Medicare and Medicaid management and
activity as it relates to ongoing Committee efforts to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal health care programs.
In connection with Medicaid, on Wednesday, June 15, 2005
the Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing
to examine the National Governors Association's (NGA) interim
Medicaid reform policy and continuing efforts to refine policy
proposals. There was one panel consisting of NGA Chairman and
Governor of the State of Virginia and NGA Vice Chairman and
Governor of the State of Arkansas.
On September 8, 2005 the Committee on Energy and Commerce
held an oversight hearing to examine Medicaid reform proposals
and explore how these proposals can improve beneficiary access
to health care services, create incentives for the better
utilization of existing services, improve health outcomes and
reduce instances of beneficiaries improperly transferring
assets in order to gain Medicaid coverage for institutional
care. The Committee heard testimony from several advocacy
groups and professional health service providers.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce also held a two-day
field hearing to provide Members of the Energy and Commerce
Committee with a forum within which to examine the impact of
illegal immigration on the health delivery systems of the areas
surrounding Brentwood, Tennessee, and Dalton, Georgia, and how
recent legislative efforts may impact this growing problem.
Specifically, witnesses at the field hearing provided testimony
on how Sec. 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Improved
Enforcement of Documentation Requirements) is being implemented
in Tennessee and Georgia, and any State plans to potentially
implement Sec. 6043 of the DRA (Emergency Room Co-payments for
Non-emergency Room Care). The first day of the field hearing
took place on August 10, 2006, in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the
Committee received testimony from Tennessee State
Representatives and Senators, CMS, Tenncare, and several local
hospitals. The second day of the hearing took place on August
15, 2006 in Dalton, Georgia. The Committee received testimony
from Georgia State Representatives and Senators, Georgia
Department of Human Resources (DHR), CMS, and several local
hospitals.
On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing that examined long-term care within the
context of Medicaid and entitlement spending generally and
explored ideas to promote private long-term care financing
options. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research
Service, and several other expert witnesses from the industry.
On May 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on specialty hospitals, particularly
the expiration of the moratorium on physician referrals to
specialty hospitals. The subcommittee received testimony from
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, the Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, and several doctors in the specialty hospital
profession.
On June 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing that examined the Medicaid payments for
prescription drugs. Witnesses at this hearing provided
information about options that the States and Federal
government have to ensure that there is more accuracy and
transparency in prescription drug payments in the Medicaid
program. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability
Office, and other Medicaid prescription drug experts.
On May 17, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing examining the growing number of options for
Americans to plan ahead for potential LTC costs thereby
delaying or avoiding Medicaid dependency. The hearing also
examined issues related to donated and paid care giving and
caregiver training. The subcommittee received testimony from
the National Council on Aging, American Health Insurance Plans,
American Council of Life Insurers, RTI International, AARP,
American Red Cross, Schmieding Center for Senior Health and
Education, and a union.
Under the 340B Drug Discount Program (340B Program), drug
manufacturers that participate in the Medicaid Program are
required to provide outpatient drugs to certain covered
entities at or below a specified ceiling price. These covered
entities include community health centers, public hospitals,
and various Federal grantees. Participating 340B entities spent
approximately $3.4 billion on outpatient drugs in calendar year
2003, roughly 1.7 percent of the U.S. drug market. The 340B
Program is administered by the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA), a division of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). On December 15, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to
examine problems with the oversight and administration of the
340B Program, as well as possible solutions to improve
efficiency and transparency. Many of the structural and
logistical problems with the 340B Program were detailed in an
October 2005 report prepared by HHS's Office of Inspector
General (OIG), including: (1) systemic problems with the
accuracy and reliability of the government's record of 340B
ceiling prices; (2) lack of detailed, written procedures for
calculating the 340B ceiling price; (3) lack of a system for
ensuring that participating entities receive the statutory
discount; (4) failure to compare the government's 340B ceiling
prices to those of the drug manufacturers; (5) lack of
necessary legislative, regulatory, or contractual authority to
enforce compliance; and (6) the inability of participating
entities to verify independently that they were paying at or
below the ceiling price due to confidentiality provisions.
Witnesses at this hearing included representatives of: (1) OIG;
(2) HRSA; (3) the Public Hospital Pharmacy Coalition; (4) the
340B prime vendor; and (5) GlaxoSmithKline, the only
pharmaceutical manufacturer which had agreed to provide ceiling
price calculations to the prime vendor.
As part of its continuing oversight of Medicaid
prescription drug reimbursement, the Full Committee Chairman
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent
a letter to the Medicaid directors of all 50 states on February
10, 2005, requested information to help understand what steps
each Federal was taking to control rising drug expenditures.
This letter asked the states to provide ingredient
reimbursement and dispensing fee information for 20 popular
brand and generic drugs, as well as a description of the steps
taken to control drug spending.
In the 109th Congress, the Committee also opened an
oversight inquiry into the practice of Medicaid estate
planning. This practice involves potential Medicaid recipients
using a variety of wealth transfers and methods to alter assets
and income streams to obtain eligibility for Medicaid nursing
home coverage. On April 27, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote
the Medicaid officials of the 50 states to learn the extent and
nature of actions the states have been taking with regard to
Medicaid estate planning.
With regard to Medicare, on November 17, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on Medicare
physician payment. The hearing focused on Medicare fee-for-
service payments for physicians in 2006 and beyond and assessed
their impact on beneficiary access to health care. In addition,
the hearing provided a forum for discussing how to design a
more stable reimbursement system that controls over utilization
of services while ensuring patients receive efficient and
effective quality health care. The subcommittee received
testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission (MedPAC), and several specialty surgeons and
researchers.
On March 1, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on the implementation of the new
Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The subcommittee
received testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), experts, a beneficiary, and
a representative from a State Governor's office.
On May 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an
oversight hearing focusing on the concerns raised by
pharmacists in recent months. The pharmacists expressed
concerns regarding services rendered under the new Medicare
Part D prescription drug benefit. Specifically, pharmacists
assert that prescription drug plans (PDPs) are not promptly
reimbursing pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions. In
addition, pharmacists allege that the Medication Therapy
Management (MTM) program as prescribed by the Medicare
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) is not being effectively
administered and could be improved. Pharmacists also voiced
concerns with regard to the listing of pharmacies on the
beneficiary Part D card (referred to as ``co-branding''). Long-
term care pharmacists raised implementation concerns specific
to the long-term care population including: network access
issues, compliance with CMS marketing guidelines, and delays in
payment due to glitches in Part D dual eligible enrollment. The
subcommittee received testimony from the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services and several industry leaders in the
pharmacist's community.
On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of
the community health center program, which operates under
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, in reaching the
medically underserved. Community health centers play a critical
role in the nation's healthcare safety net. At the time of the
hearing, more than 900 community health centers provided a
spectrum of primary health care services through 3,600 urban
and rural sites located in every Federal and territory.
According to the Bureau of Primary Healthcare, community health
centers in 2003 treated more than 12 million people in
medically underserved areas, including 4.8 million uninsured
people. The hearing sought to examine various aspects of the
program, including the Federal grant process, the role of
Medicaid and Medicare, and ways to improve the delivery of care
to the medically underserved. The Subcommittee took testimony
from two panels of witnesses, consisting of the Administrator
of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the
Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations,
representatives of community health centers, a Federal primary
care association, and a primary care policy analyst. In
connection with the Subcommittee's oversight of the community
health center program, on March 21, 2005, the Subcommittee
Chairman requested the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to study how community health centers improve public
health and help reduce health care costs overall. The study is
expected in the 110th Congress.
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review
the management, operations, and activity of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, with particular focus on its
work relating to surveillance and prevention of disease
outbreaks.
As part of this oversight, on May 4, 2005, the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to determine the
state of readiness of the United States for the 2005-2006 flu
season. The hearing served to build upon a related
investigation and hearing six months earlier, conducted in the
108th Congress. That hearing related to news in October 2004
that Chiron, one of the country's two largest producers of
influenza vaccine, would not provide any of its planned 46-48
million doses of flu vaccine to the United States. These events
prompted Committee review of preparations for the upcoming flu
season and beyond. The Subcommittee heard from a single panel,
comprised of the Directors of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), the National Vaccine Program Office, and
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). Relatedly, on May 26, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing in regard to
pandemic flu. The hearing stressed that States have a major
role in the event of a pandemic and are preparing for it by
developing pandemic influenza plans or revising existing plans
to be stronger and more effective. The key elements of these
plans include surveillance, vaccination, antiviral drug use,
community containment measures, communications, response of the
health care system, and ability to maintain essential public
services. The subcommittee received testimony from the
Department of Health and Human Services, the National
Institutes of Health, the Government Accountability Office, and
expert witnesses in the pandemic flu community.
Hospital-aquired infections (HAIs) are a major health
problem in the United States, resulting in 90,000 deaths and
$4.5 billion in excess healthcare costs annually. In an effort
to reduce these figures, six states have recently passed
legislation requiring mandatory public reporting of hospital-
acquired infection rates, and more than 20 other states have
been studying this issue or have legislation pending. The CDC
currently tracks HAI data, but participation in this program is
voluntary, and the CDC does not make public data for individual
hospitals. On March 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing to examine whether public
reporting is an effective mechanism for reducing HAIs, and
whether it is necessary and appropriate to develop and
implement uniform national standards that will provide
consumers with meaningful, scientifically sound data. Witnesses
at this hearing included: an individual who helped drive
passage of the Missouri public reporting law after his son
contracted a serious HAI; the Director of the CDC's National
Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Healthcare Quality
Promotion; the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Health
Care Cost Containment Council; the Executive Director of the
Michigan Hospital Association's Keystone Center for Patient
Safety and Quality; and representatives of several major
hospitals from whom the Subcommittee had requested HAI data.
On October 23, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to
the Director of the CDC to request a briefing on the
reorganization of the CDC. In addition, the request letter
asked for a draft internal assessment of CDC's financial
management office, information about CDC's systems for tracking
human tissue samples, and information about CDC's systems for
tracking certain property.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined the National
Institutes of Health's (NIH) organizational structure, priority
setting, and research activities. This effort included
continued oversight of management and operations of internal
NIH programs as well as NIH-funded extramural research.
On July 19, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held
an oversight hearing on legislation to reauthorize the NIH. The
National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the Federal government's
principal medical research agency, armed with a mission to
advance research in pursuit of fundamental knowledge that will
lead to better health outcomes for all. Funding for the NIH
represents nearly half of the discretionary budget of the
Department of Health and Human Services. The Director of NIH
was the only witness. On March 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Health held an oversight hearing to examine how the Office of
the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) manages
the research portfolio of the 27 distinct research Institutes
and Centers that form the NIH. Because the organizational
structure of NIH largely determines how NIH research priorities
are set and budgets determined, this hearing highlighted how
the authority of the NIH Director impacts the management of the
agency and the allocation of resources. The subcommittee
received testimony from the Director of NIH. On September 19,
2006 the Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight
hearing to encourage legislation on NIH reauthorization. The
Committee received testimony from Johns Hopkins Medicine, the
American Heart Association, the American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB), and the Association of American
Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Director of the NIH.
With regard to research activities, on December 8, 2005,
the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing examining
Federal research efforts for pulmonary hypertension and chronic
pain. The purpose of this hearing was to raise awareness about
chronic pain and pulmonary hypertension and examine what the
National Institutes of Health and others are doing to study
these conditions and improve patient outcomes. The subcommittee
received testimony from experts in these areas and also
witnesses suffering from hypertension and chronic pain. On June
28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing
on mental health and brain disease. This hearing focused on
treatment for and recovery from severe mental illness (also
called brain disease). The hearing helped to raise public
awareness about the biological nature of mental illnesses; to
reduce the stigma associated with severe mental illnesses such
as depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia; to inform
the public of effective treatment and prevention measures for
mental illnesses; to emphasize the hope of recovery for those
struggling with severe mental illness; and to highlight current
research initiatives in the mental health field. The
subcommittee received testimony from the National Institute of
Mental Health, university professors, and three witnesses, all
of whom have been affected by severe mental illness.
With regard to management and operations oversight, on June
13, 2006, and on June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held hearings about how the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) deals with human tissue samples in
its intramural research programs. The focus of the hearings
concerned a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
scientist who had personally received $285,000 in compensation
from a drug company for activities that were derived directly
from his official acts in providing the company access to
spinal fluid samples and plasma samples (over 3000 tubes of NIH
property and linked clinical data) and who had also used NIH
employees and resources to provide such access. The hearing on
June 13th featured a witness from the National Institute on
Aging who had raised with Committee staff the issue about the
adequacy of NIH policies on human tissue samples, and about the
NIMH scientist's handling of samples. The hearing on June 14th
featured three panels of witnesses. The first panel included
the Director of the NIMH, accompanied by the NIMH Clinical
Director, the NIMH Executive Officer, and the NIMH Technology
Transfer Officer; and an Alzheimer's disease researcher
formerly with Pfizer, Inc. The second panel included the NIMH
scientist and his database manager formerly with NIMH. The
witnesses on this panel appeared pursuant to a subpoena to
testify and exercised their constitutional rights against self-
incrimination. The third panel featured the Deputy Director for
Intramural Research, NIH. On September 13, 2006, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings
about continuing ethics and management concerns at the NIH and
the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (``Commissioned
Corps''). The hearing featured one panel of witnesses: the
Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS, who testified on issues
involving the Commissioned Corps; the Deputy Director of the
NIH; the Director of the NIMH; the Executive Officer and Deputy
Ethics Counselor at NIMH; and the Director of the National
Cancer Institute (NCI).
Relatedly, the Committee pursued several oversight
investigations connected to NIH management and operations in
the 109th Congress. On August 8, 2005, the Full Committee
Chairman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Chairman requested a GAO study of internal control procedures
over conflicts of interest, involving employees of the NIH, NIH
contractors, and outside experts. The GAO is undertaking the
request, with a focus on the rules of recusal at the NIH for
employees, contractors, and outside experts, and a description
of the structures that are in place for the application,
monitoring, and enforcement of the rules of recusal among NIH
institutes and centers.
On October 14, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman wrote to
the GAO, requesting that the GAO examine certain parts of NIH's
procedures for obtaining leases for real property. The GAO
issued its report in September 2006. It found that the NIH
implemented a formal leasing process that, if carried out
effectively, should comply with budget scorekeeping guidelines
and OMB's requirements for classifying operating and capital
leases. This process should ensure that no Antideficiency Act
violations occur due to leasing. However, NIH had taken no
action to address five prospectus-level leases that were not
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in past
years. On September 20, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote
to the HHS Inspector General to request that the OIG determine
if Federal taxpayer dollars have been used by Federal
universities to compensate graduate research assistants for
tuition remission rather than for their actual work on programs
funded by the NIH. In addition, it was requested that, to the
extent such use of funds is substantiated, the OIG determine if
such compensation practices violate any Federal law,
regulation, or policy, or an inappropriate use of taxpayer
dollars. The OIG agreed to conduct a nationwide, randomized
audit of graduate student compensation as a first step to
examine this issue.
In addition, in an August 16, 2005 article, The Wall Street
Journal examined allegations that universities misuse Federal
grant money received from the NIH. Some of these allegations
have resulted in recent multi-million dollar settlements
between NIH university grantees and the U.S. Department of
Justice. For example, in a complaint-in-intervention filed June
15, 2005, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
of New York (U.S. Attorney's office) alleged that a university
grantee failed to comply with NIH guidelines for clinical
research programs and made false statements in applications to
NIH for renewal of its General Clinical Research Center grant.
In particular, the U.S. Attorney's office highlighted the
disparities between the number of research activities projected
by the grantee in its grant applications or grant continuation
applications to NIH, and the actual number of research
activities performed by the grantee after receiving the NIH
grant money, as reflected in the grantee's internal data, and
to some extent, the grantee's annual progress reports submitted
to NIH. In light of concerns such as those alleged by the U.S.
Attorney's office, the Full Committee Chairman and the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman requested
on September 20, 2005 that the HHS OIG examine whether there
are widespread disparities between the numbers of research
activities grantees projected to obtain taxpayer funds from the
NIH and the numbers of research activities actually performed
with these funds. To that end, it was further requested that
the OIG conduct an audit of some of the largest NIH clinical
research center grants to review the number of research
activities each respective institution projected to the NIH and
what research activities these institutions actually performed.
Given that the General Clinical Research Grant program is being
phased out, the OIG told the Committee staff that the issues
raised in the request letter were being pursued in ongoing work
and that the OIG would consider an audit of this kind with
respect to the Clinical Translational Science Awards program.
On April 29, 2004, the bipartisan leadership of the Full
Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
sent the NIH a request concerning questions raised about the
findings of the HIVNET 012 study. In 1997, the Division of
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, National Institute for
Allergies and Infectious Diseases, sponsored HIVNET 012, a
trial comparing two drugs, nevirapine and zidovudine (AZT), and
their efficacy in the prevention of transmission of Human
Immunodeficiency Virus from mother to child. The findings of
this landmark study were relied upon in the establishment of
global strategies for addressing the AIDS crisis. The Committee
asked the NIH to answer the following question: After a
comprehensive review of all records and information relating to
HIVNET 012, does NIH stand behind the findings of HIVNET 012?
In response to the Committee's request, the NIH Director asked
NIH staff to review the records and information relating to the
HIVNET 012 study and other related studies. On July 12, 2004,
the NIH Director informed the Committee that he had decided to
ask the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a more detailed
independent review of the HIVNET 012 study process. The IOM
released its report on the HIVNET 012 study on April 7, 2005.
The Committee staff also received a briefing by members and
staff of the IOM on the IOM's review of the HIVNET 012 study.
Based on that briefing and on that IOM committee report, the
Committee staff were satisfied that the data and findings
presented in the published papers can, as the report said, ``be
relied upon for scientific and policy-making purposes.''
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
During the 109th Congress, the Committee conducted
oversight of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) management
and operations, including the impact of FCC's decisions and
actions on the U.S. economy and economic growth.
As part of this oversight, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held a series of hearings
to explore the changing telecommunications marketplace and the
regulatory treatment of broadband services. On February 9,
2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held an oversight hearing on the impact of Internet Protocol-
Enabled Services on the communications industry. The witnesses
provided a broad overview of their IP products and how IP
technology has enabled them to seamlessly offer voice, video,
and data services on a converged platform. The Subcommittee
received testimony from executives of telecommunications
equipment manufacturers. On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on competition in the communications marketplace. This hearing
focused on how Internet Protocol (IP) and broadband
technologies have changed the dynamics of the communications
industry by (1) enabling the same suite of voice, video, and
data services to be offered over different network platforms
and (2) permitting entry into these markets by ``virtual''
operators that use IP to provide applications such as Voice
over IP (VoIP) to consumers who subscribe to broadband
services. These trends have resulted in a ``hollowing out'' of
some traditional telephone market segments such as residential
and enterprise long-distance telephone service as well as
residential local exchange service. These industry trends have
also led service providers with complementary IP and broadband
assets to merge. The Subcommittee received testimony from
industry executives, industry analysts, public policy, and
research organizations. On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on the impact of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
on the communications industry. This hearing examined the
public policy issues related to the provision of VoIP services.
The Subcommittee received testimony from executives of
communications providers, and, and the Greater Harris County
911 Emergency Network. In addition, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on April 20, 2005, regarding the impact of Internet Protocol
(IP) on video and data services. This hearing examined the
public policy issues surrounding the delivery of video and data
over broadband networks. The Subcommittee received testimony
from executives of the communications industry. On April 27,
2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing on government officials'
perspectives on the impact of IP technology on the
communications sector. The Subcommittee received testimony from
government officials representing State and local regulatory
bodies and a consumer group representative.
On April 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing to examine the ORBIT
Act and the progress made in privatizing the satellite
communications marketplace. The hearing examined how the
satellite marketplace has changed since the implementation of
the ORBIT Act, and whether Intelsat and Inmarsat should be
permanently certified to be privatized. The Subcommittee
received testimony from officials of the Federal Communications
Commission and the Government Accountability Office, as well as
executives of the satellite industry.
On January 23, 2006, Full Committee Chairman Barton,
Ranking Member Dingell, Telecommunications and the Internet
Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
Markey sent a letter to FCC Chairman Martin to ask when the
review of the Electronic Privacy Information Center petition
will be complete, and to determine what actions should be taken
in response to the petition. The Members also requested the
Commission to forward the last annual certifications from the 5
largest wireline and wireless carriers regarding their privacy
policies, and their accompanying statements explaining how
their internal procedures protect the confidentiality of
consumer information.
On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the fraudulent
sale of telephone records. The Committee received testimony
from government officials from the Federal Communications
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General
of Illinois, and representatives of telecommunications
providers and privacy groups.
On April 4, 2006, House Speaker Hastert, House Majority
Leader Boehner, and Full Committee Chairman Barton, sent a
letter to FCC Chairman Martin requesting the Commission respond
to questions regarding what the FCC is doing to prohibit Caller
ID spoofing and whether the FCC has the statutory authority to
enact regulations banning this type of fraud. The Members asked
the Commission to make recommendations for Congress concerning
the authority the FCC would need to combat this type of fraud.
AVAILABILITY OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to examine
the availability of broadband technologies and the deployment
of broadband services and facilities. The Committee also
evaluated the impact of the Communications Act and FCC
regulations on the deployment of new technologies, services,
and facilities, and whether the law and the regulations are
maximizing the incentives that all entities have to make
investments in broadband networks.
As part of this oversight, on June 7, 2006, Chairman Barton
and Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman
Upton wrote a letter to Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Martin opposing any FCC order imposing multicast must-
carry requirements on cable operators or other multichannel
video programming distributors. The letter pointed out that
allowing each broadcaster to force video distributors to carry
multiple streams of a broadcaster's programming would be
inconsistent with language in the Communications Act limiting
the must-carry right to each broadcaster's primary video
transmission. Congress would need to amend the statute before
the FCC could require otherwise. The letter also stated that
the balance between the carriage of broadcast and non-broadcast
programming should be left to consumer preferences and market
forces.
On July 19, 2006, Chairman Barton, Telecommunications and
the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Reps. Deal and
Bass hosted a roundtable discussion on retransmission consent.
Under the retransmission consent rules, a television
broadcaster may seek monetary or non-monetary compensation in
exchange for allowing a cable or satellite operator to transmit
the broadcaster's signal to subscribers. Some cable operators,
satellite providers, and independent programmers criticize
certain broadcasters' practices of conditioning carriage of one
channel on carriage of another. The critics argue that such
practices make it harder for video programming distributors to
tailor their program offerings, and for independent programmers
to gain carriage on the systems of such distributors. Broadcast
networks and affiliates counter that retransmission consent is
simply a negotiation based on the value of the programming, and
that regulating the prices, terms or conditions of that
negotiation would be an unwarranted interference with market
forces and the right to contract. They also point out that they
often make an offer of stand-alone carriage in exchange for
cash, but that the cable and satellite operators usually prefer
not to pay money. Moreover, they contend that the bundling of
programming can help launch new programming. Representatives of
cable programmers, broadcast networks, broadcast affiliates,
cable operators, and satellite providers participated in the
roundtable.
UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM
In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined the FCC's
universal service support policies and evaluate how these
policies can be modernized to reflect the redistribution of
communications traffic among new communications mediums, as
well as the efficacy of utilizing fixed and mobile wireless
technologies to reduce the costs of ensuring that high cost and
low income consumers have reasonable access to
telecommunications services. The Committee also reviewed
whether the program's structure and internal processes need to
be changed to control waste, fraud and abuse of Universal
Service funds.
On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations held a hearing on Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) management and oversight of the E-rate
program. The E-rate program is the portion of the Universal
Service Fund set up to subsidize telecommunications and
Internet service and infrastructure in qualified schools and
libraries. The hearing examined findings and recommendations by
a GAO review of FCC's management of the program. This review
was initiated at the request of the Full Committee and
Subcommittee Chairmen in the previous Congress during the
Subcommittee's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in
the program. The Subcommittee took testimony from one panel of
witness, representing the GAO, the FCC, and the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) of the FCC. On October 6, 2005, the
Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the FCC's plans for E-
rate program relief to Gulf Coast communities recovering from
the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. The Subcommittee took
testimony from the FCC Inspector General, the Chief of the
FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, the CEO of the Universal
Service Administrative Company (USAC), which administers the E-
rate program, and the State E-rate Coordinator for the
Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services.
Relatedly, and in culmination of the Subcommittee of
Oversight and Investigations' two-year investigation into the
E-rate program, the Subcommittee held a business meeting on
October 18, 2005, at which it unanimously adopted the bi-
partisan staff report, ``Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in
the E-rate Program,'' which detailed findings and
recommendations from the investigation to help guide reform of
the E-rate program.
More broadly, on June 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing
on the Federal high-cost portion of the universal service
support mechanisms. Competition and technology have begun to
erode the existing universal service system, and, in the long
term, current universal service policies do not seem
sustainable. The hearing focused on current and future funding
mechanisms used to support consumers in all regions of the
Nation to ensure that access to and rates for
telecommunications services are reasonably comparable to those
in urban areas. The Subcommittee received testimony from
Federal and State regulatory bodies as well as large and small
telecommunications companies.
DIGITAL TELEVISION
Congress gave each broadcaster an additional 6 MHz
allocation of spectrum in 1997 to transmit television in
digital format while they continue to provide analog broadcasts
on their original 6 MHz channels. Each television broadcast
licensee is supposed to return a 6 MHz channel and transmit
exclusively in digital by Dec. 31, 2006, or once 85 percent of
television households in the market can receive digital
channels, whichever is later. Some of that spectrum has been
earmarked for public-safety use upon return and some for
auction for advanced commercial services, such as wireless
broadband. In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined the
Commission's progress in completing the DTV transition. On
February 17, 2005, The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
the Internet held an oversight hearing regarding the expected
costs of digital-to-analog converter boxes and various
potential digital-to-analog converter-box programs from
representatives of the electronics and broadcasting industries,
and the Government Accountability Office. On March 10, 2005,
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an
oversight hearing regarding consumer education efforts for the
DTV transition. The Committee received testimony from
representatives of the retailers and consumer groups.
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FCC'S DECENCY REGULATIONS
During the 109th Congress, while it took no direct
oversight action, the Committee monitored FCC's enforcement of
broadcast decency laws and regulations, including examining how
Congress and the FCC can help broadcasters to reduce the level
of indecent material on television and radio.
SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT
During the 109th Congress, while it took no direct
oversight action, the Committee monitored the FCC's management
of the nation's spectrum. An increasing portion of
communications services utilize spectrum to provide voice,
video, and data services to consumers. The Committee continued
to evaluate FCC's spectrum-management policies to ensure that
such policies are maximizing the use of the public airwaves for
innovative communications services.
HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review
infrastructure assurance efforts that affect areas within the
Committee's jurisdiction. On March 18, 2005, the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review
security initiatives at DOE nuclear facilities. In the
aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, physical security
requirements at DOE and NNSA sites were dramatically increased
to reflect the possibility of large attacks with terrorist that
are willing to die to inflict massive damage. The hearing
reviewed the implementation of several ongoing security
initiatives at NNSA sites, and specifically reviewed security
problems that led to the shutdown of operations at the LANL.
The shutdown at LANL was also the subject of a subsequent
hearing on May 5, 2005. The Administrator of NNSA provided
testimony on NNSA's progress on improving physical security and
the security of classified material. The Director of the Office
of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, DOE, outlined
several security issues that needed greater attention,
including cyber security, technology deployment, and the
consolidation of nuclear materials. The Director of LANL
provided testimony regarding major incidents that led to the
shutdown of the laboratory, including the mishandling of
classified removable electronic media.
On January 31, 2005, the Full Committee leadership along
with the leadership of the Committee on Homeland Security sent
a letter to GAO to conduct a review of the vulnerabilities of
foreign and domestic maritime energy transport infrastructure
to terrorist attack, and efforts by governmental and private
sector entities to reduce these vulnerabilities through
enhanced security, planning, and other prevention,
preparedness, and response activities. Although there is no
known terrorist threat to domestic energy transportation
infrastructure, there have been several attacks in Iraq and the
Middle-East. A successful attack could have significant public
health and economic consequences.
NUCLEAR SMUGGLING
In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor
Federal government and private sector efforts at border
crossings, seaports, and mail facilities. On May 24, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to
review the DOE's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), a
program to secure high-risk nuclear and radiological materials
around the world that could pose a threat when used in a
radiological dispersion device (RDD or ``dirty bomb'') or in an
improvised nuclear device. Witnesses from DOE and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) described efforts to recover
vulnerable, high-risk nuclear material worldwide. Domestically,
GTRI has targeted 25 research reactors for conversion from
high-risk HEU fuel to lower-risk LEU fuel. DOE and NRC also
discussed their working relationship to identify and secure
radiological sources located in the United States, including
new security requirements for medical and research facilities,
and manufacturers of sealed radioactive sources.
BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
In the 109th Congress, while it took no direct oversight
action, the Committee reviewed implementation of the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act
of 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and the coordination between HHS and the Department of Homeland
Security with respect to setting priorities and goals for
bioterrorism-related research and preparedness activities.
In addition, and in connection with oversight of
bioterrorism preparedness and response, on April 6, 2006, the
Subcommittee on Health had an oversight hearing to lay out
where the current Project Bioshield Act of 2004 stands in
relation to other Federal program activities to research,
develop, and acquire countermeasures for chemical, biological,
radiological and nuclear threats. The subcommittee received
testimony from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, the U.S. Department of Defense, and professionals in
the biosecurity and biotechnology industries.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS
During the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to
examine whether the communications needs of first responders
are being met. As part of this oversight, on September 29,
2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
held an oversight hearing on the U.S. public safety
communications infrastructure and how much progress has been
made since September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina in making
that infrastructure more robust and interoperable. The hearing
examined the major gaps in communications among Federal, State,
and local officials, the spectrum needs of our Nation's first
responders, interoperable emergency communications networks,
and the vulnerability of these networks during emergencies. The
Subcommittee received testimony from Federal government
officials, State and local officials, commercial mobile service
providers, and equipment manufacturers.
IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENTWIDE CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included a separate
legislative provision entitled the Federal Information Security
Management Act, which reauthorized and enhanced a
governmentwide cyber security program under the direction of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During the 109th
Congress, the Committee reviewed efforts to ensure that Federal
agencies are complying with the cyber security provisions of
the new Homeland Security Act. On September 13, 2006, the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an
oversight hearing on cybersecurity and what can be done to
protect America's critical infrastructure, economy, and
consumers. The hearing focused on whether the U.S., public and
private sectors are prepared to respond to and recover from a
major Internet disruption, and the impact of such a disruption
on U.S. business today. The hearing also examined the recent
GAO report that expressed concerns regarding the Department of
Homeland Security's capabilities to prevent and mitigate
cyberattacks. The Subcommittee received testimony from Federal
government officials and representatives of Internet security
organizations.
In addition, on June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations held a hearing to review cyber security
challenges at DOE. The first panel of witnesses included the
DOE Inspector General, and the Director of DOE's Office of
Security and Safety Performance Assurance, who described
several internal and external reviews that identified
significant weaknesses in both the management processes and the
operational controls relied upon to protect the unclassified
information systems vital to DOE operations. At the hearing,
the Subcommittee revealed that a cyber attack at National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) site resulted in the
removal of a file with personal information on over 1,500 NNSA
contractor employees, including their social security numbers.
The Administrator of NNSA, testified that although he had been
aware of the stolen personnel information for several months,
he only informed the Secretary of the breach two days before
the Subcommittee hearing. After the hearing, NNSA took
immediate steps to inform each employee whose personal
information had been stolen. In response to overall weaknesses
in the Department's cyber security program, the DOE's Chief
Information Officer testified that he had developed a 12-month
plan to revitalize the DOE cyber security posture. The NNSA
Director and the DOE Under Secretary for Energy, Science, and
Environment described their own efforts to improve cyber
security. The DOE IG and the Director for the Office of
Security and Safety Performance Assurance testified that they
will continue to evaluate the status of DOE cyber security
systems.
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
UNITED NATION'S OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM
In the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its
investigation of the United Nation's Oil for Food Program. The
Committee's oversight of the United Nations' Oil-for-Food
Program (the Program) began in the 106th Congress. As part of
this oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations launched an in-depth investigation into abuses
of the Program by the former Iraqi Regime of Saddam Hussein
(the Regime) during the 108th and 109th Congresses. This
investigation revealed that the Regime exploited lax oversight
of the Program and political divisions within the United
Nations to enrich itself at the expense of the Iraqi
population. The Subcommittee's investigation of the Program
culminated in two hearings during the 109th Congress. The first
hearing, which took place on May 16, 2005, focused on the
Regime's abuse of the oil allocation process. Documents
disclosed at the hearing--many of which had been translated
from Arabic for the Subcommittee--detailed how the Regime used
lucrative oil allocations to bribe influential individuals and
foreign governments in an effort to undermine sanctions.
Witnesses at this hearing included: an Arabic linguist who was
retained by the Committee to analyze and translate many of the
documents, the author of a comprehensive report on the Program,
a university professor knowledgeable about the Program and
sanctions generally, and the Director of the Office of
Peacekeeping, Sanctions & Counter-Terrorism in the State
Department's International Organizations and Affairs Bureau. On
June 21, 2005, the Subcommittee held a second hearing to
examine how internal divisions within the United Nations'
Security Council adversely impacted the effectiveness of the
Program. Several representatives from the United States Mission
to the United Nations testified about discussions within the
``661 Sanctions Committee,'' which was responsible for general
oversight of the Program. A portion of this hearing was
conducted in executive session due to the classified status of
some of the documents involved.
FEDERAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT
As part of the Committee's oversight responsibilities
generally the Committee continued to examine ethics policies
and practices at Federal agencies and commissions within the
Committee's jurisdiction and also examined agency procurement
practices and contracts, as well as agency implementation of
laws and regulations. As part of this oversight work, in the
109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman opened a review of
agency implementation of the Data Quality Act. As part of this
review, on January 13, 2005 the Chairman wrote 15 agencies and
commissions within the Committee's jurisdiction, seeking
documents and other information relating to each agency's
implementation of the data-quality guidelines and procedures
required by Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriates Act for Fiscal 2001, which is commonly known as
the Data Quality Act. Under the Act, each agency is required to
issue guidelines for ``ensuring and maximizing the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information'' that
agencies disseminate. The review seeks to assess agency
implementation as well as the general effectiveness and impact
of the Act's requirements.
In addition, in the 109th Congress, the Full Committee
Chairman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Chairman opened a review of efforts by Federal agencies to
reduce unnecessarily burdensome regulations, particularly
regulations on small businesses. As part of this review, on
April 5, 2005 the Chairmen wrote ten Federal agencies within
the Committee's jurisdiction, seeking documents and information
relating to each agency's compliance with Section 610 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. Under Section 610,
each Federal agency must plan for, and conduct, the periodic
review of its rules that have or will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, i.e.
small businesses, small government jurisdictions, and other
small organizations. The letters sought information to help
determine the general impact and effectiveness of this
regulatory-review requirement for meeting the goals of RFA. On
May 19, 2006, the Chairmen requested that the GAO examine the
impact of Section 610, both to assess implementation of the
provision specifically and to provide insights into the
implementation of retrospective regulatory reviews in general.
A GAO report is expected in the 110th Congress.
APPENDIX I
Legislative Activities
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
Summary of Committee Activities
Total Bills and Resolutions Referred to Committee............. 1319
Public Laws................................................... 55
Bills and Resolutions Reported to the House................... 53
Hearings Held:
Days of Hearings.......................................... 170
Full Committee........................................ 20
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection.......................................... 34
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................ 15
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials... 7
Subcommittee on Health................................ 29
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet... 18
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.......... 47
Hours of Sitting.......................................... 461:02
Full Committee........................................ 69:22
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection.......................................... 58:22
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................ 35:46
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials... 18:37
Subcommittee on Health................................ 83:51
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet... 50:20
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.......... 145:00
Legislative Markups:
Days of Markups........................................... 41
Full Committee........................................ 30
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection.......................................... 3
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................ 0
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials... 2
Subcommittee on Health................................ 4
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet... 2
Hours of Sitting.......................................... 141:18
Full Committee........................................ 122:55
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer
Protection.......................................... 4:48
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................ 0
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials... 1:27
Subcommittee on Health................................ 4:55
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet... 7:13
Business Meetings:
Days of Meetings.......................................... 5
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.......... 5
Hours of Sitting.......................................... 2:15
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.......... 2:15
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: 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law Date Approved Bill Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-4 March 25, 2005 H.R. 1160 Welfare Reform
Extension Act of
2005.
109-13 May 11, 2005 H.R. 1268 Emergency
Supplemental
Appropriations
Act for Defense,
the Global War on
Terror, and
Tsunami Relief,
2005.
109-18 June 29, 2005 H.R. 1812 Patient Navigator
Outreach and
Chronic Disease
Prevention Act of
2005.
109-19 July 12, 2005 H.R. 3021 TANF Extension Act
of 2005.
109-34 July 12, 2005 S. 1282 A bill to amend
the
Communications
Satellite Act of
1962 to strike
the privatization
criteria for
INTELSAT
separated
entities, remove
certain
restrictions on
separated and
successor
entities to
INTELSAT, and for
other purposes.
109-41 July 29, 2005 S. 544 Patient Safety and
Quality
Improvement Act
of 2005.
109-43 August 1, 2005 H.R. 3423 Medical Device
User Fee
Stabilization Act
of 2005.
109-56 August 2, 2005 S. 45 A bill to amend
the Controlled
Substances Act to
lift the patient
limitation on
prescribing drug
addiction
treatments by
medical
practitioners in
group practices,
and for other
purposes.
109-57 August 2, 2005 H.R. 184 Controlled
Substances Export
Reform Act of
2005.
109-58 August 8, 2005 H.R. 6 Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
109-59 August 10, 2005 H.R. 3 Safe, Accountable,
Flexible,
Efficient
Transportation
Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users.
109-76 July 9, 2005 S. 714 Junk Fax
Prevention Act of
2005.
109-91 October 20, 2005 H.R. 3971 QI, TMA, and
Abstinence
Programs
Extension and
Hurricane Katrina
Unemployment
Relief Act of
2005.
109-96 November 9, 2005 S. 172 A bill to amend
the Federal Food,
Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to
provide for the
regulation of all
contact lenses as
medical devices,
and for other
purposes.
109-100 November 11, 2005 S. 37 A bill to extend
the special
postage stamp for
breast cancer
research for 2
years.
109-129 December 20, 2005 H.R. 2520 Stem Cell
Therapeutic and
Research Act of
2005.
109-148 December 30, 2005 H.R. 2863 Department of
Defense,
Emergency
Supplemental
Appropriations to
Address
Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic
Influenza Act,
2006.
109-151 December 30, 2005 H.R. 4579 Employee
Retirement
Preservation Act.
109-163 January 6, 2006 H.R. 1815 National Defense
Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2006.
109-164 January 10, 2006 H.R. 972 Trafficking
Victims
Protection
Reauthorization
Act of 2005.
109-165 January 10, 2006 H.R. 2017 Torture Victims
Relief
Reauthorization
Act of 2005.
109-168 January 10, 2006 H.R. 4637 To make certain
technical
corrections in
amendments made
by the Energy
Policy Act of
2005.
109-171 February 8, 2006 S. 1932 Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005.
109-172 February 10, 2006 H.R. 4519 State High Risk
Pool Funding
Extension Act of
2006.
109-177 March 9, 2006 H.R. 3199 USA PATRIOT
Improvement and
Reauthorization
Act of 2005.
109-191 August 11, 2005 H.R. 1132 National All
Schedules
Prescription
Electronic
Reporting Act of
2005.
109-204 March 20, 2006 S. 2320 A bill to make
available funds
included in the
Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 for
the Low-Income
Home Energy
Assistance
Program for
fiscal year 2006,
and for other
purposes.
109-235 June 15, 2006 S. 193 Broadcast Decency
Enforcement Act
of 2005.
109-241 July 12, 2006 H.R. 889 Coast Guard and
Maritime
Transportation
Act of 2006.
109-245 July 26, 2006 S. 655 A bill to amend
the Public Health
Service Act with
respect to the
National
Foundation for
the Centers for
Disease Control
and Prevention.
109-295 October 4, 2006 H.R. 5441 Department of
Homeland Security
Appropriations
Act, 2007.
109-297 October 5, 2006 S. 176 A bill to extend
the deadline for
commencement of
construction of a
hydroelectric
project in the
State of Alaska.
109-298 October 5, 2006 S. 244 A bill to extend
the deadline for
commencement of
construction of a
hydroelectric
project in the
State of Wyoming.
109-307 October 6, 2006 H.R. 5574 Children's
Hospital GME
Support
Reauthorization
Act of 2006.
109-347 October 13, 2006 H.R. 4954 Port Security
Improvement Act
of 2006.
109-364 October 17, 2006 H.R. 5122 John Warner
National Defense
Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year
2007.
109-393 December 13, 2006 H.R. 4377 To extend the time
required for
construction of a
hydroelectric
project, and for
other purposes.
109-396 December 15, 2006 H.R. 3699 Federal and
District of
Columbia
Government Real
Property Act of
2006.
109-415 December 19, 2006 H.R. 6143 Ryan White HIV/
AIDS Treatment
Modernization Act
of 2006.
109-416 December 19, 2006 S. 843 Combating Autism
Act of 2006.
109-417 December 19, 2006 S. 3678 Pandemic and All-
Hazards
Preparedness Act.
109-422 December 20, 2006 H.R. 864 Sober Truth on
Preventing
Underage Drinking
Act.
109-428 December 20, 2006 H.R. 4583 Wool Suit Fabric
Labeling Fairness
and International
Standards
Conforming Act.
109-431 December 20, 2006 H.R. 5646 To study and
promote the use
of energy
efficient
computer servers
in the United
States.
109-432 December 20, 2006 H.R. 6111 An act to amend
the Internal
Revenue Code of
1986 to extend
expiring
provisions, and
for other
purposes.
109-442 December 21, 2006 H.R. 3248 Lifespan Respite
Care Act of 2006.
109-450 December 22, 2006 S. 707 PREEMIE Act.
109-455 December 22, 2006 S. 1608 Undertaking Spam,
Spyware, And
Fraud Enforcement
With Enforcers
beyond Borders
Act of 2005.
109-459 December 22, 2006 S. 2653 Call Home Act of
2006.
109-462 December 22, 2006 S. 3546 Dietary Supplement
and
Nonprescription
Drug Consumer
Protection Act.
109-466 December 22, 2006 S. 4092 A bill to clarify
certain land use
in Jefferson
County, Colorado.
109-468 December 29, 2006 H.R. 5782 Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act
of 2006.
109-469 December 29, 2006 H.R. 6344 Office of National
Drug Control
Policy
Reauthorization
Act of 2006.
109-475 January 12, 2007 H.R. 1245 Gynecologic Cancer
Education and
Awareness Act of
2005.
109-482 January 15, 2007 H.R. 6164 National
Institutes of
Health Reform Act
of 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX III
PART A
PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-1 The Energy Policy Act February 10, 2005 and
of 2005 (Subcommittee February 16, 2005
on Energy and Air
Quality).
109-2 The Implementation of March 9, 2005
GEOSS: A Review of the
All-Hazards Warning
System and its
Benefits to Public
Health, Energy, and
the Environment
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-3 Department of Energy's February 9, 2005
Fiscal Year 2006
Budget Proposal and
the Energy Policy Act
of 2005: Ensuring Jobs
for Our Future with
Secure and Reliable
Energy (Full
Committee).
109-4 How Internet Protocol- April 27, 2005
Enabled Services are
Changing the Face of
Communications: A View
from Government
Officials
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-5 Preparing Consumers for March 10, 2005
the End of the Digital
Television Transition
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-6 United States Boxing March 3, 2005
Commission Act
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-7 Problems with the E- March 16, 2005
Rate Program: GAO
Review of FCC
Management and
Oversight
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-8 The Orbit Act: An April 14, 2005
Examination of
Progress Made in
Privatizing the
Satellite
Communications
Marketplace
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-9 The Role of Technology February 17, 2005
in Achieving a Hard
Deadline for the DTV
Transition
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-10 Combating Spyware: H.R. January 26, 2005
29, the Spy Act (Full
Committee).
109-11 Clean Air Act March 2, 2005
Transportation
Conformity Provisions
Contained in H.R. 3,
``The Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users''
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-12 How Internet Protocol- February 9, 2005
Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of
Communications: A View
from Technology
Companies
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-13 Competition in the March 2, 2005
Communications
Marketplace: How
Technology is Changing
the Structure of the
Industry (Full
Committee).
109-14 Securing Consumers' May 11, 2005
Data: Options
Following Security
Breaches (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-15 The Drug Free Sports May 18, 2005 and May 19,
Act of 2005 2005
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-16 Increasing Generic Drug May 18, 2005
Utilization: Saving
Money for Patients
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-17 Patient Safety and June 9, 2005
Quality Initiatives
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-18 Dominican Republic- April 28, 2005
Central America Free
Trade Agreement
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-19 How Internet Protocol- April 20, 2005
Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of
Communications: A Look
at Video and Data
Services (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications
and the Internet).
109-20 Setting the Path for March 17, 2005
Reauthorization:
Improving Portfolio
Management at the NIH
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-21 The Threat of and May 26, 2005
Planning for Pandemic
Flu (Subcommittee on
Health).
109-22 Medicaid Reform: The June 15, 2005
National Governors
Association's
Bipartisan Roadmap
(Full Committee).
109-23 The Health Care Choice June 28, 2005
Act (Subcommittee on
Health).
109-24 Long-Term Care and April 27, 2005
Medicaid: Spiraling
Costs and the Need for
Reform (Subcommittee
on Health).
109-25 Medicaid Prescription June 22, 2005
Drugs: Examining
Options for Payment
Reform (Subcommittee
on Health).
109-26 Product Counterfeiting: June 15, 2005
How Fakes are
Undermining U.S. Jobs,
Innovation, and
Consumer Safety
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-27 Reauthorization of the June 23, 2005
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-28 DTV Staff Discussion May 26, 2005
Draft of the DTV
Transition Act of 2005
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-29 The United Nations Oil- May 16, 2005
For-Food Program:
Saddam Hussein's Use
of Oil Allocations to
Undermine Sanctions
and the United Nations
Security Council
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-30 The United Nations Oil- June 21, 2005
For-Food Program: A
Review of the 661
Sanctions Committee
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-31 A Review of Community May 25, 2005
Health Centers: Issues
and Opportunities
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-32 Hurricane Katrina's September 7, 2005
Effect on Gasoline
Supply and Prices
(Full Committee).
109-33 Electronic Waste: An July 20, 2005 and
Examination of Current September 8, 2005
Activity, Implications
for Environmental
Stewardship, and the
Proper Federal Role
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials).
109-34 Thoroughbred Horse October 18, 2005
Racing Jockeys and
Workers: Examining On-
Track Injury Insurance
and Other Health and
Welfare Issues
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-35 A Review of the February 17, 2005
Administration's
Fiscal Year 2006
Health Care Priorities
(Full Committee).
109-36 Current Issues Related February 10, 2005
to Medical Liability
Reform (Subcommittee
on Health).
109-37 Funding Options for the March 10, 2005
Yucca Mountain
Repository Program
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-38 Specialty Hospitals: May 12, 2005
Assessing Their Role
in the Delivery of
Quality Health Care
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-39 The Administration's May 26, 2005
Clear Skies Initiative
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-40 Legislation to July 19, 2005
Reauthorize the
National Institutes of
Health (Full
Committee).
109-41 Understanding the Peak December 7, 2005
Oil Theory
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-42 Determining a Champion December 7, 2005
on the Field: A
Comprehensive Review
of the BCS and
Postseason College
Football (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-43 Improving America's December 8, 2005
Health: Examining
Federal Research
Efforts for Pulmonary
Hypertension and
Chronic Pain
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-44 How Internet Protocol- March 16, 2005
Enabled Services Are
Changing the Face of
Communications: A Look
at the Voice
Marketplace
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-45 A Review of Ongoing May 5, 2005
Management Concerns at
Los Alamos National
Laboratory
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-46 Safety of Imported December 13, 2005
Pharmaceuticals:
Strengthening Efforts
to Combat the Sales of
Controlled Substances
Over the Internet
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-47 Subversion of Drug May 17, 2005
Testing Programs
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-48 Data Security: The July 28, 2005
Discussion Draft of
Data Protection
Legislation
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-49 Medicaid: Empowering September 8, 2005
Beneficiaries on the
Road to Reform (Full
Committee).
109-50 Assessing Public Health September 22, 2005
and the Delivery of
Care in the Wake of
Katrina (Joint hearing
with the Subcommittee
on Health and the
Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-51 Guarding Against Waste, September 28, 2005
Fraud, and Abuse in
Post-Katrina Relief
and Recovery: The
Plans of Inspectors
General (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations).
109-52 Public Safety September 29, 2005
Communications from 9/
11 to Katrina:
Critical Public Policy
Lessons (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications
and the Internet).
109-53 Phone Records For Sale: February 1, 2006
Why Aren't Phone
Records Safe From
Pretexting? (Full
Committee).
109-54 FCC's E-Rate Plans to October 6, 2005
Assist Gulf Coast
Recovery: Ensuring
Effective
Implementation
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-55 Protecting Property October 19, 2005
Rights After Kelo
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-56 A Review of GAO's October 7, 2005
Findings and
Recommendations
Regarding the
Department of Energy's
Efforts to Consolidate
Surplus Plutonium
Inventories
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-57 Comprehensively October 20, 2005
Combating Methampheta.
mines: Impacts on
Health and the
Environment (Joint
hearing with the
Subcommittee on Health
and the Subcommittee
on Environment and
Hazardous Materials).
109-58 Natural Gas and Heating November 2, 2005
Oil for American Homes
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-59 Assessing the National November 8, 2005
Pandemic Flu
Preparedness Plan
(Full Committee).
109-60 A Review of DOE Paducah January 19, 2006
Site Operations
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-61 The Law and Economics February 15, 2006
of Interchange Fees
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-62 Thoroughbred Horse November 17, 2005
Racing Jockeys and
Workers: Examining On-
Track Injury Insurance
and Other Health and
Welfare Issues
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-63 Legislation to March 2, 2006
Implement the POPs,
PIC, and LRTAP POPs
Agreements
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials).
109-64 Car Title Fraud: Issues March 1, 2006
and Approaches for
Keeping Consumers Safe
on the Road
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-65 Steroids in Sports: March 10, 2005
Cheating the System
and Gambling Your
Health (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-66 A Review of Security March 18, 2005
Initiatives at DOE
Nuclear Facilities
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-67 Reducing the Threat of May 24, 2005
Nuclear Terrorism: A
Review of the
Department of Energy's
Global Threat
Reduction Initiative
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-68 Hearing on a Staff November 9, 2005
Discussion Draft of
the Internet Protocol
and Broadband Services
Legislation
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-70 What's the Cost?: March 15, 2006
Proposals to Provide
Consumers with Better
Information about
Healthcare Service
Costs (Subcommittee on
Health).
109-71 Status of the Yucca March 15, 2006
Mountain Project
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-72 Superfund Laws and November 16, 2005
Animal Agriculture
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials).
109-73 Issues Before the U.S.- June 9, 2005
China Joint Commission
on Commerce and Trade
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-74 The Commerce and September 22, 2005
Consumer Protection
Implications of
Hurricane Katrina
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-75 Medicare Physician November 17, 2005
Payment: How to Build
a More Efficient
Payment System
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-76 Protecting Consumer's March 15, 2005
Data: Policy Issues
Raised by ChoicePoint
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-77 Hurricane Katrina: September 29, 2005
Assessing the Present
Environmental Status
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials).
109-78 Fair Use: Its Effects November 16, 2005
on Consumers and
Industry (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-79 The State of Readiness May 4, 2005
for the 2005-2006 Flu
Season (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations).
109-80 EIA's Report on Short- October 19, 2005
term Energy Outlook
and Winter Fuels
Outlook (Subcommittee
on Energy and Air
Quality).
109-81 Right to Repair: November 10, 2005
Industry Discussions
and Legislative
Options (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-82 Department of Energy's March 9, 2006
Fiscal Year 2007
Budget Proposal (Full
Committee).
109-83 Communications March 30, 2006
Opportunity,
Promotion, and
Enhancement Act of
2006 (Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-84 Pipeline Safety: A April 27, 2006
Progress Report Since
the Enactment of The
Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of
2002 (Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-85 Public Reporting of March 29, 2006
Hospital-Acquired
Infection Rates:
Empowering Consumers,
Saving Lives
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-86 The Critical Role of May 4, 2006
Community Health
Centers in Ensuring
Access to Care
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-87 Examining the May 9, 2006
Children's Hospital
Graduate Medical
Education Program
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-88 Reauthorizing the Ryan April 27, 2006
White CARE Act: How to
Improve the Program to
Ensure Access to Care
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-89 H.R. 2567, the May 23, 2006
Antifreeze Bittering
Act of 2005
(Subcommittee on
Environment and
Hazardous Materials).
109-90 Digital Content and March 29, 2006 and May 3,
Enabling Technology: 2006
Satisfying the 21st
Century Consumer
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-91 Social Security Numbers May 11, 2006
in Commerce:
Reconciling Beneficial
Uses with Threats to
Privacy (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-92 H.R. 5126, the Truth in May 18, 2006
Caller ID Act of 2006
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-93 H.R. 2048, The Motor May 17, 2006
Vehicle Owners' Right
to Repair Act of 2005
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-94 Gasoline: Supply, May 10, 2006 and May 11,
Price, and 2006
Specifications (Full
Committee).
109-95 H.R.__ , a bill to May 3, 2006
authorize the National
Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
to set passenger car
fuel economy standards
(Full Committee).
109-96 World Crude-Oil Pricing May 4, 2006
(Full Committee).
109-97 Project Bioshield April 6, 2006
Reauthorization Issues
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-98 Thoroughbred Horse May 9, 2006
Racing Jockeys and
Workers: Examining On-
Track Injury Insurance
and Other Health and
Welfare Issues
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-99 Privacy in the June 20, 2006
Commercial World II
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-100 Planning for Long-Term May 17, 2006
Care (Subcommittee on
Health).
109-101 Unlocking America's May 18, 2006
Energy Resources Next
Generation
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-102 Examining the Federal May 23, 2006
Government's
Partnership with
America's Pharmacists
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-103 Vehicle and Fuels May 24, 2006
Technology: Next
Generation
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-104 A Review of NRC's June 19, 2006
Reactor Oversight
Process (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations).
109-105 Violent and Explicit June 14, 2006
Video Games: Informing
Parents and Protecting
Children (Subcommittee
on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer
Protection).
109-106 Discussion draft June 7, 2006
providing for a
reduction in the
number of boutique
fuels (Full Committee).
109-107 Cyber Security June 9, 2006
Challenges at the
Department of Energy
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-108 Oversight and December 15, 2005
Administration of the
340B Drug Discount
Program: Improving
Efficiency and
Transparency
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-109 Universal Service: What June 21, 2006
Are We Subsidizing and
Why? Part 1: The High-
Cost Fund
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-110 CFIUS Reform: H.R. July 11, 2006
5337, the Reform of
National Security
Reviews of Foreign
Direct Investments Act
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-111 Motor Vehicle July 18, 2006
Technology and the
Consumer: Views from
the National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-112 The Audio and Video June 27, 2006
Flags: Can Content
Protection and
Technological
Innovation Coexist?
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-113 The Administration's FY February 15, 2006
'07 Health Care
Priorities (Full
Committee).
109-114 Legislative Proposals March 16, 2006
to Promote Electronic
Health Records and a
Smarter Health
Information System
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-115 Hospital Disaster January 26, 2006
Preparedness: Past,
Present, and Future
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-116 Growth, Opportunity, June 29, 2006
Competition--America
Goes to Work. (Full
Committee).
109-117 Innovative Solutions to July 13, 2006
Medical Liability
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-118 DOE's Revised Schedule July 19, 2006
for Yucca Mountain
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-119 Human Tissue Samples: June 13, 2006 and June 14,
NIH Research Policies 2006
and Practices
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-120 Mental Illness and June 28, 2006
Brain Disease:
Dispelling Myths and
Promoting Recovery
Through Awareness and
Treatment
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-121 H.R. 5319, the Deleting July 11, 2006
Online Predators Act
of 2006 (Subcommittee
on Telecommunications
and the Internet).
109-122 Sexual Exploitation of July 10, 2006
Children over the
Internet: How the
State of New Jersey is
Combating Child
Predators on the
Internet (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations).
109-123 Making the Internet June 27, 2006 and June 28,
Safe for Kids: The 2006
Role of ISP's and
Social Networking
Sites (Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-124 The Silicosis Story: March 28, 2006, March 31,
Mass Tort Screening 2006, June 6, 2006, and
and the Public Health July 26, 2006
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-125 H.R. 5785, the Warning, July 20, 2006
Alert, and Response
Network Act of 2006
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-126 Sexual Exploitation of April 4, 2006, April 6,
Children Over the 2006, and May 3, 2006
Internet: What
Parents, Kids and
Congress Need to Know
About Child Predators
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-127 H.R. 503, a bill to July 25, 2006
amend the Horse
Protection Act
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-128 Questions Surrounding July 19, 2006 and July 27,
the `Hockey Stick' 2006
Temperature Studies:
Implications for
Climate Change
Assessments
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-129 Medicare Part D: March 1, 2006
Implementation of the
New Drug Benefit
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-130 Medicare Physician July 25, 2006 and July 27,
Payment: How to Build 2006
a Payment System that
Provides Quality,
Efficient Care for
Medicare Beneficiaries
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-131 Internet Data Brokers June 21, 2006, June 22,
and Pretexting: Who 2006, and
has Access to Your September 29, 2006
Private Records?
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-132 Use of Imaging July 18, 2006
Services: Providing
Appropriate Care for
Medicare Beneficiaries
(Subcommittee on
Health).
109-133 Discussion Draft on the July 27, 2006
Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act
Reauthorization and
H.R. 5782, the
Pipeline Safety
Improvement Act of
2006 (Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-134 Examining the Impact of August 10, 2006 and August
Illegal Immigration on 15, 2006
the Medicaid Program
and Our Healthcare
Delivery System (Full
Committee).
109-135 BP's Pipeline Spills at September 7, 2006
Prudhoe Bay: What Went
Wrong? (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations).
109-136 Continuing Ethics and September 13, 2006
Management Concerns at
NIH and the Public
Health Service
Commissioned Corps
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-137 CyberSecurity: September 13, 2006
Protecting America's
Critical
Infrastructure,
Economy, and Consumers
(Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet).
109-138 Nuclear waste storage September 13, 2006
and disposal policy,
and hydroelectric
license extension and
energy efficiency
legislation
(Subcommittee on
Energy and Air
Quality).
109-139 Contact Lens Sales: Is September 15, 2006
Market Regulation the
Prescription?
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-140 Improving NIH September 19, 2006
Management and
Operation: A
Legislative Hearing on
the NIH Reform Act of
2006 (Full Committee).
109-141 Deleting Commercial September 21, 2006
Child Pornography
Sites From the
Internet: The U.S.
Financial Industry's
Efforts to Combat This
Problem (Subcommittee
on Oversight and
Investigations).
109-142 ICANN Internet September 21, 2006
Governance: Is It
Working? (Joint
hearing with the
Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and
the Internet and the
Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-143 Sexual Exploitation of September 26, 2006
Children Over the
Internet: The Face of
a Child Predator and
Other Issues
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-144 Editing Hollywood's September 26, 2006
Editors: Cleaning
Flicks for Families
(Subcommittee on
Commerce, Trade, and
Consumer Protection).
109-145 Sexual Exploitation of September 27, 2006
Children Over the
Internet: Follow-up
Issues to the Masha
Allen Adoption
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-146 Hewlett-Packard's September 28, 2006
Pretexting Scandal
(Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations).
109-147 Medicare Physician September 28, 2006
Payments: 2007 and
Beyond (Subcommittee
on Health).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART B
COMMITTEE PRINTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serial No. Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-A Compilation of Selected Acts Within
the Jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce--Food, Drug, and
Related Law.
109-B Compilation of Selected Acts Within
the Jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce--Health Law.
109-C Compilation of Selected Acts Within
the Jurisdiction of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce--Communications
Law.
109-D Committee Rules.
109-E Waste, Fraud, Abuse Concerns with the
E-rate Program.
109-F Sexual Exploitation of Children Over
the Internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------