U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

31–394 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 109TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT 

2007

109–751 

Union Calendar No. 453 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLES NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi, Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(III)

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(V) 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
2 

(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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
3 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
4 

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 chairVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
5 

man 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
6 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
7 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
8 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
9 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
10 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
11 

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 emVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
12 

ployee 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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
13 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
14 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
15 

(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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
16 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
17 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
18 

(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 calVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
19 

endar 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
20 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(21) 

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 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi, Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri* 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

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 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

*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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
22 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

(Ratio 16–13) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

Vice Chairman 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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 sportsrelated 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 

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 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
23 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(Ratio 16–13) 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
24 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

(Ratio 18–15) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

Vice Chairman 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersy 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
25 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
26 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(27) 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(29) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

FULL COMMITTEE

(Ratio 31–26) 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi, Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

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 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
30 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
31 

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. ll, 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
32 

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. ll, 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 

§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 

§6043 of the DRA (Emergency Room Co-payments for Non-emerVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
33 

gency 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
34 

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. ll, a bill to authorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel economy 

standards.—Hearing on H.R. ll, 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(35) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

(Ratio 16–13) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

Vice Chairman 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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 sportsrelated 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
36 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
37 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
38 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
39 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
40 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
41 

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 assoVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
42 

ciations 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
43 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
44 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
45 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
46 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
47 

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 ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
48 

munications 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
49 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
50 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
51 

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 ‘ADULTSONLY’ 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 ‘‘AdultsOnly’’ 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
52 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
53 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
54 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
55 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
56 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
57 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
58 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
59 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(61) 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
62 

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 PriceAnderson, 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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
63 

vides 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 hydrogenpowered 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
64 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
65 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
66 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
67 

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 FischerTropsch’’ 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
68 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
69 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
70 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
71 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
72 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
73 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
74 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
75 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
76 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
77 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
78 

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 subVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
79 

jecting 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
80 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
81 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
82 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
83 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
84 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
85 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
86 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
87 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
88 

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. ll, 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
89 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
90 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
91 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
92 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
93 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
94 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
95 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(97) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(Ratio 16–13) 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
98 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
99 

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 noncompliant 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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
100 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
101 

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 federallyfunded 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
102 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
103 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
104 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
105 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
106 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
107 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
108 

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 ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
109 

gram; 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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
110 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
111 

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 supVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
112 

ply 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
113 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
114 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
115 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
116 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
117 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
118 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
119 

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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
120 

solidation 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(121) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

(Ratio 18–15) 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
122 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
123 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
124 

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 feeVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
125 

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-theboard 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
126 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
127 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
128 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
129 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
130 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
131 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
132 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
133 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
134 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
135 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
136 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
137 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
138 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
139 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
140 

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 costsharing. 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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
141 

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 communitybased 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 payVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
142 

ments 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
143 

(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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
144 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
145 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
146 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
147 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
148 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
149 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
150 

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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
151 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
152 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
153 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
154 

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 evidencebased 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
155 

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 benchVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
156 

marks 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
157 

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. RoybalAllard, 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
158 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
159 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
160 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
161 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
162 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
163 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
164 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
165 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
166 

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 lim- its 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 supVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
167 

plier 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
168 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
169 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
170 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
171 

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 considVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
172 

eration 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
173 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
174 

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 inVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00180 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
175 

volved 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
176 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
177 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
178 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
179 

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 adminisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
180 

tered 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 painreducing 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
181 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
182 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
183 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
184 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
185 

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 RepresentaVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
186 

tives 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
187 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
188 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
189 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
190 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
191 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
192 

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 pediVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
193 

atric 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 AfricanAmerican 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 DEPART- MENT 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
194 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
195 

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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
196 

viding 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
197 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
198 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
199 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
200 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
201 

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 EfVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
202 

forts 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
203 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(205) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

(Ratio 18–15) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

Vice Chairman 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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 payper-call number) for sending such a request. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
206 

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 SUC- CESSOR 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 reaffiliation 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
207 

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 publicsafety 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
208 

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 lowpower 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 ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
209 

mittee 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 CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
210 

sion 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). 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
211 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
212 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
213 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
214 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
215 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
216 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
217 

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 CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
218 

sion 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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00224 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
219 

cerning 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
220 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
221 

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-ofway, 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
222 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
223 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
224 

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 dayto-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 dynamVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00230 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
225 

ics 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 longdistance 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
226 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
227 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
228 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
229 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
230 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(231) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

(Ratio 9–7) 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(Ex Officio) 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
232 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
233 

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 selfincrimination 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
234 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
235 

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 exVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00241 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
236 

cess 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 CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
237 

sioned 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 strucVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
238 

ture 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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
239 

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 complaintin-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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
240 

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 PurVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
241 

due 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 indiVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
242 

viduals 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
243 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
244 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
245 

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 leadVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
246 

ership 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 standdown 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 inVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00252 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
247 

volving 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
248 

(FCC) management and oversight of the E-rate program. The Erate 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 involvVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
249 

ing 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
250 

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 online, 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 CorporaVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
251 

tion. 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 ‘‘ontrack’’ 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 conVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
252 

sisted 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
253 

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, TMobile 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
254 

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 highrisk 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
255 

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 rebuildVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
256 

ing. 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 agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
257 

cies 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 ERate 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
258 

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 PostKatrina 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
259 

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 PoliVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
260 

cies 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
261 

Hewlett-Packard’s Pretexting Scandal.—Oversight hearing on 

Hewlett-Packard’s Pretexting Scandal. Hearing held on September 

28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109–146. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(263) 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(265) 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
266 

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 governVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
267 

ment 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
268 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
269 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
270 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
271 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(273) 

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) 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
274 

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 tesVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
275 

timony 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
276 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
277 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
278 

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 chanVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00284 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
279 

cellor, 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
280 

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 AdVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00286 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
281 

ministration, 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
282 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
283 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
284 

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 emVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
285 

ployees 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 standdown 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 tesVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00291 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
286 

timony 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
287 

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, 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
288 

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 recVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
289 

ommendation 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
290 

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 

§ 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 

§6043 of the DRA (Emergency Room Co-payments for Non-emerVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
291 

gency 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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
292 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
293 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
294 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
295 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
296 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
297 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
298 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
299 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
300 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
301 

(FCC) management and oversight of the E-rate program. The Erate 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-toVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
302 

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 spectrummanagement 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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
303 

duce 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 specVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
304 

trum 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
305 

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 indepth 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 imVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:57 Jan 21, 2007 Jkt 031394 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR751.XXX HR751

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
306 

plementation 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 regulatoryreview 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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(307) 

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 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(309) 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
310 

PUBLIC LAWS: 55—Continued 

Public Law Date Approved Bill Title 

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. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
(311) 

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 of 2005 (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) ................ February 10, 2005 and 

February 16, 2005 

109–2 The Implementation of GEOSS: A Review of the All-Hazards Warning System and its 

Benefits to Public Health, Energy, and the Environment (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

March 9, 2005 

109–3 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 (Full 

Committee).

February 9, 2005 

109–4 How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services are Changing the Face of Communications: 

A View from Government Officials (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet).

April 27, 2005 

109–5 Preparing Consumers for the End of the Digital Television Transition (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).March 10, 2005 

109–6 United States Boxing Commission Act (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection).

March 3, 2005 

109–7 Problems with the E-Rate Program: GAO Review of FCC Management and Oversight 

(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

March 16, 2005 

109–8 The Orbit Act: An Examination of Progress Made in Privatizing the Satellite Communications Marketplace (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).

April 14, 2005 

109–9 The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).February 17, 2005 

109–10 Combating Spyware: H.R. 29, the Spy Act (Full Committee) ....................................... January 26, 2005 

109–11 Clean Air Act Transportation Conformity Provisions Contained in H.R. 3, ‘‘The 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users’’ (Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality).

March 2, 2005 

109–12 How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the Face of Communications: 

A View from Technology Companies (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet).

February 9, 2005 

109–13 Competition in the Communications Marketplace: How Technology is Changing the 

Structure of the Industry (Full Committee).

March 2, 2005 

109–14 Securing Consumers’ Data: Options Following Security Breaches (Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

May 11, 2005 

109–15 The Drug Free Sports Act of 2005 (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).May 18, 2005 and May 

19, 2005 

109–16 Increasing Generic Drug Utilization: Saving Money for Patients (Subcommittee on 

Health).

May 18, 2005 

109–17 Patient Safety and Quality Initiatives (Subcommittee on Health) ............................... June 9, 2005 

109–18 Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).April 28, 2005 

109–19 How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the Face of Communications: 

A Look at Video and Data Services (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet).

April 20, 2005 

109–20 Setting the Path for Reauthorization: Improving Portfolio Management at the NIH 

(Subcommittee on Health).

March 17, 2005 

109–21 The Threat of and Planning for Pandemic Flu (Subcommittee on Health) ................. May 26, 2005 

109–22 Medicaid Reform: The National Governors Association’s Bipartisan Roadmap (Full 

Committee).

June 15, 2005 

109–23 The Health Care Choice Act (Subcommittee on Health) .............................................. June 28, 2005 

109–24 Long-Term Care and Medicaid: Spiraling Costs and the Need for Reform (Subcommittee on Health).April 27, 2005 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
312 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

109–25 Medicaid Prescription Drugs: Examining Options for Payment Reform (Subcommittee on Health).June 22, 2005 

109–26 Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs, Innovation, and Consumer Safety (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).June 15, 2005 

109–27 Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).June 23, 2005 

109–28 DTV Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV Transition Act of 2005 (Subcommittee on 

Telecommunications and the Internet).

May 26, 2005 

109–29 The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program: Saddam Hussein’s Use of Oil Allocations 

to Undermine Sanctions and the United Nations Security Council (Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations).

May 16, 2005 

109–30 The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program: A Review of the 661 Sanctions Committee (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).June 21, 2005 

109–31 A Review of Community Health Centers: Issues and Opportunities (Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations).

May 25, 2005 

109–32 Hurricane Katrina’s Effect on Gasoline Supply and Prices (Full Committee) .............. September 7, 2005 

109–33 Electronic Waste: An Examination of Current Activity, Implications for Environmental Stewardship, and the Proper Federal Role (Subcommittee on Environment 

and Hazardous Materials).

July 20, 2005 and 

September 8, 2005 

109–34 Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare Issues (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

October 18, 2005 

109–35 A Review of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2006 Health Care Priorities (Full Committee).February 17, 2005 

109–36 Current Issues Related to Medical Liability Reform (Subcommittee on Health) ......... February 10, 2005 

109–37 Funding Options for the Yucca Mountain Repository Program (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality).March 10, 2005 

109–38 Specialty Hospitals: Assessing Their Role in the Delivery of Quality Health Care 

(Subcommittee on Health).

May 12, 2005 

109–39 The Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality).May 26, 2005 

109–40 Legislation to Reauthorize the National Institutes of Health (Full Committee) .......... July 19, 2005 

109–41 Understanding the Peak Oil Theory (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) ......... December 7, 2005 

109–42 Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review of the BCS and 

Postseason College Football (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection).

December 7, 2005 

109–43 Improving America’s Health: Examining Federal Research Efforts for Pulmonary Hypertension and Chronic Pain (Subcommittee on Health).December 8, 2005 

109–44 How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the Face of Communications: 

A Look at the Voice Marketplace (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet).

March 16, 2005 

109–45 A Review of Ongoing Management Concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

May 5, 2005 

109–46 Safety of Imported Pharmaceuticals: Strengthening Efforts to Combat the Sales of 

Controlled Substances Over the Internet (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

December 13, 2005 

109–47 Subversion of Drug Testing Programs (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).May 17, 2005 

109–48 Data Security: The Discussion Draft of Data Protection Legislation (Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

July 28, 2005 

109–49 Medicaid: Empowering Beneficiaries on the Road to Reform (Full Committee) .......... September 8, 2005 

109–50 Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care in the Wake of Katrina (Joint 

hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations).

September 22, 2005 

109–51 Guarding Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Post-Katrina Relief and Recovery: 

The Plans of Inspectors General (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

September 28, 2005 

109–52 Public Safety Communications from 9/11 to Katrina: Critical Public Policy Lessons 

(Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).

September 29, 2005 

109–53 Phone Records For Sale: Why Aren’t Phone Records Safe From Pretexting? (Full 

Committee).

February 1, 2006 

109–54 FCC’s E-Rate Plans to Assist Gulf Coast Recovery: Ensuring Effective Implementation (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).October 6, 2005 

109–55 Protecting Property Rights After Kelo (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).October 19, 2005 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
313 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

109–56 A Review of GAO’s Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Department of 

Energy’s Efforts to Consolidate Surplus Plutonium Inventories (Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations).

October 7, 2005 

109–57 Comprehensively Combating Methampheta ..................................................................

mines: Impacts on Health and the Environment (Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Health and the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials).

October 20, 2005 

109–58 Natural Gas and Heating Oil for American Homes (Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality).

November 2, 2005 

109–59 Assessing the National Pandemic Flu Preparedness Plan (Full Committee) ............... November 8, 2005 

109–60 A Review of DOE Paducah Site Operations (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

January 19, 2006 

109–61 The Law and Economics of Interchange Fees (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection).

February 15, 2006 

109–62 Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare Issues (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

November 17, 2005 

109–63 Legislation to Implement the POPs, PIC, and LRTAP POPs Agreements (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials).March 2, 2006 

109–64 Car Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe on the Road 

(Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

March 1, 2006 

109–65 Steroids in Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your Health (Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

March 10, 2005 

109–66 A Review of Security Initiatives at DOE Nuclear Facilities (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).March 18, 2005 

109–67 Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism: A Review of the Department of Energy’s 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

May 24, 2005 

109–68 Hearing on a Staff Discussion Draft of the Internet Protocol and Broadband Services Legislation (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).November 9, 2005 

109–70 What’s the Cost?: Proposals to Provide Consumers with Better Information about 

Healthcare Service Costs (Subcommittee on Health).

March 15, 2006 

109–71 Status of the Yucca Mountain Project (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) .... March 15, 2006 

109–72 Superfund Laws and Animal Agriculture (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials).November 16, 2005 

109–73 Issues Before the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).June 9, 2005 

109–74 The Commerce and Consumer Protection Implications of Hurricane Katrina (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).September 22, 2005 

109–75 Medicare Physician Payment: How to Build a More Efficient Payment System (Subcommittee on Health).November 17, 2005 

109–76 Protecting Consumer’s Data: Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint (Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

March 15, 2005 

109–77 Hurricane Katrina: Assessing the Present Environmental Status (Subcommittee on 

Environment and Hazardous Materials).

September 29, 2005 

109–78 Fair Use: Its Effects on Consumers and Industry (Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection).

November 16, 2005 

109–79 The State of Readiness for the 2005–2006 Flu Season (Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations).

May 4, 2005 

109–80 EIA’s Report on Short-term Energy Outlook and Winter Fuels Outlook (Subcommittee 

on Energy and Air Quality).

October 19, 2005 

109–81 Right to Repair: Industry Discussions and Legislative Options (Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

November 10, 2005 

109–82 Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal (Full Committee) ............ March 9, 2006 

109–83 Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).March 30, 2006 

109–84 Pipeline Safety: A Progress Report Since the Enactment of The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality).April 27, 2006 

109–85 Public Reporting of Hospital–Acquired Infection Rates: Empowering Consumers, 

Saving Lives (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

March 29, 2006 

109–86 The Critical Role of Community Health Centers in Ensuring Access to Care (Subcommittee on Health).May 4, 2006 

109–87 Examining the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program (Subcommittee on Health).May 9, 2006 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
314 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

109–88 Reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act: How to Improve the Program to Ensure Access to Care (Subcommittee on Health).April 27, 2006 

109–89 H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005 (Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials).

May 23, 2006 

109–90 Digital Content and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 21st Century Consumer 

(Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

March 29, 2006 and 

May 3, 2006 

109–91 Social Security Numbers in Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with Threats to 

Privacy (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

May 11, 2006 

109–92 H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006 (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).May 18, 2006 

109–93 H.R. 2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners’ Right to Repair Act of 2005 (Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

May 17, 2006 

109–94 Gasoline: Supply, Price, and Specifications (Full Committee) ..................................... May 10, 2006 and May 

11, 2006 

109–95 H.R.ll , a bill to authorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel economy standards (Full Committee).

May 3, 2006 

109–96 World Crude-Oil Pricing (Full Committee) .................................................................... May 4, 2006 

109–97 Project Bioshield Reauthorization Issues (Subcommittee on Health) .......................... April 6, 2006 

109–98 Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare Issues (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

May 9, 2006 

109–99 Privacy in the Commercial World II (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).June 20, 2006 

109–100 Planning for Long-Term Care (Subcommittee on Health) ............................................ May 17, 2006 

109–101 Unlocking America’s Energy Resources Next Generation (Subcommittee on Energy 

and Air Quality).

May 18, 2006 

109–102 Examining the Federal Government’s Partnership with America’s Pharmacists (Subcommittee on Health).May 23, 2006 

109–103 Vehicle and Fuels Technology: Next Generation (Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality).

May 24, 2006 

109–104 A Review of NRC’s Reactor Oversight Process (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).June 19, 2006 

109–105 Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).June 14, 2006 

109–106 Discussion draft providing for a reduction in the number of boutique fuels (Full 

Committee).

June 7, 2006 

109–107 Cyber Security Challenges at the Department of Energy (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).June 9, 2006 

109–108 Oversight and Administration of the 340B Drug Discount Program: Improving Efficiency and Transparency (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).December 15, 2005 

109–109 Universal Service: What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1: The High-Cost Fund 

(Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).

June 21, 2006 

109–110 CFIUS Reform: H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).

July 11, 2006 

109–111 Motor Vehicle Technology and the Consumer: Views from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection).

July 18, 2006 

109–112 The Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and Technological Innovation 

Coexist? (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).

June 27, 2006 

109–113 The Administration’s FY ’07 Health Care Priorities (Full Committee) ......................... February 15, 2006 

109–114 Legislative Proposals to Promote Electronic Health Records and a Smarter Health 

Information System (Subcommittee on Health).

March 16, 2006 

109–115 Hospital Disaster Preparedness: Past, Present, and Future (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).January 26, 2006 

109–116 Growth, Opportunity, Competition—America Goes to Work. (Full Committee) ............ June 29, 2006 

109–117 Innovative Solutions to Medical Liability (Subcommittee on Health) .......................... July 13, 2006 

109–118 DOE’s Revised Schedule for Yucca Mountain (Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality).

July 19, 2006 

109–119 Human Tissue Samples: NIH Research Policies and Practices (Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations).

June 13, 2006 and 

June 14, 2006 

109–120 Mental Illness and Brain Disease: Dispelling Myths and Promoting Recovery 

Through Awareness and Treatment (Subcommittee on Health).

June 28, 2006 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
315 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

109–121 H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006 (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).July 11, 2006 

109–122 Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet: How the State of New Jersey is 

Combating Child Predators on the Internet (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

July 10, 2006 

109–123 Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISP’s and Social Networking Sites 

(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

June 27, 2006 and 

June 28, 2006 

109–124 The Silicosis Story: Mass Tort Screening and the Public Health (Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations).

March 28, 2006, March 

31, 2006, June 6, 

2006, and July 26, 

2006 

109–125 H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act of 2006 (Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet).

July 20, 2006 

109–126 Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress 

Need to Know About Child Predators (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

April 4, 2006, April 6, 

2006, and May 3, 

2006 

109–127 H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act (Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection).

July 25, 2006 

109–128 Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).July 19, 2006 and July 

27, 2006 

109–129 Medicare Part D: Implementation of the New Drug Benefit (Subcommittee on 

Health).

March 1, 2006 

109–130 Medicare Physician Payment: How to Build a Payment System that Provides Quality, Efficient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries (Subcommittee on Health).July 25, 2006 and July 

27, 2006 

109–131 Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who has Access to Your Private Records? 

(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

June 21, 2006, June 

22, 2006, and 

September 29, 2006 

109–132 Use of Imaging Services: Providing Appropriate Care for Medicare Beneficiaries 

(Subcommittee on Health).

July 18, 2006 

109–133 Discussion Draft on the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act Reauthorization and H.R. 

5782, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2006 (Subcommittee on Energy 

and Air Quality).

July 27, 2006 

109–134 Examining the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Medicaid Program and Our 

Healthcare Delivery System (Full Committee).

August 10, 2006 and 

August 15, 2006 

109–135 BP’s Pipeline Spills at Prudhoe Bay: What Went Wrong? (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).September 7, 2006 

109–136 Continuing Ethics and Management Concerns at NIH and the Public Health Service 

Commissioned Corps (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

September 13, 2006 

109–137 CyberSecurity: Protecting America’s Critical Infrastructure, Economy, and Consumers (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet).September 13, 2006 

109–138 Nuclear waste storage and disposal policy, and hydroelectric license extension and 

energy efficiency legislation (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality).

September 13, 2006 

109–139 Contact Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the Prescription? (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).September 15, 2006 

109–140 Improving NIH Management and Operation: A Legislative Hearing on the NIH Reform Act of 2006 (Full Committee).September 19, 2006 

109–141 Deleting Commercial Child Pornography Sites From the Internet: The U.S. Financial 

Industry’s Efforts to Combat This Problem (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

September 21, 2006 

109–142 ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working? (Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 

Telecommunications and the Internet and the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection).

September 21, 2006 

109–143 Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: The Face of a Child Predator and 

Other Issues (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

September 26, 2006 

109–144 Editing Hollywood’s Editors: Cleaning Flicks for Families (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection).September 26, 2006 

109–145 Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: Follow-up Issues to the Masha 

Allen Adoption (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).

September 27, 2006 

109–146 Hewlett-Packard’s Pretexting Scandal (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations).September 28, 2006 

109–147 Medicare Physician Payments: 2007 and Beyond (Subcommittee on Health) ............. September 28, 2006 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING
316 

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. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with HEARING