U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

99–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

111TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2011

111–706 

Union Calendar No. 429 

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC, January 3, 2011. 

Hon. LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. MILLER: 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 111th 

Congress, including the Committee’s review and study of legislation 

within its jurisdiction and the oversight activities undertaken by 

the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, 

Chairman. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................... 1 

Rules for the Committee ......................................................................................... 3 

Members and Organization ..................................................................................... 13 

Committee Staff ....................................................................................................... 20 

Legislative and Oversight Summary ...................................................................... 23 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection .......................... 29 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet ..................... 61 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment .......................................................... 87 

Subcommittee on Health ......................................................................................... 127 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations .................................................... 215 

Appendix I—Oversight Plan for the 111th Congress ........................................... 241 

Appendix II—Statistical Summary of Activity ...................................................... 249 

Appendix III—Public Laws ..................................................................................... 251 

Appendix IV—Publications of the Committee ....................................................... 253 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

Union Calendar No. 429 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–706 

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WAXMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE, 111TH CONGRESS 

COMMITTEE JURISDICTION

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 in the 111th Congress, 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

2 

(12) Public health and quarantine. 

(13) Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, including regulation of research and development reactors and nuclear 

regulatory research. 

(14) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications. 

(15) Travel and tourism. 

The committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect to 

regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear energy as it 

has with respect to regulation of non-nuclear facilities and of use 

of non-nuclear energy. 

In addition, clause 3(e) 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(3) 

RULES FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 111TH 

CONGRESS 

(Adopted January 14, 2009) 

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. 

(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.—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) Notice.—The date, time, place, and subject matter of any 

meeting of the Committee or its subcommittees 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. 

The date, time, place, and subject matter of other meetings shall 

be announced at least 72 hours in advance of the commencement 

of such meeting. 

(d) Agenda.—The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee 

meeting, setting out 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

4 

(e) Availability of Texts.—No bill, recommendation, or other matter reported by a subcommittee shall be considered by the 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. 

(f) Waiver.—The requirements of subsections (c), (d), and (e) may 

be waived by a majority of those present and voting (a majority 

being present) of the Committee or subcommittee, or by the chairman with the concurrence of the ranking member, as the case may 

be. 

RULE 3.—HEARINGS

(a) Notice.—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 a determination is made 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. 

(b) Memorandum.—Each member of the Committee or subcommittee shall be provided, except in the case of unusual circumstances, with a memorandum at least 48 hours before each 

hearing explaining (1) the purpose of the hearing and (2) the 

names of any witnesses. 

(c) Witnesses.—(1) 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) To the greatest extent practicable, the written testimony of 

each witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source 

(by agency and program) of any federal grant (or subgrant thereof) 

or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years by the witness 

or by an entity represented by the witness. 

(d) Questioning.—(1) 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 or subcommittee present has been recognized once for that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

5 

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) The chairman with the concurrence of the ranking minority 

member, or the Committee by motion, may permit an equal number of majority and minority members to question a witness for a 

specified, total period that is equal for each side and not longer 

than thirty minutes for each side. The chairman with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, or the Committee by motion, may also permit committee staff of the majority and minority 

to question a witness for a specified, total period that is equal for 

each side and not longer than thirty minutes for each side. 

(3) 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. 

RULE 4.—VICE CHAIRMEN; PRESIDING MEMBER

The chairman shall designate a member of the majority party to 

serve as vice chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of 

each subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any meeting or 

hearing during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the 

chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are 

not present at any meeting or hearing, the ranking member of the 

majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting or hearing. 

RULE 5.—OPEN PROCEEDINGS

Except as provided by the Rules of the House, each meeting and 

hearing 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 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 or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for those 

actions for which the House rules require a majority quorum. For 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

6 

the purposes of taking any other action, 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 and its subcommittees 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 and its subcommittees 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. The 

Chairman also shall make the record of the votes on any question 

on which a record vote is demanded available on the Committee’s 

website not later than 2 business days after such vote is taken. 

Such record 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. 

(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

(a) Establishment.—There shall be such standing subcommittees 

with such jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party 

caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of the 

subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party caucus 

prior to the start of the process for establishing subcommittee 

chairmanships and assignments. 

(b) Powers and Duties.—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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

7 

scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings 

whenever possible. 

(c) 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. 

(d) 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. 

(e) 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. The chairman emeritus shall be an 

ex officio member without voting privileges of each subcommittee 

of which the chairman emeritus is not assigned as a member and 

may not be counted for purposes of establishing a quorum on any 

such subcommittee. 

(f) Subcommittee on Witness Inquiry.—There shall also be established a Subcommittee on Witness Inquiry that may examine witnesses in executive session pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 

2(g)(2) and 2(k)(5). The subcommittee shall be comprised of two 

members of the majority party appointed at the discretion of the 

chairman and one member of the minority party appointed at the 

discretion of the ranking minority member. Subsections (a), (b), (c), 

(d), and (e) shall not apply to the Subcommittee. 

RULE 9.—OPENING STATEMENTS

(a) Written Statements.—All written opening statements at business meetings conducted by the committee or any of its subcommittees shall be made part of the permanent record. 

(b) Length.—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. At any business meeting 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. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

8 

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 subcommittees having legislative or oversight jurisdiction. 

RULE 11.—MANAGING LEGISLATION ON THE HOUSE FLOOR

The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which member 

shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to the House. 

RULE 12.—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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

9 

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 13.—SUPERVISION, DUTIES OF STAFF

(a) Supervision of Majority Staff.—The professional and clerical 

staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority shall be under 

the supervision and direction of the chairman who, in consultation 

with the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall establish and assign 

the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate 

such authority as he determines appropriate. 

(b) Supervision of Minority Staff.—The professional and clerical 

staff assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and 

direction of the minority members of the Committee, who may delegate such authority as they determine appropriate. 

RULE 14.—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 

111th 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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

10 

RULE 15.—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 16.—SUBPOENAS

The chairman of the Committee may, after consultation with the 

ranking minority member, authorize and issue a subpoena under 

clause 2(m) of Rule XI of the House. If the ranking minority member objects to the proposed subpoena in writing, the matter shall 

be referred to the Committee for resolution. The chairman of the 

Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas without referring 

the matter to the Committee for resolution 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. 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 17.—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). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

11 

RULE 18. 

The chairman shall maintain an official Committee website for 

the purposes of furthering the Committee’s legislative and oversight responsibilities, including communicating information about 

the Committee’s activities to Committee members and other members of the House. The ranking minority member may maintain an 

official website for the purpose of carrying out official responsibilities, including communicating information about the activities of 

the minority members of the Committee to Committee members 

and other members of the House. 

RULE 19. 

The chairman of the Committee is directed to offer a motion 

under clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of the House whenever 

the chairman considers it appropriate. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(13) 

MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

(Ratio 36–23) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado, Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri, Deputy Ranking 

Member 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

14 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION 

(RATIOS DO NOT INCLUDE EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

(Ratio 18–11) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (Ex Officionon-voting) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (Ex Officio) 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Ranking Member 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas, (Ex Officio) 

Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign commerce, including all trade matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; regulation of commercial practices (the FTC), including sportsrelated matters; consumer affairs and consumer protection, including privacy matters generally; 

consumer product safety (the CPSC); and product liability; and motor vehicle safety; regulation 

of travel, tourism, and time; and toxic substances and noise pollution. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

15 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE INTERNET

(Ratio 21–13) 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

Vice Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

(Ex Officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Ranking Member 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas (Ex Officio) 

Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign telecommunications, including but not limited to all 

telecommunication and information transmission by broadcast, radio, wire, microwave, satellite, 

or other mode. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

16 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

(Ratio 21–13) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

(Ex Officio) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

JOE BARTON, Texas (Ex Officio) 

Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy, renewable energy resources 

and synthetic fuels; energy conservation; energy information; energy regulation and utilization; 

utility issues and regulation of nuclear facilities; interstate energy compacts; nuclear energy 

and waste; Superfund, RCRA, and the Safe Drinking Water Act; The Clean Air Act; and, 

all laws, programs, and government activities affecting such matters. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

(Ratio 23–14) 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California, Vice Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois, Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

JOE BARTON, Texas (Ex Officio) 

Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction; mental health and research; 

biomedical programs and health protection in general, including Medicaid and national health 

insurance; food and drugs; and drug abuse. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

17 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

(Ratio 11–7) 

BART STUPAK, Michigan, Chairman 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, 

Vice Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(Ex Officio—non-voting) 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

(Ex Officio) 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Ranking Member 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOE BARTON, Texas (Ex Officio) 

Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments, and programs within 

the jurisdiction of the full committee, and for conducting investigations within such jurisdiction. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

18 

COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP CHANGES

The Committee on Energy and Commerce organized on January 

14, 2009, the Honorable Henry A. Waxman (D–CA), presiding. The 

membership of the full Committee was increase by one additional 

member for the 111th Congress, bringing the total number of members on the Committee to 58 (36 Democrats and 22 Republicans). 

Ten were new to the Committee: Reps. Christensen of the Virgin 

Islands, Castor of Florida, Sutton of Ohio, Sarbanes of Maryland, 

Murphy of Connecticut, Space of Ohio, McNerney of California, 

Braley of Iowa, Welch of Vermont, and Gingrey of Georgia. On January 22, 2009, the House approved a resolution that provided an 

additional Republican member to the Committee; the additional 

seat was filled by Hon. Steve Scalise (R–LA). The final number of 

those serving on the Committee was 59 (36 Democrats and 23 Republicans). 

Also during the January 14, 2009, organizational meeting, the 

Committee adopted the Rules of the Committee for the 111th Congress. The subcommittee jurisdictions, ratios, and memberships 

were also approved. Subcommittee changes in the 111th Congress 

included establishing five subcommittees rather than six subcommittees in the previous Congress. Two subcommittee names 

were changed and the Committee further approved realigning certain environmental and toxic substance jurisdictions between the 

Subcommittees on Energy and Environment and Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection. 

Several changes in the membership of the Committee and its 

subcommittees occurred during the second session of the 111th 

Congress. Hon. Greg Walden (R–OR), who had served as ranking 

minority member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in the 111th Congress, resigned from the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 22, 2010, creating vacancies on 

several subcommittees and the position of ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. On February 23, 2010, the House approved H. Res. 1095, electing Hon. 

Parker Griffith (R–AL) to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to rank after Mr. Scalise of Louisiana. At a business meeting of the Committee on February 23, 2010, a resolution was approved that made changes in the minority ranking members and 

subcommittee memberships: Hon. Michael C. Burgess (R–TX) was 

approved by the Committee to replace Mr. Walden as ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Hon. Ed Whitfield (R–KY) was approved to serve as 

ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection in lieu of Mr. Radanovich, who 

until then had served in that position in the 111th Congress. Mr. 

Griffith was approved to serve on three subcommittees: Energy and 

Environment, Oversight and Investigations, and Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet. 

On March 21, 2010, Hon. Nathan Deal (R–GA) resigned from the 

House of Representatives, creating a vacancy on the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, including the ranking minority member position on the Subcommittee on Health. On March 25, 2010, pursuant to H. Res. 1223, Hon. Robert E. Latta (R–OH) was elected to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

19 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to rank after Mr. Griffith 

of Alabama, filling the vacancy created by Mr. Deal’s resignation. 

At a business meeting held on April 15, 2010, a resolution offered 

by Mr. Barton was approved by the Committee that made further 

changes in the minority’s ranking members and subcommittee 

membership: Hon. John Shimkus (R–IL) was approved to replace 

Mr. Deal as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health; Hon. 

John Sullivan (R–OK) became a member of the Subcommittee on 

Health, to rank after Mrs. Myrick, which filled the vacancy created 

by Mr. Deal’s resignation; Mr. Sullivan was removed from the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection membership, replaced by Mr. Latta, who would rank after Mr. Scalise of 

Louisiana. The resolution also filled two other vacancies created by 

the resignation of Mr. Deal by placing Mr. Latta on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee 

on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, ranking on both 

subcommittees after Mr. Griffith of Alabama. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

20 

COMMITTEE STAFF—MAJORITY AND MINORITY 

COMMITTEE MAJORITY

PHILIP S. BARNETT, Staff Director 

KAREN NELSON, Deputy Committee Staff Director for Health 

KRISTIN AMERLING, Chief Counsel 

KAREN LIGHTFOOT, Communications Director 

BRUCE WOLPE, Senior Advisor 

PAT DELGADO, Policy Director, Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

MICHELLE ASH, Chief Counsel, Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

GREG DOTSON, Chief Counsel, Energy and Environment 

MEREDITH FUCHS, Chief Investigative Counsel 

RUTH KATZ, Chief Public Health Counsel 

DAVID LEVISS, Chief Oversight Counsel 

ANDY SCHNEIDER, Chief Health Counsel 

ROGER SHERMAN, Chief Counsel, Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

EARLEY T. GREEN, Chief Clerk 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Legislative Clerk 

SHEILA KLEIN, Office Manager/Executive Assistant to the Staff Director 

BRIAN COHEN, Senior Investigator and Policy Advisor 

TIM POWDERLY, Senior Counsel, Communications, Technology and the Internet 

LORIE SCHMIDT, Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment 

TRACY SHEPPARD, Senior Environmental Counsel 

ALEXANDRA TEITZ, Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment 

ROBIN APPLEBERRY, Counsel 

JEFF BARAN, Counsel 

JOEL BEAUVAIS, Counsel 

STACIA CARDILLE, Counsel 

ROBERT L. CLARK, Counsel 

SHAWN CHANG, Counsel 

SARAH DESPRES, Counsel 

JACK EBLER, Counsel 

MOLLY GASTON, Counsel 

ALTHEA GREGORY, Counsel 

PURVEE KEMPF, Counsel 

ANGELLE KWEMO, Counsel 

FELIPE MENDOZA, Counsel 

TIMOTHY ROBINSON, Counsel 

NAOMI SEILER, Counsel 

RACHEL SHER, Counsel 

ANNA TINDALL, Counsel 

TIMOTHY WESTMORELAND, Counsel 

TIFFANY BENJAMIN, Investigative Counsel 

AMY LEVINE, Subcommittee Counsel, Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

ALEX BARRON, Professional Staff Member 

KATIE CAMPBELL, Professional Staff Member 

ALISON CASSADY, Professional Staff Member 

STEPHEN CHA, Professional Staff Member 

MELISSA CHEATHAM, Professional Staff Member 

MICHAL FREEDHOFF, Professional Staff Member 

EMILY GIBBONS, Professional Staff Member 

TIM GRONNIGER, Professional Staff Member 

TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Professional Staff Member 

VIRGIL MILLER, Professional Staff Member 

LAURA VAUGHT, Professional Staff Member 

TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT SCHLOEGEL, Investigator, Oversight and Investigations 

ANDY BINDMAN, Robert Wood Johnson Fellow 

JENNIFER OWENS, Investigator 

PETER KETCHAM-COLWILL, Policy Analyst 

JENNIFER BERENHOLZ, Deputy Clerk 

ELIZABETH B. ERTEL, Financial Administrator 

MARK NOBLE, Director of New Media 

LINDSAY VIDAL, Deputy Press Secretary 

JR DENG, Chief Information Officer 

JEFFREY WEASE, Deputy Information Officer 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

21 

SEAN CORCORAN, Assistant Clerk 

ALVIN BANKS, Special Assistant, Health 

ALLISON CORR, Special Assistant, Health 

SARAH FISHER, Special Assistant, Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

CAITLIN HABERMAN, Special Assistant, Energy and Environment 

ELIZABETH LETTER, Special Assistant, Press 

BILLIE MCGRANE, Special Assistant, Full Committee 

ALISON NEUBAUER, Special Assistant, Oversight and Investigations 

MITCH SMILEY, Special Assistant, Full Committee 

WILL WALLACE, Special Assistant, Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 

RONALD ALLEN, Staff Assistant 

BYRON GWINN, Staff Assistant 

GABE STUTMAN, Staff Assistant 

DETAILEES FROM U.S. AGENCIES

CHRISTOPHER WELLS, GPO 

MICHAEL OSTHEIMER, FTC 

JEFFREY COHEN, FCC 

REBECCA BROWN, EPA 

ERIC FLAMM, HHS/FDA 

GREG GUICE, FCC 

ART HOROWITZ, EPA 

DERRICK FRANKLIN, HHS 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

22 

MINORITY COMMITTEE STAFF

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Chief of Staff 

AMANDA MERTENS CAMPBELL, General Counsel 

HEATHER COURI, Deputy Chief of Staff 

LAWRENCE A. NEAL, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications 

R. CLAYTON ALSPACH, Counsel 

JAMES ‘‘IKE’’ BRANNON, Chief Economist 

WILLIAM CARTY, Professional Staff Member 

KAREN E. CHRISTIAN, Counsel 

STACY CLINE, Counsel 

SAMUEL COSTELLO, Legislative Analyst 

GERALD COURI, Sr. Professional Staff Member 

R. NATHAN CROW, Professional Staff Member 

AARON CUTLER, Counsel 

NEIL R. FRIED, Senior Counsel 

GARRETT J. GOLDING, Legislative Analyst 

SEAN HAYES, Counsel 

JAMES HOPPER, Staff Assistant 

PETER E. KIELTY, Legislative Analyst 

RYAN LONG, Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH LOWELL, Research Analyst 

BRIAN MCCULLOUGH, Sr. Professional Staff Member 

LISA MILLER, Communications Director 

MARY NEUMAYR, Counsel 

KRISTA ROSENTHALL, Counsel 

ALAN M. SLOBODIN, Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL SPECTOR, Counsel 

PETER SPENCER, Professional Staff Member 

ANDREA SPRING, Professional Staff Member 

LINDA WALKER, Administrative & Human Resources Coordinator 

SHANNON WEINBERG, Counsel 

KATHRYN WHEELBARGER, Deputy Chief of Staff 

JEAN WOODROW, Director of Information Technology 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(23) 

LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUMMARY

During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce had an extraordinarily active legislative and oversight 

record. Of the 1,478 bills referred to the Committee, 32 measures 

became public law and 6 were pending action by the President 

when this report was filed. The full Committee and its subcommittees held a combined total of 169 days of hearings and 27 days of 

markups. 

OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

Major legislative accomplishments of the Committee included enactment of the following measures: • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, comprehensive health reform legislation that guarantees universal access to 

health insurance while curbing insurance company abuses, controlling costs, expanding the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and 

reducing the deficit; • The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, 

which funds health coverage for millions of low-income children 

and their parents; 

• The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, 

which grants the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority 

to regulate the advertising, marketing, and manufacturing of tobacco products; • The Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (known as 

the ‘‘Cash for Clunkers Act’’), which offers consumers incentives to 

trade in old, gas-guzzling vehicles; • Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

that provide funds to develop renewable energy sources, increase 

funding for Medicaid to address the effects of the recession, improve healthcare technology, and expand broadband Internet access 

for businesses and households in underserved communities; • The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, which 

authorizes funding for medical and support services for people living with HIV/AIDS; • The Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act, which averts a 25% 

cut in physician fees in Medicare by maintaining current levels for 

all of 2011; • The 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, 

which makes the Internet and smart phones more accessible to individuals with disabilities; 

• The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products 

Act, which establishes national standards to reduce formaldehyde 

emissions from trailers, furniture, and other wood products; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

24 

• The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act 

(known as the ‘‘CALM Act’’), which addresses the increase in volume consumers experience when television programming goes to a 

commercial; • The Truth in Fur Labeling Act, which eliminates consumer 

and retailer confusion about whether clothes they are purchasing 

contain fur by requiring labeling of all articles of apparel containing fur; • The DTV Delay Act, which extended the deadlines related to 

the transition from analog to digital television broadcasting for approximately four months to avoid consumer disruption and confusion; • The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010, 

which reauthorizes and amends certain provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that govern satellite retransmission of television broadcast signals and accounts for the completion of the digital television transition; • Six public health-related measures, including new initiatives 

on the safe disposal of prescription drugs and Alzheimer’s disease, 

as well as reauthorizations of and improvements in programs on 

stem cell transplantation, gynecologic cancers, and early hearing 

detection for newborns; • The FDA Food Safety and Modernization Act, which grants the 

FDA new authorities to protect the nation’s food supply; • The Local Community Radio Act of 2010, which would expand 

the ability of the FCC to license low-power FM radio stations and 

enhance local programming; • The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which 

would provide funding for health care for the responders to the 9/ 

11 terrorist attacks. 

The Committee also reported the American Clean Energy and 

Security (ACES) Act, comprehensive legislation to create clean energy jobs, reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, and curb 

global warming. This bill was passed by the House and sent to the 

Senate. Other important Committee bills that the House approved 

and sent to the Senate included: 

• The Home Star Energy Retrofit Act, which would encourage 

energy efficiency investments in homes across the country; 

• The Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense Act, which 

would protect the electric grid against cyber threats; 

• The Chemical and Water Security Act, which would strengthen 

security at chemical plants and drinking water facilities; 

• The Data Accountability and Trust Act, which would enhance 

protections for consumers victimized by data breaches; 

• The Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, which would require that 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) develop jointly a publicly-accessible spectrum inventory; 

• The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act (AQUA) of 2010, 

which would have reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act State 

Revolving Loan Fund; and 

• More than two dozen public health-related bills, including new 

initiatives on children’s vision care, heart disease in women, diabetes, autism and concussion management for school-aged children, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

25 

as well as reauthorizations of and improvements in current programs on arthritis, emergency medical services for children, and 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) pediatric research. 

Additional detail on 111th Congress legislative activity is provided in the description of Subcommittee activity that follows the 

list of hearings held by the full Committee. 

OVERVIEW OF COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

On February 10, 2009, the Committee adopted an Oversight Plan 

pursuant to clause 2(d) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives (included in appendix I) identifying a range of programs and policies the Committee would review concerning energy, 

the environment, public health and health care, communications, 

and consumer protection and trade. Over the course of the 111th 

Congress, the Committee conducted oversight and investigations 

both on issues described in this plan and on matters beyond those 

contemplated at the time the plan was approved. These activities 

informed the development of a number of important bills, and 

helped reduce waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the public and private sector. 

The Committee began the 111th Congress with a series of hearings in the full Committee and the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Environment regarding one of the important areas highlighted in 

the Oversight Plan: climate change and the nation’s energy security. These hearings led to the development of clean energy, energy 

efficiency, and climate change provisions in the American Clean 

Energy and Security Act. This comprehensive energy security legislation was approved by both the Committee and the House of Representatives in 2009. 

Another key area identified in the Oversight Plan was the need 

to review the poor performance of our health care system, including 

waste, fraud, and abuse in federal health programs, and practices 

of the health insurance industry. Hearings held by the Subcommittee on Health and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led to development of numerous provisions in the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, comprehensive health care reform legislation signed into law this year, including curbs on 

wasteful spending in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, provisions to ensure affordability of health coverage, and prohibitions on 

insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, 

health status, and gender. 

In the area of consumer protection, the Oversight Plan identified 

several issues, including the need to examine consumer credit matters and activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Committee oversight activities in these areas in 

the 111th Congress informed the development of legislation to expedite rulemakings concerning consumer credit or debt and a bill 

to require motor vehicle safety standards relating to vehicle electronics and to provide additional tools to promote NHTSA vehicle 

safety activities. 

The Committee also conducted oversight on a range of communications issues set forth in the Oversight Plan, including review 

of the management, operations, and activities of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Telecommunications and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

26 

Information Administration public safety communications, and 

Universal Service Reform. This oversight informed the development of a number of bills, including legislation to allow the funding 

for the interoperable emergency communications grant program to 

remain available until expended through 2012 as well as legislative 

proposals to construct a nationwide interoperable broadband network for public safety and to reform the universal service program. 

The oversight activities of the Committee in the 111th Congress 

complied with the provisions in clause 2 of House rule XI requiring 

at least one oversight hearing on federal programs or operations 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified as 

being at ‘‘high-risk’’ and at least one oversight hearing every 120 

days on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in government 

programs the Committee authorizes. 

Committee hearings on waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement 

in federal programs authorized by this Committee included: • Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on the 

Salmonella Outbreak: The Continued Failure to Protect the Food 

Supply (Feb. 11, 2009) (examining a deadly food safety outbreak at 

a peanut butter manufacturing plant and flaws GAO identified in 

its ‘‘high-risk’’ series regarding Food and Drug Administration 

management of oversight over the nation’s food supply); • Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, 

Hearing on Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 

(Feb. 26, 2009) (examining deficiencies in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) process for assessing and controlling toxic 

chemicals that GAO identified in its high-risk series); • Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on Institutional Review Boards that Oversee Experimental Human Testing for Profit (Mar. 26, 2009) (examining inadequacies in FDA’s 

management of the process for certifying institutional review 

boards and assessing the sufficiency of their oversight of human 

testing protocols); • Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on 

Commercial Sales of Military Technologies (June 4, 2009) (examining the government’s mismanagement of export controls on sensitive technology with military applications, including concerns 

GAO identified in its high-risk series regarding the failure of the 

Department of State and the Department of Commerce to coordinate export control activities over sensitive technology); 

• Subcommittee on Health, Hearing on Medical Devices: Are 

Current Regulations Doing Enough for Patients? (June 18, 2009) 

(examining whether FDA has made sufficient efforts to bring medical devices under modern regulatory authorities, a core problem 

identified by GAO); 

• Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on 

Federal Oversight of High Containment Bio-Laboratories (Sept. 22, 

2009) (examining the following concerns GAO identified regarding 

federal government mismanagement of high containment bio-laboratories: (1) allowing continuing expansion of these labs since 

2001 without a clear, coordinated national strategy; (2) the absence 

of a legislative or executive mandate to a single federal agency to 

track the expansion of these labs; and (3) the failure of the federal 

government to develop more stringent safety and security protocols 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

27 

to reduce accidents in these labs that result from human error and 

systems failure); • Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, 

Hearing on Public Sales of Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: 

Are They Safe or Environmental Time Bombs? (Apr. 28, 2010) (examining EPA’s assessment of formaldehyde, which GAO has criticized for not having been completed); • Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Hearing on 

The Role and Performance of FDA in Ensuring Food Safety (May 

6, 2010) (examining reports by GAO and the HHS Office of Inspector General concerning FDA’s management of international food 

imports and inspections of domestic food facilities); and • Subcommittee on Health, Hearing on Cutting Waste, Fraud, 

and Abuse in Medicare and Medicaid (Sept. 22, 2010) (examining 

Department of Health and Human Services efforts to reduce waste, 

fraud, and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs identified 

in Office of Inspector General reports). 

Additional detail on the Committee’s 111th Congress oversight 

activity on items in the Oversight Plan and other issues is provided 

in the description of Subcommittee activity contained in this report. 

HEARINGS HELD

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership.—Legislative hearing providing the perspective of U.S. Climate Action Partnership members, a coalition of businesses and nongovernmental organizations 

seeking legislation to address the climate change threat. Hearing 

held on January 15, 2009. PRINTED, Serial Number 111–1. 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, Days 1 

and 2.—Legislative hearing on the discussion draft of the ‘‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009’’. This hearing examined the views of the Administration and a broad range of stakeholders on the discussion draft. Day 2 was held jointly with the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. Hearing held on April 

21 and 22, 2009. PRINTED, Serial Number 111–29. 

Comprehensive Health Reform Discussion Draft, Day 2, Part 1.— Legislative hearing on the health care reform discussion draft. Testimony was heard from Secretary of Health and Human Services 

Kathleen Sebelius. Hearing held on June 24, 2009. PRINTED, Serial Number 111–54. 

Preparing for the 2009 Pandemic Flu.—Oversight hearing on 

what was known about H1N1 influenza strain and what steps the 

government has taken and plans to take in response to the surge 

in cases. Hearing held on September 15, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 111–64. 

A Review of the Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal 

Year 2011 Budget.—Oversight hearing on the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services budget proposal for fiscal year 2011. 

Testimony was heard from HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. 

Hearing held on February 4, 2010. PRINTED, Serial Number 111– 

95. 

Effects of Developments in Synthetic Genomics.—Oversight hearing examining recently reported advances in synthetic biology and 

their potential impact. Hearing held on May 27, 2010. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 111–127. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(29) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

FORMALDEHYDE STANDARDS FOR COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS ACT

Public Law 111–199 (H.R. 4805, S. 1660) 

To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to reduce the emissions of formaldehyde from composite wood products. 

Summary 

H.R. 4805 establishes national technology-based limits (i.e., limits based on the technological feasibility of the standards) on formaldehyde emissions from most composite wood products. It does so 

by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue 

regulations, not later than January 1, 2013, to apply formaldehyde 

emissions standards that are equivalent to the California standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and 

particleboard that is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured anywhere in the United States. EPA’s regulations must ensure compliance with the federal standard and must include provisions relating to labeling, chain of custody requirements, provisions 

for sale of products or finished goods that were manufactured before the compliance deadline but are allowed to continue to be sold 

within a specified time period after the deadline (or product ‘‘sellthrough’’), third-party testing and certification, and other matters 

of implementation. 

H.R. 4805 also requires that the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) update its regulations to reflect the 

standards established by EPA. Under the bill, the new limits will 

go into effect 180 days after EPA issues its regulations. Finally, 

EPA will be free to make further limitations at any time subsequent to the initial rulemaking. 

Legislative History 

On March 10, 2010, H.R. 4805 was introduced by Rep. Matsui of 

California. It was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services. On 

March 11, 2010, H.R. 4805 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Similar legislation in 

the Senate was introduced by Sen. Klobuchar of Minnesota as S. 

1660 on September 10, 2009. 

On March 18, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 4805. Testimony was received from the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; the Composite Panel Association; the American Home Furnishings Alliance; the Sierra 

Club; and a health scientist specializing in chemical safety. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

30 

On April 28, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘Public Sales of Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: Are they Safe or Environmental 

Time Bombs?’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, EPA, General Services Administration, a producer of a documentary film on the subject, the 

chief medical officer of Louisiana’s Recovery School District, and 

the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property. 

On May 26, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection was discharged from further consideration of 

H.R. 4805, and the full Committee met in open markup session to 

consider the measure. H.R. 4805 was ordered favorably reported to 

the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

The Senate companion bill, S. 1660, introduced by Sen. 

Klobuchar of Minnesota on August 10, 2009, was reported by the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 19, 

2010, and passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous 

consent on June 14, 2010. 

On June 15, 2010, S. 1660 was received in the House and held 

at the desk. 

On June 22, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 4805 (H. Rept. 111–509). 

On June 22, 2010, the Committee on Financial Services was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4805. 

On June 23, 2010, the House took up S. 1660, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 4805, as amended, and passed the bill under 

suspension of the rules by a voice vote, clearing the measure for 

the White House. 

On July 7, 2010, S. 1660 was signed into law by the President 

and became Public Law 111–199. 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACT OF 2009 DODD-FRANK

RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–203 (H.R. 3126, H.R. 4173, S. 3217) 

To establish the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. (H.R. 

3126) 

To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end 

‘‘too big to fail,’’ to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, 

and for other purposes. (H.R. 4173 as enacted) 

Summary 

H.R. 3126 improves consumer protection in the financial arena 

by creating one commission whose sole mission is consumer financial protection. H.R. 3126 pulls the consumer protection functions 

from each of the banking agencies, and some consumer financial 

protection functions from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 

and gives those functions to the new commission. The legislation 

calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to ensure that: (1) consumers have, understand, and can use the information they need to make responsible decisions about consumer financial products or services; (2) consumers are protected from 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

31 

abuse, unfairness, deception, and discrimination; (3) markets for 

consumer financial products or services operate fairly and efficiently with ample room for sustainable growth and innovation; 

and (4) traditionally underserved consumers and communities have 

access to financial services. 

H.R. 3126 consolidates in this new commission all consumer protection functions related to financial products, including rulemaking, supervision and examination, and enforcement. CFPA 

would have its own authority to issue rules prohibiting unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts, and would become the sole rulemaking 

authority for consumer financial protection statutes, including the 

Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the 

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In addition, H.R. 3126 provides 

the FTC with additional authorities to conduct rulemaking and enforce against unfair or deceptive acts or practices. 

Legislative History 

On July 8, 2009, H.R. 3126 was introduced by Rep. Frank of 

Massachusetts, Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services. 

The bill was referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and 

in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. That same 

day, H.R. 3126 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On July 8, 2009, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing titled ‘‘The Proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency: Implications for Consumers and the FTC.’’ This hearing examined the proposal by the Obama Administration for the creation of a new consumer protection agency, a proposal that had been introduced that 

day as H.R. 3126. Testimony was received from the Chairman of 

the FTC, the Department of the Treasury, Consumers Union, a 

former general counsel of the FTC, a former manager of a state 

consumer enforcement office, a professor of law, and the CEO of 

the American Financial Services Association. 

On October 22, 2009, the Committee on Financial Services considered H.R. 3126 and subsequently ordered reported the bill, 

amended, by a rollcall vote of 39–29. 

On October 29, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3126, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider the bill as ordered reported 

by the Committee on Financial Services. The Committee considered 

amendments to the bill and subsequently ordered H.R. 3126 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 33–19. 

On December 2, 2009, Rep. Frank of Massachusetts introduced 

H.R. 4173, the ‘‘Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

of 2009,’’ a broader bill that includes the provisions of H.R. 3126 

within title IV of the legislation. 

On December 9, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 3126 (H. Rept. 111–367, Part 1). 

On December 11, 2009, the House considered H.R. 4173 and subsequently passed the bill, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 223–202. 

On January 20, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 4173 with the 

House amendment and referred H.R. 4173 to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

32 

On May 20, 2010, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 

and Urban Affairs was discharged from further consideration of 

H.R. 4173, and the measure was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent. During consideration, the Senate struck all after the 

enacting clause and substituted the language of S. 3217, as amended. H.R. 4173 was then passed by the Senate, amended, by a rollcall vote of 59–39. The Senate then insisted upon the Senate 

amendments and requested a conference. 

On May 25, 2010, the Senate appointed conferees: Senators 

Dodd, Johnson, Reed, Schumer, Shelby, Crapo, Corker, Gregg, Lincoln, Leahy, Harkin, and Chambliss. 

On June 9, 2010, the House disagreed with the Senate amendment and agreed to a conference. Subsequently, a motion to instruct conferees failed by a rollcall vote of 198–217. 

The Speaker appointed the following conferees from the House: 

Reps. Waxman, Rush, and Barton as conferees from the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce for consideration of sections 3009, 

3102(a)(2), 4001, 4002, 4101–4114, 4201, 4202, 4204–4210, 4301– 

4311, 4314, 4401–4403, 4410, 4501–4509, 4601–4606, 4815, 4901, 

and that portion of section 8002(a)(3) which adds a new section 

313(d) to title 31, United States Code, of the House bill, and that 

portion of section 502(a)(3) which adds a new section 313(d) to title 

31, United States Code, sections 722(e), 1001, 1002, 1011–1018, 

1021–1024, 1027–1029, 1031–1034, 1036, 1037, 1041, 1042, 1048, 

1051–1058, 1061–1067, 1101, and 1105 of the Senate amendment, 

and modifications committed to conference. 

Upon conclusion of the conference, a conference report on H.R. 

4173 was filed in the House (H. Rept. 111–517) and on June 30, 

2010, the House agreed to the conference report by a rollcall vote 

of 237–192. 

On July 15, 2010, the Senate agreed to the conference report by 

a rollcall vote of 60–39, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On July 21, 2010, H.R. 4173 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–203. 

TRUTH IN FUR LABELING ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–313 (H.R. 2480, S. 1076) 

To improve the accuracy of fur product labeling. 

Summary 

H.R. 2480 amends the Fur Products Labeling Act by removing 

the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to exempt apparel 

from labeling if it is valued under a certain amount. As a result, 

all articles of apparel containing fur will be required to be labeled. 

The legislation also instructs the FTC to review the Fur Products 

Name Guide. 

Legislative History 

On May 19, 2009, H.R. 2480 was introduced by Rep. Moran of 

Virginia and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Similar legislation had been introduced as H.R. 4904 in the 109th 

Congress, and as S. 3610 in the 110th Congress. S. 1076, the Senate companion bill in the 111th Congress, was introduced by Sen. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

33 

Menendez of New Jersey. On May 20, 2009, H.R. 2480 was referred 

to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On May 13, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 2480. Testimony was received from representatives of the 

Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, 

the Humane manufacturers. 

On June 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session to consider H.R. 

2480 and subsequently favorably forwarded H.R. 2480 to the full 

Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 15, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 2480, where it was ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 27, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 2480 (H. Rept. 111–571). 

On July 28, 2010, H.R. 2480 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 29, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 2480. On August 5, 

2010, H.R. 2480 was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

On December 7, 2010, the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation was discharged by unanimous consent, 

and the bill was passed by the Senate without amendment by 

unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On December 18, 2010, H.R. 2480 was signed into law by the 

President and became Public Law 111–313. 

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2010

Awaiting White House Action (S. 841, H.R. 734) 

To direct the Secretary of Transportation to study and establish 

a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. 

Summary 

The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010 directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation by quiet cars. 

Legislative History 

On January 28, 2009, H.R. 734 was introduced by Rep. Towns 

of New York and Rep. Stearns of Florida. The bill was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On February 2, 2010, 

H.R. 734 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection. Similar legislation in the Senate was introduced by Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts as S. 841 on April 21, 

2009, and was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

The Senate Committee was discharged of S. 841 by unanimous 

consent on December 9, 2010, and that same day the Senate conmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

34 

sidered S. 841 and passed the bill with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

On December 10, 2010, the House received S. 841 with an 

amendment. 

On December 13, 2010, S. 841 was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, and also to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

On December 15, 2010, the House considered a motion to pass 

S. 841, as amended by the Senate, under suspension of the rules. 

Following debate, the vote was postponed until December 16, 2010, 

when the House passed S. 841, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 

379–30, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On December 28, 2010, S. 841 was presented to the President. 

S. 841, as approved by the House and the Senate, was awaiting 

action by the President when this report was filed. 

RESTORE ONLINE SHOPPERS’ CONFIDENCE ACT

Public Law 111–lll (S. 3386, H.R. 5707) 

To protect consumers from certain aggressive sales tactics on the 

Internet. 

Summary 

The ‘‘Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act’’ addresses several 

tactics used in online commerce, including post-transaction marketing and ‘‘data pass.’’ Post-transaction marketing is when a consumer purchasing from a trusted vendor is presented an offer from 

an unrelated seller, and the third-party seller does not make clear 

it is a distinct entity and that agreeing to the offer constitutes a 

second transaction with different terms. The Act makes it unlawful 

for such post-transaction third party sellers to charge a consumer 

without disclosing the entity’s lack of affiliation with the initial 

seller, providing a description of goods or services being purchased, 

and receiving the consumer’s express informed consent. 

Data pass is where the first seller shares a consumer’s credit 

card number with the third-party seller without the consumer’s 

knowledge or consent. The Act makes it unlawful for the initial 

seller to disclose the consumer’s billing information to the posttransaction third party seller. 

Legislative History 

On July 1, 2010, H.R. 5707 was introduced by Rep. Space of 

Ohio. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On July 13, 2010, H.R. 5707 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Similar 

legislation in the Senate was introduced by Sen. Rockefeller of 

West Virginia as S. 3386 on May 19, 2010. 

On June 9, 2010, S. 3386 was referred to the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Committee considered S. 3386 on August 2, 2010, and ordered the bill reported with 

an amendment. 

On November 30, 2010, the Senate took up S. 3386 as amended 

under unanimous consent and agreed to further amendments. On 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

35 

that day, the Senate passed S. 3386 with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

On December 1, 2010, the House received S. 3386, as amended, 

and referred the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 15, 2010, the House considered a motion to pass 

S. 3386, as amended by the Senate, under suspension of the rules, 

and the House passed S. 3386, as amended, by a voice vote, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On December 29, 2010, S. 3386 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–lll. (The Public Law number had not been assigned when this report 

was filed.) 

COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 390) 

To prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, the promotion, marketing, and advertising of any post-season NCAA Division I football game as a national championship game unless such 

game is the culmination of a fair and equitable playoff system. 

Summary 

H.R. 390 makes it unlawful for any person to promote, market, 

or advertise a post-season National Collegiate Athletic Association 

(NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football game 

as a championship or national championship game, unless the 

game is the final game of a single elimination post-season playoff 

system for which all NCAA Division I FBS conferences and unaffiliated Division I FBS teams are eligible. A similar prohibition applies to all merchandise connected to such a national championship 

game. H.R. 390 deems such action an unfair or deceptive act or 

practice as prohibited under section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The FTC is also granted the authority to promulgate 

rules or guidelines to implement the requirements of H.R. 390. 

These requirements would take effect on January 31, 2011, effectively requiring that a new playoff system be in place to crown a 

champion for the 2011–2012 college football season. 

Legislative History 

On January 9, 2009, H.R. 390 was introduced by Rep. Barton of 

Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The bill as introduced was substantially similar to a previous bill, 

H.R. 7330, which had been introduced by Mr. Barton in the 110th 

Congress. On January 15, 2009, H.R. 390 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On May 1, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing pertaining to H.R. 390 titled 

‘‘The Bowl Championship Series: Money and Other Issues of Fairness for Publicly Financed Universities.’’ Testimony was received 

from the commissioner of a major college football conference (who 

at the time served as coordinator of the Bowl Championship Series); the commissioner of a major, but not BCS-affiliated conference; the President and CEO of a major bowl game; and the athletic director of Boise State University, which in recent years has 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

36 

had a very successful football team but no access to the BCS or its 

championship game. 

On December 9, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 390, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 390 in the 111th Congress. 

INFORMED P2P USER ACT

(H.R. 1319, S. 3027) 

To prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information on a computer through certain ‘‘peer-to-peer’’ file sharing programs without 

first providing notice and obtaining consent from an owner or authorized user of the computer. 

Summary 

H.R. 1319 reduces inadvertent disclosures of sensitive information by making users of certain file-sharing programs more aware 

of how such programs work, how files are shared, and the potential 

risks involved with the use of such programs. The bill prohibits developers of covered file-sharing programs from installing, or making available for installation or downloading, a covered-file sharing 

program without first providing consumers with notice that the 

program allows files on the consumer’s computer to be searched 

and copied. The developer must then obtain the informed consent 

of the consumer. 

Under H.R. 1319, any covered file-sharing program must provide 

notice and obtain consent twice: when the program is first installed 

or downloaded and again immediately before the file-sharing function is activated for the first time. The bill also makes it unlawful 

to prevent the reasonable efforts of a consumer to block the installation of a file-sharing program. Finally, the program must provide 

a reasonable means to disable or remove the program. 

Legislative History 

On March 5, 2009, H.R. 1319 was introduced by Rep. Bono Mack. 

Similar legislation, H.R. 7176, had been introduced by Rep. Bono 

Mack in the 110th Congress. On March 6, 2009, H.R. 1319 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection. Similar legislation in the Senate was introduced by Sen. 

Klobuchar of Minnesota as S. 3027 on February 23, 2009. 

On May 5, 2009, the Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on 

two bills, including H.R. 1319. Testimony was received from witnesses representing the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the FTC, 

three non-profit technology groups, three industry associations, and 

one company that provides peer-to-peer security services. 

On September 30, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1319, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider the measure. H.R. 1319 

was ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice 

vote. 

On December 8, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 1319 (H. Rept. 111–361). That same 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

37 

day, H.R. 1319 was considered in the House under suspension of 

the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 9, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 1319, read the 

bill twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1319 in the 111th Congress. 

PROTECTING CONSUMER ACCESS TO GENERIC DRUGS ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1706, S. 369) 

To prohibit brand name drug companies from compensating generic drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug into the 

market. 

Summary 

H.R. 1706 makes unlawful certain drug patent legal agreements 

in which a generic drug company receives payment or value from 

a brand-name drug company in exchange for an agreement not to 

research, develop, manufacture, market, or sell the generic drug. 

Violations would be treated as unfair and deceptive acts or practices and as unfair methods of competition under Section 5 of the 

Federal Trade Commission Act. The bill would create exceptions allowing such agreements if the generic company receives only: (1) 

the right to market the generic drug before the expiration of the 

patent or other exclusivity period; (2) the waiver by the brandname company of any statutory extensions of exclusivity; and (3) 

a covenant not to sue on the given generic product. H.R. 1706 also 

authorizes the FTC to exempt agreements otherwise prohibited if 

they further the interests of consumers and competition. Violations 

of the Act would be treated as cause for forfeiture of the 180-day 

exclusivity period the generic company is entitled to under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Legislative History 

On March 25, 2009, H.R. 1706 was introduced by Rep. Rush and 

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. As introduced, H.R. 1706 was substantially similar to 

H.R. 1902, a bill that Rep. Rush introduced in the 110th Congress. 

On March 26, 2009, H.R. 1706 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Similar legislation 

in the Senate was introduced by Sen. Kohl of Wisconsin as S. 369 

on February 3, 2009. 

On March 31, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1706. Testimony was received from a commissioner of the FTC, a professor of 

law with expertise on the antitrust issues raised by ‘‘pay-for-delay’’ 

agreements, a representative of AARP, a representative of the 

major trade association for brand-name drug manufacturers, and 

two executives representing different generic-drug manufacturers. 

On June 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

38 

H.R. 1706, amended, to the full Committee, by a rollcall vote of 16– 

14. 

On July 31, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable 

Health Choices Act of 2009. During consideration of H.R. 3200, 

Rep. Rush offered an amendment to the legislation with contents 

substantially similar to the provisions of H.R. 1706. The amendment was considered and adopted by a voice vote. The Committee 

subsequently ordered H.R. 3200 reported favorably to the House, 

amended, by a rollcall vote of 31–28. 

On October 14, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 3200 to the House, amended (H. 

Rept. 111–299). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1706 or the relevant part 

of H.R. 3200 in the 111th Congress. 

CARBON MONOXIDE POISONING PREVENTION ACT

(H.R. 1796, S. 1216) 

To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to require residential carbon monoxide detectors to meet the applicable American 

National Standards Institute/Underwriters Laboratory (ANSI/UL) 

standard by treating that standard as a consumer product safety 

rule and to encourage states to require the installation of such detectors in homes. 

Summary 

H.R. 1796 requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) to publish the existing voluntary industry standard for carbon monoxide alarms as a mandatory consumer product safety 

standard. The bill would make it unlawful for manufacturers or 

distributors to import or distribute any new residential carbon 

monoxide alarm that does not comply with the standard. The bill 

also requires the CPSC to adopt certain minimum requirements for 

the content of portable generator labels and instruction manuals to 

warn consumers about the carbon monoxide hazard posed by the 

incorrect use of such generators. In addition, the bill establishes a 

grant program to assist states in carrying out carbon monoxide poisoning prevention programs. 

Legislative History 

On March 30, 2009, H.R. 1796 was introduced by Rep. Matheson 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Similar 

legislation, S. 3660, had been introduced in the 110th Congress by 

Sen. Klobuchar of Minnesota, who also introduced this same legislation as S. 1216 in the 111th Congress. On March 31, 2009, H.R. 

1796 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection. 

On March 18, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 1796. Testimony was received from the Office of Hazard 

Identification and Reduction at the CPSC, a physician specializing 

in poison control, and two manufacturers of in-home toxic alert devices. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

39 

On June 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 1796, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On July 15, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 1796, which it subsequently ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On July 27, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 1796 (H. Rept. 111–573). 

On July 28, 2010, H.R. 1796 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 29, 2010, H.R. 1796 was received in the Senate. On August 5, 2010 H.R. 1796 was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1796 in the 111th Congress. 

MERCURY POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT

(H.R. 2190, H.R. 2065, S. 1428) 

To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to phase out the use 

of mercury in the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda. 

Summary 

H.R. 2190 is intended to eliminate a significant source of mercury pollution by prohibiting the use of mercury during the manufacture of chlorine or caustic soda in the United States. In addition, 

the bill prohibits the export of mercury and mercury compounds by 

chlor-alkali facilities, effective immediately upon enactment. 

Legislative History 

On April 30, 2009, H.R. 2190 was introduced by Rep. 

Schakowsky and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On May 4, 2009, H.R. 2190 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Similar 

legislation in the Senate was introduced by Sen. Whitehouse of 

Rhode Island as S. 1428 on July 9, 2009. 

On May 12, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 2190. Testimony was received from a professor of law representing the Center for Progressive Reform; a professor of public 

health and former Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances at EPA; and an executive at a company in the chlor-alkali industry. 

On June 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 2190, amended, to the full Committee, by a rollcall vote of 16– 

10. 

On October 21, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2190, which it subsequently ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 29–14. 

On December 16, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 2190 (H. Rept. 111–381). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2190 in the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

40 

DATA ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUTH ACT

(H.R. 2221, S. 3742) 

To protect consumers by requiring reasonable security policies 

and procedures to protect data containing personal information, 

and to provide for nationwide notice in the event of a security 

breach. 

Summary 

H.R. 2221 both reduces the number of data breaches and provides new rights to individuals whose personal information is compromised when a breach occurs. The bill has two major requirements: (1) an entity holding data containing personal information 

must adopt reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect such data; and (2) that same entity must notify affected consumers in the event of a breach unless the entity determines there 

is ‘‘no reasonable risk of identity theft, fraud, or other unlawful 

conduct.’’ 

In addition, the bill requires information brokers to implement 

reasonable procedures that will ensure data accuracy and provide 

consumers with access to information and the ability to dispute inaccurate information in certain circumstances. 

Legislative History 

On April 30, 2009, H.R. 2221 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Rush of Illinois and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. Similar legislation, H.R. 958, had been introduced by 

Rep. Rush in the 110th Congress. On May 4, 2009, H.R. 2221 was 

referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection. Similar legislation in the Senate, S. 3742, was introduced by Sen. Pryor of Arkansas on August 5, 2010. 

On May 5, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on two bills, including H.R. 

2221. Testimony was received from witnesses representing the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, 

non-profit technology groups, and three industry associations. 

On June 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 2221, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On September 30, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2221, which 

was subsequently ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 8, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 2221 (H. Rept. 111–362). That same 

day, H.R. 2221 was considered in the House under suspension of 

the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 9, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 2221 with the 

House amendment, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Further action was taken on S. 3742, a related measure. On August 5, 2010, S. 3742 was introduced by Sen. Pryor of Arkansas, 

referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

41 

Transportation, and subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on 

Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance. 

On September 22, 2010, the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance held a legislative hearing on S. 

3742. 

No further action was taken on these bills in the 111th Congress. 

CONSUMER CREDIT AND DEBT PROTECTION ACT

(H.R. 2309) 

To provide authority to the FTC to expedite rulemakings concerning consumer credit or debt and to direct the Commission to 

examine and promulgate rules with regard to debt settlement and 

automobile sales. 

Summary 

H.R. 2309 provides the FTC with streamlined authority to issue 

rules regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices with regard to 

consumer credit and debt. It gives the FTC the authority to seek 

civil penalties for such practices, and enables state attorneys general to enforce the FTC’s rules in this area. In addition, the bill directs the FTC to issue rules regarding unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in two specific areas: auto sales and debt settlement. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2309 was developed after a series of hearings related to consumer credit and debt, as follows: 

On March 5, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘Consumer Protection in 

the Used and Subprime Car Market.’’ Testimony was received from 

the acting directors of both the Bureau of Consumer Protection at 

the FTC and the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department 

of Justice, two representatives of consumer protection organizations, a representative of the independent automobile dealership 

industry, and the president of a company that maintains a large 

database of automobile histories. 

On March 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘Consumer Credit and 

Debt: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission in Protecting the 

Public.’’ Testimony was received from the FTC Chairman; two professors of law with expertise on regulatory issues related to consumer credit; director of a consumer advocate organization; and the 

chief executive officer of an independent, local financing company 

that has worked extensively with the FTC. 

On May 7, 2009, H.R. 2309 was introduced by Rep. Rush and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On May 11, 

2009, H.R. 2309 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On May 12, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 2309. Testimony was received from the acting director of 

the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, a representative of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

42 

a consumer advocacy group, and a representative of the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce. 

On June 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 2309, amended, to the full Committee, by a rollcall vote of 16– 

9. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2309 in the 111th Congress. 

BEREAVED CONSUMER’S BILL OF RIGHTS ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 3655) 

To direct the FTC to establish rules to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to the provision of funeral services. 

Summary 

H.R. 3655 directs the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting unfair 

or deceptive acts or practices in the provision of all funeral goods 

or services. Specifically, all providers of these goods and services 

are required to provide consumers with accurate, itemized price information for each specific funeral good or service offered for sale. 

The bill further prohibits providers from making misrepresentations about federal, state, and local requirements, and prohibits 

conditioning the provision of any one funeral good or service on the 

purchase of another funeral good and service. 

The bill also requires that contracts for funeral goods or services 

be written clearly and include disclosures about any fees, penalties, 

or costs that may be incurred in the future. With specific regard 

to cemeteries, the bill requires that consumers be provided with 

written rules and regulations and an explanation of the burial 

right that has been purchased. Cemeteries further are required to 

keep clear records of all burials. 

In addition, H.R. 3655 authorizes both the FTC and the states 

to enforce the Act’s requirements. Also, the bill makes clear that 

it is not Congress’s intent to preempt states’ laws providing protections to consumers of funeral services or funeral goods except 

where there are conflicts between the respective laws. 

H.R. 3655 directs the FTC to issue the rules required under this 

Act within one year of enactment, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The bill also would ensure that the FTC’s 

rules apply to all providers of funeral goods or services, even those 

that are nonprofit. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3655 was developed following news of a grave reselling 

scheme at Burr Oak Cemetery in Alsip, Illinois, as well as a hearing about consumer protections relating to funerals and cemeteries. 

On July 27, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a field hearing in Chicago, Illinois titled 

‘‘Oversight of Cemeteries and Other Funeral Services: Who’s In 

Charge?’’ Testimony was received from relatives of those buried at 

Burr Oak Cemetery, a representative of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Illinois State Comptroller, and representatives of a bereaved consumer’s advocacy group, a trade association 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

43 

for funeral homes and cemetery operators, and a local Chicago-area 

funeral home. 

On September 25, 2009, H.R. 3655 was introduced by Rep. Rush 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On September 29, 2009, H.R. 3655 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On January 27, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3655. 

Testimony was received from representatives of the FTC’s Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, the Illinois Cemetery Oversight Task 

Force, a trade association for funeral homes, as well as the former 

director of another trade association for funeral homes and cemeteries. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 3655, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On July 21, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 3655, which it subsequently ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On December 7, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 3655 (H. Rept. 111–672). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3655 in the 111th Congress. 

CALLING CARD CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

(H.R. 3993, S. 562) 

To require accurate and reasonable disclosure of the terms and 

conditions of prepaid telephone calling cards and services. 

Summary 

H.R. 3993 requires calling card providers and distributors to 

clearly and conspicuously disclose all relevant and applicable information to consumers. These disclosures must include contact information for the provider, the number of minutes available or the 

dollar value of the card. Entities also are required to disclose any 

applicable fees, additional charges, limitations, changes in value, or 

expiration dates associated with the use of the card. In some cases, 

these disclosures also are required to appear on calling card advertisements and voice prompts. The bill provides the FTC with the 

authority to enforce these requirements and to promulgate regulations to carry out the Act. States also are authorized to enforce the 

Act. 

Legislative History 

On November 3, 2009, H.R. 3993 was introduced by Rep. Engel 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Similar 

legislation had been introduced in the 110th Congress, as H.R. 

3402 by Rep. Engel and as S. 2998 by Sen. Nelson of Florida. Sen. 

Nelson also introduced this bill, as S. 562, in the 111th Congress. 

On November 4, 2009, H.R. 3993 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On December 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3993. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

44 

Testimony was received from the director of the FTC’s Division of 

Marketing Practices, the executive director of National Consumers 

League, a state utility commissioner, a community organizer for African immigrants, and the president of the industry association for 

wholesale marketers. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 3993 to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On May 5, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 3993, which it subsequently ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On June 15, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 3993 (H. Rept. 111–507). 

On June 23, 2010, H.R. 3993 was considered by the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a rollcall vote 

of 381–41. 

On June 24, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 3993, read twice, 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3993 in the 111th Congress. 

GUARANTEE OF A LEGITIMATE DEAL ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 4501) 

To require certain return policies from businesses that purchase 

precious metals from consumers and solicit such transactions 

through an Internet website. 

Summary 

H.R. 4501 requires online purchasers of precious metals to wait 

until receiving an affirmative acceptance of the amount offered before melting down a consumer’s jewelry. Online purchasers of precious metals are required to promptly return jewelry to a consumer 

if the consumer declines the amount offered. In addition, the bill 

sets a standard for the amount of insurance provided by online 

purchasers of precious metals on shipments of jewelry or precious 

metals. 

Legislative History 

On January 21, 2010, H.R. 4501 was introduced by Rep. Weiner 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On January 22, 2010, H.R. 4501 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On May 13, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 4501. Testimony was received from representatives of the 

FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Enforcement Division, Consumers Union, and a trade association for the jewelry industry. 

On June 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 4501, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

45 

On July 15, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup to consider H.R. 4501, which it subsequently ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 7, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 4501 (H. Rept. 111–673). 

On December 8, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4501, as amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 324–81. 

On December 9, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 4501, read twice, 

and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4501 in the 111th Congress. 

FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 4678, S. 1606) 

To require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the 

United States to establish registered agents in the United States 

who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers. 

Summary 

H.R. 4678 requires foreign manufacturers and producers that import products into the United States to designate a registered agent 

who is authorized to accept service of process here in the United 

States. The agent would have to be registered in a state with a 

substantial connection to the importation, distribution, or sale of 

products of the foreign manufacturer or producer. The CPSC, the 

Food and Drug Administration, and the EPA would each be required to determine, based on the value or quantity of goods manufactured or produced, which foreign manufacturers and producers 

under their respective authority would be required to designate a 

registered agent. Registering an agent consistent with the Act constitutes acceptance by the manufacturer of personal jurisdiction of 

the state and federal courts of the state in which the agent is located. Finally, the Act prohibits the importation into the United 

States of products from foreign manufacturers that fail to designate 

a registered agent. 

Legislative History 

On February 24, 2010, H.R. 4678 was introduced by Rep. Sutton 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, 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. On February 25, 2010, H.R. 4678 

was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. Similar legislation in the Senate was introduced 

as S. 1606 by Sen. Whitehouse of Rhode Island on August 6, 2009. 

On June 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on two bills, including H.R. 4678. Testimony was received from representatives of the 

CPSC, Consumers Union, and the American Association of Exporters and Importers, as well as from a professor of law, and a former 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

46 

police officer whose family members suffered health problems from 

toxic Chinese drywall in their home. 

On June 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 4678, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On July 21, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 4678, which it subsequently ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 31–22. 

On December 16, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 4678 (H. Rept. 111–683, Part 1). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4678 in the 111th Congress. 

NATIONAL MANUFACTURING STRATEGY ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 4692, S. 3662) 

To require the President to prepare a quadrennial National Manufacturing Strategy. 

Summary 

H.R. 4692 directs the President, every four years, to submit to 

Congress, and publish on a public website, a National Manufacturing Strategy, with the first edition due one year after enactment. 

To facilitate this task, the bill directs the President to establish 

‘‘the President’s Manufacturing Strategy Board’’ within the Department of Commerce, with members drawn from both the public and 

private sector, to: (1) advise the President and Congress on issues 

affecting the nation’s manufacturing sector; (2) conduct a comprehensive analysis of such sector; (3) develop a Strategy; and (4) 

report annually to the President and Congress on the current state 

of U.S. manufacturing. Through the development of each Strategy, 

the President must enter into an agreement with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study concerning U.S. 

manufacturing and related assessments and reviews, with results 

to be reported to both the President and Congress. 

The President is also required to evaluate each annual budget 

and include information regarding that budget’s consistency with 

the goals and recommendations included in the latest Strategy. 

Lastly, the Comptroller General must submit to Congress an assessment and analysis of the Strategy in the years 2013, 2017, and 

2021. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2010, H.R. 4692 was introduced by Rep. Lipinski and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On February 26, 2010, H.R. 4692 was referred to 

the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

Similar legislation in the Senate was introduced as S. 3662 by Sen. 

Stabenow of Michigan on July 28, 2010. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

47 

On July 14, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 4692. Testimony was received from the federal Chief Technology Officer, the 

CEO of an Illinois steel company, an economic policy scholar, a researcher of defense research programs, and representatives from a 

non-profit advocate for domestic manufacturing and an association 

of machinists and aerospace workers. 

On July 21, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection was discharged from further consideration of 

H.R. 4692, and the full Committee met in open markup session to 

consider the measure. H.R. 4692 was ordered favorably reported to 

the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 4692 (H. Rept. 111–574). 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on the Budget was discharged 

from further consideration of H.R. 4692. 

On July 28, 2010, H.R. 4692 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a rollcall vote 

of 379–38. 

On July 29, 2010, H.R. 4692 was received in the Senate. On August 5, 2010, H.R. 4692 was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4692 in the 111th Congress. 

CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT

ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 5156) 

To provide for the establishment of a Clean Energy Technology 

Manufacturing and Export Assistance Fund to assist United States 

businesses with exporting clean energy technology products and 

services. 

Summary 

H.R. 5156 establishes a fund administered by the International 

Trade Administration (ITA) to assist United States businesses with 

manufacturing and exporting clean energy technology products and 

services. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that clean energy technology firms, including parts suppliers and engineering and design 

firms, have the information and assistance they need to compete 

domestically and globally and to create jobs in the United States. 

The fund would be used to promote policies that reduce production 

costs and encourage innovation, investment, and productivity, as 

well as to implement a national clean energy technology export 

strategy. 

Under H.R. 5156, United States businesses are given information, tools, and other assistance to promote clean energy technology 

manufacturing in the United States, and facilitate the export of 

clean energy technology products and services. The Secretary of 

Commerce must report to Congress within the first six months regarding use of funds, and after five years to assess the program’s 

effectiveness and whether it should be continued. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

48 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5156 was developed after a series of meetings among staff, 

scholars, and stakeholders, as well as a hearing on relevant issues. 

On October 7, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘Growing U.S. Trade in 

Green Technology.’’ Testimony was received from the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Services at the Department of Commerce, the president of a business coalition for sustainable energy, a representative of the General Electric Company, 

and two scholars—one a professor and one a public policy fellow— 

with expertise in international economics. 

On April 27, 2010, H.R. 5156 was introduced by Rep. Matsui and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 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 April 28, 2010, H.R. 5156 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. The 

Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 5156 on June 16, 2010. 

On June 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H.R. 5156, amended, to the full Committee by a voice vote. 

On July 21, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 5156, which it subsequently ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On July 27, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 5156 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 111–572, Part 

I). 

On July 27, 2010, the Committee on Foreign Affairs was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5156. 

On July 28, 2010, H.R. 5156 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 29, 2010, H.R. 5156 was received in the Senate. On August 5, 2010, H.R. 4692 was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4692 in the 111th Congress. 

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 5381, S. 3302) 

To require motor vehicle safety standards relating to vehicle electronics and to reauthorize and provide greater transparency, accountability, and safety authority to the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. 

Summary 

H.R. 5381 improves auto safety and strengthens the vehicle safety programs at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA). The bill has four key objectives: (1) improve electronics 

expertise at NHTSA and develop new vehicle safety standards; (2) 

increase transparency and accountability in auto safety; (3) provide 

additional resources to NHTSA; and (4) improve the enforcement 

authorities of NHTSA. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

49 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5381 was developed after a series of hearings related to 

motor vehicle safety. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate as S. 3302 by Sen. Rockefeller of West Virginia on May 4, 2010. 

On May 18, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘Auto Safety: Current 

Mandates and Emerging Issues.’’ Testimony was received from the 

former administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), as well as current representatives of 

NHTSA, the National Transportation Safety Board, an automobile 

manufacturers’ industry group, an auto insurance industry group, 

and two auto safety advocacy groups. 

On March 11, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘NHTSA Oversight: The 

Road Ahead.’’ Testimony was received from the Administrator of 

NHTSA, the former Administrator of NHTSA, and representatives 

of a consumer advocacy group and an automobile manufacturers’ 

industry association. 

On May 6, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on draft language 

of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. Testimony was received 

from the Administrator of NHTSA, the former Administrator of 

NHTSA, representatives of two associations for automobile manufacturers, the executive director of an auto safety consumer advocacy group, and an information policy scholar. 

On May 20, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session to consider draft 

language of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010. 

On May 25, 2010, H.R. 5381 was introduced by Rep. Waxman 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 26, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup to consider H.R. 5381, which it subsequently ordered reported favorably to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote 

of 31–21. 

On July 14, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 5381 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 111–536). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5381 in the 111th Congress. 

BEST PRACTICES ACT

(H.R. 5777) 

To foster transparency about the commercial use of personal information and provide consumers with meaningful choice about the 

collection, use, and disclosure of such information. 

Summary 

H.R. 5777 requires a covered entity to make available to individuals information about the covered entity’s privacy practices, including a description of the information collected and the specific 

purposes for such collection. The FTC is directed to determine the 

means and timing of notices, may allow for or require shorter notices, and may issue model notices. A covered entity must provide 

an individual with the ability to opt out of the collection and use 

of covered information and must obtain express affirmative consent 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

50 

before collecting, using, or disclosing sensitive information. A covered entity that participates in a Safe Harbor Self-Regulatory 

Choice Program approved by FTC is not subject to certain requirements. 

H.R. 5777 also includes data security, access, data minimization, 

accountability, and accuracy requirements. The bill grants enforcement authority to FTC and the states, including civil penalty authority, and grants FTC streamlined rulemaking authority to implement the bill. Finally, the bill authorizes a limited private right 

of action and contains a preemption provision of certain state laws 

that expressly require covered entities to implement requirements 

with respect to the collection, use, or disclosure of covered information. The preemption provision does not apply to state laws that 

address health information or financial information, data breach 

laws, trespass, contract, or tort laws, and other laws that relate to 

acts of fraud. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5777 was developed after a series of hearings related to 

data privacy. 

On June 18, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee 

on Communications, Technology and the Internet titled ‘‘Behavioral 

Advertising: Industry Practices and Consumers’ Expectations.’’ Testimony was received from a consumer privacy advocate; the president of an industry research firm; the executive director of an industry coalition devoted to self-regulation of privacy practices; a 

professor of computer science and public affairs; and privacy officers from three large internet corporations, including Yahoo!, 

Facebook, and Google. 

On November 19, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet titled 

‘‘Exploring the Offline and Online Collection and Use of Consumer 

Information.’’ Testimony was received from a leading privacy advocate, a professor with expertise on information privacy, an internet 

marketing executive for a small educational retailer, and privacy 

officers for a marketing firm, a market research firm, and WalMart Stores, Inc. 

On February 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet titled 

‘‘The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial 

Purposes.’’ Testimony was received from a professor with expertise 

on computer science, engineering, and public policy; the director of 

an internet safety advocacy group; the general counsel of a wireless 

communications industry association; and representatives of three 

firms with business based on location-data technology. 

On July 19, 2010, H.R. 5777 was introduced by Rep. Rush and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5777, as 

well as on a different discussion draft related to privacy. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5777 in the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

51 

TOXIC CHEMICALS SAFETY ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 5820, S. 3209) 

To amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to ensure that the 

public and the environment are protected from risks of chemical exposure. 

Summary 

H.R. 5820 would establish a risk-based framework to ensure that 

all chemical substances to which the American people are exposed 

will be reviewed for safety and restricted where necessary to protect public health and the environment. The chemical industry 

would be required to develop and provide to the EPA essential data 

to inform this review. H.R. 5820 would authorize EPA to exempt 

chemicals already known to be safe from certain requirements of 

the act, and would direct EPA to prioritize chemicals for review 

based on existing evidence of risk. The bill also would improve 

EPA’s authority to compel testing where necessary. Non-confidential information submitted to EPA would be shared with the public, 

and critical confidential information would be shared among regulators, with states, and with workers in the chemical industry. 

H.R. 5820 would create incentives, as well as a review process, 

for safer alternatives to existing chemicals, promoting innovation 

and investment in green chemistry. Chemical manufacturers and 

processors would be required to provide basic information on chemical safety to their commercial purchasers (with protections for confidential information), allowing downstream users to identify and 

select safer materials. A workforce education and training program 

in green chemistry would be created, promoting and ensuring the 

long-term viability of American jobs. 

Other provisions of H.R. 5820 would establish an expedited process for EPA to reduce exposure to chemical substances that are 

known to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT); promote 

research to advance understanding of children’s vulnerability to the 

harms of chemicals; direct EPA to address community exposures to 

toxic chemicals in certain ‘‘hot spot’’ locations; encourage the reduction of the use of animals in chemical testing; and require EPA to 

engage in international efforts to control dangerous chemicals. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5820 was developed after a series of hearings related to regulation of toxic substances. Similar legislation was introduced in 

the Senate as S. 3209 by Sen. Lautenberg of New Jersey on April 

15, 2010. 

On November 17, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination.’’ Testimony was received from representatives of EPA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a policy organization for international environmental law, an 

industry association for manufacturers of grocery products, and a 

chemical manufacturers’ association. 

On March 4, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing titled ‘‘TSCA and Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals: Examining Domestic and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

52 

International Actions.’’ Testimony was received from representatives of EPA, the Bureau of Oceans at the Department of State, the 

Washington state Department of Ecology, the Natural Resources 

Defense Council, and an industry association for producers of metals, as well as a former principal environmental scientist for the 

Procter and Gamble Company. 

On July 22, 2010, H.R. 5820 was introduced by Rep. Rush and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On July 26, 

2010, H.R. 5820 was referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On July 29, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5820. Testimony was received from representatives of EPA, two chemicals industry associations, and three environmental protection advocacy 

groups, as well as from the vice president of a small construction 

company. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5820 in the 111th Congress. 

COIN AND PRECIOUS METAL DISCLOSURE ACT

(H.R. 6149) 

To require disclosures to consumers by coin and precious metal 

bullion dealers. 

Summary 

H.R. 6149 requires those who sell bullion or certain coins as investments to disclose prior to sale all fees associated with purchasing the items, the items’ purchase price, the value of the metal 

in them, and the value for which they could be sold to other dealers. The bill does not apply to rare and collectible coins whose 

value is not significantly attributable to their metal content and is 

not affected by the price of precious metals. In addition, the bill allows the FTC to require additional disclosures through rulemaking. 

Legislative History 

On September 16, 2010, H.R. 6149 was introduced by Rep. 

Weiner of New York and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On September 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 6149. Testimony 

was received from a private citizen who had been a customer of a 

gold firm, a professor of business, and representatives of FTC, Consumers Union, and a company that sells gold as an investment. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 6149 in the 111th Congress. 

REQUESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION RELATING TO

SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH CHRYSLER LLC (‘‘CHRYSLER’’)

(H. Res. 462) 

Summary 

H. Res. 462 requests the President, not later than 14 days after 

adoption of the resolution, to provide the House information relating to communications with Chrysler LLC. Specifically, the resolumstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

53 

tion seeks documents in the President’s possession referring or relating to scheduled Chrysler plant closings: (1) that were discussed 

as part of the required February 17, 2009, Chrysler viability determination filing; (2) that were identified in the March 30, 2009, announcement by the Administration; (3) that were prepared for the 

11:30 a.m. conference call on April 30, 2009, between members of 

the President’s Auto Task Force (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’) and Members of Congress, including 

transcripts; (4) revealing the President’s knowledge regarding such 

plant closings prior to March 30, 2009; (5) included in Chrysler’s 

April 30, 2009, bankruptcy filing in New York; (6) that identifies 

who was aware of such plant closings that would be announced 

prior to April 30, 2009, among the Administration, Chrysler, the 

Task Force, and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (also referred to as the ‘‘UAW’’); and (7) the interaction and procedures for 

identifying the 789 Chrysler dealerships in the United States 

scheduled for closure, as announced on May 14, 2009. 

Legislative History 

On May 20, 2009, H. Res. 462 was introduced by Rep. 

LaTourette of Ohio and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

The Committee met in open session on June 10, 2009, and considered H. Res. 462. Subsequently, the Committee ordered H. Res. 

462 reported to the House without amendment and without recommendation by a voice vote. 

On June 12, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H. Res. 462 without recommendation (H. Rept. 

111–147). 

There was no further action on H. Res. 462 in the 111th Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

ACT OF 2008

On January 16, 2009, Chairmen Waxman and Rush, together 

with Sens. Rockefeller and Pryor, sent a letter to the CPSC expressing concerns over the Commission’s implementation of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–314). 

This letter, which urged Acting Chair Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas Moore to take swift corrective action, highlighted 

four issues of particular concern: (1) Applicability of testing and 

certification requirements to certain children’s books and certain 

children’s apparel; (2) Guidance to resellers of children’s products 

such as thrift and consignment stores; (3) Component part testing; 

and (4) Guidance to small business generally. 

On February 5, 2009, Chairmen Waxman and Rush, together 

with Sens. Rockefeller and Pryor, sent a letter to the CPSC to urge 

that Acting Chair Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas Moore 

act before February 10, 2009, to establish interim industry guidance and a clear timeline for full compliance with the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110–314). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

54 

LEADERSHIP OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

On February 4, 2009, Chairmen Waxman and Rush, together 

with Sens. Rockefeller and Pryor, sent a letter to President Obama 

to request an immediate change of leadership at the CPSC, citing 

the inability of the Commission’s leaders to effectively implement 

the provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (P.L. 110–314). This letter also highlighted broader dysfunction at the Commission, resulting in a lack of guidance to industry 

and the proliferation of fear and misinformation about the Act. 

CONSUMER PROTECTION IN THE USED AND SUBPRIME CAR MARKET

On March 17, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘Stimulating 

the Economy through Trade: Examining the Role of Export Promotion.’’ The Subcommittee examined the extent to which U.S. exports could aid economic growth, with a particular focus on the impact of export promotion programs sponsored by the federal government, and the assistance available to help U.S. businesses expand 

markets for U.S. products. Witnesses included representatives of 

the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, the Foreign Agriculture Service at the Department of Agriculture, the Government Accountability Office, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

EXAMINING THE STATUS OF U.S. TRADE WITH CUBA AND ITS IMPACT

ON ECONOMIC GROWTH

On April 27, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘Examining 

the Status of U.S. Trade with Cuba and its Impact on Economic 

Growth.’’ The Subcommittee examined the economic embargo 

against Cuba in the context of the global financial downturn and 

explored the potential economic impact of normalizing U.S.-Cuba 

trade relations. Witnesses included the former Chief of Mission at 

the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, as well as representatives of 

the International Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Industry and Security at the Department of 

Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and two non-profit organizations, one that promotes U.S.-Cuba trade and the other that 

monitors human rights issues in Latin America. 

IT’S TOO EASY BEING GREEN: DEFINING FAIR GREEN MARKETING

PRACTICES

On June 9, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘It’s Too Easy 

Being Green: Defining Fair Green Marketing Practices.’’ The Subcommittee examined ‘‘green’’ marketing claims, their interpretation 

by consumers, and the role of the FTC in establishing guidelines 

for fair and effective green marketing practices. Witnesses included 

representatives of FTC, Consumers Union, and three different environmental standards-setting programs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

55 

U.S.-AFRICA TRADE RELATIONS: CREATING A PLATFORM FOR ECONOMIC

GROWTH

On June 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing, with the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global 

Health titled ‘‘U.S.-Africa Trade Relations: Creating a Platform for 

Economic Growth.’’ The Subcommittees examined how increased 

trade with Sub-Saharan Africa could be an engine for both U.S economic recovery and Africa’s economic growth. Witnesses included a 

professor with expertise on African economics, as well as representatives of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. 

Trade and Development Agency, the International Trade Association at the Department of Commerce, The Corporate Council on Africa, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Motorola. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION OVERSIGHT: CURRENT

ISSUES AND A VISION FOR THE FUTURE

On September 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘Consumer Product Safety Commission Oversight: Current Issues and 

a Vision for the Future.’’ The Subcommittee received the testimony 

of Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, which outlined a vision for the Commission under her leadership. 

THE MINORITY BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: ENHANCING THE

PROSPECTS FOR SUCCESS

On October 15, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘The Minority Business Development Agency: Enhancing the Prospects for 

Success.’’ The Subcommittee examined how the Minority Business 

Development Agency (MBDA), in consultation with the Department 

of Commerce, can optimize use of its resources in order to create 

more opportunities for minority business owners and workers. Witnesses included the National Director of MBDA, as well as the 

presidents of the Chicago Minority Business Development Council, 

the El Paso (TX) Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the U.S. 

Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce. 

THE NFL STARCAPS CASE: ARE SPORTS’ ANTI-DOPING PROGRAMS AT A

LEGAL CROSSROADS?

On November 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘The 

NFL StarCaps Case: Are Sports’ Anti-Doping Programs at a Legal 

Crossroads?’’ The Subcommittee examined the integrity of the 

drug-testing programs and policies of professional sports leagues in 

light of a recent federal court ruling regarding state preemption of 

these collectively bargained policies. Witnesses included the commissioner of the National Football League, the executive director of 

the National Football League Players Association, an executive at 

Major League Baseball, the general counsel of the Major League 

Baseball Players Association, CEO of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 

and two professors of law with expertise on sports law. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

56 

DRIVEN TO DISTRACTION: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICES AND VEHICLE

SAFETY

On November 4, 2009, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing, with the 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet titled ‘‘Driven to Distraction: Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety.’’ The Subcommittee examined safety issues concerning drivers 

distracted by wireless or other electronic communications devices 

built in or brought into the vehicle. Witnesses included the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, as well as representatives of a wireless communications industry association, an automobile manufacturers’ industry association, and four organizations that study transportation safety. 

THE BP OIL SPILL AND GULF COAST TOURISM: ASSESSING THE IMPACT

On July 27, 2010, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing titled ‘‘The BP Oil 

Spill and Gulf Coast Tourism: Assessing the Impact.’’ The Subcommittee examined both the damages suffered by the tourism industry in the Gulf region and the process by which the independent 

Gulf Coast Claims Facility will evaluate tourism-related claims. 

Witnesses included the administrator of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, the president of the U.S. Travel Association, the owner of a 

New Orleans-based restaurant group, as well as representatives 

from the tourism or food and lodging associations of the Alabama 

Gulf Coast, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and Florida. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VIRGINIA GRAEME BAKER POOL AND SPA

SAFETY ACT

On August 5, 2010, Chairman Waxman sent a letter to four Commissioners and the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) to reexamine the manner in which it had implemented the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act 

(P.L. 110–140). Specifically, this letter expressed concern about 

pool drain covers that could be considered safe under CPSC rules 

but that recent evidence demonstrated were not safe. 

HEARINGS HELD

Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.—Hearing on 

critical gaps in the statute and how these gaps hinder effective 

chemical safety policy in the United States. Hearing held on February 26, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–7. 

Consumer Protection in the Used and Subprime Car Market.— 

Hearing on the current state of consumer protection in the auto 

market, with particular attention to purchases by lower income individuals. Hearing held on March 5, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–9. 

Stimulating the Economy through Trade: Examining the Role of 

Export Promotion.—Hearing on the role of exports in U.S. economic 

growth, the impact of export promotion programs sponsored by the 

federal government, and the assistance available to help U.S. busimstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

57 

nesses expand markets for U.S. products. Hearing held on March 

17, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–15. 

Consumer Credit and Debt: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission in Protecting the Public.—Hearing on the role of the Federal Trade Commission in consumer credit and debt issues. Hearing held on March 24, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–19. 

H.R. 1706, Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 

2009.—Legislative hearing on a bill designed to protect consumer 

access to generic drugs. Hearing held on March 31, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–25. 

Examining the Status of U.S. Trade with Cuba and its Impact on 

Economic Growth.—Hearing on the economic embargo against 

Cuba in the context of the global financial downturn and to explore 

the potential economic impact of normalizing U.S.-Cuba trade relations. Hearing held on April 27, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111– 

32. 

The Bowl Championship Series: Money and Other Issues of Fairness for Publicly Financed Universities.—Hearing on issues of competitive fairness and the extent to which public colleges and universities are adversely impacted by the inequitable distribution of revenue generated from the Bowl Championship Series system. Hearing held on May 1, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–34. 

H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Trust Act and H.R. 1319, 

the Informed P2P User Act.—Legislative hearing on two consumer 

protection bills. Hearing held on May 5, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–36. 

H.R. 2309, the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act and 

H.R. 2190, the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act.—Legislative hearing on two consumer protection bills. Hearing held on May 12, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–38. 

Auto Safety: Current Mandates and Emerging Issues.—Hearing 

on the status of existing congressional mandates on the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as emerging issues in vehicle, highway, passenger, and pedestrian safety in 

preparation for NHTSA reauthorization. Hearing held on May 18, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–40. 

It’s Too Easy Being Green: Defining Fair Green Marketing Practices.—Hearing on ‘‘green’’ marketing claims, their interpretation 

by consumers, and the role of the FTC in establishing guidelines 

for fair and effective green marketing practices. Hearing held on 

June 9, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–45. 

Behavioral Advertising: Industry Practices and Consumers’ Expectations.—Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet on the potential privacy implications of behavioral advertising. Hearing held on June 18, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–53. 

U.S.-Africa Trade Relations: Creating a Platform for Economic 

Growth.—Hearing on the opportunities and challenges of U.S. investment in and trade with Sub-Saharan Africa. Hearing held on 

June 24, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–55. 

The Proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency: Implications for Consumers and the FTC.—Hearing on the Administration’s proposal to create a new agency responsible for consumer 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

58 

protection with regard to financial products and services. Hearing 

held on July 8, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–57. 

Oversight of Cemeteries and Other Funeral Services: Who’s in 

Charge?—Hearing on consumer protections relating to funerals and 

cemeteries. Hearing held on July 27, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–59. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission Oversight: Current Issues 

and a Vision for the Future.—Hearing on the relationship between 

Congress and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, with the 

Commission under new leadership. Hearing held on September 10, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–63. 

Growing U.S. Trade in Green Technology.—Hearing on the benefits and challenges of increasing U.S. involvement in the global 

green economy. Hearing held on October 7, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–68. 

The Minority Business Development Agency: Enhancing the Prospects for Success.—Hearing on the Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency. Hearing held on October 15, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–71. 

The NFL StarCaps Case: Are Sports’ Anti-Doping Programs at a 

Legal Crossroads?—Hearing on the integrity of the drug-testing 

programs and policies of professional sports leagues in light of a 

federal court ruling regarding state preemption of these collectively 

bargained policies. Hearing held on November 3, 2009. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–78. 

Driven to Distraction: Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety.— Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet on safety issues concerning drivers distracted by wireless or other electronic communications devices built 

in or brought into the vehicle. Hearing held on November 4, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–79. 

Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination.—Hearing on the 

options for prioritizing chemicals for safety determinations in the 

event that the Committee amends the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA). Hearing held on November 17, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–80. 

Exploring the Offline and Online Collection and Use of Consumer 

Information.—Joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet on the collection and commercial use of consumer data in the offline and online marketplace. 

Hearing held on November 19, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–83. 

H.R. 3993, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act.—Legislative hearing on a consumer protection bill relating to the use of 

telephone calling cards. Hearing held on December 3, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–86. 

H.R. 3655, the Bereaved Consumer’s Bill of Rights Act of 2009.— 

Legislative hearing on a bill that would require the FTC to prescribe rules prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the 

provision of funeral goods and services. Hearing held on January 

27, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–93. 

The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial 

Purposes.—Hearing on privacy and other issues related to the commercial collection, use, and sharing of location-based information. 

Hearing held on February 24, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–98. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

59 

TSCA and Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals: Examining Domestic and International Actions.—Hearing on U.S. and 

international efforts to protect public health and the environment 

from persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals, how the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is currently being used to 

manage these chemicals, and how the TSCA process might be improved. Hearing held on March 4, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111– 

102. 

NHTSA Oversight: The Road Ahead.—Hearing on the operations 

of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hearing 

held on March 11, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–104. 

H.R. 1796, the Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, and H.R. 4805, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act.—Legislative hearing on two consumer 

protection bills relating to environmental health and safety. Hearing held on March 18, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–106. 

Public Sales of Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: Are They 

Safe or Environmental Time Bombs?—Hearing on public sales by 

the General Services Administration of travel trailers and mobile 

homes that were purchased and provisioned by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as emergency housing for thousands of displaced Gulf Coast residents following Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita. Hearing held on April 28, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–114. 

H.R. ll, the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act.— 

Hearing on a discussion draft relating to consumer product safety. 

Hearing held on April 29, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–116. 

H.R. ll, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.—Legislative hearing on 

a discussion draft of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which would 

strengthen the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

and improve vehicle safety. Hearing held on May 6, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–120. 

H.R. 4501, the Guarantee of a Legitimate Deal Act, and H.R. 

2480, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act.—Legislative hearing on two 

consumer protection bills, one relating to the sale of gold products 

and the other relating to Federal Trade Commission fur labeling 

requirements. Hearing held on May 13, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–123. 

H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act 

and H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and 

Export Assistance Act.—Legislative hearing on two bills relating to 

the maintenance of a strong, fair manufacturing sector. Hearing 

held on June 16, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–136. 

H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act.—Legislative hearing on a bill to require the President to formulate a National Manufacturing Strategy. Hearing held on July 14, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–143. 

H.R. 5777, the BEST PRACTICES Act, and a discussion draft to 

require notice to and consent of an individual prior to the collection 

and disclosure of certain personal information relating to that individual.—Legislative hearing on pending privacy legislation. Hearing held on July 22, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–147. 

The BP Oil Spill and Gulf Coast Tourism: Assessing the Impact.—Hearing on both the damages suffered by the Gulf region 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

60 

tourism industry and the process by which the independent Gulf 

Coast Claims Facility will evaluate tourism-related claims. Hearing 

held on July 27, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–150. 

H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010.—Legislative 

hearing on pending legislation which would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to ensure that the public and the environment are protected from risks resulting from chemical exposure. 

Hearing held on July 29, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–151. 

H.R. 6149, the Coin and Precious Metal Disclosure Act.—Legislative hearing on a bill addressing the sale to consumers of gold and 

other precious metals for investment purchases. Hearing held on 

September 23, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–160. 

Do-Not-Track Legislation: Is Now the Right Time? Hearing on 

the feasibility of establishing a mechanism that provides Internet 

users a simple and universal method to opt-out from having their 

online activity tracked by data-gathering firms. Hearing held on 

December 2, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–162. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(61) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE

INTERNET

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

THE DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION EXTENSION

Public Law 111–4 (S. 328, S. 352) 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 and the Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 to extend for approximately four months the deadlines related to the transition 

from analog to digital television broadcasting. 

Summary 

S. 352 requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

to extend for a 116-day period the licenses for recovered spectrum, 

including the license period and construction requirements associated with those licenses. 

The bill extends to July 31, 2009, provided additional budget authority is enacted, the deadline for requesting digital-to-analog converter box coupons. The bill, S. 352, authorizes upon request the 

issuance of one replacement coupon for each coupon that expired 

without being redeemed. 

Legislative History 

On January 26, 2009, S. 328 was introduced and passed in the 

Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

The bill was received by the House and held at the desk on January 27, 2009. On that day, the House called up S. 328, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules and at the conclusion of debate, the 

vote on the bill was postponed. 

On January 28, 2009, the House returned to the unfinished business and the vote was taken on S. 328, as amended, which failed 

to pass by a rollcall vote of 258–168, two-thirds of those voting in 

favor being required for passage under suspension of the rules. 

On January 29, 2009, S. 352, a bill similar to S. 328, was introduced and passed without amendment in the Senate by unanimous 

consent. 

On February 4, 2009, S. 352 was called up for consideration by 

the House and passed under a rule by a rollcall vote of 264–158, 

clearing the measure for the White House. 

On February 9, 2009, S. 352 was presented to the President. On 

February 11, 2009, S. 352 was signed into law by the President and 

became Public Law 111–4. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

62 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

Public Law 111–5 (H.R. 1, H.R. 629) 

A legislative package to stimulate the economy through creation 

of jobs and promotion of investment. 

Summary 

H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act), addressed broadband deployment and adoption in 

two primary ways. First, it created a grant program called the 

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), to be administered by the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), an entity within the Department of Commerce. Second, the Recovery Act provided funding for a new 

broadband grant, loan, and loan guarantee program, the 

Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), administered by the Rural 

Utility Service (RUS), an entity within the Department of Agriculture. 

Legislative History 

On January 22, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider five committee prints of 

draft legislation on portions of the economic recovery package within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Following the approval of the 

committee prints relating to legislation on broadband, energy, and 

health, a unanimous consent request by Chairman Waxman was 

agreed to that all text after section 1 of H.R. 629, the Energy and 

Commerce Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, be struck and 

replace with the text of the five committee prints approved by the 

Committee, as amended. H.R. 629, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House. 

On January 26, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 625 (H. Rept. 111–7, Part 1). The 

legislative provision contained in this and other Committee reports 

became part of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, which was introduced on January 26, 2009. 

On January 28, 2009, H.R. 1 was considered by the House and 

passed by a rollcall vote of 244–188. 

On February 10, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 1 with an amendment by a rollcall vote of 61–37. The Senate insisted upon their 

amendment, asked for a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees: Inouye, Baucus, Reid, Cochran, and Grassley. 

The House agreed to a motion to disagree with the Senate 

amendment and agreed to a conference on February 10, 2009, by 

a rollcall vote of 403 to 0. The Speaker appointed the conferees 

from the House: Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Lewis of California, and 

Camp. 

On February 12, 2009, the conference report on H.R. 1 (House 

Rept. 111–16) was filed in the House. 

On February 13, 2009, the House agreed to the conference report 

by a rollcall vote of 246–183. On the same day, the Senate agreed 

to the conference report by a rollcall vote of 60–38, clearing the 

measure for the White House. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

63 

On February 17, 2009, H.R. 1 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–5. 

THE LOCAL COMMUNITY RADIO ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–lll (H.R. 1147, H.R. 6533) 

To expand the ability of the FCC to license low-power FM 

(LPFM) radio stations while protecting full-power FM stations from 

any potential or actual interference. 

Summary 

H.R. 1147 amends Section 632 of the Department of Commerce, 

Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 in its entirety. The bill directs the FCC to modify 

its rules to eliminate third-adjacent minimum distance separation 

requirements between LPFM stations and full-power FM stations, 

including translator and booster stations. The bill directs the FCC 

to retain its rules adopted in 2000 that provide third-adjacent 

channel protection for full-power noncommercial FM stations that 

broadcast radio reading services via a subcarrier frequency from 

potential LPFM station interference. The bill directs the FCC to 

ensure, when licensing FM translator stations, that there is enough 

spectrum for both FM translator stations and LPFM stations, taking into consideration the needs of the local community. 

Legislative History 

On February 24, 2009, Reps. Mike Doyle (D–PA) and Lee Terry 

(R–NE) introduced H.R. 1147, the Local Community Radio Act of 

2009. On February 24, 2009, H.R. 1147 was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and then referred to the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet on 

February 25, 2009. 

On June 11, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 1147, receiving testimony from a representative of the FCC and a consumer advocate. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1147. Subsequently, the Subcommittee forwarded H.R. 

1147, amended, to the full Committee by a voice vote. 

On October 15, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1147 as approved by 

the Subcommittee. The Committee ordered H.R. 1147 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 14, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 1147 (H. Rept. 111–375). 

On December 16, 2009, H.R. 1147 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On December 17, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 1147 with the 

House amendment and referred the legislation to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

On December 16, 2010, Reps. Doyle and Terry introduced a similar bill, H.R. 6533, the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on December 16, 2010. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

64 

On December 17, 2010, H.R. 6533 was called up on the House 

floor and passed under suspension of the rules by a voice. 

H.R. 6533 was received by the Senate on December 17, 2010. 

On December 18, 2010, H.R. 6533 was passed by the Senate 

without amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the measure 

for the White House. 

On December 28, 2010, H.R. 6533 presented to the President. 

H.R. 6533, as approved by the House and the Senate, was awaiting action by the President when this report was filed. 

THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT LOUDNESS MITIGATION ACT (CALM

ACT)

Public Law 111–311 (H.R. 1084, S. 2847) 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to promulgate rules concerning the loudness levels of commercial advertisements accompanying any video programming broadcast or distributed by a multichannel video programming distributor. 

Summary 

H.R. 1084, the ‘‘Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation 

Act’’ or the ‘‘CALM Act’’, would require the FCC to incorporate into 

its rules the standard developed by an industry standards-setting 

body for moderating the loudness of commercials in comparison to 

the accompanying video programming. 

Legislative History 

On February 13, 2009, H.R. 1084 was introduced by Rep. Anna 

G. Eshoo (D–CA) and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. On February 23, 2009, H.R. 1084 was referred to the 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. 

On June 11, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 1084, receiving testimony from a representative of the FCC, a television industry association, a consumer advocacy association, and an engineer. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1084 and favorably forwarded H.R. 1084 to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On November 19, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1084 as approved by 

the Subcommittee. Subsequently, the Committee ordered H.R. 1084 

favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 14, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 1084 (H. Rept. 111–374). 

On December 15, 2009, H.R. 1084 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On December 16, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 1084 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Previously on December 8, 2009, S. 2847, a companion bill to 

H.R. 1084, was introduced by Sen. Whitehouse of Rhode Island and 

referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

65 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation reported S. 2847, with an amendment. On September 29, 2010, the Senate report was filed on S. 2847 (S. Rept. 

111–340). 

On September 29, 2010, S. 2847 was passed in the Senate with 

an amendment by unanimous consent. 

On November 15, 2010, the House received S. 2847, where it was 

held at the desk. 

On November 17, 2010, the House called up S. 2847 under suspension of the rules. Following completion of debate on the bill, further proceedings were postponed. 

On December 2, 2010, the House resumed unfinished business 

and passed S. 2847, as amended, under suspension of the rules by 

a voice vote, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On December 15, 2010, S. 2847 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–311. 

TO ALLOW THE FUNDING FOR THE INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE DIGITAL

TELEVISION TRANSITION AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 2005 TO REMAIN AVAILABLE UNTIL EXPENDED THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2012

Public Law 111–96 (H.R. 3633, S. 1694) 

To allow for the funding for the interoperable emergency communications grant program to remain available until expended 

through 2012. 

Summary 

H.R. 3633 extends the funding window for the interoperable 

emergency communications grant program established under the 

Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. The 

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Program (PSIC) funds 

state projects that provide public safety personnel with interoperable communications equipment and training for system users. 

Under current law, funding for these critical interoperability 

projects will expire in September 2010. This extension will allow 

funds to remain available until expended through fiscal year 2012. 

Legislative History 

On September 22, 2009, S. 1694 was introduced in the Senate 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

On September 23, 2009, H.R. 3633 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Harman of California and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3633 was subsequently referred to the 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 

on September 24, 2009. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session to consider the legislation and forwarded H.R. 3633 without amendment 

to the full Committee by a voice vote. 

On October 15, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and H.R. 3633 was ordered favorably 

reported without amendment by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

66 

On October 14, 2009, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 3633, S. 

1694, was passed by the Senate by unanimous consent. 

On October 15, 2009, the House received S. 1694 and referred 

the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On October 28, 2009, S. 1694 was called up on the House floor 

and passed the House under suspension of the rules by a rollcall 

vote of 420–0, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On November 6, 2009, S. 1694 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–96. 

THE SATELLITE TELEVISION EXTENSION AND LOCALISM ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–175 (H.R. 2994, S. 3333) 

To amend provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 to extend to December 31, 2014, allowing satellite retransmission of network station signals to a subscriber who is located outside of the 

local market of the station and resides in an unserved household. 

Summary 

H.R. 2994, the ‘‘Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act of 

2009’’ (SHVRA), reauthorizes and amends certain provisions of the 

Communications Act of 1934 that govern satellite retransmission of 

television broadcast signals. The bill amends the Communications 

Act to account for the completion of the digital television transition; 

reauthorizes provisions of the Communications Act regarding certain good faith negotiating requirements set to expire at the end 

of 2009; improves regulatory parity between cable operators and 

satellite providers; creates incentives to expand local-into-local 

service to every television market in the United States, and directs 

the FCC to study two issues relating to the ability of consumers to 

receive local television signals. 

Legislative History 

On June 16, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on a discussion draft of the 

Satellite Home Viewer Reauthorization Act of 2009 (SHVRA), receiving testimony from satellite television providers, content producers, a representative of television broadcasters and operators, 

and a satellite industry small business CEO. 

On June 23, 2009, H.R. 2994 was introduced by Subcommittee 

Chairman Boucher and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. On June 24, 2009, H.R. 2994 was referred to 

the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. 

On June 25, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet met in open mark-up session to consider 

H.R. 2994 and subsequently favorably forwarded H.R. 2994, 

amended, to the full Committee by a voice vote. 

On October 15, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open mark up session to H.R. 2994 as approved by the Subcommittee. The Committee ordered H.R. 2994 favorably reported to 

the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 2, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 2994 (H. Rept. 111–349). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

67 

On May 7, 2010, S. 3333, the Satellite Television Extension and 

Localism Act of 2010, was introduced and passed by unanimous 

consent in the Senate. 

On May 11, 2010, S. 3333 was received in the House. On May 

12, 2010, S. 3333 passed the House under suspension of the rules, 

by a voice vote, clearing the legislation for the White House. 

On May 27, 2010, S. 3333 was signed into law by the President 

and became Public Law 111–175. 

THE TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–331 (S. 30, H.R. 1258) 

To protect against a practice commonly referred to as caller ID 

‘‘spoofing,’’ where a caller falsifies the original caller ID information 

during the transmission of a phone call. 

Summary 

H.R. 1258 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to make it 

unlawful for any person in the United States, in connection with 

any real time voice communications, regardless of the technology or 

network used, to cause any caller identification service to transmit 

misleading or inaccurate caller identification information (‘‘spoofing’’) with the intent to defraud or deceive. It prohibits construing 

this Act to prevent blocking caller identification and declares that 

this Act does not prohibit lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the 

United States, a state, or a political subdivision of a state, or of a 

U.S. intelligence agency. 

Legislative History 

On March 3, 2009, H.R. 1258 was introduced by Reps. Eliot 

Engel (D–NY) and Joe Barton (R–TX) and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On March 4, 2009, H.R. 1258 

was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 

and the Internet. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 1258, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On March 10, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and H.R. 1258 was ordered favorably 

reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On April 13, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 1258 (H. Rept. 111–461). 

On April 14, 2010, H.R. 1258 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On April 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 1258 as amended by 

the House and placed the bill on the Senate Legislative Calendar. 

S. 30, the Senate companion bill to H.R. 1258, was introduced on 

January 7, 2009, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. Consideration by the Senate Committee was held on November 11, 2009 and reported without 

amendment. 

On February 23, 2010, S. 30 passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

68 

On February 24, 2010, S. 30 was received in the House and subsequently referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 15, 2010, S. 30, as amended by the Senate, passed 

the House under suspension of the rules by a voice vote, clearing 

the measure for the White House. 

The bill S. 30, as approved by the House and the Senate, was 

presented to the President on December 17, 2010. 

On December 22, 2010, S. 30 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–331. 

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY

ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–260 (H.R. 3101, S. 3304) 

MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

COMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–265 (S. 3828) 

To update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals with vision, hearing, and other disabilities are able to utilize 

fully broadband services and equipment and better access video 

programming devices. 

Summary 

H.R. 3101 updates the communications laws to help ensure that 

individuals with disabilities are able to utilize fully communications services and equipment and better access video programming. 

The bill requires that all equipment that enables voice communications be compatible with hearing aids; requires makers of Internet 

access equipment, including hardware and software makers, to ensure that their products are accessible, unless doing so is not 

achievable; and requires providers of Internet access services or 

makers of Internet access equipment to make the user interfaces 

for such products accessible if achievable. 

The bill requires the FCC to conduct inquiries and issue reports 

to Congress regarding closed captioning and video description of 

programming, on user interfaces in equipment designed to display 

video programming, and on video programming guides and menus. 

H.R. 3101 also requires the FCC to issue regulations to ensure that 

equipment used to view video programming, including devices with 

small screens, be capable of displaying closed captioning, passing 

through video description services, and conveying emergency information. 

The bill reinstates the FCC’s video description rules that were 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002, and grants 

the Commission authority to expand the hourly requirements of 

those rules after a period of years and after a series of reports. 

H.R. 3101 requires the FCC to issue regulations to mandate the 

provision of closed captioning with video programming distributed 

over the Internet to ensure that video programming providers convey emergency information in a manner that is accessible to individuals who are visually impaired. Finally, H.R. 3101 requires that 

user interfaces for equipment used to view video programming are 

accessible and requires that remote controls for such devices have 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

69 

a button or functionally equivalent mechanism to access accessibility features. 

Legislative History 

On June 26, 2009, H.R. 3101 was introduced by Rep. Edward J. 

Markey (D–MA) and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. On July 7, 2009, H.R. 3101 was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. 

On June 10, 2010, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 3101, receiving testimony from a person with disabilities, an organization representing Americans with disabilities, a telecommunications association, a wireless association, a cable association and a consumer 

electronics association. 

On June 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 3101, amended, to the full Committee, by a voice vote. 

On July 21, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and H.R. 3101 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 26, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 3101 (H. Rept. 111–563). The same day, 

H.R. 3101 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a 

rollcall vote of 348–23. 

On July 27, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 3101 with the House 

amendment and on August 5, 2010, the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. For further action on this bill, see action 

on S. 3304 and S. 3828. 

On August 3, 2010, S. 3304, a Senate companion bill to H.R. 

3101, was reported to the Senate, as amended, by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

On August 5, 2010, S. 3304 passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

On August 9, 2010, the House received S. 3304 and held the bill 

at the desk. 

On September 22, 2010, S. 3828, a bill to make technical corrections to S. 3304 and the amendments made by that Act, was introduced and passed in the Senate without amendment by unanimous 

consent. 

On September 23, 2010, S. 3828 was received in the House and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 28, 2010, the House called up both S. 3304, as 

amended, and S. 3828 and passed each bill under suspension of the 

rules by voice votes, clearing the measures for the White House. 

On September 30, 2010, both S. 3304 and S. 3828 were presented 

to the President. 

On October 8, 2010, S. 3304 was signed into law by the President 

and became Public Law 111–260. 

On October 8, 2010, S. 3828 were signed by the President and 

became Public Law 111–265. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

70 

THE RADIO SPECTRUM INVENTORY ACT

(H.R. 3125) 

To require an inventory of spectrum bands managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 

and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

Summary 

H.R. 3125 requires the NTIA and the FCC to develop jointly a 

publicly-accessible spectrum inventory and submit regular reports 

to Congress regarding such an inventory. It also requires those 

agencies to make periodic recommendations as to which spectrum 

frequencies, if any, should be reallocated or otherwise made available for shared access. 

Legislative History 

On July 8, 2009, Rep. Waxman of California with Reps. Boucher 

of Virginia, Barton of Texas, and Stearns of Florida, and 14 additional members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, introduced H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act. The bill was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 8, 

2009. On July 9, 2009, H.R. 3125 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. 

On December 15, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 3125, receiving testimony from a public policy foundation, academia, a representative of a private corporation, a wireless association, a broadcasters association and a representative of a small technology company. 

On January 21, 2010, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3125. The Subcommittee adopted an Amendment in the 

Nature of a Substitute offered by Subcommittee Chairman Boucher 

and forwarded H.R. 3125 to the full Committee, amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On March 10, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session on H.R. 3125, and adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute (manager’s amendment) by a 

voice vote, which was offered by Chairman Waxman on behalf of 

himself and Reps. Boucher, Barton, and Stearns. Subsequently, 

H.R. 3125 was ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, 

by a voice vote. 

On April 13, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 3125 (H. Rept. 111–462). 

On April 14, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3125, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On April 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 3125 as passed by 

the House, and referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

There was no further action taken on H.R. 3125 in the 111th 

Congress. (Additional activity related to provisions of this legislation may be found in the Subcommittee’s section on Oversight Activities under ‘‘Spectrum Policy and Wireless Consumer Protection.’’) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

71 

THE SPECTRUM RELOCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 3019) 

To improve the process of clearing federal users from spectrum 

that has been reallocated for commercial use. 

Summary 

H.R. 3019 amends the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to require the NTIA to 

post on its website detailed transition plans from each federal entity that is eligible for payments from the Spectrum Relocation Fund 

for costs related to the reallocation of frequencies from federal to 

nonfederal use; requires the federal entities, to the fullest extent 

possible, to provide for sharing and coordination of eligible frequencies with commercial licensees; requires federal entities to 

complete spectrum relocation within one year of receiving relocation payments. 

Legislative History 

On June 24, 2009, H.R. 3019 was introduced by Reps. Inslee of 

Washington, Boucher of Virginia, and Upton of Michigan, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. On June 25, 

2009, H.R. 3019 was referred to the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. 

On December 15, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 3019, receiving testimony from policy groups, private companies, a wireless association, a broadcasters association, and academia. 

On January 21, 2010, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet met in open markup session to consider the bill and forwarded H.R. 3019 to the full Committee without amendment by a voice vote. 

On March 10, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3019 and subsequently ordered the bill favorably reported to the House without 

amendment by a voice vote. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3019 in the 111th Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

The Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet held general oversight hearings to examine issues related 

to the broadband programs created by the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) established within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the 

Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) administered by the Rural 

Utility Service (RUS) within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The hearings examined efforts by the NTIA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the RUS to carry out the 

broadband programs established by the Recovery Act. 

The first of these hearings occurred on April 2, 2009. At the 

hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from representatives 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

72 

of the NTIA, FCC, and RUS, as well as from industry stakeholders 

and other experts regarding implementation of the broadband programs. 

On September 10, 2009, the Subcommittee held another hearing 

at which it received testimony focusing on the BTOP and the BIP 

programs. This hearing featured the head of NTIA, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling 

as well as RUS Administrator Jonathan Adelstein. 

On March 4, 2010, the Subcommittee held a third hearing focusing on the BTOP and the BIP. Representatives of the NTIA and 

RUS testified before the subcommittee. 

DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION

Since June 12, 2009, full-power television stations nationwide 

have been broadcasting exclusively in a digital format. The benefits 

of the DTV transition include more broadcast television programming with better picture and sound quality and the freeing up of 

spectrum for innovative and wide-reaching wireless services. 

The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 

(‘‘DTV Act’’), established February 17, 2009 as the date by which 

all full-power television stations must have converted to digitalonly broadcasts. The DTV Act also established a coupon program 

administered by the NTIA that offered eligible households up to 

two $40 coupons, each of which could be used to acquire a converter box to enable analog televisions not connected to cable, satellite, or other pay-TV services to receive broadcasters’ digital signals. 

On January 8, 2009, the Obama-Biden transition team asked the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to consider postponing the DTV transition date. The President-elect’s team cited 

numerous problems with the planned DTV transition, including inadequate consumer education and support, as well as the fact that 

over a million households were then on a waiting list to receive a 

coupon, with little hope of actually receiving one prior to the February 17, 2009, deadline. Congress responded to this request by 

passing S. 352, the DTV Delay Act, which set a new DTV transition date of June 12, 2009. As part of the Recovery Act, Congress 

also appropriated $650 million for additional funding for the Converter Box Coupon Program and DTV transition consumer education efforts. S. 352, the DTV Delay Act, was signed by President 

Obama on February 11, 2009. 

On March 26, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘Oversight of the Digital Television Transition.’’ The hearing focused on the administration of the Converter Box Coupon Program 

by the NTIA, outreach and consumer education efforts by the FCC, 

and the status of the transition from the perspective of stakeholders. 

On April 9, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher requested information from manufacturers and retailers of TV converter boxes to determine whether there would be 

an adequate supply of coupon-eligible converter boxes to meet demand during the transition to digital television. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

73 

On November 9, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairman Boucher sent a letter to Acting Comptroller General of 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to request assistance 

in examining the status of low-power broadcast and TV translator 

stations’ transition to digital-only broadcast. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

During the 111th Congress, the Committee conducted vigorous 

oversight of the Federal Communications Commission. All five FCC 

Commissioners appeared before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet twice, and FCC Chairman 

Genachowski appeared at an additional hearing devoted to the 

topic of distracted driving. Acting Chairman Copps also testified at 

an additional hearing on the digital television transition. 

On September 17, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology and the Internet held a hearing titled ‘‘Oversight of the 

Federal Communications Commission’’ that became the first oversight hearing of the agency since Julius Genachowski became 

Chairman of the Commission. Other witnesses for the hearing were 

Commissioners Michael J. Copps, Robert M. McDowell, Mignon 

Clyburn, and Meredith Attwell Baker. Topics of the hearing included the National Broadband Plan (NBP), public safety interoperable broadband network, universal service and intercarrier 

compensation reform, special access, net neutrality, spectrum availability, wireless competition, as well as FCC management and 

process, among others. 

On November 17, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairman Boucher sent a letter to Acting Comptroller General of 

the GAO requesting assistance in examining a number of issues 

pertaining to the FCC’s fee structure. 

On February 2, 2010, Chairman Waxman sent a letter to FCC 

Chairman Genachowski to express the importance of adopting permanent network neutrality rules that do not undermine copyright 

laws and efforts to protect content from theft. 

The Subcommittee also conducted oversight of the FCC’s 

Broadband Plan through four separate hearings solely dedicated to 

the plan and topics therein. On March 25, 2010, the Subcommittee 

on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held another 

hearing at which it received testimony from all five FCC Commissioners concerning the NBP as well as on a variety of communications policy matters. 

On May 5, 2010, Chairman Waxman and Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Chairman Rockefeller sent 

a letter to Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the FCC, following the 

opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit in Comcast Corp v. Federal Communications Commission. The ruling created legal and regulatory uncertainty regarding the 

FCC’s authority to adopt regulations and implement the broad objectives of the NBP. The Chairmen called on the FCC to consider 

all viable options to move forward after the Comcast decision, including a change in the classification of broadband services, to protect broadband consumers and implement the NBP. The Chairmen 

noted that if there is a need to rewrite communications law to provide consumers, the FCC, and industry with an updated framework 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

74 

for telecommunications policy, they are committed as Committee 

Chairmen to doing so. 

NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN

The Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet held a series of oversight hearings following the FCC’s release of its National Broadband Plan (NBP). The NBP was the result of provisions initially adopted by the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce during the January 22, 2009, markup of the 

broadband programs in title VI of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Committee adopted an amendment directing the FCC to submit a National Broadband Plan to Congress. 

The statute required that the plan seek to ensure that all American people have access to broadband capability and establish 

benchmarks for meeting that goal. 

The statute also required that the NBP include an analysis of 

the most effective mechanisms for ensuring broadband access; a 

strategy to achieve affordability for broadband access; an evaluation of the status of broadband deployment; and a plan for advancing broadband use in relation to a variety of national purposes, 

such as public safety, health care delivery, energy independence, 

and education. 

On March 16, 2010, after holding dozens of public workshops, 

issuing 31 public notices and receiving comments from more than 

700 parties, the FCC released the NBP. Generally, the NBP presents an analysis of the state of broadband deployment and adoption in the United States and puts forth numerous recommendations for action by the FCC, the executive branch, and Congress. 

The first oversight hearing concerning the NBP, held on March 

25, 2010, was titled ‘‘Oversight of the Federal Communications 

Commission: The National Broadband Plan.’’ All five FCC commissioners provided testimony. 

On April 21, 2010, the Subcommittee held the second in this series of hearings addressing issues raised in the NBP. Titled ‘‘The 

National Broadband Plan: Deploying Quality Broadband Services 

to the Last Mile,’’ the hearing examined assessments in the NBP 

of the availability of broadband and how to best deploy it to areas 

that are unserved and underserved, so that all Americans can benefit from quality broadband services. Witnesses included a representative from the FCC and the RUS, a representative of a public 

utility association, consumer advocates, and an economist. 

On April 29, 2010, the Subcommittee held a third hearing, titled 

‘‘The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices,’’ to examine recommendations in the NBP to stimulate competition and innovation in the market for set-top boxes and 

other video navigation devices. The Subcommittee received testimony from a consumer advocate, a cable association, a satellite television provider, and companies that produce and utilize set-top 

boxes. 

On May 13, 2010, the Subcommittee held the fourth of this series 

of hearings addressing issues raised in the NBP. The hearing, titled ‘‘The National Broadband Plan: Promoting Broadband Adoption,’’ examined recommendations in the NBP for increasing 

broadband adoption, including ways to ensure that all Americans 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

75 

are able to subscribe to broadband and educating consumers about 

the benefits of broadband. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from the FCC, a state telecommunications representative, a library 

association, and non-profit organizations. 

INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS

On June 4, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to examine issues related 

to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

(ICANN), including the expiring Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the Department of Commerce and ICANN, as well as 

ICANN’s proposed introduction of new generic Top Level Domains 

(gTLDs). The Subcommittee received testimony from the Department of Commerce, the Chief Executive Officer of ICANN, a technology policy group, and industry representatives. 

On August 4, 2009, Chairman Waxman of California, Chairman 

Emeritus Dingell of Michigan, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher of 

Virginia, and Committee members Reps. Markey of Massachusetts, 

Stupak of Michigan, Eshoo of California, Doyle of Pennsylvania, 

Matsui of California, Christensen of the Virgin Islands, Space of 

Ohio, and McNerney of California sent a letter to U.S. Department 

of Commerce Secretary Locke regarding the expiration of the JPA 

between the United States and the ICANN, which promotes the 

stability, security, and functionality of the Internet Domain Name 

System (DNS). The members emphasized that rather than replacing the expiring JPA with additional JPAs or Memoranda of Understanding that expire every few years, a permanent instrument 

should be in place to ensure that ICANN remains perpetually accountable to the public and to all of its global stakeholders. Such 

permanent instrument should provide for periodic reviews of 

ICANN’s performance with respect to transparency and accountability, create a mechanism for ICANN’s implementation of any 

new gTLDs and internationalized domain names, and ensure that 

ICANN will adopt measures to maintain timely and public access 

to accurate and complete WHOIS information, as well as include 

commitments that ICANN will remain a not-for-profit corporation 

headquartered in the United States. 

PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS

During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce conducted extensive oversight to ensure that our nation’s 

first responders have access to interoperable networks that will 

allow them to communicate effectively during any emergency. 

On Thursday, September 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing titled ‘‘A 

National Interoperable Broadband Network for Public Safety: Recent Developments.’’ The hearing focused on three proposals that 

emerged in the aftermath of the FCC’s unsuccessful auction of the 

‘‘D Block’’ of 700 MHz spectrum in 2008. The Subcommittee considered proposals from the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the 

Competitive Commercial Carriers, as well as a restructured auction 

of the D Block by the FCC based on a public/private partnership. 

On June 17, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing on a bipartisan staff discussion draft to provide funding for the construction 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

76 

and maintenance of a nationwide, interoperable public safety 

broadband network. The discussion draft was developed jointly by 

staff for Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher, full 

Committee Ranking Member Barton, and Subcommittee Ranking 

Member Stearns. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 

FCC, a public policy group, the New York Police Department, a fire 

fighters association, an emergency communications association, an 

academic, and telecommunications companies. 

On June 30, 2010, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman 

Boucher, Ranking Member Barton, and Subcommittee Ranking 

Member Stearns sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius 

Genachowski requesting information related to the market for public safety communications equipment and devices. 

SPECTRUM POLICY AND WIRELESS CONSUMER PROTECTION

The Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet spent significant time monitoring the development of wireless broadband services and the impact of wireless carrier practices 

on consumers. The Subcommittee took note of the structure of the 

industry and how that structure affects competition and choice for 

consumers. Wireless carriers have suggested that the current U.S. 

allocation of spectrum for mobile broadband services compares 

poorly with other nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is inadequate to meet rapidly growing demand. That view has been echoed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. As part of the NBP, the FCC has issued 

several notices seeking comment on current use of spectrum and 

the need for additional spectrum to meet the demand for wireless 

broadband services. 

On May 7, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to examine issues related 

to the status of wireless competition in the United States. The 

hearing examined issues affecting wireless competition such as the 

role of states in regulating terms and conditions of wireless services, handset exclusivity and availability, local number portability, 

voice and data roaming, tower siting, and wireless backhaul. Representatives from medium-size and rural wireless carriers, along 

with public interest and consumer groups, testified at the hearing. 

To provide policymakers with greater transparency concerning 

current uses of spectrum and the availability of spectrum for new 

and innovative services, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Barton, Subcommittee Ranking 

Member Stearns, and several other members of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce introduced H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum 

Inventory Act in July 2009. The legislation would require an inventory of the radio spectrum bands managed by the NTIA and the 

FCC, including the amount and type of use. 

Rep. Inslee of Washington also introduced legislation regarding 

spectrum policy that the Subcommittee considered along with H.R. 

3125 at a hearing on December 15, 2009, and a Subcommittee 

markup on January 21, 2010. The bill, H.R. 3019, would amend the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to require the NTIA to post on its website detailed 

transition plans from each Federal entity that is eligible for paymstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

77 

ments from the Spectrum Relocation Fund for costs related to the 

reallocation of frequencies from federal to nonfederal use. It would 

require the federal entities, to the fullest extent possible, to provide 

for sharing and coordination of eligible frequencies with commercial 

licensees. 

On November 17, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairman Boucher sent a letter to Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the GAO, requesting the agency to examine a 

number of important spectrum issues. Specifically, Chairmen Waxman and Boucher asked GAO to evaluate matters related to federal 

spectrum uses, commercial spectrum uses, and spectrum sharing 

opportunities. 

President Obama has also indicated an increased focus within 

the Administration on spectrum policy and management. On June 

28, 2010, the President signed a Presidential Memorandum to commit the federal government to a sustained effort to make available 

500 MHz of federal and commercial spectrum over the next 10 

years to foster investment and economic growth and to meet the 

burgeoning demand for mobile and fixed broadband. 

On July 14, 2010, in response to a letter from Sen. Rockefeller 

of West Virginia as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, FCC Chairman Genachowski 

announced that the Commission had begun creating an inventory 

of existing spectrum allocation, assignment, and utilization. On August 31, 2010, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher, Ranking Member Barton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Stearns sent letters to FCC Chairman Genachowski and Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Larry 

Strickling outlining certain requirements for a spectrum inventory 

outlined in the House-passed legislation (H.R. 3125) that merit inclusion in the commission’s effort to create an inventory. The provisions included a requirement that the agencies jointly submit reports to congressional committees containing recommendations as 

to which spectrum frequencies, if any, should be reallocated or otherwise made available for shared access, among others. 

On November 15, 2010, the NTIA issued a report in response to 

the Presidential Memorandum detailing efforts by NTIA to nearly 

double commercial wireless spectrum. The plan included a timetable for identifying spectrum that can be made available for wireless broadband over the next 10 years, as well as a fast track evaluation that identified 115 megahertz of spectrum to be made available within 5 years. 

TRAFFIC PUMPING

On October 14, 2009, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher, and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Chairman Stupak sent letters to AT&T, Qwest, Sprint, and Verizon 

requesting information concerning access charges and so-called 

‘‘traffic pumping’’ arrangements. They sought details on the nature 

and scope of these arrangements as well as the steps companies 

take to resolve undisputed charges. The members were concerned 

that certain companies may be engaged in regulatory arbitrage to 

the detriment of consumers. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

78 

On February 16, 2010, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairmen Boucher and Stupak sent letters to 24 telecommunications companies to assist the Committee in its ongoing review of 

access charges and traffic pumping arrangements. The Committee 

sought additional information concerning allegations that the existing access charge regime may create incentives for companies to 

charge excessive rates for completing calls. The Committee has not 

reached a conclusion whether legislative changes are appropriate 

or necessary concerning this practice. 

COMMUNICATIONS ACT UPDATE

On May 24, 2010, there was a joint announcement made by 

House Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher of 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce with Sen. Rockefeller, 

Senate Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, and Sen. Kerry of Massachusetts, Senate Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 

and the Internet, that they will start a process to develop proposals 

to update the Communications Act. This process would include bicameral, bipartisan, staff-led stakeholder sessions. 

The first set of staff-led stakeholder sessions convened on June 

25, 2010, addressing broadband regulation and FCC authority, 

with a focus on protecting consumers and promoting broadband investment. A follow-up session held on July 2, 2010, covered the 

same topic in more detail. On July 16, 2010, a third bicameral, bipartisan stakeholder meeting was held to address spectrum policy, 

with a follow-up session on July 23, 2010. A fifth bipartisan Houseonly session was held on August 6, 2010, to discuss issues related 

to broadband regulation and FCC authority, this time with a focus 

on ensuring the integrity and protection of content against theft. 

BROADBAND AND INTERNET FREEDOM

In response to the Comcast v. FCC decision by the D.C. Circuit 

that called into question the ability of the FCC to oversee and regulate broadband Internet access services, Chairman Waxman and 

Subcommittee Chairman Boucher sought to reach a bipartisan 

agreement on legislation that would protect and promote an open 

Internet. The proposal was designed to be an interim measure to 

protect net neutrality while Congress considers a permanent solution. It contained four key consumer protections that would restore 

FCC authority to prevent blocking of Internet content; applications, 

and services; prevent phone and cable companies from unjustly or 

unreasonably discriminating against any lawful Internet traffic; 

prohibit wireless broadband providers from blocking websites, as 

well as applications that compete with voice or video conferencing; 

and direct the FCC to issue transparency regulations. 

The proposed legislation was not introduced as a bill because it 

failed to garner bipartisan support. On December 1, 2010, however, 

Chairman Waxman sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius 

Genachowski that attached an authorized copy of the proposed legislation so that the Commission and the public would have access 

to an accurate version of the proposed compromise. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

79 

COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND CONSUMER PRIVACY

The Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the 

Internet focused extensively on the topic of consumer privacy. On 

April 23, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Communications Networks and Consumer Privacy: Recent Developments.’’ 

The hearing reviewed technologies used by network operators to 

monitor their subscribers’ use of the Internet and how those technologies affect consumer privacy. The hearing explored three ways 

to monitor consumer usage on broadband and wireless networks: 

Deep packet inspection (DPI); information collection by digital settop boxes; and wireless Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking. 

Several joint hearings were held on this subject by the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet and 

the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection. 

On June 18, 2009, the subcommittees held the first joint hearing 

titled ‘‘Behavioral Advertising: Industry Practices and Consumers’ 

Expectations.’’ Over the last decade, advertisers, ad agencies, and 

online ad networks have developed sophisticated advertising tools 

that track individual users’ online activities over time in order to 

deliver advertising tailored to users’ online activities. This practice, 

called behavioral advertising, may be valuable, but it also raises 

important privacy concerns. There are currently no federal laws 

specifically governing the online advertising industry or the practice of online behavioral targeting. 

On November 19, 2009, the two subcommittees held another joint 

hearing on privacy issues titled ‘‘Exploring the Offline and Online 

Collection and Use of Consumer Information.’’ The hearing examined the collection and commercial use of consumer data in the offline and online marketplaces. Central to the hearing’s review of offline data collection was an examination of the information broker 

industry, companies that are in the business of buying and selling 

consumer information. Information brokers maintain billions of 

data records on millions of individuals. Although much of the information collection and commercial uses of personal information are 

not regulated under federal law, many companies and trade associations have implemented privacy safeguards and offer consumers 

choices about certain uses of their information. Privacy practices 

vary widely, however, and consumer advocates have called the current framework, which largely relies on voluntary practices, inadequate. 

On February 24, 2010, the two Subcommittees held a third joint 

hearing titled ‘‘The Collection and Use of Location Information for 

Commercial Purposes.’’ With the development of cheaper and more 

efficient location-based technologies, increased use of smart phones, 

the launch of geo-enabled Web browsers, and the proliferation of location-based applications, consumers everywhere are using the 

thousands of different location-based services (LBS) and applications, which collect and use location data, to communicate, socialize, travel, play, and shop. A wide range of stakeholders have 

raised privacy concerns regarding the collection and use of location 

information. Some of the concerns mirror privacy concerns that 

have been raised in other contexts, including discussions about the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

80 

collection and use of personally identifiable information in the online environment. 

On May 4, 2010, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher and Subcommittee Ranking Member Stearns released a discussion draft of 

legislation to assure the privacy of personally identifiable information about individuals both on the Internet and offline. 

COMPETITION IN THE COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE

During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet examined the state of competition in the communications marketplace with an emphasis on wireless competition. On May 7, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing titled ‘‘An 

Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry.’’ At the hearing Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher both 

noted the increasing role that wireless technology plays in the lives 

of Americans as evidenced by the number of people who rely solely 

on wireless phones and have no landline service. 

On October 22, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘Video Competition in a Digital Age.’’ The hearing examined competition in the video programming marketplace, including access by 

multichannel video programming distributors and consumers to 

programming both offline and online. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from video programmers and distributors, content creators, and a public policy group. 

The Subcommittee also carefully examined the proposed joint 

venture between Comcast and NBC Universal. On February 4, 

2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘An Examination of 

the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal.’’ The 

hearing focused on the proposed Comcast/NBC Universal joint venture and its potential impact on the video programming and 

broadband marketplace. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from representatives of Comcast and NBC Universal (NBCU), as 

well as a representative of the NBC affiliates board, a regional 

cable and broadband provider, a consumer advocacy group, and a 

public policy group. 

On July 8, 2010, the Subcommittee held a field hearing at the 

Everett Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois titled 

‘‘Comcast and NBC Universal: Who Benefits?’’ This hearing focused 

on the proposed Comcast/NBC Universal joint venture, its potential 

impact on the video programming and broadband marketplace, and 

updates to the voluntary commitments made by Comcast and NBC 

Universal since the February hearing. 

On December 7, 2010, Chairman Waxman sent a letter to FCC 

Chairman Julius Genachowski expressing his belief that the Commission and the Department of Justice should impose conditions on 

the proposed combination of Comcast and NBCU in order to protect 

consumers and promote competition. The conditions include program access requirements to protect competing program distributors, program carriage requirements to protect unaffiliated cable 

programmers, open Internet requirements to protect and promote 

the emerging online video market, and conditions that measurably 

strengthen the creative and economic opportunities of independent 

writers, producers, and directors. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

81 

On August 26, 2010, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Boucher, and Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 

Chairman Markey released a report by the GAO that examined 

changes in the wireless industry over the past decade, consumer 

and stakeholder perspectives of regulatory policies and industry 

practices, and FCC strategies to monitor industry competition. 

GAO recommended that the FCC expand its data collection on such 

metrics as special access rates, prices, and capital expenditures in 

order to improve its monitoring and annual reporting on competition in the wireless market. 

The GAO report, titled ‘‘Enhanced Data Collection Could Help 

FCC Better Monitor Competition in the Wireless Industry,’’ reviewed the changes in the wireless industry since 2000, noting an 

increase in consumer usage of wireless services and the consolidation among wireless carriers during this period. These changes 

have benefited consumers through lower prices and better coverage. Industry consolidation, however, has also reduced the ability 

of small and regional carriers to be competitive, raising concerns 

that a lack of competition in the market could result in higher fees 

and deteriorating service for consumers. 

GAO recommended that the FCC more closely monitor industry 

practices that may jeopardize wireless competition as part of its 

statutory reporting and monitoring of wireless competition. The report also recommended that the FCC collect original data on pricing, capital expenditures by wireless carriers, and other metrics, 

and continue to examine the impact of early termination fees and 

exclusive handset arrangements. 

DISTRACTED DRIVING

On November 4, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology and the Internet and the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection held a joint hearing titled ‘‘Driven 

To Distraction: Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety.’’ The 

hearing examined safety issues related to drivers distracted by 

wireless or other electronic communications devices built in or 

brought into the vehicle. The Subcommittees received testimony 

from the FCC, the U.S. Department of Transportation, consumer 

advocates, and representatives of the wireless and automobile industry. 

CYBERSECURITY

On May 1, 2009, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing titled ‘‘Cybersecurity: Network Threats and Policy Challenges.’’ The hearing explored threats 

to critical infrastructure, including communications networks, 

power grids, and governmental information systems. The Subcommittee received testimony from a non-profit organization, an 

Internet security association, and a company that provides cybersecurity-related clearinghouse services. 

UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet conducted oversight of the Fedmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

82 

eral Universal Service Fund (USF), with a particular emphasis on 

controlling the size of the fund and whether to allow use of USF 

support for the deployment of broadband. 

On March 12, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘The 

Universal Service Fund: Reforming High Cost Support.’’ The purpose of the hearing was to examine the core principles of universal 

service in light of advances in technology and the changes in the 

communications marketplace. The Subcommittee reviewed aspects 

of the USF as administered by the FCC, possible reforms to the 

High Cost Fund, and the growing demand for advanced services, 

including broadband and high-speed mobile in high cost areas of 

the country. Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Boucher expressed the importance of the principles of universal service 

and their commitment to comprehensive reform of the USF. 

On April 1, 2009, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman 

Boucher, Ranking Member Barton, and Subcommittee Ranking 

Member Stearns sent a letter to Acting FCC Chairman Michael 

Copps to request information concerning Universal Service Fund 

(USF) disbursements. The Committee sought targeted information 

about the top recipients of high-cost subsidy dollars from the USF. 

The Committee made this information available to the public by 

posting the FCC’s response on the Committee on Energy and Commerce website. 

Legislation was developed from this oversight activity. On November 17, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing on a discussion 

draft of the Universal Service Reform Act of 2009. The draft proposed alternatives for the Commission to consider in broadening 

the contribution base; required the FCC to target support better to 

high-cost areas, and provide for broadband to be included as a supported service; it made a number of other changes to the fund’s administration. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 

H.R. 5828, a bill to reform the federal universal service provisions 

of the Communications Act of 1934. Introduced by Subcommittee 

Chairman Boucher and Rep. Terry of Nebraska, the bill would comprehensively reform the USF High Cost Fund. 

On June 15, 2010, Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman 

Boucher, Ranking Member Barton, and Subcommittee Ranking 

Member Stearns sent a letter to FCC Chairman Genachowski requesting an update to the June 2009 information request concerning USF disbursements. The FCC response updating this information was again posted on the Committee on Energy and Commerce website. 

HEARINGS HELD

Reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act.—Oversight hearing on reauthorization of the 

Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act. Hearing 

held on February 24, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–5. 

Universal Service: Reforming the High-Cost Fund.—Oversight 

hearing on the Universal Service Fund. Hearing held on March 12, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–13. 

Oversight of the Digital Television Transition.—Oversight hearing on the administration of the DTV Converter Box Coupon Promstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

83 

gram by the NTIA, outreach and consumer education efforts by the 

FCC, and the status of the transition from the perspective of other 

stakeholders. Hearing held on March 26, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–23. 

Oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 

Broadband.—Oversight hearing to examine issues related to the 

broadband programs created by the Recovery Act. Hearing held on 

April 2, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–26. 

Communications Networks and Consumer Privacy: Recent Developments.—Oversight hearing focusing on technologies utilized by 

network operators to monitor consumer usage and how those technologies intersect with consumer privacy. Hearing held on April 23, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–31. 

Cybersecurity: Network Threats and Policy Challenges.—Oversight hearing to explore threats to critical infrastructure, including 

communications networks, power grids, and governmental information systems. Hearing held on May 1, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–35. 

An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry.—Oversight hearing to examine issues related to the status of wireless 

competition in the United States. Hearing held on May 7, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–37. 

Oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers (ICANN).—Oversight hearing to examine issues related 

to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

(ICANN). Hearing held on June 4, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–42. 

H.R.1147, the Local Community Radio Act of 2009, H.R.1133, the 

Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009, and H.R.1084, 

the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM 

Act).—Legislative hearing on three bills referred to the Subcommittee. Hearing held on June 11, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–47. 

Discussion Draft of Legislation to Reauthorize the Satellite Home 

Viewer Act.—Legislative hearing on a discussion draft of legislation 

to reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Act. Hearing held on 

June 16, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–51. 

Behavioral Advertising: Industry Practices and Consumers’ Expectations.—Oversight hearing to examine the potential privacy implications of behavioral advertising. Hearing held jointly with the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on 

June 18, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–53. 

Oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 

Broadband Part 2.—Oversight hearing to examine the Administration’s implementation of the broadband programs created under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Hearing held on 

September 10, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–62. 

Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission.—Oversight hearing on views of FCC Commissioners on matters of policy 

and process. The first oversight hearing since Julius Genachowski 

became Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC). Hearing held September 17, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–65. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

84 

A National Interoperable Broadband Network for Public Safety: 

Recent Developments.—Oversight hearing to focus on three main 

proposals that have emerged in the aftermath of the FCC’s unsuccessful ‘‘D Block’’ auction in 2008. Hearing held on September 24, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–67. 

Video Competition in a Digital Age.—Oversight hearing to examine competition in the video programming marketplace, including 

access by multichannel video programming distributors and consumers to programming both offline and online. Hearing held on 

October 22, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–76. 

Driven To Distraction: Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety.—Oversight hearing to examine safety issues concerning drivers 

distracted by wireless or other electronic communications devices 

built in or brought into the vehicle. Hearing held jointly with the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on 

November 4, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–79. 

Discussion Draft of the Universal Service Reform Act of 2009.— 

Legislative hearing on draft legislation to reform the federal universal service provisions of the Communications Act of 1934. Hearing held on November 17, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–81. 

Exploring the Offline and Online Collection and Use of Consumer 

Information II.—Oversight hearing on the state of competition in 

the sports programming marketplace, including the nature of programming distribution, consumer choice, and other issues. Hearing 

held jointly with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on November 19, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–83. 

H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, and H.R. 3019, the 

Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009.—Legislative hearing on legislation to require an inventory of spectrum bands managed by the NTIA and the FCC, and on legislation to improve the 

process of clearing federal users from spectrum that has been reallocated for commercial use. Hearing held on December 15, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–89. 

An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and 

NBC Universal.—Oversight hearing to examine the proposed 

Comcast/NBC Universal joint venture and its potential impact on 

the video programming and broadband marketplace. Hearing held 

on February 4, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–94. 

The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial 

Purposes.—Oversight hearing to examine privacy concerns raised 

by use of location-based technologies. Hearing held jointly with the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on 

February 24, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–98. 

Oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: 

Broadband, Part Three.—Oversight hearing to examine the Administration’s implementation of the broadband programs created by 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Hearing 

held on March 4, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–101. 

Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission: The National Broadband Plan.—Oversight hearing to explore details of 

the FCC’s recently released National Broadband Plan. Hearing 

held on March 25, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–109. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

85 

The National Broadband Plan: Deploying Quality Broadband 

Services to the Last Mile. Oversight hearing to examine assessments in the National Broadband Plan of the availability of 

broadband and how to best deploy it to areas that are unserved 

and underserved, so all Americans can benefit from quality 

broadband services. Hearing held on April 21, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–111. 

The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices.—Oversight hearing to examine recommendations 

contained in the National Broadband Plan to stimulate competition 

and innovation in set-top boxes and other video navigation devices. 

Hearing held on April 29, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–117. 

The National Broadband Plan: Promoting Broadband Adoption.—Oversight hearing to examine recommendations in the National Broadband Plan for increasing broadband adoption, including ways to ensure that all Americans are able to subscribe to 

broadband and educating consumers about the benefits of 

broadband. Hearing held on May 13, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–124. 

H.R. 3101, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2009.—Legislative hearing on legislation that would 

update the communications laws to help ensure that individuals 

with vision, hearing, and other disabilities are able to utilize fully 

broadband services and equipment and better access video programming devices. Hearing held on June 10, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–131. 

Discussion Draft to Provide Funding for the Construction and 

Maintenance of a Nationwide, Interoperable Public Safety 

Broadband Network, and for Other Purposes, and H.R. 4829, the 

Next Generation 911 Preservation Act of 2010.—Legislative hearing 

on a discussion draft of legislation that would provide funding for 

constructing and maintaining an interoperable public safety 

broadband network, and for other purposes, and on legislation that 

would facilitate the migration from the current generation of emergency communications systems to IP-based emergency services 

known as Next Generation 911. Hearing held on June 17, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–138. 

Comcast and NBC Universal: Who Benefits?—Oversight hearing 

to examine the proposed Comcast/NBC Universal joint venture and 

its potential impact on the video programming and broadband marketplace. Field hearing held in Chicago, Illinois, on July 8, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–142. 

H.R. 5828, the Universal Service Reform Act of 2010.—Legislative 

hearing on a bill to reform the federal universal service provisions 

of the Communications Act of 1934. Hearing held on September 16, 

2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–156. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(87) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

Public Law 111–5 (H.R. 1, H.R. 629) 

A legislative package to stimulate the economy through creation 

of jobs and promotion of investment. 

Summary 

The energy provisions of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), were designed to accelerate 

deployment of smart grid technology, provide energy efficiency 

funds for the nation’s schools and hospitals, offer support for the 

nation’s governors and mayors to tackle their energy challenges, 

and establish a new loan guarantee program to keep renewable energy on track during the economic crisis. These provisions aimed 

to ensure that existing programs could be scaled up so that funds 

would be invested promptly and effectively. 

The energy provisions included initiatives to jumpstart smart 

grid demonstration projects in geographically diverse cities, suburbs, and rural areas. This included an increase in federal matching grants for smart grid technology from 20% to 50%. Under the 

Act, grantees are required to utilize open internet-based protocols 

and standards when available and lessons learned during demonstration projects will be available to help others to deploy smart 

grid infrastructure. 

The Act also created a temporary loan guarantee authority to 

provide loan guarantees for commercial renewable energy systems 

and electric power transmission systems that began construction by 

September 30, 2011. In addition, the Act increased the threshold 

for household eligibility for the Weatherization Assistance Program 

from 150% to 200% of the federal poverty income levels, and increased the per-home maximum assistance from $2,500 to $5,000. 

The Act further conditioned the award of State Energy Program 

funding from the Economic Recovery Act upon a notification to the 

Secretary of Energy by the governor that the governor will seek to 

adopt certain utility regulatory policies to encourage utility-sponsored gains in energy efficiency and updated energy-efficient building codes. 

In order to allow colleges and hospitals to become more energy 

efficient, the Act also waived certain caps on grants and loans so 

that larger energy efficiency projects will be adequately supported. 

Legislative History 

On January 22, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider five committee prints of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

88 

draft legislation on portions of the economic recovery package within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Following the approval of the 

committee prints relating to legislation on broadband, energy, and 

health, a unanimous consent request by Chairman Waxman was 

agreed to that all text after section 1 of H.R. 629, the Energy and 

Commerce Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, be struck and 

replace with the text of the five committee prints approved by the 

Committee, as amended. H.R. 629, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House. 

On January 26, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 625 (H. Rept. 111–7, Part 1). The 

legislative provision contained in this and other Committee reports 

became part of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, which was introduced on January 26, 2009. 

On January 28, 2009, H.R. 1 was considered by the House and 

passed by a rollcall vote of 244–188. 

On February 10, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 1 with an amendment by a rollcall vote of 61–37. The Senate insisted upon their 

amendment, asked for a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees: Inouye, Baucus, Reid, Cochran, and Grassley. 

The House agreed to a motion to disagree with the Senate 

amendment and agreed to a conference on February 10, 2009, by 

a rollcall vote of 403–0. The Speaker appointed the conferees from 

the House: Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Lewis of California, and Camp. 

On February 12, 2009, the conference report on H.R. 1 (House 

Rept. 111–16) was filed in the House. 

On February 13, 2009, the House agreed to the conference report 

by a rollcall vote of 246–183. On the same day, the Senate agreed 

to the conference report by a rollcall vote of 60–38, clearing the 

measure for the White House. 

On February 17, 2009, H.R. 1 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–5. 

AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009

H.R. 2454 (H.R. 2998, S. 1733) 

To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce 

global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy. 

Summary 

H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), 

creates millions of new clean energy jobs, enhances America’s energy independence, and protects the environment. Key provisions 

in the bill: 

(1) Require electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 

2020. 

(2) Invest in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, 

including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in 

new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 

billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion). 

(3) Establish new energy-saving standards for new buildings and 

appliances. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

89 

(4) Reduce carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 

2020 and more than 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the legislation, such as investments in 

preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve significant additional 

reductions in carbon emissions. 

(5) Protect consumers from energy price increases. 

ACES requires retail electric suppliers to meet a growing percentage of their load with electricity generated from renewable resources and electricity savings. The combined renewable electricity 

and electricity savings requirement begins at 6% in 2012 and 

gradually rises to 20% in 2020. At least three quarters (75%) of the 

requirement must be met by renewable energy, except that upon 

receiving a petition from the governor, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) can reduce the renewable requirement 

to three-fifths (60%). In 2020, 15% of the electricity load in each 

state must be met with renewable electricity and 5% with electricity savings. Upon petition by the governor, the renewable requirement can be reduced to 12% and the electricity savings can 

be increased to 8%. 

In addition, the legislation requires the federal government to 

meet 20% of its energy needs with renewable energy by 2020. 

ACES requires major sources of carbon emissions to obtain a pollution permit called an ‘‘allowance’’ for each ton of carbon dioxide 

or its equivalent that they emit. Through 2025, 13% of these allowances are allocated to investments in clean energy and energy efficiency. Using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates of allowance prices, ACES invests roughly $190 billion 

through 2025 in clean energy and energy efficiency programs, including: $90 billion in state programs to promote renewable energy 

and energy efficiency; $60 billion in carbon capture and sequestration technologies; $20 billion in electric and other advanced technology vehicles; and $20 billion in basic research and development 

into clean energy and energy efficiency. The investments in carbon 

capture and sequestration include $10 billion generated through a 

small ‘‘wires charge’’ on electricity generated through fossil fuels. 

Investments in clean energy continue after 2025, with 5% of allowances being devoted to renewable energy and energy efficiency, 

5% to carbon capture and sequestration, and 1.5% to research and 

development. 

ACES establishes a new Clean Energy Deployment Administration with $7.5 billion in funding to support private investments in 

clean energy technologies, including nuclear power. Other provisions promote private investment in clean energy by reforming the 

existing title 17 loan guarantee program. 

ACES includes provisions to promote the deployment of smart 

grid technology and transmission planning and siting. The transmission provisions include federal backstop siting authority in the 

Western interconnection for transmission lines needed to meet demand for renewable energy. 

ACES establishes targets for new standards for building efficiency, requiring new buildings to be 30% more efficient in 2012 

and 50% more efficient in 2016. States receive allowances that they 

can sell to support adoption and enforcement of state energy efficiency codes that meet the new standards. The Department of Enmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

90 

ergy (DOE) must provide a federal backstop if a state declines to 

adopt or enforce compliant codes. ACES also establishes programs 

to help building owners retrofit existing buildings, replace antiquated mobile homes with energy-efficient models, and improve energy efficiency in multi-family assisted housing projects. 

ACES adopts new efficiency standards for lighting products, commercial furnaces, and other appliances. The legislation also modifies the DOE appliance standard-setting process to make it more 

effective. 

The bill requires EPA to promulgate carbon emission standards 

for heavy-duty vehicles and off-road vehicles, such as construction 

equipment, trains, and large ships. ACES also integrates consideration of climate change into the existing transportation planning 

process to further reduce transportation-related energy consumption. 

ACES contains measures to increase the efficiency of water use 

and promote energy savings by the federal government and other 

public institutions. The legislation also creates a new energy efficiency program for small utilities with dedicated funding. Additionally, ACES authorizes a high efficiency gas turbine research program. 

ACES contains three primary programs for reducing dangerous 

carbon emissions that cause global warming: (1) a cap on large domestic sources of emissions; (2) a program to reduce tropical deforestation; and (3) an offset program. In addition, ACES caps emissions of global warming pollutants that are substitutes for ozonedepleting chemicals, and it requires EPA to set performance standards for some uncapped sources of emissions. Taken together, these 

programs will reduce carbon emissions by 28% to 33% below 2005 

levels by 2020. By 2050, ACES will reduce carbon emissions by 

80% below 2005 levels through these programs. 

Starting in 2012, ACES establishes annual tonnage limits on 

emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large 

U.S. sources such as electric utilities and oil refiners. Under these 

limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17% 

below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. To 

achieve these limits, ACES establishes a system of tradable permits called ‘‘emission allowances’’ modeled after the successful 

Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. This market-based approach provides economic incentives for industry to reduce carbon 

emissions at the lowest cost to the economy. 

ACES directs EPA and the Department of State to use 5% of the 

allowances to secure agreements from developing nations to prevent tropical deforestation. This program will reduce carbon emissions by an additional 10 percentage points below 2005 levels by 

2020. 

ACES allows capped sources to increase their carbon emissions 

if they can obtain offsetting emission reductions from uncapped 

sources at a lower cost. The legislation allows capped sources to use 

offsets to acquire up to 2 billion tons of emission credits annually. 

Half of these credits must come from domestic sources, except that 

if insufficient domestic offsets are available, up to 1.5 billion tons 

of emission credits can be obtained from international offset 

projects. Starting in 2017, ACES requires capped sources to turn 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

91 

in five tons of international offsets to receive four tons of emission 

credits. This mechanism will reduce carbon emissions by up to an 

additional five percentage points below 2005 levels by 2020. 

ACES contains multiple provisions to ensure the integrity of offsets, including review by an independent scientific panel. Offsets 

may not be obtained from sources in a foreign nation until the 

United States has entered into an agreement with the originating 

nation establishing the terms of the offset program. 

ACES directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a program 

governing the generation of offset credits from domestic agricultural and forestry sources. The Secretary must promulgate methodologies for assessing the amount of offset credits, including activity baselines, additionality requirements, quantification methods, 

and leakage. The legislation also directs the Secretary to establish 

requirements to account for and address reversals, and it allows for 

the issuance of term offset credits. 

ACES contains numerous cost-containment measures including 

unlimited banking, a two-year compliance period (which allows borrowing one year in advance), and a strategic reserve of allowances 

that are available for auction if allowance prices exceed 160% of 

their three-year average. The proceeds of any sales from the reserve will be used to acquire additional international offsets, which 

will replenish the reserve at a low cost and result in additional reductions in carbon emissions. In addition, ACES establishes a minimum floor price for auctioned allowances of $10 (in 2009 dollars) 

to provide stability and investment certainty. 

ACES uses a combination of regulatory requirements and financial incentives to ensure that new coal-fired power plants will operate with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. All 

new coal plants permitted after 2020 must use CCS when they 

commence operations. Coal plants permitted between 2015 and 

2020 lose eligibility for federal financial assistance if they do not 

use CCS when they commence operations; if they do not use CCS 

when they commence operations, they must retrofit CCS by no 

later than 2025 without federal financial assistance. Coal plants 

permitted between 2009 and 2015 lose eligibility for federal financial assistance if they do not retrofit CCS within five years after 

commencing operations; if they do not retrofit CCS by this date, 

they must retrofit CCS by no later than 2025 without federal financial assistance. The 2025 retrofit deadline is accelerated if four 

gigawatts of electricity generation is deployed with CCS before 

2025; it may also be extended by EPA by up to 18 months on a 

case-by-case basis. 

ACES requires that major U.S. sources of emissions obtain an allowance for each ton of carbon or its equivalent emitted into the 

atmosphere. 

For the period from 2012 through 2025, 55% of the allowances 

would be used to protect consumers from energy price increases; 

19% would be used to assist trade-vulnerable and other industries 

make the transition to a clean energy economy; 13% would be used 

to support investments in clean energy and energy efficiency; and 

10% would be used for domestic adaptation, worker assistance and 

training, prevention of deforestation, and international adaptation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

92 

The remainder (3% of allowances) will be used to help ensure that 

ACES is budget neutral. 

From the period from 2026 through 2050, up to 58% of the allowances will be used to protect consumers; 19% would be used for domestic adaptation, worker assistance and training, prevention of 

deforestation, and international adaptation; 12% would be used to 

support investments in clean energy and energy efficiency; 7% 

would be used to ensure budget neutrality; and at least 4% would 

be used to assist trade-vulnerable and other industries. 

Under ACES, approximately 80% of allowances are distributed 

without charge during the early years of the program to ease the 

transition to a clean energy economy. This transition period starts 

to phase out after 2025. By 2031, about 70% of the allowances 

would be auctioned. 

ACES establishes five programs to protect consumers from energy price increases: one for electricity price increases; one for natural gas price increases; one for heating oil price increases; one to 

protect low- and moderate-income families; and one to provide tax 

dividends to consumers. In combination, these programs substantially reduce the cost impact of ACES on American consumers. 

Electricity price increases would be regional in nature, with the 

greatest increases occurring in the coal-dependent regions of the 

country. To mitigate these price increases, the regulated utilities 

that distribute electricity to consumers would receive 32% of allowances through 2025 under a formula that distributes half of the allowances based on emissions and half based on electricity generation. These utilities are directed to use these allowances exclusively 

to keep rates low and, to the extent they use rebates, to do so to 

the maximum extent practicable by reducing the fixed-rate portion 

of consumer electricity bills. ACES contains a ratepayer fairness 

provision that ensures against windfalls by providing that no local 

distribution company should receive more allowances than necessary to cover its direct and indirect costs. 

To mitigate increases in natural gas prices, the regulated utilities that distribute natural gas to consumers would receive 9% of 

allowances from 2016 through 2025. One-third of these allowances 

must be used for energy efficiency programs. The remainder must 

be passed through to consumers through lower prices under provisions similar to those that apply to the regulated electric utilities. 

To mitigate increases in home heating oil prices, states would receive 1.6% of allowances through 2025 under a formula based on 

home heating oil use. These allowances must be used for rebates 

to consumers and investments in energy efficiency. 

The electricity, natural gas, and heating oil provisions mitigate 

the costs of ACES on all consumers. In addition, ACES directs that 

15% of the allowances be auctioned and the proceeds distributed 

back to consumers through a combination of refundable tax credits 

and electronic benefit payments. 

Under ACES, many of the allowance provisions phase out starting in 2026. As these allowance allocations are phased out, ACES 

directs that the remaining allowances be auctioned and the proceeds distributed to consumers through tax credits. 

Pursuant to the Inslee-Doyle program, energy-intensive, tradeexposed industries that make products such as iron, steel, cement, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

93 

and paper would receive allowances to cover their increased costs. 

The number of allowances set aside for this program would equal 

15% of the allowances in 2014 and then decrease based on the percent reductions in the carbon emissions cap. These allowances 

would phase out after 2025 unless the President decides the program is still needed. 

The legislation also provides that if the United States does not 

join a multilateral agreement, a border adjustment for energy-intensive trade-exposed sectors will be available to the President in 

2020. The President must receive a joint resolution of Congress in 

order to waive use of the border adjustment for these sectors. 

In addition, oil refiners would receive 2% of allowances starting 

in 2014 and ending in 2026, and merchant coal producers and electricity producers obligated to supply electricity under long-term 

contracts would receive 5% of allowances through 2025. The legislation provides an additional 0.25% of allowances for small business refiners from 2014 through 2026. 

States would receive 10% of allowances from 2012 through 2015; 

7% of allowances in 2016 and 2017; 6% of allowances from 2018 

through 2021; and 5% of allowances thereafter for investments in 

renewable energy, energy efficiency, and pollution reducing transportation projects. Two percent of allowances from 2014 through 

2017 and 5% thereafter would be available to electric utilities to 

cover the costs of installing and operating carbon capture and sequestration technologies (from 2014 through 2017, a small portion 

of these allowances would be used to offset the costs to the Treasury of the Carbon Storage Research Corporation, which would invest an additional $10 billion in carbon capture and sequestration 

technologies). Three percent of allowances from 2012 through 2017 

and 1% of allowances from 2018 through 2025 would be available 

for investments in electric vehicles and other advanced automobile 

technology and deployment. One-and-a-half percent of allowances 

in each year would be allocated to support research and development in advanced clean energy and energy efficiency technologies. 

From 2012 through 2021, 2% of allowances would be allocated to 

prepare the United States to adapt to the impacts of climate 

change. The amount of allowances allocated for domestic adaptation would increase to 4% from 2022 through 2026 and to 8% thereafter. Half of these allowances would be used for wildlife and natural resource protection and half for other domestic adaptation purposes, including public health. 

From 2012 through 2025, 5% of allowances would be allocated to 

prevent tropical deforestation and build capacity to generate international deforestation offsets. The allowances allocated to this program would be reduced to 3% from 2026 through 2030 and to 2% 

thereafter. From 2012 through 2021, 2% of allowances would be allocated for international adaptation and clean technology transfer. 

The amount of allowances allocated for these purposes would increase to 4% from 2022 through 2026 and to 8% thereafter. Half 

of these allowances would be used for adaptation and half for clean 

technology transfer. 

From 2012 through 2021, 0.5% of allowances would be allocated 

for worker assistance and job training. This amount would increase 

to 1% thereafter. ACES also provides that 0.75% of allowances for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

94 

vintage years 2012 and 2013 shall be deposited in a new Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Fund to ensure 

adequate funding under the Green Job Acts. 

From 2012 through 2016, 0.28% of allowances would be allocated 

to the Secretary of Agriculture to support agricultural activities 

that sequester carbon but may not be eligible for offset credits and 

to support investments in renewable energy infrastructure. 

One percent of allowances in 2012 would be allocated to projects 

that produced early emission reductions between January 1, 2001, 

and January 1, 2009. 

Legislative History 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held 11 hearings 

prior to the House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES). 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held eight hearings that contributed to the development of the ACES discussion 

draft: (1) ‘‘The Climate Crisis: National Security, Public Health, 

and Economic Threats’’ held on February 12, 2009; (2) ‘‘Energy Efficiency: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation’’ held on 

February 24, 2009; (3) ‘‘Renewable Energy: Complementary Policies 

for Climate Legislation’’ held on February 26, 2009; (4) ‘‘The Role 

of Offsets in Climate Legislation’’ held on March 5, 2009; (5) ‘‘The 

Future of Coal Under Climate Legislation’’ held on March 10, 2009; 

(6) ‘‘Consumer Protection Provisions in Climate Legislation’’ held 

on March 12, 2009; (7) ‘‘Competitiveness and Climate Policy: Avoiding Leakage of Jobs and Emissions’’ held on March 18, 2009; and 

(8) ‘‘Preparing for Climate Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs’’ held on March 25, 2009. 

On March 31, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairman Markey released a discussion draft of the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act. The legislation was available for 

review by both majority and minority Committee members, as well 

as outside experts and the public, for nearly seven weeks prior to 

Committee markup. 

From April 21, 2009, to April 24, 2009, the Committee and Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on the ACES discussion draft, 

spanning four days. Nearly 70 witnesses testified, including former 

Vice President Al Gore and former Speaker of the House Newt 

Gingrich. 

On May 15, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey introduced H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy 

and Security Act of 2009. H.R. 2454 was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on 

Foreign Affairs, Financial Services, Education and Labor, Science 

and Technology, Transportation and Infrastructure, Natural Resources, Agriculture, 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. 

From May 18, 2009, to May 21, 2009, the full Committee met in 

open markup session to consider H.R. 2454. A manager’s amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Waxman and Mr. 

Markey was adopted by a voice vote. During the 4 days of markup, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

95 

there were 96 amendments offered of which 36 amendments were 

adopted. On May 21, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered H.R. 2454 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 33–25. 

On June 5, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 2454 (H. Rept. 111–137 Part 1). 

Prior to the consideration of H.R. 2454 by the House, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held two additional hearings on the legislation. On June 9, 2009, the Subcommittee held a 

legislative hearing on ‘‘Allowance Allocation Policies in Climate 

Legislation: Assisting Consumers, Investing in a Clean Energy Future, and Adapting to Climate Change.’’ On June 12, 2009, the 

Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on ‘‘The Future of the 

Grid: Proposals of Reforming National Transmission Policy.’’ 

On June 22, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey filed a substitute amendment to H.R. 2454 with the 

Committee on Rules. The substitute amendment reflected contributions of other committees, as well as technical changes. On June 

23, 2009, Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey 

introduced H.R. 2998, containing identical text as the substitute 

amendment filed with the Committee on Rules. H. Res. 587, providing a rule for the consideration by the House of H.R. 2454, was 

reported to the House on June 26, 2009, and subsequently passed 

the House by a rollcall vote of 217–205. 

On June 26, 2009, H.R. 2454 passed the House, amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 219–212. 

On July 7, 2009, H.R. 2454 was read a second time, and placed 

on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar No. 97). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress. 

CONSUMER ASSISTANCE TO RECYCLE AND SAVE ACT

Public Law 111–32 (H.R. 2751, H.R. 520, H.R. 1550, H.R. 1606, 

H.R. 2346, H.R. 2640, H.R. 2454, S. 247, S. 1135, S. 1200, S. 1248) 

To accelerate motor fuel savings nationwide and provide incentives to registered owners of high polluting automobiles to replace 

such automobiles with new fuel efficient and less polluting automobiles. 

Summary 

The bill authorizes a new ‘‘Cash for Clunkers’’ program. Under 

this program, consumers may trade in their old, gas-guzzling vehicles and receive vouchers worth up to $4,500 to help pay for new, 

more fuel efficient cars and trucks. 

New passenger cars that achieve at least 22 mpg are eligible for 

a $3,500 voucher if the performance of the new car is at least 4 

mpg higher than the old vehicle and a $4,500 voucher if the performance of the new car is at least 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. Light duty trucks that achieve at least 18 mpg are eligible 

for a $3,500 voucher if the performance of the new truck is at least 

2 mpg higher than the old vehicle and a $4,500 voucher if the performance of the new truck is at least 5 mpg higher than the old 

vehicle. Large light duty trucks that achieve at least 15 mpg are 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

96 

eligible for a $3,500 voucher if the performance of the new truck 

is at least 1 mpg higher than the old vehicle and a $4,500 voucher 

if the performance of the new truck is at least 2 mpg higher than 

the old vehicle. Consumers can also trade in a pre-2002 work truck 

(defined as a pick-up truck or cargo van weighing from 8,500– 

10,000 pounds) and receive a voucher worth $3,500 for a new work 

truck in the same or smaller weight class. Consumers can also 

‘‘trade down,’’ receiving a $3,500 voucher for trading in an older 

work truck and purchasing a smaller light-duty truck weighing 

from 6,000–8,500 pounds. Work truck purchases are capped such 

that the total funds used to purchase work trucks cannot exceed 

7.5 percent of all program funds. The bill also includes important 

consumer protections and protections against program fraud. 

Legislative History 

Prior to the introduction of H.R. 2751, the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce held a legislative hearing on the discussion draft of 

H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) 

from April 21, 2009 to April 24, 2009. Provisions of ‘‘cash for 

clunkers’’ were discussed during the hearing. 

From May 18, 2009 to May 21, 2009, the full Committee met in 

open markup session to consider H.R. 2454. Rep. Betty Sutton of 

Ohio offered an amendment to H.R. 2454, containing language almost identical to legislation that would later be introduced as H.R. 

2751. On May 19, 2009, the Committee approved Rep. Sutton’s 

amendment by a rollcall vote of 50–4 with 1 member voting 

‘‘present.’’ 

On May 21, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered H.R. 2454 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 33–25. 

On June 5, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 2454 (H. Rept. 111–137, Part 1). 

On June 8, 2009, Rep. Sutton introduced H.R. 2751, the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act. The text of the legislation was nearly identical to the language of Rep. Sutton’s amendment to H.R. 2454 as approved by the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. H.R. 2751 was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 

Means. 

On June 9, 2009, H.R. 2751 passed the House under suspension 

of the rules by a rollcall vote of 298–119 with 2 members voting 

‘‘present.’’ 

On June 10, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 2751 as passed by 

the House and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. Further 

action on the substance of the bill as passed by the House was 

taken when its language was inserted as part of H.R. 2346, as 

noted below. H.R. 2751 was amended on December 19, 2010, by the 

Senate with the language of the FDA Food Safety Modernization 

Act. (For further information, see H.R. 2749/S. 510 under the Subcommittee on Health.) 

On June 11, 2009, the House and Senate met in conference to 

reconcile the difference between their respective versions of H.R. 

2346, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009. The conferees 

agreed to include in title XIII of H.R. 2346 the provisions of H.R. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

97 

2751, as passed by the House, which appropriated $1 billion for the 

program. 

On June 12, 2009, the House conferees filed a conference report 

on H.R. 2346 (H. Rept. 111–151). The House agreed to the conference report on June 16, 2009, by a rollcall vote of 226–202. 

On June 18, 2009, the Senate agreed to the conference report by 

a rollcall vote of 91–5, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On June 24, 2009, H.R. 2346 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–32. 

On July 31, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3435, making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program, and then the bill was passed 

by the Senate on August 6, 2009. H.R. 3435 appropriated an additional $2 billion for the ‘‘Cash for Clunkers’’ program. H.R. 3435 

was signed into law by the President on August 6, 2009, and became Public Law 111–47. 

DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT OF 2010

Awaiting White House Action (H.R. 5809, H.R. 2454) 

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 is an Act to amend 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to reauthorize and modify provisions 

relating to the diesel emissions reduction program. 

Summary 

This Act reauthorizes the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act 

(DERA) for 2012 through 2016 at $100,000,000 annually, half the 

authorization levels for 2007 through 2011. DERA authorizes the 

Environmental Protection Agency and States to provide loans and 

grants to reduce diesel air pollution from trucks, other vehicles, 

and engines, and to conserve fuel. H.R. 5809 allows the use of rebates for purchases of diesel retrofit equipment. 

This Act adds American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 

to the list of States eligible to receive grants, and adjusts the State 

grant distribution formula accordingly. 

This Act makes several additional changes to improve the administration and effectiveness of the DERA program. 

Legislative History 

On May 19, 2009, during the full Committee consideration of 

H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), 

an amendment was offered by Rep. Christensen of the Virgin Islands to reauthorize DERA and amend it by providing for participation in the program by specified U.S. territories and protectorates. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. 

On May 21, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered H.R. 2454 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 33–25. 

On June 5, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 2454 (H. Rept. 111–137 Part 1). 

On June 26, 2009, H.R. 2454 passed the House, amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 219–212. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

98 

On November 18, 2010, S. 3973 was introduced by Sen. 

Voinovich of Ohio and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

On November 30, 2010, the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works ordered S. 3973 favorably reported to the Senate 

without amendment. 

On December 2, 2010, H.R. 6482 was introduced as a House companion bill to S. 3973 by Reps. Richardson and Matsui of California 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 16, 2010, the Senate called up H.R. 5809 and by 

unanimous consent amended H.R. 5809 to change the title and 

striking all after the enacting clause, and inserting the language of 

a modified version of S. 3973. H.R. 5809, as amended, was passed 

by the Senate by unanimous consent. 

On December 21, 2010, the House agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 5809, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote, 

clearing the measure for the White House. 

On December 29, 2010, H.R. 5809 was presented to the President. 

H.R. 5809, as approved by the House and the Senate, was pending action by the President at the time this report was filed. 

REDUCTION OF LEAD IN DRINKING WATER ACT

Awaiting White House Action (S. 3874, H.R. 5320, H.R. 5289) 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reduce lead in drinking water. 

Summary 

S. 3874 redefines ‘‘lead-free’’ under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

with respect to faucets and plumbing fixtures to lower the permissible amount of lead in a faucet or fixture from 8% lead to .25% 

lead in the wetted surfaces. The Act exempts faucets and plumbing 

fixtures from the prohibition on the use or sale of parts that are 

not lead free when they are used exclusively for nonpotable water 

or water that is not anticipated to be used for human consumption. 

Legislative History 

On May 12, 2010, H.R. 5289, the Get the Lead Out Act, was introduced by Rep. Eshoo of California, and was subsequently referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 13, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

held a legislative hearing on proposed legislative language to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act state revolving fund, including 

the provisions of H.R. 5289. 

On May 18, 2010, H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability (AQUA) Act, was introduced by Reps. Waxman and Markey, 

and was subsequently referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. That same day, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. The provisions of H.R. 

5289 were included in section 15 of the introduced bill. 

On May 19, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5320. Mr. Markey offered a manager’s amendment in the form of an amendment in the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

99 

nature of a substitute, which was adopted, amended, by a voice 

vote. H.R. 5320 was forwarded to the full Committee, amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 18–13. 

On May 26, 2010, the full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5320 as approved by the Subcommittee. A 

manager’s amendment in the form of an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute was offered by Mr. Waxman and adopted, amended, 

by a voice vote. Subsequently, the Committee ordered H.R. 5320 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 45– 

1. 

On July 1, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 5320 (H. Rept. 111–524). 

On July 30, 2010, H.R. 5320 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On August 2, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5320 and on August 

5, 2010, referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works. No further action was taken on H.R. 5320 during the 111th Congress. 

On April 29, 2010, S. 3874, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking 

Water Act, was introduced in the Senate. It was referred to the 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, which reported the 

bill favorably without amendment on November 30, 2010. The bill 

passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 16, 2010. 

On December 17, 2010, the House considered S. 3874 under suspension of the rules, and passed the bill without amendment, clearing the measure for the White House. 

S. 3874, as approved by the House and the Senate, was awaiting 

action by the President when this report was filed. 

TO EXCLUDE AN EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLY FOR CERTAIN SECURITY OR

LIFE SAFETY ALARMS AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM COMPONENTS

FROM THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT

Awaiting White House Action (H.R. 5470) 

To exclude an external power supply for certain security or life 

safety alarms and surveillance system components from the application of certain energy efficiency standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. 

Summary 

This measure amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to 

exclude an external power supply for certain security or life safety 

alarms and surveillance system components from the application of 

no-load mode energy efficiency standards. 

Legislative History 

On May 28, 2010, H.R. 5470 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Pallone of New Jersey and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 5470 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment on June 8, 2010. 

On December 8, 2010, the House considered a motion to pass 

H.R. 5470, under suspension of the rules. Following debate, the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

100 

House agreed to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5470 by a voice 

vote. 

On December 9, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5470. 

On December 21, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 5470 without 

amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the 

White House. 

On December 28, 2010, H.R. 5470 was presented to the President. 

H.R. 5470, as approved by the House and the Senate, was awaiting action by the President when this report was filed. 

CHEMICAL AND WATER SECURITY ACT OF 2009

H.R. 2868 (H.R. 3258, H.R. 2883, S.3599) 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance security 

and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to 

amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works, 

and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2868 extends the authority of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) to implement and enforce the Chemical Facility 

Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS), and improves these standards 

in a number of ways (Title I). It also requires the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to establish parallel security programs for 

drinking water (Title II) and wastewater facilities (Title III). 

Title I of H.R. 2868 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

to modify and make permanent the authority of the Secretary of 

Homeland Security (the Secretary) to regulate and enhance security to protect chemical facilities against intentional acts, including 

acts of terrorism. The bill enacts in law many of the current 

CFATS regulations. The bill also makes changes to the CFATS program that reduce the likelihood and consequences of a terrorist attack by requiring covered chemical facilities to assess the feasibility 

of alternative chemicals and processes, and in some circumstances 

to adopt those alternatives. This title also requires each CFATSregulated chemical facility to conduct a security vulnerability assessment and subsequently implement a site security plan that applies layered security measures to address the vulnerabilities. It 

also provides DHS with the authority and resources to inspect 

these facilities and ensure compliance. 

Title II of H.R. 2868 replaces Section 1433 of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) to strengthen security at drinking water facilities to prevent an intentional act that causes a chemical release, 

contaminates the water supply, or otherwise disrupts the ability of 

a water system to provide a safe and reliable supply of drinking 

water. The bill requires the EPA Administrator to establish riskbased performance standards for community water systems serving 

more than 3,300 people and for other exceptional public water systems that the Administrator determines pose a security risk. 

Title III of H.R. 2868 amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly known as the Clean Water Act, to enmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

101 

hance the security of operations at wastewater treatment works 

from intentional acts that may substantially disrupt the ability of 

the facility to operate safely and reliably, or have a substantial adverse impact on critical infrastructure, public health or safety, or 

the environment. This title preserves the historic regulatory oversight of sewage treatment facilities by the EPA and ensures that 

security regulations appropriately balance water quality and security goals. By charging EPA with security in the water sector, this 

Act ensures seamless security-related requirements for public utilities with both wastewater and drinking water responsibilities. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2868, the ‘‘Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009’’, 

was introduced on June 15, 2009, by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson (D–MS), 

Committee on Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry A. Waxman 

(D–CA), Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman Edward J. Markey (D–MA), and Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D–TX) and 

Yvette D. Clarke (D–NY). The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security, and sequentially to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2868 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment on June 16, 2009. 

On July 20, 2009, H.R. 3258, the ‘‘Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009’’, was introduced by Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Chairman Markey, and 

Reps. Pallone of New Jersey, Capps of California, Sarbanes of 

Maryland, and Schakowsky of Illinois. H.R. 3258 was referred to 

the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on July 27, 2009. 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a legislative 

hearing on these two bills on October 1, 2009, and titled the hearing ‘‘H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, 

and H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009.’’ 

The Subcommittee received testimony from two panels of witnesses. The witnesses on the first panel were the Hon. Peter Silva, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Hon. Rand Beers, Under Secretary, 

National Protection and Programs Directorate, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). The second panel was comprised of four 

witnesses: the Director of the Newport News Waterworks (Virginia) 

and President of the Board of Directors of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; the Vice President for Federal Affairs at 

the American Chemistry Council; a legislative representative of the 

CWA–UAW Legislative Alliance; and the International EHS Manager, Fujifilm Imaging Colorants Chair, Safety and Security Committee, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates. 

On October 14, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup session to consider H.R. 2868 and H.R. 

3258. Mr. Markey offered a manager’s amendment to H.R. 2868, 

which was adopted by a voice vote, amended. Subsequently, H.R. 

2868 was favorably forwarded to the full Committee, amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 18–10. During consideration of H.R. 3258, Mr. 

Markey also offered a manager’s amendment, which was adopted 

by a voice vote, amended. H.R. 3258 was favorably forwarded to 

the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

102 

On October 21, 2009, the full Committee met in open markup 

session to consider H.R. 2868 and H.R. 3258 as approved by the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. During consideration 

of H.R. 2868, a manager’s amendment in the nature of a substitute 

to H.R. 2868 offered by Mr. Markey was adopted by a voice vote, 

as amended by two amendments agreed to during consideration of 

the substitute amendment. The Committee subsequently ordered 

H.R. 2868 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall 

vote of 29–18. 

The Committee then took up H.R. 3258, in which a manager’s 

amendment in the form of an amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by Mr. Waxman to the bill. The substitute 

amendment was adopted by a voice vote. The Committee subsequently ordered H.R. 3258 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On October 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House reported on H.R. 2868 (H. Rept. 111–205, Part 2). 

That same day, the Committee also filed the House report on H.R. 

3258 (H. Rept. 111–313). 

On November 5, 2009, H. Res. 885, a resolution to provide a rule 

for the consideration of H.R. 2868, passed the House by a rollcall 

vote of 233–182. The rule provided for an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute (as printed in part A of H. Rept. 111–327), which 

made the following changes to H.R. 2868: designated the ‘‘Chemical 

Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009’’ as Title I; created a new Title 

II, incorporating provisions of H.R. 3258, the ‘‘Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009,’’ as reported by the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce; created a new Title III, incorporating provisions of 

H.R. 2883, the ‘‘Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 

2009’’ (Clean Water Act); and changed the title of H.R. 2868 to the 

‘‘Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009’’. 

On November 6, 2009, the House considered H.R. 2868 and 

passed the bill, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 230–193. 

On November 9, 2009, H.R. 2868 was received by the Senate and 

read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

On March 3, 2010, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 2868. 

On July 28, 2010, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs met in open markup session to consider 

H.R. 2868 as passed by the House. An amendment in the nature 

of a substitute was offered by Sen. COLLINS of Maine, and was 

adopted without objection. Subsequently, the Committee ordered 

H.R. 2868 favorably reported to the Senate, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 13–0. 

On December 16, 2010, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs reported H.R. 2868 to the Senate, 

amended (S. Rept. 111–370). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2868 or H.R. 3258 during 

the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

103 

AMERICAN MEDICAL ISOTOPES PRODUCTION ACT OF 2009

H.R. 3276 

To promote the production of molybdenum-99 in the United 

States for medical isotope production, and to condition and phase 

out the export of highly enriched uranium for the production of 

medical isotopes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3276 provides the Department of Energy new legal authority and resources to assist and accelerate private sector projects to 

establish a robust domestic supply of molybdenum-99 produced 

without the use of highly enriched uranium. The Act authorizes 

$163 million over five years for the Department of Energy to evaluate and support private-sector projects for the domestic production 

of molybdenum-99 without the use of highly enriched uranium. 

The bill also amends the Atomic Energy Act to allow the domestic use of highly enriched uranium for medical isotope production 

only if the reactor operator is working to convert to the use of low 

enriched uranium. In addition, the bill amends the Atomic Energy 

Act to prohibit the issuance of export licenses for highly enriched 

uranium for medical isotope production seven years after the date 

of enactment. This period can be extended for no more than four 

years by the Secretary of Energy. The bill would also allow for the 

temporary suspension of the restriction of HEU export licenses if 

there is a critical shortage in the supply of molybdenum-99 available to satisfy the domestic United States medical isotope needs, 

the Secretary of Energy certifies to Congress that the export of 

U.S.-origin HEU for the purposes of medical isotope production is 

the only effective temporary means to increase the supply of molybdenum-99 necessary to meet U.S. medical isotope needs during that 

period, and Congress passes a joint resolution approving the temporary suspension. 

Legislative History 

On July 21, 2009, H.R. 3276 was introduced by Reps. Markey of 

Massachusetts and Upton of Michigan, and was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 22, 2009, H.R. 3276 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment. 

On September 9, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3276. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Committee on Medical Isotope Production Without Highly Enriched Uranium at the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (CORAR). 

On October 14, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup session. A manager’s amendment in the 

nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Markey was adopted by a 

voice vote. H.R. 3276 was forwarded to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On October 21, 2009, the full Committee met in open markup 

session to consider H.R. 3276 as approved by the Subcommittee on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

104 

Energy and Environment. A manager’s amendment in the nature 

of a substitute offered by Mr. Markey was adopted by a voice vote. 

The Committee ordered H.R. 3276 favorably reported to the House, 

amended, by a voice vote. 

On November 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 3276 (H. Rept. 111–328). 

On November 5, 2009, H.R. 3276 was considered by the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a rollcall 

vote of 400–17. 

On November 6, 2009, H.R. 3276 was received by the Senate and 

read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources. 

On December 3, 2009, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R. 3276. 

On December 16, 2009, the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources met in open markup session to consider H.R. 

3276 as passed by House. H.R. 3276 was ordered favorably reported to the Senate, amended, by a voice vote. 

On January 28, 2010, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources filed the Senate report on H.R. 3276 (S. Rept. 111– 

120). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3276 during the 111th Congress. 

RADIOACTIVE IMPORT DETERRENCE ACT

H.R. 515 (S. 232) 

To prohibit the importation of certain low-level radioactive waste 

into the United States. 

Summary 

H.R. 515 amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by inserting a 

new Sec. 277, Importation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste. The bill 

provides that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall not issue 

licenses authorizing the importation into the United States of lowlevel radioactive waste and radioactive waste below regulatory concern. The bill provides exceptions to the prohibition for federal government or military use and for the return to the United States for 

management and disposal of low-level radioactive waste resulting 

from the use in a foreign country of certain United States origin 

nuclear material. 

The bill also authorizes the President to waive the prohibition in 

subsection a. for a specific license application upon a finding that 

the importation would meet an important national or international 

policy goal. Such a waiver must specify the policy goal to be 

achieved, how it is to be achieved, and the amount of material to 

be imported. H.R. 515 also provides that licenses issued before the 

date of enactment of this section may continue in effect on their 

original terms, but may not be extended or amended with respect 

to the amount of material permitted to be imported. 

Legislative History 

On January 14, 2009, H.R. 515 was introduced by Reps. Gordon 

of Tennessee, Terry of Nebraska, and Matheson of Utah, and was 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

105 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

On January 15, 2009, H.R. 515 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment. 

On October 16, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a legislative hearing on H.R. 515. The Subcommittee received testimony from Margaret M. Doane, Director, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); 

Leonard C. Slosky, Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Low Level 

Waste Board; and Val Christensen, President, EnergySolutions. 

On November 3, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup session to consider H.R. 515. A manager’s amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Markey was adopted by a voice vote. H.R. 515 was then forwarded to 

the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On November 19, 2009, the full Committee met in open markup 

session to consider H.R. 515 as approved by the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment. Subsequently, the Committee ordered 

H.R. 515 favorably reported to the House, as amended by the Subcommittee, by a rollcall vote of 34–12. 

On December 2, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 515 (H. Rept. 111–348, Part 1). That 

same day the House passed H.R. 515 under suspension of the 

rules, amended, by a rollcall vote of 309–112. 

On December 3, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 515 with the 

House amendment and it was referred to the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 515 during the 111th Congress. 

HOME STAR ENERGY RETROFIT ACT OF 2010

H.R. 5019 (S. 3177, S. 3434, S. 3663) 

To provide for the establishment of the Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 5019 is intended to improve the energy efficiency of American homes, to increase employment in the home construction and 

renovation industries, to promote domestic manufacture of energy 

efficient products and materials, to foster private enterprise in energy efficiency retrofit services and quality assurance, and to assist 

homeowners requiring assistance with energy efficiency financing. 

The Home Star program is designed to facilitate homeowner investment and prompt a surge in interest in home retrofitting and 

its benefits, with a goal of creating longer-term awareness of the 

benefits of energy efficiency retrofits that can outlive the two-year 

program. In addition, Home Star would promote increases in employment in the home retrofitting industry and in the manufacture 

of energy efficient products. 

There are two primary components to the Home Star program. 

First is the two-year Home Star Retrofit rebate program. Second is 

the Home Star energy efficiency loan program which stands up a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

106 

financing mechanism to encourage energy efficiency home retrofits 

after the completion of the rebate program. 

The Home Star retrofit rebate program provides for two tracks 

for home retrofit projects: the Silver Star program and the Gold 

Star program. Home retrofit projects have traditionally been hindered by consumer uncertainty about what measures are cost effective and certain to produce savings when installed. The Silver Star 

program addresses this problem by describing a menu of specific 

energy-saving technologies that are known to be widely available 

on the national market and highly cost-effective when installed as 

prescribed by their manufacturers. Under the bill, specific rebates 

are available for the installation of such measures, reflecting 50% 

of their cost to the homeowner, up to a maximum of $3,000, for a 

total retrofit representing an investment of $6,000 or more. 

Another impediment to home retrofitting has been the lack of 

public awareness of the benefits of whole-house energy analysis 

techniques. This approach to retrofitting involves determining the 

most cost-effective set of combined measures to improve a building’s overall efficiency. The Gold Star program promotes the use of 

this approach by offering rebates for whole-home retrofit projects 

that use whole-house analysis tools designated by the Secretary to 

achieve an energy efficiency improvement of 20% or more, with a 

$3,000 initial rebate for combined measures that reach a 20% overall level of improvement, and an additional $1,000 rebate available 

for each additional 5% overall improvement, to a maximum of 

$8,000. A rebate under the Gold Star program cannot represent 

more than 50% of the total cost of the retrofit project. 

The Home Star retrofit rebate program reflects that policy that 

home energy efficiency retrofit practice should evolve toward the 

whole-house analysis model as opposed to the less effective measure-by-measure approach. Rebate levels available for the Gold Star 

program are higher than the Silver Star program. Additionally, the 

Silver Star program expires one year after enactment, while the 

Gold Star program continues for the second year. Two-thirds of the 

intended federal funding, however, is directed for the Silver Star 

rebates in the first year, with the expectation that consumers will 

be quick to take advantage of such savings on such items. 

The Home Star bill includes a number of provisions designed to 

address the administrative challenge of processing rebates for thousands of contractors performing retrofits in millions of homes. 

Home Star would operate through a central data base and rebate 

processing center to which all rebate claims will be submitted. A 

percentage of these claims would be selected for quality assurance. 

In addition, the bill provides for tight but realistic timeframes for 

processing rebates applications and distributing federal resources 

to qualified contractors, with the goal of making contractors whole 

for the discounts they must offer within 30 days of rebate applications. 

The legislation also includes a number of provisions designed to 

ensure quality and cost effectiveness in the Home Star program. 

The bill includes incentives for contractors to become accredited by 

the Building Performance Institute or other programs recognized 

by the Secretary of Energy in order to participate in Gold Star 

whole-home retrofit projects. The bill also provides incentives for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

107 

encouraging contractors to employ workers trained and certified to 

perform retrofit work and installation. In addition, because of the 

significant unemployment and need for marketable skills in relatively low-income areas, the legislation encourages training and 

hiring efforts in such areas. 

The bill offers to states funding to create quality assurance programs to assign and supervise spot-checks confirming that appropriate products are used in retrofits designed for optimum savings 

of energy. Under the bill, the Secretary of Energy would pay quality assurance providers to inspect a percentage of finished projects 

and confirm that Silver Star and Gold Start rebates have been paid 

appropriately. Those states that elect to create quality assurance 

programs to support Home Star would also develop quality assurance frameworks to recognize the accredited contractors that are 

using certified workforces with appropriate training and proven 

skills. 

The legislation also responds to the need for flexible financing 

support for home energy retrofit activities at a time when consumer credit terms are very tight and banks are constrained in 

consumer lending. The Home Star energy efficiency loan program 

provides (1) seed funding to states that they can use to provide 

loans at lower interest rates; (2) revolving-fund loans; and (3) loans 

that are tied to the property through tax payment or utility-bill recovery such that any homeowner can pass the obligation along with 

the property to a new owner. 

Legislative History 

Prior to the introduction of H.R. 5019, on March 18, 2010, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on proposed legislation to provide for the establishment of a Home Star 

Retrofit Rebate program. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from the Honorable Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); 

Mr. Larry Laseter, President of WellHome, on behalf of the Home 

Star Coalition; the Honorable John Engler, President and Chief Executive Officer, the National Association of Manufacturers; Mr. Michael Thaman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Owens Corning; and Mr. Christopher A.S. Pratt, on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup session to consider a Committee Print 

dated March 22, 2010, on H.R. ll, a bill to provide for the establishment of a Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program, and for other 

purposes. A manager’s amendment in the nature of a substitute 

was offered by Mr. Markey and adopted by a voice vote, amended. 

Several amendments were offered to the manager’s amendment 

during subcommittee consideration and three amendments were 

adopted by a voice vote. Subsequently, the Subcommittee voted to 

forward the Committee Print, amended, to the full Committee by 

a voice vote. 

On April 14, 2010, H.R. 5019 was introduced by Rep. Welch of 

Vermont, along with Reps. Waxman, Markey, Cardoza (D–CA), and 

Ehlers (R–MI), and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. The text of the bill as introduced was identical to the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

108 

text of the Committee Print approved by the Subcommittee on 

March 24, 2010. 

On April 15, 2010, the full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5019. A manager’s amendment in the nature 

of a substitute offered by Mr. Waxman was adopted, as amended 

by four other amendments offered to the substitute. Subsequently, 

the Committee ordered H.R. 5019 favorably reported to the House, 

amended, by a rollcall vote of 30–17. 

On April 29, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 5019 (H. Rept. 111–469, Part 1). 

On May 6, 2010, H.R. 5019 was passed by the House, amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 246–161. 

On May 7, 2010, H.R. 5019 was received by the Senate and read 

twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5019 during the 111th Congress. 

GRID RELIABILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEFENSE ACT

H.R. 5026 (H.R. 2165, S. 1462) 

To amend the Federal Power Act to protect the bulk-power system and electric infrastructure critical to the defense of the United 

States against cybersecurity and other threats and vulnerabilities. 

Summary 

H.R. 5026 amends the Federal Power Act to add a new section 

215A, giving FERC new authorities to protect the electric grid 

against cyber and other threats and vulnerabilities. 

The bill gives FERC the authority to issue emergency orders if 

the President notifies the Commission that a ‘‘grid security threat’’ 

exists. A grid security threat is a substantial likelihood of a cyber 

attack, electromagnetic weapon attack, a geomagnetic storm, or a 

direct physical attack on the bulk-power system or defense critical 

electric infrastructure that would have a significant adverse effect 

on the reliability of the bulk-power system or defense critical electric infrastructure. (Defense critical electric infrastructure is defined as electric infrastructure outside the bulk-power system that 

serves a facility designated by the President as critical to the defense of the United States.) An emergency order is discontinued 

when the President determines the grid security threat no longer 

exists, FERC determines the emergency measures are no longer 

needed to protect against the threat, or one year elapses from the 

date the order was issued. 

H.R. 5026 gives FERC, after notice and opportunity for comment, 

authority to require measures to protect against grid 

vulnerabilities to cyber and electromagnetic weapon attacks if 

FERC determines that NERC reliability standards do not adequately address such vulnerabilities. Before promulgating such a 

rule or issuing such an order to address a grid security vulnerability, FERC, to the extent practicable in light of the urgency of 

the need for action, is required to request and consider recommendations from NERC regarding such a rule or order. FERC 

may establish an appropriate deadline for NERC’s submission of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

109 

such recommendations. If NERC later submits an adequate standard, the corresponding FERC standard must be rescinded. 

The bill also requires FERC to direct NERC to submit under section 215 for FERC approval reliability standards (1) to protect the 

bulk power infrastructure against geomagnetic storms and (2) to 

require adequate availability of large transformers to ensure the 

reliability of the bulk power system in the event of a physical or 

other attack or a geomagnetic storm. The large transformer standard must allow compliance entities to choose to comply either individually or jointly (e.g., through a spare transformer sharing program). Both standards must balance risks and the cost of protecting against those risks. 

FERC is also required, within 180 days of enactment, to promulgate a rule or issue an order requiring measures to address the 

‘‘Aurora vulnerability’’ to cyber attack that was identified three 

years ago. 

The bill directs the President to designate not more than 100 facilities located in the United States that are the most critical to the 

defense of the United States and most vulnerable to interruption 

of an external supply of electricity to the facility. If FERC identifies 

a vulnerability in electric infrastructure serving such facilities to a 

cyber or electromagnetic weapon attack that has not adequately 

been addressed, FERC has authority to require measures to protect 

such infrastructure. Infrastructure can be exempted from this authority, on a case-by-case basis, if FERC, in consultation with the 

owner or operator of the designated critical facility, determines 

that such infrastructure is adequately protected. 

H.R. 5026 also includes provisions to protect sensitive information and provide for Department of Energy assistance to industry 

in protecting the grid and obtaining information regarding grid security threats and vulnerabilities. 

Legislative History 

On April 29, 2009, H.R. 2165, the Bulk Power System Protection 

Act of 2009, was introduced by Rep. Barrow of Georgia, along with 

Reps. Waxman and Markey. On October 27, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a legislative hearing 

on this bill and related legislation. The Subcommittee received testimony from: Mr. Joseph McClelland, Director of the Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); 

the Honorable Patricia Hoffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity, U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE); the Honorable Gary A. Brown, Chairman of the New York 

Public Service Commission; Mr. David Cook, Vice President and 

General Counsel, North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

(NAERC); and Mr. John DiStasio, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). In 

preparation for that hearing, the Subcommittee convened a classified briefing on grid security vulnerabilities and threats for members of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce and staff with 

appropriate clearances. 

After the hearing, the majority and minority staffs of the Subcommittee and full Committee joined in a bipartisan effort to demstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

110 

velop grid security legislation. The results of this effort were embodied in a Committee print, dated March 22, 2010. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup session to consider a Committee Print 

dated March 22, 2010, on H.R. lll , to amend the Federal Power 

Act to protect the bulk-power system and electric infrastructure 

critical to the defense of the United States from cybersecurity and 

other threats and vulnerabilities. Subsequently, the Subcommittee 

approved the text of the Committee Print to be forwarded to the 

full Committee, without amendment, by a voice vote. 

On April 14, 2010, H.R. 5026 was introduced by Reps. Markey 

and Upton, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. The text of the bill as introduced was identical to the 

text of the Committee Print approved by the Subcommittee on 

March 24, 2010. 

On April 15, 2010, the full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5026. A manager’s amendment in the nature 

of a substitute by Mr. Waxman was adopted by a voice vote. Subsequently, the Committee ordered H.R. 5026 favorably reported to 

the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 47–0. 

On May 25, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 5026 (H. Rept. 111–493). 

On June 9, 2010, H.R. 5026 was considered by the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On June 10, 2010, H.R. 5026 was received by the Senate and 

read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources. 

On August 5, 2010, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5026 

as passed by the House. The Committee approved an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute by a voice vote. The Committee 

amendment included provisions of S. 1462, the ‘‘American Clean 

Energy Leadership Act of 2009’’, which was ordered favorably reported to the Senate on June 17, 2009. Subsequently, the Committee ordered H.R. 5026 favorably reported to the Senate, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 27, 2010, the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources filed the Senate report on H.R. 5026 (S. Rept. 

111–331). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5026 during the 111th Congress. 

COLLINSVILLE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROMOTION ACT

H.R. 4451 (H.R. 3228, S. 3532) 

To reinstate and transfer certain hydroelectric licenses and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of certain hydroelectric projects. 

Summary 

H.R. 4451 authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) to reinstate the terminated licenses for the Upper and 

Lower Collinsville Dams hydroelectric projects and to extend for 

two years the date by which the licensee is required to commence 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

111 

construction. If FERC exercises this authority for either of the two 

licenses, the bill requires FERC to transfer such license to the 

Town of Canton. Before taking these actions, the bill requires 

FERC to complete an environmental assessment for the projects to 

update the environmental analysis that was previously performed. 

After a 30-day public comment period, FERC is required to consider the public comments on the environmental assessment and 

incorporate terms and conditions in the reinstated licenses that 

FERC determines are necessary based on the public comments. 

FERC is required to make a final decision regarding the reinstatement within 270 days of the date of enactment of the Act. If FERC 

reinstates the licenses and extends the deadline for commencing 

construction, the transfer of the licenses to the Town of Canton 

must also take place within 270 days of the date of enactment of 

the Act. 

Legislative History 

On January 13, 2010, H.R. 4451 was introduced by Rep. Christopher Murphy of Connecticut, and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On January 15, 2010, H.R. 4451 was referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment met in open markup session. H.R. 4451 was forwarded to the 

full Committee, without amendment, by a voice vote. 

On May 26, 2010, the full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 4451 as approved by the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by Mr. Murphy, was adopted by a voice vote. Subsequently, H.R. 4451 was ordered favorably reported, amended, to 

the House by a voice vote. 

On June 14, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 4451 (H. Rept. 111–505). 

On June 16, 2010, H.R. 4451 was considered by the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On June 17, 2010, H.R. 4451 was received by the Senate and 

read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources. 

On June 24, 1010, S. 3532, companion legislation identical to 

H.R. 4451 as passed by the House, was introduced by Senators 

Dodd (D–CT) and Lieberman (I–CT). That same day, S. 3532 was 

referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4451 or S. 3532 during the 

111th Congress. 

ASSISTANCE, QUALITY, AND AFFORDABILITY (AQUA) ACT OF 2010

H.R. 5320 (H.R. 5289) 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to increase assistance for 

states, water systems, and disadvantaged communities; to encourage good financial and environmental management of water systems; to strengthen the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability 

to enforce the requirements of the Act; to reduce lead in drinking 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

112 

water; to strengthen the endocrine disruptor screening program; 

and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 5320 is a bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) to authorize increased assistance to states, water systems, 

and disadvantaged communities, encourage improved financial and 

environmental management of water systems, provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with additional tools for enforcement, reduce lead in drinking water fixtures and piping, and 

amend the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) for 

chemicals in drinking water. 

The bill reauthorizes and increases the authorization levels for 

the drinking water state revolving fund (SRF) and technical assistance for small systems. It adds projects designed to improve the 

sustainability and long-term viability of water systems to the list 

of priorities that should inform state funding decisions and encourages public water systems to improve their managerial capacity 

and reduce their environmental impact. It provides priority for SRF 

funds for water systems serving disadvantaged communities that 

cannot afford to comply with new drinking water standards and requires states to provide additional assistance to water systems 

serving disadvantaged communities and struggling to comply with 

existing drinking water standards. 

The bill also changes the legal definition of ‘‘lead-free’’ for pipes 

and fixtures from 8% lead to 0.25% lead in wetted surfaces. It increases the funding available to the territories for drinking water 

infrastructure. It provides additional tools for enforcement of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act by clarifying requirements for technical 

assistance and follow-up inspections and amends the Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program for chemicals in drinking water by 

outlining transparent procedures for requiring testing and updating methods. 

Legislative History 

On May 13, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

held a legislative hearing on proposed legislative language to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act state revolving fund. At this 

hearing, witnesses representing rural and metropolitan water systems, and state administrators testified on the SRF-related portions of the legislation. The Subcommittee also received testimony 

on the provisions related to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) from Sarah Janssen, representing the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Terry Quill, of Quill Law Group. Cynthia Dougherty, Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, offered 

testimony on all provisions of the bill. 

On May 18, 2010, H.R. 5320 was introduced by Reps. Waxman 

and Markey, and subsequently referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. That same day, the bill was referred to the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. 

On May 19, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5320. A manager’s 

amendment in the form of an amendment in the nature of a submstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

113 

stitute offered by Mr. Markey was adopted, amended, by a voice 

vote. H.R. 5320 was then favorably forwarded to the full Committee, amended, by a rollcall vote of 18–13. 

On May 26, 2010, the full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 5320 as approved by the Subcommittee. A 

manager’s amendment in the form of an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute offered by Mr. Waxman was adopted, amended, by 

a voice vote. Subsequently, the Committee ordered H.R. 5320 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 45–1. 

On July 1, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 5320 (H. Rept. 111–524). 

On July 30, 2010, the House considered H.R. 5320 under suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On August 2, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5320 and on August 

5, 2010, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5320 during the 111th Congress. Provisions in this bill relating to reduction in lead in drinking water were enacted under S. 3874/H.R. 5289. 

BLOWOUT PREVENTION ACT OF 2010

H.R. 5626 

To protect public health and safety and the environment by requiring the use of safe well control technologies and practices for 

the drilling of high-risk oil and gas wells in the United States, and 

for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 5626 establishes new federal regulatory requirements to 

prevent future spills from oil and gas wells. These new requirements apply to all oil and gas wells on the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) and to other high-risk wells that could cause extensive and 

widespread harm to public health and safety or the environment in 

the event of a blowout. 

To ensure greater accountability, the bill requires the oil company CEO to certify that the well design is safe, that the blowout 

preventer (BOP) has redundant systems for all foreseeable blowout 

scenarios and failure modes, and that the company can promptly 

control and stop a blowout if the BOP and other well control measures fail. 

The Committee’s investigation of the April 2010 explosion on 

Deepwater Horizon rig contracted by BP to drill for oil revealed 

multiple flaws in BP’s BOP, including emergency controls that did 

not activate, dead batteries, leaking hydraulic systems, and disconnected rams. To increase the reliability of this essential safety device, H.R. 5626 sets minimum standards for BOPs, including the 

requirement that the BOP have two sets of blind shear rams and 

redundant emergency backup control systems that can activate 

when communications from the rig are severed. 

To ensure wells are drilled with the highest possible safety 

standards, the bill requires the installation of at least three barriers across each hydrocarbon flow path, the installation and pressure testing of lockdown devices, adequate centralization of casing, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

114 

the circulation of drilling fluids prior to cementing, and cement 

bond logs for all cementing programs intended to provide a barrier 

to hydrocarbon flow. New standards will also require steps to minimize the risk of ignition of hydrocarbons during a blowout or well 

control event. In addition, oil companies are required to maintain 

a team of experienced and highly qualified engineers to advise the 

well operator on safety. 

To ensure compliance with the new requirements, H.R. 5626 requires that BOPs, well designs, and cementing procedures be certified as safe by independent, third-party inspectors selected by the 

federal regulator, not the oil company. 

H.R. 5626 protects whistleblowers that raise safety concerns and 

establishes requirements for well operators and contractors to stop 

work when there are conditions indicating an immediate risk of a 

blowout. 

The legislation also establishes significant civil and criminal pen- alties for violations, including criminal fines of up to $10,000,000 

per day for knowing and willful violations. 

The bill establishes an independent Well Control Technical Advisory Committee to review proposed regulations, respond to requests 

for advice from the federal officials, assess implementation, and 

provide periodic reports assessing available well control technologies and practices. 

H.R. 5626 also provides the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board with unrestricted access to personnel and records in 

investigating oil spills. 

The provisions of the Act apply to (1) all wells on the OCS and 

(2) other wells if they could cause extensive and widespread impacts in the event of a blowout and are not effectively regulated by 

the state. For wells drilled on the OCS, the federal regulator has 

the responsibility to enforce the provisions of the Act. For wells 

drilled offshore in state waters that could cause extensive and 

widespread impacts, the state has the responsibility to enforce the 

provisions of the Act or comparable provisions, unless the state 

lacks an adequate regulatory regime, in which case the federal regulator enforces the provisions. For wells drilled on land that could 

cause extensive and widespread impacts, the state or the federal 

government has the primary responsibility to regulate the wells effectively, depending on where the wells are located. 

Legislative History 

On June 29, 2010, H.R. 5626 was introduced by Chairmen Waxman, Markey, and Stupak, and subsequently referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On June 30, 2010, H.R. 5626 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment. That same day, the Subcommittee 

held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5626. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from the Honorable David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary of 

the Interior; Mr. John Martinez, Consulting Production Engineer, 

Production Associates; and Mr. Elgie Holstein, Senior Director for 

Federal Strategy, Environmental Defense Fund. 

On July 15, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 5626, discharging the Submstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

115 

committee from further consideration. A manager’s amendment in 

the form of an amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered 

by Mr. Waxman. The Committee adopted several amendments to 

the manager’s amendment by voice votes, and then agreed to the 

amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, by a voice 

vote. Subsequently, H.R. 5626 was ordered favorably reported to 

the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 48–0 with 1 member voting ‘‘present.’’ 

On July 29, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 5626 (H. Rept. 111–581, Part 1). 

Key provisions of H.R. 5626 were incorporated into H.R. 3534, 

the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) 

Act of 2009, a bill reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources. On July 30, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3534, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 209–193 with 1 member voting ‘‘present.’’ 

H.R. 3534 was received by the Senate and placed on the Senate 

Legislative Calendar on August 3, 2010. It was then read a second 

time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General 

Orders. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5626 or H.R. 3534 during 

the 111th Congress. 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

(H. Res. 449) 

Resolution of inquiry requesting the President to provide certain 

documents in his possession to the House of Representatives relating to the Environmental Protection Agency’s April 2009 proposed 

finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public 

health and welfare, having considered the same, report thereon 

without amendment and without recommendation. 

Summary 

H. Res. 449 requests the President to transmit to the House of 

Representatives, not later than 14 days after adoption of the resolution, all documents in his possession produced by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to: (1) The untitled, undated memo marked ‘‘Deliberative—Attorney Client Privilege,’’ which begins ‘‘The NPRM fails to articulate the process by 

which the Administrator came to the conclusion on p. 30’’; (2) Interagency comments or documents related to the Environmental Protection Agency’s April proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health and welfare; (3) Cost benefit or 

systematic risk analysis related to the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s April proposed finding that greenhouse gas emissions are 

a danger to public health and welfare; (4) Scientific evidence or 

opinion that demonstrates health effects of greenhouse gases. 

Legislative History 

On May 15, 2009, H. Res. 449 was introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

116 

On June 10, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H. Res. 449. The Committee ordered the resolution to be reported to the House without amendment and without recommendation by a voice vote. 

On June 12, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H. Res. 449 (H. Rept. 111–146). 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 449 during the 111th 

Congress. 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

(H. Res. 1466) 

Resolution of inquiry requesting the President and directing the 

Secretary of Energy to provide certain documents to the House of 

Representatives relating to the Department of Energy’s application 

to foreclose use of Yucca Mountain as a high level nuclear waste 

repository. 

Summary 

H. Res 1466 would request the President and direct the Secretary of Energy to produce, not later than 14 days after adoption 

of the resolution, all documents in possession of the Secretary of 

Energy or Director of the Office of Management and Budget related 

to (1) the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) motion to withdraw its 

licensing application for the Yucca Mountain repository, (2) the 

elimination of funding for Yucca Mountain, (3) DOE’s reprogramming of fiscal year 2010 funds to bring the Yucca Mountain project 

to an orderly close, (4) DOE’s discontinuation of monitoring and 

data collection at the Yucca Mountain site, and (5) DOE’s efforts 

to preserve documents supporting its Yucca Mountain license application. 

Legislative History 

On June 22, 2010, H. Res. 1466 was introduced by Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On July 17, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H. Res. 1466. The Committee 

ordered the resolution to be reported to the House without amendment and without recommendation by a voice vote. 

On July 19, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H. Res. 1466 (H. Rept. 111–550). 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 1466 during the 111th 

Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

IMPACTS OF H.R. 3795, THE OVER-THE-COUNTER DERIVATIVES

MARKETS ACT OF 2009, ON ENERGY MARKETS

On December 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 3795, the 

Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009, on Energy Markets. The hearing examined the impact of potential Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulation on organized energy 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

117 

markets currently regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), both under current law and under the provisions of H.R. 3795. At the time of the hearing, the bill had recently 

been reported by the House Agriculture and Financial Services 

Committees. 

The hearing examined concerns that the broad definition of 

‘‘swap’’ in H.R. 3795 would significantly disrupt transmission and 

electricity markets by creating the potential for conflicting or duplicative regulation by the CFTC. The Subcommittee heard testimony 

regarding concerns that the definition of ‘‘swap’’ potentially subjects a number of FERC-regulated markets to CFTC regulation 

and, by application of the exclusive jurisdiction provision of the 

Commodity Exchange Act, could strip FERC of its regulatory authority and its ability to ensure ‘‘just and reasonable’’ prices. The 

Subcommittee also examined the question of whether H.R. 3795 

could undermine authorities that Congress gave FERC in the aftermath of the California energy crisis to prevent, investigate, and penalize market manipulation. 

The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Chairman of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Chairman of the 

Commodity Future Trading Commission. The Subcommittee received further testimony from the Edison Electric Institute, the 

American Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association, the Electric Power Supply Association, 

and PJM Interconnection, Inc. Each of the witnesses addressed the 

potential for regulatory duplication or conflict, impacts on FERC’s 

existing regulatory authority, and impacts on the functioning of 

FERC-regulated energy markets, including those operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators. 

COAL COMBUSTION WASTE DISPOSAL

On December 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held an oversight hearing to examine the safe drinking 

water and health impacts associated with current coal combustion 

waste disposal practices. Coal-fired power plants generate over 130 

million tons of coal combustion waste each year, the second largest 

single waste stream in the United States. Despite containing hazardous constituents, coal combustion waste is exempt from federal 

hazardous waste management regulation. At the time of the hearing, the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing a proposed rule regulating coal combustion waste disposal. 

The hearing reviewed the regulatory status of coal combustion 

waste as well as the negative health and drinking water consequences associated with current disposal practices. The Subcommittee heard testimony from three citizens whose health and 

drinking water were negatively impacted by coal combustion waste 

disposal. The Subcommittee received further testimony from 

Earthjustice, the Electric Power Research Institute, an expert in 

public health policy, and a practicing physician. 

THE EXXONMOBIL-XTO MERGER: IMPACTS ON U.S. ENERGY MARKETS

On January 20, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held an oversight hearing to examine the proposed merger of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

118 

ExxonMobil Corporation and XTO Energy Inc., and the ramifications for U.S. oil and natural gas markets. 

The purpose of the hearing was to examine the intended merger 

of two of the largest players in the U.S. oil and gas exploration and 

production market. The proposed ExxonMobil-XTO merger would 

create the largest natural gas producer in the United States with 

the largest base of domestic natural gas reserves in the industry. 

The new entity would leverage XTO’s significant experience and 

technical expertise in development of unconventional natural gas 

deposits to create a new international unconventional resource division within the merged company’s exploration and production business segment. XTO’s specialization in unconventional onshore gas 

production, especially its experience with hydraulic fracturing, was 

considered to be a key component in the merger agreement. The 

Subcommittee heard testimony from the Chairman and CEO of 

ExxonMobil Corporation, and the Chairman of the Board and 

Founder of XTO Energy, Inc. 

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS IN DRINKING WATER

On February 25, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held an oversight hearing to examine the science and regulation of endocrine disruptors that may be found in sources of 

drinking water. The hearing reviewed the progress of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in screening contaminants for 

their potential to disrupt the human endocrine system under the 

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). EPA issued the 

first test orders for the program in October of 2009, selecting 67 

pesticide chemicals to undergo the first round of testing. The Deputy Assistant Administrator in EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances testified that EPA is on track to obtain endocrine screening data on several hundred chemicals within 

the next several years. 

The hearing also focused on the state of the science and ongoing 

research on endocrine disrupting chemicals. The Director of the 

National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences testified that 

even low exposures to endocrine disruptors can have effects on the 

body, and that these effects can be observed long after exposure 

has ceased. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the president of a toxicological 

consulting firm. 

OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

On March 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held an oversight hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC). The hearing examined how the FERC was implementing its statutory duties and authorities. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission members: Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, Commissioner Marc 

Spitzer, Commissioner Philip Moeller, and Commissioner John 

Norris. FERC initiatives discussed by the witnesses included: integration of renewable resources into the power system; implementation of smart grid and energy storage technologies and systems; 

promotion of demand response measures; development of electric 

transmission, including planning, siting, and cost-allocation; overmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

119 

sight and protection of the electricity and natural gas markets 

against fraud or manipulation; promotion of just and reasonable 

rates and fair competition in electricity and natural gas markets; 

and protecting the security of the grid against cyber security 

threats and other vulnerabilities. 

CLEAN ENERGY POLICIES THAT REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON OIL

On April 28, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held an oversight hearing on clean energy policies that reduce U.S. dependence on oil. The hearing examined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s policies that reduce our dependence 

on oil, including motor vehicle tailpipe greenhouse gas standards 

and associated endangerment finding. The impact of oil dependence 

on our economy and national security and how EPA regulations 

and future policies can reduce that dependence were also discussed 

in the hearing. 

The Subcommittee heard from a panel of both governmental and 

stakeholder witnesses. The EPA Administrator delivered testimony 

on regulations that reduce our dependence on oil, including tailpipe 

standards, the renewable fuels standard, and the EPA’s 

endangerment finding. The President of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association also provided testimony on the 

recent EPA regulations. The Chairman, President, and CEO of 

FedEx Corporation discussed the impact of oil dependence on our 

economic and national security, and ways that the U.S. might reduce its dependence on oil as a transportation fuel. The Vice President for North America of Better Place commented on the economic 

and national security benefits of the electrification of transportation systems. A Security Fellow at the Truman National Security 

Project delivered testimony on the impacts of our reliance on oil on 

national security and our armed forces. 

BP OIL SPILL

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, an oil rig contracted 

by BP to drill a deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico, exploded. 

Eleven people died and 15 were injured. After a second explosion 

on April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon sank, and on April 24, 

2010, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) confirmed that the oil was 

spewing from the site into the Gulf of Mexico. 

A total of four member-level briefings were convened by the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment: (1) a May 4, 2010, briefing 

by representatives from BP, Transocean, and Halliburton for members and staff regarding the ongoing events and response; (2) a 

May 19, 2010, briefing titled ‘‘Sizing up the BP Oil Spill: Science 

and Engineering Measuring Methods;’’ (3) a May 21, 2010, briefing 

titled ‘‘Oceans Under Siege: Environmental Impacts of the BP Oil 

Spill;’’ (4) a June 9, 2010, briefing titled ‘‘Beneath the Surface of 

the BP Spill: What’s Happening Now, What’s Needed Next.’’ 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a series of 

five oversight hearings on the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon 

oil drilling rig and subsequent spill. 

On May 27, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Combating the BP Oil Spill.’’ The hearing examined the ongoing response to the spill. The Subcommittee received testimony from repmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

120 

resentatives of EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Army 

(Civil Works), and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the Unified Area Command. 

On June 10, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘The 

BP Oil Spill: Human Exposure and Environmental Fate.’’ The 

hearing examined the potential impacts to humans and the environment associated with the spill. The Subcommittee received testimony from a number of scientists and academics from: the Department of Marine and Geochemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the Louisiana State University Health Services 

Center-New Orleans, School of Public Health; and the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

On June 15, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Drilling Down on America’s Energy Future: Safety, Security and Clean 

Energy.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from the top executives of the five largest oil companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, 

ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil Co., and BP America, Inc. Each of the 

witnesses discussed the impacts of the nation’s dependence on oil; 

the safety of drilling operations especially those associated with the 

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; and actions to develop and promote 

the use of renewable and alternative energy sources that can reduce our overall dependence on oil. 

On July 20, 2010, the Subcommittee held a joint hearing with 

the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on ‘‘The Role of 

the Interior Department in the Deepwater Horizon Disaster.’’ Testimony was received from past and present Secretaries of the Interior. The hearing examined DOI’s role in the regulation of deepwater drilling prior to the disaster, and DOI’s actions to respond 

to the spill. 

On August 19, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the 

Safety of Seafood from the Gulf.’’ The hearing examined potential 

impacts to the marine environment and fisheries that are associated with the spill and its cleanup. The Subcommittee received testimony from two panels of witnesses, representing government 

agencies, scientists, and members of the seafood industry. The first 

panel included: the Senior Scientist in the Office of Response and 

Restoration at NOAA; the Assistant Administrator in the Office of 

Research and Development at EPA; and the Acting Deputy Director at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA). The second panel included: a professor of Oceanography at Florida State University; the Chief Executive Officer of Motivatit Seafood, LLC; the Vice President of the 

Louisiana Shrimpers Association; the President of Dean Blanchard 

Seafood, Inc.; and the Senior Scientist with the Oceans Programs 

at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

The subcommittee also sent a total of 46 letters regarding the 

Deepwater Horizon rig, the Macondo well spill and response. Of the 

46 letters sent by the subcommittee 25 went to BP, 8 went to other 

oil companies, and 13 letters went to a variety of federal agencies 

and commissions. BP received letters from the subcommittee regarding: publicly available live video feeds of the well; flow rate estimates; evidence of an undersea oil plume; access to data and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

121 

video for independent scientists; relief well efforts; hurricane response plans; and efforts to stop the flow of oil. The five largest oil 

companies received letters regarding their Oil Spill Response Plans 

(OSRPs) for the Gulf of Mexico. The June 15, 2010 hearing revealed that the OSRPs were virtually identical for all five companies, and contained outdated and erroneous information. The EPA, 

USCG, DOI, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the 

U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), and the National Oil Spill Commission all received letters from the subcommittee. Topics covered by these letters included: the use and safety of oil dispersants; reports of formaldehyde-contaminated trailers being used as living quarters for 

those aiding in the spill cleanup; the status of thousands of temporarily abandoned wells in the Gulf of Mexico; evolving flow rate estimates; live video feeds, wellbore integrity, and the actions to shut 

in the Macondo well. 

PIPELINE SAFETY OVERSIGHT AND LEGISLATION

On September 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on pipeline safety oversight and legislation. 

The hearing addressed the recent pipeline safety incidents and proposals for reauthorization or reform of the pipeline safety statute. 

The hearing examined several high-profile pipeline incidents that 

highlighted the issue of pipeline safety, including the July 26, 2010, 

rupture of the Enbridge line 6B, in Marshall, Michigan; the September 9, 2010, rupture of the Enbridge line 6A, in Romeoville, Illinois; and the September 9, 2010, explosion of a PG&E natural gas 

pipeline in San Bruno, California. 

The Subcommittee heard testimony from Rep. Mark Schauer (D– 

MI) regarding his legislative proposal: H.R. 6008, the ‘‘Corporate 

Liability and Emergency Accident Notification (CLEAN) Act.’’ The 

Subcommittee also received testimony from the Administrator of 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) on the nature of PHMSA’s oversight of recent incidents, 

and how those incidents bear on proposals for reform or reauthorization of the pipeline safety statute. The Administrator also provided PHMSA’s technical and policy views on H.R. 6008. The Vice 

Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) discussed the status, preliminary findings, and expected process for 

the investigations of the recent pipeline safety incidents. He also 

commented on NTSB’s recommendations for reform and reauthorization of the pipeline safety statute. 

The Executive Vice President of Enbridge Inc. provided testimony on the causes of recent safety incidents; cleanup and remediation actions taken by Enbridge; compensation of homeowners, 

residents, and state, local and federal governments; and the steps 

Enbridge has taken with regard to the improvement of safety. The 

subcommittee also received testimony from the Vice President of 

the Pipeline Safety Trust and a number of industry witnesses, who 

all discussed the extent to which recent pipeline safety incidents 

bear on proposals for reform or reauthorization of the pipeline safety statute and provided their views on the Administration’s proposal for reauthorization of the pipeline safety statute and on H.R. 

6008. The industry witnesses included the President and CEO of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

122 

the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the President 

and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipelines, and the Senior Vice 

President and Chief Operating Officer for the American Gas Association. 

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING

The Subcommittee conducted an investigation into hydraulic 

fracturing, a method of oil and gas extraction in which water, 

chemicals, and propping agents are pumped into production wells 

at high pressure. Combined with horizontal drilling techniques, hydraulic fracturing has opened up vast new reserves of natural gas 

previously thought unattainable. This investigation was not completed prior to adjournment of the 111th Congress. 

The widespread adoption of the hydraulic fracturing practice has 

raised concerns about impacts on human health and the environment, including potential contamination of sources of drinking 

water. Federal agencies currently do not have access to a full accounting of the types and quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic 

fracturing fluids, although some states require limited disclosure. 

Oil and gas exploration and production facilities are exempt from 

the Toxic Release Inventory reporting requirements, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act unless it involves fracturing fluids that contain diesel. 

As Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Chairman Waxman wrote to the CEOs of Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger and requested data on the 

types and volume of chemicals used in their hydraulic fracturing 

fluids between 2005 and 2007. The companies provided information 

which revealed that Halliburton and BJ Services continued to use 

diesel fuel in their fracturing fluids even after signing a voluntary 

Memorandum of Agreement with the Environmental Protection 

Agency in 2003 agreeing not to use diesel fuel in 2003. The responses indicated that the companies also used other potentially 

dangerous chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids. 

On February 17, 2010, the Subcommittee sent letters to eight 

companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing in the United States. 

The Subcommittee requested the most recent data on the types and 

quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids with additional information on whether the companies injected these fluids 

in, near, or below an underground source of drinking water. The 

Committee also requested documents related to any allegations 

that the hydraulic fracturing caused harm to human health or the 

environment. In addition, the Committee requested information on 

the chemical contents of water produced from hydraulic fracturing 

operations and how the companies dispose of this waste. On May 

6, 2010, the Subcommittee sent document request letters to six 

more companies in order to assess a broader range of industry 

practice. 

Using the information provided, the Subcommittee has compiled 

a detailed account of hydraulic fracturing as currently practiced in 

the United States. However, the oil and gas service companies were 

unable to respond to two components of the request: information on 

whether hydraulic fracturing has been performed in or near undermstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

123 

ground sources of drinking water and information on the recovery 

and disposal of water and other fluids that flow back to the surface 

of the well. To obtain this information, the Subcommittee sent letters to ten oil and natural gas producers in the United States on 

July 19. Documents have been received in response to this request 

and are currently under review. 

HEARINGS HELD

The Future of Coal Under Climate Legislation.—Hearing on the 

future of coal under an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions, including the technologies and policies that may help reduce 

coal’s carbon footprint. Hearing held March 10, 2009. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–10. 

Consumer Protection Policies in Climate Legislation.—Hearing on 

proposals designed to assist consumers under a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hearing held March 12, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–14. 

Competitiveness and Climate Policy: Avoiding Leakage of Jobs 

and Emissions.—Hearing on domestic legislative provisions to prevent the leakage of jobs and carbon emissions from the Untied 

States to countries that do not take similar action to curb their 

greenhouse gas emissions. Hearing held March 18, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–17. 

Preparing for Climate Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs.—Hearing on ongoing adaptation efforts, and potential policies in climate change legislation to assist in those efforts. Hearing 

held March 25, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–21. 

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.—Hearings 

on the views of the Administration and a broad range of stakeholders on the discussion draft. Hearings held April 21–24, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–29. 

Allowance Allocation Policies in Climate Legislation: Assisting 

Consumers, Investing in a Clean Energy Future, and Adapting to 

Climate Change.—Hearing on examining allocation policies under 

the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Hearing held 

June 9, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–44. 

The Future of the Grid: Proposals for Reforming National Transmission Policy.—Hearing on proposals for new legislation on transmission planning, cost allocation, and siting authority. Hearing 

held June 12, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–48. 

H.R. 3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009: 

Solving the Medical Isotope Crisis.—Legislative hearing on H.R. 

3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009. Hearing held September 9, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–61. 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009, and H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.—Legislative hearing on H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009, and H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009. Hearing held October 1, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–68. 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act. Hearing held October 16, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–73. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

124 

Protecting the Grid: H.R. 2165, the Bulk Power System Protection 

Act of 2009, and H.R. 2195.—Legislative hearing on pending bills 

to address the protection of the electric grad from cyber and other 

malicious attacks. Hearing held October 27, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–77. 

Impacts of H.R. 3795, the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets 

Act of 2009, on Energy Markets.—Hearing to address the impacts 

on organized energy markets regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) of H.R. 3795, reported by the House 

Agriculture and Financial Services Committees. Hearing held December 2, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–84. 

Drinking Water and Public Health Impacts of Coal Combustion 

Waste.—Hearing to examine the safe drinking water and health 

impacts associated with current practices for the disposal of coal fly 

ash. Hearing held December 10, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111– 

88. 

The ExxonMobil-XTO Merger: Impacts on U.S. Energy Markets.— 

Hearing on the proposed merger of ExxonMobil Corporation and 

XTO Energy Inc., and the ramifications for U.S. oil and natural gas 

markets. Hearing held January 20, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–91. 

Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Drinking Water: Risks to 

Human Health and the Environment.—Hearing on the science and 

regulation of endocrine disruptors that may be found in sources of 

drinking water. Hearing held February 25, 2010. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–99. 

HomeStar: Job Creation through Home Energy Retrofits.—Legislative hearing on proposed legislation to incentivize home energy 

retrofits and reduce unemployment in the construction and related 

sectors. Hearing held March 18, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111– 

105. 

Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.—Hearing on how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is 

implementing its statutory duties and authorities, focusing on a 

number of key priorities. Hearing held March 23, 2010. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–107. 

Clean Energy Policies That Reduce Our Dependence on Oil.— 

Hearing on EPA’s policies that reduce our dependence on oil, including the recent tailpipe greenhouse gas standards and associated endangerment finding, and the impact of oil dependence on 

our economy and national security. Hearing held April 28, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111ll113. 

H.R. ll, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 

2010.—Legislative hearing on legislation to reauthorize the Safe 

Drinking Water Act State Revolving Fund, H.R. ll, the ‘‘Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010’’ (‘‘AQUA’’). Hearing 

held May 13, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–125. 

Combating the BP Oil Spill.—Hearing on the ongoing response 

to the oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig site that was 

spreading across the Gulf of Mexico. Hearing held May 27, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–128. 

The BP Oil Spill: Human Exposure and Environmental Fate.— 

Hearing on some of the potential impacts to humans and the envimstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

125 

ronment associated with the spill. Hearing held June 10, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–132. 

Drilling Down on America’s Energy Future: Safety, Security and 

Clean Energy.—Hearing with the top executives of the five largest 

oil companies, on the impacts of the nation’s dependence on oil, the 

safety of drilling operations and the oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico, and actions to develop and promote 

the use of renewable and alternative energy sources that can reduce our overall dependence on oil. Hearing held June 15, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–134. 

Legislation to Respond to the BP Oil Spill and Prevent Future Oil 

Well Blowouts.—Legislative hearing on proposed legislation to respond to the oil spill at the Deepwater Horizon rig and prevent future oil well blowouts. Hearing held June 30, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–140. 

The Role of the Interior Department in the Deepwater Horizon 

Disaster.—Hearing on the Interior Department’s actions before and 

since the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010. Hearing 

held July 20, 2010, jointly with the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–145. 

The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the 

Safety of Seafood from the Gulf.—Hearing on the potential impacts 

to the marine environment and fisheries that are associated with 

the spill and its cleanup. Hearing held August 19, 2010. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–152. 

Pipeline Safety Oversight and Legislation.—Hearing on recent 

pipeline safety incidents and proposals for reauthorization or reform of the pipeline safety statute. Hearing held September 23, 

2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–159. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(127) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

PUBLIC HEALTH

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND TOBACCO CONTROL ACT

Public Law 111–31 (H.R. 1256, S. 982) 

To protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug Administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products, 

and for other purposes. 

Summary 

The prevalence of tobacco use and its toll on human lives has 

long been a public health concern. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made its first attempt to address the harm caused by 

tobacco use in 1996. On August 28, 1996, FDA asserted jurisdiction 

over tobacco products under the authority of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and issued a final rule aimed at 

reducing underage smoking and use of smokeless tobacco products. 

The tobacco industry challenged this rule in court, claiming that 

FDA had exceeded its authority. A resulting Supreme Court decision in 2000, while acknowledging that tobacco use posed ‘‘perhaps 

the single most significant threat to public health in the United 

States,’’ found that Congress had not given FDA authority over tobacco products as part of the FFDCA. 

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

amends the FFDCA to grant FDA the authority to regulate tobacco 

products. It gives FDA explicit authority over tobacco products in 

a new chapter of the FFDCA relating solely to tobacco, and authorizes FDA to regulate tobacco products ‘‘as appropriate for the protection of the public health.’’ This new standard is more appropriate for inherently dangerous tobacco products than the standards of ‘‘safe’’ or ‘‘safe and effective,’’ which apply to other FDA-regulated products. 

The law allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) to restrict the sale and distribution of tobacco products, including advertising and promotion, if the Secretary determines that such regulation would be appropriate for 

the protection of the public health. It also allows the Secretary to 

take specified actions, including public notification and recall, 

against unreasonably harmful products. 

The law requires the Secretary to establish tobacco product 

standards to protect the public health, but prohibits the Secretary 

from banning a class of tobacco products, such as all cigarettes, or 

reducing the nicotine level to zero. The law sets forth standards for 

the sale of modified-risk tobacco products and prohibits cigarettes 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

128 

from containing, as a characterizing flavor, any artificial or natural 

flavor (other than tobacco or menthol). It sets forth provisions regarding judicial review, coordination with the Federal Trade Commission, congressional review of regulations, and state and local 

authority. The law also requires the Secretary to establish a Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. 

The law also amends the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act to change cigarette warning label and advertising requirements. In addition, it amends the Comprehensive Smokeless 

Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 to change smokeless tobacco 

warning label and advertising requirements. The law requires 

stronger and more specific health warnings, as well as the eventual 

incorporation of graphic warnings on cigarette packs, and gives 

FDA authority to enlarge and enhance them further. 

The law grants FDA the authority to strictly regulate so-called 

‘‘reduced harm’’ products and to prohibit unproven health claims by 

tobacco product manufacturers. It prohibits the use of descriptors 

such as ‘‘light’’, ‘‘mild’’, and ‘‘low’’ to characterize the level of a substance in a product in labels or in advertising. 

The law provides FDA the authority to require product changes 

in current and future tobacco products, such as the reduction or 

elimination of ingredients, additives, and constituents (including 

smoke constituents). In addition, it requires manufacturers to provide detailed disclosure of ingredients, nicotine levels, and harmful 

smoke constituents. 

Legislative History 

On March 3, 2009, H.R. 1256 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Waxman of California and was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, and also to the Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform. H.R. 1256 was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on March 3, 2009. The full Committee discharged the Subcommittee on Health from consideration on March 

4, 2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 1256. A number of amendments were offered but each one was either withdrawn or defeated 

by a voice vote. Subsequently, H.R. 1256 was ordered favorably reported to the House without amendment by a rollcall vote of 39– 

13. 

On March 18, 2009, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform met in open markup session, and H.R. 1256 was ordered favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On March 26, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed a House report on H.R. 1256 (H. Rept. 111–58, Part 1). That 

same day, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

also filed a House report on H.R. 1256, as amended by that Committee (H. Rept. 111–58, Part 2). 

On April 2, 2009, H.R. 1256 was called up in House and passed, 

amended, by a rollcall vote of 298–112. 

H.R. 1256 was received by the Senate on April 2, 2009, and 

placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. 

On May 5, 2009, S. 982, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (companion legislation to H.R. 1256) was intromstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

129 

duced by Sen. Kennedy of Massachusetts, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). 

On May 20, 2009, the Committee on HELP met in open markup 

session and agreed to order S. 982 favorably reported, as amended. 

No further action occurred on S. 982 as the Senate took up H.R. 

1256, the House companion bill to S. 982. During Senate consideration on the floor, a substituted amendment with the text of S. 982 

as reported by the Committee on HELP, was offered to H.R. 1256 

as passed by the House, and was adopted by the Senate during its 

deliberations. 

On June 11, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 1256, as amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 79–17. 

On June 12, 2009, the House agreed to concur with the Senate 

amendments to the House amendments to H.R. 1256 by a rollcall 

vote of 307–97, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On June 22, 2009, H.R. 1256 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–31. 

RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS TREATMENT EXTENSION ACT OF 2009

Public Law 111–87 (H.R. 3792, S. 1793) 

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 

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 extends the Ryan White Program for four years, amending title XXVI 

of the Public Health Service Act (the Ryan White Care Act) to reauthorize many of the provisions in their current form and making 

several changes. It re-establishes the provisions of the Act, retroactive to September 30, 2009. 

The Ryan White program, administered by the Health Resources 

and Services Administration (HRSA), is composed of four major 

parts: (1) Part A provides grants to large and mid-sized cities with 

a high incidence and/or prevalence of HIV and AIDS; (2) Part B 

provides grants to states and territories, and includes the AIDS 

Drug Assistance Program (ADAP); (3) Part C provides early intervention grants to public and private nonprofit entities, such as 

community clinics; and (4) Part D provides grants to public and 

nonprofit entities for family centered care and support services for 

women, infants, children, and youth with HIV/AIDS. The other 

components, collectively referred to as Part F, include the AIDS 

Dental Reimbursement (ADR) Program, the AIDS Education and 

Training Centers (AETCs), the Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS) Program, and the Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI). 

The law authorizes a 5% increase in funding for Parts A through 

D and Part F, and eliminates/repeals all prior sunset provisions. It 

increases authorizations for the MAI by 5% annually. It reverts 

from competitive funding in Part A and Part B to formula funding, 

and requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report 

on MAI activities across departmental agencies, including a description of best practices in capacity-building. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

130 

The law maintains the same provisions for states and jurisdictions with maturing names-based HIV case data during the first 

two years of the reauthorization period. Jurisdictions that report 

code-based data will continue to incur a 5% penalty against their 

count of living cases of HIV and will still be subject to a 5% cap 

on increases in the HIV case count. In 2012, the 5% penalty is increased to 6%. Beginning in fiscal year 2013, code-based protections 

are eliminated and all states are required to report cases using a 

names-based system. 

The law extends current rules for transitional grant area status. 

It adds a provision that if a metropolitan area has between 1400 

and 1500 cumulative living AIDS cases and does not have more 

than 5% of its total grants unobligated for the prior fiscal year, it 

will be treated as having met the criteria for continued eligibility 

as a Transitional Grant Area (TGA). The law continues the hold 

harmless requirements at a rate of 95% of fiscal year 2009 funding 

in 2010 and 100% of fiscal year 2010 funding for each of the fiscal 

years 2011 and 2012. For fiscal year 2013, the amount is set at 

92.5% of the previous fiscal year’s grant. The hold harmless status 

will continue to apply to both Part A and Part B grants. 

The Secretary of HHS is required to establish a national HIV/ 

AIDS testing goal of 5 million tests through federally-supported 

HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care programs, both at the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and through 

other federal programs. The Secretary is required to report to Congress each year on the progress made toward achieving this goal, 

and to review each domestic HIV/AIDS prevention program to determine its effectiveness based on the program’s contributions toward the testing goal and the program’s stated purposes. 

Legislative History 

On September 9, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on a discussion draft of the legislation, prior to the introduction 

of H.R. 3792. 

On October 13, 2009, H.R. 3792 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Pallone of New Jersey and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and then referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health. 

On October 14, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session and considered H.R. 3749. The Subcommittee then 

forwarded H.R. 3792 favorably to the full Committee without 

amendment by a voice vote. 

On October 15, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and considered H.R. 3792 as approved 

by the Subcommittee on Health. H.R. 3792 was then ordered favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice vote. 

On October 20, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 3792 (H. Rept. 111–305). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3792. The Senate companion bill was acted on in lieu of H.R. 3792. 

On October 15, 2009, S. 1793, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 (companion legislation to H.R. 3792) 

was introduced by Sen. Harkin of Iowa, referred to the Committee 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

131 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and reported to the 

Senate that same day. 

On October 19, 2009, S. 1793 passed the Senate, amended, by 

unanimous consent. 

On October 21, 2009, S. 1793 was passed under suspension of the 

rules by the House, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 408–9, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On October 30, 2009, S. 1793 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–87. 

COMBAT METHAMPHETAMINE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–268 (H.R. 2923, S. 256) 

To enhance the ability to combat methamphetamine. 

Summary 

The Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2010 

amends the Controlled Substances Act to increase the compliance 

of retailers and distributors of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine 

products (which are precursor chemicals for the production of 

methamphetamine) with the 2006 Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. The law clarifies that all persons engaged in retail sales 

of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine products, including by mail order, 

must self-certify that they have trained their personnel and agree 

to comply with the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. It requires distributors of these products to sell only to retailers who 

are registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The law 

requires the DEA to provide a downloadable database of all retailers which have filed self-certifications on their website so that distributors can check their customers against this database to ensure 

compliance. It clarifies that a retailer which negligently fails to file 

self-certification as required can face civil fines. 

Legislative History 

On June 17, 2009, H.R. 2923 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Gordon of Tennessee and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On June 18, 2009, H.R. 2923 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Health. 

On January 15, 2009, S. 256, the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2009 (companion legislation to H.R. 2923) was introduced by Sen. Feinstein of California and referred to the Senate 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

On March 23, 2009, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary met 

in open markup session and ordered S. 256 to be favorably reported. 

On June 8, 2009, S. 256 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

On June 9, 2009, S. 256 was received in the House and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

No further action was taken on S. 256 in the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

132 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an open 

markup session to consider H.R. 2923 and subsequently forwarded 

the bill favorably to the full Committee without amendment by a 

voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in an open markup session and considered H.R. 2923 as approved 

by the Subcommittee on Health. The bill was then ordered favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice vote. 

On September 22, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 2923 (H. Rept. 111–615, Part 

1). 

On September 22, 2010, the House passed H.R. 2923 under the 

suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 2923. 

On September 27, 2010, H.R. 2923 passed the Senate by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On October 12, 2010, H.R. 2923 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–268. 

SECURE AND RESPONSIBLE DRUG DISPOSAL ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–273 (S. 3397, H.R. 5809) 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for take-back 

disposal of controlled substances in certain instances. 

Summary 

According to the Department of Justice’s 2009 National Prescription Drug Threat Assessment, the number of deaths and treatment 

admissions for controlled prescription drugs has increased significantly in recent years, especially among teenagers between the 

ages of 12 and 17 years old. Many state and local law enforcement 

agencies have established drug disposal programs (often called 

‘‘take-back’’ programs) to facilitate the collection and destruction of 

unused, unwanted, or expired medications. These programs help 

get outdated or unused medications off household shelves and out 

of the reach of children and teenagers. Drug take-back programs, 

however, often cannot dispose of the most dangerous pharmaceutical drugs—controlled substance medications—because Federal 

law does not permit the programs to accept such medications unless they get specific permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and arrange for full-time law enforcement officers to receive the controlled substances directly from the individual who seeks to dispose of them. Consequently, individuals 

seeking to dispose of unwanted controlled substances in their 

household are left with few disposal options beyond discarding or 

flushing the substances. These forms of disposal can introduce potentially harmful substances into the environment, especially the 

water. 

The Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 amends 

the Controlled Substances Act to allow the delivery of lawfully-possessed unused pharmaceutical controlled substances to appropriate 

entities for disposal in a safe and effective manner consistent with 

effective controls against diversion. Specifically, it allows unregistered ultimate users of lawfully-possessed controlled substances, or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

133 

in the case where the ultimate users are deceased, the persons lawfully entitled to dispose of their property, to deliver the controlled 

substances to authorized persons who will dispose of them in accordance with regulations issued by the Attorney General to prevent their diversion. The law also allows the Attorney General, 

through regulation, to authorize long term care facilities to dispose 

of controlled substances on behalf of ultimate users who reside or 

have resided there. The Attorney General may not require any entity to establish or operate a delivery or disposal program. The law 

requires the United States Sentencing Commission to review and, 

if appropriate, amend its guidelines and policy statements to ensure an appropriate penalty increase for people convicted of a drug 

offence involving receipt of a controlled substance for disposal. 

Legislative History 

On July 21, 2010, H.R. 5809, the Safe Drug Disposal Act of 2010, 

was introduced in the House by Rep. Inslee of Washington and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative 

hearing on H.R. 5809. That same day, the Subcommittee on Health 

met in an open markup session on H.R. 5809 and forwarded the 

bill favorably to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 5809. After agreeing by a voice 

vote to an amendment by Mr. Stupak of Michigan, the Committee 

ordered H.R. 5809 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On September 22, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 5809 (H. Rept. 111–618, Part 

1). 

On September 22, 2010, H.R. 5809 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5809 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on the Judiciary. 

Earlier on May 24, 2010, S. 3397, the Senate companion bill to 

H.R. 5809, was introduced by Sen. Klobuchar of Minnesota and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

On July 29, 2010, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 

markup session on S. 3397 and reported the bill, amended, to the 

Senate. 

On August 3, 2010, S. 3397, as amended, passed the Senate by 

unanimous consent. 

On September 29, 2010, S. 3397, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. That same day, S. 

3397, as amended by the House, passed the Senate by unanimous 

consent, clearing the measure for the White House. 

The Senate and the House passed the Secure and Responsible 

Drug Disposal Act under the Senate number in lieu of H.R. 5809, 

which remained pending in the Senate. The Senate later took up 

H.R. 5809, striking the language from the bill and amended it with 

the text of unrelated energy legislation. H.R. 5809 was then passed 

by the Congress as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

134 

further information, see the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment legislative activities contained in this report). 

On October 12, 2010, S. 3397 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–273. 

EARLY HEARING DETECTION AND INTERVENTION ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–337 (H.R. 1246, S. 3199) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act regarding early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of hearing loss. 

Summary 

The Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2010 

amends the Public Health Service Act to (1) expand the newborns 

and infants hearing loss program to include diagnostic services 

among the services provided; and (2) require the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human Services, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration 

(HRSA), to assist in the recruitment, retention, education, and 

training of qualified personnel and health care providers to implement the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Program. 

The law revises the purposes of EHDI Program to include: (1) developing and monitoring the efficacy of statewide programs and 

systems for hearing screening of newborns and infants, prompt 

evaluation and diagnosis of children referred from screening programs, and appropriate education, audiological, and medical interventions for children identified with hearing loss; (2) developing efficient models to ensure that newborns and infants who are identified with a hearing loss through screening receive follow-up by a 

qualified health care provider; and (3) ensuring an adequate supply 

of qualified personnel to meet the screening, evaluation, and early 

intervention needs of children. 

The law amends the definition of ‘‘early intervention’’ to require 

that families be given the opportunity to obtain the full range of 

appropriate early intervention services, educational and program 

placements, and other options for their child from highly qualified 

providers. It requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a 

postdoctoral fellowship program to foster research and development 

in the area of early hearing detection and intervention. 

Legislative History 

On March 2, 2009, H.R. 1246 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Capps of California and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. H.R. 1246 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health, but was discharged from further consideration on March 4, 

2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 1246 and subsequently ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice 

vote. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 1246 (H. Rept. 111–44). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

135 

On March 30, 2009, the House passed H.R. 1246 under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On March 31, 2009, H.R. 1246 was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions. No further action was taken on H.R. 1246 as the bill was 

superseded by the Senate companion bill, S. 3199. 

On March 14, 2010, S. 3199, the Early Hearing Detection and 

Intervention Act of 2010, was introduced by Sen. Snowe of Maine 

and referred to the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor, 

and Pensions (HELP). 

On December 1, 2010, the Committee on HELP met in open 

markup session and S. 3199 was favorably reported, amended. 

On December 7, 2010, S. 3199 passed the Senate, as amended, 

by unanimous consent. 

On December 15, 2010, the House passed S. 3199, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote, clearing the measure for the 

White House. 

On December 22, 2010, S. 3199 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–337. 

TO REAUTHORIZE AND ENHANCE JOHANNA’S LAW TO INCREASE PUBLIC

AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE WITH RESPECT TO GYNECOLOGIC

CANCERS

Public Law 111–324 (H.R. 2941) 

To reauthorize and enhance Johanna’s Law to increase public 

awareness and knowledge with respect to gynecologic cancers. 

Summary 

Johanna’s Law reauthorizes and expands CDC programs to educate women and healthcare providers about gynecologic cancers. It 

authorizes $16.5 million for the period of fiscal years 2010 through 

2012 and such sums as are necessary for each subsequent fiscal 

year for these efforts. It further creates demonstration projects to 

evaluate research and outreach strategies for educating women and 

healthcare providers about gynecological cancers. For fiscal years 

2010 through 2012, $15 million is authorized for these activities; 

such sums as are necessary are authorized for each subsequent fiscal year. 

Legislative History 

On June 18, 2009, H.R. 2941 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. DeLauro of Connecticut and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on June 19, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2941. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session on H.R. 2941 and forwarded favorably the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in an open markup session to consider H.R. 2941 as approved by the Subcommittee. Subsequently, H.R. 2941 was ordered 

favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

136 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 2941 (H. Rept. 111–635). 

On September 30, 2010, H.R. 2941 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 2941 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP). 

On December 1, 2010, the Senate Committee on HELP met in 

open markup session on H.R. 2941 and ordered the bill favorably 

reported with an amendment. 

On December 10, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 2941, amended, 

by unanimous consent. 

On December 16, 2010, the House, under suspension of the rules, 

agreed by a voice vote to concur with the Senate amendment to the 

House amendment to H.R. 2941, clearing the measure for the 

White House. 

On December 22, 2010, H.R. 2941 was signed into law by the 

President and became Public Law 111–324. 

FOOD SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

Awaiting White House Action (H.R. 2751, H.R. 2749) 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve 

the safety of food in the global market, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, would 

amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to improve the safety of food, and for other purposes. 

The bill would create an up-to-date registry of all food facilities 

serving American consumers, and requires all facilities operating 

within the U.S. or importing food to the U.S. to register with FDA 

annually. It would generate resources to support FDA oversight of 

food safety, and requires payment of an annual registration fee of 

$500 per facility that would generate revenue for food safety activities at FDA. 

The bill would require foreign and domestic food facilities to have 

safety plans in place to identify and mitigate hazards, and those 

plans and food facility records would be subject to review by FDA 

inspectors and third-party certifiers. A minimum inspection frequency for foreign and domestic facilities would be set. Each high 

risk facility would be inspected at least once every six to 12 

months; each low risk facility would be inspected at least once 

every 18 months to three years; and each warehouse would be inspected at least once every five years. Refusing, impeding or delaying an inspection is prohibited. 

The bill would grant the Secretary of HHS the authority to issue 

mandatory performance standards for reducing hazards. It would 

direct the Secretary to require certain foreign food to be certified 

as meeting all U.S. food safety requirements by third parties accredited by FDA. It would create a fast-track import process for 

food meeting security standards, by directing FDA to develop voluntary safety and security guidelines for imported foods. Importers 

meeting the guidelines would receive expedited processing. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

137 

The bill would require safety plans for fresh produce and certain 

other raw agricultural commodities. It directs FDA, in coordination 

with the Department of Agriculture (USDA), to issue regulations 

for ensuring the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables and other raw agricultural commodities, like mushrooms. 

FDA’s traceback capabilities are significantly expanded in the 

event of a foodborne illness outbreak. The Secretary of HHS would 

be directed to issue traceback regulations that enable the Secretary 

to identify the history of the food in as short a timeframe as practicable, but no longer than two business days. Prior to issuing such 

regulations, the Secretary would be required to conduct a feasibility study, public meetings, and one or more pilot projects before 

issuing traceback regulations. There are exemptions for certain 

foods or facilities. The bill would require all processed food labels 

to indicate the country in which final processing occurred and country-of-origin labeling for all produce. 

The bill would require FDA to establish a program to recognize 

laboratory accreditation bodies and to accept test results only from 

duly accredited laboratories. Laboratories would be required to 

send certain test results directly to FDA. It would provide FDA 

new authority to issue mandatory recalls of tainted foods, and 

strengthens penalties imposed on food facilities that fail to comply 

with safety requirements. The bill would allow FDA to charge a fee 

to cover the cost of additional inspections of faculties that previously committed a violation of the FFDCA related to food, and 

enhances FDA’s ability to administratively detain tainted food 

products. 

The Secretary would be directed to enhance foodborne illness 

surveillance systems to improve the collection, analysis, reporting, 

and usefulness of data on foodborne illnesses. The bill would require the Secretary to provide greater coordination between federal, state, and local agencies. 

The bill would enhance the transparency of the ‘‘Generally Recognized as Safe’’ (GRAS) program, by requiring posting on FDA’s 

website of documentation submitted to FDA in support of GRAS 

notification. 

It would create specific new regulations pertaining to infant formula. A manufacturer of a new infant formula would be required 

to submit certain safety information regarding new ingredients and 

grants FDA additional time to review such new ingredients. 

The bill would provide the Secretary with the ability to prohibit 

or restrict movement of harmful food products. If the Secretary, 

after consultation with a governor, determines there is credible evidence that an article of food presents an imminent threat, he or 

she would be able to prohibit or restrict movement of food in the 

state or portion of the state. The bill would require unique identification numbers for facilities and importers to improve the accuracy of data and the ability for FDA to more quickly to identify involved parties in a crisis situation. 

The bill would prohibit entities regulated by FDA from discriminating against an employee in retaliation for assisting in any investigation regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably 

believes constitutes a violation of federal law. FDA would be granted new authority to subpoena records related to possible violations. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

138 

Legislative History 

On June 8, 2009, H.R. 2749 was introduced in the House by Rep. 

Dingell of Michigan and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On June 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health met in an open 

markup session, and on June 11, 2009, H.R. 2749 was forwarded 

favorably to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On June 17, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session, and H.R. 2749 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 29, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2749, as amended, to the House (H. Rept. 111–234). 

That same day, H.R. 2749, as amended, failed to pass the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 280–150. 

On July 30, 2009, H.R, 2749, as amended, passed the House by 

a rollcall vote of 283 to 142. 

On August 3, 2009, H.R. 2749 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. No further action was taken on H.R. 2749 in the 111th Congress. 

On November 18, 2009, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) considered in markup S. 510 

(Senate companion bill to H.R. 2749), which was previously introduced by Sen. Durbin of Illinois on March 3, 2009. The Senate 

Committee ordered the bill the Senate with an amendment. On December 18, 2009, the Senate Committee on HELP reported the bill 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

The Senate considered S. 510 and motions thereto September 29, 

November 17, 18, 29, and 30, 2010. 

On November 30, 2010, S. 510 passed the Senate, as amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 73–25. No further action was taken on S. 510 

in the 111th Congress. 

On December 19, 2010, H.R. 2751, an unrelated bill passed by 

the House and pending on the Senate Legislative Calendar, was 

laid before the Senate by unanimous consent. A motion to strike all 

after the enacting clause of H.R. 2751 and take the text of S. 510, 

as passed the Senate and modified with the changes in an amendment at the desk, was agreed to by unanimous consent. Subsequently the Senate agreed to H.R. 2751 as amended by unanimous 

consent. The title of the bill was also amended to read as: A bill 

to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect 

to the safety of the food supply. 

On December 21, 2010, the House agreed to the Senate amendments to H.R. 2751 by adopting a motion by Mr. Dingell of Michigan by a rollcall vote of 215–144, clearing the measure for the 

White House. 

On December 29, 2010, H.R. 2751 was presented to the President. 

H.R. 2751, as approved by the House and the Senate, was awaiting action by the President when this report was filed. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

139 

NATIONAL ALZHEIMER’S PROJECT ACT

Awaiting White House Action (H.R. 4689, S. 3036) 

To establish the Office of the National Alzheimer’s Project. 

Summary 

The National Alzheimer’s Project Act establishes the Office of the 

National Alzheimer’s Project, in the Office of the Secretary of the 

Department of Health and Human Services to: (1) accelerate the 

development of treatments that would prevent, halt, or reverse the 

course of Alzheimer’s; (2) create and maintain an integrated national plan to overcome Alzheimer’s; (3) help to coordinate the 

health care and treatment of citizens with Alzheimer’s; (4) ensure 

the inclusion of ethnic and racial populations that are at higher 

risk for Alzheimer’s or that are least likely to receive care in clinical, research, and service efforts with the purpose of decreasing 

health disparities; (5) coordinate with international bodies to integrate and inform the fight against Alzheimer’s globally; and (6) 

provide information and coordination of Alzheimer’s research and 

services across all federal agencies. The law establishes an Advisory Council on Alzheimer’s Research Treatment comprised of Federal and non-Federal experts on Alzheimer’s disease. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2010, H.R. 4689 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Markey of Massachusetts and referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. For further action on H.R. 4689 in the 

111th Congress, see action taken on S. 3036, a Senate companion 

bill. 

On February 24, 2010, S. 3036, the National Alzheimer’s Project 

Act (Senate companion bill to H.R. 4689) was introduced by 

Sunbath of Indiana and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On December 1, 2010, the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session, and S. 3036 was 

ordered favorably reported, amended, to the Senate. 

On December 8, 2010, S. 3036 passed the Senate, as amended, 

by unanimous consent. 

On December 15, 2010, S. 3036, as amended by the Senate, 

passed the House under suspension of the rules by a voice vote, 

clearing the measure for the White House. 

On December 28, 2010, S. 3036 was presented to the President. 

S. 3036, as approved by the House and the Senate, was awaiting 

action by the President when this report was filed. 

STATUTORY TIME-PERIODS TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2009

Public Law 111–16 (H.R. 1626) 

To make technical amendments to laws containing time periods 

affecting judicial proceedings. 

Summary 

The Statutory Time-Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009 

amends federal bankruptcy, criminal, and civil law, as well as the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

140 

Classified Information Procedures Act and the Controlled Substances Act, to extend specified deadlines affecting court proceedings to harmonize them with recent amendments to the federal 

time-computation rules intended to provide predictability and uniformity to the current process of calculating court deadlines. 

Legislative History 

On March 13, 2009, H.R. 1626 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Johnson of Georgia and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and also to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On April 22, 2009, H.R. 1626 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. On April 27, 2009, H.R. 1626 

passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

On May 7, 2009, H.R. 1626 was signed by the President and became Public Law 111–16. 

MELANIE BLOCKER STOKES MOM’S OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS HEALTH, 

EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND SUPPORT FOR POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION ACT

(H.R. 20) 

To provide research on, and services for individuals with, 

postpartum depression and psychosis. 

Summary 

H.R. 20, the Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act, encourages the Secretary of HHS, the Director of the 

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the Director of 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to coordinate activities and 

continue aggressive work with respect to postpartum depression 

and postpartum psychosis. In addition, the Director of NIMH would 

be directed to continue supporting research on understanding the 

causes of postpartum depression and finding a cure through various activities including: (1) basic research concerning the etiology 

and causes of the conditions; (2) epidemiological studies to address 

the frequency and natural history of the conditions and the differences among racial and ethnic groups with respect to the conditions; (3) development of improved screening and diagnostic techniques; (4) clinical research for the development and evaluation of 

new treatments; and (5) information and education programs for 

health care professionals and the public. 

H.R. 20 would direct the Secretary of HHS to make grants to 

provide for projects for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective and cost-efficient systems for the delivery of essential services to individuals with postpartum depression or 

postpartum psychosis. Recipients of these grants would be required 

to be either a public or nonprofit private entity. 

Legislative History 

On January 6, 2009, H.R. 20 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Rush of Illinois and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

141 

January 14, 2009. The Subcommittee was discharged on March 4, 

2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 20. Subsequently the 

Committee ordered H.R. 20 favorably reported to the House, 

amended, by a voice vote. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 20 (H. Rept. 111–48). 

On March 30, 2009, H.R. 20 passed the House, amended, under 

suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 391–8. 

On March 31, 2009, H.R. 20 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 20 in the 111th Congress; 

however, provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill. For further action, see H.R. 3962. 

CALLING FOR 2–1–1 ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 211) 

To facilitate the nationwide availability of 2–1–1 telephone service for information and referral on health and human services, including volunteer services. 

Summary 

H.R. 211, Calling for 2–1–1 Act of 2009, would require the Secretary of HHS to award a grant to each state (based on a formula 

to be developed by the Secretary) to make the 2–1–1 health and 

human services referral service available throughout the state. The 

2–1–1 service is to be operated through a lead entity that either 

has previously had responsibility to carry out this service or meets 

certain criteria. The bill would authorize $150 million for each of 

fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and $100 million for each of fiscal years 

2011 through 2014 to carry out the bill’s activities. 

Legislative History 

On January 6, 2009, H.R. 211 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Eshoo of California and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. Subsequently, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on January 14, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 211. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 211 in the 111th Congress. 

CHRISTOPHER AND DANA REEVE PARALYSIS ACT

(H.R. 307) 

To enhance and further research into paralysis and to improve 

rehabilitation and the quality of life for persons living with paralysis and other physical disabilities. 

Summary 

H.R. 307, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, would 

authorize the Director of the National Institutes of Health to demstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

142 

velop mechanisms to coordinate the paralysis research and rehabilitation activities of NIH institutes and centers in order to further advance such activities and avoid their duplication. The bill 

would also authorize the Director of NIH to make awards of grants 

to public or private entities to pay all or part of the cost of planning, establishing, improving, and providing basic operating support for consortia in paralysis research. It would require the Director to designate each such consortium as a Christopher and Dana 

Reeve Paralysis Research Consortium. 

In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services to study the health challenges associated with paralysis and other physical disabilities and carry out projects and 

interventions to improve the quality of life and long-term health 

status of individuals with such conditions. It would authorize the 

Secretary to award grants for activities related to paralysis, including grants to establish paralysis registries and to disseminate information to the public. 

Legislative History 

On January 8, 2009, H.R. 307 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Baldwin of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and then referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on January 14, 2009. It was discharged from subcommittee 

consideration on March 4, 2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 307 and then ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice 

vote. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 307 (H. Rept. 111–45). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 307 in the 111th Congress. 

WAKEFIELD ACT

(H.R. 479) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide a means for 

continued improvement in emergency medical services for children. 

Summary 

The Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) Program, 

under section 1910 of the Public Health Services Act, is the only 

federal program that focuses specifically on improving the pediatric 

components of emergency medical care. This program began in 

1984 and covers the entire spectrum of emergency medical care, 

but it is designed to ensure state-of-the-art emergency medical care 

for ill or injured children and adolescents. The EMSC Program provides grants to states to improve existing Early Emergency Medical 

Services (EMS) systems and to schools of medicine to develop and 

evaluate improved procedures and protocols for treating children. 

H.R. 479, the Wakefield Act, would reauthorize the EMSC Program. It would amend the Public Health Service Act to extend by 

one year the length of time for which a grant may be awarded from 

a three year period with an optional fourth year, to a four year period with an optional fifth year. It would authorize appropriations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

143 

of $25 million for fiscal year 2010 and $138 million for fiscal years 

2010 through 2014. 

Legislative History 

On January 13, 2009, H.R. 479 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Matheson of Utah and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on January 14, 2009, but subsequently discharged from consideration on March 4, 2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 479, which was ordered 

favorably the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 479 (H. Rept. 111–43). 

On March 30, 2009, the House passed H.R. 479 under suspension 

of the rules by a rollcall vote of 390–6. 

On March 31, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 479 and referred 

to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 479 in the 111th Congress. 

VISION CARE FOR KIDS ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 577) 

To establish a grant program to provide vision care to children. 

Summary 

H.R. 577, the Vision Care for Kids Act of 2009, would amend the 

Public Health Service Act to include a new section authorizing the 

Secretary of HHS, acting through the Director of CDC, to award 

grants to states for: (1) comprehensive eye examinations for children previously identified as needing these services; (2) treatment 

or services to correct vision problems; and (3) development and dissemination of education materials on recognizing signs of visual 

impairment. Eligible children would not be able to receive coverage 

for vision services through a private insurance policy, nor be eligible for vision services through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or any other federal or state health benefit programs. These children would have to be defined by their states as 

low-income. 

The legislation would prioritize services for children who are 

under the age of nine. It would require the Secretary of HHS to 

give priority to states that will provide services to the lowest income children within the state. States would be required to ensure 

that grant funds supplement, and not supplant, any other federal, 

state, or local funds available to carry out similar activities and coordinate grant programs under the bill with existing federal and 

state programs that provide services to children. States would be 

required to provide assurances that the state will not eliminate or 

otherwise reduce vision care benefits provided under Medicaid. All 

grant funds would be required to be expended on eligible children. 

To receive grants, states would be required to contribute at least 

25% of activity costs (75–25 federal-state match), and up to 20% of 

a state’s grant funding may be used for education and awareness. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

144 

The bill would authorize the appropriation of $65 million for fiscal 

years 2009 through 2013. 

Legislative History 

On January 15, 2009, H.R. 577 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Gene Green of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on January 16, 2009, but subsequently discharged from consideration on March 4, 2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 577, which was ordered 

favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 577 (H. Rept. 111–46). 

On March 31, 2009, the House passed H.R. 577 under suspension 

of the rules by a rollcall vote of 404–17. 

On April 1, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 577 and referred to 

the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 577 in the 111th Congress. 

NATIONAL PAIN CARE POLICY ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 756) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide support for 

various pain care activities. 

Summary 

H.R. 756, the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009, would 

amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Secretary of 

HHS to: (1) contract with the Institute of Medicine to convene a national conference on pain; (2) to support programs to educate and 

train health professionals in pain care; and (3) to implement a national pain care education, outreach, and awareness campaign. The 

bill would authorize the appropriation of various amounts for each 

of these purposes for fiscal years 2010 through 2012. 

Legislative History 

On January 28, 2009, H.R. 756 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Capps of California and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on January 29, 2009, but subsequently discharged from consideration on March 4, 2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 756, which was ordered 

favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice 

vote. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 756 (H. Rept. 111–43). 

On March 30, 2009, the House passed H.R. 756 under suspension 

of the rules by a rollcall vote of 390–6. 

On March 31, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 756 and referred 

to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

145 

No further action was taken on H.R. 756 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of this legislation were included in the Housepassed legislation on Health Care Reform (see H.R. 3962). 

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH CONSORTIA ESTABLISHMENT ACT

(H.R. 758) 

To amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the establishment of pediatric research consortia at the National 

Institutes of Health. 

Summary 

H.R. 758, the Pediatric Research Consortia Establishment Act, 

would amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to provide 

for the establishment of pediatric research consortia. The bill would 

require the Director of NIH, acting through the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, to award 

grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for planning, establishing, and proving basic operating support for up to 20 national 

pediatric research consortia. H.R. 758 would require each consortium to: (1) supplement, but not replace, the establishment of a 

comprehensive pediatric research portfolio; (2) conduct basic, clinical, behavioral, social, and translational research; and (3) conduct 

training and demonstration of advanced diagnostic and treatment 

methods relating to pediatrics. 

Legislative History 

On January 28, 2009, H.R. 758 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. DeGette of Colorado and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on February 2, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 758. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session and H.R. 758 was favorably forwarded to the 

full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.R. 758 as approved by the Subcommittee. Subsequently the Committee ordered 

H.R. 758 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice 

vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed a House report on H.R. 758 (H. Rept. 111–640). 

H.R. 758 was passed by the House under suspension of the rules, 

as amended, by a voice vote on September 28, 2010. 

On November 15, 2010, H.R. 758 was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 758 in the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

146 

DENTAL EMERGENCY RESPONDER ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 903) 

To amend various authorities, including the Public Health Service Act, to enhance the roles of dentists and allied dental personnel 

in the Nation’s disaster response framework. 

Summary 

Currently federal law deters states receiving federal emergency 

responder training grants from incorporating dental professionals 

and schools into their all-hazards emergency response plans. H.R. 

903, the Dental Emergency Responder Act of 2010, would provide 

states the option to incorporate dentists and dental facilities into 

such plans. 

The legislation would amend the Public Health Service Act to: (1) 

revise the National Health Security Strategy to include increasing 

the preparedness, response capabilities, and surge capacity of dental facilities and effective utilization of any available mobile dental 

assets; and (2) require federal dental entities to carry out activities 

under the public health and medical response training program. 

H.R. 903 would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include dental personnel within the definition of ‘‘emergency response 

providers’’ and would require the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to serve as the primary 

DHS point of contact for the dental community with respect to 

medical and public health matters related to natural disasters, acts 

of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. In addition, H.R. 903 

would amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act of 2006 to require operational plans developed by federal agencies with responsibilities under the National Response Plan to address the preparedness and deployment of dental resources. 

Legislative History 

On February 4, 2009, H.R. 903 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Stupak of Michigan and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on February 9, 2009. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session to consider H.R. 903, and favorably forwarded the 

bill to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 903 as approved by the 

Subcommittee. H.R. 903 was ordered favorably reported to the 

House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 903 (H. Rept. 111–647). 

H.R. 903 was passed by the House under suspension of the rules, 

as amended, by a voice vote on September 28, 2010. 

On September 29, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 903 as amended by the House and referred the bill to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 903 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were also included in the 

House-passed health reform bill (see H.R. 3962). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

147 

PHYSICIAN WORKFORCE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 914) 

To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish 

a loan program for eligible hospitals to establish residency training 

programs. 

Summary 

H.R. 914, the Physician Workforce Enhancement Act of 2009, 

would amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, to establish a program that provides loans for residency training programs to public or nonprofit hospitals that do not have residency 

programs and meet other criteria, with preference given to hospitals in rural and small areas. The Administrator would be required to establish penalties for violation of the program’s requirements and to submit a report to Congress on the efficacy of the program. The Administrator would be prohibited from charging or collecting interest on loans. The legislation would authorize the appropriation of a total of $25 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2020. 

The cumulative dollar amount of a loan to an eligible hospital 

would not be allowed to exceed $1 million, and loans could not be 

made after December 31, 2019. 

Legislative History 

On February 9, 2009, H.R. 914 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Burgess of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on February 10, 2009. The Subcommittee was discharged 

from consideration of H.R. 914 on March 4, 2009. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 914 and ordered the bill 

favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice 

vote. 

There was no further action taken on H.R. 914 in the 111th Congress. 

MAMMOGRAM AND MRI AVAILABILITY ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 995) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require that group and individual health insurance coverage and group health plans provide 

coverage for annual screening mammography for women 40 years 

of age or older and for such screening and annual magnetic resonance imaging for women at high risk for breast cancer if the coverage or plans include coverage for diagnostic mammography for 

women 40 years of age or older. 

Summary 

H.R. 995, the Mammogram and MRI Availability Act of 2009, 

would amend the Public Health Service Act to require health insurance plans offering group coverage that provide coverage for diagnostic mammography for women aged 40 years and older to meet 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

148 

certain requirements with respect to coverage of mammography 

services. Health insurance plans providing coverage for diagnostic 

mammography would also be required to provide coverage of annual screening mammography for women over 40. In addition, 

these plans would be required to cover diagnostic mammography, 

annual screening mammography, and annual magnetic resonance 

imaging for high-risk women under terms and conditions no less favorable than those for coverage of diagnostic mammography. 

The bill would prohibit health insurance plans from: (1) denying 

coverage for annual screening mammography or annual magnetic 

resonance imaging on the basis that coverage is not medically necessary or not pursuant to health care provider referral, consent, or 

recommendation; (2) denying eligible women continued eligibility, 

enrollment, or coverage renewal solely to avoid requirements of the 

legislation; (3) providing monetary payments or rebates to encourage women to accept less than minimum protections under the legislation; (4) penalizing or otherwise reducing or limiting reimbursement of an attending provider if he or she provides care to a beneficiary in accordance with the legislation; and (5) providing incentives to providers to induce care of a beneficiary that is inconsistent 

with the legislation. 

Legislative History 

On February 11, 2009, H.R. 995 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Nadler of New York and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and 

Labor. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on 

February 12, 2009. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 995. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 995 in the 111th Congress. 

HEART DISEASE EDUCATION, ANALYSIS RESEARCH, AND TREATMENT

FOR WOMEN ACT

(H.R. 1032) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other 

cardiovascular diseases in women. 

Summary 

H.R. 1032, Heart Disease Education, Analysis Research, and 

Treatment for Women Act, is designed to improve the prevention, 

diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases in women. The legislation would codify FDA regulations that require the inclusion of women in clinical trials submitted to FDA to support an application for a drug device, or biologics approval. It would require that patient safety data reported 

to and among the network of patient safety databases be stratified 

by gender. In addition, H.R. 1032 would require HHS to carry out 

an education campaign about heart disease and women and reauthorizes the WISEWOMAN program at CDC. The bill would authorize the WISEWOMAN program at: $70 million for fiscal year 

2010; $73.5 million for fiscal year 2011; $77 million for fiscal year 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

149 

2012; $81 million for fiscal year 2013; and $85 million for fiscal 

year 2014. 

Legislative History 

On February 12, 2009, H.R. 1032 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Capps of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on February 13, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1032. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session to consider H.R. 1032. Subsequently, H.R. 

1032 was favorably forwarded to the full Committee, amended, by 

a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 1032 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended by the Subcommittee, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 1032 (H. Rept. 111–639). 

On September 30, 2010, H.R. 1032 passed the House under suspension of the rules, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 1032, as 

amended by the House, and referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1032 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (see H.R. 3962). 

ARTHRITIS PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND CURE ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 1210) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for arthritis 

research and other arthritis-related activities. 

Summary 

H.R. 1210, the Arthritis Prevention, Control, and Cure Act of 

2010, would provide resources to help address the health needs of 

hundreds of thousands of Americans who suffer from arthritis. The 

bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

develop and implement a National Arthritis Action Program, at a 

level of $32 million in fiscal year 2010, rising to $40 million in fiscal year 2014. The Program would support control, prevention, surveillance, research, education, and outreach activities, through 

grants and direct support to public or private nonprofit entities and 

states. The bill would further authorize the Secretary to expand 

and intensify National Institutes of Health programs with respect 

to research and related activities concerning various forms of juvenile arthritis and related conditions. 

In addition, the legislation would direct the Centers for Disease 

Control (CDC) and Prevention to award grants or enter into cooperative agreements for the collection, analysis, and reporting of data 

on juvenile arthritis, and to support the development of a national 

juvenile arthritis population-based database. It would authorize 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

150 

$25 million for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for these 

CDC surveillance activities. 

The bill would also require the Secretary to provide grants to support pediatric rheumatology training at a level of $3.75 million 

for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014, and directs the Secretary to establish and carry out a pediatric rheumatology loan repayment program, as needed. To carry out these activities, the Secretary would be able to reserve funding from amounts already appropriated to the Health Resources and Services Administration for 

the fiscal year involved. 

Legislative History 

On February 26, 2009, H.R. 1210 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Eshoo of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on March 2, 2009. The Subcommittee was discharged from 

consideration of the bill on September 23, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a 

hearing on H.R. 1210. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1210. Subsequently, the Committee order H.R. 1210 favorably reported to the 

House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 1210 (H. Rept. 111–638). 

On September 30, 2010, the House passed H.R. 1210, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 1210 with 

House amendments and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1210 in the 111th Congress. 

ACQUIRED BONE MARROW FAILURE DISEASE RESEARCH AND

TREATMENT ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 1230) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for research 

on acquired bone marrow failure diseases, minority-focused programs on such diseases, and the development of best practices for 

diagnosis of and care for individuals with such diseases. 

Summary 

H.R. 1230, the Acquired Bone Marrow Failure Disease Research 

and Treatment Act of 2010, addresses the need to improve research 

and treatment for individuals diagnosed with bone marrow disease. 

The bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, to develop a system to collect data on acquired bone 

marrow failure diseases and to establish the National Acquired 

Bone Marrow Failure Disease Registry. The legislation would allow 

the Secretary to award grants to, and enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, public or private nonprofit entities for 

the management of the Registry. It would require the Secretary to 

conduct pilot studies to determine which environmental factors 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

151 

may cause acquired bone marrow failure diseases. The bill would 

authorize $3 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to 

carry out these activities. 

In addition, H.R. 1230 would require the Secretary to establish 

outreach and information programs targeted to minority populations affected by acquired bone marrow failure diseases and to 

award grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements with, entities 

to perform research on such diseases. It would authorize $2 million 

for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to carry out these activities. The bill would also require the Secretary, acting through the 

Director of the Agency on Healthcare Research and Quality 

(AHRQ), to award grants to entities to improve diagnostic practices 

and quality of care with respect to patients with acquired bone 

marrow failure diseases. 

Legislative History 

On February 26, 2009, H.R. 1230 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Matsui of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on March 2, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a 

hearing on H.R. 1230. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session to consider H.R. 1230, and favorably forwarded the bill to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session to consider H.R. 1210 as 

amended by the Subcommittee. The Committee subsequently ordered H.R. 1230 favorably reported to the House, as amended, by 

a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 1210 (H. Rept. 111–637). 

On September 30, 2010, the House passed H.R. 1230, as amended, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 1230 with 

House amendments and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1230 in the 111th Congress. 

DEXTROMETHORPHAN DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1259) 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect 

to the distribution of the drug Dextromethorphan, and for other 

purposes. 

Summary 

Dextromethorphan (DXM) is an over-the-counter (OTC) cough 

suppressant commonly found in more than 120 OTC cold medications either alone or in combination with other drugs such as analgesics, antihistamines, decongestants, or expectorants. When taken 

as directed, side effects are rarely observed. However, DXM is 

abused by individuals of all ages causing significant health complications. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

152 

H.R. 1259, the Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2009, 

would prohibit a person from: (1) possessing or receiving unfinished 

DXM unless the person is registered with the Secretary of HHS as 

a producer of a drug or device or otherwise registered, licensed, or 

approved under federal or state law to engage in specified pharmaceutical activities; or (2) distributing unfinished DXM to any person 

registered with HHS or otherwise registered, licensed, or approved 

under federal or state law to engage in specified pharmaceutical activities. 

H.R. 1259 closely resembles H.R. 970, the Dextromethorphan 

Distribution Act of 2007, which passed the House, under suspension of the rules, in the 110th Congress. It is identical to S. 1378, 

also introduced in the 110th Congress. The main difference is that 

H.R. 1259 includes exemptions for persons who are registered, licensed, or approved under federal or state law to engage in specified pharmaceutical activities. 

Legislative History 

On March 3, 2009, H.R. 1259 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Upton of Michigan and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. H.R. 1259 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on March 3, 2009. On March 3, 2009, the Subcommittee 

was discharged by the full Committee from further consideration of 

H.R. 1259. 

On March 4, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 1259 and the Committee 

ordered the bill favorably reported to the House without amendment by a voice vote. 

On March 24, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 1259 (H. Rept. 111–49). 

On March 31, 2009, the House passed H.R. 1259 without amendment, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 407–8. 

On April 1, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 1259 and the bill was 

referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1259 in the 111th Congress. 

MEDICAL DEVICE SAFETY ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1346) 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect 

to liability under state and local requirements respecting medical 

devices. 

Summary 

The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) require the 

Food and Drug Administration to classify all medical devices into 

three risk-based categories subject to corresponding levels of regulation. ‘‘Class I’’ (low risk) devices, including rubber gloves and bedpans, are subject to minimal requirements. ‘‘Class II’’ (moderate 

risk) devices, including tampons and hearing aids, pose more serious risks to patients. FDA may require more stringent control of 

these products, such as specific warning labels. ‘‘Class III’’ (high 

risk) devices are those that either present ‘‘a potential unreasonmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

153 

able risk of illness or injury’’ or are ‘‘purported or represented to 

be for a use in supporting or sustaining human life or for a use 

which is of substantial importance in preventing impairment of 

human health.’’ Except for devices that are substantially equivalent 

to devices already on the market in 1976, the MDA requires that 

all new Class III devices obtain premarket approval before they 

may be marketed. 

The MDA requires manufacturers of all high-risk (Class III) devices to submit a premarket approval (PMA) application. Manufacturers of Class I and Class II devices are not required to obtain 

premarket approval before marketing their devices. The Class III 

PMA process requires that a company submit to FDA clinical data 

proving the safety and effectiveness of the product. Based on this 

information, FDA either grants or denies approval of the device. 

PMA devices are the most complex devices and are generally intended to treat serious and life-threatening conditions. Examples of 

PMA-approved devices include implantable defibrillators, heart 

valves and pumps, and hip and knee implants. 

When patients are injured by devices, they may face permanent 

disability, inability to work, costly medical procedures, or death. 

There is no remedy under federal law by which patients may seek 

compensation for injuries from unsafe devices. In cases in which 

device manufacturers fail to warn of the risks or design defective 

products, patients traditionally have sought compensation for their 

injuries under state ‘‘tort’’ law. The ability to sue under state tort 

law has existed since before the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic 

Act was enacted in 1938. 

On February 20, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first 

time, in Riegel v. Medtronic, that state lawsuits brought by individuals who suffered damages resulting from certain medical devices 

are preempted (barred) by the express preemption clause included 

in the MDA. The Riegel decision shields medical device companies 

from liability for failing to provide up-to-date warnings about PMA 

device risks or for defectively designing PMA devices. Since the 

MDA, courts had held companies responsible for their faulty devices and permitted patients to seek compensation for their injuries. Because of the new interpretation of the law by the Supreme 

Court, however, patients who are injured or killed as a result of 

faulty PMA devices can no longer seek compensation for their injuries. More than 1,400 lawsuits brought by patients injured by devices have been dismissed as a result of the Riegel decision. 

H.R. 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009, would overturn 

the 2008 Supreme Court decision that eliminated the right of 

Americans injured by certain medical devices to bring state product 

liability lawsuits. The legislation would clarify the intent of Congress in the MDA by explicitly stating that actions for damages 

under state law are preserved. Specifically, the bill would amend 

the express preemption provision contained in section 521 of the 

Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to add the following language: 

‘‘(c) No Effect on Liability Under State Law.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action for 

damages or the liability of any person under the law of any State.’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

154 

Legislative History 

On March 5, 2009, H.R. 1346 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Pallone of New Jersey and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on March 6, 2009. 

On May 12, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 

on H.R. 1346. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1346 in the 111th Congress. 

CONCUSSION TREATMENT AND CARE TOOLS ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1347) 

To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the establishment and implementation of concussion management 

guidelines with respect to school-aged children. 

Summary 

H.R. 1347, the Concussion Treatment and Care Tools Act of 

2009, would direct the Secretary of HHS to establish concussion 

management guidelines that focus on the prevention and management of concussions in school-aged children, including standards 

for student athletes to return to play after a concussion. The legislation would authorize the Secretary of HHS to convene a conference of medical, athletic, and educational stakeholders to establish such guidelines. In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary to make grants to states for adopting, disseminating, and 

ensuring the implementation by schools of the guidelines and for 

funding implementation by schools of preseason baseline and postinjury neuropsychological testing for student athletes. To carry out 

theses grants, the bill would authorize $5 million for fiscal year 

2010 and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 

2011 through 2014. 

Legislative History 

On March 5, 2009, H.R. 1347 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Pascrell of New Jersey and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 8, 2010, and September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held legislative hearings to consider H.R. 

1347. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee met in open markup 

session and H.R. 1347 was forwarded favorably to the full Committee, as amended, by voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session, and H.R. 1347 was ordered favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed a House report on H.R. 1347 (H. Rept. 111–632). 

On September 30, 2010, H.R. 1347, as amended, passed the 

House, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 1347 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1347 in the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

155 

NATIONAL NEUROLOGICAL DISEASES SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ACT OF

2010

(H.R. 1362) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of permanent national surveillance systems for multiple 

sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and other neurological diseases and 

disorders. 

Summary 

H.R. 1362, the National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2010, would require the Secretary of HHS to develop 

surveillance systems, in the form of registries, for both Multiple 

Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. It would also require the Secretary to establish an advisory committee on Neurological Disease 

Registries to review and make recommendations on the surveillance activities authorized in the legislation, including the development and maintenance of the systems. To carry out these activities, 

the bill would authorize $5 million for each of fiscal years 2010 

through 2014. 

Legislative History 

On March 5, 2009, H.R. 1362 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Van Hollen of Maryland and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing to consider H.R. 1362. 

On March 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session and H.R. 1362 was forwarded favorably to the full 

Committee, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On March 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and H.R. 1362 was ordered favorably 

reported, as amended, to the House by a voice vote. 

On March 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1362 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 111–636). 

That same day, H.R. 1362 passed the House, under suspension 

of the rules, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On March 29, 2010, H.R. 1362 was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1362 in the 111th Congress. 

JOSH MILLER HELPING EVERYONE ACCESS RESPONSIVE TREATMENT IN

SCHOOLS ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1380) 

To establish a grant program for automated external 

defibrillators in elementary and secondary schools. 

Summary 

H.R. 1380, the Josh Miller Helping Everyone Access Responsive 

Treatment in Schools Act of 2009, would amend the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to direct the Secretary of 

Education to award matching grants to local educational agencies 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

156 

(LEAs) to: (1) purchase automated external defibrillators (AEDs) 

for use in their schools; and/or (2) provide training to meet the 

grant requirement that at least five adult employees or volunteers 

at each school where an AED is to be used successfully complete 

training in its use and in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The 

bill would require LEAs to provide matching funds equal to at least 

25% of the grant, but waives such requirement for LEAs that serve 

a student population at least 20% of which is impoverished. 

The bill would authorize sums as may be necessary for each of 

fiscal years 2010 through 2015 to carry out these activities. 

Legislative History 

On March 6, 2009, H.R. 1380 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Sutton of Ohio and referred to the Committee on Education 

and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 2, 2009, H.R. 1380 passed the House, under suspension 

of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On June 3, 2009, H.R. 1380 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1380 in the 111th Congress. 

TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1511) 

To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs and centers for the 

treatment of victims of torture. 

Summary 

H.R. 1511, the Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 

2009, would amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize $25 million for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for: (1) 

HHS for grants to domestic treatment centers for services for victims of torture; (2) foreign treatment centers for victims of torture; 

and (3) the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. 

Legislative History 

On March 16, 2009, H.R. 1511 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Smith of New Jersey and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 22, 2009, H.R. 1511 passed the House, under suspension 

of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On July 23, 2009, H.R. 1511 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1511 in the 111th Congress. 

BREAST CANCER PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1691) 

To require private health insurance plans to provide coverage for 

a minimum hospital stay for mastectomies, lumpectomies, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

157 

lymph node dissection for the treatment of breast cancer and coverage for secondary consultations. 

Summary 

H.R. 1691, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2009, 

would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code to require a group health plan that provides medical 

and surgical benefits to ensure that inpatient and, in the case of 

a lumpectomy, outpatient coverage and radiation therapy are provided for breast cancer treatment. The bill would prohibit such a 

plan from restricting benefits for any hospital length of stay to less 

than 48 hours in connection with a mastectomy or breast conserving surgery, or 24 hours in connection with a lymph node dissection, insofar as the attending physician, in consultation with the 

patient, determines such stay to be medically necessary. H.R. 1691 

would forbid such a plan from requiring that a provider obtain authorization from the plan or issuer for prescribing any such length 

of stay. 

The legislation would require such a plan or issuer to provide notice to each participant and beneficiary regarding the coverage required under the legislation, and to ensure that coverage for secondary consultations. The bill would prohibit a group health plan 

from taking specified actions to avoid its requirements. 

H.R 1691 would apply the requirements to health insurance 

issuers offering coverage in the individual market. The bill would 

not allow a health insurance issuer that provides individual health 

insurance coverage to non-renew or discontinue an individual’s coverage based on the intentional concealment of material facts regarding a health condition related to the condition for which coverage is being claimed. 

Legislative History 

On March 24, 2009, H.R. 1691 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. DeLauro of Connecticut and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means and the Committee on Education and Labor. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1691. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1691 in the 111th Congress. 

BREAST CANCER EDUCATION AND AWARENESS REQUIRES LEARNING

YOUNG ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1740, S. 994) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase awareness 

of the risks of breast cancer in young women and provide support 

for young women diagnosed with breast cancer. 

Summary 

H.R. 1740, the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires 

Learning Young Act of 2009, would amend the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Director 

of CDC, to conduct a national evidence-based education campaign 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

158 

to increase public awareness regarding the threats posed by breast 

cancer to young women, including the particular risks faced by certain ethnic and cultural groups. The legislation would also direct 

the Secretary to award grants to entities to establish national 

multimedia campaigns on such risks and strategies for addressing 

them. 

In addition, the legislation would direct the Secretary, acting 

through the Director of CDC and in consultation with the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration to conduct an educational campaign to increase awareness among physicians and other health care professionals. The Director would be instructed to conduct prevention research on breast cancer in younger women. 

The bill would direct the Secretary to award grants to organizations and institutions to provide young women diagnosed with 

breast cancer substantive assistance and health information from 

credible sources on education and counseling regarding fertility 

preservation, social emotional, psychosocial, financial, lifestyle, and 

caregiver support, familial risk factors, and risk reduction strategies to reduce recurrence or metastasis. 

Legislative History 

On March 26, 2009, H.R. 1740 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Wasserman Schultz of Florida and referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1740 to discuss breast cancer prevention, research, treatment, and quality of care. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1740 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of S. 994, the Breast Cancer Education and 

Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009 (companion legislation to H.R. 1740) introduced by Sen. Klobuchar of Minnesota, 

were included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

(Public Law 111–148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152). 

FAMILY HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBILITY ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 1745) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide liability protections for volunteer practitioners at health centers under section 

330 of such Act. 

Summary 

Currently all medical professionals employed by health centers 

are covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for medical 

malpractice. In order to receive this coverage, each health center 

must undergo extensive risk management training and have in 

place continuous oversight mechanisms to reduce the risk of malpractice. Individuals seeking to volunteer at a health center must 

either have their own independent coverage or rely on the Volunteer Protection Act (VPA), which can complicate a health center’s 

risk management practices. VPA coverage does not have the same 

malpractice coverage as FTCA. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

159 

H.R. 1745, the Family Health Care Accessibility Act of 2010, 

would amend the Public Health Service Act to deem volunteer 

practitioners at health centers as employees of the Public Health 

Service for purposes of any civil action that may arise due to providing services to patients at such health centers. The bill would 

define ‘‘volunteer practitioner’’ as a licensed physician or licensed 

clinical psychologist who: (1) provides services to patients of a public or nonprofit entity receiving federal funds for serving medically 

underserved areas, at the request of the entity; (2) provides such 

service at a site at which the entity operates or at a site designated 

by the entity; and (3) does not receive any compensation for the 

provision of services. 

Legislative History 

On March 26, 2009, H.R. 1745 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session and H.R. 1745 was forwarded favorably to the full 

Committee, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On June 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session, and H.R. 1745 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, to the House by a voice vote. 

On September 16, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1745 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 111– 

607). 

On September 22, 2010, H.R. 1745 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 417–1. 

On September 24, 2010, H.R. 1745 was received in the Senate 

and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1745 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

DIABETES IN MINORITY POPULATIONS EDUCATION ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 1995) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to prevent and treat diabetes, to promote and improve the care of individuals with diabetes, and to reduce health disparities, relating to diabetes, within 

racial and ethnic minority groups, including the African-American, 

Hispanic American, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander, and American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. 

Summary 

H.R. 1995, the Diabetes in Minority Populations Education Act 

of 2010, would require the Director of the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) to expand and intensify ongoing research and other 

activities with respect to pre-diabetes and diabetes in minority populations and to support programs to treat diabetes in these populations. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

160 

It would also require the Director of NIH, acting through the National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities and the 

National Diabetes Education Program, to carry out health care professional mentorship and participation in diabetes-focused research 

programs and activities and to make grants for a pipeline program 

running from high school to professional school designed to increase minority representation in diabetes-focused health fields. In 

addition, the legislation would direct the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency Coordinating Committee to assess federal activities and 

programs related to diabetes in minority populations. 

H.R. 1995 would require the Secretary of HHS, acting through 

the Director of CDC to conduct and support research and other activities with respect to diabetes in minority populations, conduct 

and support public education efforts, and carry out culturally-appropriate diabetes health promotion programs. In addition, the bill 

would require the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of 

HRSA to conduct and support programs to educate health professionals on diabetes in minority populations. 

The bill would set forth additional requirements for the Secretary 

relating to (1) factors that may influence health promotion, diabetes management and prevention; (2) data collection on diabetes 

treatment, care, prevention, and services to the American Indian 

population; and (3) increased participation of minority populations 

in clinical trials, and specialized care for children with diabetes. 

H.R. 1995 would authorize such sums as may be necessary for 

fiscal year 2010 and each subsequent fiscal year to carry out these 

activities. 

Legislative History 

On April 21, 2009, H.R. 1995 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. DeGette of Colorado and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 1995. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session and H.R. 1995 was forwarded favorably, 

amended, to the full Committee by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 1995 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, H.R. 1995 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On September 29, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 1995 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1995 in the 111th Congress. 

SCLERODERMA RESEARCH AND AWARENESS ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 2408) 

To expand the research and awareness activities of the National 

Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to 

scleroderma. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

161 

Summary 

H.R. 2408, the Scleroderma Research and Awareness Act of 2010, 

would direct the Director of the National Institute of Arthritis and 

Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMSD) to expand, intensify, 

and coordinate activities relating to scleroderma, a chronic systemic autoimmune disease that involves changes in the skin, blood 

vessels, muscles, and internal organs. It would require the Director 

of NIAMSD to research the causes and treatment of scleroderma 

and to establish a scleroderma patient registry at authorization 

levels of $25 million for fiscal year 2010, $30 million for fiscal year 

2011 and $35 million for fiscal year 2012. 

The legislation also would require the Director of CDC to carry 

out an education campaign to increase awareness of scleroderma. 

The bill would authorize $2.5 million for fiscal years 2010 through 

2012 for the education campaign and its corresponding activities. 

Legislative History 

On May 14, 2009, H.R. 2408 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Capps of California and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. H.R. 2408 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on May 15, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2408. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session on H.R. 2408 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 2408 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 2408 (H. Rept. 111–631). 

On September 30, 2010, H.R. 2408, passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 2408 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2408 in the 111th Congress. 

METHAMPHETAMINE EDUCATION, TREATMENT, AND HOPE ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 2818) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of a drug-free workplace information clearinghouse, to 

support residential methamphetamine treatment programs for 

pregnant and parenting women, and to improve the prevention and 

treatment of methamphetamine addiction. 

Summary 

H.R. 2818, the Methamphetamine Education, Treatment, and 

Hope Act of 2010, expands and strengthens the activities of the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA) to address the prevention and treatment of addiction to 

methamphetamine and other drugs. It would refine an existing 

family-centered residential drug treatment program for pregnant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

162 

and postpartum women and authorizes $20 million for fiscal year 

2010, $21 million for fiscal year 2011, $22 million for fiscal year 

2012, $23 million for fiscal year 2013, and $24 million for fiscal 

year 2014. The bill would also require support for a workplacebased drug information clearinghouse, and student involvement in 

prevention programs for methamphetamine and other drugs. 

Legislative History 

On June 11, 2009, H.R. 2818 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. McNerney of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2818 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Health on June 12, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2818. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session on H.R. 2818 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 2818 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 2818 (H. Rept. 111–641). 

On September 30, 2010, H.R. 2818 passed the House, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 2818 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2818 in the 111th Congress. 

VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 2999) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance and increase 

the number of veterinarians trained in veterinary public health. 

Summary 

H.R. 2999, the Veterinary Public Health Amendments Act of 

2010, would authorize a competitive grant program for schools of 

veterinary medicine. Schools can use these grants for faculty recruitment, physical capacity expansion, or the development of curricula to retrain midcareer professionals. H.R. 2999 would authorize $100 million for fiscal year 2010, $100 million for fiscal year 

2011 and $50 million for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2014 for 

these activities. 

The legislation would also establish a loan repayment program 

whereby the federal government repays loans for veterinarians that 

make a four-year teaching commitment at a school of veterinary 

medicine. It would authorize $20 million for each of fiscal years 

2010 through 2014 for this program. In addition, the bill would create two fellowship programs for public health veterinarians to be 

administered by HHS, but that would be available to all federal 

agencies that utilize public health veterinarians. H.R. 2999 would 

authorize $2.5 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

163 

to support these fellowships. The bill would also establish a Division of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health at HRSA. 

Legislative History 

On June 23, 2009, H.R. 2999 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Baldwin of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 2999 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Health on June 24, 2009. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2999. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session on H.R. 2999 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Energy and Commerce met in an 

open markup session, and H.R. 2999 was ordered favorably reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 2999 (H. Rept. 111–634). 

On September 30, 2010, the House passed H.R. 2999, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On November 11, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 2999 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2999 in the 111th Congress. 

EMERGENCY MEDIC TRANSITION ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 3199) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide grants to 

state emergency medical service departments to provide for the expedited training and licensing of veterans with prior medical training. 

Summary 

H.R. 3199, Emergency Medic Transition Act of 2010, would 

amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services to establish a program of awarding 

grants to states to assist veterans who received and completed military emergency medical training while serving in the U.S. Armed 

Forces to become, upon their discharge or release from active duty 

service, state-licensed or certified emergency medical technicians. 

The bill would allow such funds to be used to: (1) provide such veterans required course work and training (that takes into account, 

and is not duplicative of, medical course work and training already 

received) to satisfy emergency medical services personnel certification requirements in the civilian sector; (2) provide reimbursement for costs associated with such course work and training and 

with applying for licensure or certification; (3) expedite the licensing or certification process; and (4) enter into an agreement with 

an educational institution to provide course work and training 

under this Act. H.R. 3199 would require a state, to be eligible for 

a grant under this Act, to demonstrate that it has a shortage of 

emergency medical technicians. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

164 

The legislation would direct the Comptroller General to study the 

barriers experienced by such veterans seeking to become licensed 

or certified in a state as civilian health professionals, and to report 

to Congress on the results of such study, including recommendations on whether the program under the legislation should be expanded to assist veterans seeking to become licensed or certified in 

a state as health providers other than emergency medical technicians. 

Legislative History 

On July 14, 2009, H.R. 3199 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Harmon of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on July 15, 2009. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an open 

markup session on H.R. 3199 and favorably forwarded the bill to 

the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 3199 and ordered the bill favorably 

reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 16, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 3199 (H. Rept. 111–608). 

On September 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3199, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 412–5. 

On September 24, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 3199 with the 

House amendment and the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3199 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

NATIONALLY ENHANCING THE WELLBEING OF BABIES THROUGH

OUTREACH AND RESEARCH NOW ACT

(H.R. 3470) 

To authorize funding for the creation and implementation of infant mortality pilot programs in standard metropolitan statistical 

areas with high rates of infant mortality. 

Summary 

H.R. 3470, the Nationally Enhancing the Wellbeing of Babies 

Through Outreach and Research Now Act, would require the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, to 

award five-year grants to eligible entities to create, implement, and 

oversee infant mortality pilot programs. The bill would define ‘‘eligible entity’’ to mean a state, county, city, territorial or tribal 

health department that has submitted a proposal to the Secretary 

that the Secretary deems likely to reduce infant mortality rates 

within the standard metropolitan statistical area involved. 

The legislation would require the Secretary to give preference to 

eligible entities proposing to serve any of the 15 counties or groups 

of counties with the highest rates of infant mortality in the United 

States in the past three years. It would set forth uses of grant 

funds, which may include: (1) developing a plan that identifies the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

165 

individual needs of each community to be served and strategies to 

address those needs; (2) providing outreach to at-risk mothers; (3) 

developing and implementing standardized systems for improved 

access, utilization, and quality of social, educational, and clinical 

services to promote healthy pregnancies, full-term births, and 

healthy infants; (4) establishing a rural outreach program to provide care to at-risk mothers in rural areas; and (5) establishing a 

regional public education campaign. 

Legislative History 

On July 31, 2009, H.R. 3470 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Cohen of Tennessee and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on September 8, 2009. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session on H.R. 3470 and favorably forwarded the bill to 

the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 3470 and ordered the bill favorably 

reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 16, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 3470 (H. Rept. 111–609). 

On September 22, 2010, the House passed H.R. 3470, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 324–64. 

On September 23, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 3470 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3470 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER ACT

(H.R. 5220) 

To reauthorize the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment 

Act of 2004 and to provide assistance to Best Buddies to support 

the expansion and development of mentoring programs. 

Summary 

H.R. 5220, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Act, would reauthorize 

the Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004, the expansion of Best Buddies, and the establishment of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institutes for Sport and Social Impact. It would direct 

the Secretary of HHS to award grants to Special Olympics for 

health-related activities, including community-based prevention; 

and the Secretary of the Department of Education to award grants 

to Special Olympics for education-related activities outside of the 

United States. The bill would authorize appropriations of $22.5 

million for fiscal years 2011 through 2015, to carry out activities 

to support and expand Special Olympics. 

H.R. 5220 would also authorize the Secretary of Education to 

award grants to promote the expansion of Best Buddies, and appropriations of $10 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2015 to carry 

out activities to expand and support Best Buddies. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

166 

In addition, the legislation would direct the Secretary of Education to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institutes for Sport and Social Impact. The bill would authorize such sums as may be necessary for 

fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for this purpose. 

Legislative History 

On May 5, 2010, H.R. 5220 was introduced in the House by Rep. 

Hoyer of Maryland and referred to the Committee on Education 

and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

On May 19, 2010, H.R. 5220, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules by a voice vote. 

On May 20, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5220 with the House 

amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5220 in the 111th Congress. 

GESTATIONAL DIABETES ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 5354) 

To provide grants to better understand and reduce gestational diabetes. 

Summary 

H.R. 5354, the Gestational Diabetes Act of 2009, targets resources specifically at gestational diabetes, a form of diabetes that 

traditionally receives far less attention and fewer resources than 

other types of that disease. The bill would amend the Public Health 

Service Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, to convene a Research Advisory Committee on gestational diabetes. The bill would require the Director, in consultation 

with such Committee, to develop a multisite, gestational diabetes 

research project within CDC’s diabetes program to expand and enhance surveillance data and public health research on gestational 

diabetes. 

The legislation would also require the Secretary, acting through 

the Director, to award grants to nonprofit organizations or state or 

local health agencies for demonstration projects that build capacity 

with key stakeholders, build new surveillance systems, and implement and evaluate evidence-based interventions to reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes and its recurrence and to prevent type 

2 diabetes after pregnancy. 

In addition, H.R. 5354 would require the Director of CDC to conduct and support public health research regarding gestational diabetes, including the development and testing of novel approaches 

for improving postpartum diabetes testing or screening and for preventing type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes; and research to further understand the epidemiologic, 

socioenvironmental, behavioral, translation, and biomedical factors 

and health systems that influence the risk of gestational diabetes 

and progression to type 2 diabetes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

167 

The Director of CDC would be required to encourage postpartum 

screenings after the diagnosis of gestational diabetes within the 

state-based diabetes prevention and control programs to reduce the 

incidence of gestational diabetes and its recurrence, progression to 

type 2 diabetes, and its related complications. The bill would authorize $5 million for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for 

these activities. 

Legislative History 

On May 20, 2010, H.R. 5354 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Engel of New York and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. H.R. 5354 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on May 21, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5354. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session on H.R. 5354 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 5462 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 5462 (H. Rept. 111–633). 

On September 30, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5354, under suspension of the rules, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5354 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5354 in the 111th Congress. 

BIRTH DEFECTS PREVENTION, RISK REDUCTION, AND AWARENESS ACT

OF 2010

(H.R. 5462) 

To amend title III of the Public Health Service Act to authorize 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish and implement birth defects prevention, risk reduction, and public awareness programs. 

Summary 

H.R. 5462, the Birth Defects Prevention, Risk Reduction, and 

Awareness Act of 2010, would require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to 

establish and implement a birth defects prevention and public 

awareness program, which includes (1) a nationwide media campaign to increase awareness among health care providers and atrisk populations about pregnancy and breastfeeding information 

services; (2) grants for the provision of, or campaigns to increase 

awareness about, pregnancy and breastfeeding information services; and (3) grants for the conduct or support of surveillance of or 

research on maternal exposures and maternal health conditions 

that may influence the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

168 

maternal exposures that may influence health risks to a breastfed 

infant, or of networking to facilitate such surveillance or research. H.R. 5462 would authorize $5 million for fiscal year 2011; $6 mil- lion for fiscal year 2012; $7 million for fiscal year 2013; $8 million 

for fiscal year 2014; and $9 million for fiscal year 2015 to carry out 

these activities. 

Legislative History 

On May 28, 2010, H.R. 5462 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. DeLauro of Connecticut and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on June 8, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5462. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session on H.R. 5462 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 5462 and was ordered favorably 

reported, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 5462 (H. Rept. 111–642). 

On September 30, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5462, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On November 15, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5462 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5462 in the 111th Congress. 

NATIONAL ALL SCHEDULES PRESCRIPTION ELECTRONIC REPORTING

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 5710) 

To amend and reauthorize the controlled substance monitoring 

program under section 399O of the Public Health Service Act. 

Summary 

The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act 

(NASPER), enacted in 2005, created a grant program within HHS 

and administered by SAMHSA for states to establish prescription 

drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). PDMPs track drug prescriptions with the goal of preventing overuse and illegal diversion. 

H.R. 5710, the National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act of 2010, would reauthorize NASPER 

and provide funds to states to establish, improve, and maintain 

PDMPs. It would ensure that appropriate law enforcement, regulatory, and state professional licensing authorities have access to 

prescription history information for the purposes of investigating 

drug diversion and errant prescriber/pharmacist prescribing and 

dispensing practices. Under current law, states adjacent to other 

states with NASPER grants must submit a plan for interoperability among the states’ systems. H.R. 5710 would specify that 

state interoperability plans must include timelines for implementation, and would direct HHS to monitor such efforts. The legislation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

169 

would authorize $15 million for fiscal year 2011 and $10 million for 

fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

Legislative History 

On July 1, 2010, H.R. 5710 was introduced in the House by Rep. 

Whitfield of Kentucky and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. H.R. 5710 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on July 13, 2010. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative 

hearing on H.R. 5710. That same day, the Subcommittee on Health 

met in open markup session on H.R. 5710 and favorably forwarded 

the bill to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 5710 and ordered the bill favorably 

reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 22, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 5710 (H. Rept. 111–616). 

On September 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5710, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 384–32. 

On September 24, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5710 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5710 in the 111th Congress. 

TRAINING AND RESEARCH FOR AUTISM IMPROVEMENTS NATIONWIDE

ACT OF 2010 (‘‘TRAIN ACT OF 2010’’)

(H.R. 5756) 

To amend subtitle D of title I of the Developmental Disabilities 

Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to provide grants and 

technical assistance to University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service to improve 

services rendered to children and adults on the autism spectrum, 

and their families. 

Summary 

H.R. 5756, Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act of 2010, would amend title I of the Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to require the 

Secretary of HHS to award grants to provide individuals (including 

parents and health, allied health, vocational, and educational professionals) with interdisciplinary training, continuing education, 

technical assistance, and information to improve services rendered 

to children and adults with autism and their families. Funding is 

authorized at $17 million for each of fiscal years 2012 through 

2016. 

The bill would also require the Secretary of HHS to award grants 

to institutions of higher education to establish up to four new University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities Education, Research, and Service (UCEDD). Priority would be given to 

applicants that demonstrate collaboration with minority institutions. Funding would be authorized at $2 million for each of fiscal 

years 2012 through 2016. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

170 

Legislative History 

On July 15, 2010, H.R. 5756 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Doyle of Pennsylvania and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on July 19, 2010. 

On July 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an open 

markup session on H.R. 5756, and favorably forwarded the bill to 

the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On July 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session on H.R. 5756 and ordered the bill favorably 

reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 22, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 5756 (H. Rept. 111–617). 

On September 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5756, under suspension of the rules, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 393–24. 

On September 24, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5756 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5756 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

NEGLECTED INFECTIONS OF IMPOVERISHED AMERICANS ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 5986) 

To require the submission of a report to Congress on parasitic 

diseases among poor Americans. 

Summary 

H.R. 5986, the Neglected Infections of Impoverished Americans 

Act of 2010, would require the Secretary of HHS to report to Congress on the epidemiology and impact of neglected infectious diseases of poverty in the United States. Such diseases include 

Chaga’s disease, cysticercosis, toxocariasis, toxoplasmosis, trichomoniasis, the soil-transmitted helminths, and other related diseases. H.R. 5986 would require the report to provide the information necessary to guide future health policy to accurately evaluate 

the current state of knowledge concerning such diseases and define 

gaps in such knowledge, and to address the threat of such diseases. 

The bill would require the Secretary to appropriate funding required to address these neglected diseases of poverty. 

Legislative History 

On July 30, 2010, H.R. 5986 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Johnson of Georgia and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on August 9, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5986. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session on H.R. 5986 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

171 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 5986 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the House passed H.R. 5986, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On September 29, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 5986 and referred the bill to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5986 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO RE- VIEW UTILIZATION OF DIABETES SCREENING BENEFITS AND MAKE

RECOMMENDATIONS ON OUTREACH PROGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO

SUCH BENEFITS

(H.R. 6012) 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to review 

utilization of diabetes screening benefits, and make recommendations on outreach programs with respect to such benefits. 

Summary 

H.R. 6012 would require the Secretary of HHS to review the utilization of diabetes screening benefits and identify existing efforts 

by HHS agencies, and private and non-profit sectors, to increase 

awareness of diabetes screening benefits. An annual report to Congress on these activities would be required. 

Legislative History 

On July 30, 2010, H.R. 6012 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Space of Ohio and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on 

August 9, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 6012. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session on H.R. 6012 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 6012 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the House passed H.R. 6012, as amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On September 29, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 6012 with the 

House amendment and referred the bill to the Senate Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 6012 in the 111th Congress. 

STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF

2010

Public Law 111–264 (H.R. 6081, S. 3751) 

To amend the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

172 

Summary 

H.R. 6081, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010, would reauthorize the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program which includes the National Registry for adult 

donors of bone marrow, peripheral blood adult stem cells, and umbilical cord blood units, the Office of Patient Advocacy, and the 

stem cell therapeutic outcomes database. The legislation would authorize $30 million for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and 

$33 million for fiscal year 2015 to support these activities. It would 

also reauthorize the National Cord Blood Inventory (NCBI), a program that provides grants to public cord blood banks to assist them 

in collecting donated cord blood units that are then listed on the 

National Registry. The bill would authorize $23 million for each of 

fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $20 million for fiscal year 2015 

for the NCBI. 

Legislative History 

On August 9, 2010, H.R. 6081 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Young of Florida and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health on August 10, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing on H.R. 6081. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in 

open markup session on H.R. 6081 and favorably forwarded the bill 

to the full Committee, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session on H.R. 6081 and ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

On September 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed the House report on H.R. 6081 (H. Rept. 111–643). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 6081 in the 111th Congress, 

as the House took up the Senate-passed companion bill, S. 3751. 

On August 5, 2010, S. 3751, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 (companion legislation to H.R. 

6081) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Hatch of Utah and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session, and S. 

3751 was ordered favorably reported, amended, to the Senate. 

On September 28, 2010, the Senate passed S. 3751 with an 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

On September 30, 2010, the House passed S. 3751, as amended 

by the Senate, under suspension of the rules by a voice vote, clearing the measure for the White House. 

On October 8, 2010, S. 3751 was signed into law by the President 

and became Public Law 111–264. 

HEALTH DATA COLLECTION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 6109) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to require the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services to ensure the voluntary collection 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

173 

of data on the sexual orientation and gender identity of individuals 

participating in appropriate federal health programs and surveys. 

Summary 

H.R. 6109, the Health Data Collection Improvement Act of 2010, 

would amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the voluntary collection of data on sexual orientation and gender identity, 

as appropriate and practicable, in programs and surveys supported 

by the Department of Health and Human Services. It would require the HHS Secretary to develop standards for the development 

of questions and the appropriate and confidential collection of such 

information. It would also direct that this information be analyzed 

to assess disparities in health status and access to health care. 

Legislative History 

On September 14, 2010, H.R. 6109 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Baldwin of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, and on the same day to the Subcommittee 

on Health. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee held a legislative 

hearing on H.R. 6109. 

On September 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in an 

open markup session to consider H.R. 6109. The Subcommittee favorably forwarded H.R. 6109 to the full Committee, amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 12–10. 

There was no further action taken on H.R. 6109 in the 111th 

Congress, although provisions of the legislation were included in 

the House-passed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

TELEHEALTH IMPROVEMENT AND EXPANSION ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 6110) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize telehealth 

and telemedicine grant programs. 

Summary 

H.R. 6110, the Telehealth Improvement and Expansion Act of 

2010, would amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 

three telehealth programs administered by HRSA, including the 

telehealth network program, the telehealth resource center program, and incentive grants to coordinate telemedicine activities 

among the states. The bill would revise the requirements for funding priorities within both the telehealth network and telehealth resource center programs. It would authorize each of the three programs at $10 million for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016. 

Legislative History 

On September 14, 2010, H.R. 6110 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Butterfield of North Carolina and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Health on September 15, 2010. 

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing to consider H.R. 6110. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

174 

No further action was taken on H.R. 6110 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Housepassed health reform bill (H.R. 3962). 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

AWARENESS WEEK

(H. Con. Res. 14) 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 14 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 

Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. 

Legislative History 

On January 8, 2009, H. Con. Res. 14 was introduced in the 

House by Rep. Lee of California and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On March 5, 2009, H. Con. Res. 14 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 416–0. 

On March 6, 2009, the Senate received H. Con. Res. 14 and referred the resolution to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 14 in the 111th 

Congress. 

On March 2, 2009, S. Con. Res. 9, a Concurrent Resolution Supporting the Goals and Ideals of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week 

(companion legislation to H. Con. Res. 14) was introduced in the 

Senate by Sen. Casey of Pennsylvania. That same day S. Con. Res. 

9 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

On March 3, 2009, S. Con. Res. 9 was referred to the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

No further action was taken on S. Con. Res. 9 in the 111th Congress. 

SUPPORTING THE OBSERVANCE OF COLORECTAL CANCER AWARENESS

MONTH

(H. Con. Res. 60) 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 60 expresses support for the observance of 

Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2009, H. Con. Res. 60 was introduced in the 

House by Rep. Granger of Texas and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On March 30, 2009, the House passed H. Con. Res. 60, under 

suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On March 31, 2009, the Senate received H. Con. Res. 60 and the 

resolution was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 60 in the 111th 

Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

175 

HONORING THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SUSAN G. KOMEN RACE

FOR THE CURE IN THE NATION’S CAPITAL AND ITS TRANSITION TO

THE SUSAN G. KOMEN GLOBAL RACE FOR THE CURE ON JUNE 6, 2009

(H. Con. Res. 109) 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 109 honors the 20th anniversary of the Susan G. 

Komen Global Race for the Cure, an event to raise funds for research and education on breast cancer. 

Legislative History 

On April 27, 2009, H. Con. Res. 109 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Connolly of Virginia and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 3, 2009, H. Con. Res. 109 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 417–0. 

On June 8, 2009, the Senate passed H. Con. Res. 109 by unanimous consent. 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL WOMEN’S HEALTH

WEEK

(H. Con. Res. 120) 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 120 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 

National Women’s Health Week. 

Legislative History 

On May 6, 2009, H. Con. Res. 120 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Hinchey of New York and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On May 19, 2009, H. Con. Res. 120 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On May 20, 2009, H. Con. Res. 120 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. 120 in the 111th 

Congress. 

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT

CONGRESS SHOULD PROVIDE INCREASED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR

CONTINUED TYPE 1 DIABETES RESEARCH

(H. Res. 35) 

Summary 

H. Res. 35 calls for an increase in federal funding for research 

on type 1 diabetes at the National Institutes of Health. 

Legislative History 

On January, 8, 2009, H. Res. 35 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Gene Green of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

176 

On December 10, 2009, H. Res. 35 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A NATIONAL PRADER- WILLI SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH

(H. Res. 55) 

Summary 

H. Res. 55 expresses support for the designation of a National 

Prader-Willi Syndrome Awareness Month and for increased funding into the causes, treatment, and cure for Prader-Willi syndrome. 

Legislative History 

On January 13, 2009, H. Res. 55 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Royce of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 10, 2009, H. Res. 55 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO CONTINUE RESEARCH INTO THE CAUSES, TREATMENT, EDUCATION, AND AN EVENTUAL CURE FOR DIABETES

(H. Res. 69) 

Summary 

H. Res. 69 commends hospitals, community clinics, educational 

institutes, and other organizations that are working to increase diabetes awareness, and conducting research for methods to help patients and families in the Latino community suffering from diabetes. H. Res. 69 also recognizes the work of the Latino Diabetes Association, and expresses the support for the designation of Latino 

Diabetes Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On January 15, 2009, H. Res. 69 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Baca of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 22, 2009, H. Res. 69 passed the House, under suspension 

of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 420–0. 

RECOGNIZING NATIONAL NURSES WEEK ON MAY 6 THROUGH MAY 12, 

2009

(H. Res. 192) 

Summary 

H. Res. 192 expresses support for the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2009, H. Res. 192 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 12, 2009, H. Res. 192 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

177 

CONGRATULATING THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION FOR ITS 150TH

YEAR OF WORKING TO IMPROVE THE PUBLIC’S ORAL HEALTH AND

PROMOTING DENTISTRY, SUPPORTING INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO ORAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR ALL AMERICANS, AND

EMPHASIZING THE BENEFITS OF PREVENTION OF DISEASE THROUGH

SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY PREVENTION INITIATIVES AND PROMOTION

OF GOOD ORAL HYGIENE

(H. Res. 204) 

Summary 

H. Res. 204 congratulates the American Dental Association for 

its 150th anniversary and commends the work of oral heath practitioners. 

Legislative History 

On May 3, 2009, H. Res. 204 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Simpson of Idaho and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On May 15, 2009, H. Res. 204 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 424–0. 

SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO REDUCE INFANT MORTALITY IN THE UNITED

STATES

(H. Res. 260) 

Summary 

H. Res. 260 expresses support for efforts to understand racial 

disparities and the rate of infant mortality in the United States in 

order to lower such rates. 

Legislative History 

On March 18, 2009, H. Res. 260 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Cohen of Tennessee and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On September 16, 2009, H. Res. 260 passed the House, under 

suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 415–0. 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF MARCH AS NATIONAL

NUTRITION MONTH

(H. Res. 274) 

Summary 

H. Res. 274 expresses support for the designation of, and the 

goals and ideals of, National Nutrition Month. 

Legislative History 

On March 23, 2009, H. Res. 274 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Castor of Florida and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On February 23, 2010, H. Res. 274 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

178 

RECOGNIZING THE 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE (NEI) AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF 2010

THROUGH 2020 AS THE DECADE OF VISION

(H. Res. 366) 

Summary 

H. Res. 366 recognizes the 40th anniversary of the National Eye 

Institute and expresses support for the designation of the Decade 

of Vision to maintain a sustained awareness of the public health 

challenges associated with vision impairment and eye disease. 

Legislative History 

On April 27, 2009, H. Res. 366 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Baldwin of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 16, 2009, H. Res. 366 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 411–0. 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF MAY AS NATIONAL

ASTHMA AND ALLERGY AWARENESS MONTH

(H. Res. 407) 

Summary 

H. Res. 407 expresses support for the designation of National 

Asthma and Allergy Awareness Month, and encourages awareness 

about the prevalence of asthma and allergies and the disparities in 

asthma cases based on race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. 

Legislative History 

On May 6, 2009, H. Res. 407 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Castor of Florida and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On May 28, 2009, H. Res. 407, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF MENTAL HEALTH MONTH

(H. Res. 437) 

Summary 

H. Res. 437 expresses support for the goals and ideals of Mental 

Health Month. 

Legislative History 

On May 14, 2009, H. Res. 437 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Napolitano of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 3, 2009, H. Res. 437, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

179 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF JUNE AS HOME SAFETY

MONTH

(H. Res. 543) 

Summary 

H. Res. 543 supports the designation of Home Safety Month to 

encourage adults, parents, and caregivers to take greater actions to 

reduce unintentional injuries and educate themselves on the importance of home safety. 

Legislative History 

On June 12, 2009, H. Res. 543 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Halvorson of Illinois and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On July 16, 2009, H. Res. 543 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 416–9. 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF FRAGILE X AWARENESS DAY

(H. Res. 611) 

Summary 

H. Res. 611 expresses support for the goals and ideals of Fragile 

X Awareness Day. 

Legislative History 

On July 7, 2009, H. Res. 611 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Hare of Illinois and referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On July 21, 2010, H. Res. 611, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF TAY-SACHS AWARENESS

MONTH

(H. Res. 692) 

Summary 

H. Res. 692 expresses support for the goals and ideals of TaySachs Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On July 29, 2009, H. Res. 692 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Arcuri of New York and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On September 30, 2009, H. Res. 692 passed the House, under 

suspension of the rules, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 415–0. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

180 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF OCTOBER 13, 2009, AS

NATIONAL METASTATIC BREAST CANCER AWARENESS DAY

(H. Res. 787) 

Summary 

H. Res. 787 expresses support for the designation of National 

Metastatic Breast Cancer Awareness Day. 

Legislative History 

On September 30, 2009, H. Res. 787 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. DeLauro of Connecticut and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On October 28, 2009, H. Res. 787 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

SUPPORTING THE OBSERVANCE OF NATIONAL DIABETES MONTH

(H. Res. 914) 

Summary 

H. Res. 914 expresses support for the goals and ideals of National Diabetes Month. 

Legislative History 

On November 18, 2009, H. Res. 914 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. DeGette of Colorado and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On November 19, 2009, H. Res. 914 passed the House by unanimous consent. 

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING GUIDELINES FOR BREAST CANCER SCREENING FOR WOMEN

AGES 40 TO 49

(H. Res. 971) 

Summary 

H. Res. 971 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives 

that: (1) the guidelines of the United States Preventive Services 

Task Force will not prohibit an insurer from providing coverage for 

mammography services in addition to those recommended by the 

Task Force and should not be used by insurers to deny coverage 

for services that are not recommended on a routine basis; and (2) 

the National Cancer Institute should continue to invest and provide leadership regarding research to develop more effective breast 

cancer screening tools and strategies. 

Legislative History 

On December 15, 2009, H. Res. 971 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Wasserman Schultz of Florida and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 15, 2009, H. Res. 971 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 426–0. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

181 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER AS

NATIONAL CHILDHOOD OBESITY AWARENESS MONTH

(H. Res. 996) 

Summary 

Expresses support for the designation of National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On December 19, 2009, H. Res. 996 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Fudge of Ohio and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On May 20, 2010, H. Res. 996, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF JANUARY 10, 2010, 

THROUGH JANUARY 16, 2010, AS NATIONAL INFLUENZA VACCINATION

WEEK

(H. Res. 1003) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1003 expresses support for the designation of National 

Influenza Vaccination Week. 

Legislative History 

On January 12, 2010, H. Res. 1003 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Chu of California and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On January 26, 2010, H. Res. 1003, as amended, passed the 

House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 398–2. 

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF CERVICAL HEALTH AND OF DETECTING CERVICAL CANCER DURING ITS EARLIEST STAGES AND SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF CERVICAL HEALTH AWARENESS

MONTH

(H. Res. 1011) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1011 expresses support for the goals and ideals of Cervical Health Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On January 13, 2010, H. Res. 1011 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Halvorson of Illinois and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 26, 2010, H. Res. 1011 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 400–0. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

182 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF APRIL 2010 AS NATIONAL

AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH AND SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO DEVOTE

RESOURCES TO RESEARCH INTO THE CAUSES AND TREATMENT OF

AUTISM AND TO IMPROVE TRAINING AND SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUALS

WITH AUTISM AND THOSE WHO CARE FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH AUTISM

(H. Res. 1033) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1033 expresses support for the designation of a National 

Autism Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On January 21, 2010, H. Res. 1033 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Reichert of Washington and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor. 

On April 27, 2010, H. Res. 1033, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

AWARENESS WEEK

(H. Res. 1116) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1116 expresses support for the goals and ideals of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2010, H. Res. 1116 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Lee of California, and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On April 21, 2010, H. Res. 116 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

COMMENDING THE PROGRESS MADE BY ANTI-TUBERCULOSIS

PROGRAMS

(H. Res. 1155) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1155 supports the goals of World TB Day to raise awareness about tuberculosis, and reaffirms the commitment of the 

House of Representatives to global tuberculosis control through the 

Lantos-Hyde U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and 

Malaria Act of 2008. 

Legislative History 

On March 10, 2010, H. Res. 1155 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Engel of New York and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

183 

On May 12, 2010, H. Res. 1155, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

COMMENDING EYECARE AMERICA FOR ITS WORK OVER THE LAST 25

YEARS

(H. Res. 1226) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1226 commends EyeCare America for its work over the 

last 25 years. 

Legislative History 

On March 25, 2010, H. Res. 1226 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Gene Green of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 28, 2010, H. Res. 1226, as amended, passed the 

House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF MAY 2010 AS MENTAL

HEALTH MONTH

(H. Res. 1258) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1258 expresses support for the designation of Mental 

Health Month. 

Legislative History 

On April 15, 2010, H. Res. 1258 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Napolitano of California and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 25, 2010, H. Res. 1258, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 414–1. 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER 2010 AS

BLOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

(H. Res. 1433) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1433 expresses support for the designation of Blood Cancer Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On June 10, 2010, H. Res. 1433 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Jones of North Carolina and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 22, 2010, H. Res. 1433, as amended, passed the 

House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

184 

EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DESIGNATION OF SEPTEMBER 2010 AS

NATIONAL PROSTATE CANCER AWARENESS MONTH

(H. Res. 1485) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1485 expresses support for the designation of National 

Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

On June 29, 2010, H. Res. 1485 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Neugebauer of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 28, 2010, H. Res. 1485 passed the House, under 

suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

HONORING THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF DR. ROBERT M. CAMPBELL, JR., TO

PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH LIFESAVING MEDICAL CARE

(H. Res. 1499) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1499 honors Dr. Robert Campbell for his lifelong devotion 

to children’s health care and congratulates Dr. Campbell and his 

colleagues on their extraordinary achievement in pediatric and orthopedic innovation. 

Legislative History 

On July 1, 2010, H. Res. 1499 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Wasserman Schultz of Florida and referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 18, 2010, H. Res. 1499, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

ENACTMENT OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

(H. Res. 1504) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1504 recognizes the 20th anniversary of the enactment 

of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 

Legislative History 

On July 1, 2010, H. Res. 1504 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Hoyer of Maryland and referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On July 26, 2010, H. Res. 1504, as amended, passed the House, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 377–0. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

185 

SUPPORTING THE CRITICAL ROLE OF THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PROFESSION AND SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL

PHYSICAL ASSISTANT WEEK

(H. Res. 1600) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1600 expresses support for the goals and ideals of National Physician Assistant Week. 

Legislative History 

On July 30, 2010, H. Res. 1600 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. McCollum of Minnesota and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 15, 2010, H. Res. 1600, as amended, passed the 

House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

SUPPORTING THE OBSERVANCE OF AMERICAN DIABETES MONTH

(H. Res. 1690) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1690 expresses support for the goals and ideals of American Diabetes Month. 

Legislative History 

On September 29, 2010, H. Res. 1690 was introduced in the 

House by Rep. DeGette of Colorado and referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

On November 30, 2010, H. Res. 1690 passed the House, as 

amended, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT, AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, TO TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES COPIES OF DOCUMENTS, RECORDS, AND COMMUNICATIONS IN THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO CERTAIN AGREEMENTS REGARDING HEALTH CARE REFORM

(H. Res. 983) 

Summary 

H. Res. 983 is a resolution of inquiry requesting the President to 

transmit: (1) a list of all agreements entered into between any individuals associated with the White House and any health care reform stakeholders, as well as the substance of the agreements; (2) 

the names of individuals associated with the White House who participated in the decision-making process during negotiations over 

such agreements and the names, dates, and titles of meetings in 

which they participated relating to such agreements; and (3) the 

names of individuals or entities who requested and were denied a 

White House meeting on health care reform. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

186 

Legislative History 

On December 16, 2009, H. Res. 983 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Burgess of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On January 28, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and H. Res. 983 was ordered reported 

without recommendation by a voice vote 

On January 29, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H. Res. 983 (H. Rept. 111–408). 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 983 in the 111th Congress. 

HEALTH FINANCE

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF

2009

Public Law 111–3 (H.R. 2) 

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

The Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 

2009 reauthorizes the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 

through fiscal year 2013. CHIP provides health insurance coverage 

to uninsured children in low-income families. The law provides sufficient funds to enable states to maintain their current CHIP programs and to extend coverage to an additional 4 million uninsured 

low-income children. 

The law provides performance bonus payments to states to cover 

enrollment costs resulting from specified enrollment and retention 

efforts. It establishes a child enrollment contingency fund to cover 

state CHIP expenditures beyond the amount allotted in statute for 

the reauthorization period of 2009–2013. It provides additional 

funding for outreach and enrollment activities. It will also improve 

access to dental benefits and mental health benefits in CHIP plans. 

The law authorizes states to waive the restriction on providing 

Medicaid and CHIP coverage to certain legal immigrants before 

five years of residency and provides an alternative process for 

states to use in verifying citizenship when determining Medicaid 

eligibility. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the law as enacted 

will increase federal spending on health care for low-income children by $73.8 billion over the periods of 2009–2019. It is fully paid 

for, largely through an increase in the excise tax on tobacco products, and will reduce the federal budget deficit by $1.0 billion over 

this 10-year period. 

Legislative History 

On January 13, 2009, H.R. 2 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Pallone of New Jersey and referred to the Committee on Enmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

187 

ergy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 

and Means and the Committee on Education and Labor. 

On January 14, 2009, H.R. 2 passed the House by a rollcall vote 

of 289–139. 

On January 29, 2009, H.R. 2 passed the Senate, as amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 66–32. 

On February 4, 2009, H.R. 2 passed the House, as amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 290–135. That same day, H.R. 2 was signed by the 

President and became Public Law 111–3. 

THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

Public Law 111–5 (H.R. 1, H.R. 629) 

A legislative package to stimulate the economy through creation 

of jobs and promotion of investment. 

Summary 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

contains a broad range of appropriations, tax, unemployment, 

health, state fiscal relief, and other provisions designed to preserve 

and create jobs, promote economic recovery, assist those most affected by the recession, and provide investments in infrastructure 

and technological advances in science and health. According to the 

Congressional Budget Office, the law will increase federal spending 

for these purposes by $787 billion over the period of 2009–2019. 

Three main provisions of the bill fall within the health jurisdiction 

of the Committee: premium assistance for COBRA continuation 

benefits (Title III of Division B), health information technology 

(Title IV of Division B), and temporary fiscal relief to state Medicaid programs (Title V of Division B). 

Under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

(COBRA), individuals who are involuntarily separated from their 

employment may elect to continue health coverage through the employer for up to 18 months by paying a monthly premium. Under 

ARRA, the federal government assumes 65% of the cost of these 

COBRA health insurance premiums for up to 9 months for individuals (other than those with high incomes) involuntarily separated 

during the period beginning September 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2009. Eligible individuals make smaller payments of 

COBRA health insurance premiums to employers, and employers 

receive an equivalent credit to allow them to reduce their remittances of income and payroll tax withholding. The Congressional 

Budget Office estimates the cost of this provision as $25.1 billion 

over the period of 2009–2010, mostly in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

The law would establish payment incentives in the Medicare and 

Medicaid programs to encourage providers to adopt health information technology (HIT). Although adoption would be encouraged 

through financial incentives through Medicare and Medicaid, all 

health care spending, public and private, would be affected. The 

Congressional Budget Office expects that adoption of HIT on a nationwide basis would reduce total spending on health care by diminishing the number of inappropriate tests and procedures, reducing paperwork and administrative overhead, and decreasing the 

number of adverse events resulting from medical errors. According 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

188 

to the Congressional Budget Office the cost of the HIT provision, 

net of the savings to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits programs and increased tax revenues, will be 

$20.8 billion over the 2009–2010 period. 

To assist states in maintaining their Medicaid programs in the 

face of increasing enrollment and declining revenues due to the recession, the law would increase the federal Medicaid matching rate 

(the federal medical assistance percentage or FMAP) for the period 

October 1, 2008, to December 31, 2010, in three ways. It would ensure that states do not experience a reduction in their FMAP under 

the regular formula. It would increase the FMAP rates for all 

states and the District of Columbia by 6.2 percentage points. And 

it would provide an additional increase in FMAP to states that experience at least a 1.5 percentage point increase in their unemployment rate based on a tiered formula that provides larger FMAP increases to states with larger increases in their unemployment 

rates. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this provision would increase federal Medicaid outlays by $90.0 billion over 

the period of 2009–2019, mostly in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

Legislative History 

On January 22, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider five committee prints of 

draft legislation on portions of the economic recovery package within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Following the approval of the 

committee prints relating to legislation on broadband, energy, and 

health, a unanimous consent request by Chairman Waxman was 

agreed to that all text after section 1 of H.R. 629, the Energy and 

Commerce Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, be struck and 

replace with the text of the five committee prints approved by the 

Committee, as amended. H.R. 629, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House. 

On January 26, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 625 (H. Rept. 111–7, Part 1). The 

legislative provision contained in this and other Committee reports 

became part of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, which was introduced on January 26, 2009. 

On January 28, 2009, H.R. 1 was considered by the House and 

passed by a rollcall vote of 244–188. 

On February 10, 2009, the Senate passed H.R. 1 with an amendment by a rollcall vote of 61–37. The Senate insisted upon their 

amendment, asked for a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees: Inouye, Baucus, Reid, Cochran, and Grassley. 

The House agreed to a motion to disagree with the Senate 

amendment and agreed to a conference on February 10, 2009, by 

a rollcall vote of 403–0. The Speaker appointed the conferees from 

the House: Obey, Rangel, Waxman, Lewis of California, and Camp. 

On February 12, 2009, the conference report on H.R. 1 (House 

Rept. 111–16) was filed in the House. 

On February 13, 2009, the House agreed to the conference report 

by a rollcall vote of 246–183. On the same day, the Senate agreed 

to the conference report by a rollcall vote of 60–38, clearing the 

measure for the White House. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

189 

On February 17, 2009, H.R. 1 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–5. 

TO AMEND TITLE XVIII OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT TO DELAY THE

DATE ON WHICH THE ACCREDITATION REQUIREMENT UNDER THE

MEDICARE PROGRAM APPLIES TO SUPPLIERS OF DURABLE MEDICAL

EQUIPMENT THAT ARE PHARMACIES

Public Law 111–72 (H.R. 3663) 

Summary 

The law amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act 

to postpone until January 1, 2010, the effective date of the requirement that pharmacies, as suppliers of Medicare items and services 

(including durable medical equipment), must be accredited by an 

independent accreditation organization approved by the Secretary 

of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It declares that nothing in this law shall be construed to affect the application of an accreditation requirement for pharmacies to qualify 

for bidding in a competitive acquisition area. 

Legislative Activities 

On September 29, 2009, H.R. 3663 was introduced by Rep. Space 

of Ohio and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

On September 30, 2009, H.R. 3663 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On October 5, 2009, H.R. 3663 passed the Senate by unanimous 

consent. 

On October 13, 2009, H.R. 3663 was signed by the President and 

became Public Law 111–72. 

MEDICARE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE

Public Law 111–117 (H.R. 3288); Public Law 111–144 (H.R. 4691); 

Public Law 111–157 (H.R. 4851); Public Law 111–192 (H.R. 

3962); Public Law 111–286 (H.R. 5712); Public Law 111–309 

(H.R. 4994) 

Legislation affecting the sustainable growth rate mechanism governing the Medicare physician fee schedule established under section 1848 of the Social Security Act. 

Summary 

Medicare payments for services of physicians and certain nonphysician practitioners are made on the basis of a fee schedule. The 

law specifies an expenditure target, commonly referred to as the 

sustainable growth rate (SGR) system, for calculating the annual 

update to the fee schedule payment rates. When cumulative physician expenditures exceed the expenditure target, the SGR system 

reduces rates paid under the fee schedule to attempt to bring cumulative expenditures in line with the target. 

Reductions resulting from application of the SGR have been frequently overridden by legislation. Since the enactment of the Tax 

Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (P.L. 109–432), the magnitude 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

190 

of reductions required by the SGR formula have increased dramatically. As of November, 2009, a 21% reduction in payment rates was 

scheduled for January 1, 2010. The physician payment system in 

Medicare has also been criticized for including items that are not 

reimbursed under the physician fee schedule, and for incentivizing 

the delivery of fragmented care instead of coordinated care. 

H.R. 3961, as introduced, addressed these shortcomings. It reset 

the SGR formula to eliminate reductions arising from spending 

over targets in the past. It set more realistic growth targets for 

physician spending, with a higher spending target for primary care 

services than allowed for all other services. The bill also removed 

services not included in the physician fee schedule from the formula, and incentivized the formation of accountable care organizations by allowing those groups to be paid according to their own 

spending target. 

The physician payment reforms contained in H.R. 3961 were not 

enacted into law. Instead, a series of short-term postponements of 

the payment reductions that would have occurred under the SGR 

formula have been enacted. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 

117) postponed the reductions in the physician fee schedule 

through February 2010. 

The Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–144) 

postponed the reductions in the physician fee schedule through 

March 2010. 

The Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–157) 

postponed the reductions in the physician fee schedule through 

May 2010. 

The Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries 

and Pension Relief Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–192) postponed the 

reductions in the physician fee schedule through November 2010. 

The Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act of 2010 (Public 

Law 111–286) postponed the reductions in the physician fee schedule through December 2010. 

The Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 (Public Law 

111–309) postponed the reductions through the calendar year 2011. 

Legislative History 

PUBLIC LAW 111–117—THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF

2010

On July 22, 2009, H.R. 3288 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Olver of Massachusetts, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

On July 23, 2009, H.R. 3288 passed the House, as amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 256–168. 

On July 27, 2009, H.R. 3288 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

On September 17, 2009, H.R. 3288 passed the Senate, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 73–25. 

On December 8, 2009, the House issued a conference report on 

H.R. 3288 (Rept. 111–366). 

On December 10, 2009, the House agreed to the conference report by a rollcall vote of 221–202. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

191 

On December 13, 2009, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a rollcall vote of 57–35. 

On December 16, 2009, H.R. 3288 was signed by the President 

and became Public Law 111–117. 

PUBLIC LAW 111–144—THE TEMPORARY EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

On February 25, 2010, H.R. 4691 was introduced in the House 

by Rep. Rangel of New York and referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, the Committee on Education and Labor, the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Financial 

Services, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on the 

Judiciary, and the Committee on the Budget. That same day, H.R. 

4691 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a voice 

vote. 

On March 2, 2010, H.R. 4691 passed the Senate by a rollcall vote 

of 78–19. That same day, H.R. 4691 was signed by the President 

and became Public Law 111–144. 

PUBLIC LAW 111–157—THE CONTINUING EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

On March 16, 2010, H.R. 4851 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Levin of Michigan and referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Education and Labor, the Committee on 

Financial Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

On March 17, 2010, H.R. 4851 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On April 15, 2010, H.R. 4851 passed the Senate, as amended, by 

a rollcall vote of 59–38, and passed the House, as amended, by a 

rollcall vote of 289–112. That same day, H.R. 4851 was signed by 

the President and became Public Law 111–157. 

PUBLIC LAW 111–192—THE PRESERVATION OF ACCESS TO CARE FOR

MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES AND PENSION RELIEF ACT OF 2010

On October 29, 2009, H.R. 3962 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Dingell of Michigan and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and 

Labor, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on the Budget, 

the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Natural Resources, and 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On November 7, 2009, H.R. 3962 passed the House, as amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 220–215. 

On June 18, 2010, H.R. 3962 passed the Senate, as amended, by 

unanimous consent. 

On June 24, 2010, H.R. 3962 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 417–1. 

On June 25, 2010, H.R. 3962 was signed by the President and 

became Public Law 111–192. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

192 

PUBLIC LAW 111–286—THE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT AND THERAPY RELIEF

ACT OF 2010

On July 13, 2010, H.R. 5712 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Levin of Michigan, and referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 

and the Committee on Ways and Means. 

On July 14, 2010, H.R. 5712 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a voice vote. 

On November 18, 2010, H.R. 5712 passed the Senate, as amended, by unanimous consent. 

On November 29, 2010, H.R. 5712 passed the House, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On November 30, 2010, H.R. 5712 was signed by the President 

and became Public Law 111–286. 

PUBLIC LAW 111–309—THE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID EXTENDERS ACT

OF 2010

On April 13, 2010, H.R. 4994 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Lewis of Georgia and referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget. 

On April 14, 2010, H.R. 4994 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 399–9. 

On April 15, 2010, H.R. 4994 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

On December 8, 2010, H.R. 4994 passed the Senate, as amended, 

by unanimous consent. 

On December 9, 2010, H.R. 4994 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 409–2. 

On December 15, 2010, H.R. 4994 was signed into law by the 

President and became Public Law 111–309. 

PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Public Law 111–148 (H.R. 3590, H.R. 3200, H.R. 3962) 

To amend the Social Security Act, the Public Health Service Act, 

the Internal Revenue Code, and the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act to reform the nation’s health care system. 

Summary 

The nation’s historic health reform legislation, now referred to as 

the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is the consolidation of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), P.L. 111–148, as 

amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 

2010 (HCERA), P.L. 111–152. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, there are about 50 

million Americans without health insurance coverage, a number 

projected to grow to 54 million by 2019 in the absence of health reform. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the number of 

Americans without health insurance coverage by 32 million by 

2019, increasing the percentage of insured non-elderly Americans 

from 83% to 94%. The ACA accomplishes this by establishing a 

mandate for most residents of the United States to obtain health 

insurance; setting up insurance exchanges through which certain 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

193 

individuals and families can receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage; and significantly 

expanding eligibility for Medicaid. 

The cost of the ACA’s coverage expansion over the period of 2010–2019 ($788 billion) is offset by savings resulting from changes 

to Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs ($511 billion) and increases in revenues ($420 billion). As a result, CBO and 

the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that the ACA will reduce federal budget deficits by $143 billion over the period of 2010– 

2019. CBO projects that over the decade following 2019, the ACA 

will reduce federal budget deficits by around one-half percent of 

GDP. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as enacted, contains numerous provisions relating to insurance coverage. 

Starting in 2014, the law establishes a requirement for legal U.S. 

residents to obtain insurance and, in many cases, imposes a tax 

penalty on individuals who do not do so. To ensure that individuals 

have an opportunity to obtain insurance, regardless of health status, the law also establishes new insurance exchanges and subsidizes the purchase of health insurance through those exchanges 

for individuals and families with income between 133% and 400% 

of the federal poverty level (FPL). The options available in the insurance exchanges include private health insurance plans and 

could include two national or multi-state plans operated under contract with the Office of Personnel Management. Participating insurers will have to accept all applicants, may not limit coverage for 

preexisting medical conditions, and may not vary premiums to reflect differences in enrollees’ health. 

Also starting in 2014, most nonelderly people with income below 

133% of the FPL will be eligible for Medicaid. The federal government will pay all of the costs of covering newly eligible enrollees 

through 2016; in subsequent years, the federal share of spending 

would average about 90% by 2019. To prevent erosion of coverage, 

states are required to maintain their current eligibility levels for 

all Medicaid beneficiaries until the exchanges are fully operational. 

The law extends funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) through fiscal year 2015. 

PPACA also makes numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in Medicare and Medicaid. These include: (1) permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates 

for most services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physician’s services); (2) the setting of payment rates in the Medicare 

Advantage program on the basis of the average of the bids submitted by MA plans in each market; and (3) reducing Medicare and 

Medicaid payments to disproportionate share (DSH) hospitals that 

serve a large number of low-income patients. The law also establishes an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) which is required, under certain circumstances, to recommend changes to the 

Medicare program to limit the rate of growth in the program’s 

spending. These recommendations will go into effect automatically 

unless blocked by subsequent legislative action. 

PPACA contains 18 separate provisions designed to ensure the 

integrity of the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs. CBO estimates that these provisions will result in $6.1 billion in savings to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

194 

the federal government over the next 10 years. Many of these provisions reflect recommendations of the HHS Office of Inspector 

General for reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. 

Legislative History 

On July 14, 2009, H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health 

Choices Act, was introduced in the House by Rep. Dingell of Michigan and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee 

on Education and Labor, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on the Budget. 

In the first session of the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on 

Health held five days of oversight hearings focused on making 

health care work for American families. Hearings were held on 

Tuesday, March 10, 2009; Tuesday, March 17, 2009; Tuesday, 

March 24, 2009; Tuesday, March 31, 2009; and Thursday, April 2, 

2009. 

A Discussion Draft of comprehensive health reform legislation 

was circulated by the Committee to the Members of the Committee 

and the public on June 19, 2009. The same Discussion Draft was 

also issued by the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Education and Labor. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee 

on Health held three days of legislative hearings on the Discussion 

Draft. Hearings by the Subcommittee on Health were held on June 

23, 24, and 25, 2009. The full Committee held a hearing on 

Wednesday, June 24, 2009, to receive testimony from the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services, the Hon. Kathleen Sebelius. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup 

session on July 17, 2009, July 20, 2009, July 21, 2009, and July 

31, 2009. 

On July 31, 2009, the Committee ordered H.R. 3200 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote of 31–28. The 

Committee subsequently met in open markup session on September 23, 2009, to consider and adopt additional amendments 

under a motion to instruct the Chairman of the Committee to provide additional amendments for the consideration of the Committee 

on Rules. 

Consideration and markup of H.R. 3200 was also held by other 

committees of jurisdiction. The Committee on Ways and Means met 

in open markup session on July 16, 2009 and July 17, 2009, and 

H.R. 3200 was ordered favorably reported, amended, by a rollcall 

vote of 23–18. The Committee on Education and Labor met in open 

markup session on July 15, 16, and 17, 2009, and ordered H.R. 

3200 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a rollcall vote 

of 26–22. 

On October 14, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

filed the House report on H.R. 3200 (H. Rept. 111–299, Part 1). Reports were also filed by the Committee on Ways and Means (H. 

Rept. 111–299, Part 2), and the Committee on Education and Labor 

(H. Rept. 111–299, Part 3). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3200 in the 111th Congress. 

The bill was superseded first by H.R. 3962, and then later by H.R. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

195 

3590. Certain provisions of this bill were incorporated into H.R. 

3590, which eventually was signed into law as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

On October 29, 2009, H.R. 3962, the Preservation of Access to 

Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, 

was introduced by Rep. Dingell of Michigan and referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, the Committee on Ways and 

Means, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the 

Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Rules, the Committee 

on Natural Resources, and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On November 7, 2009, the House called up H.R. 3962 for consideration under a rule and the bill was passed, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 220–215. 

On November 11, 2009, the Senate received H.R. 3962 with the 

House amendment and placed the bill on the Senate Legislative 

Calendar. H.R. 3262 was eventually superseded by H.R. 3590. (In 

the second session of the 111th Congress, H.R. 3962 was amended 

by the Senate as the Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare 

Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010, which became Public 

Law 111–192. Details on that legislation may be found in this report.) 

On December 24, 2009, the Senate considered H.R. 3590 with an 

amendment that inserted text to become a companion bill to H.R. 

3962, and also to amend the title as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. H.R. 3590 was passed by the Senate as amended 

by a rollcall vote of 60–39. 

On March 21, 2010, the House took up H.R. 3590 with the Senate amendment. There was a motion to agree to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3590, which passed by a rollcall vote of 219–212, 

clearing the measure for the White House. 

On March 23, 2010, H.R. 3590 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–148. 

HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–152 (H.R. 4872) 

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to Title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13). 

Summary 

The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

(HCERA), P.L. 111–152, contains health-related financing and revenue changes that amend provisions of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (PPACA) P.L. 111–148. The health reform legislation, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is the consolidation of PPACA as amended by HCERA. HCERA also contains provisions relating to higher education in the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee. 

The health- and revenue-related provisions of HCERA make a 

number of changes to PPACA. These changes include: (1) an increase in the subsidies for premiums and cost sharing that will be 

offered through the new insurance exchanges; (2) an increase in 

the penalties for employers that do not offer health insurance and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

196 

modifying the penalties for individuals who do not obtain insurance; (3) a change in eligibility for Medicaid in a way that effectively increases the income threshold from 133% to 138% of the 

federal poverty level (FPL); (4) an increase in the federal share of 

spending for certain newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries in certain 

states; (5) a phase-out of the ‘‘doughnut hole’’ in the Medicare Part 

D prescription drug benefit; (6) a reduction in overall payments to 

Medicare Advantage plans; and (7) a modification in the design and 

delay in the implementation of the excise tax on insurance plans 

with relatively high premiums. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office, HCERA increased by $25 billion the amount by which PPACA reduced the federal 

budget deficit over the period of 2010–2019. In combination, 

PPACA and HCERA produce a net reduction in the federal budget 

deficit of $143 billion over the period of 2010–2019 and about onehalf percent of GDP over the next decade. 

Legislative History 

On March 17, 2010, H.R. 4872 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Spratt of South Carolina and referred to the Committee on 

the Budget. That same day, the Committee on the Budget reported 

H.R. 4872 to the House (H. Rept. 111–443). 

On March 21, 2010, H.R. 4872 passed the House by a rollcall 

vote of 220–211. 

On March 25, 2010, H.R. 4872 passed the Senate, as amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 56–43. 

On March 25, 2010, H.R. 4872 passed the House, as amended, 

by a rollcall vote of 220–207. 

On March 30, 2010, H.R. 4872 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–152. 

MEDICARE AND MEDICAID EXTENDERS ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–309 (H.R. 4994) 

To extend certain expiring provisions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

Summary 

The Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 extends certain expiring Medicare and Medicaid provisions through December 

31, 2011, including: (1) current Medicare payment rates for physicians; (2) the Medicare Modernization Act section 508 reclassifications; (3) the exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps; (4) direct payments for the technical component of certain physician pathology services; (5) the increased Medicare rates for ambulance 

services, especially in rural areas; (6) the five percent increase for 

certain Medicare mental health services; (7) the outpatient hold 

harmless provision; (8) the ability for hospitals in certain rural 

areas to continue to receive reasonable cost reimbursements for 

certain clinical diagnostic laboratory tests; (9) the qualifying individual (QI) program; (10) the Transitional Medical Assistance 

(TMA) Program; and (11) the Special Diabetes Program (SDP). 

According to CBO, the law will reduce the deficit by $2.8 billion 

over the next 10 years. It is paid for by modifying the policy, under 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

197 

the Affordable Care Act, regarding overpayments of tax credits provided in the Exchanges to help individuals afford insurance, beginning in 2014. The law also makes various clarifying changes and 

technical corrections. 

Legislative History 

On April 13, 2010, H.R. 4994 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Lewis of Georgia and referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means and the Committee on the Budget. 

On April 14, 2010, H.R. 4994 passed the House, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 399–9. 

On April 15, 2010, H.R. 4994 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

On December 8, 2010, H.R. 4994 passed the Senate, as amended, 

by unanimous consent. 

On December 9, 2010, H.R. 4994 passed the House, as amended 

by the Senate, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 

409–2. 

On December 15, 2010, H.R. 4994 was signed into law by the 

President and became Public Law 111–309. 

JAMES ZADROGA 9/11 HEALTH AND COMPENSATION ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–llll (H.R. 847) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend and improve 

protections and services to individuals directly impacted by the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001. 

Summary 

The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, 

establishes the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program and extends and expand eligibility for compensation under the September 

11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) of 2001. In the House of 

Representatives, the WTC Health Program is in the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce; the VCF is in the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The WTC Health Program provides healthcare benefits for an estimated 65,000 eligible emergency personnel who responded to the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and for workers who participated in recovery and cleanup following the attacks. The Program 

also provides healthcare benefits for an estimated 25,000 eligible 

residents and others present in the area of New York City near the 

World Trade Center. The federal government pays 90% of the costs 

of the Program; New York City pays 10%. Federal funding for the 

Program is mandatory and subject to annual caps. The federal 

funding for the Program will sunset in 2015. 

Funding for the WTC Health Program would be capped at a total 

of $1.5 billion through 2015. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total cost of the bill, including both the Health Program and the VCF, would be $4.2 billion over the period of 2011– 

2020. Because of offsetting excise tax and immigration fee increases, the bill would reduce the federal budget deficit by $433 

million. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

198 

Legislative History 

On February 4, 2009, H.R. 847 was introduced in the House by 

Rep. Maloney of New York and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On March 31, 2009, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law and the 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties 

of the Committee on the Judiciary held legislative hearings on H.R. 

847. 

On April 22, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative 

hearing on H.R. 847. 

On July 29, 2009, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 

markup session to consider H.R. 847 and subsequently ordered the 

bill favorably reported to the House, as amended, by a rollcall vote 

of 22–9. 

On March 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session to consider H.R. 847 and subsequently favorably 

forwarded H.R. 847 to the full Committee, amended, by a rollcall 

vote of 25–8. 

On May 25, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session to consider H.R. 847. The Committee subsequently ordered H.R. 847 favorably reported to the House, 

amended, by a rollcall vote of 33–12. 

On July 22, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 

the House report on H.R. 847 (H. Rept. 111–560, Part 1). That 

same day, the Committee on the Judiciary filed a House report on 

H.R. 847 (H. Rept. 111–560, Part 2). 

On July 29, 2010, the House voted on H.R. 847, as amended, 

under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 225–159, but it 

failed to pass the House due to receiving less than two-thirds of 

those voting in favor of the legislation. 

On September 29, 2010, the House passed H.R. 847 under a rule, 

as amended, by a rollcall vote of 368–160. 

On December 22, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 847 with an 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

On December 22, 2010, the House agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 847 by a rollcall vote of 206–60, clearing the measure 

for the White House. 

On December 23, 2010, H.R. 847 was presented to the President. 

On January 2, 2011, H.R. 847 was signed into law by the President and became Public Law 111–llll. 

(Public Law number was not available at the time this report 

was filed.) 

OMNIBUS TRADE ACT OF 2010

Public Law 111–llll (H.R. 6517) 

To extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for 

other purposes. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

199 

Summary 

Provisions under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce include changes to the Public Health Service Act 

(PHSA) to extend until July 1, 2012, the trade adjustment assistance (TAA) pre-certification period rule disregarding any 63-day 

lapse in creditable health care coverage for TAA workers. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 6517 was introduced in the House by Rep. Levin of Michigan on December 13, 2010, and referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Education and 

Labor, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On December 14, 2010, the House agreed to a motion to suspend 

the rules and pass H.R. 6517, as amended, by a voice vote. 

On December 16, 2010, the Senate received H.R. 6517 as amended by the House. 

On December 22, 2010, the Senate passed H.R. 6517 with an 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

On December 22, 2010, the House agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6517 by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for 

the White House. 

On December 29, 2010, H.R. 6517 was signed into law by the 

President and became Public Law 111–llll. (Public Law number was not assigned when this report was filed.) 

HEALTH INSURANCE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS CLARIFICATION

ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 1253) 

To require that limitations and restrictions on coverage under 

group health plans be timely disclosed to group health plan sponsors and timely communicated to participants and beneficiaries 

under such plans in a form that is easily understandable. 

Summary 

H.R. 1253, the Health Insurance Restrictions and Limitations 

Clarification Act of 2009, would amend the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, and 

the Internal Revenue Code to require that, with regard to limitations on benefits for individuals enrolled in the plan: (1) the limitations are explicit and clear; (2) the limitations have been disclosed 

to the plan sponsor in writing in advance of sale; and (3) the plan 

sponsor provides a description of the limitations and restrictions to 

participants and beneficiaries in an easily understandable form before enrollment, and upon enrollment. 

In the 110th Congress, H.R. 6908, the Health Insurance Restrictions and Limitation Clarification Act, introduced by Rep. Burgess 

of Texas, passed the House. H.R. 1253 is the same version as H.R. 

6908 as passed by the House. 

Legislative Summary 

On March 3, 2009, H.R. 1253 was introduced by Rep. Burgess of 

Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

200 

and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means and the 

Committee on Education and Labor. 

On March 3, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and H.R. 1253 was ordered favorably reported to the House by a voice vote. 

On March 30, 2009, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1253 to the House (H. Rept. 111–62, Part I). 

On March 31, 2009, H.R. 1253 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, with a rollcall vote of 422–3. 

On April 1, 2009, H.R. 1253 was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1253 in the 111th Congress. 

HEALTH CARE PRICE TRANSPARENCY PROMOTION ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 2249) 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide for increased price transparency of hospital information and to provide 

for additional research on consumer information on charges and 

out-of-pocket costs. 

Summary 

H.R. 2249, the Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act of 

2009, would amend Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act 

to require state Medicaid plans to provide that the state will establish and maintain laws to require disclosure of information on hospital charges, to make such information available to the public, and 

to provide individuals with information about estimated out-ofpocket costs for health care services. 

The legislation would require the Director of the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality to research and report to Congress on: (1) information on health care costs and out-of-pocket 

charges that individuals find useful in making decisions about 

where, when, and from whom to receive such care; (2) how such information varies depending on whether or not patients have health 

benefits coverage, or what kind of coverage they have; and (3) how 

such information may be made available, on a timely basis and in 

easy-to-understand form, to individuals facing health care decisions. 

Legislative History 

On May 5, 2009, H.R. 2249 was introduced by Rep. Burgess of 

Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 6, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative 

hearing to consider H.R. 2249. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2249 in the 111th Congress. 

ELIMINATING DISPARITIES IN BREAST CANCER TREATMENT ACT OF 2009

(H.R. 2279) 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate contributing factors to disparities in breast cancer treatment through 

the development of a uniform set of consensus-based breast cancer 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

201 

treatment performance measures for a 6-year quality reporting system and value-based purchasing system under the Medicare Program. 

Summary 

H.R. 2279, the Eliminating Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment Act of 2009, would amend Title XVII (Medicare) of the Social 

Security Act to direct the Secretary of HHS to establish a breast 

cancer treatment quality performance system. This system would 

function to assess and disclose publicly, through the use of quality 

measures, the quality of care provided for the treatment of breast 

cancer by specified health care providers. In addition, beginning 

October 1, 2013, it would serve as the basis of the payment system 

to these providers for such treatment based on their performance 

with respect to such measures. The legislation would require reduced payments to providers that either do not submit data in accordance with the reporting process in the system, or furnish low 

quality care for women with breast cancer. 

Legislative History 

On May 6, 2009, H.R. 2279 was introduced by Rep. Castor of 

Florida and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 

addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 7, 2009, H.R. 2279 was referred to the Subcommittee on 

Health. 

On October 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing to discuss H.R. 2279. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2279 in the 111th Congress. 

INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2009

(H.R. 2708) 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and 

extend that Act, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2708, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009, would revise and extend the Indian Health Care 

Improvement Act (P.L. 94–437) through fiscal year 2025. The bill 

would authorize programs relating to Indian health workforce, the 

delivery of health services, facilities construction and modernization, access to health services, urban Indians, behavioral health 

programs, and the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation. The bill would also make changes in the Medicare, Medicaid, 

and the Child Health Insurance (CHIP) programs to improve coverage of, and payment for, health services to Native Americans who 

are eligible for such programs. 

Legislative History 

On June 4, 2009, H.R. 2708 was introduced by Rep. Pallone of 

New Jersey and referred to the Committee on National Resources, 

and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 

the Committee on Ways and Means. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

202 

On June 25, 2009, the Committee on Natural Resources of the 

Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing to consider H.R. 

2708. 

On October 20, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative hearing to consider H.R. 2708. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2708 in the 111th Congress, 

although provisions of the legislation were included in the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148). 

MEDICARE PREMIUM FAIRNESS ACT

(H.R. 3631) 

To amend title XVIII to provide for the application of a consistent Medicare part B premium for all Medicare beneficiaries in 

a budget neutral manner for 2010. 

Summary 

H.R. 3631, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act, would amend 

title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA) with respect 

to the part B (Supplementary Medical Insurance Benefits for Aged 

and Disabled) premium for 2010. This legislation would make such 

a premium, and the related monthly actuarial rate, the same as 

those for 2009. 

H.R. 3631 would require transfer from the Treasury general fund 

to the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund of an 

amount estimated to be equivalent to the aggregate reduction in 

part B premiums resulting from application of this Act. The legislation would revise the formula for funding the Medicare Improvement Fund (MIF) to reduce (offset) the amount available to the 

MIF for fiscal year 2014 by the transferred amount plus $567 million. H.R. 3631 would also make $567 million the amount available 

to the MIF for fiscal year 2015. 

Legislative History 

On September 23, 2009, H.R. 3631 was introduced by Rep. Titus 

of Nevada and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

On September 24, 2009, H.R. 3631 was referred to the Subcommittee on Health. 

On September 24, 2009, H.R. 3631 passed the House, under suspension of the rules, by a rollcall vote of 406–18. 

On September 25, 2009, H.R. 3631 was received in the Senate, 

read twice, and referred to the Committee on Finance. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3631 in the 111th Congress. 

TRANSPARENCY IN ALL HEALTH CARE PRICING ACT OF 2010

(H.R. 4700) 

To provide for transparency in health care pricing, and for other 

purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 4700, the Transparency in All Health Care Pricing Act of 

2010, would require all individuals and business entities, including 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

203 

hospitals, physicians, nurses, pharmacies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, dentists, and the insurance entities that offer or furnish 

health care-related items, products, services, or procedures (as defined by the Secretary of HHS), to publicly disclose, on a continuous basis, all prices for such items, products, services, or procedures. The bill would authorize the Secretary of HHS to impose 

penalties on individuals or entities that fail to comply with the disclosure requirements. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2010, H.R. 4700 was introduced by Rep. Kagen 

of Wisconsin and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, and 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

On May 6, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative 

hearing to consider H.R. 4700. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4700 in the 111th Congress. 

PATIENTS’ RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

(H.R. 4803) 

To ensure health care consumer and provider access to certain 

health benefits plan information and to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide transparency in hospital price and 

quality information. 

Summary 

H.R. 4803, the Patients’ Right to Know Act, would require each 

entity offering a health benefits plan to make available to enrollees 

and potential enrollees specified information about the plan, including covered items and services, a list of limitations and restrictions, details about the claims appeal process and out-of-pocket 

cost-sharing, among other things. 

H.R. 4803 would amend Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act to require state Medicaid plans to provide that the state 

will establish and maintain laws to require disclosure, to the public 

and to the Secretary of HHS of information on the prices for and 

quality of certain services at hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers. 

Legislative History 

On March 10, 2010, H.R. 4803 was introduced by Rep. Barton of 

Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, and the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

On March 11, 2010, H.R. 4803 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Health. 

On May 6, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a legislative 

hearing on H.R. 4803. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4803 in the 111th Congress. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

204 

DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO

TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COPIES OF EACH

PORTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, RECORD, OR COMMUNICATION IN HER

POSSESSION CONSISTING OF OR RELATING TO DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY OR FOR THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES REGARDING THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE

ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

(H. Res. 1561) 

Summary 

H. Res. 1561 would direct the Secretary of HHS to transmit to 

the House of Representatives copies of each portion of any document, record, or communication in the Secretary’s possession consisting of, referring to, or relating to any of the following: (1) documents prepared by or for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services Office of the Actuary regarding the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010; (2) communications between any officer or employee of such Office and any person not an officer or employee of 

such Office regarding data sources, assumptions, or methodologies 

use for purposes of any such document; (3) communications to or 

from any officer or employee of the Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) relating to any such document; and (4) communications to 

or from any HHS officer or employee relating to the April 22, 2010, 

report of the Chief Actuary Richard S. Foster entitled ‘‘Estimated 

Financial Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 

as Amended,’’ the report’s impact on passage of either of these 

Acts, or the timing of the release of such report. 

Legislative History 

On July 27, 2010, H. Res. 1561 was introduced by Rep. Burgess 

of Texas and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 28, 2010, H. Res. 1561 was referred to the Subcommittee 

on Health. 

On September 23, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and H. Res. 1561 was ordered 

reported without a recommendation by a rollcall vote of 26–17. 

On September 29, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H. Res. 1561 to the House (H. Rept. 111–649). That 

same day H. Res. 1561 was placed on the House Calendar. 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 1561 in the 111th Congress. 

PUBLIC HEALTH

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

HOW DO WE FIX THE AILING FOOD SYSTEM?

On March 11, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to explore the ability of FDA to oversee the safety of 

the nation’s food supply. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from representatives of the Center for Science in the Public Intermstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

205 

est, the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, the United Fresh Produce Association, Fresh Express, and an academic expert. 

SWINE FLU OUTBREAK AND THE U.S. FEDERAL RESPONSE

On April 30, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to examine the outbreak of swine flu and the next 

steps for a federal response by HHS. The committee received testimony from the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response 

and from representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. 

EMERGING HEALTH CARE ISSUES: FOLLOW-ON BIOLOGIC DRUG

COMPETITION

On June 11, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on a report of the Federal Trade Commission titled 

‘‘Emerging Health Care Issues: Follow-On Biologic Drug Competition.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from the Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. 

MEDICAL DEVICES: ARE CURRENT REGULATIONS DOING ENOUGH FOR

PATIENTS?

On June 18, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing to examine the regulation of medical devices by FDA. The 

Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the Government Accountability Office, the Medical Device Safety Institute, 

the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and an independent 

consultant. 

H1N1 PREPAREDNESS: AN UPDATE OF VACCINE PRODUCTION AND

DISTRIBUTION

On November 18, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held a joint 

oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, to examine the response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives 

of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and 

Drug Administration, the National Center for Immunization and 

Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Texas Department of State Health Services, Trust for 

America’s Health, CSL Biotherapies, Novartis Vaccines USA, 

MedImmune, and Sanofi Pasteur. 

BREAST CANCER SCREENING RECOMMENDATIONS

On December 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to examine the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s 

updated recommendations on mammography use that were issued 

in November 2009. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 

Chair and Vice Chair of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 

and representatives of the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. 

Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance, the American College of 

Physicians’ Clinical Assessment Efficacy Subcommittee, and the 

National Breast Cancer Coalition. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

206 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE INFLATION: ARE PRICES RISING TOO FAST

On December 8, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to examine the rapid price increases for brand-name 

prescription drugs. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of 

America (PhRMA), Families USA, AARP, and two academic experts. 

INNOVATIONS IN ADDRESSING CHILDHOOD OBESITY

On December 16, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an 

oversight hearing to examine innovative strategies to reduce obesity among children and adolescents. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from representatives of the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of 

Child Health and Human Development at the National Institutes 

of Health, the Jaws Youth Fund, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The Reinvestment Fund, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 

MEDICAL RADIATION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUES

On February 26, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to explore the benefits and risks of the use of radiation in medicine. The Subcommittee received testimony from individuals with experience with radiation therapy, academic experts, 

and representatives of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, the American Society of Radiologic Technologists, the American College of 

Radiology, the VA New Jersey Health Care System, the Medical 

Imaging Technology Alliance, and Medicalis, Inc. 

DRUG SAFETY: AN UPDATE FROM THE FOOD AND DRUG

ADMINISTRATION

On March 10, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on drug safety issues and FDA response to such 

issues. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Principal 

Deputy Commissioner of the FDA. 

THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE’S CANCER RESEARCH: TODAY’S

PROGRESS, TOMORROW’S CHALLENGES

On March 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to examine cancer research efforts of the National 

Cancer Institute (NCI). The Subcommittee received testimony from 

representatives of NCI, the Cancer Institute of New Jersey, the 

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Friends of Cancer Research, 

and a family member of a cancer patient. 

SMOKELESS TOBACCO: IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF OUR NATION’S

YOUTH AND USE IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL

On April 14, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on smokeless tobacco. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from the Executive Vice President of Labor Relations 

and Human Resources for Major League Baseball, the Chief Labor 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

207 

Counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association, users 

of smokeless tobacco, an academic expert, and representatives of 

the Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. 

THE ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH: THE ROLE OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

On April 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on the environment and human health and the work 

of HHS in studying, tracking, and addressing the effects of environmental factors on human health and illness. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the National Institute of 

Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program, and the National Center for Environmental Health and the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE AND THE THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH

On April 28, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of CDC and the 

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. 

PREMATURITY AND INFANT MORTALITY: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN BABIES

ARE BORN TOO EARLY?

On May 12, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on premature births and infant mortality. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the Maternal 

and Infant Health Branch of the Division of Reproductive Health 

at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health 

Promotion at CDC, the Pregnancy and Perinatology Branch of the 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at 

NIH, the March of Dimes Foundation, the USF College of Public 

Health, and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 

EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENTS IN SYNTHETIC GENOMICS

On May 27, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held a joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

on the effects of developments in synthetic genomics. The Subcommittees received testimony from representatives of the National 

Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, the J. Craig Venter Institute, the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, The Hastings Center, and an academic expert. 

PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTIBIOTICS AND ENSURING

JUDICIOUS USE IN HUMANS

On June 9, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the availability and appropriate use of antibiotics. The 

Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Aumstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

208 

thority at HHS, the Infectious Diseases Society of America Antimicrobial Availability Task Force, the American Medical Association Council on Science and Public Health, the American Academy 

of Pediatrics, Cubist Pharmaceuticals, and Trust for America’s 

Health. 

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE

DIRECTOR’S PERSPECTIVE

On June 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on programs and activities at NIH. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Director of the National Institutes of 

Health. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES’ ACTIONS TO

IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF THE BP OIL SPILL

On June 16, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health, FDA, the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Preparedness and Response, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at NIH. 

THE BATTLE AGAINST DIABETES: PROGRESS MADE, CHALLENGES

UNMET

On July 1, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on diabetes. The Subcommittee received testimony from 

representatives of the Division of Diabetes Translation at CDC, 

and the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the 

American Diabetes Association, and the National Indian Health 

Board. 

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE AND THE USE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN ANIMAL

AGRICULTURE

On July 14, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and the 

impact of this use on human health. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from representatives of FDA; the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service at the United States Department of Agriculture; the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious 

Disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Division of Chemical Food Safety, Animal Welfare and Veterinary 

Medicinal Products at the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration; the Human Health and Industrial Farming Campaign of the 

Pew Charitable Trusts, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Health Institute, and three academic experts. 

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: THE ONGOING CHALLENGES

On December 9, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on Alzheimer’s disease. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from representatives of the National Institute of Aging 

at the National Institutes of Health, the Alzheimer’s Association, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

209 

the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America, and the Coalition Against 

Major Disease at the Critical Path Institute. 

HEALTH FINANCE

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

MAKING HEALTH CARE WORK FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES: DESIGNING A

HIGH PERFORMANCE HEALTH SYSTEM

On March 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to explore how the United States should build a highperformance health care system. This was the first of a series of 

hearings in the 111th Congress on health reform. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Secretary of the Louisiana 

Department of Health and Hospitals, and representatives of the 

Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Medicare Payment 

Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the Institute of Medicine, the 

Medical Association of Georgia, and an academic expert. 

MAKING HEALTH CARE WORK FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES: ENSURING

AFFORDABLE COVERAGE

On March 17, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to explore why health insurance premiums continue 

to outpace wage growth. This was the second of a series of hearings 

on health reform. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 

Superintendent of Insurance for the State of Maine Bureau of Insurance, and representatives of the Center for American Progress 

Action Fund, Pacific Research Institute, the Commonwealth Health 

Insurance Connector Authority, the Heritage Foundation, and 

three academic experts. 

MAKING HEALTH CARE WORK FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES: IMPROVING

ACCESS TO CARE

On March 24, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to explore how to improve individual access to health 

care. This was the third of a series of hearings on health reform 

in the 111th Congress. The Subcommittee received testimony from 

representatives of the Joint Center for Political and Economic 

Studies, the McFarland Clinic PC, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 

and an academic expert. 

MAKING HEALTH CARE WORK FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES: THE ROLE OF

PUBLIC HEALTH

On March 31, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on the role of public health in health reform. This 

was the fourth of a series of hearings in the 111th Congress on 

health reform. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 

Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior 

Services, the former U.S. Surgeon General and Director of the 

Satcher Health Leadership Institute at the Morehouse School of 

Medicine, and representatives of the Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the L.A. County Department of Public Health, the Mount 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

210 

Auburn Cambridge Independent Physician’s Association, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Trust for America’s Health. 

MAKING HEALTH CARE WORK FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES: SAVING

MONEY, SAVING LIVES

On April 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing to explore the ways to make health care more affordable 

for American families. This was the 5th in a series of hearings in 

the 111th Congress on health reform. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from representatives of the American Board of Internal 

Medicine and ABIM Foundation, the National Center for Policy 

Analysis, Pen Bay Physicians and Associates, the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Studying Health System Change, the Center 

for Health Transformation, the Institute for America’s Future, and 

three academic experts. 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

On February 4, 2010, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held an oversight hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The 

Committee received testimony from the Secretary of HHS. 

THE MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION’S JUNE 2010 REPORT

TO CONGRESS: ALIGNING INCENTIVES IN MEDICARE

On June 23, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission’s 

(MedPAC) June 2010 report to Congress. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Chairman of MedPAC. 

MEDICARE’S COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROGRAM FOR DURABLE MEDICAL

EQUIPMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR QUALITY, COST, AND ACCESS

On September 15, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an 

oversight hearing on Medicare’s competitive bidding program for 

durable medical equipment. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from the Inspector General of HHS, representatives of the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Government Accountability 

Office, Allcare Medical, Center for Medicare Advocacy, the Henry 

Ford Health System, and a health policy consultant. 

CUTTING WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE IN MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

On September 22, 2010, the Subcommittee on Health held an 

oversight hearing to explore how HHS is using available statutory 

tools to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid 

programs. The Subcommittee received testimony from two members of Congress, the Inspector General of HHS, and the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services at HHS. 

HEARINGS HELD

Making Health Care Work for American Families: Designing a 

High Performing Healthcare System (Day 1)—Oversight hearing on 

key health reform issues. Hearing held on March 10, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–11. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

211 

How Do We Fix Our Ailing Food Safety System?—Oversight 

hearing on the safety of the nation’s food supply. Hearing held on 

March 11, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–12. 

Making Health Care Work for American Families: Ensuring Affordable Coverage (Day 2)—Oversight hearing on key health reform 

issues. Hearing held on March 17, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–16. 

Making Health Care Work for American Families: Improving Access to Care (Day 3)—Oversight hearing on key health reform 

issues. Hearing held on March 24, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–20. 

Making Health Care Work for American Families: Protecting the 

Public Health (Day 4)—Oversight hearing on key health reform 

issues. Hearing held on March 31, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–24. 

Making Health Care Work for American Families: Bending the 

Cost Curve (Day 5)—Oversight hearing on key health reform 

issues. Hearing held on April 2, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111– 

27. 

H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act 

of 2009—Hearing on the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. Hearing held on April 22, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–30. 

Swine Flu Outbreak and the U.S. Federal Response—Oversight 

hearing to examine the outbreak of swine flu and the next steps 

for a federal response by the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). Hearing held on April 30, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–33. 

H.R. 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009—Hearing on 

the Medical Device Safety Act. Hearing held on May 12, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–39. 

Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 Discussion Draft—Hearing 

on the Food Safety Enhancement Act discussion draft legislation. 

Hearing held on June 3, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–41. 

Emerging Health Care Issues: Follow-On Biologic Drug Competition—Oversight hearing on a report of the Federal Trade Commission on biologic drugs. Hearing held on June 11, 2009. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–46. 

Medical Devices: Are Current Regulations Doing Enough for Patients?—Oversight hearing on the regulation of medical devices by 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Hearing held on June 

18, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–52. 

Health Care Reform (Draft Legislative Proposal)—Hearing on the 

proposed health care reform draft legislation. Hearing held on June 

23, 2009–June 25, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–54. 

Ryan White Extension Act of 2009—Hearing on Ryan White 

CARE Act discussion draft legislation. Hearing held on September 

9, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–60. 

H.R. 995, the Mammogram and MRI Availability Act of 2009, 

H.R. 1691, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 

1740, the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young Act of 2009, and H.R. 2279, the Eliminating Disparities 

in Breast Cancer Treatment Act of 2009—Hearing on four bills related to breast cancer prevention, research, treatment, and quality 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

212 

of care. Hearing held on October 7, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–69. 

H.R. 2708, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments 

of 2009—Hearing on the Indian Heath Care Improvement Act 

Amendments. Hearing held on October 20, 2009. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–74. 

H1N1 Preparedness: An Overview of Vaccine Production and Distribution—Oversight hearing on the response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Hearing held jointly with the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations on November 18, 2009. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–82. 

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations—Oversight hearing 

on the updated breast cancer recommendations that were issued by 

the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Monday, November 16, 

2009. Hearing held on December 2, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–85. 

Prescription Drug Price Inflation: Are Prices Rising Too Fast?— 

Oversight hearing on recent reports of rapid price increases for 

brand-name prescription drugs. Hearing held on December 8, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–87. 

Innovations in Addressing Childhood Obesity—Oversight hearing 

on innovative strategies to reduce obesity among children and adolescents. Hearing held on December 16, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–90. 

Medical Radiation: An Overview of the Issues—Oversight hearing 

on the benefits and risks of the use of radiation in medicine. Hearing held on February 26, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–100. 

Drug Safety: An Update from the FDA—Oversight hearing on 

drug safety issues, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

response to such issues. Hearing held on March 10, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–103. 

NCI Cancer Research: Today’s Progress; Tomorrow’s Challenges— 

Oversight hearing on the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) cancer 

research efforts. Hearing held on March 23, 2010. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–108. 

Smokeless Tobacco: Impact on the Health of our Nation’s Youth 

and Use in Major League Baseball—Oversight hearing on smokeless tobacco products, diseases linked to the use of these products, 

and the correlation between smokeless tobacco use by youth and 

Major League Baseball players. Hearing held on April 14, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–110. 

The Environment and Human Health: The Role of HHS—Oversight hearing on the environment and human health and the work 

of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Hearing 

held on April 22, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–112. 

Antibiotic Resistance and the Threat to Public Health—Oversight 

hearing on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance. Hearing held on 

April 28, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–115. 

H.R. 4700, the Transparency in All Health Care Pricing Act of 

2010; H.R. 2249, the Health Care Price Transparency Promotion 

Act of 2009; and H.R. 4803, the Patients’ Right to Know Act—Hearing on three bills related to transparency in health care. Hearing 

held on May 6, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–119. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

213 

Prematurity and Infant Mortality: What Happens When Babies 

Are Born Too Early?—Oversight on premature births and infant 

mortality. Hearing held on May 12, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–121. 

Promoting the Development of Antibiotics and Ensuring Judicious Use in Humans—Oversight hearing on the availability and 

appropriate use of antibiotics. Hearing held on June 9, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–130. 

NIH in the 21st Century: The Director’s Perspective—Oversight 

hearing on programs and activities at the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH). Hearing held on June 15, 2010. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–133. 

HHS Actions to Identify and Address Health Effects of the BP Oil 

Spill—Oversight hearing on the response of the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) to the public health risks associated with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. Hearing held on June 

16, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–135. 

MedPAC’s June 2010 Report to Congress: Aligning Incentives in 

Medicare—Oversight hearing on the Medicare Payment Advisory 

Commission (MedPAC) June 2010 report to Congress. Hearing held 

on June 23, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–139. 

The Battle Against Diabetes: Progress Made; Challenges Unmet— 

Oversight hearing on advances in research into diabetes. Hearing 

held on July 1, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–141. 

Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture—Oversight hearing on the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and the impact of this use on human health. Hearing held on July 14, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–144. 

H.R. 5710, the National All-Schedules Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act of 2010; and H.R. 5809, the Safe Drug Disposal 

Act—Hearing on two bills relating to the abuse of prescription 

medications. Hearing held on July 22, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–146. 

Implementation of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act—Hearing on the progress 

and plans for implementation of the provisions of the HITECH Act 

aimed at nationwide electronic use and exchange of health information. Hearing held on July 27, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–149. 

Protecting School-Aged Children from Sports-related Concussion 

Injury—Hearing on H.R. 1347, the Concussion Treatment and Care 

Tools Act. Hearing held on September 8, 2010. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–153. 

Legislative Hearing on Pending Public Health Legislation—Hearing on pending public health bills, H.R. 211, H.R. 758, H.R. 1032, 

H.R. 1210, H.R. 1230, H.R. 1347, H.R. 1362, H.R. 1995, H.R. 2408, 

H.R. 2818, H.R. 2941, H.R. 2999, H.R. 5354, H.R. 5462, H.R. 5986, 

H.R. 6012, H.R. 6081, H.R. 6109, and H.R. 6110. Hearing held on 

September 15, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–154. 

Medicare’s Competitive Bidding Program for Durable Medical 

Equipment: Implications for Quality, Cost and Access—Oversight 

hearing on Medicare’s competitive bidding program for durable 

medical equipment. Hearing held on September 15, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–155. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

214 

Cutting Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Medicare and Medicaid— Oversight hearing on how the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) is using available statutory tools to reduce waste, 

fraud, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Hearing 

held on September 22, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–158. 

Discussion Draft of Drug Safety Legislation—Hearing on drug 

safety discussion draft legislation. Hearing held on September 30, 

2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–161. 

Alzheimer’s Disease: The Ongoing Challenges—Oversight hearing 

on Alzheimer’s disease. Hearing held on December 9, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–163. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(215) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

INTRODUCTION

During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations conducted major inquiries into federal agencies within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including the Departments of Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, and Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, the Federal 

Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

This oversight has exposed improper and illegal activities, fraud, 

waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars, strengthened our national security and defense against terrorists, highlighted inconsistencies 

within the healthcare insurance industry, and identified environmental protection and consumer safety issues. These investigations 

provided the basis for a number of major legislative initiatives of 

the Committee and will form the foundation for additional investigative and legislative actions in the next Congress. 

HEARINGS AND OTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO

PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE

HEARINGS

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS THAT OVERSEE EXPERIMENTAL

TESTING FOR PROFIT

On March 26, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the role 

of institutional review boards (IRBs) in protecting the health of 

men, women, and children who participate in experimental biomedical testing. In 2008, the Subcommittee asked the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate whether IRBs were approving experimental research protocols without sufficient scrutiny 

in order to collect fees. 

GAO invented a fictitious company, developed a fake medical 

protocol, and got it approved by a legitimate IRB. GAO stated that 

one IRB ‘‘approved our bogus research protocol for human subjects 

testing after only minor edits to our submission materials, even 

though we were a bogus company with falsified credentials and an 

unproven medical device.’’ The company that approved the fake 

protocol, Coast IRB, testified at the hearing about their actions. 

The Subcommittee also heard testimony from GAO, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA). Following the hearing, Coast IRB ceased 

business operations in April 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

216 

TERMINATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL HEALTH POLICIES BY INSURANCE

COMPANIES

The Subcommittee examined the practice of ‘‘post-claims underwriting,’’ a practice also known as ‘‘rescission’’ through which insurance companies cancel individual health insurance policies after 

providers submit claims for medical services rendered. The investigation into this practice demonstrated that the market for individual health insurance in the United States was fundamentally 

flawed. 

On July 17, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies.’’ 

At this hearing, the Subcommittee heard from health insurance 

company chief executive officers, individuals who had been affected 

by the termination of their health insurance policies, and an academic specializing in health policy matters. The Subcommittee also 

held a field hearing on the practice in New Albany, Indiana, on 

July 27, 2009, titled ‘‘Terminations of Individual Health Policies by 

Insurance Companies: State Perspectives and Legislative Solutions.’’ The Subcommittee heard testimony from local stakeholders 

and health insurance company representatives. This field hearing 

provided a critical forum for Congress to understand the concerns 

of local communities as lawmakers developed national health care 

policies. 

The Subcommittee’s investigation revealed that insurance companies exploit inconsistent state and federal laws to engage in a series of controversial practices. For example, rather than reviewing 

medical histories when applications are submitted, some insurance 

companies award policies quickly to begin collecting premiums. If 

the policyholders subsequently get sick and file expensive claims, 

these insurance companies initiate investigations to scrutinize the 

details of the policyholder’s application materials and medical 

records. If the insurance companies find discrepancies, omissions, 

or misrepresentations, they can retroactively cancel policies, return 

premiums, and refuse payment for incurred medical services. 

The investigation also uncovered evidence that some insurance 

companies rescind coverage even when discrepancies are unintentional or caused by others; insurance companies rescind coverage 

for conditions that are unknown to policyholders; some insurance 

companies rescind coverage for discrepancies unrelated to the medical conditions for which the insured patient sought medical care; 

insurance companies rescind coverage for family members who 

committed no misrepresentations; insurance companies automatically investigate medical histories for all policyholders with certain 

conditions; and insurance companies have evaluated employee performance based on the amount of money their employees saved the 

company through rescissions. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111–148), 

signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, banned 

the practice of rescissions that the Subcommittee investigated. 

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association that represents health insurers nationwide, announced that insurance companies would comply with the health reform rescission standards 

in May 2010, four months ahead of the law’s requirements. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

217 

INSURED BUT NOT COVERED: THE PROBLEM OF UNDERINSURANCE

The Subcommittee scrutinized the problem of healthcare underinsurance. Underinsurance—when individuals have health insurance policies that do not adequately cover their health care expenses—can result from a variety of limitations within insurance 

policies and can lead to medical debt, medically-related bankruptcy, 

and ‘‘spending down’’ of household income in order to qualify for 

Medicaid and other government assistance. Escalating health costs 

have exacerbated the problem of underinsurance, with an estimated 25 million underinsured Americans in 2007. 

On October 15, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Insured But Not Covered: The Problem of Underinsurance.’’ The Subcommittee heard from individual policy holders and community 

stakeholders regarding their experiences with underinsurance. The 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111–148), signed 

into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010, will ease the 

problem of underinsurance by eliminating lifetime caps and mandating an ‘‘essential health benefit’’ package that must cover basic 

expenses in the individual health insurance market beginning in 

2014. 

THE HIGH COST OF SMALL BUSINESS HEALTH INSURANCE: LIMITED

OPTIONS, LIMITED COVERAGE

Small businesses are at a competitive disadvantage in the private health insurance market. Small businesses pay higher costs 

compared to large businesses for the same policy due to higher peremployee administrative costs, higher broker fees, and underwriting rules that allow for high premiums for sicker and older 

workers. 

Small companies pay on average about 18% more than large employers for the same level of coverage, and these costs keep rising. 

The average annual cost of a family premium for employer-sponsored health coverage in a small firm was $12,696 in 2009, an increase of 30% since 2004 and 123% since 1999. Small businesses 

can experience steep annual premium increases, which creates significant budgeting challenges for the small firms that provide 

health coverage to employees. In a 2009 survey, 15% of small businesses reported being offered renewal premium rate increases of 

over 20% for the plan they had held the year before. 

As a result of these steep increases, a growing number of small 

businesses simply cannot afford to provide health insurance benefits to their employees. While 98% of firms with 200 or more employees offer health benefits, only 59% of those with fewer than 200 

employees offer health benefits. The smaller the firm, the less likely it is to offer health coverage. Only 46% of firms with 3–9 employees offer coverage, a decline from 58% in 2002. Most small firms 

not offering health coverage cite cost as the ‘‘most important reason’’ for their inability to offer it. 

At an October 20, 2009, Subcommittee hearing titled ‘‘The High 

Cost of Small Business Health Insurance: Limited Options, Limited 

Coverage,’’ several small business owners testified about their commitment to providing health coverage for their employees, steep 

premium increases they had experienced after employees became 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

218 

ill, and difficult decisions they faced about cutting coverage or cutting jobs to make up for the rising cost of health benefits. Urban 

Institute health policy and economics expert Linda Blumberg testified about the unique struggles of small businesses in the health 

insurance market and the ways in which the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111–148) would offer relief to small 

business owners and their workers. 

H1N1 PREPAREDNESS: AN OVERVIEW OF VACCINE PRODUCTION AND

DISTRIBUTION

Following the spread of a fast-moving and lethal strain of H1N1 

influenza in early 2009, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Health examined the sufficiency 

of the government’s response to the virus. In a joint hearing titled 

‘‘H1N1 Preparedness: An Update of Vaccine Production and Distribution,’’ held November 4, 2009, the Subcommittees took testimony from representatives from the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, vaccine producers, and a 

local health commissioner. The Subcommittee examined lessons 

learned to prevent delays and panic in response to future 

pandemics. 

PREMIUM INCREASES BY ANTHEM BLUE CROSS IN THE INDIVIDUAL

HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET

The Subcommittee held a hearing on February 24, 2010, titled 

‘‘Premium Increases by Anthem Blue Cross in the Individual 

Health Insurance Market’’ to investigate proposed premium rate 

increases by as much as 39% by Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary 

of WellPoint, Inc., in the individual health insurance market in 

California. 

The Subcommittee’s investigation uncovered internal company 

documents that appeared to undermine WellPoint’s assertion that 

increasing profits was not a factor in the proposed rate increase 

and that the proposed 25% average rate increase was necessary. 

Corporate documents indicated that the rate increases could have 

been even higher for some plans and suggested that WellPoint’s 

business plan included moving consumers into less comprehensive 

plans. Documents also showed that WellPoint developed a 12-point 

plan to reduce its medical loss ratio, the proportion of premium 

revenues that a health insurance plan uses to pay medical claims. 

Following the hearing, Anthem Blue Cross postponed the premium rate increases and subsequently canceled the hikes in April 

2010 after errors were uncovered in the documentations Anthem 

submitted to the California Department of Insurance to justify the 

proposed rate increases. 

REPORTS AND MEMORANDA

PROFITS, MARKETING, AND CORPORATE EXPENSES IN THE MEDICARE

ADVANTAGE MARKET

At the request of Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak, the majority staff released in December 2009 a report titled ‘‘Profits, Marketing, and Corporate Exmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

219 

penses in the Medicare Advantage Market,’’ offering insights into 

the Medicare Advantage market by analyzing data from 34 major 

Medicare Advantage insurers. The Subcommittee obtained information on premium revenues, medical claims payments, marketing 

costs, administrative expenses, executive compensation, corporate 

retreats, and profits. 

The investigation found that from 2005 through 2008, the average Medicare Advantage insurer spent over 15% of premium revenue on profits, marketing, and other corporate expenses. The total 

amount spent on profits, marketing, and other corporate expenses 

by Medicare Advantage insurers over the last four years was $27 

billion. If Medicare Advantage insurers had been required to spend 

at least 85% of their total premium revenues on medical claims, 

they would have spent an additional $3 billion on their beneficiaries’ medical care from 2005 though 2008. 

The investigation also found that in 2007 and 2008, Medicare 

Advantage insurers with medical loss ratios lower than 85% paid 

their executives more than $1.2 billion and spent millions on expensive corporate retreats. 

MATERNITY COVERAGE IN THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE

MARKET

In October 2010, Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak released a staff memorandum detailing the findings of an investigation into maternity coverage in the 

individual health insurance market. The memorandum found that 

(1) pregnant women, expectant fathers, and families in the process 

of adoption are unable to obtain health insurance in the individual 

market; (2) many health insurance plans in the individual market 

do not provide coverage for medical costs related to pregnancy; and 

(3) health insurance companies have business plans to reduce the 

coverage of maternity expenses in the individual market. 

The four largest for-profit health insurance companies, Aetna, 

Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint, have each listed 

pregnancy as a medical condition that would result in an automatic 

denial of individual health insurance coverage. Health insurance 

companies also sometimes exclude from coverage expectant fathers, 

candidates for surrogacy—whether they are the surrogate or recipient—and those in the process of adoption. Health insurance companies often exclude maternity care from coverage in the individual 

market. Not only do the insurance companies deny coverage to expectant parents, they often exclude maternity coverage from the 

plans they offer individuals who are not expecting at the time they 

subscribe. Women who cannot obtain maternity coverage under 

their standard insurance policies can sometimes purchase riders to 

provide some coverage. These riders, however, are expensive and 

offer limited benefits with high deductibles. 

The heath care reform legislation signed into law by President 

Obama will halt the practice of denying coverage to expectant parents. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 

111–148), individual health insurance policies will be required to 

cover maternity expenses in the individual health insurance market. Beginning in 2014, health insurance companies will no longer 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

220 

be able to deny coverage to women because they are pregnant or 

exclude maternity-related claims. 

COVERAGE DENIALS FOR PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE

INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET

In October 2010, Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak released a staff memorandum detailing the findings of an investigation into coverage denials for preexisting conditions in the individual health insurance market. The 

memorandum found that (1) the four largest for-profit health insurance companies denied more than 600,000 individuals coverage because of pre-existing conditions in the 3 years before passage of 

health care reform legislation and (2) the number of coverage denials increased significantly each year. 

From 2007 through 2009, the four largest for-profit health insurance companies, Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and 

WellPoint, refused to issue health insurance coverage to more than 

651,000 people based on their prior medical history. On average, 

the four companies denied coverage to one out of every seven applicants based on a pre-existing condition. One of the four companies 

maintained a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses that triggered a permanent denial of health insurance coverage to applicants. 

From 2007 through 2009, the number of people denied coverage 

for pre-existing conditions increased at a rapid rate. The number 

of individuals denied coverage by Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth 

Group, and WellPoint increased from 172,400 in 2007 to 257,100 

in 2009, an increase of 49%. During the same period, applications 

for enrollment increased by only 16%. From 2007 through 2009, 

Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group, and WellPoint refused to 

pay 212,800 claims for medical treatment due to pre-existing conditions. In some cases, the companies offered health insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions, but used medical riders to 

exclude coverage or increase deductibles for claims related to preexisting conditions. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111–148) 

signed into law by President Obama prohibits the use of pre-existing conditions to deny coverage or claims. This provision became effective with respect to dependent children for policies issued on or 

after September 23, 2010. For adults, the ban on the use of preexisting conditions takes effect on January 1, 2014. As a result, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny health coverage 

to people due to their medical history. The companies also will not 

be permitted to deny claims for treatments related to pre-existing 

conditions, and they will not be allowed to charge higher premiums 

based on covering individuals with pre-existing conditions. 

OTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

INTERNATIONAL LABOR PRACTICES BY PHILIP MORRIS

On July 16, 2010, the Subcommittee requested information from 

Philip Morris International on its labor practices in Kazakhstan 

and other Philip Morris International production markets. Independent entities had criticized the alleged exploitation of migrant 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

221 

farm workers employed by tobacco farm owners for seasonal work 

in Kazakhstan. Farm owners in Kazakhstan supply tobacco solely 

to Philip Morris Kazakhstan, a subsidiary of Philip Morris International. The Subcommittee continues to monitor international 

labor practices in the tobacco industry. 

SALES AND MARKETING OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS

On September 22, 2009, the Food and Drug Administration 

banned the sale of flavored cigarettes, including those flavored with 

clove. FDA took this action under the authority of the Family 

Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (P.L. 111–31), a law 

that originated within the Energy and Commerce Committee. On 

October 2, 2009, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

requested information from several tobacco manufacturers regarding reports the companies were attempting to circumvent FDA’s 

ban on the sale of flavored cigarettes. The Subcommittee continues 

to monitor the implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention 

and Tobacco Control Act. 

MARKETING AND SALES OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO CHILDREN

On April 22, 2010, the Subcommittee sent letters to six tobacco 

companies regarding changes in their marketing and production 

policies and practices as a result of the enactment of the Family 

Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (P.L. 111–31), the 

Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (P.L. 

111–3), and related regulations. The Subcommittee continues to 

monitor the implementation of the Family Smoking Prevention and 

Tobacco Control Act, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, and related regulations. 

LONG-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS EXPERIENCED BY OIL SPILL RESPONSE

WORKERS

On July 1, 2010, Committee Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee 

Chairman Stupak, and Subcommittee on Health Chairman Pallone 

requested information and documents from Exxon Mobil Corporation related to health effects experienced by workers involved in 

the response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This inquiry was part 

of the Committee’s investigation of the explosion on the Deepwater 

Horizon drilling rig and the subsequent oil spill. The Subcommittee 

continues to review Exxon Mobil’s responses to understand better 

how to address the health impact on workers who assist in the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort. 

MEDICAL DEVICES

Committee Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Stupak, 

and Subcommittee on Health Chairman Pallone continued an inquiry into the rules and procedures used by the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that medical devices are safe and effective. 

As part of this investigation, the Subcommittee requested that the 

agency reexamine its decision in December 2008 to approve the 

Menaflex Collagen Scaffold, an orthopedic medical device used in 

the knee and manufactured by ReGen Biologics, Inc. The Subcommittee had received allegations that FDA approved the device 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

222 

over the objection of FDA scientists. On October 13, 2010, the FDA 

announced that it would rescind the marketing clearance for 

ReGen’s device because it should not have been approved without 

additional data demonstrating safety and effectiveness. 

FDA ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Subcommittee requested information from the Food and 

Drug Administration and Eli Lilly regarding the removal of a doctor from an FDA advisory committee reviewing the drug Prasugrel. 

The removal occurred after Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of the drug, 

contacted FDA officials with concerns about the doctor’s prior criticism of the drug. Following the Committee’s investigation, FDA officials acknowledged the agency had made a ‘‘mistake’’ by removing 

a doctor on the basis of an alleged intellectual conflict-of-interest. 

In April 2010, FDA released draft guidance that proposed the agency expand information disclosed about conflict-of-interest waivers 

for scientific advisers. 

HEARING AND OTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

PERTAINING TO FOOD SAFETY

HEARINGS

THE SALMONELLA OUTBREAK: THE CONTINUED FAILURE TO PROTECT

THE FOOD SUPPLY

In late 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

identified an outbreak of Salmonella associated with peanut butter 

that sickened more than 600 people in 44 states and Canada. The 

Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) manufactured tainted peanut 

products that were sold to elementary schools, nursing homes, and 

hospitals. PCA voluntarily recalled the tainted products on January 13, 2009. 

On February 11, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘The Salmonella Outbreak: The Continued Failure to Protect the 

Food Supply.’’ At this hearing, lawmakers released internal corporate communications between PCA officials that demonstrated 

that the company distributed tainted products even though they 

knew their products were testing positive for Salmonella. Stewart 

Parnell, the President of PCA, invoked his Fifth Amendment right 

not to testify at the hearing. 

Following the hearing, on July 30, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act. Additionally, HHS launched a revised food safety website and FDA 

mandated more rapid food safety reporting. 

THE SALMONELLA OUTBREAK: THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY IN PROTECTING

THE NATION’S FOOD SUPPLY

On March 19, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘The 

Salmonella Outbreak: The Role of Industry in Protecting the Nation’s Food Supply.’’ This hearing examined the obligations and actions of manufacturers and retailers that purchased tainted peanut 

products from the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

223 

The Subcommittee heard testimony from three companies that 

purchased peanut products from PCA despite knowing of sanitary 

problems at PCA plants in Georgia and Texas. The Subcommittee 

questioned officials from the three companies, King Nut Peanut 

Butter, Austin Peanut Butter Crackers, and Vitamin Cottage Organic Peanut Butter, about their efforts to ensure the safety of the 

ingredients they used and the final products they manufactured. 

Members of the Subcommittee also questioned the propriety of having private, for-profit auditing firms inspect the facilities of PCA 

and other suppliers, while being paid by the companies they inspect. 

Following the hearing, on July 30, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act. Additionally, HHS launched a revised food safety website and FDA 

mandated faster food safety reporting. 

THE ROLE AND PERFORMANCE OF FDA IN ENSURING FOOD SAFETY

The Subcommittee held a hearing on May 6, 2010, titled ‘‘The 

Role and Performance of FDA in Ensuring Food Safety.’’ The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Government Accountability 

Office and Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (HHS OIG) about reports assessing FDA’s challenges and performance at ensuring food safety. 

In GAO’s report on the safety of imported food, it found that 

FDA needs to improve its coordination with other agencies on enforcement. For example, GAO testified that FDA and Customs and 

Border Protection should work together to assign a unique identification number to firms that import food. GAO also questioned 

whether FDA’s current penalties are sufficient to deter an importer 

from violating FDA requirements. GAO found that the monetary 

bond required to provide assurance that food shipments into the 

United States meet U.S. requirements was too small to deter importers from violating U.S. law, and that some importing firms 

view it as merely a cost of doing business. 

The HHS OIG report focused on FDA’s inspections of domestic 

food facilities. The HHS OIG found that FDA inspected only 24% 

of food facilities each year between 2004 and 2008. The number of 

FDA inspections declined during that time, even as the number of 

facilities increased. Over the course of five years, FDA failed to inspect 56% of facilities that were subject to its authority and only 

inspected an additional 14% once. 

THE OUTBREAK OF SALMONELLA IN EGGS

The Subcommittee held a hearing on September 22, 2010, titled 

‘‘The Outbreak of Salmonella in Eggs.’’ Wright County Egg and 

Hillandale Farms of Iowa issued a nationwide voluntary recall of 

potentially tainted shell eggs in August 2010 after an outbreak of 

Salmonella in this country. The two companies voluntarily recalled 

approximately 550 million eggs due to possible Salmonella contamination. 

In the course of its investigation, the Subcommittee obtained 

records showing that Wright County Egg confirmed Salmonella 

contamination in its Iowa facilities prior to the widespread outbreak of illness caused by tainted eggs. Environmental sample remstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

224 

ports between 2008 and 2010 indicate that Wright County Egg received 426 positive results for Salmonella, including 73 samples 

that were potentially positive for Salmonella Enteritidis, the same 

strain that sickened nearly 1,600 people during the 2010 outbreak. 

The Subcommittee again raised concerns about third party auditors that inspect food facilities. Wright County Egg received favorable inspections from AIB, a private for-profit auditing firm that 

had also positively evaluated Peanut Corporation of America prior 

to the outbreak of Salmonella in peanut butter in 2009. 

At the hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony from the 

Owner of Wright County Egg and the Chief Operating Officer of 

the company. The President of Hillandale Farms of Iowa, Orland 

Bethel, invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify at the 

hearing. 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

KELLOGG CEREAL RECALL

On July 25, 2010, Kellogg Company recalled 24 million boxes of 

cereal products due to reports of an uncharacteristic smell and 

taste. The Subcommittee sent a letter on August 2, 2010, to Kellogg 

Company requesting information regarding its procedures and policies for handling the recall. Through briefings from Kellogg and officials from the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Subcommittee was assured that the 

cause of the smell and taste had been identified and that the recall 

resulted in the removal of affected products from grocery shelves. 

The Subcommittee will continue to monitor food recalls to assess 

the need for further legislative and oversight activity. 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO ENERGY

AND THE ENVIRONMENT

HEARINGS

THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the 

Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 people and injuring 15. Over the course 

of the next 87 days, the spill dumped 4.9 million barrels of oil, or 

205.8 million gallons, into the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion forever 

changed the lives of those onboard the rig who survived and the 

surviving relatives of those who died. The oil spill also had far 

reaching implications for coastal waters and lands as well as the 

Gulf region’s recently reviving economy. 

The Subcommittee’s investigation revealed numerous key safety 

decisions that increased the risk of a blowout and identified important concerns about equipment failure and human error on the rig. 

The investigation supported legislative activity initiated in the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment that resulted in passage by the full Committee of the ‘‘Blowout Prevention Act of 

2010.’’ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

225 

INQUIRY INTO THE DEEPWATER HORIZON GULF COAST OIL SPILL

Soon after the April 20, 2010, explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig at the Macondo well site in the Gulf of Mexico, 

the Committee sent a series of letters requesting briefings and documents from companies involved in work at the site. The rig, which 

belonged to Transocean Limited, was leased by BP. Halliburton 

performed cement work on the Macondo well in the days leading 

up to the explosion, and Cameron International manufactured the 

blowout preventer (BOP), a machine intended to seal off an out-ofcontrol well before it results in an explosion. In earlier Congresses, 

the Committee examined a 2005 explosion at BP’s Texas City refinery that took 15 lives and a massive leak in 2006 at a BP pipeline 

in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. The inquiry into the blowout at a BP 

deepwater exploratory well built on the Committee’s prior work. 

On May 12, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast Oil Spill,’’ the first in 

a series of hearings into the causes of the disaster at the Macondo 

well site. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Transocean, BP, 

Halliburton, and Cameron, examining what could have caused the 

accident and why the BOP did not stop the well’s flow. 

In preparation for the hearing, the Subcommittee was briefed on 

multiple occasions by each of the companies that testified at the 

hearing, by a number of additional companies performing services 

at the Macondo Well, and by a range of academic and independent 

experts in deepwater and offshore drilling. The Subcommittee requested and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents 

prior to the hearing and identified several key documents that suggested potential causes of the blowout at the well. 

LOCAL IMPACT OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL

The Subcommittee’s second hearing concerning the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill focused on the personal impact of the explosion and subsequent spill on families of those on the rig, the financial impact on local businessmen and fishermen, and the environmental impact on the Gulf region’s waters, marshes, and coastal 

lands. During the week of June 7, 2010, Subcommittee members 

toured marshes that had been penetrated by oil, met with a local 

organization working to restore wildlife in the marshes, and visited 

the site of the explosion. 

On June 8, 2010, the Subcommittee held a field hearing in 

Chalmette, Louisiana, titled ‘‘Local Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.’’ At the hearing, two widows of men who died on the 

rig talked about the need for reform of laws relating to compensation of victims’ families and asked that members of Congress work 

to hold the industry accountable. Local small business owners testified about the difficulties they encountered providing for their families as a result of the spill and expressed concerns about the BP 

claims process for those who lost income due to the oil spill. Scientists informed the Subcommittee of the potential long-term 

health effects of the oil spill on Gulf area residents and local wildlife. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

226 

THE ROLE OF BP IN THE DEEPWATER HORIZON EXPLOSION AND OIL

SPILL

The third in the series of hearings on the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig and oil spill focused on the role of BP, 

which leased the rig from Transocean. Under federal law, BP is 

considered the ‘‘responsible party’’ and is required to fund the response and cleanup. In addition, as the oil producer that leased the 

well, BP was responsible for the design of the well and the retention of contractors to implement its drilling plans. 

In preparation for the hearing, the Subcommittee reviewed tens 

of thousands of additional pages of documents provided by the companies working at the Macondo well, regulatory materials relating 

to the planning and permitting of the design and plans for the well, 

and received briefings from a number of the companies involved at 

the well site. The Subcommittee also conducted a transcribed interview of a Halliburton employee in order to develop the record of decision-making related to several well design issues. 

The Subcommittee’s investigation identified several key questions about choices that BP officials made in its well design and 

measures that could have been taken to mitigate identified risks. 

The Subcommittee transmitted a letter to Tony Hayward, Chief Executive of BP, three days before the hearing that posed several specific questions about choices BP made that potentially saved time 

or money, but increased risk. Mr. Hayward appeared before the 

Subcommittee on June 17, 2010, at a hearing titled ‘‘The Role of 

BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill’’ to testify 

about BP’s decision-making leading up to the explosion. 

THE ROLE OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT IN THE DEEPWATER

HORIZON DISASTER

The Subcommittee continued its investigation of the explosion of 

the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig by examining the role of the Department of the Interior (DOI) in regulating deepwater drilling in 

the decade preceding the disaster. The Subcommittee focused on 

regulatory developments that facilitated increased drilling in the 

Outer Continental Shelf, as well as the DOI’s actions in responding 

to the spill at the Macondo well site. 

In a joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on 

July 20, 2010, titled ‘‘The Role of the Interior Department in the 

Deepwater Horizon Disaster,’’ the Subcommittees examined the 

DOI’s actions before and after the explosion and oil spill, taking 

testimony from two former Secretaries of the Interior, Gale Norton 

and Dirk Kempthorne, and Ken Salazar, the current Secretary of 

the Interior. 

OTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

SAN BRUNO PIPELINE EXPLOSION

A natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded 

in a residential neighborhood in San Bruno, California, on September 9, 2010. Eight people were killed and there was significant 

property damage. The Subcommittee was briefed by Pacific Gas & 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

227 

Electric within a few days of the explosion about the measures it 

was taking to respond to the incident and its preliminary explanation for the explosion. On September 14, 2010, Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak requested 

briefings from regulators and investigators with responsibility in 

the incident. The Subcommittee requested briefings from the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, and the National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB). 

Subcommittee staff received several briefings from the aforementioned agencies and from Pacific Gas & Electric, the owner of the 

pipeline. The Subcommittee also has been briefed by state regulators. The Subcommittee continues to monitor the results of the 

NTSB investigation. 

BP’S CORPORATE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING

Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman 

Stupak sent a letter on August 16, 2010 to BP America, Inc., to follow up on a verbal request by Committee member Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida for information on BP’s spending on corporate advertising and marketing relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 

and relief, recovery, and restoration efforts in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Rep. Castor raised the issue because of concerns about Gulf businesses and families struggling to deal with the costs of the disaster. The Subcommittee reviewed records and data provided by 

BP about their corporate advertising before and after the April 20, 

2010, explosion at the Deepwater Horizon and transmitted a letter 

to Rep. Castor regarding BP’s spending. The letter was made available to all Committee members on September 1, 2010, on the Committee on Energy and Commerce website. 

ALASKA PIPELINE SAFETY

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is vital to energy security for the United States. Serious safety and production incidents prompted Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairman Stupak to request updated information regarding the 

safe operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. and from Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 

The Subcommittee continues to monitor TAPS to ensure that safety 

and security remain at the highest standards. 

MARINER ENERGY OIL RIG EXPLOSION

On September 2, 2010, an explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of 

Mexico owned by Mariner Energy, Inc. prompted Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak to request a 

briefing on the incident and its possible causes. The Subcommittee 

received a briefing from the company and continues to monitor 

safety on off-shore oil rigs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

228 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

HEARINGS

AUTO DEALERSHIP CLOSURES

In connection with the 2008 financial crisis and the lending of 

funds to automobile manufacturers under the Troubled Asset Relief 

Program (TARP), created under P.L. 110–343, the Subcommittee 

examined plans of Chrysler and General Motors (GM) to terminate 

nearly 2,000 automobile dealerships. In 2008, General Motors and 

Chrysler lost $30.9 billion and $17 billion respectively; both companies filed for bankruptcy. GM and Chrysler both received TARP 

funding and U.S. government assistance to stabilize the companies 

during their bankruptcy reorganizations. In the bankruptcy process, GM announced plans to close roughly 1,200 dealerships and 

Chrysler announced plans to close 789 dealerships nationwide. 

On June 12, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled, ‘‘GM 

and Chrysler Dealership Closures and Restructuring.’’ Members 

heard testimony from the President of Chrysler, the Chief Executive Officer of GM, and numerous car dealers from across the country. 

REGULATION OF BOTTLED WATER

On July 2, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Regulation of Bottled Water’’ to investigate the current federal regulations 

that govern the safety of bottled drinking water and tap water. Tap 

water providers are required to notify the public of contamination, 

use certified laboratories for testing, retain testing records for at 

least five years, provide consumer confidence reports, and are subject to federal oversight of state implementation of safety regulations. Bottled water manufacturers are not required to abide by 

any of these regulations. 

The Subcommittee received two reports that raised questions 

about why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than 

those governing tap water, as well as questions about the widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier than water 

from the tap. A Government Accountability Office report reviewed 

federal safety and consumer protection provisions governing tap 

water and bottled water. A second report was prepared by the Environmental Working Group, which surveyed labels and websites of 

bottled water manufacturers. 

Both reports raised concerns that bottled water is not subject to 

the same level of regulation as tap water. They also raised concerns that consumers may not have accurate or complete information about the content and quality of water they purchase in plastic 

containers. 

CRIB SAFETY: ASSESSING THE NEED FOR BETTER OVERSIGHT

Following recalls by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) of more than two million drop-side cribs prompted by a series of infant deaths, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations examined the need for stronger federal safety standards 

for cribs. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act requires 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

229 

the CPSC to develop safety standards for nursery products, and 

CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum stated that the Commission 

would promulgate new crib safety regulations in the months following the recalls. 

On January 21, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘Crib Safety: Assessing the Need for Better Oversight,’’ at which 

CPSC Chairman Tenenbaum testified, along with a consumer advocate, a crib certifying association, and the mother of an infant victim. 

RESPONSE BY TOYOTA AND NHTSA TO INCIDENTS OF SUDDEN

UNINTENDED ACCELERATION

On August 28, 2009, a fatal crash of a Lexus vehicle in San 

Diego, California, brought public attention to the problem of sudden unintended acceleration. A passenger in the Lexus called 911 

to report that the vehicle would not stop. The driver, an experienced California Highway Police Officer, was unable to control the 

vehicle and it eventually crashed. All four passengers in the car 

were killed. 

Since the August 2009 crash, Toyota has issued several recalls 

relating to acceleration and accelerator pedals. Millions of vehicles 

were covered by these recalls. While the recalls focused on mechanical causes of unintended acceleration—in particular, floor mat entrapment and ‘‘sticky’’ pedals caused by condensation—many consumers and auto safety experts suspected a cause related to vehicle 

electronics. In public statements, Toyota strongly denied a link between sudden unintended acceleration and electronic systems in its 

cars and trucks. After Toyota announced its recalls, the National 

Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) launched 

a broad review of electronic throttle systems that will involve intense scrutiny of suppliers and manufacturers by NHTSA engineers and independent experts. 

At a February 23, 2010, Subcommittee hearing titled ‘‘Response 

by Toyota and NHTSA to Incidents of Sudden Unintended Acceleration,’’ a Toyota driver testified about her experience with sudden 

unintended acceleration and two auto safety experts testified about 

potential links between sudden unintended acceleration and vehicle 

electronics. President of Toyota Motor Sales Jim Lentz testified 

about the company’s recalls and conceded to Committee Chairman 

Waxman that the recalls may not reach the cause of all sudden unintended acceleration events. 

Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood testified 

about NHTSA’s previous examinations of sudden unintended acceleration and committed to broader efforts to understand the problem and to hold automakers accountable for defects in their vehicles. NHTSA is continuing its investigation into the causes of sudden unintended acceleration and regularly updating the Subcommittee on its findings. 

UPDATE ON TOYOTA AND NHTSA’S RESPONSE TO THE PROBLEM OF

SUDDEN UNINTENDED ACCELERATION

The Subcommittee continued its inquiry into the problem of sudden unintended acceleration, focusing on the role of electronics in 

instances of sudden unintended acceleration. The Subcommittee exmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

230 

amined the work of Exponent, hired by Toyota to examine the potential causes of unintended acceleration, and National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration’s announcement that it had 

commissioned studies of the problem by the National Academy of 

Sciences and NASA. 

On May 20, 2010, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Update on Toyota and NHTSA’s Response to the Problem of Sudden 

Unintended Acceleration,’’ on the continued response to unintended 

acceleration in Toyotas, questioning witnesses David Strickland, 

NHTSA Administrator, and James Lentz, President and CEO of 

Toyota Motor Sales. 

DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER GENETIC TESTING AND THE CONSEQUENCES TO

THE PUBLIC HEALTH

Personal genetic testing kits are marketed to consumers as a tool 

to predict whether a person may be genetically predisposed to develop diseases such as breast cancer, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, celiac 

disease, cancer, and other conditions. The tests also can be used to 

determine a person’s ancestry. Some of the companies that offer 

these genetic testing kits also suggest that the tests can predict 

how individuals may react to prescription drugs taken to treat conditions such as HIV and heart disease. 

Genetic testing kits can cost as little as $20 and are available 

over the internet. Typically, a consumer receives the kit in the 

mail, swabs the inside of the cheek to pick up a DNA sample, and 

mails the sample to the company that sold the genetic testing kit. 

The genetic testing company either conducts its own analysis of the 

DNA sample through an in-house laboratory or sends the DNA 

sample to an outside laboratory. Several companies offer different 

levels of genetic analysis that can cost the consumer anywhere 

from $229 to $999. 

In 2006, GAO conducted an investigation into nutrigenetic testing (i.e. genetic testing used to tailor diet and exercise products to 

individual consumers) for the U.S. Senate Special Committee on 

Aging, and found that these tests mislead consumers by making 

medically unproven and ambiguous claims. As follow-up, in March 

2009, Chairman Waxman and several members of the Subcommittee informed the GAO that they were concerned that ‘‘the 

genetic testing market appears to have expanded rapidly and consumer fraud in this area is on the rise,’’ and asked GAO to investigate these issues in the industry and report to the Subcommittee 

on its findings. GAO’s Forensic Audit and Special Investigations 

Unit conducted an investigation into various genetic testing companies. GAO found that companies used deceptive marketing and produced inconsistent results. 

Separately, the Subcommittee conducted an independent investigation, reviewing more than 450,000 documents and interviewing 

a wide range of scientists, genetic counselors, and other experts in 

the genetic testing field. The Subcommittee identified concerns 

about questionable marketing claims, quality control, privacy protection, and the accuracy of information provided to consumers. 

At a July 22, 2010, hearing titled ‘‘Direct-To-Consumer Genetic 

Testing and the Consequences to the Public Health,’’ testimony was 

given by FDA, GAO, an outside expert and representatives of gemstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

231 

netic testing companies about the inconsistencies in testing results 

and potential negative effects on consumers. FDA began meeting 

with genetic testing companies following the hearing to discuss possible approaches to regulating direct to consumer genetic testing 

kits. The Subcommittee continues to monitor FDA’s process to ensure that consumers are adequately protected. 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

CADMIUM IN CHILDREN’S JEWELRY AND MCDONALD’S CORPORATION’S

‘‘SHREK’’ THEMED GLASSES

An investigation in January 2010 by the Associated Press revealed the presence of cadmium in various children’s jewelry items 

sold by retailers throughout the United States. Cadmium is a 

known cancer-causing agent that can hinder brain development in 

children. 

The Subcommittee requested information from retailers identified in the Associated Press report regarding their activities to 

identify, address and prevent hazardous materials from being used 

in children’s jewelry and other products intended for children. The 

Subcommittee received briefings and reviewed information from 

each of the retailers. 

In June 2010, following a voluntary recall by McDonald’s Corporation of approximately 12 million drinking glasses bearing designs of the animated character ‘‘Shrek,’’ Committee Chairman 

Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak requested information from McDonalds and Arc International, the manufacturer of 

the glasses. McDonald’s Corporation and Arc International each 

provided briefings and relevant documents. 

In October 2010, the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

issued a staff report on cadmium in children’s metal jewelry, recommending tests for evaluating children’s exposure to cadmiumcontaining products. 

The Subcommittee continues to monitor hazardous chemicals in 

children’s products and the efforts by CPSC to ensure that manufacturers and importers are keeping products that contain dangerous chemicals out of the stream of commerce. 

IRON 44 HELICOPTER CRASH

On November 24, 2009, Committee Chairman Waxman, Committee Ranking Member Barton, Subcommittee Chairman Stupak, 

and Subcommittee Ranking Member Walden sent a letter to the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expressing concern 

about the ongoing NTSB investigation of a helicopter crash (known 

as the ‘‘Iron 44’’ crash) that occurred on August 5, 2008. The Subcommittee received a briefing from NTSB on their investigation 

and possible causes of the accident. 

BPA DANGERS

On June 2, 2009, Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak sent a letter to the Food and Drug 

Administration relating to the possible dangers of Bisphenol A 

(BPA), a chemical found in consumer products and food product 

containers, expressing particular concern about the danger of using 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

232 

BPA in infant formula containers and other items used by infants 

and children. Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee 

Chairman Stupak asked FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to 

reconsider the FDA’s conclusion under the Bush Administration 

that BPA is safe at current estimated exposure levels. FDA is now 

pursuing multiple studies to determine BPA’s effects on humans. 

The Subcommittee continues to monitor the outcomes of the ongoing studies. 

FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS

Flame retardant chemicals, such as polybrominated diphenyl 

ethers (PBDE), are used in various consumer products including 

pillows, mattresses, children’s products, furniture foam, and television sets. California’s flammability standard specifically requires 

the use of flame retardants in various products, which leads some 

manufacturers to incorporate flame retardants in products sold nationally. These chemicals contain toxins that can act as endocrine 

disruptors and may cause cancer and neurological defects. 

Recent studies link PBDEs to a rising number of children suffering from low birth weight, negative outcomes on neurological development tests, increasing occurrences of infertility, and firefighters with significantly elevated rates of four cancers. Various 

public health groups, environmental organizations, and firefighter 

associations have advocated for a change in California’s flammability standard, as well as a widespread ban of these chemicals. 

The Subcommittee has investigated the issue extensively. Subcommittee staff received briefings from numerous scientists who 

have studied the issue, firefighters, furniture and other product 

manufacturers, as well as key federal and state agencies. The Subcommittee has also had several briefings with the principal manufacturers of flame retardant chemicals that are sold in the United 

States. In addition, the Committee requested documents from four 

flame retardant chemical manufacturers and has reviewed tens of 

thousands of pages of documents concerning the testing and marketing of such products. The Subcommittee is continuing its investigation into the environmental and health impacts relating to the 

use of flame retardant chemicals. 

JAPANESE CASH FOR CLUNKERS PROGRAM

Japan is the third largest automobile market in the world. In 

late 2009, the Japanese Government announced an economic stimulus package totaling 7.2 trillion yen ($81 billion U.S. dollars) that 

included an extension on an incentive program to purchase fuel efficient cars. This program was similar to the U.S. government’s Car 

Allowance Rebate System (CARS), popularly known as ‘‘Cash for 

Clunkers.’’ 

U.S. automobile manufacturers have exported cars to Japan 

since the 1990s through a ‘‘preferential handling protocol.’’ Because 

U.S. automakers sell fewer than 10,000 vehicles in Japan each year 

combined, the Japanese government affords them the option of 

having their vehicles tested under official government standards 

for fuel efficiency or selling them without official ratings. American 

cars that are sold under the preferential handling protocol had not 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

233 

been officially rated for fuel economy in Japan and were thus ineligible for purchase under the recent Japanese incentive program. 

The Subcommittee scheduled a hearing on the exclusion of U.S. 

automobiles from Japan’s Cash for Clunkers program in January 

2010. In advance of the hearing, the Japanese Government 

changed its policy and agreed to allow American automotive manufacturers to participate in the program. The Subcommittee postponed its hearing to await further data on the cars purchased in 

the American and Japanese Cash for Clunkers programs. 

HEARINGS AND OTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO

COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

TRAFFIC PUMPING SCHEMES

Committee Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Stupak, 

and Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, and Internet 

Chairman Boucher sent request letters to AT&T, Qwest, Sprint, 

and Verizon, and 24 incumbent local exchange providers seeking 

information regarding access charges and so-called ‘‘traffic pumping 

schemes.’’ News reports have described situations in which voice 

service providers have refused to connect calls to certain rural 

areas due to the allegedly excessive terminating access charges required by some rural incumbent local exchange providers. The Subcommittees sought information on the nature and scope of these 

schemes as well as the steps companies take to resolve disputed 

charges. The Subcommittee reviewed documents produced by all of 

the companies, received briefings from many of the interested parties, and continues to investigate the matter. 

OTHER HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

HEARINGS

FEDERAL OVERSIGHT OF HIGH CONTAINMENT BIO-LABORATORIES

The Subcommittee held its second hearing on the proliferation of 

biological research laboratories since the 2001 anthrax attacks. The 

purpose of the hearing was to assess the status of government 

oversight over high-containment laboratories, which work with 

dangerous pathogens and diseases. After the Subcommittee’s first 

hearing on the matter in 2007, Government Accountability Office 

continued to examine these labs and found that, aside from the Select Agent Program—a government program regulating certain listed dangerous pathogens—there is no formal registry for bio-labs, 

and no federal agency has authority to regulate all bio-labs. 

On September 22, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing titled 

‘‘Federal Oversight of High Containment Bio-Laboratories’’ at 

which GAO released a report containing its conclusions concerning 

the expansion of bio-labs in the United States, strategies for improving the safety and security of these labs, and the need for consolidated federal oversight of these labs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

234 

SECRECY IN THE RESPONSE TO BAYER’S FATAL CHEMICAL PLANT

EXPLOSION

On August 28, 2008, a tank containing waste materials in a pesticide production unit exploded at a chemical plant in Institute, 

West Virginia, owned by Bayer CropScience. Bayer’s West Virginia 

facility produces pesticide from a variety of chemicals, including 

methyl isocyanate (MIC), a highly toxic substance that has been 

eliminated for decades from every other facility in the United 

States except for the Institute, West Virginia site. 

The Subcommittee held a hearing titled ‘‘Secrecy in the Response 

to Bayer’s Fatal Chemical Plant Explosion’’ on April 21, 2009. The 

Subcommittee found that Bayer engaged in a campaign of secrecy 

by withholding critical information from local, county, and state 

emergency responders; by restricting the use of information provided to federal investigators; by attempting to marginalize news 

outlets and citizen groups concerned about the dangers posed by 

Bayer’s activities; and by providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public. 

The Subcommittee found that Bayer failed to provide emergency 

responders with critical information about the scope of the explosion, the potential chemical hazards involved, or the action needed 

to safeguard the surrounding community. The Subcommittee also 

found that there were serious questions about the vulnerabilities of 

Bayer’s inventory of MIC and about MIC monitoring systems that 

were out of service at the time of the explosion. The Subcommittee 

found that Bayer was attempting to undermine an investigation by 

the Chemical Safety Board, by misusing a statute designed to protect the security of maritime transportation facilities to block the 

public release of information related to the accident and to the storage of hazardous chemicals at the site. 

In response to the findings of this hearing, Sen. Rockefeller of 

West Virginia inserted language into the 2010 Homeland Security 

budget to keep companies from hiding behind anti-terrorism rules 

to avoid releasing important details of chemical plant emergencies 

to the public and local emergency responders. Additionally, Sen. 

BYRD of West Virginia proposed a measure to require the Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the steps it 

is taking to coordinate chemical plant security efforts by various 

federal agencies. 

In August 2009, Bayer CropScience announced that the company 

would voluntarily reduce MIC storage at the facility by 80%. This 

reduction eliminated the transfer, use, and storage of MIC at the 

site within approximately one year. As a result, there is no MIC 

storage above ground anywhere on the site. 

COMMERCIAL SALES OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES

In 2008, the Subcommittee requested that the Government Accountability Office conduct undercover testing to determine how 

vulnerable the United States is to covert acquisition and export of 

sensitive technology with potential military application. GAO established a fictitious company, led by a fictitious individual, to acquire 12 different military or dual use items that were subject to 

export control laws. GAO was able to acquire several devices that 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

235 

can be used in nuclear weapons programming. It also successfully 

acquired several pieces of military equipment that U.S. forces use 

to maintain technological superiority in battle. 

On June 4, 2009, the Subcommittee held a hearing entitled, 

‘‘Commercial Sales of Military Technology,’’ in which GAO testified 

that insufficient regulation leaves sensitive technologies vulnerable 

to unlawful export through the commercial market. The hearing 

showed that companies that sell sensitive equipment are not required by current law to apply for an export license when selling 

military or dual use products directly to domestic purchasers. 

There is no requirement for them to conduct any background 

checks or due diligence on the transactions, much less submit the 

proposed sale to the government for licensing. This hearing and report highlighted the importance of monitoring the commercial sales 

of military technology. 

OTHER INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

RADIATION DETECTION PORTAL MONITORS TESTING PROGRAM

On June 22, 2009, Committee Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Stupak wrote to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano regarding a GAO report 

titled ‘‘Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS Improved Testing of 

Advanced Radiation Detection Portal Monitors, but Preliminary 

Results Show Limits of New Technology.’’ The Chairmen urged 

DHS to adopt the recommendations of the report and reexamine 

the advanced radiation detection portal monitors testing program. 

GAO REPORT FINDS FLAWS IN PRESIDENT BUSH’S NUCLEAR

AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA

On July 29, 2009, Committee Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee 

Chairman Stupak, and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Chairman Markey released a Government Accountability Office report titled ‘‘U.S.—Russia Nuclear Agreement: Interagency Process 

Used to Develop the Classified Nuclear Proliferation Assessment 

Needs to Be Strengthened.’’ The report outlines significant problems within the executive branch process for evaluating Russia’s 

nuclear proliferation activities as part of the U.S.-Russia negotiation of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. 

HEARINGS HELD

The Salmonella Outbreak: The Continued Failure to Protect the 

Food Supply.—Oversight hearing on the salmonella outbreak associated with peanut products manufactured by the Peanut Corporation of America. Hearing held on February 11, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–2. 

The Salmonella Outbreak: The Role of Industry in Protecting the 

Nation’s Food Supply.—Oversight hearing examining the actions 

and obligations of manufacturers and retailers that purchased 

tainted peanut products from the Peanut Corporation of America. 

Hearing held on March 19, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–18. 

Institutional Review Boards That Oversee Experimental Human 

Testing for Profit.—Oversight hearing on whether institutional remstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

236 

view boards and the federal government are adequately protecting 

human subjects of biomedical research. Hearing held on March 26, 

2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–22. 

Secrecy in the Response to Bayer’s Fatal Chemical Plant Explosion.—Oversight hearing on Bayer CropScience campaign of secrecy to withhold information and provide misleading information 

to emergency responders, government officials, and the public. 

Hearing held on April 21, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–28. 

Commercial Sales of Military Technologies.—Oversight hearing 

on the commercial sale of sensitive technology with military applications and to provide the results of a Government Accountability 

Office undercover investigation on this issue. Hearing held on June 

4, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–43. 

GM and Chrysler Dealership Closures and Restructuring.—Oversight hearing on auto dealership closures announced by Chrysler 

and General Motors stemming from the 2008 financial crisis and 

during a time when the companies were received funds under the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program. Hearing held on June 12, 2009. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–49. 

Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies.—Oversight hearing on the practice of ‘‘rescissions,’’ which occurs when insurance companies cancel individual health insurance 

policies after their providers submit claims for medical services 

rendered. Hearing held on June 16, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–50. 

Regulation of Bottled Water.—Oversight hearing on federal regulation of bottled water. Hearing held on July 8, 2009. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–56. 

Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies: State Perspectives and Legislative Solutions.—Oversight hearing on the practice of ‘‘rescissions,’’ which occurs when insurance 

companies cancel individual health insurance policies after their 

providers submit claims for medical services rendered. Field hearing held in New Albany, Indiana, on July 27, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–58. 

Federal Oversight of High Containment Bio-Laboratories.—Oversight hearing on the proliferation of biological research laboratories. Hearing held on September 22, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 

111–66. 

Insured but Not Covered: The Problem of Underinsurance.—Oversight hearing on the problem of underinsurance and medical debt. 

Hearing held on October 15, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–72. 

The High Cost of Small Business Health Insurance: Limited Options, Limited Coverage.—Oversight hearing examining business 

practices in the small business health insurance market. Hearing 

held on October 20, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–75. 

H1N1 Preparedness: An Overview of Vaccine Production and Distribution.—Oversight hearing on production and distribution of the 

H1N1 vaccine. Hearing held on November 18, 2009. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–82. 

Crib Safety: Assessing the Need for Better Oversight.—Oversight 

hearing on whether there is a need for stronger mandatory federal 

safety standards for infant cribs. Hearing held on January 21, 

2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–92. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

237 

Response by Toyota and NHTSA to Incidents of Sudden Unintended Acceleration.—Oversight hearing on the response to persistent consumer complaints of sudden, unintended acceleration in 

vehicles manufactured by the Toyota Motor Corporation. Hearing 

held on February 23, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–96. 

Premium Increases by Anthem Blue Cross in the Individual 

Health Insurance Market.—Oversight hearing on the proposed increases in premium rates by Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of 

WellPoint, Inc., by as much as 39% in the individual health insurance market in California. Hearing held on February 24, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–97. 

The Role and Performance of FDA in Ensuring Food Safety.— Oversight hearing on the safety of food imported into the United 

States and the adequacy of FDA’s efforts to protect Americans from 

unsafe, imported food. Hearing held on May 6, 2010. PRINTED, 

Serial No. 111–118. 

Inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast Oil Spill.—Oversight hearing examining the causes of the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and subsequent oil spill. Hearing held on 

May 12, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–122. 

Update on Toyota and NHTSA’s Response to the Problem of Sudden Unintended Acceleration.—Oversight hearing on the continued 

response of the Toyota Motor Company and National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to incidents of sudden unintended acceleration in Toyota vehicles. Hearing held on May 20, 

2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–126. 

Local Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.—Oversight 

hearing on the local impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on 

the Gulf region. Field hearing held in Chalmette, Louisiana, on 

June 7, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–129. 

The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil 

Spill.—Oversight hearing continuing examination of the causes of 

the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and subsequent oil spill. Hearing held on June 17, 2010. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–137. 

The Role of the Interior Department in the Deepwater Horizon 

Disaster.—Oversight hearing on the Department of the Interior’s 

actions before and since the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion and oil spill. Hearing held on July 20, 2010. PRINTED, Serial 

No. 111–145. 

Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing and the Consequences to the 

Public Health.—Oversight hearing on sales and reliability of directto-consumer personal genetic tests. Hearing held on July 22, 2010. 

PRINTED, Serial No. 111–148. 

The Outbreak of Salmonella in Eggs.—Oversight hearing on the 

Salmonella outbreak associated with eggs produced by Wright 

County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa. Hearing held on September 22, 2010. PRINTED, Serial No. 111–157. 

GAO REPORTS AND TESTIMONY REQUESTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE

GAO REPORTS

Nonprescription Drugs: Considerations Regarding a Behind-theCounter Drug Class. GAO–09–245, February 20, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

238 

Information Technology: FDA Needs to Establish Key Plans and 

Processes for Guiding Systems Modernization Efforts. GAO–09– 

523, June 2, 2010. 

Bottled Water: FDA Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water. GAO–09– 

610, June 22, 2009. 

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Agreement: Interagency Process Used to Develop the Classified Nuclear Proliferation Assessment Needs to Be 

Strengthened. GAO–09–743R, June 30, 2009. 

Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information on 

Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Program Funding Requirements. GAO–09–656, July 15, 2009. 

Biological Research: Observations of DHS’s Analyses Concerning 

Whether FMD Research Can Be Done as Safely on the Mainland 

as on Plum Island. GAO–09–747, July 30, 2009. 

Food Safety: Agencies Need to Address Gaps in Enforcement and 

Collaboration to Enhance Safety of Imported Food. GAO–09–873, 

September 15, 2009. 

Information Security: Actions Needed to Better Manage, Protect, 

and Sustain Improvements to Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Classified Computer Network. GAO–10–28, October 14, 2009. 

Human Capital: Continued Opportunities Exist for FDA and 

OPM to Improve Oversight of Recruitment, Relocation and Retention Incentives. GAO–10–226, January 22, 2010. 

Border Security: Better Usage of Electronic Passport Security 

Features Could Improve Fraud Detection. GAO–10–96, January 22, 

2010. 

Dietary Supplements: FDA Should Take Further Actions to Improve Oversight and Consumer Understanding. GAO–09–250, January 29, 2010. 

Food Irradiation: FDA Could Improve Its Documentation and 

Communication of Key Decisions of Food Irradiation Petitions. 

GAO–10–309R, February 16, 2010. 

New Drug Approval: FDA’s Consideration of Evidence from Certain Clinical Trials. GAO–10–798, July 30, 2010. 

Telecommunications: FCC Should Assess the Design of the ERate Program’s Internal Control Structure. GAO–10–908, September 29, 2010. 

Telecommunications: Improved Management Can Enhance FCC 

Decision Making for the Universal Service Fund Low-Income Program. GAO–11–11, October 28, 2010. 

Information Security: National Nuclear Security Administration 

Needs to Improve Contingency Planning For Its Classified Supercomputing Operations. GAO–11–67, December 9, 2010. 

GAO TESTIMONY

Human Subjects Research: Undercover Tests Show the Institutional Review Board System is Vulnerable to Unethical Manipulation. GAO–09–448T, March 26, 2009. 

Military and Dual-Use Technology: Covert Testing Shows Continuing Vulnerabilities of Domestic Sales for Illegal Export. GAO– 

09–725T, June 4, 2009. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

239 

Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Consumer Protections are Often 

Less Stringent than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water. 

GAO–09–861T, July 8, 2009. 

High-Containment Laboratories: National Strategy for Oversight 

is Needed. GAO–09–1036T, September 22, 2009. 

Food Safety: FDA Could Strengthen Oversight of Imported Food 

by Improving Enforcement and Seeking Additional Authorities. 

GAO–10–699T, May 6, 2010. 

Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Tests: Misleading Test Results Are 

Further Complicated by Deceptive Marketing and Other Questionable Practices. GAO–10–847T, July 22, 2010. 

PENDING GAO REQUESTS

The following is a list of pending GAO studies initiated by the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations that were not completed by the end of the 111th Congress: 

Implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Study requested 

on January 31, 2008. 

A Review of FDA’s Resources for Drugs, Biological Products, and 

Medical Devices. Study requested on February 15, 2008. 

A Review of Cost Implications of Work Stoppages from Inadequate Worker Safety Protections and Weaknesses in Nuclear Safety. Study requested April 16, 2008. 

A Review of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Plans for 

De-Inventorying Category I and II Special Nuclear Material. Study 

requested June 25, 2008. 

Co-Requestor of a Review of the Department of Energy’s Handling of Security at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

Study requested July 10, 2008. 

Review of the Progress, Strategies, Implementation and Management of National Nuclear Security Administration’s Stockpiles & 

Facilities. Study requested August 8, 2008. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(241) 

APPENDIX I 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS

Adopted on February xx, 2009 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OVERSIGHT 

PLAN, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 111TH CONGRESS, THE HONORABLE HENRY A. WAXMAN, 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 Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform and to the Committee on 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 111th Congress. It includes the areas in which the 

Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 111th Congress, 

subject to limits on staff and resources, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of additional matters as the need arises. 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 

The Committee intends to conduct oversight in the 111th Congress of numerous energy and environment-related issues to help 

ensure that government is working and that relevant statutes are 

effective and up to date. 

Climate Change. Global warming and energy issues will be a key 

area of interest. Due to the magnitude and complexity of the task 

of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Committee expects to examine governmental and nongovernmental activities and policies in 

this area, and their bases. The Committee will also examine governmental and private sector policies and actions related to developing and maintaining a sustainable and affordable national energy supply, including through the efficient use of energy. 

Environmental Pollution and Hazardous Waste. The Committee 

will examine whether the key environmental and energy laws 

under its jurisdiction are being implemented and followed appropriately to ensure that public health, the environment, and consumers are adequately protected. This will focus on the key issues 

of air pollution, drinking water contamination, hazardous waste 

disposal and cleanup, manufacture, use, and safety of chemical 

substances and pesticides on food. The Committee will examine the 

actions of the agencies charged with addressing these issues: the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and 

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

242 

Energy Policy. The Committee will examine U.S. policies pertaining to energy efficiency and conservation, production, and consumption of electricity, oil, natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power, 

nuclear power, and renewable energy. The Committee will inquire 

into potential opportunities for the government and private sector 

to enhance environmental, public health, and consumer protections 

(including pipeline safety), while promoting a sustainable, clean energy future. The Committee will examine the actions of agencies 

and offices charged with developing and implementing U.S. energy 

policies, including the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

The Committee will also examine the activities and policies of the 

Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration as they relate to matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

Energy Security. The Committee will oversee management and 

operations issues at the Department of Energy, including management and operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the DOE National Laboratories. The Committee 

will focus on DOE’s management of the environment, safety, and 

health aspects of its policies and activities, and DOE’s management 

of the contractors that operate the National Laboratories. In addition, the Committee will oversee the protection of nuclear materials 

around the globe by examining ongoing problems at both the National Labs and at nuclear power plants with respect to the security of both nuclear materials and sensitive security information 

and by examining nuclear detection systems at air, land, and seaports. 

Bio-Research Laboratories. Building on the two hearings in the 

110th Congress, the Committee will exercise continued oversight of 

issues related to construction and operation of high-containment 

bio-research laboratories. 

HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES 

Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Committee 

will oversee the implementation of the legislation reauthorizing the 

Children’s Health Insurance Program by the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS), state CHIP agencies, and their private 

contractors. This oversight will focus on the extent to which federal 

financial incentives and state outreach and enrollment activities 

are successful in extending coverage to low-income children who 

are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP. The Committee 

will also examine whether federal program funds are being used to 

purchase covered services efficiently in a manner that minimizes 

waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The Committee 

will review the management, operation, and activities of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, focusing on the effective 

provision of services under the Medicare, Medicaid, and Child 

Health Insurance programs and the elimination of waste, fraud, 

and abuse in these programs. The Committee will examine the use 

and oversight of private contractors by CMS in administering these 

programs. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

243 

Drug Safety. The Committee will review the ability of the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and effectiveness of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs sold in the 

United States, including whether necessary safeguards for imported drugs are in place. The Committee will also examine manufacturer marketing practices for both prescription and OTC drugs. 

Emergency Care Services. The Committee will review the ability 

of the nation’s trauma centers and emergency departments to respond to the growing demand for their services. Among the areas 

of oversight interest are the activities of HHS to ensure that emergency rooms in cities at high risk of a terrorist attack have the capacity to handle a surge in casualties, as well as the availability 

of on-call specialists on a 24/7 basis. 

Food Safety. The Committee will examine the causes of recent 

food safety problems and the effectiveness of our current regulatory 

system for overseeing the safety of imported foods. The Committee 

will review the FDA’s statutory authorities for protecting the nation’s food supply with a view towards identifying any gaps. The 

Committee will also examine whether FDA’s financial and personnel resources are adequate to protect the public from unsafe 

food. 

Health Information Technology (HIT). The Committee will oversee the implementation of the HIT provisions of the economic recovery legislation by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Committee will focus initially on the Department’s establishment of standards for interoperability, functionality, security, 

and privacy of electronic health records and its certification of systems that meet those standards. The Committee will also monitor 

the Department’s HIT-related grant-making activity. 

National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH budget spends over $29 billion per year, largely on medical research intended to improve the health of the nation. The Committee will examine whether there is sufficient transparency and accountability to ensure 

that these funds are spent effectively and efficiently. 

HIV/AIDS. The Committee will oversee domestic and global HIV 

prevention and treatment activities by HHS and the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Domestically, areas of concern include the scale-up of prevention efforts, the continuing implementation of CDC’s routine testing recommendations, and the 

reach of care and treatment programs. The Committee will also 

monitor HHS’s implementation of U.S.-funded HIV activities 

abroad. Particular attention will be paid to changes made by the 

2008 reauthorization of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS 

Relief (PEPFAR), including increased flexibility in prevention programming and an intensified emphasis on integration with other 

health and social services. 

Hospital-Acquired Infections and Antibiotic Resistance. The Committee will oversee the actions taken by HHS, state hospital licensure agencies, and the private sector to reduce the incidence of preventable hospital-acquired infections. Among the areas of interest 

is checklists for use by physicians, nurses, and other hospital personnel to reduce such infections. The Committee will also review 

efforts to combat the spread of antibiotic resistant infections. The 

Committee will examine the practices that contribute to the probmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

244 

lem, including the inappropriate use of antibiotics both by humans 

and in the food supply. 

Preventable Medical Errors. In addition to its work on hospitalacquired infections, the Committee will also examine other preventable medical errors, which studies suggest annually cause tens of 

thousands of preventable deaths and cost our nation’s medical system billions of dollars. The Committee will examine the practices 

that contribute to such preventable medical errors and review actions taken by providers, patients, insurers, and the federal government to reduce these errors. 

Individual Health Insurance. The Committee will examine business practices in the individual health insurance market that may 

compromise the accessibility or affordability of coverage. The initial 

focus of this oversight will be the practice of rescission, or retroactive termination of coverage following the submission of claims 

by the insured individual. The Committee will review the practices 

of insurers, the activities of state regulatory agencies, and the enforcement of consumer protections in the individual market by the 

Department of Health and Human Services under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. 

Medicaid. The Committee will oversee the implementation of the 

provisions of the economic recovery legislation relating to Medicaid. 

The Committee will review the payment of additional federal 

matching funds to states to ensure states deploy the funds in an 

efficient and effective manner. The Committee will examine whether states receiving this fiscal relief maintain adequate Medicaid reimbursement levels for providers and reimburse at an adequate 

rate to make services available. The Committee will also monitor 

the response of the Department of Health and Human Services and 

state Medicaid programs to the needs of uninsured, unemployed 

workers and their families. In addition, the Committee will examine the purchase of managed care, prescription drugs, and other 

covered services to determine whether greater efficiencies can be 

achieved for federal and state taxpayers. The Committee will review the costs and benefits of using private contractors in the administration of the Medicaid program at the federal and state level. 

The Committee will also review efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the program. 

Medical Device Safety. The Committee will review FDA’s efforts 

to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The Committee will examine the gaps in the current statutory authorities, 

both pre- and post-market, that FDA uses to protect patients from 

unsafe or ineffective devices. 

Medicare. The Committee will oversee the administration and 

operation of the Medicare program by CMS and its contractors. 

Among the areas of interest is the adequacy of Medicare payment 

rates for primary care physicians under Part B; the appropriateness of payments to Medicare Advantage plans; the treatment of 

beneficiaries with chronic illness by Medicare Advantage plans, 

particularly private fee-for-service plans; and the business practices 

of Medicare Advantage plans and CMS oversight of those practices. 

With respect to Medicare Part D, the Committee will review the effectiveness of private plans’ administration of the program; the 

treatment of long-term care patients; the annual reassignment of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

245 

individuals who are dually-eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; the 

treatment of long-term care patients under Part D; the availability 

of manufacturer rebates on drugs purchased by Medicare Part D 

plans; and the oversight of Part D plans by CMS. The Committee 

will also review efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

program. 

Navajo Nation Uranium Contamination. The Committee will 

monitor the clean-up of the surface and subsurface contamination 

of the Navajo Nation resulting from uranium mining and milling 

activities after World War II. Five federal agencies have developed 

and are implementing five-year plans to clean up the contamination and protect public health: the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 

Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 

Indian Health Service, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Nursing Homes. The Committee will examine the quality of the 

nursing home care paid for by the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Committee will review the monitoring and enforcement 

of quality standards by CMS and state survey agencies. 

Off-Label Marketing. The Committee will conduct oversight of 

manufacturer marketing of prescription drugs and medical devices 

for uses not approved by FDA. While off-label use of drugs or devices is legal, the marketing of drugs or devices for off-label uses 

is not. Off-label marketing can result in unnecessary expenditures 

and raises potential safety and effectiveness issues for patients. 

The Committee will review the activities of the FDA, CMS, the Office of Inspector General, and the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute those manufacturers engaged in off-label marketing. 

Privacy. The Committee will review adherence to and enforcement of the security and privacy rules under the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Committee will 

also oversee the implementation of the privacy provisions in the 

economic recovery legislation by HHS. The Committee will focus on 

the use of a patient’s health information by providers, health insurers, and others that receive such identifiable information. 

Safety Net Hospitals and Clinics. The Committee will monitor 

the ability of public and private nonprofit hospitals and clinics of 

last resort—those that treat all patients, regardless of ability to 

pay—to maintain their service capacity during the recession. Of 

particular concern to the Committee is whether the specialized 

services that these facilities provide that are of community-wide 

benefit, such as trauma care, neonatal intensive care, and care for 

burn victims, will be maintained in the face of increasing numbers 

of unemployed, uninsured patients. 

Vaccine Policy. The Committee will oversee the various components of vaccine policy within HHS, including: the development of 

the National Vaccine Plan; plans to procure and stockpile vaccines 

for use in case of an influenza pandemic, bioterror attack, or shortage of routinely administered vaccines; efforts to increase the use 

of vaccines among adults including healthcare workers; and access 

issues associated with the Vaccines for Children program. The 

Committee will also review the status of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

246 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES 

Federal Trade Commission. The Committee will review the management, operations, rulemaking, and enforcement actions of the 

Federal Trade Commission. The Committee will examine the Commission’s consumer protection mission with specific focus on consumer credit, including subprime mortgage lending, mortgage servicing, and debt and foreclosure relief scams. In addition, the Committee will review consumer protection activities related to identity 

theft, privacy, and false and deceptive advertising. The Committee 

will also review the Commission’s activities regarding competition 

and mergers. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Committee will oversee implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act, which was enacted in August 2008. In particular, the Committee will seek to ensure that the law’s bans on lead and 

phthalates in children’s products are given full effect and carried 

out in an effective and efficient manner. The Committee also will 

oversee the Commission’s handling of critical deadlines under the 

law and the issuance of implementing regulations. Finally, the 

Committee will continue to review the Commission’s overall operations, including its authorized expansion to include five commissioners and the modernization of its staff and infrastructure. 

Highway Safety. The Committee will review the management, 

operations, and activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, particularly as they relate to motor vehicle safety. 

International Trade. The Committee will monitor and examine 

both multilateral trade agreements (including World Trade Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements as those agreements 

relate to industries, commodities, and services within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including telecommunications, electronic commerce, consumer products, energy, food, and drugs. The Committee 

will examine whether these agreements adequately protect the interests of domestic and foreign workers, consumers, and the environment. The Committee will review programs, policies, and procedures of various government agencies that are tasked with protecting the international supply chain as it affects the U.S. economy and U.S. consumers; evaluate policies that may impair the 

flow of people and commerce across the nation’s borders; and examine opportunities to promote greater transparency in U.S. trade negotiations. 

COMMUNICATIONS, TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET ISSUES 

Federal Communications Commission. The Committee will review the management, operations, and activities of the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), including the effect of its decisions on increasing competition, increasing the availability of technologies and services, assuring widespread deployment and reasonable rates for telecommunication and broadband services, protecting consumers, assuring adequate emergency communications 

capability, and otherwise serving the public interest, convenience 

and necessity. The FCC’s ongoing efforts to manage the transition 

from analog to digital broadcasting will be a continuing focus of the 

Committee. The Committee will also examine the management and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

247 

funding of the FCC’s Office of Inspector General (IG), particularly 

with respect to whether the IG has adequate resources and the institutional independence necessary to carry out its responsibilities. 

Public Safety Communications. The Committee will review public 

safety communications, including the status of the public safety 

network and related issues and matters under the management of 

the Office of Emergency Communications. 

Universal Service Reform. The Committee will investigate waste, 

fraud, and abuse in the FCC’s Universal Service Fund, including 

the management and administration of the High Cost program, the 

E-Rate program that pays to connect schools and libraries to the 

Internet, and the Rural Health Care program. 

Internet Governance and Operations. The Committee will review 

programs and efforts to assure the safe, secure, lawful, and robust 

functioning of the Internet. The Committee will also examine 

issues regarding the structure of Internet governance, including activities of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 

The Committee will review programs under the management of the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA). The Committee anticipates ongoing oversight of any NTIA 

involvement in national broadband deployment grants. 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Committee will continue to review activities and funding of the Corporation for Public 

Broadcasting, the Public Broadcasting System, National Public 

Radio, and Public Radio International, with a particular focus on 

maintaining the independence of these important functions and assuring that the public interest remains paramount in their administration and management. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(249) 

APPENDIX II 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 111TH CONGRESS (2009–2010)

Statistical Summary of Committee Activities 

Total Bills and Resolutions Referred to Committee ..................................... 1483 

Public Laws ...................................................................................................... 38 

Bills and Resolutions Reported to the House ................................................ 70 

Hearings Held: 

Days of Hearings ...................................................................................... 143 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 7 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 38 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 30 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment ................................... 24 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 43 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 24 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 490:47 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 20:53 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 81:11 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 65:33 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment ................................... 92:57 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 141:05 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 89:08 

Legislative Markups: 

Days of Markups ...................................................................................... 48 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 29 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 6 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 4 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment ................................... 4 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 5 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 147:37 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 119:47 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 07:58 

Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet 02:51 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment ................................... 09:38 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 9:08 

Business Meetings: 

Days of Meetings ...................................................................................... 3 

Subcommittee on Full Committee ................................................... 3 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 0 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 01:05 

Subcommittee on Full Committee ................................................... 01:05 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 0 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(251) 

APPENDIX III 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

PUBLIC LAWS 

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: 38 

Public Law Date Approved Bill Title 

111–3 2/4/2009 H.R. 2 Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 

2009 

111–4 2/9/2009 S. 352 The Digital Television Transition Extension 

111–5 2/17/2009 H.R. 1 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

111–16 5/7/2010 H.R. 1626 Statutory Time Periods Technical Amendments Act of 2009 

111–31 6/22/2009 H.R. 1256 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 

111–47 8/6/2009 H.R. 3435 Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act 

111–72 10/13/2009 H.R. 3663 To Amend Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to Delay the 

Date on Which the Accreditation Requirement Under the 

Medicare Program Applies to Suppliers of Durable Medical 

Equipment that are Pharmacies 

111–87 10/30/2009 S. 1793 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 

111–96 11/6/2009 S. 1694 To Allow the Funding for the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program Established Under the Digital 

Television Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005 to Remain Available Until Expended Through Fiscal Year 2012 

111–117 12/16/2009 H.R. 3288 Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate 

111–144 3/2/2010 H.R. 4691 The Temporary Extension Act of 2010 

111–148 3/23/2010 H.R. 3590 Patient Protection Affordable Care Act 

111–152 3/30/2010 H.R. 4872 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

111–157 4/15/2010 H.R. 4851 The Continuing Extension Act of 2010 

111–175 5/27/2010 S. 3333 The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act of 2010 

111–192 6/25/2010 H.R. 3962 The Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries 

and Pension Relief Act of 2010 

111–203 7/21/2010 H.R. 4173 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

111–260 10/8/2010 S. 3304 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 

Act of 2010 

111–264 10/8/2010 S. 3751 Stem Cell therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 

2010 

111–265 10/8/2010 S. 3828 Making Technical Corrections in the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 

111–268 10/12/2010 H.R. 2923 Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2010 

111–273 10/12/2010 S. 3397 Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010 

111–286 11/30/2010 H.R. 5712 The Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act of 2010 

111–309 12/15/2010 H.R. 4994 Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act of 2010 

111–311 12/15/2010 S. 2847 The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act (CALM 

Act) 

111–313 12/18/2010 H.R. 2480 Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010 

111–324 12/22/2010 H.R. 2941 To Reauthorize and Enhance Johanna’s Law to Increase Public 

Awareness and Knowledge with Respect to Gynecologic 

Cancers 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

252 

PUBLIC LAWS: 38—Continued 

Public Law Date Approved Bill Title 

111–331 12/22/2010 S. 30 The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2010 

111–337 12/22/2010 S. 3199 Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2010 

111-ll 12/29/2010 S. 3386 Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act 

111-ll 12/29/2010 H.R. 6517 Omnibus Trade Act of 2010 

111-ll 1/2/2011 H.R. 847 James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 

Cleared for White 

House 

Bill Title 

Presented to the 

President 

12/28/2010 S. 3036 National Alzheimer’s Project Act 

Presented to the 

President 

12/28/2010 S. 841 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010 

Presented to the 

President 

12/28/2010 H.R. 6533 The Local Community Radio Act of 2010 

Presented to the 

President 

12/29/2010 H.R. 2751 Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 

Presented to the 

President 

12/29/2010 H.R. 5809 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 

Presented to the 

President 

12/28/2010 H.R. 5470 Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

(253) 

APPENDIX IV 

PART A 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

Serial No. Hearing Title Hearing Date(s) 

111–1 The U.S. Climate Action Partnership [Full Committee] ................................................ January 15, 2009 

111–2 The Salmonella Outbreak: The Continued Failure to Protect the Food Supply [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].February 11, 2009 

111–3 The Climate Crisis: National Security, Public Health, and Economic Threats [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].February 12, 2009 

111–4 Energy Efficiency: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation [Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment].

February 24, 2009 

111–5 Reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act 

[Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

February 24, 2009 

111–6 Renewable Energy: Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation [Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment].

February 26, 2009 

111–7 Revisiting the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 [Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection].

February 26, 2009 

111–8 The Role of Offsets in Climate Legislation [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].March 5, 2009 

111–9 Consumer Protection in the Used and Subprime Car Market [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

March 5, 2009 

111–10 The Future of Coal Under Climate Legislation [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].March 10, 2009 

111–11 Making Health Care Work for American Families: Designing a High Performing 

Healthcare System [Subcommittee on Health].

March 10, 2009 

111–12 How Do We Fix Our Ailing Food Safety System? [Subcommittee on Health] ............... March 11, 2009 

111–13 Universal Service: Reforming the High-Cost Fund [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].March 12, 2009 

111–14 Consumer Protection Policies in Climate Legislation [Subcommittee on Energy and 

Environment].

March 12, 2009 

111–15 Stimulating the Economy through Trade: Examining the Role of Export Promotion 

[Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

March 17, 2009 

111–16 Making Health Care Work for American Families: Ensuring Affordable Coverage 

[Subcommittee on Health].

March 17, 2009 

111–17 Competitiveness and Climate Policy: Avoiding Leakage of Jobs and Emissions [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].March 18, 2009 

111–18 The Salmonella Outbreak: The Role of Industry in Protecting the Nation’s Food Supply [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].March 19, 2009 

111–19 Consumer Credit and Debt: The Role of the Federal Trade Commission in Protecting 

the Public [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

March 24, 2009 

111–20 Making Health Care Work for American Families: Improving Access to Care [Subcommittee on Health].March 24, 2009 

111–21 Preparing for Climate Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs [Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment].

March 25, 2009 

111–22 Institutional Review Boards that Oversee Experimental Human Testing for Profit 

[Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].

March 26, 2009 

111–23 Oversight of the Digital Television Transition [Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet].

March 26, 2009 

111–24 Making Health Care Work for American Families: The Role of Public Health [Subcommittee on Health].March 31, 2009 

111–25 H.R. 1706, the Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].March 31, 2009 

111–26 Oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Broadband 

[Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

April 2, 2009 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

254 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing Title Hearing Date(s) 

111–27 Making Health Care Work for American Families: Saving Money, Saving Lives [Subcommittee on Health].April 2, 2009 

111–28 Secrecy in the Response to Bayer’s Fatal Chemical Plant Explosion [Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations].

April 21, 2009 

111–29 The American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009 [Full Committee and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].April 21, 2009 

April 22, 2009 

April 23, 2009 

April 24, 2009 

111–30 H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on Health].April 22, 2009 

111–31 Communications Networks and Consumer Privacy: Recent Developments [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].April 23, 2009 

111–32 Examining the Status of U.S. Trade with Cuba and its Impact on Economic Growth 

[Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

April 27, 2009 

111–33 Swine Flu Outbreak and the U.S. Federal Response [Subcommittee on Health] ........ April 30, 2009 

111–34 The Bowl Championship Series: Money and Other Issues of Fairness for Publicly Financed Universities [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

May 1, 2009 

111–35 Cybersecurity: Network Threats and Policy Challenges [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].May 1, 2009 

111–36 H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Protection Act, and H.R. 1319, the Informed 

P2P User Act [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

May 5, 2009 

111–37 An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].May 7, 2009 

111–38 H.R. 2309, the Consumer Credit and Debt Protection Act, and H.R. 2190, the Mercury Pollution Reduction Act [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection].

May 12, 2009 

111–39 H.R. 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on Health] .......... May 12, 2009 

111–40 Auto Safety: Current Mandates and Emerging Issues [Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection].

May 18, 2009 

111–41 Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 Discussion Draft [Subcommittee on Health] June 3, 2009 

111–42 Oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

[Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

June 4, 2009 

111–43 Commercial Sales of Military Technologies [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].June 4, 2009 

111–44 Allowance Allocation Policies in Climate Legislation: Assisting Consumers, Investing 

in a Clean Energy Future, and Adapting to Climate Change [Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment].

June 9, 2009 

111–45 It’s Too Easy Being Green: Defining Fair Green Marketing Practices [Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

June 9, 2009 

111–46 Emerging Health Care Issues: Follow-on Biologic Drug Competition [Subcommittee 

on Health].

June 11, 2009 

111–47 H.R. 1084, the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act, H.R. 

1147, the Local Community Radio Act of 2009, and H.R. 1133, the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet].

June 11, 2009 

111–48 The Future of the Grid: Proposals for Reforming National Transmission Policy [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].June 12, 2009 

111–49 GM and Chrysler Dealership Closures and Restructuring [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].June 12, 2009 

111–50 Terminations of Individual Health Policies by Insurance Companies [Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations].

June 16, 2009 

111–51 Discussion Draft of Legislation to Reauthorize the Satellite Home Viewer Act [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].June 16, 2009 

111–52 Medical Devices: Are Current Regulations Doing Enough for Patients? [Subcommittee on Health].June 18, 2009 

111–53 Behavioral Advertising: Industry Practices and Consumers’ Expectations [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet and Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

June 18, 2009 

111–54 Comprehensive Health Care Reform Discussion Draft [Full Committee and Subcommittee on Health].June 23, 2009 

June 24, 2009 

June 25, 2009 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

255 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing Title Hearing Date(s) 

111–55 U.S.-Africa Trade Relations: Creating a Platform for Economic Growth [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health].

June 24, 2009 

111–56 Regulation of Bottled Water [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations] .......... July 8, 2009 

111–57 The Proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency: Implications for Consumers 

and the FTC [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

July 8, 2009 

111–58 Terminations of Health Policies by Insurance Companies: State Perspectives and 

Legislative Solutions [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].

July 27, 2009 

111–59 Oversight of Cemeteries and Other Funeral Services: Who’s in Charge? [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].July 27, 2009 

111–60 Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2009 Discussion Draft Legislation [Subcommittee on Health].September 9, 2009 

111–61 H.R. 3276, the American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2009: Solving the 

Medical Isotopes Crisis [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

September 9, 2009 

111–62 Oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Broadband, Part 2 

[Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

September 10, 2009 

111–63 Consumer Product Safety Commission Oversight: Current Issues and a Vision for 

the Future [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

September 10, 2009 

111–64 Preparing for the 2009 Pandemic Flu [Full Committee] .............................................. September 15, 2009 

111–65 Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].September 17, 2009 

111–66 Federal Oversight of High Containment Bio-Laboratories [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].September 22, 2009 

111–67 A National Interoperable Broadband Network for Public Safety: Recent Developments [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].September 24, 2009 

111–68 H.R. 3258, the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009, and H.R. 2868, the 

Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

October 1, 2009 

111–69 H.R. 1740, the Breast Cancer Education and Awareness Requires Learning Young 

Act of 2009, H.R. 1691, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2009, H.R. 

2279, the Eliminating Disparities in Breast Cancer Treatment Act of 2009, and 

H.R. 995, the Mammogram and MRI Availability Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on 

Health].

October 7, 2009 

111–70 Growing U.S. Trade in Green Technology [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection].

October 7, 2009 

111–71 The Minority Business Development Agency: Enhancing the Prospects for Success 

[Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

October 15, 2009 

111–72 Insured But Not Covered: The Problem of Underinsurance [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].October 15, 2009 

111–73 H.R. 515, the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].October 16, 2009 

111–74 H.R. 2708, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2009 [Subcommittee on Health].October 20, 2009 

111–75 The High Cost of Small Business Health Insurance: Limited Options, Limited Coverage [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].October 20, 2009 

111–76 Video Competition in a Digital Age [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 

and the Internet].

October 22, 2009 

111–77 Protecting the Electric Grid: H.R. 2165, the Bulk Power System Protection Act of 

2009, and H.R. 2195 [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

October 27, 2009 

111–78 The NFL StarCaps Case: Are Sports’ Anti-Doping Programs at a Legal Crossroads? 

[Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

November 3, 2009 

111–79 Driven To Distraction: Technological Devices and Vehicle Safety [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

November 4, 2009 

111–80 Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination [Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection].

November 17, 2009 

111–81 Universal Service Reform Act of 2009 Discussion Draft [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].November 17, 2009 

111–82 H1N1 Preparedness: An Overview of Vaccine Production and Distribution [Subcommittee on Health and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].November 18, 2009 

111–83 Exploring the Offline and Online Collection and Use of Consumer Information [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

November 19, 2009 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

256 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing Title Hearing Date(s) 

111–84 Impacts of H.R. 3795, the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets Act of 2009, on 

Energy Markets [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

December 2, 2009 

111–85 Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations [Subcommittee on Health] ..................... December 2, 2009 

111–86 H.R. 3993, the Calling Card Consumer Protection Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

December 3, 2009 

111–87 Prescription Drug Price Inflation: Are Prices Rising Too Fast? [Subcommittee on 

Health].

December 8, 2009 

111–88 Drinking Water and Public Health Impacts of Coal Combustion Waste Disposal 

[Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

December 10, 2009 

111–89 H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, and H.R. 3019, the Spectrum Relocation Improvement Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, 

and the Internet].

December 15, 2009 

111–90 Innovations in Addressing Childhood Obesity [Subcommittee on Health] ................... December 16, 2009 

111–91 The ExxonMobil-XTO Merger: Impacts on U.S. Energy Markets [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].January 20, 2010 

111–92 Crib Safety: Assessing the Need for Better Oversight [Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations].

January 21, 2010 

111–93 H.R. 3655, the Bereaved Consumer’s Bill of Rights Act of 2009 [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

January 27, 2010 

111–94 An Examination of the Proposed Combination of Comcast and NBC Universal [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].February 4, 2010 

111–95 A Review of the Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2011 Budget [Full Committee].February 4, 2010 

111–96 Response by Toyota and NHTSA to Incidents of Sudden Unintended Acceleration 

[Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].

February 23, 2010 

111–97 Premium Increases by Anthem Blue Cross in the Individual Health Insurance Market [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].February 24, 2010 

111–98 The Collection and Use of Location Information for Commercial Purposes [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

February 24, 2010 

111–99 Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Drinking Water: Risks to Human Health and the 

Environment [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

February 25, 2010 

111–100 Medical Radiation: An Overview of the Issues [Subcommittee on Health] ................. February 26, 2010 

111–101 Oversight of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Broadband, Part 3 

[Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

March 4, 2010 

111–102 TSCA and Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals: Examining Domestic 

and International Actions [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection].

March 4, 2010 

111–103 Drug Safety: An Update from the Food and Drug Administration [Subcommittee on 

Health].

March 10, 2010 

111–104 NHTSA Oversight: The Road Ahead [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].March 11, 2010 

111–105 HomeStar: Job Creation Through Home Energy Retrofits [Subcommittee on Energy 

and Environment].

March 18, 2010 

111–106 H.R. 1796, the Residential Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act, and H.R. 

4805, the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

March 18, 2010 

111–107 Oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Subcommittee on Energy 

and Environment].

March 23, 2010 

111–108 NCI Cancer Research: Today’s Progress; Tomorrow’s Challenges [Subcommittee on 

Health].

March 23, 2010 

111–109 Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission: The National Broadband 

Plan [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

March 25, 2010 

111–110 Smokeless Tobacco: Impact on the Health of our Nation’s Youth and Use in Major 

League Baseball [Subcommittee on Health].

April 14, 2010 

111–111 The National Broadband Plan: Deploying Quality Broadband Services to the Last 

Mile [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

April 21, 2010 

111–112 The Environment and Human Health: HHS’ Role [Subcommittee on Health] .............. April 22, 2010 

111–113 Clean Energy Policies That Reduce Our Dependence on Oil [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].April 28, 2010 

110–114 Public Sales of Hurricane Katrina/Rita FEMA Trailers: Are They Safe or Environmental Time Bombs? [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

April 28, 2010 

111–115 Antibiotic Resistance and the Threat to Public Health [Subcommittee on Health] .... April 28, 2010 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

257 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing Title Hearing Date(s) 

111–116 H. R. ll, the Consumer Product Safety Enhancement Act [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

April 29, 2010 

111–117 The National Broadband Plan: Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

April 29, 2010 

111–118 The Role and Performance of FDA in Ensuring Food Safety [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].May 6, 2010 

111–119 H.R. 4700, the Transparency in All Health Care Pricing Act of 2010; H.R. 2249, the 

Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act of 2009; and H.R. 4803, the Patients’ Right to Know Act [Subcommittee on Health].

May 6, 2010 

111–120 H.R. ll, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010 [Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection].

May 6, 2010 

111–121 Prematurity and Infant Mortality: What Happens When Babies Are Born Too Early? 

[Subcommittee on Health].

May 12, 2010 

111–122 Inquiry into the Deepwater Horizon Gulf Coast Oil Spill [Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations].

May 12, 2010 

111–123 H.R. 4501, the Guarantee of a Legitimate Deal Act, and H.R. 2480, the Truth in 

Fur Labeling Act [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

May 13, 2010 

111–124 The National Broadband Plan: Promoting Broadband Adoption [Subcommittee on 

Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

May 13, 2010 

111–125 H.R. ll, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010 [Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment].

May 13, 2010 

111–126 Update on Toyota and NHTSA’s Response to the Problem of Sudden Unintended Acceleration [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].May 20, 2010 

111–127 Effects of Developments in Synthetic Genomics [Full Committee] .............................. May 27, 2010 

111–128 Combating the BP Oil Spill [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment] .................. May 27, 2010 

111–129 Local Impact of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill [Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations].

June 7, 2010 

111–130 Promoting the Development of Antibiotics and Ensuring Judicious Use in Humans 

[Subcommittee on Health].

June 9, 2010 

111–131 H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

2009 [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

June 10, 2010 

111–132 The BP Oil Spill: Human Exposure and Environmental Fate [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].June 10, 2010 

111–133 NIH in the 21st Century: The Director’s Perspective [Subcommittee on Health] ........ June 15, 2010 

111–134 Drilling Down on America’s Energy Future: Safety, Security and Clean Energy [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].June 15, 2010 

111–135 HHS Actions to Identify and Address Health Effects of the BP Oil Spill [Subcommittee on Health].June 16, 2010 

111–136 H.R. 4678, the Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act, and H.R. 5156, the 

Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

June 16, 2010 

111–137 The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill [Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations].

June 17, 2010 

111–138 Discussion Draft to Provide Funding for the Construction and Maintenance of a Nationwide, Interoperable Public Safety Broadband Network, and for Other Purposes, and H.R. 4829, the Next Generation 911 Preservation Act of 2010 [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].

June 17, 2010 

111–139 MedPAC’s June 2010 Report to Congress: Aligning Incentives in Medicare [Subcommittee on Health].June 23, 2010 

111–140 Legislation to Respond to the BP Oil Spill and Prevent Future Oil Well Blowouts 

[Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

June 30, 2010 

111–141 The Battle Against Diabetes: Progress Made; Challenges Unmet [Subcommittee on 

Health].

July 1, 2010 

111–142 Comcast and NBC Universal: Who Benefits? [Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, and the Internet].

July 8, 2010 

111–143 H.R. 4692, the National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010 [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

July 14, 2010 

111–144 Antibiotic Resistance and the Use of Antibiotics in Animal Agriculture [Subcommittee on Health].July 14, 2010 

111–145 The Role of the Interior Department in the Deepwater Horizon Disaster [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].

July 20, 2010 

111–146 H.R. 5710, the National All-Schedules Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act of 

2010, and H.R. 5809, the Safe Drug Disposal Act [Subcommittee on Health].

July 22, 2010 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS

258 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing Title Hearing Date(s) 

111–147 H.R. 5777, the BEST PRACTICES Act, and H.R. ————, a discussion draft to 

require notice to and consent of an individual prior to the collection and disclosure of certain personal information relating to that individual [Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

July 22, 2010 

111–148 Direct-To-Consumer Genetic Testing and the Consequences to the Public Health 

[Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].

July 22, 2010 

111–149 Implementation of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical 

Health (HITECH) Act [Subcommittee on Health].

July 27, 2010 

111–150 The BP Oil Spill and Gulf Coast Tourism: Assessing the Impact [Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].

July 27, 2010 

111–151 H.R. 5820, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 [Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection].

July 29, 2010 

111–152 The BP Oil Spill: Accounting for the Spilled Oil and Ensuring the Safety of Seafood 

from the Gulf [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].

August 19, 2010 

111–153 Protecting School-Aged Children from Sports-Related Concussion Injury [Subcommittee on Health].September 8, 2010 

111–154 Pending Public Health Legislation [Subcommittee on Health] .................................... September 15, 2010 

111–155 Medicare’s Competitive Bidding Program for Durable Medical Equipment: Implications for Quality, Cost and Access [Subcommittee on Health].September 15, 2010 

111–156 H.R. 5828, the Universal Service Reform Act of 2010 [Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet].September 16, 2010 

111–157 The Outbreak of Salmonella in Eggs [Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations].September 22, 2010 

111–158 Cutting Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Medicare and Medicaid [Subcommittee on 

Health].

September 22, 2010 

111–159 Pipeline Safety Oversight and Legislation [Subcommittee on Energy and Environment].September 23, 2010 

111–160 H.R. 6149, the Coin and Precious Metal Disclosure Act [Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection].September 23, 2010 

111–161 Discussion Draft of Drug Safety Legislation [Subcommittee on Health] ..................... September 30, 2010 

111–162 Do-Not-Track Legislation: Is Now the Right Time? [Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection].

December 2, 2010 

111–163 Alzheimer’s Disease: The Ongoing Challenges [Subcommittee on Health] .................. December 9, 2010 

PART B 

COMMITTEE PRINTS 

Serial No. Committee Print Title Date 

111–A Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act As Amended Through 

November 1, 2010 [Committee on Energy and Commerce].

November 2010 

111–B Compilation of Selected Acts within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce Health Law Public Health Service Act As Amended Through January 2, 2011 [Committee on Energy and Commerce].

January 2011 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGS