U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 108TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT 

2005

108–803 

Union Calendar No. 488 

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi, Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

(III) 

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC, January 3, 2005. 

Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk, House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith a report 

on the activity of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the 

108th Congress, including the Committee’s review and study of legislation with its jurisdiction and the oversight activities undertaken 

by the Committee. 

Sincerely, 

JOE BARTON, Chairman. 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Rules for the Committee ......................................................................................... 2

Members and Organization ..................................................................................... 21

Legislative and Oversight Activity ......................................................................... 27

Full Committee ........................................................................................................ 29

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection .......................... 33

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality ............................................................. 59

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials .................................. 85

Subcommittee on Health ......................................................................................... 101

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet ..................................... 177

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations .................................................... 201

Oversight Plan for the 108th Congress .................................................................. 225

Appendix I—Legislative Summary ......................................................................... 293

Appendix II—Public Laws ...................................................................................... 295

Appendix III—Publications of the Committee ....................................................... 297

Union Calendar No. 488 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–803 

REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

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

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE, 108TH CONGRESS 

The jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, as 

prescribed by Clause 1(f) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, is as follows: 

(1) Biomedical research and development. 

(2) Consumer affairs and consumer protection. 

(3) Health and health facilities (except health care supported by 

payroll deductions). 

(4) Interstate energy compacts. 

(5) Interstate and foreign commerce generally. 

(6) Exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing, 

and regulation of energy resources, including all fossil fuels, solar 

energy, and other unconventional or renewable energy resources. 

(7) Conservation of energy resources. 

(8) Energy information generally. 

(9) The generation and marketing of power (except by federally 

chartered or Federal regional power marketing authorities); reliability and interstate transmission of, and ratemaking for, all 

power; and siting of generation facilities (except the installation of 

interconnections between Government waterpower projects). 

(10) General management of the Department of Energy and management and all functions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

(11) National energy policy generally. 

(12) Public health and quarantine. 

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

regulatory research. 

2 

(14) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications. 

(15) Travel and tourism. 

The committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect to 

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

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

of non-nuclear energy. 

In addition, clause 3(c) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives provides that the Committee on Energy and Commerce shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, programs, 

and Government activities relating to nuclear and other energy and 

nonmilitary nuclear energy research and development including 

the disposal of nuclear waste. 

RULES FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 108TH CONGRESS

Rule 1. General Provisions. 

(a) Rules of the Committee. The Rules of the House are the rules 

of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereinafter the ‘‘Committee’’) and its subcommittees so far as is applicable, except that 

a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with 

the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are 

available, is nondebatable and privileged in the Committee and its 

subcommittees. 

(b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the authority and 

direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. 

Written rules adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the 

Rules of the House, shall be binding on each subcommittee of the 

Committee. 

Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings. 

(a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the 

fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration of 

bills, resolutions, and other business, if the House is in session on 

that day. If the House is not in session on that day and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee shall meet 

at the earliest practicable opportunity when the House is again in 

session. The chairman of the Committee may, at his discretion, 

cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required under this section, 

after consultation with the ranking minority member. 

(b) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and convene, as 

he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for 

the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that call of the 

chairman. 

(c) Vice Chairmen; Presiding Member. The chairman shall designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice chairman 

of the Committee, and shall designate a majority member of each 

subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each subcommittee. The 

vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may 

be, shall preside at any meeting or hearing during the temporary 

absence of the chairman. If the chairman and vice chairman of the 

Committee or subcommittee are not present at any meeting or 

3 

hearing, the ranking member of the majority party who is present 

shall preside at the meeting or hearing. 

(d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Except as provided by the Rules 

of the House, each meeting of the Committee or any of its subcommittees for the transaction of business, including the markup 

of legislation, and each hearing, shall be open to the public including to radio, television and still photography coverage, consistent 

with the provisions of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. 

Rule 3. Agenda. 

The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee meeting (other 

than a hearing), setting out the date, time, place, and all items of 

business to be considered, shall be provided to each member of the 

Committee at least 36 hours in advance of such meeting. 

Rule 4. Procedure. 

(a)(1) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any 

hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall be announced at least one week in advance of the commencement of such 

hearing, unless the Committee or subcommittee determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House 

that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner. 

(2)(A) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of any 

meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session, shall be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and 

legal holidays except when the House is in session on such days) 

in advance of the commencement of such meeting. 

(B) Other Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter of 

a meeting (other than a hearing or a meeting to which subparagraph (A) applies) shall be announced at least 72 hours in advance 

of the commencement of such meeting. 

(b)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to appear 

before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with the clerk 

of the Committee, at least two working days in advance of his or 

her appearance, sufficient copies, as determined by the chairman 

of the Committee or a subcommittee, of a written statement of his 

or her proposed testimony to provide to members and staff of the 

Committee or subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral 

presentation to a brief summary of the argument. The chairman of 

the Committee or of a subcommittee, or the presiding member, may 

waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof. 

(2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness appearing 

in a non-governmental capacity shall include a curriculum vitae 

and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) 

of any federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either 

of the two preceding fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. 

(c) Questioning Witnesses. The right to interrogate the witnesses 

before the Committee or any of its subcommittees shall alternate 

4 

between majority and minority members. Each member shall be 

limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of witnesses until such 

time as each member who so desires has had an opportunity to 

question witnesses. No member shall be recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a witness until each member of the 

Committee present has been recognized once for that purpose. 

While the Committee or subcommittee is operating under the 5– 

minute rule for the interrogation of witnesses, the chairman shall 

recognize in order of appearance members who were not present 

when the meeting was called to order after all members who were 

present when the meeting was called to order have been recognized 

in the order of seniority on the Committee or subcommittee, as the 

case may be. 

(d) Explanation of Subcommittee Action. No bill, recommendation, or other matter reported by a subcommittee shall be considered by the full Committee unless the text of the matter reported, 

together with an explanation, has been available to members of the 

Committee for at least 36 hours. Such explanation shall include a 

summary of the major provisions of the legislation, an explanation 

of the relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary 

of the need for the legislation. All subcommittee actions shall be reported promptly by the clerk of the Committee to all members of 

the Committee. 

(e) Opening Statements. Opening statements by members at the 

beginning of any hearing or markup of the Committee or any of its 

subcommittees shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the chairman 

and ranking minority member (or their respective designee) of the 

Committee or subcommittee, as applicable, and 3 minutes each for 

all other members. With the consent of the Committee, prior to the 

recognition of the first witness for testimony, any Member, when 

recognized for an opening statement, may completely defer his or 

her three-minute opening statement and instead use those three 

minutes during the initial round of witness questioning. 

Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Layover Requirements. 

Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by a 

majority of those present and voting (a majority being present) of 

the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be. 

Rule 6. Quorum. 

Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing at 

which there are present not fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee in question. A majority of the members of 

the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a subpoena, or of 

closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of Rule XI of 

the Rules of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and 

(B)). For the purposes of taking any action other than those specified in the preceding sentence, one-third of the members of the 

Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum. 

Rule 7. Official Committee Records. 

(a)(1) Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show those 

present at each meeting, and include a record of the vote on any 

5 

question on which a record vote is demanded and a description of 

the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition voted. A copy 

of the journal shall be furnished to the ranking minority member. 

(2) Record Votes. A record vote may be demanded by one-fifth of 

the members present or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by 

any one member. No demand for a record vote shall be made or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a record vote or in the 

apparent absence of a quorum. The result of each record vote in 

any meeting of the Committee shall be made available in the Committee office for inspection by the public, as provided in Rule XI, 

clause 2(e) of the Rules of the House. 

(b) Archived Records. The records of the Committee at the National Archives and Records Administration shall be made available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the 

House. The chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of 

any decision, pursuant to clause 3 (b)(3) or clause 4 (b) of the Rule, 

to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be 

presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any member of the Committee. The chairman shall consult 

with the ranking minority member on any communication from the 

Archivist of the United States or the Clerk of the House concerning 

the disposition of noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of the 

Rule. 

Rule 8. Subcommittees. 

There shall be such standing subcommittees with such jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party caucus of the 

Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party caucus prior to the 

start of the process for establishing subcommittee chairmanships 

and assignments. 

Rule 9. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees. 

Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive 

testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the Committee on all 

matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen shall set hearing 

and meeting dates only with the approval of the chairman of the 

Committee with a view toward assuring the availability of meeting 

rooms and avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and 

subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. 

Rule 10. Reference of Legislation and Other Matters. 

All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall 

be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate jurisdiction within 

two weeks of the date of receipt by the Committee unless action is 

taken by the full committee within those two weeks, or by majority 

vote of the members of the Committee, consideration is to be by the 

full Committee. In the case of legislation or other matter within the 

jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee, the chairman of the 

Committee may, in his discretion, refer the matter simultaneously 

to two or more subcommittees for concurrent consideration, or may 

designate a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction and also refer the 

matter to one or more additional subcommittees for consideration 

in sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations), either on its 

initial referral or after the matter has been reported by the subVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
6 

committee of primary jurisdiction. Such authority shall include the 

authority to refer such legislation or matter to an ad hoc subcommittee appointed by the chairman, with the approval of the 

Committee, from the members of the subcommittee having legislative or oversight jurisdiction. 

Rule 11. Ratio of Subcommittees. 

The majority caucus of the Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of majority to minority party members for each subcommittee and the chairman shall negotiate that ratio with the minority party, provided that the ratio of party members on each subcommittee shall be no less favorable to the majority than that of 

the full Committee, nor shall such ratio provide for a majority of 

less than two majority members. 

Rule 12. Subcommittee Membership. 

(a) Selection of Subcommittee Members. Prior to any organizational meeting held by the Committee, the majority and minority 

caucuses shall select their respective members of the standing subcommittees. 

(b) Ex Officio Members. The chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee shall be ex officio members with voting 

privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not assigned as 

members and may be counted for purposes of establishing a 

quorum in such subcommittees. 

Rule 13. Managing Legislation on the House Floor. 

The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which member 

shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to the House. 

Rule 14. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff Appointments. 

(a) Delegation of Staff. Whenever the chairman of the Committee 

determines that any professional staff member appointed pursuant 

to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, who is assigned to such chairman and not to the ranking minority member, by reason of such professional staff member’s expertise or qualifications will be of assistance to one or more subcommittees in carrying out their assigned responsibilities, he may 

delegate such member to such subcommittees for such purpose. A 

delegation of a member of the professional staff pursuant to this 

subsection shall be made after consultation with subcommittee 

chairmen and with the approval of the subcommittee chairman or 

chairmen involved. 

(b) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority member of the 

Committee and not to the chairman of the Committee, shall be assigned to such Committee business as the minority party members 

of the Committee consider advisable. 

(c) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the professional 

staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee shall be entitled to 

make such appointments to the professional and clerical staff of the 

Committee as may be provided within the budget approved for 

such purposes by the Committee. Such appointee shall be assigned 

7 

to such business of the full Committee as the chairman of the Committee considers advisable. 

(d) Sufficient Staff. The chairman shall ensure that sufficient 

staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee. 

(e) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of Committee Staff. The chairman shall ensure that the minority members 

of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of Committee 

staff. 

(f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services. Any contract 

for the temporary services or intermittent service of individual consultants or organizations to make studies or advise the Committee 

or its subcommittees with respect to any matter within their jurisdiction shall be deemed to have been approved by a majority of the 

members of the Committee if approved by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee. Such approval shall not be 

deemed to have been given if at least one-third of the members of 

the Committee request in writing that the Committee formally act 

on such a contract, if the request is made within 10 days after the 

latest date on which such chairman or chairmen, and such ranking 

minority member or members, approve such contract. 

Rule 15. Supervision, Duties of Staff. 

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

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

the supervision and direction of the chairman who, in consultation 

with the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall establish and assign 

the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and delegate 

such authority as he determines appropriate. 

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

staff assigned to the minority shall be under the supervision and 

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

Rule 16. Committee Budget. 

(a) Preparation of Committee Budget. The chairman of the Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member of the 

Committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall for the 

108th 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. 

8 

(c) Monthly Expenditures Report. Committee members shall be 

furnished a copy of each monthly report, prepared by the chairman 

for the Committee on House Administration, which shows expenditures made during the reporting period and cumulative for the year 

by the Committee and subcommittees, anticipated expenditures for 

the projected Committee program, and detailed information on 

travel. 

Rule 17. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings. 

Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be covered 

in whole or in part by radio or television or still photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI of the Rules of the 

House. The coverage of any hearing or other proceeding of the 

Committee or any subcommittee thereof by television, radio, or still 

photography shall be under the direct supervision of the chairman 

of the Committee, the subcommittee chairman, or other member of 

the Committee presiding at such hearing or other proceeding and 

may be terminated by such member in accordance with the Rules 

of the House. 

Rule 18. Comptroller General Audits. 

The chairman of the Committee is authorized to request 

verification examinations by the Comptroller General of the United 

States pursuant to Title V, Part A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94–163), after consultation with the 

members of the Committee. 

Rule 19. Subpoenas. 

The Committee, or any subcommittee, may authorize and issue 

a subpoena under clause 2(m)(2)(A) of Rule XI of the House, if authorized by a majority of the members of the Committee or subcommittee (as the case may be) voting, a quorum being present. 

Authorized subpoenas may be issued over the signature of the 

chairman of the Committee or any member designated by the Committee, and may be served by any person designated by such chairman or member. The chairman of the Committee may authorize 

and issue subpoenas under such clause during any period for which 

the House has adjourned for a period in excess of 3 days when, in 

the opinion of the chairman, authorization and issuance of the subpoena is necessary to obtain the material set forth in the subpoena. 

The chairman shall report to the members of the Committee on the 

authorization and issuance of a subpoena during the recess period 

as soon as practicable but in no event later than one week after 

service of such subpoena. 

Rule 20. Travel of Members and Staff. 

(a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have been 

approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside for the 

Committee for any member or any staff member shall be paid only 

upon the prior authorization of the chairman. Travel may be authorized by the chairman for any member and any staff member 

in connection with the attendance of hearings conducted by the 

Committee or any subcommittee thereof and meetings, conferences, 

and investigations which involve activities or subject matter under 

9 

the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to the chairman in writing 

the following: (1) the purpose of the travel; (2) the dates during 

which the travel is to be made and the date or dates of the event 

for which the travel is being made; (3) the location of the event for 

which the travel is to be made; and (4) the names of members and 

staff seeking authorization. 

(b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In the 

case of travel by minority party members and minority party professional staff for the purpose set out in (a), the prior approval, not 

only of the chairman but also of the ranking minority member, 

shall be required. Such prior authorization shall be given by the 

chairman only upon the representation by the ranking minority 

member in writing setting forth those items enumerated in (1), (2), 

(3), and (4) of paragraph (a). 

CLAUSES 2 AND 4 OR RULE XI AND CLAUSES 2 AND 3 OF RULE XIII 

OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE

108TH CONGRESS

JANUARY 7, 2003

RULE XI: PROCEDURES OF COMMITTEES AND UNFINISHED 

BUSINESS 

CLAUSE 2: COMMITTEE RULES

Adoption of written rules 

2. (a)(1) Each standing committee shall adopt written rules governing its procedure. Such rules— 

(A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the public 

unless the committee, in open session and with a quorum 

present, determines by record vote that all or part of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public; 

(B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or 

with those provisions of law having the force and effect of 

Rules of the House; and 

(C) shall in any event incorporate all of the succeeding provisions of this clause to the extent applicable. 

(2) Each committee shall submit its rules for publication in the 

Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the committee 

is elected in each odd-numbered year. 

Regular meeting days 

(b) Each standing committee shall establish regular meeting days 

for the conduct of its business, which shall be not less frequent 

than monthly. Each such committee shall meet for the consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the committee or the 

transaction of other committee business on all regular meeting 

days fixed by the committee unless otherwise provided by written 

rule adopted by the committee. 

Additional and special meetings 

(c)(1) The chairman of each standing committee may call and 

convene, as he considers necessary, additional and special meetings 

of the committee for the consideration of a bill or resolution pendVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
10 

ing before the committee or for the conduct of other committee 

business, subject to such rules as the committee may adopt. The 

committee shall meet for such purpose under that call of the chairman. 

(2) Three or more members of a standing committee may file in 

the offices of the committee a written request that the chairman 

call a special meeting of the committee. Such request shall specify 

the measure or matter to be considered. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the clerk of the committee shall notify the chairman of the filing of the request. If the chairman does not call the 

requested special meeting within three calendar days after the filing of the request (to be held within seven calendar days after the 

filing of the request) a majority of the members of the committee 

may file in the offices of the committee their written notice that a 

special meeting of the committee will be held. The written notice 

shall specify the date and hour of the special meeting and the 

measure or matter to be considered. The committee shall meet on 

that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the 

clerk of the committee shall notify all members of the committee 

that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date 

and hour and the measure or matter to be considered. Only the 

measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at 

that special meeting. 

Temporary absence of chairman 

(d) A member of the majority party on each standing committee 

or subcommittee thereof shall be designated by the chairman of the 

full committee as the vice chairman of the committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, and shall preside during the absence of the chairman from any meeting. If the chairman and vice 

chairman of a committee or subcommittee are not present at any 

meeting of the committee or subcommittee, the ranking majority 

member who is present shall preside at that meeting. 

Committee records 

(e)(1)(A) Each committee shall keep a complete record of all committee action which shall include— 

(i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made during the 

proceedings, subject only to technical, grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the person making the remarks involved; and 

(ii) a record of the votes on any question on which a record 

vote is demanded. 

(B)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (B)(ii) and subject to 

paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such record vote shall be made 

available by the committee for inspection by the public at reasonable times in its offices. Information so available for public inspection shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, 

or other proposition, the name of each member voting for and each 

member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those members of the committee present 

but not voting. 

(ii) The result of any record vote taken in executive session in the 

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may not be made 

11 

available for inspection by the public without an affirmative vote 

of a majority of the members of the committee. 

(2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), all committee hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and distinct from the congressional office records of the member serving 

as its chairman. Such records shall be the property of the House, 

and each Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner shall 

have access thereto. 

(B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than 

members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, may 

not have access to the records of that committee respecting the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House without the specific prior permission of that 

committee. 

(3) Each committee shall include in its rules standards for availability of records of the committee delivered to the Archivist of the 

United States under rule VII. Such standards shall specify procedures for orders of the committee under clause 3(b)(3) and clause 

4(b) of rule VII, including a requirement that nonavailability of a 

record for a period longer than the period otherwise applicable 

under that rule shall be approved by vote of the committee. 

(4) Each committee shall make its publications available in electronic form to the maximum extent feasible. 

Prohibition against proxy voting 

(f) A vote by a member of a committee or subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter may not be cast by proxy. 

Open meetings and hearings 

(g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the 

markup of legislation, by a standing committee or subcommittee 

thereof (other than the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 

or its subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to 

radio, television, and still photography coverage, except when the 

committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority 

present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder 

of the meeting on that day shall be in executive session because 

disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, 

would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. Persons, other than 

members of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, congressional staff, or departmental 

representatives as the committee may authorize, may not be 

present at a business or markup session that is held in executive 

session. This subparagraph does not apply to open committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or by subparagraph (2). 

(2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee 

(other than the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or its 

subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except when the committee 

or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that 

hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure 

12 

of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate a law or rule of the House. 

(B) Notwithstanding the requirements of subdivision (A), in the 

presence of the number of members required under the rules of the 

committee for the purpose of taking testimony, a majority of those 

present may— 

(i) agree to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate clause 2(k)(5); or 

(ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in clause 2(k)(5). 

(C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be 

excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at a hearing of a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Standards of 

Official Conduct or its subcommittees) unless the House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee or subcommittee, for 

purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article 

of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its 

hearings to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner 

by the same procedures specified in this subparagraph for closing 

hearings to the public. 

(D) The committee or subcommittee may vote by the same procedure described in this subparagraph to close one subsequent day of 

hearing, except that the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Permanent Select Committee on 

Intelligence, and the subcommittees thereof, may vote by the same 

procedure to close up to five additional, consecutive days of hearings. 

(3) The chairman of each committee (other than the Committee 

on Rules) shall make public announcement of the date, place, and 

subject matter of a committee hearing at least one week before the 

commencement of the hearing. If the chairman of the committee, 

with the concurrence of the ranking minority member, determines 

that there is good cause to begin a hearing sooner, or if the committee so determines by majority vote in the presence of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the 

transaction of business, the chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. An announcement made under 

this subparagraph shall be published promptly in the Daily Digest 

and made available in electronic form. 

(4) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent practicable, require witnesses who appear before it to submit in advance written 

statements of proposed testimony and to limit their initial presentations to the committee to brief summaries thereof. In the case of 

a witness appearing in a nongovernmental capacity, a written 

statement of proposed testimony shall include a curriculum vitae 

and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) 

of each Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either 

of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. 

(5)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a point of order does 

not lie with respect to a measure reported by a committee on the 

13 

ground that hearings on such measure were not conducted in accordance with this clause. 

(B) A point of order on the ground described in subdivision (A) 

may be made by a member of the committee that reported the 

measure if such point of order was timely made and improperly 

disposed of in the committee. 

(6) This paragraph does not apply to hearings of the Committee 

on Appropriations under clause 4(a)(1) of rule X. 

Quorum requirements 

(h)(1) A measure or recommendation may not be reported by a 

committee unless a majority of the committee is actually present. 

(2) Each committee may fix the number of its members to constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence, 

which may not be less than two. 

(3) Each committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Ways 

and Means) may fix the number of its members to constitute a 

quorum for taking any action other than one for which the presence of a majority of the committee is otherwise required, which 

may not be less than one-third of the members. 

Limitation on committee sittings 

(i) A committee may not sit during a joint session of the House 

and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of the House 

and Senate is in progress. 

Calling and questioning of witnesses 

(j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a 

measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall 

be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the 

minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during 

at least one day of hearing thereon. 

(2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee shall 

apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of witnesses in 

a hearing until such time as each member of the committee who 

so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness. 

(B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a specified number of its members to question a witness for longer than 

five minutes. The time for extended questioning of a witness under 

this subdivision shall be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one hour in the aggregate. 

(C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting committee staff for its majority and minority party members to question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for extended 

questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for 

the majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one 

hour in the aggregate. 

Hearing procedures 

(k)(1) The chairman at a hearing shall announce in an opening 

statement the subject of the hearing. 

(2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall be 

made available to each witness on request. 

14 

(3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own 

counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. 

(4) The chairman may punish breaches of order and decorum, 

and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and 

exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt. 

(5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that 

the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that 

the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing 

may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness— 

(A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, in the presence 

of the number of members required under the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, the committee determines by vote of a majority of those present that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and 

(B) the committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open 

session only if the committee, a majority being present, determines 

that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, 

or incriminate any person. 

In either case the committee shall afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness, and receive and dispose 

of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses. 

(6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chairman shall 

receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional witnesses. 

(7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or used 

in public sessions only when authorized by the committee, a majority being present. 

(8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may submit 

brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the 

record. The committee is the sole judge of the pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing. 

(9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of his testimony given 

at a public session or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the committee. 

Supplemental, minority, or additional views 

(l) If at the time of approval of a measure or matter by a committee (other than the Committee on Rules) a member of the committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, or 

additional views for inclusion in the report to the House thereon, 

that member shall be entitled to not less than two additional calendar days after the day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on 

such a day) to file such views, in writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the committee. 

Power to sit and act; subpoena power 

(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and 

duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters referred 

15 

to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is 

authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))— 

(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United 

States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has 

adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; 

and 

(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 

testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 

records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents 

as it considers necessary. 

(2) The chairman of the committee, or a member designated by 

the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses. 

(3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a subpoena 

may be authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee 

under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or activities only when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chairman of the committee under such rules and 

under such limitations as the committee may prescribe. Authorized 

subpoenas shall be signed by the chairman of the committee or by 

a member designated by the committee. 

(ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on Standards 

of Official Conduct, a subpoena may be authorized and issued only 

by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members. 

(B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other 

than at a meeting or hearing of the committee or subcommittee authorizing the subpoena. 

(C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House. 

CLAUSE 4: AUDIO AND VISUAL COVERAGE OF COMMITTEE

PROCEEDINGS

Audio and visual coverage of committee proceedings 

4. (a) The purpose of this clause is to provide a means, in conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum, by which committee hearings or committee meetings that are 

open to the public may be covered by audio and visual means— 

(1) for the education, enlightenment, and information of the 

general public, on the basis of accurate and impartial news 

coverage, regarding the operations, procedures, and practices of 

the House as a legislative and representative body, and regarding the measures, public issues, and other matters before the 

House and its committees, the consideration thereof, and the 

action taken thereon; and 

(2) for the development of the perspective and understanding 

of the general public with respect to the role and function of 

the House under the Constitution as an institution of the Federal Government. 

(b) In addition, it is the intent of this clause that radio and television tapes and television film of any coverage under this clause 

may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political 

16 

campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for elective public office. 

(c) It is, further, the intent of this clause that the general conduct of each meeting (whether of a hearing or otherwise) covered 

under authority of this clause by audio or visual means, and the 

personal behavior of the committee members and staff, other Government officials and personnel, witnesses, television, radio, and 

press media personnel, and the general public at the hearing or 

other meeting, shall be in strict conformity with and observance of 

the acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum traditionally observed by the House in its operations, and may 

not be such as to— 

(1) distort the objects and purposes of the hearing or other 

meeting or the activities of committee members in connection 

with that hearing or meeting or in connection with the general 

work of the committee or of the House; or 

(2) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the committee, 

or a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or bring the 

House, the committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident 

Commissioner into disrepute. 

(d) The coverage of committee hearings and meetings by audio 

and visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in strict 

conformity with the purposes, provisions, and requirements of this 

clause. 

(e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee or 

subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open 

to coverage by audio and visual means. A committee or subcommittee chairman may not limit the number of television or still 

cameras to fewer than two representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space or safety considerations, in which case 

pool coverage shall be authorized). 

(f) Each committee shall adopt written rules to govern its implementation of this clause. Such rules shall contain provisions to the 

following effect: 

(1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or meeting is 

to be presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage 

shall be conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship. 

(2) The allocation among the television media of the positions or the number of television cameras permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman in a hearing or meeting 

room shall be in accordance with fair and equitable procedures 

devised by the Executive Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Galleries. 

(3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct 

in any way the space between a witness giving evidence or testimony and any member of the committee or the visibility of 

that witness and that member to each other. 

(4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but 

may not be placed in positions that obstruct unnecessarily the 

coverage of the hearing or meeting by the other media. 

(5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and 

radio media may not be installed in, or removed from, the 

hearing or meeting room while the committee is in session. 

17 

(6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights, spotlights, strobelights, and flashguns may not be used in providing any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting. 

(B) The television media may install additional lighting in a 

hearing or meeting room, without cost to the Government, in 

order to raise the ambient lighting level in a hearing or meeting room to the lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a hearing or meeting at the current state of 

the art of television coverage. 

(7) In the allocation of the number of still photographers permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman in a hearing 

or meeting room, preference shall be given to photographers 

from Associated Press Photos and United Press International 

Newspictures. If requests are made by more of the media than 

will be permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman 

for coverage of a hearing or meeting by still photography, that 

coverage shall be permitted on the basis of a fair and equitable 

pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee of Press 

Photographers. 

(8) Photographers may not position themselves between the 

witness table and the members of the committee at any time 

during the course of a hearing or meeting. 

(9) Photographers may not place themselves in positions that 

obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other 

media. 

(10) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio 

media shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television 

Correspondents’ Galleries. 

(11) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall 

be currently accredited to the Press Photographers’ Gallery. 

(12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio 

media and by still photography shall conduct themselves and 

their coverage activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner. 

RULE XIII: CALENDARS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 

CLAUSE 2: FILING AND PRINTING OF REPORTS

2. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), all reports of 

committees (other than those filed from the floor as privileged) 

shall be delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the 

proper calendar under the direction of the Speaker in accordance 

with clause 1. The title or subject of each report shall be entered 

on the Journal and printed in the Congressional Record. 

(2) A bill or resolution reported adversely shall be laid on the 

table unless a committee to which the bill or resolution was referred requests at the time of the report its referral to an appropriate calendar under clause 1 or unless, within three days thereafter, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner makes such 

a request. 

(b)(1) It shall be the duty of the chairman of each committee to 

report or cause to be reported promptly to the House a measure or 

matter approved by the committee and to take or cause to be taken 

steps necessary to bring the measure or matter to a vote. 

(2) In any event, the report of a committee on a measure that 

has been approved by the committee shall be filed within seven calVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
18 

endar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) 

after the day on which a written request for the filing of the report, 

signed by a majority of the members of the committee, has been 

filed with the clerk of the committee. The clerk of the committee 

shall immediately notify the chairman of the filing of such a request. This subparagraph does not apply to a report of the Committee on Rules with respect to a rule, joint rule, or order of business of the House, or to the reporting of a resolution of inquiry addressed to the head of an executive department. 

(c) All supplemental, minority, or additional views filed under 

clause 2(l) of rule XI by one or more members of a committee shall 

be included in, and shall be a part of, the report filed by the committee with respect to a measure or matter. When time guaranteed 

by clause 2(l) of rule XI has expired (or, if sooner, when all separate views have been received), the committee may arrange to file 

its report with the Clerk not later than one hour after the expiration of such time. This clause and provisions of clause 2(l) of rule 

XI do not preclude the immediate filing or printing of a committee 

report in the absence of a timely request for the opportunity to file 

supplemental, minority, or additional views as provided in clause 

2(l) of rule XI. 

CLAUSE 3: CONTENTS OF REPORTS

Content of reports 

3. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the report of a 

committee on a measure or matter shall be printed in a single volume that— 

(A) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional 

views that have been submitted by the time of the filing of the 

report; and 

(B) shall bear on its cover a recital that any such supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any material submitted under paragraph (c)(3)) are included as part of the report. 

(2) A committee may file a supplemental report for the correction of a technical error in its previous report on a measure 

or matter. A supplemental report only correcting errors in the 

depiction of record votes under paragraph (b) may be filed 

under this subparagraph and shall not be subject to the requirement in clause 4 concerning the availability of reports. 

(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report a 

measure or matter of a public nature, and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for 

and against, and the names of members voting for and against, 

shall be included in the committee report. The preceding sentence 

does not apply to votes taken in executive session by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. 

(c) The report of a committee on a measure that has been approved by the committee shall include, separately set out and clearly identified, the following: 

(1) Oversight findings and recommendations under clause 

2(b)(1) of rule X. 

(2) The statement required by section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except that an estimate of new 

19 

budget authority shall include, when practicable, a comparison 

of the total estimated funding level for the relevant programs 

to the appropriate levels under current law. 

(3) An estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 

the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the committee before the filing of the report. 

(4) A statement of general performance goals and objectives, 

including outcome—related goals and objectives, for which the 

measure authorizes funding. 

(d) Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint 

resolution shall contain the following: 

(1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill 

or joint resolution. 

(2)(A) An estimate by the committee of the costs that would 

be incurred in carrying out the bill or joint resolution in the 

fiscal year in which it is reported and in each of the five fiscal 

years following that fiscal year (or for the authorized duration 

of any program authorized by the bill or joint resolution if less 

than five years); 

(B) a comparison of the estimate of costs described in subdivision (A) made by the committee with any estimate of such 

costs made by a Government agency and submitted to such 

committee; and (C) when practicable, a comparison of the total 

estimated funding level for the relevant programs with the appropriate levels under current law. 

(3)(A) In subparagraph (2) the term ‘‘Government agency’’ includes any department, agency, establishment, wholly owned 

Government corporation, or instrumentality of the Federal 

Government or the government of the District of Columbia. 

(B) Subparagraph (2) does not apply to the Committee on 

Appropriations, the Committee on House Administration, the 

Committee on Rules, or the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct, and does not apply when a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 

Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974 has been included in the report under paragraph (c)(3). 

(e)(1) Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof, it shall include 

in its report or in an accompanying document— 

(A) the text of a statute or part thereof that is proposed to 

be repealed; and 

(B) a comparative print of any part of the bill or joint resolution proposing to amend the statute and of the statute or part 

thereof proposed to be amended, showing by appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions proposed. 

(2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution proposing to 

repeal or amend a statute or part thereof with a recommendation 

that the bill or joint resolution be amended, the comparative print 

required by subparagraph (1) shall reflect the changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill or joint resolution as proposed 

to be amended. 

(21) 

MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

(Ratio 31–26) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 4

W. J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana 3

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 1

MICHAREL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 5

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 2

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

*Representative Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) resigned as a Member of the House of Representatives 

on December 8, 2003. 

*Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) resigned from the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

on January 28, 2004. 1 Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX) resigned from the Democratic caucus on January 5, 

2004. He was elected to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the 108th Congress 

on January 28, 2004, pursuant to H. Res. 505, which passed the House on January 28, 

2004. 2 Representative John Sullivan (R-OK) was elected to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the 108th Congress on January 28, 2004, pursuant to H. Res. 505, which passed 

the House on January 28, 2004. 3 Representative W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin (R-LA) resigned as Chairman of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce on February 15, 2004. 4 Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) was elected Chairman of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce on February 26, 2004. 5 Representative James C. Greenwood resigned as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 21, 2004. 

22 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

(Ratio 16–13) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

Vice Chairman 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

DARRELLE E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

regulation of travel, tourism, and time. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

(Ratio 18–15) 

RALPH HALL, Texas, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Vice Chairman 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

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

and waste; the Clean Air Act; and, all laws, programs, and government activities affecting 

such matters. 

23 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(Ratio 16–13) 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

PHILDA L. SOLIS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

Jurisdiction: Environmental protection in general, including the Safe Drinking Water Act 

and risk assessment matters; solid waste, hazardous waste and toxic substances, including 

Superfund and RCRA; mining, oil, gas, and coal combustion wastes; and, noise pollution control. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

(Ratio 18–15) 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOESPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

insurance; food and drugs; and, drug abuse. 

24 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

(Ratio 18–15) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Vice Chairman 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

or other mode. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

(Ratio 9–7) 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

25 

COMMITTEE STAFF 

C. H. ‘‘BUD’’ ALBRIGHT, Jr., Staff Director 

JAMES D. BARNETTE, Deputy Staff Director/General Counsel 

ANDY BLACK, Deputy Staff Director for Policy 

LAWRENCE A. NEAL, Deputy Staff Director for Communications 

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Chief Counsel for Commerce 

CHARLES M. CLAPTON, Chief Counsel for Health 

MARK W. MENEZES, Chief Counsel for Energy and Environment 

MARK A. PAOLETTA, Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations 

HOWARD WALTZMAN, Chief Counsel for Telecommunications 

MICHAEL ABRAHAM, Legislative Clerk 

KELLI ANDREWS, Counsel 

MELISSA BARTLETT, Counsel 

KURT W. BILAS, Counsel 

JUDY L. BORGER, Professional Staff Member 

MARGARET E. CARAVELLI, Counsel 

WILLIAM CARTY, Legislative Clerk 

DWIGHT CATES, Professional Staff Member 

KELLY COLE, Counsel 

BRAD CONWAY, Counsel 

ANTHONY COOKE, Counsel 

WILLIAM COOPER, Counsel 

JULIE CORDELL, Professional Staff Member 

GERALD COURI, Policy Coordinator 

HEATHER COURI, Associate 

EUGENIA EDWARDS, Legislative Clerk 

THOMAS FEDDO, Counsel 

JOSEPH B. FORTSON, IV, Counsel 

NEIL R. FREID, Counsel 

CHAD GRANT, Staff Assistant 

MICHAEL GREEN, Staff Assistant 

JEANNE M. HAGGERTY, Policy Coordinator 

BILLY HARVARD, Legislative Clerk 

THOMAS HASSENBOEHLER, Counsel 

REBECCA HEMARD, Counsel 

ELIZABETH HILL, Staff Assistant 

ERIC M. HUTCHINS, Energy Assistant 

SHANNON JACQUOT, Counsel 

CHERYL JAEGER, Professional Staff Member 

JAYLYN JENSEN, Senior Legislative Analyst 

SAMANTHA JORDAN, Press Secretary 

NANDAN KENKEREMATH, Senior Counsel 

PETER E. KIELTY, Legislative Clerk 

CHRIS LEAHY, Policy Coordinator 

RYAN LONG, Professional Staff Member 

CLAYTON MATHESON, Research Analyst 

BRIAN MCCULLOUGH, Professional Staff Member 

JEAN MCGINLEY, Director of Information Technology 

LISA MILLER, Deputy Communications Director 

AUDREY MURDOCH, Assistant to the Administrative Coordinator 

ANH NGUYEN, Staff Assistant 

WILL NORDWIND, Policy Coordinator 

WILLIAM D. O’BRIEN, Legislative Analyst for Health Policy 

JOSEPH P. PATTERSON, JR., Printer 

MARYAM S. SABBAGHIAN, Counsel 

JEROME SIKORSKI, Archivist 

ROBERT E. SIMISON, Professional Staff Member 

ALAN M. SLOBODIN, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and Investigations 

AMOS SNEAD, Press Assistant 

ANDREW L. SNOWDON, Counsel 

PETER SPENCER, Professional Staff Member 

ELIZABETH STACK, Policy Coordinator 

ANTHONY M. SULLIVAN, Comptroller 

RYAN THOMPSON, Assistant to the Chairman 

JON TRIPP, Deputy Communications Director 

JACQUELINE L. WALKER, Director of External Affairs 

LINDA WALKER, Administrative and Human Resources Coordinator 

26 

MINORITY STAFF

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID R. SCHOOLER, Minority Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Minority Clerk 

CANDACE E. BUTLER, Deputy Chief Minority Clerk/LAN Administrator 

JONATHAN J. CORDONE, Minority Counsel 

ANGELA DAVIS-WEST, Minority Secretary 

JEFFREY M. DONOFRIO, Minority Research Assistant 

PETER J. FILON, Minority Counsel 

JOHN P. FORD, Minority Counsel 

RICHARD A. FRANDSEN, Senior Minority Counsel 

MICHAEL L. GOO, Minority Counsel 

ASHLEY R. GROESBECK, Minority Research Assistant 

AMY B. HALL, Minority Professional Staff Member 

ROBERT T. HALL, Minority Staff Assistant 

BRUCE HARRIS, Minority Professional Staff Member 

VONCILLE TROTTER HINES, Minority Research Assistant 

EDITH HOLLEMAN, Minority Counsel 

CARLA R. V. HULTBERG, Assistant Minority Clerk/Assistant LAN Administrator 

PURVEE KEMPH, Minority Counsel 

RAYMOND R. KENT, Jr., Minority Finance Assistant 

CHRISTOPHER KNAUER, Minority Investigator 

JESSICA A. MCNIECE, Minority Research Assistant 

DAVID W. NELSON, Minority Investigator/Economist 

BETTINA POIRIER, Minority Counsel 

GREGG ROTHSCHILD, Minority Counsel 

JODI SETH, Minority Press Secretary 

SUE D. SHERIDAN, Senior Minority Counsel 

BRIDGETT E. TAYLOR, Minority Professional Staff Member 

DAVID A. VOGEL, Minority Staff Assistant 

COUNSUELA M. WASHINGTON, Senior Minority Counsel 

(27) 

LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY OF THE 

COMMITTEE 

During the 108th Congress, 1114 bills and resolutions were referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Full Committee reported 49 measures to the House (not including conference 

reports). 55 measures regarding issues within the Committee’s jurisdiction were enacted into law. 

In areas as diverse as health, telecommunications, energy, and 

the environment, the Committee made great strides towards the 

goal of creating a more effective, less expensive, and more accountable government that better serves all Americans. 

The following is a summary of the legislative and oversight activities of the Committee on Energy and Commerce during the 

108th Congress. This report includes a summary of the activities 

taken by the Committee to implement its Oversight Plan for the 

108th Congress, which was submitted by the Committee under 

clause 2(d) of rule X. In addition, pursuant to clause 1(d)(3) of Rule 

XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, this reports contains a summary of any additional oversight activities undertaken 

by the Committee and the recommendations made or actions taken 

thereon. 

(29)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

FULL COMMITTEE

(Ratio 31–26) 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

W. J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana 3

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 1

MICHAREL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

FRED UPTON, Michian 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi, Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELLE ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 2

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPSS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION BRIEFING ON DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY

On January 8, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held a briefing on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) request 

for authorization to collect fees to fund a national do-not-call registry. The focus of the briefing was to review the FTC’s funding of 

the registry, the source of funding for the registry, and how to best 

achieve the national rollout of the national do-not-call list. The 

Committee was briefed by the Federal Trade Commission. 

A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY2004 HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES

On February 12, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held an oversight hearing to examine the President’s proposed FY 

2004 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). The hearing focused on Administration’s proposed budget 

30 

for the two entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, the hearing provided the Administration with the opportunity 

to discuss its budget plans for supporting healthy communities by 

funding programs and initiatives that improve access to critical 

health care services and improve quality, as well as funding for bioterrorism preparedness and biomedical research. The HHS Secretary was the sole witness at the hearing. 

NATURAL GAS SUPPLY AND DEMAND ISSUES

On June 10, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 

an oversight hearing on domestic natural gas supply and demand 

issues. The hearing examined the projected natural gas supply and 

demand imbalance and its affect on prices. Witnesses included representatives from the Energy Information Administration, state 

regulators, industry representatives and analysts, and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. 

BLACKOUT 2003: HOW DID IT HAPPEN AND WHY?

On September 3 and 4, 2003, the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce held two oversight hearings investigating the causes of 

the August 14, 2003, electricity blackout, the largest in the nation’s 

history. Approximately 62,000 MW of customer load was lost, affecting an area in eight states and Canada with roughly 50 million 

people. Witnesses testifying on the first day included the Secretary 

of the Department of Energy, the Governor of Ohio, the Governor 

of Michigan, the Mayor of Detroit, representatives from Federal, regional, and state regulatory agencies, and representatives of the 

North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) and two regional reliability councils; the East-Central Area Reliability Council 

(ECAR) and the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). 

Witnesses testifying on the second day included officials from six 

companies directly affected by the blackouts, the independent system operators and the regional transmission operator in the region 

of the blackout, industry analysts and officers, consumer advocacy 

groups, and the investment community. 

MANAGING BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH TO PREVENT AND CURE DISEASE IN

THE 21ST CENTURY: MATCHING NIH POLICY WITH SCIENCE

On October 2, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held a joint oversight hearing with the Senate Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, on the organizational 

structure of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The hearing 

focused on how the current organizational structure of NIH impacts the management of the agency, priority setting, and the advancement of science. Testimony was received from both the current and past Director of the NIH, as well as a representative of 

the National Academy of Sciences. 

A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION’S FY2005 HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES

On March 10, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held an oversight hearing to examine the President’s proposed FY 

2005 budget for the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS). The hearing focused on the Administration’s budget reVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
31 

quirements for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

($482.1 billion, an increase of $29.1 billion from FY 2004 request). 

The hearing also provided the Administration with the opportunity 

to discuss its budget plans for other priorities, including: additional 

programs for health care access (i.e., community health centers, 

health savings accounts, and health care tax credits); bioterrorism 

preparedness and biomedical research; fighting AIDS; food and 

drug reforms; additional programs supporting public health; and 

initiatives concerning marriage, children, and healthy family development. The HHS Secretary was the sole witness at the hearing. 

THE STATE OF U.S. INDUSTRY

On March 24, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held an oversight hearing on the state of U.S. industry. The hearing focused on the challenges facing American manufacturing with 

a specific review of the Department of Commerce’s plan to promote 

manufacturing. Specifically, the hearing addressed plans to create 

the conditions for economic growth and manufacturing investment; 

lower the cost of manufacturing in the United States; invest in innovation, strengthen education, retraining, and economic diversification; promote open markets; and enhance government’s focus 

on manufacturing competitiveness. The sole witness was the Secretary of Commerce. 

FY2005 BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

On April 1, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 

an oversight hearing to examine the Department of Energy’s budget request for fiscal year 2005. The sole witness was the Secretary 

of the Department of Energy. 

HEARINGS HELD

The Do-Not-Call List Authorization.—Oversight briefing on the 

Do-Not-Call List Authorization. Briefing held on January 8, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–1. 

A Review of the Administration FY2004 Health Care Priorities.— 

Oversight hearing on a Review of the Administration FY2004 

Health Care Priorities. Hearing held on February 12, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–8. 

Natural Gas Supply and Demand Issues.—Oversight hearing on 

Natural Gas Supply and Demand Issues. Hearing held on June 10, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–26. 

Blackout 2003: How Did it Happen and Why?—Oversight hearing 

on Blackout 2003: How Did it Happen and Why? Hearing held on 

September 3, 2003 and September 4, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–54. 

Managing Biomedical Research to Prevent and Cure Disease in 

the 21st Century: Matching NIH Policy with Science.—Joint oversight hearing with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions on Managing Biomedical Research to Prevent 

and Cure Disease in the 21st Century: Matching NIH Policy with 

Science. Hearing held on October 2, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–56. 

32 

A Review of the Administration’s FY2005 Health Care Priorities.—Oversight hearing on a Review of the Administration’s 

FY2005 Health Care Priorities. Hearing held on March 10, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–100. 

The State of U.S. Industry.—Oversight hearing on the State of 

U.S. Industry. Hearing held on March 24, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–79. 

FY2005 Budget Priorities for the Department of Energy.—Oversight hearing on FY2005 Budget Priorities for the Department of 

Energy. Hearing held on April 1, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 

108–80. 

(33) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

(Ratio 16–13) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

Vice Chairman 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

regulation of travel, tourism, and time. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

DO-NOT-CALL IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Public Law 108–10 (H.R. 395) 

A bill to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to collect fees 

for the implementation and enforcement of a ‘‘do-not-call’’ registry, 

and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 395, the ‘‘Do-Not-Call Implementation Act,’’ authorizes the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to promulgate regulations establishing fees sufficient to implement and enforce provisions relating 

to the ‘‘do-not-call’’ registry of the Telemarketing Sales Rule promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, allows such fees to be collected for FY 2003 through 

2007, and directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

to issue a final rule pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding begun 

under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and coordinate with 

the FTC to maximize consistency with the FTC’s ‘‘do-not-call’’ rule. 

Legislative History 

On January 8, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

held a briefing on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) request 

for authorization to collect fees to fund a national do-not-call regVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
34 

istry. The focus of the briefing was to review the FTC’s funding of 

the registry, the source of funding for the registry, and how to best 

achieve the national rollout of the national do-not-call list. The 

Committee was briefed by the Federal Trade Commission. 

On January 28, 2003, H.R. 395 was introduced in the House by 

Mr. Tauzin and was referred to the House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee met in open markup 

session and ordered H.R. 395 reported to the House by voice vote, 

a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 395 to 

the House on February 11, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–8). 

On February 12, 2003, the House considered H.R. 395 under a 

previous order of the House, and passed the bill by a vote of 418 

yeas to 7 nays. 

H.R. 395 was received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read 

the third time, and passed without amendment by unanimous consent on February 13, 2003. 

On February 27, 2003, H.R. 395 was presented to the President 

and on March 11, 2003, was signed by the President (Public Law 

108–10). 

RATIFICATION OF DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY

Public Law 108–82 (H.R. 3161) 

To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-call registry. 

Summary 

H.R. 3161 declares that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is 

authorized under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 

Abuse Prevention Act to implement and enforce a national do-notcall registry and ratifies the do-not-call registry provision of the 

Telemarketing Sales Rule, which were promulgated by the Federal 

Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3161 was introduced in the House by Mr. Tauzin on September 24, 2003 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On September 25, 2003 the House considered H.R. 3161 pursuant to a previous order, and passed the House by a vote of 412 yeas 

to 8 nays. 

On September 25, 2003, H.R. 3161 was received in the Senate, 

read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without 

amendment by a vote of 95 yeas to 0 nays. 

On September 29, 2003, H.R. 3161 was presented to and signed 

by the President (Public Law 108–82). 

FAIRNESS TO CONTACT LENS CONSUMERS ACT

Public Law 108–164 (H.R. 3140, H.R. 2221) 

To provide for availability of contact lens prescriptions to patients, and for other purposes. 

35 

Summary 

H.R. 3140 requires a contact lens prescriber to provide patients 

with a copy of their contact lens prescription, whether or not requested by the patient, and verify the prescription’s accuracy, or 

make necessary corrections, to a contact lens seller or any person 

designated by the patient. It also prohibits a prescriber from requiring patients to purchase contact lenses from the prescriber, 

charging an additional fee for a copy of the prescription, requiring 

the patient to sign a waiver, and disclaiming liability or responsibility for the accuracy of the eye examination. H.R. 3140 also allows a seller to fill a prescription for contact lenses only when a 

seller receives a contact lens prescription directly or by facsimile, 

a seller verifies a prescription by direct communication with the 

prescriber, or the prescriber fails to respond to the seller within 

eight business hours after being contacted by the seller with the 

prescription information. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3140 was introduced in the House by Mr. Burr on September 23, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On September 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved H.R. 3140 for full Committee consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Full Committee met on October 1, 2003, in open markup session and ordered reported H.R. 3140, as amended, by a voice vote, 

a quorum being present. 

On October 15, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

reported H.R. 3140 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–318). 

The House considered H.R. 3140, as amended, on November 19, 

2003, under suspension of the rules and passed H.R. 3140 by a vote 

of 406 yeas to 12 nays. 

On November 20, 2003, H.R. 3140 was received in the Senate, 

read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 3140 was presented to the President on November 26, 2003, 

and on December 6, 2003, the President signed H.R. 3140 (Public 

Law 108–164). 

CONTROLLING THE ASSUALT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND

MARKETING ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–187 (S. 877, H.R. 2214, H.R. 2515) 

To regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and 

penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic 

mail via the Internet. 

Summary 

S. 877 prohibits certain predatory and abusive practices used to 

send commercial email and provides consumers with the ability to 

more easily identify and opt-out of receiving other unwanted commercial e-mail. The legislation provides enforcement tools to the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Justice 

36 

(DOJ), other Federal regulators, States Attorneys General and 

bona fide Internet service providers (ISP) to enforce compliance 

with the Act. 

Legislative History 

S. 877 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Burns and six 

cosponsors on April 10, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

On June 19, 2003, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation ordered S. 877 reported to the Senate, as amended. 

On July 16, 2003, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation reported S. 877 to the Senate (S. Rpt. 108–102). 

The Senate passed S. 877, as amended, by a vote of 97 yeas to 

0 nays on October 22, 2003. 

On October 24, 2003, S. 877 was received by the House and held 

at the desk. On November 22, 2003, S. 877 was considered under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by a 

vote of 392 yeas to 5 nays. 

On November 25, 2003, the Senate concurred in the House 

amendment with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

On December 8, 2003, the House agreed, by unanimous consent, 

to the Senate amendment to the House amendment. 

S. 877 was presented to the President on December 11, 2003. On 

December 16, 2003, the President signed S. 877 (Public Law No. 

108–187). 

THE SPORTS AGENT RESPONSIBILITY AND TRUST ACT

Public Law 108–304 (H.R. 361) 

To designate certain conduct by sports agents relating to the 

signing of contracts with student athletes as unfair and deceptive 

acts or practices to be regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. 

Summary 

H.R. 361 prohibits an athlete agent from: (1) recruiting or soliciting a student athlete to enter into an agency contract by giving 

false or misleading information or providing anything of value to 

the athlete or anyone associated with the athlete before entering 

into such contract; (2) entering into an agency contract with a student athlete without providing the required disclosure document; 

or, (3) predating or postdating an agency contract. 

H.R. 361 also requires certain disclosures be made. An athlete 

agent, in conjunction with entering into an agency contract, must 

provide to the athlete (or to the athlete’s parent or legal guardian 

if the student athlete is under age 18) a separate disclosure document that includes notice that if the athlete agrees orally or in 

writing to be represented by an agent, he or she may lose eligibility 

to compete as a student athlete. The legislation requires both the 

student athlete and the agent to notify the athletic director of the 

athlete’s educational institution that the athlete has entered into 

an agency contract within 72 hours or before the athlete’s next athletic event, whichever occurs first. 

The bill treats a violation of this Act as an unfair or deceptive 

act or practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. AuthorVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
37 

izes civil actions by State Attorneys General. It also grants educational institutions the right to bring a civil action against an athlete agent for damages caused by a violation of this Act. 

Finally, H.R. 361 expresses the sense of Congress that states 

should enact the Uniform Athlete Agents Act of 2000 drafted by 

the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 361 was introduced in the House on January 27, 2003, by 

Mr. Gordon and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 

361 on January 29, 2004, and ordered H.R. 361 reported to the 

House by voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 5, 2003, 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 361 to the 

House (H. Rpt. 108–24, Part I.) 

On March 5, H.R. 361 was referred sequentially to the House 

Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than June 

1, 2003, for consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule 

X. 

On May 20, 2003, the House Committee on Judiciary was granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than 

June 2, 2003. 

On May 21, 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary considered 

H.R. 361 in a markup session and ordered it to be reported, as 

amended, by voice vote. The Committee on the Judiciary reported 

H.R. 361, as amended, on June 2, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–24, Part II). 

On June 4, 2003 H.R. 361 was considered under suspension of 

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

H.R. 361 was received in the Senate and read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on 

June 5, 2003. 

On September 9, 2004 the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation was discharged from further consideration by unanimous consent and H.R. 361 passed the Senate by 

unanimous consent. 

H.R. 361 was presented to the President on September 16, 2004. 

On September 24, 2004, the President signed H.R. 361 (Public Law 

108–304). 

NORMAN Y. MINETA RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

REORGANIZATION ACT

Public Law 108–426 (H.R. 5163) 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide the Department of Transportation a more focused research organization with 

an emphasis on innovative technology, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 5163, the ‘‘Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Reorganization Act,’’ reorganizes the Department of Transportation to create a Research and Innovative Technology Administration that will coordinate and manage research and development 

38 

programs for the various agencies within the Department of Transportation and establishes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5163 was introduced in the House by Mr. Young (AK) on 

September 29, 2004, and was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Science, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned. 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported 

H.R. 5163 to the House on October 6, 2004, by voice vote (H. Rpt. 

108–749). 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure exchanged correspondence on 

H.R. 5163 on October 6, 2004. 

The House considered H.R. 5163, as amended, on October 7, 

2004, under suspension of the rules and passed H.R. 5163 by a 

voice vote. 

On October 7, 2004, H.R. 5163 was received in the Senate and 

read twice. 

H.R. 5163 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 

16, 2004. 

On November 19, 2004, H.R. 5163 was presented to the President and was signed by the President on November 30, 2004 (Public Law 108–426). 

DIGITAL MEDIA CONSUMERS’ RIGHTS ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 107) 

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the 

advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an 

unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or 

practice, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 107 amends section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act 

and makes it an unfair and deceptive act or practice to advertise 

or sell mislabeled copy-protected compact disks. It also clarifies 

that it is not a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

(DMCA) to manufacture, import, or make available any technology 

that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a protected 

work or restricts the ability to use copyrightable material in an infringing way if the person is acting solely in the furtherance of scientific research into technological protection measures. Section 

5(b)(1) restores fair use under Section 1201(c) of the DMCA by 

clarifying that it is not a violation of the DMCA to circumvent a 

technological measure to access or use a work if the circumvention 

does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work. 

39 

Legislative History 

H.R. 107 was introduced in the House by Mr. Boucher and three 

cosponsors on January 7, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On May 12, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on The Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2003. The hearing focused on the tension between attempts by content owners to protect and control the use 

of their works by means of technology, enabled by the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

(DMCA), and the consumer’s use of technology to make use of content under fair use. The hearing also explored legislation that 

would make it an unfair and deceptive act or practice in commerce 

to introduce into commerce or to advertise the sale of, a 

prerecorded digital music disc that is mislabeled or falsely or deceptively advertised. The Committee heard testimony from Members of Congress, two professors of Intellectual Property law, representatives from the Intellectual Property content industry, representatives from the consumer electronics industry, a former 

Member of Congress and music mixing enthusiast, a representative 

from the American Library Association, a representative from a 

public policy think tank, and a representative from a consumer 

group. 

No further action was taken in the 108th Congress. 

AMERICAN SPIRIT FRAUD PREVENTION ACT

(H.R. 346) 

To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil 

penalties for violations involving certain proscribed acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster declared by the President, and to authorize the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 13 of that Act. 

Summary 

H.R. 346 amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to double 

civil penalties imposed for committing unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices if such acts or practices exploit popular reaction during 

a presidentially declared emergency or disaster period, and directs 

a court to impose a monetary civil penalty on a person found in an 

action seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to have committed such a violation during such period. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 346 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bass on January 

27, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee met in open markup 

session and ordered H.R. 346 reported to the House by a voice vote. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 346 to 

the House on February 4, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–5). 

40 

The House considered H.R. 346 on February 12, 2003, under suspension of the rules, and passed H.R. 346 by a vote of 422 yeas to 

1 nay. 

On February 13, 2003, H.R. 346 was received in the Senate and 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 346 in the 108th Congress. 

FAIRNESS TO CONTACT LENS CONSUMERS ACT

(H.R. 2221, H.R. 3140) 

To provide for availability of contact lens prescriptions to patients, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2221 requires a ‘‘prescriber’’ (a person permitted under state 

law to issue prescriptions for contact lenses) to provide to the patient a copy of the patient’s contact lens prescription free of charge 

and declares that a contact lens prescription shall expire: on the 

date specified by the law of the state involved, if that date is one 

year or more after the issue date of the prescription; or not less 

than one year after the issue date of the prescription, if such state 

law specifies no date or a date that is less than one year after the 

date of the prescription. The bill also permits an exception in either 

instance for a patient’s ocular health and prohibits advertising that 

lenses for which a prescription is required may be obtained without 

a prescription a prescriber from issuing certain waivers. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2221 was introduced into the House by Mr. Burr on May 

22, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 2221. The focus 

of the hearing was to learn about the competitive problems arising 

from the dispensing and sale of contact lenses. The Subcommittee 

received from government witnesses, ocular trade associations, industry representatives, and consumer protection groups. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2221 in the 108th Congress. 

SECURELY PROTECT YOURSELF AGAINST CYBER TRESPASS ACT

(H.R. 2929) 

To protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of 

their personally identifiable information through spyware programs. 

Summary 

H.R. 2929 prohibits unfair or deceptive behavior related to 

spyware. The bill also requires an opt-in be included in software 

that monitors web usage or collects personally identifiable information and uses that information to deliver advertising to the consumer. Violations of the SPY ACT are enforceable by the Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) as if any violation of the Act were an unVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
41 

fair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. The Act provides for enhanced penalties under the FTC Act. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2929 was introduced in the House by Ms. Bono and one cosponsor on July 25, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on spyware on April 29, 2004. The 

Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade Commission, a consumer’s group, an Internet service provider, and a technology company. 

On June 17, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved 

H.R. 2929, as amended, for Full Committee consideration, by a 

voice vote, a quorum being present. On June 24, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and 

ordered H.R. 2929 reported to the House, as amended, by a recorded vote of 45 yeas to 4 nays, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2929 to 

the House, amended, on July 20, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–619). 

On October 5, 2004, H.R. 2929 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules. The bill passed the House, as 

amended, by a vote of 399 yeas and 1 nay. 

The bill was received in the Senate on October 6, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2929 in the 108th Congress. 

INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 3143) 

To enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement against 

cross-border fraud and deception. 

Summary 

H.R. 3143 amends the Federal Trade Commission Act to (1) improve the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ability to share confidential information with foreign law enforcement agencies; (2) 

clarify its authority to take action in cross-border cases; and, (3) expand its ability, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to 

use additional staff and financial resources in pursuing foreign litigation. At present, the FTC is prohibited by statute from sharing 

information it obtains pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand 

(CID) with its foreign counterparts. The legislation permits it to 

share with foreign law enforcers compelled or confidential information in consumer protection cases, to the same extent allowed with 

domestic law enforcement agencies. This will assist foreign law enforcers to prosecute fraud and deception directed at United States 

citizens. It will also allow the FTC to obtain foreign information 

needed to fight fraud and deception. H.R. 3143 sets forth the Commission’s ability to obtain consumer redress in cross-border cases 

by clarifying its authority to take action in such cases, and expanding its ability to use foreign counsel to pursue assets offshore. 

42 

Legislative History 

On September 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer protection held a hearing on a Committee Print entitled H.R. ———, The International Consumer Protection Act. The 

Subcommittee received testimony from the Chairman of the FTC, 

a credit card company and consumer protection groups. 

Mr. Stearns and one cosponsor introduced H.R. 3143 in the 

House on September 23, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection met in open markup session to consider 

H.R 3143. The Subcommittee approved H.R 3143 for Full Committee consideration, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum 

being present. 

The Full Committee met in open markup session on October 1, 

2003, to consider H.R. 3143. The Committee ordered H.R 3143 reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a 

quorum being present. 

On July 22, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3143 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–635, Part I). 

On July 22, 2004, H.R. 3143 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on Financial Services for a period ending 

not later than October 1, 2004 for consideration of such provisions 

of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant 

to clause 1(g), rule X; the Committee on International Relations for 

a period ending not later than October 1, 2004 for consideration of 

such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of that 

committee pursuant to clause 1(j), rule X; and, the Committee on 

the Judiciary for a period ending not later than October 1, 2004 for 

consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X. 

On October 1, 2004, the Committee on Financial Services, Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on the Judiciary were granted an extension for further consideration ending 

not later than November 19, 2004. 

On November 16, 2004 the Committee on the Judiciary reported 

H.R. 3143 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–635, Part II). 

On November 19, 2004, the Committee on Financial Services, 

Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on the 

Judiciary were granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than November 22, 2004. 

On November 22, 2004, the Committee on Financial Services and 

the Committee on International Relations were granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than December 10, 

2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3143 in the 108th Congress. 

DATABASE AND COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION MISAPPROPRIATION

ACT

(H.R. 3261, H.R. 3872) 

To prohibit the misappropriation of databases. 

43 

Summary 

H.R. 3261 prohibits the misappropriation of databases, including 

compilations of factual information. In 1991, the Supreme Court in 

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Ser. Co, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), 

rejected the ‘‘sweat of the brow’’ doctrine which some courts used 

to confer copyright protection of factual information. H.R. 3261 was 

introduced in response to the Feist decision and uses the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution instead of the 

Copyright Clause to protect compilations of factual information. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3261 was introduced in the House by Mr. Coble and five cosponsors on October 8, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer protection held a joint hearing with the Committee on the Judiciary’s 

Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on 

a discussion draft of what would become H.R. 3261 on September 

23, 2003. The Subcommittee received testimony from the United 

States Copyright Office, the Chamber of Commerce, a software industry representative and a representative from the National Research Council. 

On October 16, 2003, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, 

and Intellectual Property met in open markup session to consider 

H.R. 3261. The Subcommittee approved H.R. 3261 for Full Committee consideration, with amendment, by a recorded vote of 10 

yeas and 3 nays, a quorum being present. 

On January 21, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 

open markup session to consider H.R. 3261. The Committee ordered H.R. 3261 reported, as amended, by a recorded vote of 16 

yeas and 7 nays, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 3261 to the 

House, as amended, on February 11, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–421, Part 

I). 

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce received a sequential referral of H.R. 3261 on February 11, 2004, for a period 

ending not later than March 12, 2004. 

On March 3, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3261 unfavorably reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3261 unfavorably to the House, as amended, on March 11, 2004 (H. Rpt. 

108–421, Part II). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3261 in the 108th Congress. 

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

(H.R. 3550, S. 1072) 

To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. 

44 

Summary 

S. 1072 provides for a reauthorization of the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), including a number of 

rulemakings requiring NHTSA to enact additional automobile safety standards. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3550 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on November 20, 

2003, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

On March 24, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3550 to be 

reported, as amended, by voice vote. On March 29, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 3550 to 

the House (H. Rpt.108–452, Part I). 

On March 29, 2004, H.R. 3550 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy 

and Commerce, Judiciary, Resources, and Science for a period ending not later than March 29, 2004 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of 

that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X. 

On March 29, 2004, the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Resources, and Science 

were discharged from further consideration of the bill. 

On April 1, 2004, H.R. 3550 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 593. The bill passed the House, as amended, by vote 

of 357 yeas and 65 nays on April 2, 2004. 

On April 8, 2004, H.R. 3550 was received in the Senate. The bill 

was read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 

under General Orders on April 22, 2004. 

On May 19, 2004, the Senate struck all after the enacting clause 

of H.R. 3550, inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of S.1072, and 

passed the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent. 

The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the House on May 19, 2004 and on May 20, 2004, appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on June 3, 2004, and appointed 

conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce for consideration of provisions in the House 

bill and Senate amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of 

transportation planning contained in sec. 6001 of the House bill, 

and secs. 3005 and 3006 of the Senate amendment; and secs. 1202, 

1824, 1828, and 5203 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 1511, 1522, 

1610–1619, 3016, 3023, 4108, 4151, 4152, 4155–4159, 4162, 4172, 

4173, 4424, 4481, 4482, 4484, 4662, 8001, and 8002 of the Senate 

amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. 

Barton, Pickering, and Dingell. 

The Conference Committee met on June 9, June 23, and July 7, 

July 20, and July 22, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3550 in the 108th Congress. 

45 

STOCK OPTION ACCOUNTING REFORM ACT

(H.R. 3574) 

To require the mandatory expensing of stock options granted to 

executive officers, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3574 amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

an issuer of registered securities to expense the fair value of stock 

options granted after December 31, 2004, to individuals serving as 

Chief Executive Officer of the issuer and the four most highly compensated executive officers, other than the Chief Executive Officer. 

The bill also amends the Securities Act of 1933 to prohibit the Securities and Exchange Commission from recognizing as ‘‘generally 

accepted’’ any accounting principle relating to the expensing of 

stock options unless the standard meets certain computation requirements and the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of 

Labor have studied and reported on the economic impact of mandatory expensing of employee stock options. The bill also provides for 

expanded disclosure of employee stock option plans. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3574 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mr. 

Baker and seven cosponsors on November 21, 2003. The bill was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services. 

On June 15, 2004, the Committee on Financial Services ordered 

H.R 3574 reported to the House, as amended, by a vote of 45 yeas 

to 13 nays. 

The Committee on Financial Services reported H.R. 3574 to the 

House on July 15, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–609, Part I). 

On July 15, 2004, H.R. 3574 was referred sequentially to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later 

than July 16, 2004 for consideration of such provisions of the bill 

and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 

pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X. 

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer protection held a hearing on accounting for stock options on July 8, 2004, 

in anticipation of the sequential referral. On July 16, 2004, the 

Committee and Energy and Commerce was discharged from further 

consideration of H.R. 3574. 

On July 20, 2004, the House considered H.R. 3754 under the provisions of H. Res. 725, and passed H.R. 3754, as amended, by a 

vote of 312 yeas to 111 nays. 

On July 21, 2004, the bill was received in the Senate. On September 7, 2004, H.R. 2574 was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

No further action was taken in the 108th Congress. 

UNITED STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE REFORM ACT

(H.R. 3825) 

To amend title 36, United States Code, to amend the Federal 

charter of the United States Olympic Committee, and for other purposes. 

46 

Summary 

H.R. 3825 makes changes to the governance structure of the 

United States Olympic Committee (USOC) by eliminating the Executive Committee and reducing the 123 person board of directors 

to nine elected voting members in addition to the three sitting US 

IOC members. The elected members will consist of: five independent directors; two directors nominated by the Athlete’s Advisory Council; and two directors nominated by the National Governing Bodies Council). H.R. 3825 further specifies the weighting 

of votes and procedures for deciding matters that result in a tied 

vote. 

H.R. 3825 creates an Olympic Assembly representing the USOC 

membership and provides for a Liaison between the Board and Assembly. The legislation also provides Paralympic sports representation on the Board. H.R. 3825 delineates the responsibilities of the 

CEO regarding the operations of the organization and provides the 

Board with responsibility for oversight of the CEO 

Further, H.R. 3825 requires a compliance program to be established and maintained at the executive level. Additionally, the legislation requires Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study of the 

economic impact of hosting the Olympics in the United States. H.R. 

3825 also authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to 

state and local tourism boards (in the event the US hosts the 

Olympics or Pan American games) for the promotion of tourism related to the games. 

Legislative History 

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held two oversight hearings on the USOC. The first hearing 

was held March 19, 2003, and addressed a number of issues related 

to the structure of the USOC and its effect on the USOC’s ability 

to fulfill its mission. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included 

current and former US Olympic athletes, including two Members 

of the 108th Congress, as well as current and former representatives of the USOC, the current head of the Athlete’s Advisory Committee, the head of the National Governing Bodies Council and a 

member of the board of directors. 

The Subcommittee held a second oversight hearing on July 16, 

2003, to examine the recommendations to reform the USOC put 

forth by the USOC’s internal Task Force on Governance and Ethics 

and a second set of recommendations proposed by the Independent 

Commission of the USOC. Witnesses included members of both 

groups as well as a representative of Disabled Sports USA. 

On February 24, 2004, Mr. Stearns introduced as H.R. 3825, 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection met in open markup session on February 25, 2004, to consider 

an original Committee Print, which contained identical text to H.R. 

3825. The Subcommittee approved the Committee Print for Full 

Committee consideration by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

47 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3825 in the 108th Congress. 

CONSUMER ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 3872, H.R. 3261) 

To prohibit the misappropriation of certain databases while ensuring consumer access to factual information. 

Summary 

H.R. 3872 makes the misappropriation of a database an unfair 

method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice 

under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The definition of misappropriation 

codifies the five-factor test in NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841(2nd 

Cir. 1997), based on INS v. AP 39 S.Ct. 68 (1918). The legislation 

provides a limitation on liability for providers of interactive computer services for making available content that is provided by another information content provider. The bill also provides an exclusion for securities market data. 

Legislative History 

On February 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved a Committee Print entitled ‘‘the Consumer Access to Information Act’’ for Full Committee consideration, without amendment, 

by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

H.R. 3872 was introduced in the House by Mr. Stearns and 18 

cosponsors on March 2, 2004. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 3, 2004, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3872 reported to the House by a voice vote, 

a quorum being present. 

On May 16, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3872 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–437). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3872 in the 108th Congress. 

HONORING FORD MOTOR COMPANY ON ITS 100 YEAR ANNIVERSARY

(H. Res. 100) 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary year of the founding of the 

Ford Motor Company, which has been a significant part of the social, economic, and cultural heritage of the United States and many 

other nations and a revolutionary industrial and global institution, 

and congratulating the Ford Motor Company for its achievements. 

Summary 

H. Res. 100 recognizes the 100th anniversary year of the founding of the Ford Motor Company and congratulates the Ford Motor 

Company for its achievements. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 100 was introduced into the House by Mr. McCotter on 

February 25, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

48 

H. Res. 100 was considered in the House by unanimous consent 

on May 21, 2003, and passed, as amended, without objection. 

NATION’S BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS OWNERS COMMENDED FOR

THEIR SUPPORT OF OUR TROOPS

(H. Res. 201) 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that our 

Nation’s businesses and business owners should be commended for 

their support of our troops and their families as they serve our 

country in many ways, especially in these days of increased engagement of our military in strategic locations around our Nation 

and around the world. 

Summary 

H. Res. 201 expresses the sense of Congress that the businesses 

that establish the backbone of our Nation in times of peace and 

rise to a greater standard of resolve in times of challenge do so by 

carrying on the good work of commerce, industry, and innovation 

and by steadfastly supporting the members of our military and 

their families. The resolution also expresses the sense of Congress 

that business owners deserve commendation and sincere expression 

of gratitude. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 201 was introduced in the House by Mr. Rogers on April 

11, 2003. The resolution was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On April 30, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 201 reported to the 

House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On June 4, 2003, H. Res. 201 was considered by the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 410 yeas 

to 0 nays, with 7 Members voting present 

HONORING HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR COMPANY ON ITS 100 YEAR

ANNIVERSARY

(H. Res. 296) 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the founding of the HarleyDavidson Motor Company, which has been a significant part of the 

social, economic, and cultural heritage of the United States and 

many other nations and a leading force for product and manufacturing innovation throughout the 20th century. 

Summary 

H. Res. 296 recognizes the 100th anniversary of the founding of 

the Harley-Davidson Motor Company. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 296 was introduced into the House by Mr. Kleczka on 

June 24, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

49 

On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session and forwarded 

H. Res. 296 to the Full Committee by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. 

The Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H. 

Res. 296 reported to the House on July 9, 2003, by voice vote, a 

quorum being present. 

The House considered H. Res. 296 on July 14, 2003, under suspension of the rules, and passed H. Res. 296 by voice vote. 

NATIONAL MANUFACTURING WEEK

(H. Res. 516) 

Supporting the goals of National Manufacturing Week, congratulating manufacturers and their employees for their contributions to 

growth and innovation, and recognizing the challenges facing the 

manufacturing sector. 

Summary 

H. Res. 516 summarizes many of the benefits that are realized 

in this country as a direct result of the U.S. manufacturing industry. H. Res. 516 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives supporting the goals of national manufacturing week, congratulating manufacturers and their employees for their contributions to growth and innovation, and recognizing the challenges facing the manufacturing sector. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Gillmor introduced H. Res. 516 in the House on February 4, 

2004, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Resolution was subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on February 24, 2004. 

On April 22, 2004, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 516 reported to the House, as amended, 

by voice vote, a quorum being present. On April 27, 2004 the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H. Res. 516 to the 

House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–471). 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 516 in the 108th Congress. 

HONORING U.S. CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE

(H. Con. Res. 215) 

Honoring and congratulating chambers of commerce for their efforts that contribute to the improvement of communities and the 

strengthening of local and regional economies. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 215 honors and congratulates the chambers of commerce around the country for their efforts that contribute to the 

improvement of their communities and the strengthening of their 

local and regional economies. 

50 

Legislative History 

H. Con. Res. 215 was introduced in the House by Mr. Knollenberg on June 11, 2003, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection met in open markup session to consider H. 

Con. Res. 215 and forwarded it to the Full Committee by voice 

vote, a quorum being present. 

On July 14, 2003, the House considered H. Con. Res. 215 under 

suspension of the rules and passed it by voice vote. 

On July 14, 2003, H. Con. Res. 215 was received in the Senate 

and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 215 in the 108th 

Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

A REVIEW OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD ACTIONS

POST-ENRON AND WORLDCOM

On March 4, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) actions post-Enron and 

Worldcom. The hearing focused on actions of the FASB to improve 

financial reporting. The sole witness was the Chairman of the 

FASB. 

DOES THE U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE’S STRUCTURE IMPEDE ITS

MISSION?

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on March 19, 2003, to examine 

issues related to the structure of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and their effect on the USOC’s ability to fulfill its 

mission. The hearing focused on the USOC governance and the division of labor between paid staff and volunteers. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included current and former U.S. Olympic athletes, including two Members of the 108th Congress, as well as current and former representatives of the USOC, the current head of 

the Athlete’s Advisory Committee, the head of the National Governing Bodies Council and a member of the board of directors. 

TRAVEL AND TOURISM IN AMERICA TODAY

On April 30, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘Travel 

and Tourism in America Today’’ to examine the state of travel and 

tourism in the United States. The focus of this hearing was to examine ways the United States can grow and expand its tourism 

economy. The Subcommittee received testimony from travel and 

tourism industry representatives and business associations. 

TRADE IN SERVICES AND E-COMMERCE: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

SINGAPORE AND CHILE FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS

On May 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on the Significance of the 

51 

Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. The hearing focused 

on services and e-commerce provisions of the trade agreements. 

The Committee heard testimony from representatives from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, the Department of 

Commerce, various trade associations, a labor union, and a policy 

group. 

TOBACCO ADVERTISING AND REGULATION

On June 3, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘Can Tobacco Cure Smoking? A Review of Tobacco Harm Reduction’’ to examine whether smokeless tobacco can reduce the negative health 

effects of smoking in the United States. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, 

the U.S. Surgeon General, tobacco and pharmaceutical representatives, anti-smoking groups, and academic professors. 

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

On June 11, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on the Reauthorization of the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC): Positioning the Commission for 

the Twenty-First Century. The hearing focused on the FTC’s mission, agency requested changes to its mandate, and implementation 

of recently passed laws enforced by the FTC. The Committee heard 

testimony from the FTC Chairman and Commissioners. 

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO COMBAT SPAM

On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet on legislative efforts to 

combat Spam. The hearing focused on anti-spam legislative proposals in the 108th Congress. Witnesses included the Director of 

the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, representatives from Internet Service Providers, representatives from electronic commerce companies, a Senior Counsel for a 

State Attorney General, and a representative from a consumer 

group. 

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS TO REFORM THE U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on July 16, 2003, to examine the 

recommendations to reform the USOC put forth by the USOC’s internal Task Force on Governance and Ethics and a second set of 

recommendations proposed by the Independent Commission of the 

USOC. The hearing focused on how each set of proposals would affect USOC governance. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included members of both groups as well as a representative of Disabled Sports USA. 

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD DERIVATIVE ACCOUNTING

STANDARDS

On July 22, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on Financial Accounting 

52 

Standards Boards (FASB) derivative accounting standards. The 

hearing examined the application of accounting standards to derivatives, particularly Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 133, 

Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities. It 

also examined the application of FAS 133 by Freddie Mac and 

Fannie Mae to their respective derivatives transactions and hedging activities. The Subcommittee received testimony from a member of FASB, an executive officer from Freddie Mac, a representative from a think tank, and an accounting professor. 

ISSUES RELATING TO EPHEDRA CONTAINING DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on July 24, 2003 to examine the 

issues related to ephedrine containing products and their consumption by athletes. The hearing focused on the policies of professional 

and collegiate sports organization related to ephedrine products as 

well as the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) enforcement of the 

advertising practices of ephedrine manufacturers and distributors. 

Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from 

the NCAA, U.S. professional sports and professional player associations. 

THE DATABASE AND COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION

MISAPPROPRIATION ACT OF 2003

On September 23, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a joint hearing with the Judiciary 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property on the Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 2003. The hearing focused on the need for 

database protection legislation and legislative language of the 

Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 

2003. Witnesses included the United States Copyright Office and 

industry and scientific research representatives. 

FREDDIE MAC: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUES RAISED IN THE DOTY

REPORT

On September 25, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on Freddie Mac and accounting issues raised by the Doty report. The hearing focused on 

the report prepared for the directors of Freddie Mac on certain accounting matters and considered the accounting matters raised in 

the report as a case study for broader issues with the formation 

and application of accounting standards. The Subcommittee received testimony from the author of the report to the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac, a forensic accountant who assisted in the 

preparation of the report, and an expert on accounting issues. 

E-COMMERCE: ONLINE WINE SALES

On October 30, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on E-Commerce: The Case 

of Online Wine Sales and Direct Shipment. The hearing focused on 

state restrictions to interstate commerce involving the sale of wine. 

53 

Witnesses included a representative from the Federal Trade Commission and representatives from the wine industry. 

CYBERSECURITY AND CONSUMER DATA

On November 19, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on Cyber-security and 

Consumer Data. The hearing focused on the risks and costs of 

cyber-security threats and efforts to respond to those threats. The 

witnesses included the Federal Trade Commission, e-commerce 

companies, and various types of computer-related companies with 

an interest in Internet security. 

FREDDIE MAC’S ACCOUNTING RESTATEMENT

On January 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on Freddie Mac’s Accounting Restatement. The hearing focused on the Supplemental Report 

to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Freddie Mac, and the report prepared by their regulator, 

the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). Witnesses included the Director of OFHEO and the Chief Financial Officer of Freddie Mac. 

COLLEGE RECRUITING: ARE STUDENT ATHLETES BEING PROTECTED?

On March 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine NCAA 

rules governing the recruiting of college athletes and the enforcement of those rules by member universities and the NCAA. The impetus for the hearing was the media reported allegations of misconduct and possible criminal violations that occurred at various 

college and university campuses. Witnesses included representatives from the NCAA, the University of Colorado, Vanderbilt University, and the founder of a private organization specializing in 

counseling student athletes. 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

On March 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing entitled ‘‘Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,’’ to 

examine issues relating to the reauthorization of NHTSA. The 

focus of the hearing was to review NHTSA’s regulatory priorities 

and to examine how those priorities were being achieved. The Subcommittee received testimony from government witnesses, industry 

representatives, trade associations, and consumer protection 

groups. 

U.S.–CHINA TRADE: PREPARATIONS FOR THE JOINT COMMISSION ON

COMMERCE AND TRADE

On March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on U.S.-China trade and the 

preparations for the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. 

The U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) 

was established in 1983 as a forum for high-level discussions on biVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
54 

lateral trade issues and a vehicle for promoting commercial relations between China and the United States. The hearing examined 

the main issues that would be discussed at the joint session including intellectual property protection and piracy in China, non-tariff 

barriers to U. S. manufacturing products in China, and labor and 

environmental issues in China. Witnesses included the Deputy U.S. 

Trade Representative, as well as representatives from the games, 

music, and movie industries, representatives from the manufacturing industry, and a representative from a labor union. 

SPYWARE

On April 29, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on Spyware. The hearing focused on problems associated with Spyware, efforts to protect computer users against Spyware, and possible legislative and regulatory solutions. The Committee received testimony from the Federal Trade Commission, a consumer group, a developer of operating 

systems, and an Internet Service Provider. 

ONLINE PORNOGRAPHY

On May 6, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on Online Pornography: Closing the Doors on Pervasive Smut. The hearing focused on the extent of the availability of pornographic material on the Internet 

and on peer-to-peer networks, the deceptive means used to distribute pornography, Federal laws to stop illegal activity, and tools 

to reduce inadvertent exposure. The Committee heard testimony 

from the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Government Accountability Office, a representative from 

the peer-to-peer industry, a representative from a children’s advocacy group, a representative from the National Center for Missing 

& Exploited Children, an academic with expertise in distributed 

computing, and a housing director from a public University. 

SUPPORTING OUR INTERCOLLEGIATE STUDENT ATHLETES: PROPOSED

NCAA REFORMS

On May 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on actions taken by 

the National Collegiate Athletic Association to address recruiting 

practices of potential student athletes. The hearing was in response 

to numerous reports of alleged behavior—including possible criminal violations—that occurred at colleges and universities. Contemporaneous with the media reports of those incidents, the NCAA 

formed a task force to examine current practices, guidelines, and 

rules and offer recommendations to the NCAA. The hearing examined the recommendations of the task force as well as broader 

issues that were affecting the enforcement of rules and the accountability of universities, athletic departments, and the student 

athletes. 

55 

TRAVEL, TOURISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY: IMPROVING BOTH

WITHOUT SACRIFICING EITHER

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on June 23, 2004, to examine the 

status and implementation of security improvements and their effectiveness. The hearing focused on strengths and weakness of new 

security measures and suggested improvements. Witnesses included a representative from the Department of Homeland Security, representatives from travel and tourism companies and associations, and a labor union. 

FASB PROPOSAL ON STOCK OPTION EXPENSING

On July 8, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on the Financial Accounting 

Standards Board (FASB) proposal on stock option expensing. The 

hearing focused on the FASB’s proposal on the accounting treatment for stock options and the impact of Federal legislation on the 

proposal. The Committee heard testimony from the Government 

Accountability Office, the FASB, as well as industry representatives. 

RADIO FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION (RFID) TECHNOLOGY: WHAT THE

FUTURE HOLDS FOR COMMERCE, SECURITY, AND THE CONSUMER

On July 14, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine issues 

related to the development, implementation, and use of RFID technology. The hearing focused on the technology of RFID and its implications for commercial uses. Witnesses included representatives 

from industry technology groups, companies using RFID, and public interest groups. 

EXAMINING PROFESSIONAL BOXING: ARE FURTHER REFORMS NEEDED?

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on professional boxing on September 

9, 2004. The hearing examined problems facing the industry and 

boxers. Witnesses who testified included Muhammad Ali, a representative from the Association of Boxing Commissions, a representative of the Pennsylvania State boxing commission, a representative of an international professional boxing sanctioning organization, an attorney and manager for a former world heavyweight champion, and an attorney with industry experience. 

REPAIRING THE 21ST CENTURY CAR

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on September 22, 2004, to examine 

issues related to the consumer choice and access to information 

necessary to repair their cars. The hearing focused on the status 

of industry initiatives to make vehicle repair information available 

on a timely and consistent basis. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives from auto manufactures, industry 

groups, and independent repair shops. 

56 

PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF CONSUMERS’ SOCIAL SECURITY

NUMBERS

On September 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection held a hearing on Protecting the Privacy 

of Consumers’ Social Security Numbers. The hearing focused on 

identity theft and the integrity of social security numbers as well 

as legislative efforts to protect the integrity of social security numbers. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the Federal Trade 

Commission, the United States Government Accountability Office, 

and a consumer advocacy group. 

CHILD PRODUCT SAFETY

On October 6, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection held a hearing on Child Product Safety. The 

hearing focused on whether current consumer product safety standards and the existing authority and resources of the Consumer 

Produce Safety Commission are sufficient to protect children. Witnesses included the Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, child product safety activists, a representative from 

the toy industry, and a representative from a consumer advocacy 

group. 

HEARINGS HELD

A Review of FASB Actions Post-Enron and WorldCom.—Oversight hearing on a Review of FASB Actions Post-Enron and 

WorldCom. Hearing held on March 4, 2003. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–17. 

Does the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Organizational Structure Impede its Mission?—Oversight hearing on Does the U.S. Olympic 

Committee’s Organizational Structure Impede its Mission? Hearing 

held on March 19, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–5. 

Travel and Tourism in America Today.—Oversight hearing on 

Travel and Tourism in America Today. Hearing held on April 30, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–15. 

Trade in Services and E-Commerce: The Significance of the 

Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements.—Oversight hearing 

on Trade in Services and E-Commerce: The Significance of the 

Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. Hearing held on May 

8, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–19. 

Can Tobacco Cure Smoking?—A Review of Tobacco Harm Reduction.—Oversight hearing on Can Tobacco Cure Smoking?—A Review of Tobacco Harm Reduction. Hearing held on June 3, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–31. 

The Reauthorization of the Federal Trade Commission: Positioning the Commission for the Twenty-First Century.—Oversight 

hearing on the Reauthorization of the Federal Trade Commission: 

Positioning the Commission for the Twenty-First Century. Hearing 

held on June 11, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–30. 

Legislative Efforts to Combat Spam.—Joint oversight hearing 

with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet on 

Legislative Efforts to Combat Spam. Hearing held on July 9, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–35. 

57 

Legislative Efforts to Reform the U.S. Olympic Committee.—Oversight hearing on Legislative Efforts to Reform the U.S. Olympic 

Committee. Hearing held on July 16, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–39. 

FASB Derivative Accounting Standards.—Oversight hearing on 

FASB Derivative Accounting Standards. Hearing held on July 22, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–37. 

Issues Relating to Ephedra-containing Dietary Supplements.— 

Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations on Issues Relating to Ephedra-containing Dietary 

Supplements. Hearing held on July 24, 2003. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–43. 

Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act.—Hearing on H.R. 2221, 

Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act. Hearing held on September 9, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–41. 

International Consumer Protection Act of 2003.—Hearing on H.R. 

3143, International Consumer Protection Act of 2003. Hearing held 

on September 17, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–45. 

The Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation 

Act of 2003.—Joint oversight hearing held with the Committee on 

the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Internet, and Intellectual 

Property on The Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 2003. Hearing held on September 23, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–46. 

Freddie Mac: Accounting Standards Issues Raised in the Doty 

Report.—Oversight hearing on Freddie Mac: Accounting Standards 

Issues Raised in the Doty Report. Hearing held on September 25, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–48. 

E–Commerce: The Case of Online Wine Sales and Direct Shipment.—Oversight hearing on E-Commerce: The Case of Online 

Wine Sales and Direct Shipment. Hearing held on October 30, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–51. 

Cybersecurity & Consumer Data: What’s at Risk for the Consumer?—Oversight hearing on Cybersecurity & Consumer Data: 

What’s at Risk for the Consumer? Hearing held on November 19, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–52. 

Freddie Mac’s Accounting Restatement: Are Accounting Standards Working?—Oversight hearing on Freddie Mac’s Accounting 

Restatement: Are Accounting Standards Working? Hearing held on 

January 28, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–105. 

College Recruiting: Are Student Athletes Being Protected?—Oversight hearing on College Recruiting: Are Student Athletes Being 

Protected? Hearing held on March 11, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–64. 

Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.—Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hearing held on March 18, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–71. 

U.S.-China Trade: Preparations for the Joint Commission on 

Commerce and Trade.—Oversight hearing on U.S.- China Trade: 

Preparations for the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. 

Hearing held on March 31, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108– 

74. 

58 

Spyware: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You.—Oversight hearing on Spyware: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You. Hearing 

held on April 29, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–89. 

Online Pornography: Closing the Doors on Pervasive Smut.— Oversight hearing on Online Pornography: Closing the Doors on 

Pervasive Smut. Hearing held on May 6, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–90. 

The Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2003.—Hearing on 

H.R. 107, the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act of 2003. Hearing held on May 12, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–109. 

Supporting Our Intercollegiate Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA 

Reforms.—Oversight hearing on Supporting Our Intercollegiate 

Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA Reforms. Hearing held on May 

18, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–91. 

Travel, Tourism, and Homeland Security: Improving Both without Sacrificing Either.—Oversight hearing on Travel, Tourism, and 

Homeland Security: Improving Both without Sacrificing Either. 

Hearing held on June 23, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–96. 

FASB Proposals on Stock Option Expensing.—Oversight hearing 

on FASB Proposals on Stock Option Expensing. Hearing held on 

July 8, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–99. 

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology: What the Future Holds for Commerce, Security, and the Consumer.—Oversight 

hearing on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Technology: 

What the Future Holds for Commerce, Security, and the Consumer. 

Hearing held on July 14, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–108. 

Examining Professional Boxing: Are Further Reforms Needed?— Oversight hearing on Examining Professional Boxing: Are Further 

Reforms Needed? Hearing held on September 9, 2004. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–127. 

Repairing the 21st Century Car: Is Technology Locking the Consumer Out?—Oversight hearing on Repairing the 21st Century Car: 

Is Technology Locking the Consumer Out? Hearing held on September 22, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–120. 

Protecting the Privacy of Consumers’ Social Security Number.— 

Oversight hearing on Protecting the Privacy of Consumers’ Social 

Security Number. Hearing held on September 28, 2004. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–128. 

Child Product Safety: Do Current Standards Provide Enough 

Protection?—Oversight hearing on Child Product Safety: Do Current Standards Provide Enough Protection? Hearing held on October 6, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–129. 

(59) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY

(Ratio 18–15) 

RALPH HALL, Texas, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Vice Chairman 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

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

and waste; the Clean Air Act; and, all laws, programs, and government activities affecting 

such matters. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS BILL

Public Law 108–7 (H. J. Res. 2) 

(Energy Provisions) 

Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.J. Res. 2 includes a 17–month extension of Price-Anderson Act 

indemnification authority for Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees expiring on December 31, 2003. In addition, the resolution 

has a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) provision, which provides a dramatic increase in BPA’s borrowing authority. H.J. Res. 

2 also contains a permanent authorization for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

60 

Legislative History 

H.J. Res. 2 was introduced in the House by Mr. Young (FL) on 

January 7, 2003. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on 

Appropriations. 

On January 8, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 was considered in the House 

under the provisions of H. Res. 15, and passed the House by voice 

vote. 

On January 9, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 was received in the Senate, read 

the first time, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 

Read the First Time. On January 10, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 was read 

the second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under 

General Orders. 

H.J. Res. 2 passed the Senate, with an amendment, by a vote of 

69 yeas and 29 nays. 

On January 23, 2003, the Senate insisted on its amendment to 

H.J. Res. 2, requested a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees. On January 29, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate 

amendment to H.J. Res. 2, agreed to a conference with the Senate, 

and appointed conferees. 

The conference committee met on February 10, 2003, and February 11, 2003. The conference report was filed on February 13, 

2003 (H. Rpt. 108–10). 

Pursuant to H. Res. 71, on February 13, 2003, the House agreed 

to the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 2 by a vote of 338 

yeas and 83 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report by 

a vote of 76 yeas and 20 nays. 

H.J. Res. 2 was presented to the President on February 19, 2003, 

and on February 20, 2003, the bill was signed by the President 

(Public Law 108–7). 

TO REINSTATE AND EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF

CONSTRUCTION OF A HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Public Law 108–12 (H.R. 397, S. 220) 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois. 

Summary 

H.R. 397 authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

upon licensee request, to: (1) reinstate the license for construction 

of a specified hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois; and, (2) 

extend the time required to commence project construction for 

three consecutive two-year periods beyond the date that is four 

years after the date of issuance of the license. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Shimkus introduced H.R. 397 in the House on January 28, 

2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee met in open markup 

session to consider H.R. 397 and ordered the bill reported to the 

House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On February 4, 

61 

2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 397 

to the House (H. Rept.108–6). 

H.R. 397 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

rules on February 11, 2003, and passed the House by voice vote. 

On February 12, 2003, H.R. 397 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

On March 12, 2003, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power ordered H.R. 397 to be 

reported, without amendment, favorably. On March 19, 2003, the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reported H.R. 397 to 

the Senate (S. Rpt. 108–27). 

H.R. 397 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, and on April 7, 2003, passed the Senate, without 

amendment, by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 397 was presented to the President on April 10, 2003, and 

on April 22, 2003, the bill was signed by the President (Public Law 

108–12). 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

Public Law 108–136 (H.R. 1588, S. 1050) 

(Energy Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 1588 amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to alter the requirements for the performance of personnel security investigations 

for certain Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission personnel, and authorizes appropriations for FY 2004 for the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1588 was introduced by Mr. Hunter, by request, on April 3, 

2003, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 16, 2003. 

On May 16, 2003, the Committee on Armed Services reported 

H.R. 1588 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 108–106). 

H.R. 1588 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 245 

and H. Res. 247, and on May 22, 2003, the House passed H.R. 

1588, amended, by a vote of 361 yeas and 68 nays. 

H.R. 1588 was received in the Senate on June 2, 2003. On June 

4, 2003, the bill was laid before Senate by unanimous consent. The 

Senate struck all after the enacting clause of H.R. 1588, inserted 

in lieu thereof the provisions of S.1050, and passed the bill, as 

amended, by voice vote. 

62 

On June 4, 2003, the Senate insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on July 16, 2003, and appointed conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of secs. 601, 

3113, 3201, and 3517 of the House bill, and secs. 601, 701, 852, 

3151, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. Tauzin, Barton, and Dingell. 

On July 22, 2003 the conference committee met, and the conference report was filed on November 7, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–354). 

Pursuant to H. Res. 437, on November 7, 2003, the House agreed 

to the conference report by vote of 362 yeas and 40 nays, 2 voting 

present. 

On November 12, 2003, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 95 yeas and 3 nays. 

H.R. 1588 was presented to, and signed by the President on November 24, 2003 (Public Law 108–136). 

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–148 (H.R. 1904) 

An act to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 

Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, 

and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest 

and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the 

landscape, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Title III of H.R. 1904 amends the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to permit the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

through the Forest Service (and, where appropriate, through the 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service), to 

provide assistance to State foresters and State officials, or to Cooperative Extension officials at land grant colleges and universities 

and specified institutions, for the purpose of expanding State forest 

capacities and activities to address watershed issues on non-Federal forested lands and potentially forested lands. Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop, with relevant parties, a program of technical 

assistance to protect water quality; and, (2) establish a watershed 

forestry cost-share program. Authorizes appropriations. 

The bill also requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

through the Chief of the Forest Service, to provide assistance to Indian tribes for the purpose of expanding tribal stewardship capacities through tribal forestry best management practices to improve 

watershed health. Authorizes appropriations. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1904 was introduced by Mr. McInnis on May 1, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the 

Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently deterVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
63 

mined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 

The Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 1904 to the House 

on May 9, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–96, Part I). 

On May 9, 2003, the bill was referred sequentially to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than May 16, 

2003 for consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall within 

the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X. 

On May 16, 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 

1904 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–96, Part II). 

On May 20, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 

the Committee on Agriculture exchanged correspondence. 

H.R. 1904 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 239, 

and on May 20, 2003, the House passed the bill, as amended, by 

a vote of 256 yeas and 170 nays. 

H.R. 1904 was received in the Senate on May 21, 2003, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry. 

On October 30, 2003, H.R. 1904 passed the Senate, with an 

amendment and an amendment to the Title, by a vote of 80 yeas 

and 14 nays. 

On November 6, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate amendments and requested a conference and appointed conferees. 

On November 20, 2003, the Senate insisted on its amendment to 

H.R. 1904, agreed to a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees. 

On November 20, 2003, the conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 

108–386). The House considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H. Res. 457, on November 21, 2003, by a vote of 

286 yeas and 140 nays. 

The Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent on November 21, 2003. 

The bill was presented to the President on December 2, 2003, 

and on December 3, 2003, the bill was signed by the President 

(Public Law 108–148). 

VISION 100—CENTURY OF AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT

Public Law 108–176 (H.R. 2115, S. 824) 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs 

for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Section 521 of H.R. 2115 directs the Secretary and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to agree jointly on how to assure that airport sponsors receive appropriate emission credits for carrying out air quality projects at certain airports. 

The provision directs the Secretary to carry out a pilot program 

under which airport sponsors may use airport planning and development and noise compatibility planning and program funds to retrofit existing eligible airport ground support equipment that burns 

conventional fuels to achieve lower emissions utilizing emission 

control technologies certified or verified by the EPA. 

64 

The section also makes eligible for airport development project 

funds: (1) work necessary to construct or modify airport facilities 

to provide low-emission fuel systems, gate electrification, and other 

related air quality improvements at a commercial service airport 

provided the airport is located in an air quality nonattainment or 

maintenance area, and such project will result in an airport receiving appropriate emission credits; and, (2) the conversion of vehicles 

and ground support equipment owned by a commercial service airport to low-emission technology or acquisition for use at such airport vehicles and ground support equipment that include low-emission technology provided the airport is located in an air quality 

nonattainment area or a maintenance area, and such project will 

result in an airport receiving appropriate emission credits. 

In addition, the section declares that the cost is allowable for a 

project for acquiring for use at a commercial service airport vehicles and certain ground support equipment owned by a airport that 

include low-emission technology, if the total costs allowed for such 

project are not more than the incremental cost of equipping such 

vehicles or equipment with low-emission technology. This section 

also defines ‘‘low-emission technology’’ as technology for vehicles 

and equipment whose emission performance is the best achievable 

under EPA emission standards, relying exclusively on alternative 

fuels that are substantially non-petroleum based, but not excluding 

hybrid systems or natural gas powered vehicles. 

In S. 824, section 508 makes eligible for airport development 

project funds a sponsor or operator of a public-use airport located 

in an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area that undertakes: (1) work necessary to construct or modify airport facilities to 

provide low-emission fuel systems, gate electrification, and other 

related air quality improvements at the airport; or, (2) a project for 

the acquisition or conversion of airport-owned vehicles and ground 

support equipment to low-emission technology. S. 824 also requires 

the project also to result in an airport receiving appropriate emission credits. The bill defines ‘‘low-emission technology’’ to mean 

technology: (1) for new vehicles and equipment whose emission performance is best achievable under standards established by the 

EPA; and, (2) that relies exclusively on alternative fuels that are 

substantially non-petroleum based (but not excluding hybrid systems). 

The section also directs the Secretary and the Administrator of 

the EPA to agree jointly on how to assure that airport sponsors receive appropriate emission credits for carrying out air quality 

projects at certain airports. 

In addition, the provision directs the Secretary to carry out a 

pilot program under which airport sponsors may use airport planning and development and noise compatibility planning and program funds to retrofit existing eligible airport ground support 

equipment that burns conventional fuels to achieve lower emissions 

utilizing emission control technologies certified or verified by the 

EPA. 

65 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2115 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on May 15, 2003 

and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure exchanged correspondence on 

June 6, 2003. 

Pursuant to H. Res. 265, the House considered H.R. 2115 on 

June 11, 2003, and passed the bill by a vote of 418 yeas and 8 

nays. 

On June 12, 2003, H.R. 2115 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

On June 12, 2003, the bill was considered in the Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate struck all after the enacting clause of 

H.R. 2115, inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of S. 824, and 

passed the bill, as amended, by a vote of 94 ayes and 0 nays. The 

Senate insisted on its amendment to H.R. 2115, requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on July 15, 2003, and appointed conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of sec. 521 of the 

House bill and sec. 508 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. Tauzin, Barton, and Dingell. 

On July 24, 2003, the Conference Committee met, and the conference report (H. Rpt. 108–240) was filed on July 25, 2003. On 

September 24, 2003, pursuant to H. Res. 377, the conference report 

was recommitted to the Conference Committee. 

The conference report (H. Rpt. 108–334) was filed on October 29, 

2003. The House considered and agreed to the conference report, 

pursuant to H. Res. 442, on October 30, 2003, by a vote of 211 yeas 

and 207 nays. 

The Senate agreed to conference report by unanimous consent on 

November 21, 2003. 

H.R. 2115 was presented to the President on December 2, 2003, 

and on December 12, 2003, was signed by the President (Public 

Law 108–176). 

SOUTHERN UTE AND COLORADO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–336 (S. 551) 

A bill to provide for the implementation of air quality programs 

developed in accordance with an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado 

concerning Air Quality Control on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

S. 551 authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to treat the Southern Ute Indian Tribe as a State 

for purposes of implementing and enforcing air quality control proVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
66 

grams for their Reservation, as developed in the Intergovernmental 

Agreement. 

Legislative History 

S. 551 was introduced by Senator Campbell on March 6, 2003, 

read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works. 

On November 19, 2003, the Committee on Environment and Public Works reported the bill with an amendment (S. Rpt. 108–201). 

S. 551 was place on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

S. 551 passed the Senate, amended, by unanimous consent on 

November 21, 2003. 

On November 25, 2003, S. 551 was received in the House, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 

The Committee on Resources reported S. 551 to the House on 

September 30, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–712, Part I). 

On September 30, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered S. 551 reported to 

the House, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported S. 551 to the 

House on October 4, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–712, Part II). 

The House considered S. 551 under suspension of the rules, and 

passed the bill by voice vote on October 4, 2004. 

S. 551 was presented to the President on October 7, 2004, and 

signed by the President on October 18, 2004 (Public Law 108–336). 

TAPOCO PROJECT LICENSING ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–343 (H.R. 4667, S. 2319) 

To authorize and facilitate hydroelectric power licensing of the 

Tapoco Project, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

The bill instructs the Secretary of the Interior to engage in a simultaneous specified land exchange with Alcoa Power Generating 

Inc. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 4667 was introduced in the House by Mr. Duncan on June 

23, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 

On September 30, 2004 the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered the bill reported to the 

House by voice vote, a quorum being present. The Committee on 

Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4667 to the House (H. Rpt. 

108–721, Part I) on October 4, 2004. 

67 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4667. 

S. 2319 was introduced by Senator Alexander on April 19, 2004, 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources. The Committee held a hearing on the bill on April 27, 

2004, and on June 16, 2004 met in open markup session, and ordered the bill reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. The bill was reported to the Senate with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute (S. Rpt. 108–299), and 

placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

On September 15, 2004, S. 2319 passed the Senate, with an 

amendment, by unanimous consent. 

On September 17, 2004, the bill was received in the House and 

held at the desk, and on October 4, 2004, the bill was considered 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice vote. 

S. 2319 was presented to the President on October 7, 2004, and 

on October 18, 2004, the bill was signed by the President (Public 

Law 108–343). 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FY 2005 AUTHORIZATION BILL

Public Law 108–375 (H.R. 4200, S. 2400) 

(Energy Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 4200 includes a two-year extension of Price-Anderson Act 

indemnification authorities for Department of Energy (DOE) contractors expiring on December 31, 2006. 

The bill also includes a provision to provide that certain radioactive wastes from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel stored at 

DOE sites in South Carolina and Idaho may be disposed of as low 

level wastes. 

Legislative History 

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Hunter introduced H.R. 4200 by request, 

and the bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 14, 2004. 

On May 14, 2004, the Committee on Armed Service reported 

H.R. 2400 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–491). 

H.R. 4200 was considered in the House on May 19 and 20, 2004, 

under the provisions of H. Res. 648. The bill passed the House by 

vote of 391 yeas and 34 nays. 

On June 23, 2004, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment 

by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its amendment, 

asked for a conference, and appointed conferees. 

68 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on September 28, 

2004, agreed to a conference agreed and appointed conferees. The 

Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for consideration of secs. 596, 601, 3111, 3131, 3133 and 

3201 of the House bill, and secs. 321–323, 716, 720, 1084–1089, 

1091, 2833, 3116, 3119, 3141, 3142, 3145, 3201, and 3503 of the 

Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, 

Messrs. Barton, Upton, and Dingell. 

A conference was held on September 29, 2004, and on October 8, 

2004 the conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 108–767). 

On October 8, 2004, H. Res. 843, providing for the consideration 

of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200, passed the House 

by voice vote. Then, on October 9, 2004, the conference report was 

considered in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 843. The 

conference report passed the House by a vote of 359 yeas and 14 

nays. 

Senate agreed to conference report by unanimous consent on October 9, 2004. 

On October 21, 2004, the bill was presented to President, and 

was signed by the President on October 28, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

375). 

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 6, H.R. 1644, H.R. 4503) 

To enhance energy conservation and research and development, 

to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the 

American people, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 6, as agreed to in conference, includes a wide variety of provisions intended to increase domestic energy supply and encourage 

energy efficiency. The bill is based largely on energy legislation 

that was passed in differing forms by the House and Senate in the 

107th Congress (H.R. 4), but ultimately not enacted. 

On electricity issues, the bill would, in part, provide for incentive-based transmission rates, allow transmission owners in certain 

instances with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval to exercise the right of eminent domain to site new transmission lines, and give new, but limited, authority to FERC over 

municipal and cooperative transmission systems. In addition, H.R. 

6 would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) 

and give FERC and state public utility commissions access to books 

and records, prospectively repeal the mandatory purchase requirement of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), 

and establish market transparency rules. 

H.R. 6 establishes an electric reliability organization to develop 

and enforce reliability standards for the bulk transmission system. 

The bill also provides for a system to improve transparency of electricity markets, prohibits round trip trades, and increases civil and 

criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act. 

H.R. 6 includes a renewable fuel standard (RFS) that would require the blending of 2.7 billion gallons of renewable fuel with gasoline in 2005. Most of this would be met with ethanol, but other 

69 

renewable fuels, including biodiesel, would qualify. The required 

volume of blended fuel would rise to 5 billion gallons annually by 

2015. H.R. 6 would amend the Clean Air Act by eliminating the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. In addition, 

H.R. 6 would provide safe harbor protection for renewable fuel, as 

defined by section 211(o)(1) of the Clean Air Act, and fuel containing MTBE. 

H.R. 6 also provides new federal authorities and requirements 

for the federal leaking underground storage tank program. Among 

other items, it requires onsite inspections of underground storage 

tanks every three years, establishes operator-training programs 

where they do not already exist, and institutes a specific new funding category to clean up tank-related releases of oxygenated fuel 

additives in gasoline, like MTBE. 

H.R. 6 would reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability 

system through December 31, 2023. Under Price-Anderson, commercial reactor accident damages are paid through a combination 

of private-sector insurance and a nuclear industry self-insurance 

system. Price-Anderson also authorizes the Department of Energy 

(DOE) to indemnify its nuclear contractors. 

H.R. 6 would direct DOE to set efficiency standards within three 

years for ‘‘standby mode’’ energy use by battery chargers and external power supplies, as well as standards for other appliances. The 

bill also would require progressive annual reductions in energy use 

by federal buildings from FY2001 levels, culminating in a 20% reduction by FY2014. 

H.R. 6 also provides a statutory framework for the expedited approval, construction, and initial operation of an Alaska natural gas 

transportation project as an alternative to the Alaska Natural Gas 

Transportation Act of 1976, which remains in effect; establishes a 

process for providing access to the pipeline in order to promote 

competition in the exploration, development, and production of 

Alaska natural gas; and, prohibits a pipeline route that would be 

constructed from Prudhoe Bay, under the Beaufort Sea, into Canada. 

H.R. 6 also authorizes the expansion of the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve capacity from 700 million to one billion barrels. 

The bill provides incentives through cost sharing to improve and 

bring to market new clean coal technologies, and also provides authorization for new programs to develop hydrogen fuel infrastructure. In addition, the bill also provides incentives for the development of renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric and geothermal. 

H.R. 6 provides authorizations for DOE’s fossil fuel program for 

existing and new coal-based research and development, and provides authorization for the Secretary of Energy to carry out the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative, which will provide funding to those 

projects that can demonstrate advanced coal-based power generating technologies that achieve significant reductions in emissions, 

and where at least 60 percent of this authorization will be used for 

projects related to coal-based gasification technology. 

H.R. 6 amends procedures for the relicensing of hydroelectric 

dams. 

70 

Finally, H.R. 6 launches a program to support hydrogen-powered 

automobiles on the road by 2020, along with the necessary infrastructure to provide for the safe delivery of hydrogen fuels. 

Legislative History 

On March 19, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality met in open markup session and approved a Committee Print 

for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a record vote of 

21 yeas and 9 nays. On April 1, April 2, and April 3, 2003, the Full 

Committee met in open markup session and ordered a Committee 

Print reported to the House, as amended, by a record vote of 36 

yeas and 17 nays. A unanimous consent request by Mr. Tauzin to 

allow a report to be filed on a bill to be introduced, and that the 

actions of the Committee be deemed as action on that bill, was 

agreed to by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 1644 was introduced by Mr. Barton on April 7, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Science, Resources, Education and the 

Workforce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 

committee concerned. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce filed a report on H.R. 

1644, pursuant to the unanimous consent request, on April 8, 2003 

(H. Rpt. 108–65, Part I). 

On April 8, 2003, H.R. 1644 was referred sequentially to the 

Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than 

April 9, 2003 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X. 

On April 9, 2003, H.R. 1644 was referred sequentially to the 

Committee on Government Reform for a period ending not later 

than April 9, 2003, for consideration of such provisions of the bill 

and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 

pursuant to clause 1(h), rule X. 

On April 9, 2003, the Committees on Science, Resources, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Judiciary, and Government Reform were discharged from further consideration of the bill. 

All Committees were discharged from further consideration of 

the bill on April 9, 2003, and no further action on H.R. 1644 was 

taken in 108th Congress. 

However, on April 7, 2003, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 6, which 

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

addition to the Committees on Science, Ways and Means, Resources, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, and Agriculture, for a period to be 

subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. As introduced, H.R. 6 contained provisions that 

were substantially similar to provisions in H.R. 1644, as well as 

H.R. 238, and H.R. 1531. 

71 

On April 10, 2003, H.R. 6 was considered in the House pursuant 

to H. Res. 189. The bill passed the House, as amended, by a vote 

of 247 yeas and 175 nays on April 11, 2003. 

H.R. 6 was received in the Senate on April 29, 2003. On May 5, 

2003, the bill was read the first time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. H.R. 6 was read the 

second time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 

General Orders on May 6, 2003. 

On July 31, 2003, H.R. 6 passed the Senate with an amendment 

by a record vote of 84 yeas and 14 nays. In addition, the Senate 

insisted upon its amendment, requested a conference with the 

House, and appointed conferees. 

On September 4, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate 

amendment and agreed to go to conference. On September 5, 2003, 

the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce for consideration of the House bill and Senate 

amendment, and modifications committed to conference. 

The Conference Committee met on September 5, 2003, and the 

conference report was filed on November 18, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108– 

375). 

The House considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H. Res. 443, on November 18, 2003, by a vote of 246 yeas 

and 180 nays. 

On November 21, 2003, a motion for cloture on the conference report was not invoked in the Senate by a vote of 57 yeas and 40 

nays. 

No further action on H.R. 6 was taken in 108th Congress. 

Subsequently, H.R. 4503 was introduced by Mr. Barton on June 

3, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

and in addition to the Committees on Science, Ways and Means, 

Resources, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial Services, Agriculture, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 

consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned. The text of H.R. 4503 was substantially 

similar to the text of the conference report to accompany H.R. 6 

which was pending in the Senate. 

On June 14, 2004, H.R. 4503 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 671. The bill passed the House by a vote of 244 yeas 

and 178 nays on June 15, 2004. 

H.R. 4503 was received in the Senate on June 17, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4503 in the 108th Congress. 

TO EXTEND CERTAIN HYDRO-ELECTRIC LICENSES IN THE STATE OF

ALASKA. 

(H.R. 337) 

To extend certain hydro-electric licenses in the State of Alaska. 

Summary 

H.R. 337 instructs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

upon licensee request, to: (1) issue an order staying a specified hydroelectric license in the State of Alaska; (2) lift such stay, but not 

later than six years after the date that it receives written notice 

72 

that construction of the Swan-Tyee transmission line is completed; 

(3) make the effective date of the license the date on which the stay 

is lifted; and, (4) extend the time during which such licensee is required to commence project construction for not more than one twoyear time period. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 337 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on January 27, 

2003, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 337 reported to the 

House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On February 4, 

2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 337 

to the House (H. Rpt. 108–4). 

H.R. 337 was considered by the House under suspension of the 

rules on February 11, 2003, and passed the House by voice vote. 

On February 12, 2003, H.R. 337 was received in the Senate. On 

February 24, 2003, H.R. 337 was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

No further action on H.R. 337 was taken in 108th Congress. 

FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FY 2004–2005

(H.R. 1950) 

To establish the Millennium Challenge Account to provide increased support for certain developing countries; to authorize the 

expansion of the Peace Corps; to authorize appropriations for the 

Department of State for fiscal years 2004 and 2005; and to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 

2004 and 2005. 

Summary 

H.R. 1950, as reported by the Committee on International Relations, contained section 730, which was a ‘‘Sense of Congress on 

Climate Change’’ that ‘‘the United States should demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change,’’ through 

several actions: (1) taking responsible action to ensure significant 

and meaningful reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases from 

all sectors; (2) creating flexible mechanisms such as tradable credits for emissions reductions and carbon sequestration; (3) participating in international negotiations, including making proposals 

that have the objective of obtaining U.S. participation in a future 

binding climate change treaty in a manner consistent with the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC), that protects the economic interests of the United 

States, and that recognizes the shared international responsibility 

for addressing climate change, including developing country participation; and, (5) establishing in the House and Senate bipartisan 

observer groups to monitor any international negotiations on climate change. 

73 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1950 was introduced by Mr. Hyde on May 5, 2003, and referred to the Committee on International Relations. 

On May 8, 2003, the Committee on International Relations met 

in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1950 to be reported, as 

amended, by a record vote of 42 yeas and 3 nays. On May 16, 2003, 

the Committee on International Relations reported H.R. 1950 to 

the House (H. Rpt. 108–105, Part I). 

On May 16, 2003, H.R. 1950 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committees on Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and Judiciary for a period ending not later than June 13, 

2003, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 

clause 1(k), rule X 

On June 9, 2003, the Committees on Armed Services, Energy and 

Commerce and Judiciary were granted an extension for further 

consideration ending not later than June 16, 2003. 

The Committee on International Relations filed a supplemental 

report (H. Rpt. 108–105, Part II) on June 12, 2003. 

On June 16, 2003, the Committees on Armed Services and Energy and Commerce were granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than July 11, 2003. 

On July 9, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1950 to be reported without recommendation, as amended, by voice vote. The Committee 

deleted section 730 of the bill, as reported by the Committee on 

International Relations. 

On July 11, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1950, without recommendation, to the House, as 

amended (H. Rpt. 108–105, Part IV). 

On July 15, 2003, H.R. 1950 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 316. The bill passed the House, as amended, by a 

roll call vote of 382 yeas and 42 nays on July 16, 2003. 

H.R. 1950 was received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on 

the Senate Legislative Calendar on July 17, 2003. 

No further action on H.R. 1950 was taken in 108th Congress. 

NUCLEAR WASTE FINANCING ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 3429) 

To improve the funding mechanism for the Department of Energy Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

Nuclear Waste Financing Act of 2003 requires that, beginning in 

FY 2005, and through the end of FY 2010, the receipts, proceeds, 

and recoveries realized by the Secretary of Energy relating to contracts for transportation and disposal of high-level radioactive 

waste and spent nuclear fuel shall be credited to the Nuclear 

Waste Fund as offsetting collections. 

The bill also prescribes implementation procedures, including adjustments to the levels of budgetary resources from offsetting collections and preservation of the corpus of the Fund. 

74 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3429 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus on November 4, 2003, 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 4, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on H.R. 3429. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from three Members of Congress, representatives of the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear 

Waste Technical Review Board, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Energy Institute and 

Bechtel SAIC, LLC. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3429 in the 108th Congress. 

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

(H.R. 3550, S. 1072) 

To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3550 amends the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program to allow funds to be used to improve transportation systems management and operation. 

H.R 3550 amends the Clean Air Act to require the appropriate 

metropolitan planning organization to redetermine, by a certain 

deadline, the conformity of existing transportation plans and programs within a State Implementation Plan for national primary 

and secondary ambient air quality standards, and provides for regular updates of conformity determinations in nonattainment and 

maintenance areas. Further, the bill allows areas to opt to shorten 

time horizons for conformity determinations from 20 years to the 

later of: 10 years, the relevant attainment date for an area, or one 

year following the completion of a significant project contained in 

the plan. It also allows for the substitution of transportation control measures without triggering a conformity determination under 

certain conditions and provides that a transportation plan, or program shall not be considered to have lapsed until 1 year following 

the otherwise applicable date for a determination. 

The bill also amends the Federal-Aid Highways program to declare advanced truck stop electrification systems eligible for funding under the surface transportation program and under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program. 

In addition, the bill modifies the surface transportation environment and planning cooperative research program to direct the Secretary to make it a collaborative, public-private surface transportation environment and planning cooperative program. 

H.R. 3550 also amends Federal transportation law to provide a 

common transportation planning program administered by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3550 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on November 20, 

2003, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

75 

On March 24, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3550 to be 

reported, as amended, by voice vote. On March 29, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 3550 to 

the House (H. Rpt. 108–452, Part I). 

On March 29, 2004, H.R. 3550 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy 

and Commerce, Judiciary, Resources, and Science for a period ending not later than March 29, 2004 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of 

that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X. 

On March 29, 2004, the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Resources, and Science 

were discharged from further consideration of the bill. 

On April 1, 2004, H.R. 3550 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 593. The bill passed the House, as amended, by vote 

of 357 yeas and 65 nays on April 2, 2004. 

On April 8, 2004, H.R. 3550 was received in the Senate. The bill 

was read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 

under General Orders on April 22, 2004. 

On May 19, 2004, the Senate struck all after the enacting clause 

of H.R. 3550, inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of S.1072, and 

passed the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent. 

The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the House on May 19, 2004 and on May 20, 2004, appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on June 3, 2004, and appointed 

conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce for consideration of provisions in the House 

bill and Senate amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of 

transportation planning contained in sec. 6001 of the House bill, 

and secs. 3005 and 3006 of the Senate amendment; and secs. 1202, 

1824, 1828, and 5203 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 1511, 1522, 

1610–1619, 3016, 3023, 4108, 4151, 4152, 4155–4159, 4162, 4172, 

4173, 4424, 4481, 4482, 4484, 4662, 8001, and 8002 of the Senate 

amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. 

Barton, Pickering, and Dingell. 

The Conference Committee met on June 9, June 23, and July 7, 

July 20, and July 22, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3550 in the 108th Congress. 

TO RECLASSIFY FEES PAID INTO THE NUCLEAR WASTE FUND AS

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

(H.R. 3981) 

Summary 

H.R. 3981 requires that fees collected by the Secretary of Energy 

and deposited into the Nuclear Waste Fund shall be credited to the 

Fund as offsetting collections beginning October 1, 2004, and continuing through September 30, 2009, not to exceed the amounts annually appropriated during that period from the Fund. Sets a maximum amount for FY 2005 at $576 million. 

76 

The bill also authorizes necessary appropriations from the Fund 

to the extent that the level of budgetary resources from offsetting 

collections is insufficient to implement activities under the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act of 1982 for a fiscal year. 

In addition, H.R. 3981 instructs the Secretary to report to Congress biennially regarding the Fund’s adequacy (including an assessment of whether current unexpended balances in the Fund, if 

made fully available to the Secretary, would affect annual fee determinations), and requires the report also to recommend whether 

this Act should be extended beyond its current expiration date of 

September 30, 2009, and whether alternative approaches may be 

necessary to access unexpended balances in the Fund. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3981 was introduced by Mr. Barton on March 17, 2004, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing on H.R. 3981. The Subcommittee received testimony from three Members of Congress, representatives of the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the National Association of 

Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Nuclear Energy Institute 

and Bechtel SAIC, LLC. 

On June 16, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

met in open markup session and approved H.R. 3981 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. On June 24, 2004, the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3981 reported to the House (H. Rpt. 

108–594), amended, by a roll call vote of 29 yeas and 19 nays, a 

quorum being present. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3981 in the 108th Congress. 

UNITED STATES REFINERY REVITALIZATION ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 4517) 

To provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the United 

States. 

Summary 

H.R. 4517 authorizes the Secretary of Energy to designate as a 

Refinery Revitalization Zone, any area that has experienced mass 

layoffs at manufacturing facilities; or contains an idle refinery and 

has an unemployment rate of at least 20% above the national average. 

The bill provides that, upon request of an applicant that seeks 

Federal authorization related to siting and operation of a refinery 

within a Refinery Revitalization Zone, the Department of Energy 

will be the lead agency for coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and related environmental reviews of the facility. The 

Secretary of Energy and the heads of all Federal agencies of relevant jurisdiction are required to enter into Memoranda of Understanding for the purpose of ensuring a timely and coordinated review of the application throughout the process. 

77 

The bill is designed to ensure compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local environmental regulations by specifying that 

best available control technology, as appropriate, be used on all refineries located within a refinery revitalization zone. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 4517 was introduced by Mr. Barton on June 4, 2004, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 16, 2004, H.R. 4517 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 671. The bill passed the House by a vote of 239 yeas 

and 192 nays on June 16, 2004. 

H.R. 4517 was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on June 17, 

2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4517 in the 108th Congress. 

THE GASOLINE PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 4545) 

To amend the Clean Air Act to reduce the proliferation of boutique fuels, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 4545 gives the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, waiver 

authority with respect to fuels and fuel additives in the event of 

a significant supply disruption. When approving State Implementation Plans, the Administrator may give a preference to either of 3 

fuel types, reformulated gasoline as set forth in the statute, gasoline having a Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of 7.0 psi for the high 

ozone season, or gasoline having a RVP of 7.8 psi for the high 

ozone season. 

The bill prohibits the Administrator from having any authority 

to approve any fuel or fuel additive if the effect of such approval 

would be to increase the total number of fuels and fuel additives 

approved in all State implementation plans nationwide prior to 

June 1, 2004. 

The bill also requires the Administrator, in cooperation with the 

Secretary of Energy, to undertake a study to determine the effects 

of State Implementation Plans on air quality, on the number of fuel 

blends, on fuel availability, and on fuel costs. The results are to be 

reported to the Congress, with recommendations as to legislative 

changes to the preferred list of fuels. If the recommendations are 

to increase the number of preferred fuels, the total preferred fuels 

shall not exceed 10 fuels. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 4545 was introduced by Mr. Blunt on June 14, 2004, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 15, 2004, H.R. 4545 was considered under suspension 

of the rules. 

On June 16, 2004, the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 

4545 was not agreed to by a vote of 236 yeas and 194 nays. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4545 in the 108th Congress. 

78 

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT GROUP TASK FORCE

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY

(H. Res. 745) 

Of inquiry requesting the President of the United States to provide certain information to the House of Representatives respecting 

the National Energy Policy Development Group. 

Summary 

H. Res. 745 requests the President to furnish the House of Representatives information respecting the National Energy Policy Development Group Task Force. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 745 was introduced by Mr. Dingell on July 22, 2004, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 15, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session, and ordered the resolution to 

be reported unfavorably by a roll call vote of 30 yeas and 22 nays, 

a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H. Res. 745 

adversely to the House on September 23, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–697). 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 745 in the 108th Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

On March 5, 12 and 13, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Air Quality held a series of hearings on a comprehensive national 

energy policy. The hearings addressed issues of nuclear energy, 

wholesale electricity policy matters, energy efficiency and conservation. Witnesses testifying on the first day of hearings included the 

Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy, the Chairman and 

two Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as 

representatives of the nuclear power industry, consumer groups, 

nuclear safety experts, and advocates for energy efficiency and conservation. The second day of hearings included representatives 

from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s office of Energy 

Projects, the hydroelectric industry, and environmental advocates. 

On the final day of hearings, the Subcommittee heard testimony 

from state regulators, government representatives, consumer advocates, industrial consumers, environmental advocates, industry representatives, and analysts. 

UNITED NATIONS OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM

On May 14, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the United Nations Oil for Food Program, its effect on oil markets, and whether it should be continued. Witnesses 

included representatives from the Energy Information Agency, 

Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the James A. 

Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. 

79 

The Subcommittee also held a hearing on July 8, 2004, on the 

United Nations Oil for Food program. The hearing updated members on the investigations into the alleged improprieties involving 

the Oil for Food Program. Witnesses included a Member of Congress, a representative of the Government Accountability Office, a 

journalist, and a former Deputy Undersecretary of the Department 

of Defense. 

THE HYDROGEN FUEL ECONOMY

On May 20, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the Hydrogen Energy Economy. The hearing focused on the potential for the use of hydrogen in both stationary 

and transportation applications, specifically the Administration’s 

Freedom Car and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. In addition, the predicted benefits for the use of hydrogen as an energy source as well 

as the challenges faced in make such a substantial change to our 

nation’s energy and equipment infrastructure, and issues concerning the production, distribution and safe utilization of hydrogen were considered. Witnesses included Department of Energy, 

and industry representatives. 

METHYL BROMIDE UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND THE MONTREAL

PROTOCOL

On June 3, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the status of methyl bromide under the Clean 

Air Act and the Montreal Protocol. The hearing examined the utilization of methyl bromide in agricultural pre-plant fumigation and 

other uses as well as the schedule for phase out of methyl bromide 

and the existence of exemptions from this phase out. Witnesses included representatives from the Department of State, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, industry 

representatives and environmental advocates. 

On July 21, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held another hearing entitled Methyl Bromide: Update on Achieving the Requirements of the Clean Air Act and Montreal Protocol. 

The hearing focused on the current use of methyl bromide in the 

U.S., alternatives to the use of methyl bromide, the international 

process underway to implement the Montreal Protocol, and the 

U.S. efforts to comply with the Montreal Protocol. Witnesses included the Department of State, the Department of Agriculture, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, industry and environmental advocates. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

On June 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the Future Options for Generation of Electricity 

from Coal. The hearing addressed the status of new technologies, 

and the improvements to existing technologies for the future use of 

coal for electric generation. The hearing also provided information 

on the current and projected cost, reliability, and overall competitiveness of coal in the marketplace. The first panel of witnesses included a representative from the DOE and the utility sector, a well 

as a coal producer. The second panel included an end user, a coal 

80 

technology manufacturer, an environmental advocate, a coal and 

utility sector researcher, and a pollution control equipment manufacturer. 

THE CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE: A MULTIPOLLUTANT APPROACH TO THE

CLEAN AIR ACT

On July 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the President’s Clear Skies Initiative. The hearing addressed the basic framework and elements of the Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative, how this proposal would change current law regarding the regulation of affected facilities, and the anticipated costs and benefits of this approach to controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOX) and mercury 

(Hg) from affected facilities. The sole witness was the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

‘‘BUMP-UP’’ POLICY UNDER TITLE I OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

On July 22, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the ‘‘Bump-Up’’ Policy Under Title I of the Clean 

Air Act. The hearing addressed the attainment date extension policy issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998, 

the current situation facing various ‘‘nonattainment’’ areas following court decisions invalidating this policy, and the ability of 

the EPA, states and local areas to address downwind attainment 

problems in the future. Witnesses included representatives from 

Environmental Protection Agency, state and local governments of 

New Jersey, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas, and representatives of 

the environmental community. 

AIR QUALITY ISSUES IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY

On January 12, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality held a field hearing in Palm Desert, CA on air quality 

issues in the Coachella Valley. The hearing reviewed efforts in the 

Coachella Valley to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

and the unique circumstances presented by Southern California geography, the desert environment and continuing growth in the region. The hearing also addressed emissions of particulate matter 

associated with natural conditions in the valley as well as other activities and conditions, including declining water levels in the 

Salton Sea. Witnesses included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, local government, stakeholders, and private businesses. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

On March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing to review the Department of Energy’s Yucca 

Mountain Project. The hearing focused on the Department of Energy’s (DOE) progress toward submission of a license application to 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to develop Yucca Mountain as a long-term repository for the disposal of radioactive waste, 

and legislation to reclassify contributions to the Nuclear Waste 

Fund (NWF). Witnesses included Members of Congress, representaVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
81 

tives from the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a state regulatory commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the nuclear industry. 

CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AFFECTING THE READINESS OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

On April 21, 2004, the Subcommittees on Energy and Air Quality 

and Environment and Hazardous Materials held a joint hearing on 

environmental issues affecting the readiness of the Department of 

Defense. The hearing focused on several proposals by the Department of Defense (DOD), which would either amend or affect the operation of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Witnesses included representatives from the 

Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

state regulators, and environmental advocates. 

ULTRADEEP WATER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

On April 29, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the benefits of ultradeep water research and development. The hearing addressed the issue of benefits that may 

accrue to the nation as a result of programs that focus on the use 

of technology for exploring and producing oil and natural gas in 

ultradeep waters. Witnesses included Members of Congress, the 

Energy Information Agency, and industry representatives and researchers. 

ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

On May 5, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Status Report. 

The hearing focused on status of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

project and the probability of its being built. Witnesses included a 

Member of Congress, the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and industry representatives. 

REGIONAL ENERGY RELIABILITY AND SECURITY: DOE AUTHORITY TO

ENERGIZE THE CROSS SOUND CABLE

On May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the Department of Energy’s authority to energize 

the Cross Sound cable. The hearing addressed energy security and 

reliability issues confronting the Northeast and the authority of the 

Secretary of Energy to order operation of the Cross Sound Cable. 

Witnesses included Members of Congress, the Chairman of the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Attorney General of 

the State of Connecticut, a representative of the Department of Energy, a state regulator, an independent system operator, and an 

electric industry representative. 

PROPOSALS TO CONSOLIDATE OFFICES OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AT

NNSA AND DOE

On July 13, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing to review proposals to consolidate the Offices of 

82 

Counter Intelligence at National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) and Department of Energy. Witnesses included the Administrator of NNSA and the National Counterintelligence Executive. 

U.S. REFINING INDUSTRY

On July 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the status of the U.S. refining industry. The 

hearing updated members on refining capacity, gasoline prices, and 

the likelihood of building new domestic refining capacity. Witnesses 

included representatives from the Energy Information Agency, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Government Accountability 

Office, the Federal Trade Commission, industry representatives 

and analysts, a consumer advocate, and an environmental advocate. 

PIPELINE SAFETY

On July 20, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on pipeline safety. The hearing updated the members on the implementation of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act 

of 2002, and presented views from various stakeholders. Witnesses 

included representatives from the Department of Transportation, 

the Government Accountability Office, pipeline safety advocates 

and industry representatives. 

HEARINGS HELD

Comprehensive National Energy Policy.—Oversight hearing on 

Comprehensive National Energy Policy. Hearings held on March 5, 

2003, March 12, 2003, and March 13, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–7. 

United Nations Oil for Food Program.—Oversight hearing on 

United Nations Oil for Food Program. Hearing held on May 14, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–18. 

The Hydrogen Energy Economy.—Oversight hearing on the Hydrogen Energy Economy. Hearing held on May 20, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–21. 

Status of Methyl Bromide under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol.—Oversight hearing on Status of Methyl Bromide 

under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol. Hearing held 

on June 3, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–55. 

Future Options for Generation of Electricity from Coal.—Oversight hearing on the Future Options for Generation of Electricity 

from Coal. Hearing held on June 24, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–32. 

The Clear Skies Initiative: A Multipollutant Approach to the 

Clean Air Act.—Oversight hearing on the Clear Skies Initiative: A 

Multipollutant Approach to the Clean Air Act. Hearing held on 

July 8, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–65. 

‘‘Bump-Up’’ Policy Under Title I of the Clean Air Act.—Oversight 

hearing on ‘‘Bump-Up’’ Policy Under Title I of the Clean Air Act. 

Hearing held on July 22, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–62. 

Air Quality Issues in the Coachella Valley.—Oversight hearing on 

Air Quality Issues in the Coachella Valley. Hearing held on January 12, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–61. 

83 

A Review of the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project, 

and Proposed Legislation to Alter the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund.— Hearing on H.R. 3429, the Nuclear Waste Financing Act of 2003, 

and H.R. 3981, to reclassify fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund 

as offsetting collections, and for other purposes. Hearing held on 

March 25, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–70. 

Current Environmental Issues Affecting the Readiness of the Department of Defense.—Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials on Current 

Environmental Issues Affecting the Readiness of the Department of 

Defense. Hearing held on April 21, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 

108–119. 

Ultradeep Water Research and Development: What Are the Benefits?—Oversight hearing on Ultradeep Water Research and Development: What Are the Benefits? Hearing held on April 29, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–77. 

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Status Report.—Oversight hearing 

on Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Status Report. Hearing held on 

May 5, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–82. 

Regional Energy Reliability and Security: DOE Authority to Energize the Cross Sound Cable.—Oversight hearing on Regional Energy Reliability and Security: DOE Authority to Energize the Cross 

Sound Cable. Hearing held on May 19, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–83. 

United Nations Oil for Food Program.—Oversight hearing on 

United Nations Oil for Food Program. Hearing held on July 8, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–106. 

A Hearing to Review Proposals to Consolidate the Offices of 

Counter Intelligence at NNSA and DOE.—Oversight hearing to Review Proposals to Consolidate the Offices of Counter Intelligence at 

NNSA and DOE. Hearing held on July 13, 2004. NOT PRINTED. 

The Status of the U.S. Refining Industry.—Oversight hearing on 

The Status of the U.S. Refining Industry. Hearing held on July 15, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–113. 

Pipeline Safety.—Oversight hearing on Pipeline Safety. Hearing 

held on July 20, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–111. 

1Methyl Bromide: Update on Achieving the Requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol.—Oversight hearing on 

Methyl Bromide: Update on Achieving the Requirements of the 

Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol. Hearing held on July 21, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–118. 

(85) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

(Ratio 16–13) 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

Jurisdiction: Environmental protection in general, including the Safe Drinking Water Act 

and risk assessment matters; solid waste, hazardous waste and toxic substances, including 

Superfund and RCRA; mining, oil, gas, and coal combustion wastes; and noise pollution control. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS BILL

Public Law 108–7 (H.J. Res. 2) 

(Environmental Provisions) 

Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Division M amends the Department of Defense Appropriations 

Act, 2003 to authorize specified funds to settle disputed takings of 

property adjacent to the Tooele Army Depot, Utah. The Division 

also earmarks specified funds under such Act for the disposal of obsolete vessels in the Maritime Administration National Defense Reserve fleet. Requires a report from the Secretaries of the Navy and 

Transportation to the congressional defense committees concerning 

such vessels, and authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to 

transfer specified funds under such Act to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the acquisition of land at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada. 

86 

Legislative History 

H.J. Res. 2 was introduced in the House by Mr. Young (FL) on 

January 7, 2003. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on 

Appropriations. 

On January 8, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 was considered in the House 

pursuant to H. Res. 15. The House passed the bill by voice vote. 

On January 9, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 was received in the Senate, read 

the first time, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 

Read the First Time. On January 10, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 was read 

the second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar. 

On January 23, 2003, H.J. Res. 2 passed the Senate, with an 

amendment, by a vote of 69 yeas and 29 nays. 

On January 23, 2003, the Senate insisted on its amendment to 

H.J. Res. 2, requested a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees. On January 29, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate 

amendment to H.J. Res. 2, agreed to a conference with the Senate, 

and appointed conferees. 

The Conference Committee met on February 10, 2003, and February 11, 2003. The conference report (H. Rpt. 108–10) was filed 

on February 13, 2003. 

Pursuant to H. Res. 71, on February 13, 2003, the House agreed 

to the conference report by a vote of 338 yeas and 83 nays. The 

Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 76 yeas and 20 

nays. 

H.J. Res. 2 was presented to the President on February 19, 2003, 

and on February 20, 2003, the bill was signed by the President 

(Public Law 108–7). 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

Public Law 108–11 (H.R. 1559, S. 762) 

Making emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Chapter 8 of H.R. 1559 makes technical corrections to statements 

of the managers with respect to the Consolidated Appropriations 

Resolution, 2003 and other specified Federal law regarding certain 

appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Fund, and the Environmental Protection Agency, State and tribal assistance grants. The bill directs 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to adjust each maximum annual pesticide registration maintenance fee 

in a manner that maintenance fee collections made to reach the 

level authorized in the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003 (in the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 

2003) shall be established in a specified proportion. 

Legislative History 

On April 2, 2003, H.R. 1559 was introduced by Mr. Young (FL), 

and reported to the House by the Committee on Appropriations (H. 

Rpt. 108–55). 

87 

On April 3, 2003, pursuant to H. Res. 172, the bill was considered and passed by the House by a vote of 414 yeas and 12 nays. 

H.R. 1559 was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent on 

April 7, 2003. 

The Senate struck all after the enacting clause the bill, inserted 

in lieu thereof the provisions of S. 762, as amended, and passed 

H.R. 1559 by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its 

amendment and requested a conference with the House on April 7, 

2003, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on April 8, 2003, and appointed 

conferees. 

On April 12, 2003, the conference report (H. Rpt. 108–76) was 

filed. 

On April 12, 2003, the House agreed to the conference report by 

voice vote, and the Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 1559 was presented to the President on April 15, 2003, and 

signed by the President on April 16, 2003 (Public Law 108–11). 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

Public Law 108–136 (H.R. 1588, S. 1050) 

(Environmental Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

Subtitle B of H.R. 1588 repeals the authority to use environmental restoration account funds for the relocation of a contaminated facility, but retains the authority to pay relocation costs 

under cooperative agreements entered into up to September 30, 

2003. 

The bill also authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to include environmental protection equipment within salvage facilities provided 

for public and private vessels and allows claims for salvage services 

to include claims for environmental protection services. 

In addition, H.R. 1588 amends the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 to repeal the authority for a model 

program of environmental restoration at closed military bases. 

The bill directs the Secretary to conduct a study of the impacts 

of the following activities at military installations and operational 

ranges: (1) Civilian community encroachment; (2) DOD compliance 

with State implementation plans for air quality under the Clean 

Air Act; and, (3) DOD compliance with the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Requires the Secretary to: (1) prepare a plan to respond to encroachment issues affecting military installations and operational ranges; and (2) report to the defense 

committees on results of the impacts study. 

88 

H.R. 1588 limits Army responsibility for water consumption impacts related to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Recognizes the Upper San 

Pedro Partnership, Arizona, and its efforts to establish a collaborative water use management program in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed regional aquifer in Arizona. Directs the Secretary of the 

Interior to report to Congress: (1) On the water use management 

and conservation measures needed to restore and maintain the sustainable yield of such aquifer by and after September 11, 2001; 

and, (2) annually on Partnership progress toward achieving and 

maintaining such sustainable yield. Expresses the sense of Congress that any future appropriations to the Partnership should take 

into account whether it has met its annual goals for overdraft reduction. 

The bill also requires the Secretary to: (1) provide for an epidemiological study of exposure to perchlorate in drinking water; and, 

(2) provide for an independent review of the effects of perchlorate 

on the human endocrine system. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1588 was introduced by Mr. Hunter, by request, on April 3, 

2003 and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 16, 2003. 

On May 16, 2003, the Committee on Armed Services reported 

H.R. 1588 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 108–106). 

H.R. 1588 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 245 

and H. Res. 247, and on May 22, 2003, the House passed the bill 

by a vote of 361 yeas and 68 nays. 

H.R. 1588 was received in the Senate on June 2, 2003. On June 

4, 2003, the bill was laid before Senate by unanimous consent. The 

Senate struck all after the enacting clause of H.R. 1588, inserted 

in lieu thereof the provisions of S. 1050, and passed the bill, as 

amended, by voice vote. 

The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the House on June 4, 2003, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on July 16, 2003, and appointed conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of secs. 601, 

3113, 3201, and 3517 of the House bill, and secs. 601, 701, 852, 

3151, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. Tauzin, Barton, and Dingell. 

On July 22, 2003, the conference committee met, and the conference report was filed on November 7, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–354). 

Pursuant to H. Res. 437, on November 7, 2003, the House agreed 

to the conference report by vote of 362 yeas and 40 nays, 2 voting 

present. 

On November 12, 2004, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 95 yeas and 3 nays on November 12, 2003. 

H.R. 1588 was presented to and signed by the President on November 24, 2003 (Public Law 108–136). 

89 

HEALTHY FORESTS RESTORATION ACT

Public Law 108–148 (H.R. 1904) 

An act to improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture 

and the Secretary of the Interior to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land 

Management lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, 

and certain other at-risk lands from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest 

and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire, across the 

landscape, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Title III of H.R. 1904 amends the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 to permit the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

through the Forest Service (and, where appropriate, through the 

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service), to 

provide assistance to State foresters and State officials, or to Cooperative Extension officials at land grant colleges and universities 

and specified institutions, for the purpose of expanding State forest 

capacities and activities to address watershed issues on non-Federal forested lands and potentially forested lands. Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop, with relevant parties, a program of technical 

assistance to protect water quality; and (2) establish a watershed 

forestry cost-share program. Authorizes appropriations. 

The bill also requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

through the Chief of the Forest Service, to provide assistance to Indian tribes for the purpose of expanding tribal stewardship capacities through tribal forestry best management practices to improve 

watershed health. Authorizes appropriations. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1904 was introduced by Mr. McInnis on May 1, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the 

Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. On 

May 9, 2003, the bill was referred sequentially to the Committee 

on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than May 16, 2003 

for consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X. 

On May 20, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 

the Committee on Agriculture exchanged correspondence. 

H.R. 1904 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 239, 

and on May 20, 2003, the House passed the bill, as amended, by 

a vote of 256 yeas and 170 nays. 

H.R. 1904 was received in the Senate on May 21, 2003, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry. 

On July 31, 2003, H.R. 1904 passed the Senate, with an amendment and an amendment to the title, by a vote of 80 yeas and 14 

nays. 

On November 6, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate amendments and requested a conference and appointed conferees. 

90 

On November 20, 2003, the Senate insisted on its amendment to 

H.R. 1904, agreed to a conference with the House, and appointed 

conferees. 

On November 20, 2003, the conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 

108–386). The House considered and agreed to the conference report, pursuant to H. Res. 457, on November 21, 2003, by a vote of 

286 yeas and 140 nays. The Senate agreed to the conference report 

by unanimous consent on November 21, 2003. 

The bill was presented to the President on December 2, 2003, 

and on December 3, 2003, the bill was signed by the President 

(Public Law 108–148). 

TO AMEND THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT TO REAUTHORIZE THE

NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM

Public Law 108–328 (H.R. 2771, S. 1425) 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New 

York City Watershed Protection Program. 

Summary 

H.R. 2771 reauthorizes the New York City Watershed Protection 

Program. It strikes ‘‘1997 through 2003’’ in section 1443(d)(4) of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act and replaces it with ‘‘2003 through 2010’’. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2771 was introduced by Mr. Fossella on July 17, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On April 2, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2771. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from two Members of Congress, and a representative from Region II of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, 

the Catskill Watershed Corporation, and the Natural Resources 

Defense Council. 

On April 2, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and approved H.R. 

2771 for Full Committee consideration by a record vote of 19 yeas 

and 7 nays, a quorum being present. On April 22, 2004, the Full 

Committee met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2771 reported to the House by a record vote of 40 yeas and 0 nays, a 

quorum being present. On April 28, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2771 to the House (H. Rpt. 108– 

476). 

On May 5, 2004, H.R. 2771 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules. The bill passed the House by voice vote. 

H.R. 2771 was received in the Senate on May 6, 2004, read the 

first time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 

Read the First Time. On May 7, 2004, the bill was read the second 

time and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General 

Orders. 

On September 30, 2004, H.R. 2771 passed the Senate without 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

91 

H.R. 2771 was presented to the President on October 5, 2004, 

and on October 16, 2004, was signed by the President (Public Law 

108–328). 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FY 2005 AUTHORIZATION BILL

Public Law 108–375 (H.R. 4200, S. 2400) 

(Environmental Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

The conference report to accompany H.R. 4200 authorizes the 

Secretary to transfer specified Department of Defense (DOD) Operation and Maintenance funds to a named account as reimbursement to the Environmental Protection Agency for certain environmental cleanup costs in connection with the Moses Lake Wellfield 

Superfund Site, Washington. 

The conference report to accompany H.R. 4200 also deems the 

Defense Inspector General in compliance with certain requirements 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act of 1980 if the Inspector General conducts periodic 

audits of payments, obligations, reimbursements, and other uses 

from the Hazardous Substance Superfund. 

The conference report, in addition, requires the Comptroller General to: (1) study drinking water contamination and related health 

effects at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; (2) ensure study participation by other interested (affected) parties; and, (3) report study 

results and recommendations to the defense and appropriations 

committees. 

The conference report to accompany H.R. 4200 also directs the 

Comptroller General to study, and report to Congress on, whether 

cost-effective technologies are available for the cleanup of groundwater contamination at DOD installations in lieu of traditional 

methods such as pump-and-treat. 

Finally, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200 includes 

a Sense of the Congress that DOD should: (1) work to develop a 

national plan to remediate perchlorate contamination of the environment resulting from DOD activities; (2) continue any current remediation; (3) develop a remediation plan with respect to contamination at levels that pose a hazard to human health; and, (4) continue the process of evaluating and prioritizing contamination sites 

without waiting for the development of a Federal drinking water 

standard. 

Legislative History 

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Hunter introduced H.R. 4200 by request, 

and the bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 

92 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 14, 2004. 

On May 14, 2004, the Committee on Armed Service reported 

H.R. 2400 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–491). 

H.R. 4200 was considered in the House on May 19 and 20, 2004, 

under the provisions of H. Res. 648. The bill passed the House by 

vote of 391 yeas and 34 nays. 

On June 23, 2004, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment 

by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its amendment, 

asked for a conference, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on September 28, 

2004, agreed to a conference agreed and appointed conferees. The 

Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for consideration of secs. 596, 601, 3111, 3131, 3133 and 

3201 of the House bill, and secs. 321–323, 716, 720, 1084–1089, 

1091, 2833, 3116, 3119, 3141, 3142, 3145, 3201, and 3503 of the 

Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, 

Messrs. Barton, Upton, and Dingell. 

A conference was held on September 29, 2004, and on October 8, 

2004 the conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 108–767). 

On October 8, 2004, H. Res. 843, providing for the consideration 

of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200, passed the House 

by voice vote. Then, on October 9, 2004, the conference report was 

considered in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 843. The 

conference report passed the House by a vote of 359 yeas and 14 

nays. 

Senate agreed to conference report by unanimous consent on October 9, 2004. 

On October 21, 2004, the bill was presented to President, and 

was signed by the President on October 28, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

375). 

SOLID WASTE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 382) 

To authorize States to prohibit or impose certain limitations on 

the receipt of foreign municipal solid waste, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 382 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize 

states to enact laws prohibiting or limiting the receipt and disposal 

of municipal solid waste generated outside the United States. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 382 was introduced by Mr. Rogers on January 27, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 23, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 382. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from a Member of Congress, a Senator, and representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan 

State Senate, the New York City Council, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the New York City Department of 

Sanitation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtecVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
93 

tion, the University of Michigan Law School, the Lee County Council in South Carolina, the Ecology Center, the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, a former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, and a Michigan State Trooper/registered nurse. 

While no further action was taken on H.R. 382 in the 108th Congress, provisions of the bill were reported by the Subcommittee on 

September 23, 2003, as part of H.R. 4940. 

TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN AUTHORITIES UNDER AN AGREEMENT WITH CANADA RESPECTING THE IMPORTATION OF MUNICIPAL

SOLID WASTE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

(H.R. 411) 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to carry out certain authorities under an agreement with 

Canada respecting the importation of municipal solid waste, and 

for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 411 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit any 

person from importing, transporting, or exporting municipal solid 

waste (MSW), for final disposal or incineration, in violation of the 

Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning the Transboundary 

Movement of Hazardous Waste. 

The bill also directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to perform the functions of the Designated Authority of the United States with respect to the importation and exportation of MSW under the Agreement and to implement and enforce 

the Agreement. 

In addition, H.R. 411 sets forth factors for consideration in the 

Administrator’s determinations of whether to consent to importation, and provides procedures for issuance of compliance orders, assessment of civil penalties, and conduct of public hearings. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 411 was introduced by Mr. Dingell on January 28, 2003, 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 23, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 411. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from a Member of Congress, a Senator, and representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan 

State Senate, the New York City Council, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the New York City Department of 

Sanitation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the University of Michigan Law School, the Lee County Council in South Carolina, the Ecology Center, the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, a former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, and a Michigan State Trooper/registered nurse. 

While no further action was taken on H.R. 411 in the 108th Congress, provisions of the bill were reported by the Subcommittee on 

September 23, 2003, as part of H.R. 4940. 

94 

SOLID WASTE INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 1730) 

To impose certain limitations on the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 1730 allows a local government to automatically apply a 

ban on out-of-state waste from coming into its community—otherwise known as a presumptive ban—unless (1) the waste facility already has an existing agreement to accept the waste for disposal— 

a host community agreement, or (2) the state has issued an existing permit or contract to accept out-of-state waste. If the community had not signed a host community agreement at the time the 

bill becomes law, they can still avoid the presumptive ban by entering into a new host community agreement and providing information on the waste capacity of the landfill, how much out-of-state 

waste is anticipated to be disposed in the landfill, and the environmental controls in place at the land disposal facility. 

H.R. 1730 also allows states and local governments to limit, or 

freeze, the amount of waste received at each landfill or incinerator 

to levels that may not exceed the amounts from calendar year 1993 

or subsequent years where a state required records of waste imports to be kept or records of waste imports were kept. Waste imports that are specifically authorized by a state permit or existing 

host community agreement are exempt from the freeze limitation. 

In addition, a state that has a comprehensive statewide recycling 

program may freeze levels of imported waste to the amounts received in 1995. Again, the host community agreement or an existing state permit overrule this limitation. 

Additionally, H.R. 1730 allows states’ discretion in issuing permits to cap, at not less than 20 percent, the amount of out-of-state 

prospective municipal solid waste received. States can also deny 

permits for new construction or major modification to landfills or 

incinerators if a comprehensive municipal solid waste plan exists 

and there is no regional need for the facilities. H.R. 1730 also permits the state to charge a fee not to exceed $2 

per ton on out-of-state waste for the recovery of processing and disposing costs. 

Finally, H.R. 1730 requires the General Accounting Office to report to Congress each year for the next 3 years on incidences of unauthorized shipments of medical, hazardous, or radioactive wastes 

that inspectors or disposal facility operators have found. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1730 was introduced by Mr. Greenwood on April 10, 2003, 

and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 23, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 1730. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from a Member of Congress, a Senator, and representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Michigan 

State Senate, the New York City Council, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the New York City Department of 

Sanitation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtecVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
95 

tion, the University of Michigan Law School, the Lee County Council in South Carolina, the Ecology Center, the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, a former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative, and a Michigan State Trooper/registered nurse. 

While no further action was taken on H.R. 1730 in the 108th 

Congress, provisions of the bill were reported by the Subcommittee 

on September 23, 2003, as part of H.R. 4940. 

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

(H.R. 3550, S. 1072) 

To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Title VIII of H.R. 3550 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 

direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and each agency head to implement fully all procurement requirements and incentives, including Federal procurement guidelines, that provide for the use of cement and concrete incorporating 

recovered mineral component in cement or concrete projects. 

H.R. 3550 also requires each agency head to give priority to 

achieving greater use of recovered mineral component in cement or 

concrete projects for which recovered mineral components historically have not been used or have been used only minimally. 

In addition, the bill instructs the Administrator of the EPA, in 

cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary 

of Energy, to study and report to Congress on the extent to which 

current procurement requirements may realize energy savings and 

environmental benefits attainable with substitution of recovered 

mineral component in cement used in cement or concrete projects, 

and it also instructs the Administrator of the EPA to establish criteria (including an evaluation of whether to establish a numerical 

standard for concentration of lead and other hazardous substances) 

for the safe and environmentally protective use of granular mine 

tailings from the Tar Creek, Oklahoma Mining District, known as 

‘‘chat,’’ for: (1) cement or concrete projects; and, (2) transportation 

construction projects (including transportation construction projects 

involving the use of asphalt) that are carried out, in whole or in 

part, using Federal funds. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3550 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on November 20, 

2003, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

On March 24, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3550 to be 

reported, amended, by voice vote. On March 29, 2004, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 3550 to 

the House (H. Rpt. 108–452, Part I). 

On March 29, 2004, H.R. 3550 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy 

and Commerce, the Judiciary, Resources, and Science for a period 

ending not later than March 29, 2004 for consideration of such proVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
96 

visions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of 

that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X. 

On March 29, 2004, the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, the Judiciary, Resources, and Science 

were discharged from further consideration of the bill. 

On April 1, 2004, H.R. 3550 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 593. The bill passed the House, as amended, by vote 

of 357 yeas and 65 nays on April 2, 2004. 

On April 8, 2004, H.R. 3550 was received in the Senate. The bill 

was read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 

under General Orders on April 22, 2004. 

On May 19, 2004, the Senate struck all after the enacting clause 

of H.R. 3550, inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of S. 1072, and 

passed the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent. 

The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the House on May 19, 2004 and on May 20, 2004, appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on June 3, 2004, and appointed 

conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce for consideration of provisions in the House 

bill and Senate amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of 

transportation planning contained in sec. 6001 of the House bill, 

and secs. 3005 and 3006 of the Senate amendment; and secs. 1202, 

1824, 1828, and 5203 of the House bill, and secs. 1501, 1511, 1522, 

1610–1619, 3016, 3023, 4108, 4151, 4152, 4155–4159, 4162, 4172, 

4173, 4424, 4481, 4482, 4484, 4662, 8001, and 8002 of the Senate 

amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. 

Barton, Pickering, and Dingell. 

The Conference Committee met on June 9, June 23, and July 7, 

July 20, and July 22, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3550 in the 108th Congress. 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 4940) 

To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize local governments and Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State and foreign 

municipal solid waste, to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out certain authorities under an 

agreement with Canada respecting the importation of municipal 

solid waste, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

The bill amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prohibit a landfill or incinerator (facility) from receiving out-of-State municipal 

solid waste unless the owner or operator of the facility obtains explicit authorization from the affected local government. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 4940 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on July 22, 2004, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and contained 

the contents of H.R. 382, H.R. 411, and H.R. 1730. 

97 

On September 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 

4940 to be reported, as amended, by a roll call vote of 12 yeas and 

4 nays, a quorum being present. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4940 in the 108th Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

EFFECTIVENESS OF LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK CLEANUP

PROGRAMS

On March 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the effectiveness of leaking underground storage tank cleanup programs. The hearing examined 

the status of leaking underground storage tank programs, the challenges they face, and options available to address those concerns. 

Witnesses included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Accounting Office and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 

CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AFFECTING THE READINESS OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

On April 21, 2004, the Subcommittees on Environment and Hazardous Materials and Energy and Air Quality held a joint hearing 

on environmental issues affecting the readiness of the Department 

of Defense (DOD). The hearing focused on several legislative proposals by the DOD, which would either amend or affect the operation of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Witnesses included representatives from the 

Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, 

state regulators, and environmental advocates. 

EPA’S RESOURCE CONSERVATION CHALLENGE

On May 20, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. The RCC is a national effort to find flexible ways to conserve resources through 

waste reduction and energy recovery. A representative from EPA 

testified. 

POPS, PIC, AND LRTAP: THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES AND DRAFT

LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT THESE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

On July 13, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing entitled POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: 

the Role of the United States and Draft Legislation to Implement 

These International Conventions. The hearing focused on a discussion draft that contained options to bring the U.S. into compliance 

with international agreements. Witnesses included representatives 

from the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency, industry, environmental advocacy, public health advocacy, 

Georgetown University Law Center, and Johns Hopkins University. 

98 

LEAD IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE PROVIDING OF SAFE

DRINKING WATER

On July 22, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the discovery of elevated 

amounts of lead in drinking water in the District of Columbia, and 

drinking water infrastructure needs related to the providing of safe 

drinking water. Witnesses included representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, District of Columbia, the Government Accountability Office, environmental advocates, stakeholders, 

and industry representatives. 

CONTROLLING BIOTERROR: ASSESSING OUR NATION’S DRINKING WATER

SECURITY

On September 30, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials held a hearing entitled Controlling Bioterror: 

Assessing Our Nation’s Drinking Water Security. The hearing focused on oversight of the Bioterrorism Act, and options available 

to manage the vulnerability of the nation’s water supply and water 

quality systems to terrorist attack. A representative from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Government Accountability 

Office testified. 

HEARINGS HELD

The Effectiveness of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup 

Programs.—Oversight hearing on the Effectiveness of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Programs. Hearing held on 

March 5, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–16. 

Three Bills Pertaining to the Transport of Solid Waste: Solid 

Waste International Transportation Act of 2003, To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out certain authorities under an agreement with Canada respecting the 

importation of municipal solid waste, and for other purposes, and 

Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act of 2003.—Hearing on 

H.R. 382, the Solid Waste International Transportation Act of 

2003; H.R. 411, To direct the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency to carry out certain authorities under an agreement with Canada respecting the importation of municipal solid 

waste, and for other purposes; and, H.R. 1730, Solid Waste Interstate Transportation Act of 2003. Hearing held on July 23, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–33. 

To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New 

York City Watershed Protection Program.—Hearing on H.R. 2771, 

to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New 

York City Watershed Protection Program. Hearing held on April 2, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–72. 

Current Environmental Issues Affecting the Readiness of the Department of Defense.—Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on Current Environmental 

Issues Affecting the Readiness of the Department of Defense. Hearing held on April 21, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–119. 

EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge.—Oversight hearing on 

EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge. Hearing held on May 20, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–81. 

99 

POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the United States and Draft 

Legislation to Implement These International Conventions.—Oversight hearing on POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the United 

States and Draft Legislation to Implement These International 

Conventions. Hearing held on July 13, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–112. 

Tapped Out? Lead in the District of Columbia and the Providing 

of Safe Drinking Water.—Oversight hearing on Tapped Out? Lead 

in the District of Columbia and the Providing of Safe Drinking 

Water. Hearing held on July 22, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 

108–97. 

Controlling Bioterror: Assessing Our Nation’s Drinking Water Security.—Oversight hearing on Controlling Bioterror: Assessing Our 

Nation’s Drinking Water Security. Hearing held on September 30, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–123. 

(101) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

(Ratio 18–15) 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JOESPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

insurance; food and drugs; and, drug abuse. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2003

Public Law 108–7 (H.J. Res. 2) 

(Health Provisions) 

A joint resolution making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.J. Res. 2 contains provisions that extend through June 30, 

2003, activities under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act 

(Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). It also amends title 

XVIII of the Social Security Act (SSA) (Medicare) with regard to 

payments for physicians services. The resolution increases payment 

for large urban hospitals for inpatient hospital services for discharges. The resolution also continues activities authorized under 

SSA title XIX (Medicaid) for medical assistance and State coverage 

of Medicare cost-sharing for certain low-income Medicare beneficiaries. 

102 

Legislative History 

H.J. Res. 2 was introduced in the House by Mr. Young on January 7, 2003 and was referred to the House Committee on Appropriations. 

H.J. Res. 2 was considered in the House under the provisions of 

H. Res. 15, and passed by the House by voice vote on January 8, 

2003. 

The bill was received in the Senate on January 9, 2003, read the 

first time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read 

the First Time. 

On January 10, 2003 H.J. Res. 2 was read the second time and 

placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

H.J. Res. 2 was considered in the Senate on January 15, 16, 17, 

21, 22, and 23, 2003. The bill passed by the Senate, as amended, 

by a vote of 69 yeas and 29 nays on January 23, 2003. The Senate 

insisted on its amendment, asked for a conference, and appointed 

conferees. 

On January 29, 2003 the House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to a conference, and the Speaker appointed conferees 

with additional conferees appointed on February 4, 2003. 

The conference was held February 10 and 11, 2003, and on February 13, 2003, a conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 108–10). 

On February 13, 2003 the House considered the conference report to accompany H.J. Res. 2 pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 

71. The House passed the conference report by a vote of 338 yeas 

and 83 nays. 

On February 13, 2003, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 76 yeas and 20 nays. 

The joint resolution was presented to the President on February 

19, 2003 and was signed by the President on February 20, 2003 

(Public Law 108–7). 

EMERGENCY WARTIME SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2003

Public Law 108–11 (H.R. 1559, S. 762) 

(Health Provisions) 

To make emergency wartime supplemental appropriations for the 

fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 1559 makes emergency wartime supplemental appropriation 

for FY2003 for a number of agencies. It also eliminates the authority for the $5 million of Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund appropriations earmarked for the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality to remain available until expended. 

Legislative History 

On April 2, 2003, H.R. 1559 was introduced by Mr. Young (FL), 

and reported to the House by the Committee on Appropriations (H. 

Rpt. 108–55). 

103 

On April 3, 2003, pursuant to H. Res. 172, the bill was considered and passed by the House, amended, by a vote of 414 yeas and 

12 nays. 

H.R. 1559 was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent on 

April 7, 2003. The Senate struck all after the enacting clause the 

bill, inserted in lieu thereof the provisions of S. 762, as amended, 

and passed H.R. 1559 by unanimous consent. 

The Senate insisted on its amendment and requested a conference with the House on April 7, 2003, and appointed conferees. 

On April 8, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate amendment, 

agreed to a conference, and appointed conferees. 

On April 12, 2003 the conference committee met, and the conference report (H. Rpt. 108–76) was filed. 

On April 12, 2003 the House agreed to the conference report by 

voice vote, and the Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 1559 was presented to the President on April 15, 2003, and 

signed by the President on April 16, 2003 (Public Law 108–11). 

SMALLPOX EMERGENCY PERSONNEL PROTECTION ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–20 (H.R. 1770, H.R. 1463) 

To provide benefits for certain individuals with injuries resulting 

from administration of a smallpox vaccine, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 1770 creates a compensation program for certain covered individuals who volunteer to take small pox vaccine but have injuries 

resulting from such vaccination. Covered individuals include health 

care workers, law enforcement officers, firefighters, security personnel, emergency medical personnel, and other public safety personnel, and those who contract the virus from those above. The legislation is a step toward ensuring the broad acceptance of voluntary vaccination by public safety personnel. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Burr introduced H.R. 1770 on April 11, 2003. The bill was 

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

addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, and 

the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On April 11, 2003, H.R. 1770 was considered in the House by 

unanimous consent, and passed the House without objection. 

On April 11, 2003 the Senate passed H.R. 1170 by unanimous 

consent. 

H.R. 1770 was presented to the President on April 24, 2003. The 

President signed the bill on April 30, 2003 (Public Law 108–20). 

WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–40 (H.R. 2350) 

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

block grant program through fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes. 

104 

Summary 

H.R. 2350 contains three provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The bill amends 

the Social Security Act: (1) title XI to reauthorize and extend at the 

current levels and under the same conditions associated matching 

grants for the territories and child welfare demonstration authority; (2) title V (Maternal and Child Health Services) for the same 

with respect to continuance of abstinence education funding; and, 

(3) title XIX (Medicaid) for the same with respect to continuance 

of transitional medical assistance. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2350 was introduced in the House by Mr. Herger on June 

5, 2003, and referred to the Committees on Ways and Means and 

Energy and Commerce. 

On June 11, 2003, H.R. 2350 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a vote of 406 yeas 

and 6 nays. 

On June 27, 2003, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

On June 30, 2003, H.R. 2350 was presented to and signed by the 

President (Public Law 108–40). 

AUTOMATIC DEFIBRILLATION IN ADAM’S MEMORY ACT

Public Law 108–41 (H.R. 389) 

To authorize state public access defibrillation grants to be used 

to establish information clearinghouses to increase public access to 

defibrillation in schools. 

Summary 

The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act (107– 

188) included a provision that authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to award grants to states, 

political subdivisions of states, Indian tribes, and tribal organizations to develop and implement public access defibrillation programs. Because many schools also serve as community meeting 

places, several communities are considering placing automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) in schools. In order to assist schools interested in installing AEDs, H.R. 389 clarifies that the public access defibrillation program grant dollars authorized by P.L. 107– 

188 may also be used to establish information clearinghouses to assist in those efforts. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 389 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus on January 27, 2003, 

and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee met in open markup 

session and ordered H.R. 389 reported to the House by a voice vote, 

a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 389 to 

the House on February 13, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–13). 

105 

On March 12, 2003, H.R. 389 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 415 yeas 

and 0 nays. 

On March 13, 2003, H.R. 389 was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions. 

On June 17, 2003, H.R. 389 passed the Senate by unanimous 

consent. 

H.R. 389 was presented to the President on June 20, 2003, and 

signed by the President on July 1, 2003 (Public Law 108–41). 

TO AMEND TITLE XXI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT TO EXTEND THE

AVAILABILITY OF ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998 THROUGH

2001 UNDER THE STATE CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM

(SCHIP)

Public Law 108–74 (H.R. 2854, H.R. 531, S. 312) 

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend the availability of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 under the 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2854 amends title XXI (State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program) (SCHIP) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to revise the 

special rule for the redistribution and availability of unexpended 

FY1998 and 1999 SCHIP allotments, including to: (1) extend the 

availability of FY 1998 and 1999 reallocated funds through FY 

2004; and (2) permit 50 percent of the total amount of unexpended 

FY 2000 and 2001 SCHIP allotments that remain available to a 

state through the end of FY 2002 and 2003 to remain available for 

expenditure by the State through the end of FY 2004 and 2005, respectively. This became effective as though it had been enacted on 

September 30, 2002. 

The bill also grants authority to qualifying states, with respect 

to FY 1998 through 2001 SCHIP allotments, for fiscal years in 

which such allotments are available, to elect to use not more than 

20 percent of those allotments (instead of for expenditures under 

SCHIP) for Medicaid medical assistance payments with respect to 

certain children under SSA title XIX. 

H.R. 2854 amends the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2003 to make a technical amendment with respect to state 

eligibility for an increase in its Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) or an increase in the cap on Medicaid payments to territories. This became effective as if included in the enactment of 

the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 531 was introduced in the House by Mr. Tauzin on February 5, 2003 with 71 cosponsors and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Committee. 

On June 19, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H.R. 531 reported to the 

House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

106 

On June 26, 2003, H.R. 531 was considered in the House by 

unanimous consent, and passed without objection. The bill was received by the Senate and placed on the Senate legislative calendar 

under General Orders. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 531 in the 108th Congress. 

S. 312 was introduced by Senator Rockefeller on February 5, 

2003, with 25 cosponsors, and referred to the Committee on Finance. The Committee on Finance reported S. 312 (S. Rpt. 108–78) 

on June 24, 2003. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent 

with an amendment on June 26, 2003. 

S. 312 was received by the House and held at the desk on June 

26, 2003. 

No further action was taken on S. 312 in the 108th Congress. 

H.R. 2854 was introduced in the House by Mr. Tauzin on July 

24, 2003, with three cosponsors and referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. On July 25, 2003, the bill was discharged 

from the Committee, considered in the House by unanimous consent, and passed without objection. 

The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 31, 

2003. 

H.R. 2584 was presented to the President on August 7, 2003, and 

on August 15, 2003, was signed by the President (Public Law 108– 

74). 

MOSQUITO ABATEMENT FOR SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT

Public Law 108–75 (H.R. 342, S. 1015) 

To authorize two temporary grant programs to assist States and 

localities in coordinating and operating mosquito control programs. 

Summary 

S. 1015 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS), operating through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to make grants to states for 

the purpose of coordinating mosquito control programs. The Secretary must give preference to states that have one or more political subdivisions with an incidence or prevalence of mosquito-borne 

disease that is substantial relative to other states. To be eligible, 

a state must develop a plan for coordinating mosquito control programs in the state, taking into account any assessments or plans 

that have already been conducted by political subdivisions in the 

state. In developing the plan, the state must consult with political 

subdivisions. States must also agree to make grants to political 

subdivisions to conduct assessments, including entomological surveys of potential mosquito breeding areas, and to develop mosquito 

control plans. The assessment grants may be as much as $10,000; 

no matching funds are required for participation. States must 

agree to monitor mosquito control programs, and submit a report 

to the Secretary. A state may not receive more than one coordination grant. 

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of HHS, acting 

through the CDC, to make grants to political subdivisions of states 

for the operation of mosquito control programs to prevent and control mosquito-borne disease. The Secretary must give preference to 

107 

political subdivisions that: (1) have an incidence or prevalence of 

mosquito-borne disease that is substantial relative to other areas; 

(2) demonstrate that they will coordinate with contiguous political 

subdivisions; and, (3) are located in states that plan to identify geographic areas that have a significant need for control, in an effort 

to better coordinate mosquito control programs. To be eligible for 

the grants, political subdivisions must conduct an assessment to 

determine the mosquito control needs of the area, including an entomological survey of potential mosquito breeding areas, and develop a plan, based on the assessment, for carrying out a mosquito 

control program. Political subdivisions must agree to submit to 

their respective state and the Secretary a report that describes the 

control program conducted, evaluating whether the program was 

effective. Political subdivisions must provide a non-federal contribution (directly or through donations from public or private entities) that is not less than $1 for every $2 of federal funding provided in the grant. This matching funding may be cash or in-kind. 

The maximum federal contribution may not exceed $100,000 per 

political subdivision for a fiscal year. The Secretary may waive the 

matching fund requirement if the Secretary determines extraordinary economic conditions justify the waiver. A political subdivision may not receive more than one mosquito control grant. 

In addition, S. 1015 authorizes the CDC to provide training and 

technical assistance in the planning, development, and operation of 

mosquito control programs, either directly or through awards of 

grants or contracts to public and private entities. The legislation 

authorizes $100 million to be appropriated for fiscal year 2003, and 

such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2004 

through 2007. This funding is in addition to applicable funding 

that may be available as authorized by the Public Health Security 

and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. 

Finally, S. 1015 directs the National Institute of Environmental 

Health Sciences to conduct or support research to identify or develop methods of controlling the population of insects and vermin 

that transmit diseases that have significant adverse health consequences for humans. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 342 was introduced by Mr. John on January 27, 2003, and 

was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 342 reported 

to the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 389 to 

the House on February 13, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–12). 

H.R. 342 was considered by the House under suspension of the 

rules and was passed the House by a vote of 416 yeas and 9 nays 

on March 12, 2003. 

On March 13, 2003, H.R. 342 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. 342 in the 108th Congress. 

On May 7, 2003, Senator Gregg introduced S. 1015, legislation 

that included all of the provisions in H.R. 342, with clarifications, 

108 

which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 1015 on June 12, 2003 (S. Rpt. 108–69). 

S. 1015 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 16, 

2003. 

On June 17, 2003, S. 1015 was received in the House and held 

at the desk. S. 105 was considered in the House by unanimous consent on July 25, 2003, and passed the House without objection. 

S. 1015 was presented to the President on August 7, 2003. On 

August 15, 2003, the President signed S. 1015 (Public Law 108– 

75). 

TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK

GRANT PROGRAM, AND CERTAIN TAX AND TRADE PROGRAMS, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Public Law 108–89 (H.R. 3146) 

To extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block 

grant program, and certain tax and trade programs, and for other 

purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3146 contains two sections that fall within the jurisdiction 

of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Under title I of H.R. 

3146, section 101 extends through March 31, 2004, provisions providing for abstinence education and for extending the transitional 

medal assistance program (1925 of the Social Security Act title 

XIX) for six months for former TANF recipients (originally set to 

expire on September 30, 2002). 

Under title IV of H.R. 3146, section 401 amends SSA title XIX 

to provide for the extension through March 31, 2004, of Medicare 

cost-sharing for certain low-income individuals. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3146 was introduced in the House by Mr. Thomas on September 23, 2003, and was referred to the Committees on Ways and 

Means, Energy and Commerce, and the Budget. 

On September 24, 2003, H.R. 3146 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as amended, 

by voice vote. 

The bill was received by the Senate on September 25, 2003, and 

passed the Senate, with an amendment, by unanimous consent on 

September 30, 2003. 

The House agreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3146 by 

unanimous consent on September 30, 2003. 

H.R. 3146 was presented to the President on September 30, 

2003, and was signed by the President on October 1, 2003 (Public 

Law 108–89). 

109 

TO AMEND TITLE XXI OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT TO MAKE TECH- NICAL CORRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF QUALI- FYING STATE

Public Law 108–127 (H.R. 3288, S. 1547) 

To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make technical 

corrections with respect to the definition of qualifying State. 

Summary 

H.R. 3288 amends title XXI, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), of the Social Security Act (SSA) to make 

a technical amendment to the definition of qualifying state used for 

purposes of the authority to use up to 20 percent of their FY 1998 

through 2001 SCHIP allotments, for fiscal years in which they are 

available, for paying the costs of covering under Medicaid (SSA 

title XIX) certain low-income children whose family income meets 

an income eligibility standard under such waivers of at least 185 

percent of the poverty line. The bill extends the meaning of qualifying state to include waivers first implemented, and 185 percentof-the-poverty-line eligibility standards operating, on several specified dates to allow additional States (New Mexico, Maryland, Hawaii, and Rhode Island) to use such portion of their unspent 

SCHIP funds for covering such children under Medicaid. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3288 was introduced in the House on October 14, 2003 by 

Mr. Tauzin, and was referred to the House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

On October 20, 2003, H.R. 3288 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 

382 yeas and 0 nays. 

The Senate received H.R. 3288 on October 21, 2003. The bill 

passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October 31, 2003. 

H.R. 3288 was presented to the President on November 5, 2003. 

The President signed the bill on November 17, 2003 (Public Law 

108–127). 

ANIMAL DRUG USER FEE ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–130 (H.R. 1260, S. 313) 

A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a program of fees relating to animal drugs. 

Summary 

S. 313 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assess and collect fees for a new animal drug application. It also directs the Secretary to assess fees for a supplemental animal drug application. 

Additionally, it assesses annual fees on animal drug products, establishments, and sponsors. 

S. 313 establishes a fee schedule for FY 2004 through 2008, including total fee revenues for animal drug products, establishments, and sponsors. The bill also adjusts fees to reflect inflation, 

review workload, and operating reserves of carryover user fees. The 

110 

Secretary is required to submit annual reports on the performance 

goals and finances of the Animal Drug User Fee program. The bill 

establishes a sunset date of October 1, 2008, for the provisions of 

this Act not pertaining to public accountability and reports and a 

sunset date of 120 days after such date for such accountability and 

reporting provisions. 

Legislative History 

S. 313 was introduced by Senator Ensign on February 5, 2003. 

It was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On February 12, 2003, the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions ordered the bill to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 313 to the Senate on May 

21, 2003 (S. Rpt. 108–51). 

On May 23, 2003, S. 313 passed the Senate with amendments by 

unanimous consent. 

On June 3, 2003, the Senate vitiated its previous passage, and 

passed S. 313 with an amendment by unanimous consent. On June 

4, 2003, S. 313 was received in the House and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Mr. Upton introduced H.R. 1260 in the House on March 13, 

2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 10, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1260 reported 

to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1260 to 

the House on September 30, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–287). 

On October 1, 2003, H.R. 1260 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice vote. 

On October 2, 2003, H.R. 1260 was received in the Senate and 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1260 in the 108th Congress. 

On November 4, 2003, S. 313, was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by 

voice vote. 

On November 7, 2003, the Senate passed S.313, as amended by 

the House, by unanimous consent. 

On November 12, 2003, S. 313 was presented to the President 

and was signed by the President on November 18, 2003 (Public 

Law 108–130). 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

Public Law 108–136 (H.R. 1588, S. 1050) 

(Health Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe perVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
111 

sonnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 1588 authorized the Public Health Service Corps to receive 

the same pay raise as the rest of the uniformed services. Title XVI 

includes provisions for Department of Defense biological countermeasures and an emergency use provisions. The Department of Defense countermeasures provision is very similar to those on the civilian side under the Project Bioshield Act described above. The 

emergency use provisions would have amended FDA authority. The 

emergency use provisions are similar to the ones that were included in the Project Bioshield legislation. They provide authority 

to use certain unapproved countermeasures in emergency circumstances. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1588 was introduced by Mr. Hunter, by request, on April 3, 

2003, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 16, 2003. 

On May 16, 2003, the Committee on Armed Services reported 

H.R. 1588 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 108–106). 

H.R. 1588 was considered in the House pursuant to H. Res. 245 

and H. Res. 247, and on May 22, 2003, the House passed H.R. 

1588, amended, by a vote of 361 yeas and 68 nays. 

H.R. 1588 was received in the Senate on June 2, 2003. On June 

4, 2003, the bill was laid before Senate by unanimous consent. The 

Senate struck all after the enacting clause of H.R. 1588, inserted 

in lieu thereof the provisions of S.1050, and passed the bill, as 

amended, by voice vote. 

On June 4, 2003, the Senate insisted on its amendment, requested a conference with the House, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment, agreed to the 

Senate’s request to go to conference on July 16, 2003, and appointed conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of secs. 601, 

3113, 3201, and 3517 of the House bill, and secs. 601, 701, 852, 

3151, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. Tauzin, Barton, and Dingell. 

On July 22, 2003 the conference committee met, and the conference report was filed on November 7, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–354). 

Pursuant to H. Res. 437, on November 7, 2003, the House agreed 

to the conference report by vote of 362 yeas and 40 nays, 2 voting 

present. 

On November 12, 2003, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 95 yeas and 3 nays. 

H.R. 1588 was presented to, and signed by the President on November 24, 2003 (Public Law 108–136). 

112 

BIRTH DEFECTS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PREVENTION ACT

OF 2003

Public Law 108–154 (H.R. 398, S. 286) 

To reauthorize the National Center on Birth Defects and Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and 

amend the Developmental Disabilities Act with regard to the funding of state developmental disabilities councils. 

Summary 

S. 286 reauthorizes the activities of the National Center on Birth 

Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD) at the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention. Authorization of appropriations for the NCBDDD is permitted at a level of such sums as may 

be necessary for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007. 

The legislation also amends section 122(a) of the Developmental 

Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 to insert additional consideration in the allotment for appropriations to States 

for funding Developmental Disabilities Councils. When appropriating dollars to states, this section states that the allotment may 

not be less than $400,000, the amount received by the state for the 

previous year, or the amount of Federal appropriations received in 

fiscal year 2000, 2001, or 2002, whichever is greater if the amount 

appropriated in a fiscal year is less than $70,000,000. If the 

amount appropriated in a fiscal year is more than $70,000,000, 

then state allotments may not be less than $450,000, the amount 

received by the state for the previous fiscal years, or the amount 

of Federal appropriations received in fiscal year 2000, 2001, or 

2002, whichever is greater. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 398 was introduced by Mr. Ferguson on January 28, 2003, 

and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 398 reported 

to the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 398 to 

the House, amended, on February 13, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–14). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 398 in the 108th Congress. 

S. 286 was introduced by Senator Bond on February 4, 2003, 

read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. On November 6, 2003, the Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 286, with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute (S. Rpt. 108–188). 

The Senate approved the S. 286, as amended, by unanimous consent on November 11, 2003. 

On November 12, 2003, S. 286 was received in the House and 

was held at the desk. 

On November 19, 2003, S. 286 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a vote of 

415 yeas and 1 nay on November 20, 2003. 

S. 286 was presented to the President on November 21, 2003. On 

December 3, 2003, the President signed S. 286 (Public Law 108– 

154). 

113 

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH EQUITY ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–155 (S. 650) 

A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to authorize the Food and Drug Administration to require certain research into drugs used in pediatric patients. 

Summary 

S. 650 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA) by adding a new section 505B, which provides the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) with authority to require that 

sponsors submit assessments regarding the use of drugs in pediatric patients in certain specified circumstances. With respect to 

drugs and biological products that are not yet approved, the legislation provides that each new drug application under section 505 of 

the FFDCA or biologics license application under section 351 of the 

Public Health Service Act (PHSA) for a new active ingredient, new 

indication, new dosage form, new dosing regimen, or new route of 

administration must contain data adequate to assess the safety 

and effectiveness of the drug or biological product for its claimed 

indications, and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. 

With respect to drugs and biological products that are already 

marketed, the legislation allows FDA in compelling circumstances, 

having made certain findings and under certain conditions, to require that all holders of approved applications for a product submit 

data on safety and effectiveness and dosing and administration, 

after having provided the holders with notice and an opportunity 

for written response and a meeting. 

S. 650 requires FDA to grant a full or partial waiver of the pediatric data requirement for a drug or biological product for certain 

reasons, including if the FDA finds that necessary studies are impossible or highly impractical; if there is evidence strongly suggesting that the drug or biological product would be ineffective or 

unsafe in the pediatric age groups; or if the drug or biological product does not represent a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing therapies for pediatric patients, the drug or biological product 

is not likely to be used by a substantial number of pediatric patients, and the absence of adequate labeling would not pose significant risks to pediatric patients. Under the legislation, when the 

Secretary grants a full or partial waiver because there is evidence 

that the drug or biological product would be ineffective or unsafe 

in pediatric populations, the information must be included in the 

labeling for the drug or biological product. 

For new drugs, the Secretary may defer the submission of some 

or all of the assessments required under the amendment until a 

specified date after the approval of the drug or after the license for 

the biological product is granted if two requirements are met. The 

first is met if the Secretary finds that the drug is ready for approval for use in adults before the pediatric studies are complete, 

or the pediatric studies should be delayed until additional safety or 

effectiveness data have been collected, or there is another appropriate reason for deferral. The second is met if the applicant has 

submitted to the Secretary certification for the grounds for deferVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
114 

ring, a description of the planned or ongoing studies, and evidence 

that the studies are being conducted or will be conducted with due 

diligence at the earliest possible time. 

The legislation provides for meetings with a drug sponsor during 

the investigational new drug process to discuss plans and timelines 

of pediatric studies or requests for waiver or deferral of pediatric 

studies. 

The legislation provides that FDA may only impose pediatric 

study requirements for already marketed drugs when the pediatric 

exclusivity incentives provisions of section 505A of the FFDCA and 

the National Institute of Health grant and contract programs of 

sections 409I and 499 of the PHSA have failed to yield necessary 

pediatric information. FDA must first allow an opportunity for Best 

Pharmaceuticals for Children Act mechanisms to work before invoking the new pediatric study requirements for marketed drugs. 

Legislative History 

S. 650 was introduced by Senator DeWine on March 18, 2003. 

The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On March 19, 2003, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions ordered the bill to be favorably reported without 

amendment. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported S. 650 to the Senate, amended, on June 27, 2003 (S. 

Rpt. 108–84). 

On July 23, 2003, S. 650 passed the Senate, amended, by unanimous consent. 

On July 24, 2003, S. 650 was received in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On November 19, 2003, S. 650 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed by voice vote. 

S. 650 was presented to the President on November 21, 2003, 

and was signed by the President on December 3, 2003 (Public Law 

108–155). 

HEALTH CARE SAFETY NET AMENDMENTS TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS

ACT

Public Law 108–163 (H.R. 3038, S. 1775) 

To make technical and conforming changes to the Health Care 

Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–251). 

Summary 

H.R. 3038 makes several technical changes to the Health Care 

Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–251). It renumbers 

and aligns several sections of the Public Health Service Act, makes 

grammatical corrections, including period and comma placement, 

and corrects misnamed references to agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. The legislation makes standalone provisions in the Health Care Safety Net Amendments Act 

of 2002, including telemedicine incentive grants, part of the Public 

Health Service Act. 

H.R. 3038 also clarifies the original intent of the Health Care 

Safety Net Amendments Act of 2002. Section 2 replaces language 

115 

inadvertently deleted by the Act to permit the Department of 

Health and Human Services to provide technical assistance either 

through the Department or by grant or contract. Further, the technical assistance activities outlined under the law are not intended 

to be an exhaustive list; for example, the Department of Health 

and Human Services could provide technical assistance through the 

planning and development of networks. Section 2 amends section 

332 of the Public Health Service Act to clarify that Federally qualified community health centers may be designated as health professional shortage areas upon date of designation, not the date of the 

enactment of the law. It further clarifies section 333A(c)(4) to make 

priorities in assignment of National Health Service Corps personnel within 30 days from such notification. The legislation clarifies section 338E of the Public Health Service Act with regard to 

loan repayments of National Health Service Corps personnel. Finally, H.R. 3038 clarifies that the Department of Health and 

Human Services is to conduct a study of the Department’s ability 

to provide for guarantees of solvency for managed care networks or 

plans involving health centers receiving funding under section 330 

of the Public Health Service Act. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3038 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis on September 9, 2003 

and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 10, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3038 reported 

to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3039 to 

the House on September 17, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–275). 

On October 1, 2003, H.R. 3038 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice 

vote. 

On October 2, 2003, H.R. 3038 was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions. 

On November 20, 2003, H.R. 3038 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 3038 was presented to the President on November 26, 2003, 

and was signed by the President on December 6, 2003 (Public Law 

108–163). 

MEDICARE MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–173 (H.R. 1, H.R. 2473, S. 1) 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 

voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program, to modernize the Medicare program, and for other 

purposes. 

Summary 

Title I of H.R. 1 creates a new Part D drug benefit within Medicare. Part D provides, beginning in 2006, a voluntary prescription 

drug benefit for Medicare-eligible seniors and individuals with disabilities. Beneficiaries would be guaranteed a choice of at least two 

116 

plans to choose from. A beneficiary would pay a monthly premium 

to the prescription drug plan. The plan benefit design may vary but 

must be actuarially equivalent to a $250 deductible and coinsurance of 25% up to an initial coverage limit of $2250. A beneficiary 

who reaches $3,600 in out of pocket spending would receive catastrophic protection. Beneficiaries who reach the catastrophic out-ofpocket spending limit of $3,600 would pay $2 for generics and preferred multiple source drugs, and $5 for all other drugs, or 5% of 

the price. Low-income beneficiaries will also receive additional subsidies and assistance. 

H.R. 1 contains provisions for an interim Medicare endorsed drug 

discount card. Starting in April 2004 and until the prescription 

drug benefit is in place in 2006, Medicare beneficiaries may save 

up to 25% on prescriptions. Low-income beneficiaries receive $600 

of assistance per year for 2004 and 2005. 

H.R. 1 creates a new system, beginning in 2006, under which private plans will bid to provide Medicare services on either a local 

or regional basis and will compete with each other on the basis of 

their bids. Plan bids will be compared to a benchmark payment 

amount. Plans that bid below the benchmark will be paid their 

bids, and 75% of the difference between the benchmark and the bid 

will be returned to beneficiaries in the form of additional benefits 

or reduced premiums. The remaining 25% will be savings to the 

government. Plans that bid above the benchmark will be paid the 

benchmark amount by the government, with the beneficiaries paying the Medicare premium plus the amount above the benchmark. 

The legislation renames the Medicare+Choice program ‘‘Medicare 

Advantage’’ and stabilizes payment rates to link them to cost 

growth in the traditional fee-for-service program. Chronic care 

management programs will also be added to the renamed ‘‘Medicare Advantage’’ program. 

Beginning in 2007, H.R. 1 provides that all individuals earning 

below $80,000 p/yr will continue to receive the current 75% Part 

B government subsidy. For individuals between $80–$100k p/yr, 

the government subsidy will be 65%; for those between $100–$150k 

p/yr, the subsidy will be 50%; for those between $150–$200k p/yr, 

the subsidy will be 35%; and for those earning over $200k p/yr, the 

subsidy will be 20%. All of the income amounts are doubled for couples. 

H.R. 1 changed Medicare’s payment system for physician administered drugs under Part B from average wholesale price (AWP) to 

average sales price (ASP) and addresses problems with underpayment of physician practice expense payments. The bill also provides a new competitive bidding structure for durable medical 

equipment (DME). 

H.R. 1 amends Hatch/Waxman with regards to the approval of 

generic drugs. Brand drug companies will be allowed one 30-month 

stay of the approval of a generic competitor. Generics must forego 

their 180-day generic exclusivity if they do not bring a product to 

market within a specified time period. Additionally, the bill ensures 

that all agreements between innovators and generics related to the 

180-day exclusivity must be reported to the Federal Trade Commission. 

117 

The bill also adds a number of new preventive health care benefits to Medicare. Upon becoming eligible for Medicare, an initial 

voluntary physical will be offered to beneficiaries. Screening for diabetes and cardiovascular disease will also be covered. Mammography payments will be increased. Medicare will provide a disease 

management program to assist beneficiaries with chronic illnesses. 

Under H.R. 1, hospitals will receive a 16% increase to states’ 

Medicaid DSH allotments in 2004. Low DSH states will receive a 

16% annual increase for 5 years. There are also increased incentives for providers to serve patients in rural areas and communities. The bill increases payments to sole community hospitals, 

critical access hospitals, rural home health agencies and hospice 

providers. 

Physicians will see their fees increase under Medicare by 1.5% 

in 2004 and 2005, instead of being reduced by the 4.5% amount required under prior law. H.R. 1 also increases payments for physicians who practice medicine in rural areas. Specifically, the bill establishes a floor on reimbursements for a component of the physician fee schedule. In addition, it puts into place a new physician 

scarcity bonus payment program. 

H.R. 1 addresses concerns regarding regulatory cost and delay 

under Medicare. It eases paperwork burdens and improves Medicare’s responsiveness to beneficiaries and health care providers. 

Finally, H.R. 1 creates tax-free Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). 

Contributions and distributions from the account are tax-free. 

Legislative History 

The Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on April 8, 2003 entitled ‘‘Designing a Twenty-First Century Medicare Prescription 

Drug Benefit.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from the Congressional Budget Office, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, and the Health Care Financing Administration, as well as 

consumer advocacy groups. 

The Subcommittee on Health also held a hearing on April 9, 

2003, entitled ‘‘Strengthening and Improving Medicare.’’ The Subcommittee received testimony from a representative from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, policy and industry specialists, and a consumer advocacy group. In addition, one witness 

testified as a Medicare beneficiary. 

On June 17, 2003, June 18, 2003, and June 19, 2003, the Full 

Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session 

and ordered H.R. 2473 reported to the House, as amended, by a 

record vote of 29 yeas and 20 nays, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2473 to 

the House, amended, on June 25, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–178, Part I). 

The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 2473 to the 

House on July 15, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–178, Part II). 

While no further action was taken on H.R. 2473 in the 108th 

Congress, the reported versions of H.R. 2473 by the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means 

were incorporated into H.R. 1. 

H.R. 1 was introduced in the House on June 25, 2003, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

118 

On June 26, 2003, the House considered H.R. 1 under the provisions of H. Res. 299. H.R. 1 passed the House on June 27, 2003, 

by a vote of 216 yeas, 215 nays, and 1 present. 

On July 7, 2003, H.R. 1 was received in the Senate. 

On July 7, 2003, H.R. 1 passed the Senate, as amended, by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its amendment, asked for a 

conference, and appointed conferees. 

On July 14, 2003, the House disagreed to the Senate amendment, and agreed to a conference. The Speaker appointed conferees. 

The conference report was filed on November 21, 2003 (H. Rpt. 

108–391). 

On November 22, 2003, the House considered the conference report to accompany H.R. 1 under the provisions of H. Res. 463. The 

House passed the conference report by a vote of 220 yeas and 215 

nays. 

On November 25, 2003, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a vote of 54 yeas and 44 nays. 

On December 7, 2003 the bill was presented to the President, 

and on December 8, 2003, the President signed H.R. 1 (Public Law 

108–173). 

TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–179 (H.R. 1813) 

To reauthorize the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998. 

Summary 

H.R. 1813 authorizes the President to make grants to treatment 

centers and programs in foreign countries that are carrying out 

projects or activities specifically designed to treat victims of torture. These rehabilitation activities include both physical and psychological treatment programs. The Act also authorizes appropriations to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. 

The bill reauthorizes the Torture Victims Relief Act by increasing 

the level of funding that may be provided for programs to assist 

victims of torture for an additional 3-year period. 

Specifically, H.R. 1813 authorizes the appropriation of 

$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, 

and $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of Health 

and Human Services to manage domestic centers and programs for 

the treatment of victims of torture. It also authorizes the appropriation of $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $12,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2005, and $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 to provide assistance for centers in foreign countries and programs for the treatment of victims of torture as authorized by the Foreign Assistance 

Act of 1961. Finally, H.R. 1813 authorizes the appropriation of 

$6,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 

$8,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for the President to make a voluntary contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. 

119 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1813 was introduced by Mr. Smith on April 11, 2003, and 

referred to the House Committee on International Relations, and in 

addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 4, 2003, the Committee on International Relations 

reported H.R. 1813 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–261, Part I). The 

Committee on Energy and Commerce was granted an extension for 

further consideration ending not later than October 3, 2003. 

On September 10, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1813 reported 

to the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1813 to 

the House on September 17, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–261, Part II). 

On November 19, 2003, H.R. 1813 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House, amended, by 

a voice vote. 

On November 25, 2003, H.R. 1813 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 1813 was presented to the President on December 3, 2003, 

and was signed by the President on December 15, 2003 (Public Law 

108–179). 

POISON CONTROL CENTER AND AWARENESS ENHANCEMENT ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 2003

Public Law 108–194 (H.R. 1819, S. 686) 

To reauthorize the activities of the Nation’s poison control centers until 2009. 

Summary 

S. 686 reauthorizes the activities of the Nation’s poison control 

centers until 2009. Authorized activities include (1) developing 

standardized poison prevention and poison control promotion programs; (2) developing standard patient management guidelines for 

commonly encountered toxic exposures; (3) improving national toxic 

exposure surveillance; expanding the toxicologic expertise within 

poison control centers; and, (4) improving the capacity of poison 

control centers to answer high volumes of calls during times of national crisis. In addition, S. 686 maintains the national toll-free 

number, the nationwide media campaign to promote poison control 

center utilization, and allows for the implementation of a continuous toxicosurveillance of poison control center data. 

Legislative History 

S. 686 was introduced by Senator DeWine on March 21, 2003, 

read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On June 11, 2003, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions reported S. 686 to the Senate, amended (S. Rpt. 108– 

68). 

S. 686 passed the Senate, amended, by unanimous consent on 

June 20, 2003. 

On June 23, 2003, S. 686 was received in the House and referred 

to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

120 

On November 19, 2003, the bill was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 

on November 20, 2003, by a vote on 420 yeas and 1 nay. 

On December 9, 2003, the Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 686 by unanimous consent. 

S. 686 was presented to the President on December 11, 2003, and 

on December 19, 2003 was signed by the President (Public Law 

108–194). 

MENTAL HEALTH PARITY REAUTHORIZATION OF 2003

Public Law 108–197 (S. 1929) 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

and the Public Health Service Act to extend the mental health benefits parity provisions for an additional year. 

Summary 

S. 1929 amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend the mental 

health benefits parity provisions for an additional year, through 

December 31, 2004. The original mental health parity provisions 

were part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 

Act of 1996. 

Legislative History 

Senator Gregg, introduced S. 1929 on November 21, 2003. The 

bill was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed the 

Senate by unanimous consent. 

S. 1929 was considered in the House by unanimous consent, and 

passed the House without objection on December 8, 2003. 

S. 1929 was presented to the President on December 11, 2003, 

and was signed by the President on December 19, 2003 (Public Law 

108–197). 

WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–210 (S. 2231) 

A bill to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2004, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

S. 2231 amends title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA) to extend through June 30, 2004: (1) the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) block grant program under part A, including the sexual activity abstinence education program and eligibility 

for Medicaid under SSA title XIX; (2) the National Random Sample 

Study of Child Welfare under part B (Child and Family Services); 

and, (3) demonstration projects likely to promote the objectives of 

part B or part E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance). The bill 

makes appropriations for such purposes. It also authorizes grants 

and payments pursuant to such authority through the third quarter of FY 2004 at the level provided for such activities through the 

third quarter of FY 2002. 

121 

Legislative History 

S. 2231 was introduced in the Senate on March 25, 2004, by Senator Grassley, and passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent. 

The bill was received in the House and referred to the House 

Committee on Ways and Means and in addition to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce on March 25, 2004. 

S. 2231 was considered in the House on March 30, 2004, under 

suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice vote. 

S. 2231 was presented to and signed by the President on March 

31, 2004 (Public Law 108–210). 

MEDICAL DEVICE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT

Public Law 108–214 (H.R. 3493, S. 1881) 

A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

make technical corrections relating to the amendments by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002, and for other 

purposes. 

Summary 

S. 1881 makes several technical changes to the Medical Device 

User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–250). It renumbers and conforms the appropriate sections of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, making grammatical corrections, inserting 

periods, and correcting comma placement. 

Section 2 clarifies the distinction between a ‘‘panel track supplement’’ for which substantial clinical data is required to demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and a 

‘‘180–day supplement’’ for which such data is not required. Next, 

section 2 clarifies that premarket reports are within the definition 

of ‘‘process for the review of device applications.’’ Further, section 

2 clarifies the term ‘‘affiliate’’ to include international as well as domestic affiliates in the user fee program. 

Section 2 also makes technical changes clarifying that the third 

party inspection program applies to 510(h) inspections of establishments and inspections of foreign facilities required to register with 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Section 2 ensures that 

facilities can work with third party inspectors to allow them to 

complete a full 510(h) inspection over the course of a two year period. Section 2 clarifies the law and allows entities to certify that 

a foreign country recognizes the third party conducting the inspection, instead of requiring a statement that such a country recognizes FDA’s inspectional authority. Section 2 also ensures that 

companies can use third party inspectors for two consecutive 510(h) 

inspections before requesting special permission from the Secretary 

for the third such inspection. Finally, section 2 makes important 

modifications to section 301 by providing an 18–month implementation delay for all branding requirements and clarifies the definition of modular review to be consistent with the FDA’s modular review program. 

Section 3 of the Act requests that the FDA complete a report on 

the barriers to the availability of devices intended for pediatric paVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
122 

tients, and provide policy recommendations as to what could be 

changed in existing law to address this issue. 

Legislative History 

On November 17, 2003, Mr. Greenwood introduced H.R. 3493, 

the Medical Device Correctional Amendments Act, which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 27, 2004, the House considered H.R. 3493 under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 333 yeas 

and 0 nays. 

H.R. 3493 was received in the Senate on January 28, 2004, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3493 in the 108th Congress. 

On November 18, 2003, S. 1881 was introduced by Senator Alexander. It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On November 21, 2003, the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions ordered S. 1881 reported with an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute. 

On November 25, 2003, S. 1881 passed the Senate with an 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

On December 8, 2003, S. 1881 was received in the House, and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup on March 3, 2004, and ordered S. 1881 reported to the 

House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

S. 1881 was reported to the House, amended, by the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce on March 9, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–433). 

On March 9, 2004, S. 1881 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules. On March 10, 2004, a motion to suspend 

the rules and pass the bill, as amended, was agreed to by a vote 

of 396 yeas and 0 nays. 

On March 12, 2004, the Senate agreed to the House amendment 

to S. 1881 by unanimous consent. 

S. 1881 was presented to the President on March 22, 2004, and 

was signed by the President on April 1, 2004 (Public Law 108–214). 

ORGAN DONATION AND RECOVERY IMPROVEMENT ACT

Public Law 108–216 (H.R. 3926, H.R. 399, S. 573) 

To authorize new programs to encourage organ donation and conduct studies and demonstration projects to encourage organ donation education efforts across the country. 

Summary 

H.R. 3926 strikes section 377 of the Public Health Service Act 

and replaces it with new language. Specifically, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award 

grants to states, transplant centers, organ procurement organizations, or other public and private entities to reimburse individuals 

for travel and subsistence expenses incurred when making a living 

organ donation. 

123 

H.R. 3926 also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a public education program to increase awareness 

about the need to provide for an adequate rate of organ donation, 

including by providing grants to states to conduct public education 

programs. 

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may award grants 

to organ procurement organizations and hospitals to create organ 

donation coordinator positions to help coordinate the organ donation activities of hospitals and organ procurement organizations. 

The Act also includes a number of reports and studies. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 399 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis on January 28, 2003, 

and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 29, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 399 reported 

to the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 399 to 

the House on February 13, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–15). 

On March 12, 2003, the bill was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 425 yeas 

and 3 nays. 

On March 13, 2003, H.R. 399 was received in the Senate and was 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 399 in the 108th Congress. 

On March 6, 2003, Senator Frist introduced S. 573, which was 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On November 24, 2003, the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions reported S. 573 to the Senate, without written 

report. 

On November 25, 2003, the Senate passed S. 573 by unanimous 

consent. S. 573 was received in the House on December 8, 2003, 

and held at the desk. 

No further action was taken on S. 573 in the 108th Congress. 

On March 10, 2004, Mr. Bilirakis introduced H.R. 3926, legislation identical to S. 573, which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 23, 2004, H.R. 3926 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules. On March 24, 2004, the House 

passed H.R. 3926 by a vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays. 

On March 25, 2004, the bill was received in the Senate, considered, and passed by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 3926 was presented to the President on March 31, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on April 5, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

216). 

THE PROJECT BIOSHIELD ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–276 (H.R. 2122, S. 15) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide protections 

and countermeasures against chemical, radiological, or nuclear 

124 

agents that may be used in a terrorist attack against the United 

States by giving the National Institutes of Health contracting flexibility, infrastructure improvements, and expediting the scientific 

peer review process, and streamlining the Food and Drug Administration approval process of countermeasures. 

Summary 

S. 15 amends the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to conduct research 

and development with respect to biomedical countermeasure products for qualified countermeasures. The bill provides expedited authority for governmental procurements used to perform, administer 

or support such research and development, and increases the simplified acquisition thresholds. Further, this section provides that 

the Secretary may use noncompetitive procedures for procurements 

when there are only a limited number of responsible sources. 

S. 15 transfers all management, maintenance and funding of the 

National Strategic Stockpile of countermeasures for terrorist attacks and other public health emergencies fully to the Department 

of Health and Human Services. 

The bill also amends section 121 of the Public Health Security 

and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act by providing for 

the procurement of biomedical countermeasures that affect national 

security through a special reserve fund established under this Act. 

The legislation requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess threats that may be posed by chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear agents, and requires the 

Secretary of HHS to assess the public health consequences of such 

agents and the availability and appropriateness of countermeasures for the threats identified. After doing these steps, the 

Secretaries jointly determine and recommend to the President that 

procurement of such a countermeasure for the Nation’s stockpile is 

appropriate from the special reserve fund established under the 

Act. Congress has already provided the advance appropriation of 

$5.6 billion over the next 10 years for this purpose, consistent with 

the authorization in S.15 and the House budget resolution. 

S. 15 also waives the premarket approval, clearance and licensure provisions of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and allows the Secretary of HHS to authorize the emergency use of an 

unapproved product during times of military, national, and public 

health emergencies. The emergency uses authorized in this bill 

apply to both products that have never been approved in any fashion, and new uses of already-approved products, and the authority 

only exists in times of declared emergencies. A declaration of an 

emergency can only last for a maximum of one year, unless the 

Secretary renews the authorization. 

For products that have never been approved, if the Secretary authorizes the use of such a product, the Secretary shall place conditions on such authorization for public health and safety. For products which have been approved for other purposes and for which 

the Secretary is authorizing a new emergency use, manufacturers 

which wish to avail themselves of such emergency use authorization may be subjected to the mandatory conditions listed in the 

paragraph above. 

125 

Legislative History 

On May 15, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session to consider a Committee Print, the 

Project Bioshield Act of 2003, which was reported to the House, 

amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. A request to 

allow a report to be filed on a bill to be introduced, and that the 

action of the Committee be deemed as action on that bill, was 

agreed to by unanimous consent. 

On May 15, 2003, Mr. Tauzin introduced H.R. 2122, which was 

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

addition to the Committee on Government Reform, and the Select 

Committee on Homeland Security. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2122 to 

the House, amended, on June 10, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–147, Part I). 

On June 10, 2003, the Committee on Government Reform and 

the Select Committee on Homeland Security were granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than June 13, 

2003. 

On June 10, 2003, H.R. 2122 was referred sequentially to the 

House Committee on Armed Services for a period ending not later 

than June 11, 2003. 

The Committee on Government Reform reported H.R. 2122 to the 

House, amended, on June 12, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–147, Part II). 

On June 13, 2003, the Select Committee on Homeland Security 

was granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than June 27, 2003. 

On June 27, 2003, the Select Committee on Homeland Security 

was granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than July 8, 2003. 

The Select Committee on Homeland Security reported H.R. 2122 

to the House, amended, on July 8, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–147, Part III). 

On July 16, 2003, H.R. 2122 was considered in the House pursuant to a previous order of the House. The House passed H.R. 2122, 

amended, by a vote of 421 yeas and 2 nays. 

On July 17, 2003, the bill was received in the Senate, read twice, 

and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2122 in the 108th Congress. 

On March 11, 2003, Senator Gregg introduced S.15, which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions. 

On March 25, 2003, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions reported S. 15 to the Senate, amended, without written report. 

The Senate passed S. 15, amended, on May 19, 2004 by a vote 

of 99 yeas and 0 nays. 

On May 20, 2004, S. 15 was received in the House, and held at 

the desk. 

S. 15 was considered in the House under a previous order of the 

House on July 14, 2004, and passed the House by a vote of 414 

yeas and 2 nays. 

On July 16, 2004, S. 15 was presented to the President, and on 

July 21, 2004, the President signed the bill (Public Law 108–276). 

126 

MINOR USE AND MINOR SPECIES ANIMAL HEALTH ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–282 (S. 741) 

A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

regard to new animal drugs, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Title I of S. 741 addresses the critical shortage of animal drugs 

available for minor species, which are defined as animals other 

than humans that are not major species (cattle, horses, swine, 

chickens, turkeys, dogs, and cats), and for minor uses for major 

species, which are defined as the use of a drug in a major species 

for a disease that occurs infrequently in a small number of animals, or in limited geographic areas in a small number of animals 

annually. 

The legislation allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

to award three years of market exclusivity, with full approval, for 

any new animal drug that requires research to be conducted in the 

targeted minor species to support such approval. 

It also creates a conditional approval process for new animal 

drugs intended for a minor use or for use in a minor species. It requires the same standards for approval as the full approval, except 

that there must only be a reasonable expectation that the drug is 

effective for use. (Full approval requires adequate and well-controlled studies to demonstrate by substantial evidence that a new 

animal drug is effective.) Sponsors must commit to conducting additional investigation to meet the full requirements for the demonstration of effectiveness within five years. The bill establishes 

that a conditional approval is renewable annually for up to four additional one-year terms upon submission of a request for renewal. 

It also requires labels of such drugs to bear a statement identifying 

the new animal drug as conditionally approved. 

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is required by S. 

741 to establish an index of legally-marketed, unapproved new animal drugs for use in minor species. The bill provides that this 

index lists drugs that are not FDA-approved and that are either: 

(1) not intended for use in animals that will be consumed by humans or by food-producing animals; or, (2) not intended for use in 

early, non-food life stages of food-producing minor species, unless 

safety for humans has been adequately demonstrated. Additionally 

it specifies labeling requirements for indexed drugs. 

Under S. 741, the Secretary is allowed, before submission of an 

application for drug approval, to designate new minor use or minor 

species animal drugs. It provides: (1) grants for such designated 

drugs for qualified safety and effectiveness testing, and for manufacturing expenses incurred in connection with further development of such drugs; and (2) market exclusivity for such drugs for 

seven years, with specified exceptions. Further, the bill requires 

the Secretary to terminate any such designation if the sponsor discontinues active pursuit of approval. 

The Secretary is directed to establish within the Center for Veterinary Medicine of FDA an Office of Minor Use and Minor Species 

Animal Drug Development to: (1) designate minor use and minor 

species animal drugs; (2) administer grants and contracts; (3) reVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
127 

view minor species drug index listing requests; and, (4) serve as a 

liaison to other government agencies interested in minor use and 

minor species animal drug development. 

Title II of S. 741 is the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer 

Protection Act. It lays out a number of new requirements for the 

labeling of food in order to protect consumers with food allergies. 

Specifically, food that contains one of the eight major food allergens 

(milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, 

and soybeans) must list the food source from which the major food 

allergen is derived either immediately after the list of ingredients 

or in parentheses following an ingredient that contains a food allergen. 

Legislative History 

S. 741 was introduced by Senator Sessions on March 27, 2003. 

It was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

On November 21, 2003 the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions ordered S. 741 reported to the Senate with an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Under authority of the order of the Senate of February 12, 2004, 

the bill was reported by the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (S. Rpt. 108–226). 

On March 8, 2004, the Senate passed S. 741, amended by unanimous consent. 

On March 9, 2004, the bill was received in the House, and was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session and approved S. 741 for Full Committee consideration by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On June 24, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered S. 741 reported to the 

House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported S. 741 to the 

House on July 15, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–608). 

S. 741 was considered in the House under suspension of the rules 

on July 20, 2004, and passed the House by voice vote. 

On July 23, 2004, S. 741 was presented to the President and was 

signed by the President on August 2, 2004 (Public Law 108–282). 

GARRETT LEE SMITH MEMORIAL ACT

Public Law 108–355 (S. 2634) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to support the planning, 

implementation, and evaluation of organized activities involving 

statewide youth suicide early intervention and prevention strategies, and to authorize grants to institutions of higher education to 

reduce student mental and behavioral health problems. 

Summary 

S. 2634, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act amends the Public 

Health Service Act to revise provisions regarding Federal assistance for programs to reduce suicide among children and adolesVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
128 

cents. Specifically, the legislation authorizes the Administrator of 

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMSHA) to award grants or cooperative agreements to eligible 

entities to develop, implement, complement, and evaluate statesponsored statewide or tribal youth suicide early intervention and 

prevention strategies in schools, educational institutions, juvenile 

justice systems, substance abuse programs, mental health programs, foster care systems, and other child and youth support organizations. The bill requires that states and entities receiving funding under this grant program shall obtain prior written, informed 

consent from the child’s parent or legal guardian for assessment 

services, school-sponsored programs, and treatment involving medication related to youth suicide conducted in elementary and secondary schools. The prior requirements do not apply in the following cases: (1) in an emergency, where it is necessary to protect 

the immediate health and safety of the student, or of other students; or, (2) other instances, as defined by a state, where parental 

consent cannot reasonably be obtained. The term youth is defined 

as individuals between 10 and 24 years of age. The bill authorizes 

$7 million for fiscal year 2005, $18 million for fiscal year 2006, $30 

million for fiscal year 2007, and requires that 85 percent of the 

grant funds be used to provide direct services. 

The legislation also authorizes the Secretary of the Department 

of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the 

Center for Mental Health Services at SAMSHA, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Education, to award matching grants on a 

competitive basis to institutions of higher education to enhance 

services of students with mental and behavioral health problems 

that can lead to school failure. The Secretary may only award a 

grant for the following purposes: education seminars; operation of 

hotlines; preparation of informational material; preparation of education materials for families of students; training programs for students and campus personnel to respond effectively to students with 

mental and behavioral health problems; or the creation of a networking infrastructure to link colleges and universities that do not 

have mental health services with health care providers who can 

treat mental and behavioral health problems. The bill authorizes 

$5 million to be appropriated for each fiscal year starting in fiscal 

year 2005 through fiscal year 2007. 

Finally, S. 2634 authorizes the Administrator of SAMSHA to 

award one competitive grant to fund an additional research, training, and technical assistance center to provide appropriate information, training, and technical assistance to states, political subdivisions, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, public organizations, or private nonprofit organizations for the development or 

continuation of early intervention and prevention strategies and to 

study the effectiveness of suicide prevention programs. The bill authorizes $3 million for fiscal year 2005, $4 million for fiscal year 

2006, $5 million for fiscal year 2007. 

Legislative History 

S. 2634 was introduced by Senator Dodd on July 8, 2004, and 

was considered in the Senate and passed without by unanimous 

consent. 

129 

On July 9, 2004, S. 2634 was received in the House and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 8, 2004, S. 2634 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as amended, 

on September 9, 2004, by a vote of 352 yeas and 64 nays. 

The Senate agreed to the House amendment to S. 2634 by unanimous consent on September 9, 2004. 

On October 13, 2004, the bill was presented to the President, and 

on October 21, 2004, S. 2634 was signed by the President (Public 

Law 108–355). 

JUMPSTART OUR BUSINESS STRENGTH (JOBS) ACT

Public Law 108–357 (H.R. 4520, S. 1637) 

(Health Provisions) 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and 

high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad. 

Summary 

H.R. 4520, as amended by the Senate, contained provisions providing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to 

regulate tobacco products 

Additionally, the legislation would have created a new modified 

category of tobacco product consisting of any tobacco product sold 

or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco related 

disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products. 

These provisions were not included in the conference report to 

accompany H.R. 4520. 

The bill did contain section 712, which amends sections Title XIX 

of the Social Security Act to include primary and secondary medical 

strategies for children and adults with Sickle Cell Disease as medical assistance under the Medicaid program and provides for federal reimbursement for education and other services related to the 

prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease. This provision 

also establishes a demonstration program to develop systematic 

mechanism for the prevention and treatment of Sickle Cell Disease. 

Legislative History 

On June 4, 2004, Mr. Thomas introduced H.R. 4520. The legislation was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture. 

The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 4520 to the 

House, amended, on June 16, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–548, Part I). 

On June 17, 2004, H.R. 4520 was considered in the House under 

the provisions of H. Res. 681, and passed the House, amended. by 

a vote 251 yeas and 178 nays. 

On June 18, 2004, H.R. 4520 was received in the Senate. 

On July 15, 2004, the Senate passed H.R. 4520, with an amendment, by voice vote. The Senate insisted on its amendment, requested a conference, and appointed conferees. 

130 

On September 29, 2004, the House disagreed to the Senate 

amendment, agreed to a conference, and appointed conferees. The 

Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for consideration of sec. 662 and subtitle A of Title XI 

of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, Messrs. Barton, Burr, and Waxman. 

A conference was held on September 29, October 4, 5, 6, and 7, 

2004. On October 7, 2004 the conferees filed a conference report to 

accompany H.R. 4520 (H. Rpt. 108–755). 

On October 7, 2004, the House considered the conference report 

to accompany H.R. 4520 under the provisions of H. Res. 830. The 

House passed the conference report by a vote of 280 yeas and 141 

nays. 

On October 11, 2004, the Senate agreed to the conference report 

by a vote of 69 yeas and 17 nays. 

On October 21, 2004, H.R. 4520 was presented to the President 

and was signed by the President on October 22, 2004 (Public Law 

108–357). 

ANABOLIC STEROID CONTROL ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–358 (S. 2195, H.R. 3866) 

A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to clarify the definition of anabolic steroids and to provide for research and education activities relating to steroids and steroid precursors. 

Summary 

S. 2195 would add several new substances to the list of banned 

substances. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 

award grants to public and nonprofit private entities to carry out 

education programs in elementary and secondary schools to highlight the harmful effects of anabolic steroids. In addition, the 

United States Sentencing Commission shall review the Federal 

sentencing guidelines with respect to offenses involving anabolic 

steroids and consider amending the Federal sentencing guidelines 

to provide for increased penalties with respect to offenses involving 

anabolic steroids. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3866 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on March 1, 

2004. The legislation was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 30, 2004, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary held a markup session and forwarded the bill, as amended, to Full Committee 

by voice vote. 

On March 31, 2004, the Judiciary Committee met in open markup session and ordered the bill reported to the House, as amended, 

by voice vote. 

The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 3866 to the 

House, amended, on April 2, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–461, Part I). 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce was granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than April 27, 2004. 

131 

On April 22, 2004, the Full Committee met in open markup session to consider H.R. 3866, as reported by the Committee on the 

Judiciary, and ordered H.R. 3866 reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3866 to 

the House, amended, on April 27, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–461, Part II). 

On June 2, 2004 the House considered H.R. 3866 under suspension of the rules. On June 3, 2004, a motion to suspend the rules 

and pass the bill, as amended, was agreed to by a vote of 408 yeas 

and 3 nays. 

On June 3, 2004, H.R. 3866 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3866 in the 108th Congress. 

On March 11, 2004, S. 2195 was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Committee on the Judiciary met in open markup session and 

ordered S. 2195 reported to the Senate with an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute on September 30, 2004. On the same day, 

the Committee on the Judiciary reported S. 2195 to the Senate 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, without written 

report. 

On October 6, 2004, S. 2195 passed the Senate, amended, by 

unanimous consent. 

On October 6, 2004, S. 2195 was received in the House and held 

at the desk. 

On October 8, 2004, S. 2195 was considered in the House by 

unanimous consent, and passed the House without objection. 

On October 13, 2004, S. 2195 was presented to President, and 

was signed by the President on October 22, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

358). 

PANCREATIC ISLET CELL TRANSPLANTATION ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–362 (H.R. 3858) 

To increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells for research by requiring pancreata procured by an organ procurement organization 

and used for islet cell transplantation or research to be counted for 

purposes of certification or recertification. 

Summary 

H.R. 3858 requires that pancreata procured by an organ procurement organization and used for islet cell transplantation or research to be counted for purposes of certification or recertification 

of organ procurement centers. By permitting pancreata donated for 

the purposes of islet cell transplantation or research to be counted 

for purposes of certification or recertification, the number of pancreatic and other organ donations will increase, expanding the capabilities of pancreatic islet cell research. 

The legislation also requires the Diabetes Mellitus Interagency 

Coordinating Committee to complete an annual report assessing 

Federal activities and programs relating to pancreatic islet cell 

transplantation, including an evaluation of the adequacy of funding 

levels, current policies and regulations affecting the supply of islet 

cells, the effect of xenotransplantation on advancing pancreatic 

132 

islet cell transplantation, the effect of United Network for Organ 

Sharing policies regarding pancreatic retrieval and islet cell 

transplantations, data collection activities, implementation of 

multiagency clinical investigations of islet cell transplantation, and 

recommendations for legislative and administrative changes to increase the supply of pancreatic islet cells. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3858 was introduced by Mr. Nethercutt on February 26, 

2004 and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On September 30, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session ordered H.R. 3858 reported to 

the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3858 to 

the House on October 5, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–726). 

On October 5, 2004, H.R. 3858 was considered by the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice 

vote. 

On October 6, 2004, H.R. 3858 was received in the Senate and 

read twice. 

H.R. 3858 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on October 

8, 2004. 

On October 13, 2004, H.R. 3858 was presented to the President, 

and on October 25, 2004, H.R. 3858 was signed by the President 

(Public Law 108–362). 

MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–365 (H.R. 4555, S. 1879) 

To reauthorize the Mammography Quality Standards Act. 

Summary 

In 1992, Congress enacted the Mammography Quality Standards 

Act (MQSA) to ensure that all women have access to quality mammography for the detection of breast cancer in its earliest, most 

treatable stages. The MQSA provides that screening and diagnostic 

services must be accredited and certified by the Food and Drug Administration. 

The Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 

2004 reauthorizes the MQSA through fiscal year 2007. In addition, 

the legislation permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a temporary renewal certificates to facilities for specified purposes. The bill also permits the Secretary to appoint individuals with expertise in mammography equipment to the National 

Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee and grants 

the Advisory Committee greater flexibility in how many times the 

Committee must meet annually. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 4555 was introduced by Mr. Dingell on June 14, 2004, and 

was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

133 

On June 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session and forwarded H.R. 4555 to the Full Committee by 

a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On June 24,2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4555 reported to the 

House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4555 to 

the House, amended, on September 22, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–694). 

On October 5, 2004, H.R. 4555 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 

by a voice vote. 

On October 9, 2004, the Senate passed H.R. 4555 by unanimous 

consent. 

H.R. 4555 was presented to the President on October 13, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on October 25, 2004 (Public Law 

108–365). 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FY 2005 AUTHORIZATION BILL

Public Law 108–375 (H.R. 4200, S. 2400) 

(Health Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 4200 contained three health-related provisions in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Section 601 authorized the Public Health Service Corps to receive the same pay 

raise as the rest of the uniformed services. The conference agreed 

to a revised version of Vaccine Health Center of Excellence. These 

were originally designed to serve in connection with the Anthrax 

Vaccine Immunization Program as an education and consultative 

service for providers and to assist service members in getting access to expedited care. The expansion would require the creation of 

multiple centers with the new missions of improving networking 

between the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services and private advocacy and coalition groups; and advising service members 

of additional care that is not available at the local DOD medical 

facilities. 

Section 726 of the final law also modified a previous provision allowing the Secretary of Defense to waive informed consent requirements for certain drugs under certain conditions. The changes narrowed the bases upon which the Secretary could invoke such a 

waiver. 

Legislative History 

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Hunter introduced H.R. 4200 by request, 

and the bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 

134 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 14, 2004. 

On May 14, 2004, the Committee on Armed Service reported 

H.R. 2400 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–491). 

H.R. 4200 was considered in the House on May 19 and 20, 2004, 

under the provisions of H. Res. 648. The bill passed the House by 

vote of 391 yeas and 34 nays. 

On June 23, 2004, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment 

by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its amendment, 

asked for a conference, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on September 28, 

2004, agreed to a conference agreed and appointed conferees. The 

Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for consideration of secs. 596, 601, 3111, 3131, 3133 and 

3201 of the House bill, and secs. 321–323, 716, 720, 1084–1089, 

1091, 2833, 3116, 3119, 3141, 3142, 3145, 3201, and 3503 of the 

Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, 

Messrs. Barton, Upton, and Dingell. 

A conference was held on September 29, 2004, and on October 8, 

2004 the conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 108–767). 

On October 8, 2004, H. Res. 843, providing for the consideration 

of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200, passed the House 

by voice vote. Then, on October 9, 2004, the conference report was 

considered in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 843. The 

conference report passed the House by a vote of 359 yeas and 14 

nays. 

Senate agreed to conference report by unanimous consent on October 9, 2004. 

On October 21, 2004, the bill was presented to President, and 

was signed by the President on October 28, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

375). 

ASTHMATIC SCHOOLCHILDREN’S TREATMENT AND HEALTH

MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–377 (H.R. 2023) 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give 

preference when making asthma-related grants to States that require schools to allow students to self-administer medications for 

asthma and/or anaphylaxis. 

Summary 

H.R. 2023 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

when making any grant that is asthma-related, as determined by 

the Secretary, to give preference to States that require public elementary and secondary schools to permit students to self-administer medication to treat asthma or anaphylaxis. Specifically, the 

bill requires that the schools permit self-administration of medication if the following criteria are met: (1) a health care practitioner 

prescribed the medication for use by the student during school 

hours and instructed the student in the correct and responsible use 

of the medication; (2) the student has demonstrated to the health 

care practitioner and the school nurse, if available, the skill level 

135 

necessary to use the medication and any device that is necessary 

to administer such medication as prescribed; (3) the health care 

practitioner formulated a written treatment plan for managing 

asthma or anaphylaxis episodes of the student and for medication 

use by the student during school hours; and, (4) the student’s parent or guardian has completed and submitted to the school any 

written documentation required by the school, including the treatment plan and other documents related to liability. 

The school must permit the student to possess and use his or her 

medication while in school, while at a school-sponsored activity, 

and in transit to or from school or school-sponsored activities. The 

school authorization for the student to carry the medication is effective for that school and the same school year it is granted, and 

must be renewed by the parent or guardian each subsequent school 

year. The State must also require that backup medication, if provided by a student’s parent or guardian, be kept at the school in 

a location with immediate access. The State must also require that 

all documentation related to the student’s use of asthma and/or anaphylaxis medication be kept on file at the student’s school in a location easily accessible in the event of an asthma or anaphylaxis 

emergency. 

H.R. 2023 clearly states that nothing in the bill creates a cause 

of action or in any other way increased on diminishes the liability 

of any person under any other law. Finally, the bill states that 

Congress commends the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for identifying and creating ‘‘Strategies for Addressing Asthma 

Within a Coordinated School Program’’ for schools. Congress also 

encourages all schools to review these strategies and adopt policies 

that will best meet the needs of their student population. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2023 was introduced by Mr. Stearns on May 7, 2003, and 

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

addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 

On June 15, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session, and forwarded H.R. 2023 to the Full Committee, 

amended, by a voice vote. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on June 24, 2004, and ordered H.R. 2023 reported 

to the House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2023 to 

the House, amended, on July 14, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–606, Part I). 

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce granted 

an extension for further consideration ending not later than July 

14, 2004. 

On October 5, 2004, H.R. 2023 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 

by voice vote. 

On October 11, 2004, H.R. 2023 passed the Senate by unanimous 

consent. 

H.R. 2023 was presented to the President on October 19, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on October 30, 2004 (Public Law 

108–377). 

136 

SPECIAL OLYMPICS SPORT AND EMPOWERMENT ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–406 (H.R. 5131) 

To provide assistance to Special Olympics. 

Summary 

Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004 authorizes the Secretaries of Education, of State, and of Health and 

Human Services to award grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, Special Olympics for specified education, 

international, and health activities, including ones promoting Special Olympics and a greater understanding of contributions to society by individuals with intellectual disabilities both within and outside of the United States. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5131 was introduced by Mr. Blunt on September 23, 2004, 

and was referred to the House Committee on Education and the 

Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On October 6, 2004, H.R. 5131 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice 

vote. 

On October 10, 2004, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous 

consent. 

H.R. 5131 was presented to the President on October 19, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on October 30, 2004 (Public Law 

108–406). 

MENTALLY ILL OFFENDER TREATMENT AND CRIME REDUCTION ACT OF

2004

Public Law 108–414 (S. 1194) 

To authorize a grant program to encourage state and local governments to improve their treatment of mentally ill offenders. 

Summary 

The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 

2004 authorizes a grant program to encourage state and local governments to improve their treatment of mentally ill offenders. The 

grants can be used: to fund mental health courts or diversion programs; to promote cooperation between the criminal justice and 

mental health personnel; or to train criminal justice and mental 

health personnel on issues relating to mentally ill offenders. Under 

the legislation, each state must receive a minimum allocation of not 

less than .75 percent of the amount allocated. Participants in the 

collaboration programs must also match a percentage of the Federal funds allocated. 

The legislation also requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish an interagency 

task force to address barriers to collaboration on issues relating to 

mentally ill offenders. Additionally, the Attorney General and the 

Secretary shall develop a list of best practices for addressing these 

137 

offenders. The legislation authorizes $50 million for FY2005 and 

such sums as may be necessary for FY2006 through FY2009. 

Legislative History 

S. 1194 was introduced in the Senate by Senator DeWine on 

June 5, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On October 23, 2003, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary ordered the bill to be reported favorably with an amendment in the 

nature of a substitute. 

On October 27, 2003, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. 

S. 1194 was received in the House the next day where it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 

On September 30, 2004, the Full Committee on the Judiciary 

met in open markup session and ordered S. 1194 favorably reported to the House, amended, by voice vote. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

the Judiciary exchanged correspondence on S. 1194 on October 5, 

2004. 

On October 5, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary reported S. 

1194 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–732). 

S. 1194 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

rules on October 6, 2004, and passed the House, as amended, by 

voice vote. 

On October 7, 2004, the Senate received S. 1194 and held it at 

the desk. On October 11, 2004, the Senate agreed to the House 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

On October 21, 2004, the bill was presented to the President. On 

October 30, 2004, the President signed S. 1194 (Public Law 108– 

414). 

RESEARCH REVIEW ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–427 (H.R. 5213) 

To expand research information regarding multidisciplinary research projects and epidemiological studies. 

Summary 

H.R. 5213 Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

(HHS), in coordination with the Director of the National Institute 

of Health (NIH), to prepare a report outlining the methods by 

which the Roadmap for Medical Research has advanced the use of 

multidisciplinary research teams and consortia of research institutions to advance treatments, develop new therapies, and collaborate on clinical trials, including with respect to spinal cord injury 

and paralysis research. 

The bill also requires the Director of the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) to prepare a report outlining the epidemiological studies currently underway at the CDC, future 

planned studies, the criteria and scope involved in determining 

what epidemiological studies to conduct, defer, or suspend, with 

particular regard to epidemiological studies of inflammatory bowel 

disease. Additionally, the study would include a description of the 

138 

activities CDC undertakes to establish partnerships with research 

and patient advocacy communities to expand epidemiological studies. 

Finally, H.R. 5213 directs the Government Accountability Office 

to study Medicare and Medicaid coverage of inflammatory bowel 

therapies in addition to a study about the problems patients with 

inflammatory bowel disease have when applying for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5213 was introduced in the House by Mr. Bilirakis on October 5, 2004 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

On October 6, 2004, H.R. 5213 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and was passed by the House, as 

amended, by a vote of 418 yeas and 0 nays on October 7, 2004. 

On October 8, 2004, H.R. 5213 was received in the Senate and 

read twice. 

H.R. 5213 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 

16, 2004. 

On November 19, 2004, H.R. 5213 was presented to the President, and on November 30, 2004 was signed by the President (Public Law 108–427). 

THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES HEALTH FACILITY COMPENSATION ACT

Public Law 108–437 (S. 1146) 

A bill to implement the recommendations of the Garrison Unit 

Joint Tribal Advisory Committee by providing authorization for the 

construction of a rural health care facility on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, North Dakota. 

Summary 

S. 1146, Three Affiliated Tribes Health Facility Compensation 

Act, authorizes construction money for certain rural health facilities. 

Legislative History 

On May 23, 2003, Senator Conrad introduced S. 1146, which was 

referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 

On October 15, 2003, the Committee on Indian Affairs reported 

S. 1146, amended, to the Senate (S. Rpt. 108–165). 

S. 1146 passed the Senate, amended, by unanimous consent on 

October 27, 2003. 

On October 28, 2003, S. 1146 was received in the House and referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Committee on Resources reported S. 1146 to the House on 

June 3, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–523, Part I). 

On June 3, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 

granted a extension for further consideration of the bill ending not 

later than July 9, 2004. 

On November 17, 2004, S. 1146 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice vote. 

139 

S. 1146 was presented to the President on November 22, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 3, 2004 (Public Law 

108–437). 

A BILL TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO PHYSICIANS IN MEDICALLY

UNDERSERVED AREAS

Public Law 108–441 (S. 2302) 

A bill to improve access to physicians in medically underserved 

areas. 

Summary 

S. 2302 amends the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 to reauthorize for a period of two years the 

‘‘Conrad State 30 program,’’ which annually allows each State to 

request up to 30 waivers of the home residency requirement applicable to J–1 foreign medical graduates for medical service in health 

professional shortage areas. The bill also includes a provision that 

exempts physicians serving under this program from the numerical 

limitation on H–1B visas. The legislation also permits physicians 

participating in the program to practice medicine outside geographic areas designated by the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services in the case of a waiver request from an interested State 

agency. 

Legislative History 

Senator Conrad introduced S. 2302 in the Senate on April 7, 

2004, and it was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Committee on the Judiciary reported S. 2302 to the Senate 

with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on October 7, 

2004 without written report. 

The Senate passed S. 2302 with an amendment by unanimous 

consent on October 11, 2004. 

S. 2302 was received in the House on November 16, 2004, and 

held at the desk. 

On November 17, 2004, S. 2302 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a vote of 

407 yeas to 4 nays. 

S. 2302 was presented to the President on November 22, 2004, 

and signed by the President on December 3, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

441). 

IMPROVING EDUCATION RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–446 (H.R. 1350, S. 1284) 

To reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Summary 

H.R. 1350 as passed by the Senate and enacted into law, contained provisions requiring States to certify that they meet the requirements of designating financial requirements of designating financial responsibilities for services. The bill also contained lanVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
140 

guage that requires states to ensure that interagency agreements 

are in place to ensure that services are paid for by appropriate 

state agencies. Finally, H.R. 1350 amends the Children’s Health 

Act to include the Secretary of Education as a required partner in 

the longitudinal study and requires that the study be in compliance 

with Family Education Rights Privacy Act requirements. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Castle introduced H.R. 1350 in the House on March 19, 

2003, and it was referred to the House Committee on Education 

and the Workforce. 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 

1350 to the House on April 29, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–77). 

The House considered H.R. 1350 under the provisions of H. Res. 

206 on April 30, 2003, and passed the bill, as amended, by a vote 

of 251 yeas to 171 nays. 

On May 1, 2003, H.R. 1350 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

On May 13, 2004, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions was discharged by unanimous consent, and the Senate struck all after the enacting clause in H.R. 1350 and substituted the language of S. 1248, as amended. The same day, the 

Senate passed H.R. 1350 in lieu of S. 1248 with an amendment by 

a vote of 95 yeas to 3 nays. 

On October 8, 2004, the House disagreed to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1350, requested a conference with the Senate, and appointed conferees. The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of sec. 101 and 

title V of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to 

conference, Messrs. Barton, Bilirakis, and Dingell. 

On October 9, 2004, the Senate insisted on its amendment, 

agreed to the request for a conference, and appointed conferees. 

On November 17, 2004, pursuant to a previous order of the 

House, the conference report on H.R. 1350 was filed in the House 

(H. Rpt. 108–779). 

On November 19, 2004, the House considered the conference report to accompany H.R. 1350 under the provisions of H. Res. 858. 

The House passed the conference report to accompany H.R. 1350 

by a vote of 397 yeas to 3 nays. 

On November 19, 2004, the Senate passed the conference report 

by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 1350 was presented to the President on November 30, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 3, 2004 (Public Law 

108–446). 

A BILL TO AMEND TITLE XIX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT TO EXTEND

MEDICARE COST-SHARING FOR THE MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM FOR

QUALIFYING INDIVIDUALS THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2005

Public Law 108–448 (S. 2618) 

A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend 

Medicare cost-sharing for the Medicare part B premium for qualifying individuals through September 2005. 

141 

Summary 

S. 2618 amends title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act to 

extend Medicare cost-sharing for the Medicare part B premium for 

certain qualifying low-income individuals through September 2005. 

S. 2618 allocates funding amounts for specified periods between 

January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2005. 

Legislative History 

S. 2618 was introduced by Senator Grassley on July 7, 2004, 

with four cosponsors. 

The bill passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous 

consent on November 16, 2004. 

On November 16, 2004, S. 2618 was received in the House and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On November 19, 2004, S. 2618 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice vote. 

The bill was presented to the President on November 29, 2004, 

and on December 8, 2004 was signed by the President (Public Law 

108–448). 

INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–458 (H.R. 10, S. 2845) 

(Health Provisions) 

A bill to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Title XVIII contains the provisions of H.R. 3266, Faster and 

Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 10 was introduced by Speaker Hastert on September 24, 

2004, and referred primarily to the Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee Education and the Workforce, the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial Services, 

the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee 

on Rules, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Ways and Means, and 

the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. 

On October 4, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

was granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than October 5, 2004. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 

was discharged on October 5, 2004. 

On October 7 and 8, 2004, H.R. 10 was considered in the House 

under the provisions of H. Res. 827. Section 5011 was adopted as 

part of an en bloc amendment on the floor of the House by voice 

vote on October 8, 2004 (Amendment 793 offered by Mr. Hoekstra). 

142 

H.R. 10 passed the House, amended, by a vote of 282 yeas and 134 

nays on October 8, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 10 in the 108th Congress, 

but H.R. 10 was superseded by S. 2845. 

On September 23, 2004, S. 2845 was introduced by Senator Collins, read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 

under Read the First Time. 

On September 24, 2004, the bill was read the second time and 

placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

S. 2845 passed the Senate with amendments by a vote of 96 yeas 

and 2 nays on October 6, 2004. 

On October 16, 2004, the House is considered to have taken S. 

2845 from the Speaker’s table, stricken all after the enacting clause 

and inserted the text of H.R. 10 as passed by the House, pursuant 

to H. Res. 827. The House insisted on its amendment and asked 

for a conference pursuant to H. Res. 827. 

The Senate disagreed to the House amendment on October 16, 

2004, agreed to request for conference, and appointed conferees. 

On December 7, 2004, the conference report to accompany S. 

2845 was filed (H. Rpt. 108–796), containing sections 7303(i), 7402, 

7403, and 7405 under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

The conference report was considered in the House under the 

provisions of H. Res. 870 on the same day, and the House agreed 

to the conference report by a vote of 336 yeas and 75 nays. 

On December 8, 2004, the Senate agreed to the conference report 

by a vote of 89 yeas and 2 nays. 

S. 2845 was presented to the President on December 15, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 17, 2004 (Public Law 

108–458). 

CHILDREN’S HOSPITALS GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION

Public Law 108–490 (H.R. 5204) 

To modify provisions regarding the determination of the amount 

of payments for indirect expenses associated with operating approved graduate medical residency training programs at children’s 

hospitals. 

Summary 

H.R. 5204 amends the Public Health Service Act to require the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services to consider the ratio of 

residents in children’s hospitals’ approved graduate medical residency training programs to beds (but excluding beds or bassinets 

assigned to healthy new born infants) when determining the 

amount of payments to such hospitals for indirect expenses associated with the treatment of more severely ill patients and the additional costs associated with teaching residents in such programs. 

Legislative History 

Ms. Eshoo introduced H.R. 5204 on October 4, 2004, and it was 

referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

143 

H.R. 5204 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

rules on October 6, 2004, and passed the House the same day by 

voice vote. 

The bill was received in the Senate on October 7, 2004. 

On December 8, 2004, H.R. 5204 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 5204 was presented to the President on December 16, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 23, 2004 (Public Law 

108–490). 

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WORK, AND FAMILY PROMOTION ACT OF

2003

(H.R. 4) 

To reauthorize and improve the program of block grants to 

States for temporary assistance for needy families, improve access 

to quality child care, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 4 contains provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. Section 201 revises, reauthorizes, and extends the program for abstinence education under 

the Social Security Act title V (Maternal and Child Services Block 

Grant) through FY 2008, allowing funds that the Secretary determines will not be required to carry out an abstinence program of 

a particular State to be reallocated among the States with abstinence education programs. 

Section 601 of H.R. 4 amends title XIX of the SSA (Medicaid) to 

continue the transitional medical assistance (TMA) program until 

September 30, 2008. It permits states to extend TMA for up to 24 

months, allowing continuous eligibility for 12 months by making 

reporting requirements optional, and eases access by permitting 

states to waive the requirements for previous receipt of Medicaid 

(for three of the previous six months). Section 601 makes requirements concerning the extension of eligibility for medical assistance 

optional for states that extend coverage to children and parents 

through 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. This section also 

requires notice for all families whose aid under SSA title IV part 

A or E has terminated but whose eligibility for Medicaid continues, 

and extends use of outstationed workers to accept applications for 

TMA. Section 602 of H.R. 4 amends the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to prohibit the spending of SCHIP funds 

on childless couples. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 4 was introduced by Mrs. Pryce on February 4, 2003, and 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Agriculture, and 

the Committee on Financial Services on February 7, 2003. 

On February 13, 2003, H.R. 4 was considered in the House under 

the provisions of H. Res. 69. The bill passed the House by a vote 

of 230 yeas and 192 nays. 

144 

On February 13, 2003, the bill was received by the Senate and 

referred to the Committee on Finance. 

On October 3, 2003, H.R. 4 was reported to the Senate, amended, 

by the Committee on Finance (S. Rpt. 108–162). 

The bill was considered in the Senate on March 30, 2004, March 

31, 2004, and April 1, 2004. 

A cloture motion was not invoked in Senate by a vote of 51 yeas 

and 47 nays. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4 in the 108th Congress. 

HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST TIMELY HEALTHCARE

(HEALTH) ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 5, H.R. 4280) 

To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability 

system places on the health care delivery system. 

Summary 

H.R. 5 establishes federal standards to reform the medical liability system. The provisions of H.R. 5 apply to any health care lawsuit brought in a federal or state court, or subject to an alternative 

dispute resolution system, that is initiated on or after the date of 

enactment, with the exception that any health care lawsuit arising 

from an injury occurring prior to the date of the enactment will be 

governed by the applicable statute of limitations provisions in effect 

at the time the injury occurred. In general, any issue that is not 

governed by any provision of law established by or under H.R. 5 

is governed by otherwise applicable state or federal law. 

H.R. 5 includes language binding the statute of limitation for a 

health care lawsuit. The bill states that a health care lawsuit shall 

be commenced 3 years after the date of manifestation of injury or 

1 year after the claimant discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs 

first. In no event shall the time for commencement of a health care 

lawsuit exceed 3 years unless tolled for any of the following: (1) 

upon proof of fraud; (2) intentional concealment; or, (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of the injured person. There is an exception for alleged injuries sustained by a minor before the age of 

6, in which case a health care lawsuit may be commenced by or on 

behalf of the minor until the later of 3 years from the date of injury, or the date on which the minor attains the age of 8. This time 

period is tolled for minors for any period during which a parent or 

guardian and a health care provider or health care organization 

have committed fraud or collusion in the failure to bring an action 

on behalf of the injured minor. 

H.R. 5 does not limit the amount of economic losses a claimant 

may recover. Under H.R. 5, economic loss includes, for example, objectively verifiable monetary losses, past and future medical expenses, loss of past and future earnings, cost of obtaining domestic 

services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment 

opportunities. H.R. 5 specifies that a claimant may recover up to 

$250,000 in non-economic damages. Non-economic damages is deVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
145 

fined as damages for physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss 

of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature. With respect to compensatory or punitive damages, H.R. 5 does not preempt any state law 

(enacted before, on, or after the date of enactment of H.R. 5) that 

specifies a particular monetary amount of compensatory or punitive 

damages (or the total amount of damages) that may be awarded in 

a health care lawsuit. 

H.R. 5 establishes a rule that apportions damages in proportion 

to a defendant’s degree of fault. The legislation requires that courts 

supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect 

against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of reducing 

the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid to claimants. H.R. 5 establishes a sliding fee schedule for the payment of 

contingency fees from a claimant’s damage recovery as follows: 40 

percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the claimant; 331⁄3 percent of the next $50,000 recovered by the claimant; 25 percent of the 

next $500,000 recovered by the claimant; and 15 percent of any 

amount by which the recovery by the claimant(s) is in excess of 

$600,000. 

H.R. 5 clarifies that in any health care lawsuit, any party may 

introduce evidence of collateral source benefits received ‘‘or reasonably likely to be received’’ from other parties (and which benefits 

would cover the same injuries). H.R. 5 requires the court, at the 

request of any party, to order that the award of future damages 

equaling or exceeding $50,000 be paid by periodic payments. 

H.R. 5 clearly states that no demand for punitive damages shall 

be included in a health care lawsuit as initially filed. The legislation does not permit the award of punitive damages in health care 

lawsuits if compensatory damages are not awarded. H.R. 5 states, 

however, that punitive damages may be awarded if otherwise permitted by applicable state or federal law. In all cases, punitive 

damages may only be awarded if it is first proven by clear and convincing evidence that a defendant acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant, or that such person deliberately failed to avoid 

unnecessary injury that such person knew the claimant was substantially certain to suffer. The amount of any punitive damages 

that are awarded may be as much as two times the amount of economic damages awarded, or $250,000, whichever is greater. H.R. 5 

allows for bifurcation procedures, at either party’s request, so that 

the proceedings on punitive damages would be separate from and 

subsequent to the proceedings on compensatory damages. 

H.R. 5 does not permit the award of punitive damages against 

the manufacturer or distributor of a medical product based on a 

claim that the product caused the harm where: the product was 

subject to premarket approval or clearance by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) with respect to the safety of the formulation 

or performance of the product or the adequacy of the labeling of the 

product, and the product was approved and cleared by the FDA; or, 

the medical product is generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and effective pursuant to conditions established by 

the FDA and applicable regulations. H.R. 5 prohibits a health care 

146 

provider from being named as a party in a product liability lawsuit 

for prescribing or dispensing pursuant to a prescription drug or device that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Punitive damages may be awarded against a manufacturer or distributor of a medical product, however, if a person, before or after 

premarket approval or clearance of the product knowingly misrepresented or withheld information from the FDA that is required 

to be submitted or is material and causally related to the harm 

which the claimant allegedly suffered. Punitive damages may also 

be awarded if a person made an illegal payment to an FDA official 

for the purpose of either securing or maintaining approval or clearance. 

H.R. 5 includes a sense of Congress that a health insurer should 

be liable for damages for harm caused when it makes a decision 

as to what care is medically necessary and appropriate. 

H.R. 4280 is substantially similar to H.R. 5. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 5 was introduced in the House by Mr. Greenwood on February 5, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On February 27, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing on assessing the need to enact medical liability reform. The hearing focused on the current medical liability crisis, what other factors contribute to rising medical malpractice insurance premiums, and the 

potential impact of medical liability reforms, such as those proposed in H.R. 5, on patient’s rights, insurance companies and physicians. Testimony was received from a patient perspective and a 

health law attorney, as well as industry representatives and consumer advocacy groups. 

On March 4, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 

markup session and forwarded H.R. 5 to the Full Committee, 

amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On March 6, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R 5 reported to the 

House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 5 to the House, 

amended, on March 11, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–32, Part I). 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 5 to the 

House, as amended, on March 11, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–32, Part II). 

On March 13, 2003, H.R. 5 was considered in the House under 

the provisions of H. Res. 139. The House passed H.R. 5, as amended, by a vote of 229 yeas to 197 nays. 

On March 13, 2003, H.R. 5 was received in the Senate. On March 

20, 2003, the bill was read the first time, and placed on Senate 

Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time. On March 21, 

2003, H.R. 5 was read the second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 5 in the 108th Congress. 

H.R. 4280 was introduced in the House by Mr. Greenwood on 

May 5, 2004. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

147 

The House considered H.R. 4280 under the provisions of H. Res. 

638 on May 12, 2004. H.R. 4280 passed the House by a vote of 229 

yeas and 196 nays, with one Member voting present. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4280 in the 108th Congress. 

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN FOOD CONSUMPTION ACT

(H.R. 339) 

To prevent legislative and regulatory functions from being 

usurped by civil liability actions brought or continued against food 

manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and 

trade associations for claims of injury relating to a person’s weight 

gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain 

or obesity. 

Summary 

H.R. 339 provides that a qualified civil liability action may not 

be brought in any Federal or State court, and that a qualified civil 

liability action that is pending on the date of the enactment of this 

Act shall be dismissed immediately by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending. The legislation defines a 

‘‘qualified civil liability action’’ as a civil action brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a 

trade association, for damages, penalties, declaratory judgment, injunctive or declaratory relief, restitution, or other relief arising out 

of, related to, or resulting in injury or potential injury arising from 

a person’s consumption of a qualified product and a person’s resulting weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is associated 

with a person’s weight gain or obesity. Such actions include those 

brought by a person other than the person on whose weight gain, 

obesity, or health condition the action is based, and any derivative 

action brought by, or on behalf of, any person or any representative, spouse, parent, child, or other relative of any person. The term 

‘‘qualified product’’ is defined as a food, as defined in section 201(f) 

of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.321(f)). 

Legislative History 

H.R. 339 was introduced in the House by Mr. Keller on January 

27, 2003. The bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On January 28, 2004, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 

open markup session and ordered H.R. 339 reported to the House, 

amended, by voice vote. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

the Judiciary exchanged correspondence on H.R. 339 on March 4, 

2004. 

The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 339 to the House, 

amended, on March 5, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–432), pursuant to the previous order of the House of March 4, 2004. 

The House considered H.R. 339 on March 10, 2004, pursuant to 

the provisions of H. Res. 522, and approved the bill by a roll call 

vote of 276 yeas to 139 nays. 

On March 11, 2004, H.R. 339 was received in the Senate. The bill 

was read the first time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 

under Read the First Time on March 25, 2004. On March 26, 2004, 

148 

the bill was read the second time and placed on Senate Legislative 

Calendar under General Orders. 

No further action on H.R. 339 occurred in the 108th Congress. 

PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT

(H.R. 663, S. 720) 

To amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to provide for 

the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the incidence of 

events that adversely affect patient safety, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 663 provides the opportunity for health care providers to 

submit information, in the form of a work product, on medical errors and other patient safety issues to a patient safety organization 

(PSO). The bill protects such information from discovery or use in 

courts or administrative proceedings. Such protection would encourage more robust evaluations of patient safety issues in hospitals and other provider organizations. H.R. 663 also provides for 

certain confidentiality requirements for communications not connected with judicial or administrative proceedings. The bill sets out 

qualifications for PSO’s. The decision of a provider or institution to 

contract with a PSO would be voluntary. However, once such a decision is made and in operation, various rules would apply to the 

flow of patient safety information. The Secretary of Health and 

Human Services would enforce these rules through administrative 

and civil penalties. 

H.R. 663 also authorizes the Secretary of HHS to establish or to 

designate other entities to create a voluntary national database to 

track medical errors. The Secretary of HHS is also authorized to 

develop and adopt voluntary national standards to promote the 

compatibility of health information technology systems. Finally, 

H.R. 663 establishes grant programs for electronic prescribing and 

information technologies for hospitals and other healthcare providers. This will allow for physicians and other types of providers 

who lack the necessary resources to adopt the latest technologies 

that have been proven to significantly reduce the incidence of medical errors. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Bilirakis introduced H.R. 663 on February 11, 2003, and the 

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

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee met in 

open markup session on February 12, 2003, and ordered H.R. 663 

reported to the House, amended, by voice vote. 

On March 6, 2003 the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 663 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–28). 

H.R. 663 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

rules on March 12, 2003, and passed the House, as amended, by 

a vote of 418 yeas and 6 nays. 

On March 13, 2003, H.R. 663 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

149 

The Senate passed H.R. 663, amended with the text of S. 720, 

by unanimous consent on July 22, 2004, requested a conference, insisted on its amendments, and appointed conferees. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 663 in the 108th Congress. 

MEDICARE REGULATORY AND CONTRACTING REFORM ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 810) 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide regulatory relief and contracting flexibility under the Medicare Program. 

Summary 

H.R. 810 streamlines Medicare rules for providers and suppliers. 

This legislation addresses the need for consistent and accurate 

written responses from Medicare contractors, and helps beneficiaries better understand and navigate the Medicare program. It 

takes sensible steps to educate providers and clarify provider 

rights, while protecting and supporting efforts to eliminate waste, 

fraud, and abuse in Medicare. 

More specifically, H.R. 810; (1) ensures that substantive regulation or policy changes take effect no earlier than 30 days after the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services has issued such a change; 

(2) calls for the Secretary to update Congress every 2 years on 

areas of confusion, inconsistency, or conflict among Medicare’s various statutory and regulatory provisions; (3) provides for the designation and specific training of Medicare-only Administrative Law 

Judges; (4) creates an expedited process for providers to obtain judicial review of appeals for denied claims and provider agreement 

determinations; (5) requires the Secretary to expedite appeal proceedings when termination of participation or other immediate 

sanctions have been imposed on providers; (6) opens all contracts 

to competitive bidding, giving CMS the ability to terminate contractors that are inefficient; (7) requires Medicare contractors to develop information security programs for all Medicare-related business; (8) requires Medicare contractors to provide general written 

responses to beneficiary and provider written inquiries within 45 

business days; (9) treats providers who rely on written guidance or 

written responses to inquiries fairly and equitably; (10) calls for the 

Secretary to appoint an individual to develop appropriate responses 

to complaints concerning inconsistencies and confusion in the Medicare program; (11) limits random prepayment review to cases that 

fit a standard protocol developed by the Secretary; (12) requires the 

Secretary to develop standards for repayment plans, taking into account a provider’s reliance on guidance and financial hardship; (13) 

requires Medicare to inform beneficiaries that utilize skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) well in advance of the end of the 100 days of 

care; and, (14) allows beneficiaries who receive a notice from a provider that Medicare may no cover a particular service to find out 

in advance whether or not it will be covered. 

150 

Legislative History 

On February 13, 2003, H.R. 810 was introduced by Mrs. Nancy 

Johnson and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and 

in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On March 26, 2003, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 810 reported 

to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 810 to the 

House on April 11, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–74, Part I). 

On April 11, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 

granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than April 29, 2003. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 810 to 

the House, amended, on April 29, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–74, Part II). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 810 in the 108th Congress. 

PATIENT NAVIGATOR, OUTREACH, AND CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION

ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 918) 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a demonstration grant program to provide patient navigator services to 

reduce barriers and improve health care outcomes, and for other 

purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 918 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to promote model ‘‘patient navigator’’ programs to improve health care outcomes for individuals with cancer or other chronic diseases, with specific emphasis on health disparity populations. The bill authorizes a 5-year 

demonstration program, managed by the Administrator of the 

Health Resources and Services Administration, to evaluate the impact of patient navigators on improving health care outcomes. 

The Administrator may award grants to eligible entities to recruit, assign, train, and employ patient navigators who have a direct knowledge of the communities they serve. Eligible entities include a public or nonprofit private health center, a community 

health center, a health facility operated with the Indian Health 

Services, a hospital, a cancer center, a rural health clinic, an academic health center, or a nonprofit entity that enters into a partnership or coordinates referrals with such health care facilities. An 

eligible entity may only receive a grant for a 3-year period, and 

may apply for a one-year waiver. No grant may be awarded after 

September 30, 2010. 

Patient navigators must coordinate health care services and provider referrals, facilitate involvement of community organizations 

to provide assistance to patients, facilitate enrollment in clinical 

trials, anticipate barriers within the health care system and help 

ensure prompt diagnostic care and treatment, coordinate with 

health insurance ombudsman programs, and conduct ongoing outreach to health disparity populations for preventative care. 

Grant recipients must establish baseline measures and benchmarks to evaluate program outcomes. The Secretary is required to 

151 

conduct a study of the results of the program no later than 6 

months after the completion of the demonstration grant program. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 918 was introduced by Mr. Menendez on February 26, 2003, 

and it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the House Committee on Resources. 

On September 30, 2004 the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met open markup session and ordered H.R. 918 reported to 

the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On October 5, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 918 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–727, Part I). 

On October 5, 2004, H.R. 918 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and as passed the House, as amended, by 

a voice vote. 

On October 6, 2004, H.R. 918 was received in the Senate. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 918 in the 108th Congress. 

CHILD MEDICATION SAFETY ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 1170) 

To protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance in order to attend school. 

Summary 

H.R. 1170 requires states, as a condition of receiving Federal 

education funds, to establish policies and procedures prohibiting 

school personnel from requiring a child to take medication in order 

to attend school. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1170 was introduced by Mr. Burns on March 11, 2003. The 

bill was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce exchanged correspondence concerning 

H.R. 1170 on May 20, 2003. 

The Committee on Education and the Workforce reported H.R. 

1170 to the House on May 21, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–121). 

H.R. 1170 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

rules on May 21, 2003, and passed the House, amended, by a vote 

of 425 yeas and 1 nay. 

On May 22, 2003 H.R. 1170 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1170 in the 108th Congress. 

SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP TO BENEFIT BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

(H.R. 1385) 

To extend the provision of title 39, United States Code, under 

which the United States Postal Service is authorized to issue a special postage stamp to benefit breast cancer research. 

152 

Summary 

H.R. 1385 extends the U.S. Postal Service’s authority to issue 

special postage stamps to help provide funding for breast cancer research through December 31, 2006. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 1385 was introduced by Mr. Baca on March 20, 2003, and 

was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Armed Services. 

On January 27, 2004, H.R. 1385 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a vote of 

331 yeas and 1 nay. 

On January 28, 2004, H.R. 1385 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1385 in the 108th Congress. 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT

OF 2003

(H.R. 2086) 

To amend the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy through fiscal year 2008. 

Summary 

H.R. 2086 amends the Office of National Drug Control Reauthorization Act of 1998 to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy through fiscal year 2008. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2086 was introduced in the House by Mr. Souder on May 

14, 2003. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform, and in addition, the Committee on the Judiciary, the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Permanent Select 

Committee on Intelligence. 

On June 19, 2003 the Committee on Government Reform reported H.R. 2086 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–167, Part I). 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the 

Judiciary, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 

were granted an extension for further consideration ending not 

later than July 14, 2003. 

On July 14, 2003, the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 

2086 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–167, Part II). 

On September 30, 2003, the House considered H.R. 2086 under 

suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as amended, by 

voice vote. 

H.R. 2086 was received in the Senate on October 1, 2003, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2086 in the 108th Congress. 

153 

TO AMEND THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF NONCORRECTIVE CONTACT LENS AS

MEDICAL DEVICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

(H.R. 2218) 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide 

for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical devices, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2218 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to: 

(1) regulate all contact lenses as medical devices; and, (2) state that 

such regulation shall not be construed as having any legal effect 

on any other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-regulated article. 

Legislative History 

On May 22, 2003, H.R. 2218 was introduced in the House by Mr. 

Boozeman, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

H.R. 2218 was considered in the House on November 19, 2003, 

under suspension of the rules and passed the bill, as amended, by 

voice vote. 

On November 20, 2003 the bill was received in the Senate. 

On December 9, 2003, it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2218 was taken in the 

108th Congress. 

PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET ACCESS ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 2427) 

Summary 

H.R. 2427 would require the packaging of every prescription drug 

to use counterfeit-resistant technology. A prescription drug would 

be misbranded if the packaging of the drug did not include this 

technology. The legislation eliminates section 804(l) of the Food 

and Drug Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which would not permit reimportation until the Secretary of Health and Human Services demonstrates that it will pose ‘‘no additional risk’’ to public health and 

safety. 

The legislation instructs the Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) to promulgate regulations permitting ‘‘qualifying individuals’’ to reimport covered products into the United States. A ‘‘qualifying individual’’ is defined as any individual ‘‘who is not a pharmacist or wholesaler.’’ 

Legislative History 

On June 11, 2003, Mr. Gutknecht introduced H.R. 2427. The bill 

was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. 

On July 25, 2003, H.R. 2427 was considered in the House under 

the provisions of H. Res. 335. The House passed H.R. 2427 by a 

vote 243 yeas and 186 nays. 

154 

On July 25, 2003, the legislation was received in the Senate, and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2427 in the 108th Congress. 

THE HEALTH INSURANCE CERTIFICATE ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 2698) 

To provide for a system of health insurance certificates to increase the number of Americans with health insurance coverage. 

Summary 

H.R. 2698 is a means-tested, social spending program designed 

to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by providing subsidies to low and low-middle income families specifically for the 

purchase of health insurance coverage. In many cases, the Act will 

simply reduce the financial burden of those who have already been 

paying for health insurance coverage. H.R. 2698 authorizes almost 

$50 billion ($49,965,000,000) over 10 years for the combination of 

this purpose and for funding high-risk pools. The Secretary of 

Health and Human Services would administer the program. 

The certificate value established by H.R. 2698 would vary, in 

part, by income and, in part, by the number of family members addressed. There are two categories of health certificates: (1) certificates to subsidize the purchase of health insurance provided outside the employment context; and, (2) certificates for use as a premium subsidy for employment-related health insurance certificates 

to subsidize the purchase of health insurance provided within the 

employment context. 

H.R. 2698 also includes increased funding for state high-risk 

pools. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Bilirakis introduced H.R. 2698 on July 10, 2003. The bill was 

referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On July 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on 

H.R. 2698. Witnesses included representatives of insurers, doctors, 

employers, and labor, as well an expert from academia. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2698 in the 108th Congress. 

NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT

(H.R. 2699) 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide 

for uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 2699 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FDCA) to prohibit any state or political subdivision from establishing or continuing in effect as to any food in interstate commerce 

any requirement for food that is not identical to specified FDCA 

provisions. It allows current state notification or food safety requirements to continue for 180 days after the enactment of this 

155 

Act, during which such state may petition for an exemption or a 

new national standard. Under the legislation, a state may petition 

for an exemption and for a national standard regarding any requirement under the FDCA or the Fair Packaging and Labeling 

Act relating to food regulation. A state is allowed to establish a requirement that would otherwise violate FDCA provisions relating 

to national uniform nutrition labeling or this paragraph if the requirement is needed to address an imminent hazard to health that 

is likely to result in serious adverse health consequences and if 

other requirements are met. 

Legislative History 

On July 10, 2003, Mr. Burr introduced H.R. 2699, which was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 30, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2699 reported 

to the House, amended, by a record vote of 30 yeas and 15 nays, 

a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 2699 to 

the House, amended, on October 8, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–770). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2699 in the 108th Congress. 

NATIONAL ALL SCHEDULES PRESCRIPTION ELECTRONIC REPORTING

ACT

(H.R. 3015) 

Summary 

H.R. 3015 amends Part P of title III of the Public Service Act by 

adding new section 399O, Controlled Substance Monitoring Program. Under this program, the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services would award grants to states to establish and operate controlled substance monitoring programs. 

In implementing a PDMP under this section, a state shall require all dispensers to report each dispensing in the state not later 

than one week after the dispensing. Each state operating an authorized monitoring program would be required to cover Schedule 

II, III, and IV drugs. The bill will also facilitate the interoperability 

of state systems so drug diversion and abuse that crosses states 

lines can also be detected. 

Legislative History 

On September 4, 2003, Mr. Whitfield introduced H.R. 3015. The 

legislation was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On September 30, 2004 the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3015 reported 

to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On October 5, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3015 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–728). 

H.R. 3015 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

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

On October 6, 2004, H.R. 3015 was received in the Senate. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3015 in the 108th Congress. 

156 

NATIONAL BONE MARROW REGISTRY REAUTHORIZATION ACT

(H.R. 3034) 

To reauthorize the national bone marrow donor registry. 

Summary 

H.R. 3034 continues the basic functions of the registry, with 

minor changes to reflect relatively new functions of the bone marrow registry. The national bone marrow registry is under the general supervision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

and a board of directors. H.R. 3034 extends the time period a member of the board of directors may serve. The bone marrow registry, 

which maintains close ties with the Department of the Navy, currently prepares for emergency events, where large segments of the 

population may need urgent transplants. H.R. 3034 explicitly authorizes the registry to maintain and expand medical response capabilities in concert with federal programs for responding to terrorist threats that can damage marrow. Additional authorization of 

appropriations for this may be awarded if the Secretary deems it 

necessary to significantly expand this function of the registry. H.R. 

3034 requires the continued promotion of research to improve the 

availability, efficiency, safety, and cost of transplants. In addition, 

the registry must increase the number of umbilical cord blood units 

listed in the registry. H.R. 3034 also includes provisions to increase 

information sharing with transplant patients. For example, current 

law requires that the bone marrow registry include a scientific registry of information relating to patients who have been recipients 

of a transplant of bone marrow from a biologically unrelated donor. 

H.R. 3034 requires the scientific registry to participate in medical 

research that has the potential to improve transplant outcomes and 

make the relevant scientific information available to the public. 

The legislation authorizes the appropriation of $32 million for fiscal 

year 2004, and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 

2005–2008. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3034 was introduced in the House on September 5, 2003, by 

Mr. Bill Young, and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee. 

On September 10, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3034 to be reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3034 to 

the House, amended, on September 17, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–276). 

On October 1, 2003, the bill was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as amended, by 

voice vote. 

On October 2, 2003, H.R. 3034 was received in the Senate, read 

twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3034 in the 108th Congress. 

157 

FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 3266) 

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants 

to first responders, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3266 would reform the manner in which the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) issues grants to enhance the ability of 

states, local governments, and first responders to prevent, prepare 

for, mitigate and respond to acts of terrorism. The bill does not create a new terrorism grant program. The primary revision to law 

would be to modify the criteria used to distribute funding for two 

existing first responder grant programs—the State Homeland Security and the Urban Area Security Initiative grant programs. In addition H.R. 3266 would authorize the appropriation of $3.4 billion 

in FY 2006 for first responder grants including the above programs. 

H.R. 3266 does not apply to grants administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, there may 

be overlap between the types of first responder issues addressed in 

H.R. 3266 and those addressed by HHS pursuant to earlier legislative authority. 

Section 3 of the bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security 

to: (1) establish clearly defined essential capabilities for State and 

local government preparedness for terrorism, for purposes of covered grants (i.e., any grant provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to states or regions to improve the ability of 

first responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate terrorist attacks, including any grant under DHS’s State Homeland 

Security Grant Program or Urban Area Security Initiative); and, 

(2) establish (within 120 days after this Act’s enactment) and regularly update (at least every three years) essential capabilities. 

The bill further directs the Secretary to require that any state 

applying for a covered grant submit a three-year State homeland 

security plan that: (1) demonstrates the extent to which the state 

has achieved, and what is still needed for the state to achieve, the 

applicable essential capabilities; (2) includes a prioritization of such 

additional needs based on threat, vulnerability, and consequence 

assessment factors; (3) describes how the State intends to address 

such additional needs at the city, county, regional, state, and interstate level, with particular emphasis on regional planning and cooperation within its jurisdictional borders and with neighboring 

states; and, (4) is developed in consultation with and subject to appropriate comment by local governments. 

H.R. 3266 also directs the Secretary to support the development 

of, promulgate, and update national voluntary consensus standards 

for: (1) the performance, use, and validation of first responder 

equipment, which shall be consistent with existing standards, take 

into account new types of terrorism threats, and focus on maximizing interoperability, interchangeability, durability, flexibility, 

efficiency, efficacy, portability, sustainability, and safety; and, (2) 

first responder training under covered grant programs that will enable State and local government first responders to achieve optimal 

158 

levels of terrorism preparedness as quickly as practicable. Lists required categories of first responder equipment 

Legislative History 

Mr. Cox introduced H.R. 3266 on October 8, 2003. The bill was 

referred to the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, and 

in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

The Select Committee on Homeland Security reported H.R. 3266 

to the House, amended, on April 2, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–460, Part I). 

On April 2, 2004 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary were granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than June 7, 2004. 

On May 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 

on H.R. 3266. The primary focus of the hearing was the need to 

avoid unnecessary duplication of functions and the need for coordination between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services. Witnesses included representatives of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services. 

On June 3, 2004 the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary were granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than June 14, 2004. 

On June 3, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3266 reported to the 

House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3266 to 

the House, amended, on June 14, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–460, Part II). 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported 

H.R. 3266 to the House, amended, on June 21, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108– 

460, Part III). 

The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 3266 to the 

House, amended, on June 21, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–460, Part IV). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3266 in the 108th Congress. 

TAX RELIEF EXTENSION ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 3521) 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain 

expiring provisions, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3521 extends the application of mental health parity provision under the Public Health Service Acts to December 2004. The 

original mental health parity provisions were part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Thomas introduced H.R. 3521 on November 19, 2003. The 

bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and 

159 

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce. 

On November 20, 2003, H.R. 3521 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice vote. 

H.R. 3521 was received in the Senate on November 21, 2003. On 

December 9, 2003 H.R. 3521 was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3521 in the 108th Congress. 

STROKE TREATMENT AND ONGOING PREVENTION ACT

(H.R. 3658) 

To authorize programs to strengthen education, prevention, and 

treatment programs to improve health outcomes for stroke patients. 

Summary 

H.R. 3658 amends the Public Health Service Act to strengthen 

education, prevention, and treatment programs to improve health 

outcomes for stroke patients. 

To increase public awareness of the signs of stroke, H.R. 3658 

authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 

Services to carry out an education and information campaign. The 

Secretary is required to establish quantitative benchmarks to 

measure the impact of the campaign over time. To expand research 

information about stoke patients, H.R. 3658 reauthorizes the Paul 

Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry and Clearinghouse at the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

To improve medical professional development in advanced stroke 

and traumatic injury treatment and prevention, H.R 3658 authorizes two grant programs at the Department of Health and Human 

Services. The first authorizes the Secretary to make grants to public and nonprofit entities for the purpose of planning, developing, 

and enhancing approved residency training programs and other 

training for appropriate health professions in emergency medicine 

to improve stroke and traumatic injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The Secretary may also make grants to 

a consortium of public and private entities for the development and 

implementation of education programs for appropriate health care 

professions in the use of newly developed diagnostic approaches, 

technologies, and therapies to treat stroke or traumatic injury. The 

Secretary must report on the results of the activities of these two 

grant programs no later than one year after the allocation of 

grants. 

Finally, H.R. 3658 includes a five-year pilot project to improve 

stroke patient outcomes by coordinating health care delivery 

through existing telehealth networks. The Secretary is authorized 

to make up to seven grants to states or a consortium of states or 

political subdivisions for a period of up to three years. Recipients 

are required to establish baseline measures and benchmarks to 

evaluate program outcomes. Not later than March 31, 2010, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to report to 

Congress on the pilot project outcomes, including recommendations 

on how to promote stroke networks and recommendations on 

160 

whether similar telehealth grant programs could be used to improve patient outcomes in other public health areas. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3658 was introduced by Ms. Capps on December 8, 2003, 

and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Subcommittee on Health met in open markup session on 

January 28, 2004, and forwarded the bill to the Full Committee, 

amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On March 3, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3658 reported to the 

House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On March 30, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3658 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–453). 

On June 14, 2004, H.R. 3658 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by a 

voice vote. 

On June 15, 2004, H.R. 3658 was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. No further action was taken on H.R. 3658 in the 108th Congress. 

UNDOCUMENTED ALIEN EMERGENCY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 2004

(H.R. 3722) 

To amend section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to impose conditions on 

Federal reimbursement of emergency health services furnished to 

undocumented aliens. 

Summary 

H.R. 3722 amends the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to: (1) prohibit Federal reimbursement of hospital-provided emergency and certain transportation services to undocumented aliens unless the hospital provides 

the Secretary of Homeland Security with information regarding an 

alien’s citizenship, immigration status, financial data, and employer; (2) make the employer of certain undocumented aliens responsible for such costs; and, (3) direct the Secretary to initiate removal procedures against an alien determined to be removable 

under Federal immigration law. It also directs the Secretary of 

State to analyze the feasibility of effecting treaties for international 

medical evacuations. 

Legislative History 

On January 21, 2004, H.R. 3722 was introduced by Mr. Rohrabacher, and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On May 17, 2004, H.R. 3722 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules. The bill failed to pass the House by a vote 

of 88 yeas and 331 nays. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3722 in the 108th Congress. 

161 

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

(H. Res. 278) 

Recognizing the contributions Lou Gehrig and his legacy have 

made in the fight against Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. 

Summary 

H. Res. 278 recognizes the celebration of Lou Gehrig’s 100th 

birthday and commends the contribution Gehrig and his legacy 

have made to the search for better treatments and a cure for 

Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS). The Resolution supports cutting-edge research to find a cure for ALS. In addition, H. Res. 278 

applauds all organizations, including the ALS Association, in their 

efforts to raise awareness about the disease, support research initiatives, and assist those suffering with ALS and their families. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 278 was introduced in the House by Mr. Engel and nineteen cosponsors on June 16, 2003, and was referred to the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 19, 2003, H. Res. 278 was considered in the House by 

unanimous consent, and passed the House without objection. 

AWARENESS OF HEART DISEASE AMONG WOMEN

(H. Res. 522) 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there 

is a critical need to increase awareness and education about heart 

disease and the risk factors of heart disease among women. 

Summary 

H. Res. 522 declares the sense of the House of Representatives 

that there is a critical need to increase awareness and education 

about heart disease and the risk factors for heart disease among 

women. 

The resolution commends First Lady Laura Bush and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in their vital campaign to 

raise public awareness that heart disease is the number one killer 

of American women. 

The resolution also recognizes that the more women become cognizant of the scourge of heart disease and how to prevent it, the 

more likely they can make sound lifestyle changes to help reduce 

their chances of getting heart disease. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 522 was introduced in the House by Mr. Snyder and 

fifty-eight cosponsors on February 10, 2004, and was referred to 

the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on March 3, 2004, and ordered H. Res. 522 reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H. Res. 522 

to the House on March 18, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–440). 

162 

On March 23, 2004, H. Res. 522 was considered in the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House on March 24, 

2004, by a vote of 420 yeas and 0 nays. 

GIVE KIDS A SMILE

(H. Res. 567) 

Congratulating the American Dental Association for sponsoring 

the second annual ‘‘Give Kids a Smile’’ program which emphasizes 

the need to improve access to dental care for children, and thanking dentists for volunteering their time to help provide needed dental care. 

Summary 

H. Res. 567 congratulates the American Dental Association for 

establishing and continuing its sponsorship of the ‘‘Give Kids a 

Smile’’ program and thanks the thousands of dentists, dental hygienists, dental assistants, and others who volunteer their time and 

support the program. The resolution also emphasizes the need to 

improve access to dental care for children. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 567 was introduced by Mr. Cantor on March 17, 2004, 

and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 30, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 567 reported to the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On October 4, 2004, H. Res. 567 was considered by the House 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a vote of 

338 yeas and 0 nays. 

SUPPORTING THE NEED TO PROVIDE CANCER PATIENTS WITH ACCESS

TO TREATMENT OPTIONS

(H. Res. 669) 

To express the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the need to provide prostate cancer patients with meaningful access to information on treatment options. 

Summary 

H. Res. 669 expresses the sense of the House of Representatives 

that national and community organizations and health care providers have played a commendable role in supplying information 

concerning the importance of screening for prostate cancer and the 

treatment options available for patients with prostate cancer. The 

resolution also recommends that the Federal Government and the 

States should ensure that health care providers supply prostate 

cancer patients with appropriate information and any other tools 

necessary for prostate cancer patients to receive readily understandable descriptions of the advantages, disadvantages, benefits, 

and risks of all medically efficacious treatments for prostate cancer. 

163 

Legislative History 

Mr. Deal introduced H. Res. 669 in the House on June 9, 2004, 

and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

H. Res. 669 was considered in the House under suspension of the 

rule on June 14, 2004, and passed the same day by a vote of 377 

yeas and 3 nays. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RESOLUTION OF

INQUIRY

(H. Res. 776) 

Of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services provide certain documents to the 

House of Representatives relating to estimates and analyses of the 

cost of the Medicare prescription drug legislation. 

Summary 

H. Res. 776 requests the President of the United States and directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to estimates and analysis of the cost of the Medicare prescription drug 

legislation. Specifically, the information requested is as follows: (1) 

any estimates and any analyses made by the Department of Health 

and Human Services or the Office of Management and Budget relating to the cost of any version of the Medicare prescription drug 

legislation; (2) any communications (whether written or electronic) 

relating to such cost estimates or analyses or their release to Members of Congress between employees within the executive branch; 

(3) any communications (whether written or electronic) relating to 

such cost estimates or analyses or their release to Members of Congress between employees of the executive branch and Members of 

Congress or their staff; and, (4) any communications (whether written or electronic) relating to such cost estimates or analyses or 

their release to Members of Congress between employees of the executive branch and persons other than employees of the executive 

branch or legislative branch. For purposes of this resolution the 

term ’any version of the Medicare prescription drug legislation’ refers to any version of H.R. 1 or S. 1 (108th Congress), including the 

conference report on H.R. 1. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Rangel and four cosponsors introduced H. Res. 776 on September 15, 2004. The resolution was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means. 

On September 30, 2004 the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 776 adversely reported to the House, without amendment, by a recorded 

vote of 26 yeas and 21 nays, a quorum being present. 

On October 7, 2004, H. Res. 776 was reported adversely to the 

House by the Committee on Ways and Means (H. Rpt. 108–754, 

Part I). 

164 

On October 8, 2004, H. Res. 776 was reported adversely to the 

House by the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H. Rpt. 108– 

754, Part II). 

No further action was taken on H. Res. 776 in the 108th Congress. 

ENCOURAGING PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PROMOTE

HEALTHY LIFESTYLES

(H. Con. Res. 34) 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that private health insurance companies should take a proactive role in promoting healthy 

lifestyles. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 34 commends Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson for his efforts to encourage private health 

insurance companies to take action to encourage people in the 

United States to lead active lifestyles. It also expresses the sense 

of the Congress that private health insurance companies should: (1) 

do more to encourage people in the United States to lead a 

healthier and more active lifestyle to prevent expensive and painful 

illnesses; (2) provide discounted premiums to those who exercise 

regularly; and, (3) encourage frequent screening for diseases that 

are easily treatable in their early stages. Finally, the resolution applauds private health insurance companies that are already taking 

these actions. 

Legislative History 

Ms. McCarthy introduced H. Con. Res. 34 in the House along 

with six cosponsors on February 12, 2003, and it was referred to 

the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on September 30, 2004, and ordered H. Con. Res. 

34 reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

H. Con. Res. 34 was considered in the House under suspension 

of the rules on October 5, 2004, and passed the House by voice 

vote. 

The resolution was received in the Senate on October 6, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 34 in the 108th 

Congress. 

U.S. CORPORATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

(H. Con. Res. 108) 

Encouraging corporations to contribute to faith-based organizations. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 108 encourages all U.S. corporations to make greater contributions to faith-based organizations battling societal challenges. The resolution also expresses the sense of Congress that 

such corporations are important partners with government in efVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
165 

forts to overcome social problems; and should not adopt policies 

that prohibit contributions to faith-based organizations. 

Legislative History 

H. Con. Res. 108 was introduced by Mr. Mark Green on March 

20, 2003 and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On April 30, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 

in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 108 reported to 

the House, amended, by a voice vote. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 108 in the 108th 

Congress. 

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF HUMAN GENOME MONTH AND

DNA DAY

(H. Con. Res. 110) 

Recognizing the sequencing of the human genome as one of the 

most significant scientific accomplishments of the past one hundred 

years and expressing support for the goals and ideals of Human 

Genome Month and DNA Day. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 110 recognizes: (1) the 50th anniversary of the accomplishment of describing the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid 

(DNA), the essential completion of the sequencing of the human genome in April 2003, and the development of a plan for the future 

of genomics; and, (2) the sequencing of the human genome as one 

of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past 100 

years. The resolution also expresses support for the goals and 

ideals of Human Genome Month (April 2003) and DNA Day (April 

25, 2003). 

Legislative History 

Ms. Slaughter introduced H. Con. Res. 110 in the House along 

with nine cosponsors on March 24, 2003, and was referred to the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on April 30, 2003, and ordered H. Con. Res. 110 

reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

H. Con. Res. 110 was considered in the House under suspension 

of the rules on June 10, 2003, and passed the House on June 11, 

2003 by a vote of 414 yeas and 0 nays. 

The resolution was received in the Senate on June 12, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Judiciary. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 110 in the 108th 

Congress. 

ANNIVERSARY OF THE ORPHAN DRUG ACT

(H. Con. Res. 147) 

Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act 

and the National Organization for Rare Disorders. 

166 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 147 commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Orphan Drug Act and the National Organization for Rare Disorders 

and recognizes the contributions such Act has made to the rare disease community. 

Legislative History 

H. Con. Res. 147 was introduced in the House by Mr. Foley and 

14 cosponsors on April 10, 2003, and was referred to the House 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on April 30, 2003, and ordered H. Con. Res. 147 

reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The House considered H. Con. Res. 147 under suspension of the 

rules on May 19, 2003, and passed the House, as amended, by a 

vote of 386 yeas and 0 nays. 

The resolution was received in the Senate on May 20, 2003, and 

referred to the Committee on Judiciary. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 147 in the 108th 

Congress. 

SUPPORTING THE NATIONAL MARROW DONOR PROGRAM

(H. Con. Res. 206) 

Supporting the National Marrow Donor Program and other bone 

marrow donor programs and encouraging Americans to learn about 

the importance of bone marrow donation. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 206 expresses support for the goals and ideals of the 

National Marrow Donor Program and other bone marrow donor 

programs. 

Legislative History 

H. Con. Res. 206 was introduced by Mr. Burgess and one cosponsor on June 4, 2003, and was referred to the House Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

On November 21, 2003, H. Con. Res. 206 was considered in the 

House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a 

vote of 432 yeas and 2 nays. 

The resolution was received in the Senate on November 22, 2003, 

and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions on December 9, 2003. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 206 in the 108th 

Congress. 

DEFIBRILLATION PROGRAMS

(H. Con. Res. 250) 

Recognizing community organization of public access 

defibrillation programs. 

167 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 250 recognizes the growing number of community 

activists, organizations, and municipal governments leading the national effort to establish public access defibrillation programs and 

encourages the continued development and implementation of programs in a variety of community venues. 

Legislative History 

H. Con. Res. 250 was introduced by Mr. Brown (OH) on July 23, 

2003 and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On September 30, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 250 

reported to the House by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

On October 5, 2004, H. Con. Res. 250 was considered in the 

House under suspension of the rules and was passed the House by 

a voice vote. 

On October 6, 2004, the resolution was received in the Senate. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 250 in the 108th 

Congress. 

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY DIAGNOSIS, PROPER TREAT- MENT, AND ENHANCED PUBLIC AWARENESS OF TOURETTE SYN- DROME

(H. Con. Res. 430) 

Recognizing the importance of early diagnosis, treatment, and 

enhanced public awareness of Tourette Syndrome and supporting 

the goals and ideals of National Tourette Syndrome Awareness 

Month. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 430 recognizes: (1) the impact that Tourette Syndrome can have on people living with the disorder; (2) the importance of an early diagnosis and proper treatment of Tourette Syndrome; and, (3) the need for enhanced public awareness of Tourette 

Syndrome. The resolution also expresses support for the goals and 

ideals of National Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month, as designated by the Tourette Syndrome Association, and encourages the 

President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the 

United States and interested organizations to observe National 

Tourette Syndrome Awareness Month. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Young (FL) introduced H. Con. Res. 430 on May 18, 2004, 

and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

H. Con. Res. 430 was considered in the House under suspension 

of the rules on November 17, 2004, and passed the House by voice 

vote. 

The resolution was received in the Senate on November 18, 2004. 

On December 8, 2004, H. Con. Res. 430 was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 430 in the 108th 

Congress. 

168 

NATIONAL NURSE PRACTITIONERS WEEK

(H. Con. Res. 500) 

Honoring the goals and ideals of National Nurse Practitioners 

Week. 

Summary 

H. Con. Res. 500 honors the goals and ideals of National Nurse 

Practitioners Week and offers Congress’ sincere support to nurse 

practitioners around the country as they continue to provide highquality health care to many Americans. 

Legislative History 

H. Con. Res. 500 was introduced by Mr. Burgess on September 

28, 2004 and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 

Commerce. 

On October 6, 2004, H. Con. Res. 500 was considered by the 

House under suspension of the rules and was passed the House by 

a voice vote. 

On October 7, 2004, the resolution was received in the Senate. 

No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 500 in the 108th 

Congress. 

NATIONAL AUTISM AWARENESS MONTH

(H. Res. 605) 

Recognizing the importance of increasing awareness of autism, 

supporting programs for increased research and improved treatment of autism, improving training and support for individuals 

with autism and those who care for individuals with autism, and 

for other purposes. 

Summary 

H. Res. 605 supports the goals and ideals of a National Autism 

Awareness Month. The resolution recognizes and commends the 

parents and relatives of children with autism for their sacrifice and 

dedication in providing for the special needs of children with autism and for absorbing significant financial costs for specialized 

education and support services. The resolution supports aggressive 

research to: (1) determine causes of autism; (2) identify the best 

methods of early intervention and treatment; (3) expand programs 

for individuals with autism across their lifespan; and, (4) promote 

understanding of the special needs of individuals with autism. 

The resolution also commends the Department of Health and 

Human Services for implementing programs to study the epidemiology of autism and related disorders and advancing autism research at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the 

National Institutes of Health. 

The resolution stresses the need to begin early intervention services soon after an individual has been diagnosed with autism, noting that early intervention strategies are the primary therapeutic 

options for individuals with autism and early intervention significantly improves outcomes for individuals with autism and can reduce the level of funding and services needed later in life. 

169 

H. Res. 605 supports the Federal Government’s commitment to 

provide states with part of the costs needed to educate children 

with disabilities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act. 

The resolution encourages more Americans to pursue the teaching profession and to be trained with the skills necessary to teach, 

assist, and respond to special needs students, including those students with autism. 

The resolution recognizes the importance of worker training programs that meet the needs of developmentally disabled individuals, 

including those individuals with autism. 

Finally, H. Res. 605 notes that people with autism can be, and 

are, productive members of the workforce if they are given appropriate support, training, and early intervention services. 

Legislative History 

H. Res. 605 was introduced in the House by Mr. Tierney and 

forty-five cosponsors on April 22, 2004, and was referred to the 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce. 

On May 5, 2004, H. Res. 605 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by vote 

of 421 yeas and 0 nays. 

NATIONAL EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH

(S. Con. Res. 48) 

A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of ‘‘National Epilepsy Awareness Month’’ and urging support for epilepsy 

research and service programs. 

Summary 

S. Con. Res. 48 supports the goals and ideals of a National Epilepsy Awareness Month. Urges support for epilepsy research programs at the National Institutes of Health and at the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

Legislative History 

S. Con. Res. 48 was introduced in the Senate by Ms. Lincoln and 

six cosponsors on June 4, 2003 and referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

On June 12, 2003, the Senate passed S. Con. Res. 48, amended, 

by unanimous consent. 

On June 16, 2003, S. Con. Res. 48 was received by the House and 

was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On November 19, 2003, S. Con. Res. 48 was considered in the 

House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a 

voice vote. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

ASSESSING THE NEED TO ENACT MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM

On February 27, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing assessing the need to enact medical liability reform. 

170 

The hearing focused on the current medical liability crisis, what 

other factors contribute to rising medical malpractice premiums, 

and the potential impact of medical liability reforms, such as those 

proposed in H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely 

Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003, on patients’ rights, insurance 

companies and physicians. Testimony was received from a patient 

perspective and a health law attorney, as well as industry representatives and consumer advocacy groups. 

MEDICAID TODAY: THE STATES’ PERSPECTIVE

On March 12, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing examining the Medicaid program. The hearing focused on the governors’ assessment of the current Medicaid program faces and ways to improve and strengthen the program. Specifically, the hearing focused on current and long term Medicaid financing, and other issues surrounding Medicaid. The only witnesses were three Governors who provided their views on the Medicaid program. 

HIV/AIDS, TB, AND MALARIA: COMBATING A GLOBAL PANDEMIC

On March 20, 2003, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on 

global pandemics of infectious diseases. The hearing focused on the 

global HIV/AIDS pandemic, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa, and 

ways to prevent the spread of disease in the future. Testimony was 

received from the Department of Health and Human Services, as 

well as policy and industry specialists. 

FURTHERING PUBLIC HEALTH SECURITY: PROJECT BIOSHIELD

On March 27, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on Project Bioshield. Project Bioshield aims to spur 

the research and development of new vaccines, drugs, and other 

countermeasures to deal with those biological, chemical, nuclear or 

radiological agents that pose a material threat to our national security. Witnesses included Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

Tommy Thompson, and other experts in vaccine and drug research 

and development. 

DESIGNING A TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG

BENEFIT

On April 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing to provide Members with a better understanding of the 

complexity involved in designing a Medicare drug benefit and some 

of the issues that needed to be considered in developing legislation 

creating the drug benefit, including program design and management tools necessary to ensure its affordability and long-term sustainability. Witnesses included former government officials and economic advisers from the Congressional Budget Office, the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, and the Health Care Financing Administration, as well as consumer advocacy groups. 

STRENGTHENING AND IMPROVING MEDICARE

On April 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing to examine the long-term fiscal situation of the Medicare 

171 

program and options for improving beneficiary choices within the 

program. Witnesses included a representative from the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services, policy and industry specialists, 

and a consumer advocacy group. In addition, one witness testified 

as a Medicare beneficiary. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH: DECODING OUR FEDERAL

INVESTMENT IN GENOMIC RESEARCH

On May 22, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on genomic research activities at the National Institutes of 

Health. The hearing focused on how NIH is utilizing taxpayer dollars to improve and expand its research activities in the field of 

genomics research. Witnesses included representatives of the National Institute of Health, the Department of Energy, the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, and university based and private sector researchers. 

CONSUMER DIRECTED SERVICES: IMPROVING MEDICAID BENEFICIARIES’ 

ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE

On June 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing to examine several state demonstration projects that allow 

Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities to manage some of their 

personal care services. The hearing focused on these demonstration 

programs, known generically as Cash and Counseling, which allow 

certain beneficiaries to choose to receive a monthly cash-allowance 

for personal care services based on a professional assessment of 

their needs. Witnesses discussed whether this program should be 

expanded nationwide and concerns with including other Medicaidcovered services within the program. Witnesses included representatives from Florida’s program, as well as an advocacy group representing disabled beneficiaries, and the mother of a disabled beneficiary. 

NIH: MOVING RESEARCH FROM THE BENCH TO THE BEDSIDE

On July 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the translation of medical research findings at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The hearing focused on how 

NIH’s technology transfer policies are working to bring new products to the market and improve public health, and evaluated 

whether NIH’s technology transfer policies prohibit the federal government from fairly recouping research investments. Witnesses included representatives of the NIH, including the National Library 

of Medicine, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as representatives of the biotechnology industry, university researchers, 

and patient advocates. 

CHALLENGES FACING THE MEDICAID PROGRAM IN THE 21ST CENTURY

On October 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on the challenges facing the Medicaid program, including incentives for states to maximize federal contributions and 

financing. Witnesses at the hearing provided perspectives on the 

challenges facing the Medicaid program and suggested program 

changes. Witnesses included the Administrator for the Centers for 

172 

Medicare and Medicaid Services, a delegate to a State House of 

Representatives, and a policy specialist from the health care industry. 

EVALUATING COORDINATION OF CARE IN MEDICAID: IMPROVING

QUALITY AND CLINICAL OUTCOMES

On October 15, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 

to examine how the Medicaid program coordinates care for its 

beneficiaries to improve health and quality of care. The hearing focused on the efforts to coordinate care through disease management, Primary Care Case Management programs, integrated managed care plans, and other new innovative state approaches. Witnesses included government health care officials from Florida, 

North Carolina and Indiana, and representatives from health care 

organizations. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG MONITORING: STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE

TREATMENT AND DETER PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

On March 4, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on prescription drug monitoring programs. The hearing focused on examining the role of prescription drug monitoring 

programs in preventing and deterring prescription drug abuse. The 

hearing will consist of one panel of witnesses. Witnesses testifying 

included a Member of Congress, the Secretary of the Kentucky 

Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and representatives of the 

General Accounting Office and two trade associations. 

INTER-GOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS: VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERALSTATE MEDICAID PARTNERSHIP OR LEGITIMATE STATE BUDGET TOOL?

On March 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to examine how some states use inter-governmental 

transfers (IGTs), and the impact these funding mechanisms have 

on the growth in Federal Medicaid spending. Witnesses included officials from the U.S. General Accounting Offices and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, as well as a hospital representative. 

On April 1, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held its second 

oversight hearing to examining IGTs. Witnesses included representative from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

and the Ohio Office of Medicaid. 

NIH: RE-ENGINEERING CLINCIAL RESEARCH

On March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held a joint 

oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness of the Select Committee on Homeland Security on clinical research activities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The 

hearing focused on how NIH is conducting clinical research and 

highlighted areas for improvement. Witnesses included the Director 

of the NIH, as well as representatives of the biotechnology industry, patient advocacy organizations, and university researchers. 

173 

PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE: A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT MEDICARE

PAYMENT SYSTEM

On May 5, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the history of how physicians and other health professionals are reimbursed under Medicare. The hearing also focused 

on the mechanics of the current payment system, including the formula used to annually update payment made to doctors under the 

Medicare physician fee schedule. Witnesses included representatives from the U.S. General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, and Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. 

MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNT CARDS

On May 20, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 

regarding implementation of the Medicare Drug Discount Card 

Program established in the Medicare Modernization Act. The hearing focused on efforts to educate beneficiaries about the new benefit, and savings that they may realize from enrolling in the program. Witnesses included the Administrator for the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services, as well as industry and consumer 

advocacy representatives and a Medicare beneficiary. 

SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITIES AND PUBLIC NEEDS: BALANCING NIH’S

PRIORITY SETTING PROCESS

On June 2, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on the National Institutes of Health budget and priority 

setting process. The hearing focused on examining how the National Institutes of Health set research priorities to meet public 

health needs and advance scientific opportunities. Witnesses included representatives of the National Institutes of Health. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOOD SECURITY PROVISIONS FOR THE PUB- LIC HEALTH SECURITY AND BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RE- SPONSE ACT

On June 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing to review the implementation of food security provisions. 

The hearing reviewed new requirements for registration of food 

processors, prior notice of imported food shipments, establishment 

and maintenance of records, and administrative detention. The 

Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, enacted in the 107th Congress, mandated these requirements. Witnesses included representatives of the Food and 

Drug Administration, U.S. Customs, the food processing and distribution industries. 

ASSESSING DIGESTIVE DISEASE RESEARCH AND TREATMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

On July 8, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing on digestive disease research and treatment programs. The 

hearing focused on raising awareness about digestive diseases and 

examining what the National Institutes of Health and others are 

doing to study these diseases and improve patient outcomes. Witnesses included representatives of the National Institutes of 

Health, patient advocates, and university researchers. 

174 

HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: IMPROVING QUALITY AND VALUE

OF PATIENT CARE

On July 22, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing examining health information technology. The hearing provided the Committee with an opportunity to assess the Administration’s new strategic information technology framework. The hearing 

also explored the promise that health information technology holds 

for improving America’s healthcare system and examined barriers 

that have slowed the adoption of this technology by hospitals, doctors, and other providers of healthcare. Witnesses included the 

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and a 

representative of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and 

other policy experts. 

KEEPING SENIORS HEALTHY: NEW PREVENTIVE BENEFITS IN THE

MEDICARE MODERNIZATION ACT

On September 21, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held a 

hearing to examine the preventive benefits in the Medicare program, specifically the expansion of preventive benefits under the 

Medicare Modernization Act, which take effect January 1, 2005. 

Witnesses provided insight on the need for these services, how the 

medical community determines the appropriateness of utilizing 

these services, and mechanisms to ensure beneficiaries take advantage of them. Witnesses included representatives from the Agency 

for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Government Accountability Office, and a non-profit research organization. 

IMPROVING WOMEN’S HEALTH: UNDERSTANDING DEPRESSION AFTER

PREGNANCY

On September 29, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held an 

oversight hearing on depression after pregnancy. The hearing focused on raising awareness about depression experienced by some 

women after pregnancy. Testimony was received from patient advocates and medical practitioners. 

FLU VACCINE: PROTECTING HIGH-RISK INDIVIDUALS AND

STRENGTHENING THE MARKET

On November 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health and the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a joint hearing 

on the flu vaccine shortage, ways to protect high-risk individuals 

for this flu season, and decrease the chances of this problem happening next year. The Committee received testimony from representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, 

the Government Accountability Office, a state health department, 

and various segments of the health care industry. 

HEARINGS HELD

Assessing the Need to Enact Medical Liability Reform.—Oversight hearing on Assessing the Need to Enact Medical Liability Reform. Hearing held on February 27, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–2. 

175 

Medicaid Today: The States’ Perspective.—Oversight hearing on 

Medicaid Today: The States’ Perspective. Hearing held on March 

12, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–24. 

HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria: Combating a Global Pandemic.— 

Oversight hearing on HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria: Combating a 

Global Pandemic. Hearing held on March 20, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–10. 

Furthering Public Health Security: Project BioShield.—Joint 

oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness of the Select Committee on Homeland Security on Furthering 

Public Health Security: Project BioShield. Hearing held on March 

27, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–11. 

Designing a Twenty-First Century Medicare Prescription Drug 

Benefit.—Oversight hearing on Designing a Twenty-First Century 

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. Hearing held on April 8, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–25. 

Strengthening and Improving Medicare.—Oversight hearing on 

Strengthening and Improving Medicare. Hearing held on April 9, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–22. 

National Institutes of Health: Decoding our Federal Investment in 

Genomic Research.—Oversight hearing on National Institutes of 

Health: Decoding our Federal Investment in Genomic Research. 

Hearing held on May 22, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–23. 

Consumer Directed Services: Improving Medicaid Beneficiaries’ 

Access to Quality Care.—Oversight hearing on Consumer Directed 

Services: Improving Medicaid Beneficiaries’ Access to Quality Care. 

Hearing held on June 5, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–28. 

NIH: Moving Research from the Bench to the Bedside.—Oversight 

hearing on NIH: Moving Research from the Bench to the Bedside. 

Hearing held on July 10, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–38. 

Health Insurance Certificate Act of 2003.—Hearing on H.R. 2698, 

Health Insurance Certificate Act of 2003. Hearing held on July 17, 

2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–44. 

Challenges Facing the Medicaid Program in the 21st Century.— 

Oversight hearing on Challenges Facing the Medicaid Program in 

the 21st Century. Hearing held on October 8, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–58. 

Evaluating Coordination of Care in Medicaid: Improving Quality 

and Clinical Outcomes.—Oversight hearing on Evaluating Coordination of Care in Medicaid: Improving Quality and Clinical Outcomes. Hearing held on October 15, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–57. 

Prescription Drug Monitoring: Strategies to Promote Treatment 

and Deter Prescription Drug Abuse.—Oversight hearing on Prescription Drug Monitoring: Strategies to Promote Treatment and 

Deter Prescription Drug Abuse. Hearing held on March 4, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–73. 

Inter-governmental Transfers: Violations of the Federal-State 

Medicaid Partnership or Legitimate State Budget Tool?—Oversight 

hearing on Inter-governmental Transfers: Violations of the FederalState Medicaid Partnership or Legitimate State Budget Tool? Hearings held on March 18, 2004 and April 1, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–76. 

176 

NIH: Re-engineering Clinical Research.—Oversight hearing on 

NIH: Re-engineering Clinical Research. Hearing held on March 25, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–69. 

Physician Fee Schedule: A Review of the Current Medicare Payment System.—Oversight hearing on Physician Fee Schedule: A Review of the Current Medicare Payment System. Hearing held on 

May 5, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–95. 

Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004.— Hearing on H.R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004. Hearing held on May 11, 2004. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–102. 

Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Cards: Immediate Savings 

for Seniors.—Oversight hearing on Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Cards: Immediate Savings for Seniors. Hearing held on May 

20, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–130. 

Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Balancing NIH’s Priority Setting Process.—Oversight hearing on Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Balancing NIH’s Priority Setting Process. 

Hearing held on June 2, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–131. 

Implementation of the Food Security Provisions of the Public 

Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response 

Act.—Oversight hearing on Implementation of the Food Security 

Provisions of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. Hearing held on June 25, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–114. 

Assessing Digestive Diseases Research and Treatment Opportunities.—Oversight hearing on Assessing Digestive Diseases Research 

and Treatment Opportunities. Hearing held on July 8, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–94. 

Health Information Technology: Improving Quality and Value of 

Patient Care.—Oversight hearing on Health Information Technology: Improving Quality and Value of Patient Care. Hearing held 

on July 22, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–132. 

Keeping Seniors Healthy: New Preventive Benefits in the Medicare 

Modernization Act.—Oversight hearing on Keeping Seniors 

Healthy: New Preventive Benefits in the Medicare Modernization 

Act. Hearing held on September 21, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–117. 

Improving Women’s Health: Understanding Depression After 

Pregnancy.—Oversight hearing on Improving Women’s Health: Understanding Depression After Pregnancy. Hearing held on September 29, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–133. 

Flu Vaccine: Protecting High-Risk Individuals and Strengthening 

the Market.—Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations on Flu Vaccine: Protecting High-Risk 

Individuals and Strengthening the Market. Hearing held on November 18, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–134. 

(177) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

(Ratio 18–15) 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Vice Chairman 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

or other mode. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

ORBIT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–39 (H.R. 2312) 

To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to provide 

for the orderly dilution of the ownership interest in Inmarsat by 

former signatories to the Inmarsat Operating Agreement. 

Summary 

H.R. 2312 amended the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to 

extend until June 30, 2004, the deadline for conducting an initial 

public offering of securities for the successor entities of Inmarsat; 

and allow the Federal Communications Commission to extend such 

deadline to not later than December 31, 2004. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 2312 was introduced in the House on June 3, 2003 by Mr. 

Shimkus and four cosponsors, and was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 12, 2003, H.R. 2312 passed the House by unanimous 

consent. 

178 

On June 17, 2003, H.R. 2312 was received in the Senate. On 

June 20, 2003, the bill passed the Senate without amendment by 

unanimous consent and was cleared for the White House. 

The President signed H.R. 2312 on June 30, 2003 (Public Law 

108–39). 

A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF 1962 TO

EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR THE INTELSAT INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING

Public Law 108–228 (S. 2315) 

To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend 

the deadline for the INTELSAT initial public offering. 

Summary 

S. 2315 amends section 621(5)(A)(i) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 763(5)(A)(i)) by moving the initial public offering deadline for INTELSAT from December 31, 2003 to 

June 30, 2005, and allowing the Federal Communications Commission to extend the deadline not later than December 31, 2005. 

Legislative History 

S. 2315 was introduced in the Senate on April 8, 2004, by Senator Burns. On April 27, 2004, the Senate passed S. 2315 without 

amendment by unanimous consent. 

On April 28, 2004, S. 2315 was received in the House and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On May 5, 2004, and the House passed S. 2315 by unanimous 

consent. 

On May 18, 2004, S. 2315 was signed by the President (Public 

Law 108–228). 

CONTROLLING THE ASSAULT OF NON-SOLICITED PORNOGRAPHY AND

MARKETING ACT OF 2003

Public Law 108–187 (S. 877, H.R. 2214, H.R. 2515) 

A bill to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations 

and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. 

Summary 

Certain provisions within S. 877 are applicable specifically to 

wireless services. The bill requires the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, to promulgate rules to protect consumers from unwanted 

mobile service commercial messages. In promulgating such rules, 

the FCC is required to take into consideration whether a provider 

of mobile commercial services has a previously existing relationship 

with a subscriber. The FCC is also required to consider the ability 

of a sender of a commercial electronic mail message to reasonably 

determine that the message is a mobile service commercial message. 

179 

Legislative History 

On April 10, 2003, S. 877 was introduced by Senator Burns and 

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. On July 16, 2003, the Committee met in open markup session and favorably reported S. 877, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

On May 22, 2003, H.R. 2214 was introduced by Mr. Burr, was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On June 18, 2003, H.R. 2515 the Anti-Spam Act of 2003, sponsored by Mrs. Wilson, was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, and the Committee on the Judiciary. 

On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet held a joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on three legislative 

proposals; H.R. 2214, The Reduction in the Distribution of Spam 

Act of 2003; H.R. 2515, Anti-Spam Act of 2003; and S. 877, Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act 

of 2003. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2214 and H.R. 2515 in the 

108th Congress. 

On October 22, 2003, S. 877 passed the Senate with an amendment by a roll call vote of 97 yeas and 0 nays. 

S. 877 was received in the House and held at the desk on October 24, 2003. The bill was considered in the House under suspension of the rules on November 21, 2003. On November 22, 2003, the 

House passed the bill, as amended, by a vote of 392 yeas to 5 nays. 

On November 25, 2003, the Senate concurred with the House 

amendment, with an amendment, by unanimous consent. 

On December 8, 2003, the bill was received in the House. By 

unanimous consent the House agreed to the Senate amendment 

without objection. 

S. 877 was presented to the President on December 11, 2003, and 

on December 16, 2003, the President signed S. 877 (Public Law 

108–187). 

2004 CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT

Public Law 108–199 (H.R. 2673) 

An Act making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

This Act contained a variety of 2004 appropriations provisions, 

including those that originated in the House and Senate Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bills. Section 629 of the 

bill amended section 202(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

to require the Federal Communications Commission (the Commission) to amend its rules to raise to 39 percent from 35 percent the 

potential national audience reach cap for broadcast television station licensees. Doing so changed a decision by the Commission to 

raise the cap to 45 percent. Broadcasters that exceed the cap for 

reasons other than population growth have two years to divest. The 

180 

Commission may not forbear under section 10 of the Communications Act of 1934 from applying the 39–percent cap. Section 629 of 

the Act also replaced the Commission’s biennial review of media 

ownership regulation with a quadrennial review, and stated that 

the 39–percent cap shall not be subject to that quadrennial review. 

Legislative History 

Mr. Wolf introduced H.R. 2799, the House Commerce, Justice, 

and State appropriations bill, on July 21, 2003. The bill, as amended, contained language that would have reinstated the 35–percent 

potential national audience reach cap. 

Senator Gregg introduced S. 1585, the Senate Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations bill, on September 5, 2003. It also 

contained language reinstating the 35–percent potential audience 

reach cap when it was reported out of the Senate Appropriations 

Committee. 

On July 9, 2003, Mr. Bonilla introduced H.R. 2673, the House 

Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations. 

H.R. 2673 was considered in the House on July 14, 2003, and 

passed the House by a vote of 347 yeas and 64 nays. The bill was 

received in the Senate on July 15, 2003. 

On November 6, 2003, the Senate passed H.R. 2673, with an 

amendment by a vote of 93 yeas and 1 nay, and requested a conference. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on November 18, 

2003, and agreed to a conference. 

On November 19, 2003, a conference was held. 

On December 8, 2003, the House considered the conference report to accompany H.R. 2673 (H. Rpt. 108–401), which contained 

language creating a 39–percent potential audience reach cap. The 

House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 242 yeas and 

176 nays. 

The Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 65 yeas and 

28 nays on January 22, 2004. 

On January 22, 2003 the bill was presented to the President, 

who signed H.R. 2673 on January 23, 2004 (Public Law 108–199). 

MODIFYING AND EXTENDING CERTAIN PRIVATIZATION REQUIREMENTS

OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF 1962

Public Law 108–371 (S. 2896) 

A bill to modify and extend certain privatization requirements of 

the Communications Satellite Act of 1962. 

Summary 

S. 2896 amends the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend until June 30, 2005, the deadline for conducting an initial 

public offering of securities for Inmarsat. The bill also allows a successor entity to forgo an initial public offering and public securities 

listing if the entity adequately certifies to the Federal Communications Commission that the entity has achieved substantial dilution 

of signatory financial interests, that any signatories that retain a 

financial interest do not possess effective control of such entity, and 

181 

that no intergovernmental organization has any ownership interest 

in a successor entity of INTELSAT or more than a minimal interest in a successor entity of Inmarsat. 

Legislative History 

S. 2896 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Burns, read 

twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by unanimous consent on October 5, 2004. 

On October 6, 2004, S. 2896 was received in the House and held 

at the desk. The House passed S. 2896 by unanimous consent on 

October 8, 2004. 

S. 2896 was presented to the President on October 13, 2004, and 

signed by the President on October 25, 2004 (Public Law 108–371). 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

Public Law 108–375 (H.R. 4200, S. 2400) 

(Telecommunications Provisions) 

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 

for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for 

other purposes. 

Summary 

S. 2400 contained provisions that increased the Federal Communications Commission penalties for the broadcast of indecent material up to $275,000 per incident, set out additional factors for the 

Commission to consider when examining broadcast indecency violations, regulated violent television programming, and suspended 

media ownership rules adopted by the Commission. 

Legislative History 

On April 22, 2004, Mr. Hunter introduced H.R. 4200 by request, 

and the bill was referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. 

There was an exchange of correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Armed 

Services on May 14, 2004. 

On May 14, 2004, the Committee on Armed Service reported 

H.R. 2400 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 108–491). 

H.R. 4200 was considered in the House on May 19 and 20, 2004, 

under the provisions of H. Res. 648. The bill passed the House by 

vote of 391 yeas and 34 nays. 

On June 23, 2004, the bill passed the Senate with an amendment 

by unanimous consent. The Senate insisted on its amendment, 

asked for a conference, and appointed conferees. 

The House disagreed to the Senate amendment on September 28, 

2004, agreed to a conference agreed and appointed conferees. The 

Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce for consideration of secs. 596, 601, 3111, 3131, 3133 and 

3201 of the House bill, and secs. 321–323, 716, 720, 1084–1089, 

1091, 2833, 3116, 3119, 3141, 3142, 3145, 3201, and 3503 of the 

182 

Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference, 

Messrs. Barton, Upton, and Dingell. 

A conference was held on September 29, 2004, and on October 8, 

2004 the conference report was filed (H. Rpt. 108–767). 

On October 8, 2004, H. Res. 843, providing for the consideration 

of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4200, passed the House 

by voice vote. Then, on October 9, 2004, the conference report was 

considered in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 843. The 

conference report passed the House by a vote of 359 yeas and 14 

nays. 

Senate agreed to conference report by unanimous consent on October 9, 2004. 

On October 21, 2004, the bill was presented to President, and 

was signed by the President on October 28, 2004 (Public Law 108– 

375). 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

Public Law 108–447 (H.R. 4818, S. 2812) 

(Telecommunications Provisions) 

Making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, 

and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2005, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

Title IX of Division J of H.R. 4818 reauthorizes certain expiring 

communications and copyright act provisions that govern the retransmission of broadcast television signals by direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers such as DirecTV and EchoStar. It also modernizes other provisions to enhance consumer choice, increase parity between satellite and cable operators, and further promote competition. Because Title IX implicates both communications and 

copyright issues, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and 

the House Judiciary Committee worked together closely. The Communications Act provisions in Title IX stem from H.R. 4501, which 

passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The copyright 

act provisions stem from H.R. 4518, which passed the House Judiciary Committee. These provisions were combined with communications and copyright act provisions that originated in the Senate 

Commerce and Judiciary committees. 

The Communications Act provisions would: (1) extend to December 31, 2009, from December 31, 2004, the retransmission consent 

exemption that allows satellite operators to provide distant broadcast signals to unserved households without having to compensate 

the distant broadcasters; (2) allow satellite operators to carry on a 

comparable basis the same ‘‘significantly viewed’’ broadcast signals 

that cable operators may already carry; (3) require satellite operators within 18 months of enactment to enable all subscribers in a 

market in which local signals are available over their satellite service to be able to receive over a single satellite dish all the local analog broadcast stations in that market, and to be able to receive over 

a single satellite dish all the local digital channels in that market, 

although the local analog and local digital channels may be on sepVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00188 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
183 

arate dishes; (4) allow, but not require, satellite operators to carry 

low-power television stations; (5) require satellite operators to stop 

offering distant broadcasts signals once they carry local signals, but 

grandfather certain existing subscribers; (6) extend to satellite operators the same privacy obligations that cable operators are subject to; and (7) codify existing practice allowing satellite operators 

to provide distant digital signals to consumers in analog white 

areas, and allow satellite operators to begin providing distant digital signals in digital white areas as early as April 2006. 

Legislative History 

On July 13, 2004, the House Committee on Appropriations reported an original measure to the House (H. Rpt. 108–599). The 

measure was introduced by Mr. Kolbe as H.R. 4818 on the same 

day. 

The House considered H.R. 4818 under the provisions of H. Res. 

715, and on July 15, 2004 the House passed H.R. 4818 by a vote 

of 365 yeas and 41 nays. 

On July 19, 2004, the bill was received in the Senate, read twice, 

and referred to the Committee on Appropriations. 

On September 23, 2004, the Senate Committee on Appropriations 

discharged by unanimous consent, and was considered in the Senate. H.R. 4818 passed the Senate in lieu of S. 2812 with an amendment by voice vote. The Senate insisted on its amendment, asked 

for a conference, and appointed conferees. 

On November 16, 2004, the House disagreed to the Senate 

amendment, and agreed to a conference without objection. 

On November 17, 2004, the conferees agreed to file the conference report, and filed the conference report on November 20, 

2004 (H. Rpt. 108–792). 

Conference report to accompany H.R. 4818 was considered in the 

House under the provisions of H. Res. 866, and passed the House 

by 344 yeas, 51 nays, and 1 present on November 20, 2004. 

The Senate passed the conference report by a vote of 65 yeas and 

30 nays on November 20, 2004. 

The conference report was held at desk, pending the adoption of 

H. Con. Res. 528, which directed the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 4818. 

The Senate passed H. Con. Res. 528 on November 20, 2004 and the 

House passed H. Con. Res. 528 on December 6, 2004. 

H.R. 4818 was presented to the President on December 7, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 8, 2004 (Public Law 

108–447). 

INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004

Public Law 108–458 (H.R. 10, S. 2845) 

(Telecommunications Provisions) 

A bill to provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes. 

184

Summary 

Section 7501 of the conference report filed with S. 2845 expresses 

the sense of Congress that Congress must pass legislation in the 

first session of the 109th Congress to establish a comprehensive approach to the return of television broadcast spectrum as early as 

December 31, 2006. Such legislation is necessary because Congress 

gave television broadcasters additional 6 megahertz blocks of spectrum in 1997 to transmit digital broadcasts simultaneously with 

the analog broadcasts they transmit on their original 6 megahertz 

blocks of spectrum. Broadcasters in a market are each supposed to 

cease analog transmissions and return 6 megahertz of spectrum by 

the later of December 31, 2006, or once more than 85-percent of television households in the market can receive digital channels using 

a digital television, a digital-to-analog converter box, cable service, 

or satellite service. Once returned, 24 megahertz of the spectrum 

is to be repurposed for public safety use and the rest can be auctioned for advanced commercial services, such as wireless 

broadband. Unfortunately, the 85-percent penetration test could 

delay the termination of analog broadcasts and the return of spectrum well beyond 2007. Absent comprehensive digital television 

transition legislation, the 85-percent test will hinder the 

repurposing of spectrum for these important public safety and advanced commercial uses. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 10 was introduced by Speaker Hastert on September 24, 

2004, and referred primarily to the Permanent Select Committee 

on Intelligence, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial 

Services, the Committee on Government Reform, the Committee on 

International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Rules, the Committee on Science, the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Ways and 

Means, and the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker. 

On October 4, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

was granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than October 5, 2004. The Committee on Energy and Commerce 

was discharged on October 5, 2004. 

On October 7 and 8, 2004, H.R. 10 was considered in the House 

under the provisions of H. Res. 827. Section 5011 was adopted as 

part of an en bloc amendment on the floor of the House by voice 

vote on October 8, 2004 (Amendment 793 offered by Mr. Hoekstra). 

H.R. 10 passed the House by a vote of 282 yeas and 134 nays on 

October 8, 2004. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 10 in the 108th Congress, 

but H.R. 10 was superseded by S. 2845. 

On September 23, 2004, S. 2845 was introduced by Senator Collins, read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 

under Read the First Time. 

On September 24, 2004, the bill was read the second time and 

placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

185 

S. 2845 passed the Senate with amendments by a vote of 96 yeas 

and 2 nays on October 6, 2004. 

On October 16, 2004, the House is considered to have taken S. 

2845 from the Speaker’s table, stricken all after the enacting clause 

and inserted the text of H.R. 10 as passed by the House, pursuant 

to H. Res. 827. The House insisted on its amendment and asked 

for a conference pursuant to H. Res. 827. 

The Senate disagreed to House amendment on October 16, 2004, 

agreed to request for conference, and appointed conferees. 

On December 7, 2004, the conference report to accompany S. 

2845 was filed (H. Rpt. 108–796), containing sections 7303(i), 7402, 

7403, and 7405 under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce. 

The conference report was considered in the House under the 

provisions of H. Res. 870 on the same day, and passed the House 

by a vote of 336 yeas and 75 nays. 

On December 8, 2004, the Senate passed the conference report 

by a vote of 89 yeas and 2 nays. 

S. 2845 was presented to the President on December 15, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 17, 2004 (Public Law 

108–458). 

ENHANCE 911 ACT OF 2004 COMMERCIAL SPECTRUM ENHANCEMENT

ACT UNIVERSAL SERVICE ANTIDEFICIENCY TEMPORARY SUSPENSION

ACT

Public Law 108–484 (H.R. 5419, H.R. 2898, S. 1250, H.R. 1320) 

To amend the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to facilitate the reallocation of spectrum from governmental to commercial users; to improve, enhance, 

and promote the Nation’s homeland security, public safety, and citizen activated emergency response capabilities through the use of 

enhanced 911 services, to further upgrade Public Safety Answering 

Point capabilities and related functions in receiving E–911 calls, 

and to support in the construction and operation of a ubiquitous 

and reliable citizen activated system; and to provide that funds received as universal service contributions under section 254 of the 

Communications Act of 1934 and the universal service support programs established pursuant thereto are not subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the 

Antideficiency Act, for a period of time. 

Summary 

H.R. 5419 contains the legislative text of three bills, two of which 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce took action on. 

Title I of H.R. 5419 contains the legislative language of H.R. 

2898, a bill that amends the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to: (1) establish a joint 

program to facilitate coordination between Federal, state, and local 

emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, public 

safety organizations, telecommunications carriers, and telecommunications equipment manufacturers and vendors involved in 

the implementation of E–911 services; (2) create an E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to implement such program; and, (3) 

develop a management plan for such program. The bill also directs 

186 

the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 

to provide grants to eligible entities (states, local governments, 

tribal organizations) for the implementation of Phase II E–911 

services through planning, infrastructure improvements, telecommunications equipment purchases, and personnel training. Further, the bill requires each grant applicant to: (1) certify to the Assistant Secretary and the Administrator, at the time of application 

and annually thereafter if receiving such a grant, that no portion 

of designated E–911 charges (taxes or fees designated or presented 

to deliver or improve E–911 services) imposed by a state or other 

taxing jurisdiction is being obligated or expended for any other purpose than for which the surcharges are designated; and, (2) agree 

that if such charges are used for any other purpose, all of the grant 

funds shall be returned. 

Title II of the bill contains the legislative language of H.R. 1320, 

the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act of 2003. This title provides a clear, predictable mechanism for compensating federal entities that move their spectrum operations from frequencies that are 

reallocated from government to non-government use. Title II provides federal government spectrum licensees that incur relocation 

costs because of the reallocation of spectrum bands from government to non-government use with the authority to receive reimbursement for their relocation costs from the Spectrum Relocation 

Fund (SRF). This title also requires the Commission to notify the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) eighteen months before conducting an auction of reallocated 

spectrum. 

Title III of H.R. 5419 exempts the Universal Service Fund from 

provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act for one year from the date of 

enactment. This language addresses an accounting problem affecting the Universal Administrative Service Company’s (USAC) administration of the Schools and Libraries ‘‘E-rate’’ program, that 

was created when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

ordered USAC to comply with Federal government accounting 

standards (GovGAAP) by October 1, 2004. 

Legislative History 

On March 18, 2003, H.R. 1320 was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

a hearing on March 25, 2003. The Subcommittee received testimony from Federal officials from the Commerce and Defense Departments, representatives from technology and wireless companies, and public interest groups. 

On April 9, 2003, the Subcommittee met in open markup session 

and approved the bill for Full Committee consideration, amended, 

by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on April 30, 2003, and ordered H.R. 1320 reported 

to the House, as amended, by voice vote. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1320 to 

the House, amended, on June 3, 2003 (H. Rpt. 108–137). 

187 

On June 11, 2003, the House considered the bill under suspension of the rules, and passed the bill, as amended, by a vote of 408 

yeas and 10 nays. 

H.R. 1320 was received in the Senate on June 12, 2003, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill was reported by the Senate Commerce Committee 

with an amendment on October 17, 2003, and placed on the Senate 

Calendar under General Orders. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 1320 in the 108th Congress. 

On July 25, 2003, H.R. 2898 was introduced by Rep. Shimkus, 

and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On September 11, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a legislative hearing on H.R. 2898, 

receiving testimony from Federal and state officials, a representative from the Tennessee Emergency Communications Board and a 

wireless company. 

The Subcommittee met in open markup session on September 23, 

2003, and approved H.R. 2898 for Full Committee consideration, as 

amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session on October 1, 2003, and ordered H.R. 2898 reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

present. 

On October 14, 2003, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

reported H.R. 2898 to the House (H. Rpt. 108–311). 

The House considered the bill under the suspension of the rules, 

and it passed the bill, as amended, by voice vote on November 4, 

2003. 

The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation on December 9, 2003. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 2898 during the 108th Congress. 

H.R. 5419 was introduced by Mr. Upton on November 20, 2004, 

and contained the provisions of H.R. 2898 and H.R. 1320. The bill 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On November 20, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

was discharged from further consideration of the bill, and H.R. 

5419 was considered in the House by unanimous consent. The bill 

passed the House without objection. 

H.R. 5419 was received in the Senate and read twice on November 20, 2004. On December 8, 2004, H.R. 5419 passed the Senate 

by unanimous consent. 

H.R. 5419 was presented to the President on December 16, 2004, 

and was signed by the President on December 23, 2004 (Public Law 

108–494). 

FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2003

(H.R. 3266) 

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants 

to first responders, and for other purposes. 

188 

Summary 

H.R. 3266 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish clearly defined essential capabilities for State and local government preparedness for terrorism, for purposes of covered grants 

(i.e., any grant provided by the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) to States or regions to improve the ability of first responders 

to prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate terrorist attacks, including any grant under DHS’s State Homeland Security Grant 

Program or Urban Area Security Initiative); and (2) establish 

(within 120 days after enactment) and regularly update (at least 

every three years) the definition for ‘‘essential capabilities.’’ Section 

3 of the bill addresses the uses for which funds may be granted. 

One use under the program involves ‘‘the costs of commercially 

available equipment that complies with, where applicable, national 

voluntary consensus standards, and that facilitates interoperability, coordination, and integration between emergency communications systems.’’ Section 7 of the bill includes the Sense of Congress that interoperable emergency communications systems 

should be developed and promulgated as soon as practicable for use 

by first responders. 

Legislative History 

On October 8, 2003, Mr. Cox introduced H.R. 3266, which was 

referred to the Select Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the 

Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker. 

On April 2, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 

granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than June 7, 2004, and the bill was referred sequentially to the 

House Committee on Science for a period ending not later than 

April 2, 2004, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause (n), rule X. 

The Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on May 11, 2004. 

On June 3, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 

granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than June 14, 2004. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open 

markup session and ordered H.R. 3266 reported to the House, 

amended, by voice vote. 

On June 14, 2004, the Committee on Energy and Commerce was 

granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 

than June 21, 2004. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3266 to 

the House, amended on June 14, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–460, Part II.). 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3266 in the 108th Congress, 

but certain aspects became law as part of Public Law 108–458, the 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. 

189 

BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT

(H.R. 3717, S. 2056) 

To increase the penalties for violations by television and radio 

broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmissions of obscene, 

indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 3717 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to (1) raise 

the maximum penalty cap for broadcast stations, networks and 

performers to $500,000 for each indecency violation; (2) give the 

Commission guidance to set penalties so the agency takes into consideration whether the violator is a small or large broadcaster, 

company or individual, and the type of entity responsible for the 

indecent programming; (3) allow the Commission to pursue an individual or network for a first indecency offense; (4) require the Commission to complete action on indecency complaints within 270 

days; (5) require the Commission to take indecency violations into 

account during license application, renewal and modifications; and, 

(6) after three indecency violations, require the Commission to hold 

a license revocation hearing to consider revoking the broadcast station license. 

Legislative History 

H.R. 3717 was introduced in the House by Mr. Upton on January 

21, 2004, with 25 cosponsors. The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

On January 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the Commission’s 

enforcement of broadcast indecency standards. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from government, industry and family group 

representatives. On February 11, 2004, and February 26, 2004, the 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held legislative hearings on H.R. 3717. The Subcommittee received testimony from broadcasters and government representatives. 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet met 

on February 12, 2004, in open markup session and approved H.R. 

3717 for Full Committee consideration, without amendment, by a 

voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met on March 3, 

2004, in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3717 reported to 

the House, amended, by a recorded vote of 49 yeas and 1 nay, a 

quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3713 to 

the House, amended, on March 9, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–434). 

The House considered H.R. 3717, as amended, under the provisions of H. Res. 554, on March 11, 2004, and passed H.R. 3717 by 

a vote of 391 yeas to 22 nays, with 1 present. 

On March 11, 2004, H.R. 3717 was received in the Senate. The 

bill was read the first time on March 25, 2004. On March 26, 2004, 

H.R. 3717 was read the second time and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 3717 in the 108th Congress. 

190 

SATELLITE HOME VIEWER EXTENSION AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF

2004

(H.R. 4501, H.R. 4518) 

A bill to extend the statutory license for secondary transmissions 

by satellite carriers of transmissions by television broadcast stations under title 17, United States Code, and to amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to such transmissions, and 

for other purposes. 

Summary 

H.R. 4518 would reauthorize certain expiring communications 

and copyright act provisions that govern the retransmission of 

broadcast television signals by direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers such as DirecTV and EchoStar. It also would modernize 

other provisions to enhance consumer choice, increase parity between satellite and cable operators, and further promote competition. Because the bill implicates both communications and copyright issues, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the 

House Judiciary Committee have worked closely in drafting the 

legislation. Pursuant to a compromise between the House Energy 

and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, 

H.R. 4518 was amended to combine its copyright provisions with 

the Communications Act provisions of H.R. 4501. 

The Communications Act provisions would: (1) extend to December 31, 2009, from December 31, 2004, the retransmission consent 

exemption that allows satellite operators to provide distant broadcast signals to unserved households without having to compensate 

the distant broadcasters; (2) allow satellite operators to carry on a 

comparable basis the same ‘‘significantly viewed’’ broadcast signals 

that cable operators may already carry; (3) require one year from 

enactment that satellite operators enable all subscribers in a market in which local signals are available over their satellite service 

to be able to receive all the local broadcast stations in that market 

using a single satellite dish; (4) allow, but not require, satellite operators to carry low-power television stations; (5) require satellite 

operators to stop offering distant broadcast signals once they carry 

local signals, but grandfather certain existing subscribers; and, (6) 

require the Commission to propose by the end of 2005 how it would 

define a digital white area (the area in which digital signals cannot 

be viewed using an over-the-air receiver) once the digital transition 

is complete. 

Legislative History 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

an oversight hearing on March 10, 2004, on the expiring satellite 

legislation and a legislative hearing on April 1, 2004, on staff draft 

reauthorization legislation. 

The Subcommittee met in open markup session on April 28, 

2004, and approved a Committee Print for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Full Committee on Energy and Commerce met on June 3, 

2004, in open markup session and ordered a Committee Print reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 

191 

present. The Full Committee agreed by unanimous consent to a request by Chairman Barton to file a report on a bill to be introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be deemed as action 

on that bill. Mr. Upton introduced the Committee Print on June 3, 

2004, as H.R. 4501, and the Committee filed a report (H. Rpt. 108– 

634) on July 22, 2004, on that bill. No further action was taken on 

H.R. 4501. 

H.R. 4518, which was ordered reported by the Committee on the 

Judiciary, was amended to include the Communications Act provisions of H.R. 4501. H.R. 4518 was considered in the House under 

suspension of the rules on October 6, 2004, and passed the House, 

as amended, by voice vote. 

H.R. 4518 was received in the Senate on October 7, 2004. No further action was taken on the bill in the 108th Congress. Certain 

aspects of the bill became law as part of Public Law 108–447, the 

2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act. 

JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2004

(H.R. 4600) 

To amend section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify the prohibition on junk fax transmissions. 

Summary 

H.R. 4600 reestablishes an existing business relationship exception to allow entities to send commercial faxes to their customers 

and members without first receiving written permission and establishes new opt-out safeguards to provide additional protections for 

the recipients. Accordingly, three years after enactment, the Commission has the discretion to enact a time-limited EBR between 5– 

7 years if the Commission finds that the EBR has resulted in a significant number of complaints regarding junk faxes, resulting complaints were a result of the EBR being too long and not consistent 

with the reasonable expectations of the consumer; a cost benefit 

analysis justifies a shorter EBR; and small businesses’ costs are 

not too burdensome. The Commission has the discretion to exempt 

by rule non-profit trade or professional associations from the notice 

of opt-out because these groups are opt-in organizations. 

Legislative History 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

a legislative hearing on ‘‘H.R. ll, The June Fax Prevention Act 

of 2004’’ on June 15, 2004. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from government, industry and association representatives. 

H.R. 4600 was introduced in the House by Rep. Upton on June 

16, 2004 with 23 cosponsors, which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce. 

On June 24, 2004, the Full Committee on Energy and Commerce 

met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4600 reported to the 

House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 4600 to 

the House, amended, on July 9, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–593). 

192 

The House considered H.R. 4600 under suspension of the rules 

on July 20, 2004, and passed H.R. 4600, as amended, by a voice 

vote. 

On July 21, 2004, H.R. 4600 was received in the Senate and on 

July 23, 2004, H.R. 4600 was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

No further action was taken on H.R. 4600 in the 108th Congress. 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

HEALTH OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR

On February 5, 2003, and February 26, 2003, the Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet held oversight hearings 

focusing on the health of the telecommunications sector. These 

hearings explored the telecommunications sector’s economic slump, 

its affect on service providers and equipment manufacturers, and 

the impact of Commission regulations on the telecommunications 

sector. The Committee received testimony from Federal officials, financial analysts, and public policy and research organizations. 

On January 29, 2003, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, and 20 Members of the Committee wrote to Commission 

Chairman Michael Powell to express concern that the Commission’s local competition rules were subverting the intent of the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 and undermining the economic 

well-being of the telecommunications sector. The Members asked 

the Commission to foster facilities-based competition by providing 

all competitors with the incentive to build new networks. 

On March 17, 2004, Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, 

and Representatives Upton and Boucher wrote to U.S. Attorney 

General John Ashcroft to request that the Solicitor General not appeal a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 

that struck down the Commission’s February 2003 unbundling 

rules. The authors of the letter believed that the court’s decision 

would have a positive impact on the health of the telecommunications sector. 

E–911

On June 4, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet held an oversight hearing on wireless E–911 implementation which explored the progress that wireless carriers, local 

exchange carriers (LECs), and public safety answering points 

(PSAPs) were making in their efforts to deploy Phase II Enhanced 

911 service within the deadlines and parameters established by the 

Commission. The Committee received testimony from a Federal 

agency, representatives of large wireless providers, and a representative of the National Emergency Number Association. 

PUBLIC SAFETY ACCESS TO SPECTRUM

On June 11, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet held an oversight hearing on the spectrum needs of 

our nation’s first responders. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from Members of Congress, state and local officials, commercial 

mobile service providers, and equipment manufacturers. Topics 

that were explored included interference problems on radio freVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
193 

quencies used by first responders, interoperability communication 

difficulties with officials in other agencies on common radio frequencies, and modernizing communications systems. 

SPAM

On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet held a joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on the legislative 

efforts to combat unsolicited commercial email, also known as 

spam. The hearing explored the problems created by spam, which 

has been a ballooning problem for electronic mail users, businesses, 

and Internet service providers. Witnesses included representatives 

from: large Internet service providers, a technology company, a 

commercial email advertiser, the FTC, a state Attorneys General 

office, and a consumer advocacy group. 

BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

a series of hearings to explore the changing telecommunications 

marketplace and the regulatory treatment of broadband services. 

New technologies continue to alter the telecommunications marketplace and provide consumers with innovative new applications, yet 

a range of broadband services have been regulated in a disparate 

manner. On July 21, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 

disparity in regulation and what the proper regulatory framework 

for broadband Internet access services should be. On July 7, 2004, 

the Subcommittee held a hearing on the impact of Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) services on the communications industry as 

well as the impact of the current statutory/regulatory framework 

for communications services on VOIP services. In both hearings, 

the Subcommittee received testimony from Federal and state government officials, representatives from communications companies, 

and public policy organizations. 

On January 29, 2003, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member John 

Dingell, and 20 Members of the Committee wrote to the Chairman 

of the Federal Communications Commission to urge the Commission to ensure that unbundling rules are not applied to broadband 

facilities. 

On January 22, 2004, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, and Representatives Upton and Boucher wrote to the Chairman of the Commission to resolve ambiguities in the Commission’s 

2003 broadband rules. 

On March 17, 2004, Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, 

and Representatives Upton and Boucher wrote to the Attorney 

General to urge the Solicitor General not to appeal the decision of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that upheld the 

Commission’s rules that exempted packet-switched and fiber facilities from onerous facilities. 

On September 23, 2004, Chairman Barton, Ranking Member 

John Dingell, and Representative Upton wrote to the Commission 

to urge that the Commission’s unbundling rules imposed under 

Section 271 of the Communications Act be reconciled with the Commission’s unbundling rules imposed under Section 251 to ensure 

that companies investing in new broadband facilities have the maxVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
194 

imum incentive to deploy such facilities as quickly and ubiquitously 

as possible. 

On October 5, 2004, Chairman Barton, 32 Members of the Committee, and 29 non-Committee Members wrote to the Commission 

to urge the agency to determine that VOIP services are interstate 

and subject to the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction. 

On October 20, 2004, Ranking Member Dingell and 22 Members 

of the Committee wrote to the Commission supporting the notion 

that Voice over Internet Protocol Service is interstate in nature and 

that the Commission should have exclusive jurisdiction over rate 

regulation. These Members urged the Commission, however, to proceed with careful deliberation on VoIP matters and not disrupt the 

critical and longstanding role of the states in protecting consumers 

and ensuring public safety. 

UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM

On September 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the future 

of universal service. Competition and technology have begun to 

erode the existing universal service system, and, in the long term, 

current universal service policies do not seem sustainable. This 

hearing focused on competition and advances in technology, as well 

as current and future funding mechanisms. Witnesses from Federal 

and state regulatory bodies as well as large and small telecommunications companies provided testimony. 

COMPUTER VIRUSES

On November 6, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet held an oversight hearing on computer viruses. 

The hearing focused on the increasing threat from malicious code, 

known as computer worms and viruses, as well as the financial impact on business and consumers of computer viruses. Testimony 

was received from representatives of cyber security companies, software companies, and Internet service providers. 

EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY

On November 19, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing to explore proposals that use spectrum auction proceeds for investments in education technology initiatives. Proposals that the Subcommittee examined would use spectrum auction proceeds to fund educational, 

cultural, and employment-training programs. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from witnesses including an FTC Commissioner, a former Federal official, a professor of international development, and the author of a study that has explored using auction 

proceeds to fund these types of programs. 

DECENCY

On January 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet held an oversight hearing to examine the Federal 

Communications Commission’s enforcement of the decency rules 

that apply to over-the-air broadcasters. The focus of this hearing 

was to examine the rules for broadcast decency and the Federal 

195 

Communications Commission’s effectiveness in enforcing those 

rules. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Commission, 

an attorney representing television programmers, a local television 

broadcaster, and an advocacy group. 

COMPETITION IN THE COMMUNICATIONS MARKETPLACE

On February 4, 2004 and May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on 

Telecommunications and the Internet held oversight hearings on 

the state of competition in the communications marketplace in general, as well as how the convergence of voice, video, and data services is enabling companies using different technology platforms to 

compete head-to-head. During the first hearing, the Subcommittee 

received testimony from financial analysts and economists. During 

the second hearing, the Subcommittee witnessed demonstrations of 

new technology devices that reflect the convergence of voice, video, 

and data services. The hearing included demonstrations of video 

services over wireless telephones, wireless broadband Internet access, and an Internet-based unified messaging service. The Subcommittee also heard testimony regarding the delivery of 

broadband services using the electricity grid. 

MULTICHANNEL VIDEO COMPETITION

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

an oversight hearing on March 10, 2004 regarding the reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 

(SHVIA). SHVIA governs how satellite operators carry broadcast 

television signals. Portions of SHVIA expire December 31, 2004. 

The purpose of the hearing was to consider whether to extend 

SHVIA, and to determine if Congress should make any changes in 

the regime governing satellite delivery of broadcast television. Witnesses included the Federal Communications Commission as well 

as industry representatives and consumer groups. 

Full Committee Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, 

Subcommittee Chairman Upton, Subcommittee Ranking Member 

Markey, and Congressman Deal sent a letter on May 18, 2004, to 

Commission Chairman Powell asking the Commission to investigate the provision by cable and satellite operators of a la carte or 

themed-tier service, as well as whether anything currently prevents cable and satellite operators from offering a la carte or 

themed-tier service on a voluntary basis. The letter requested that 

the Commission submit a report to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by November 18, 2004, with its findings. The 

Committee received a report on the day requested. 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

an oversight hearing on July 14, 2004, with respect to multi-channel video competition. The Subcommittee explored the level of competition between cable and satellite operators. The Subcommittee 

also examined whether cable and satellite operators should be required to offer a la carte or themed-tier television service, or at 

least be permitted to do so voluntarily. Witnesses included representatives of cable and satellite operators, television programmers, and advocacy groups. 

196 

DOT KIDS

On May 6, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet held an oversight hearing on The ‘Dot Kids’ Internet 

Domain: Protecting Children Online. This hearing focused on the 

roll out of the new ‘‘dot kids’’ Internet domain and what actions industry, government, and other organizations could take to ensure 

the domain is a success. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from government officials, industry representatives, and child safety organizations. 

DIGITAL TELEVISION

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

an oversight hearing on June 2, 2004, on the digital television transition. Witnesses included industry representatives, advocacy 

groups, and a think tank. 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

an oversight hearing on July 21, 2004, on a digital television transition plan implemented in Berlin, Germany. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported on how Berlin, Germany, administered a hard deadline for its digital television transition, and 

other industry representatives debated whether a similar approach 

might work in the United States. 

The Committee hosted a digital television roundtable discussion 

on July 22, 2004. The roundtable was designed to solicit updates 

from the Commission, industry and consumer groups on the DTV 

transition’s progress and remaining DTV issues. 

HOMELAND SECURITY

On June 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet held an oversight hearing which focused on protecting 

homeland security, and explored the progress made in ensuring 

that public safety communications systems and therefore communications between different public-safety agencies are interoperable. Many first responders use communications equipment that is 

several decades old and often based upon incompatible standards. 

Further, local agencies are experiencing a budgetary crunch and do 

not have the resources necessary to purchase new equipment, and 

there is no universal band or bands of frequencies on which all 

public safety agencies can communicate simultaneously using radios. This hearing explored whether interoperability is an achievable goal and the steps that need to be taken in order to achieve 

that goal. Witnesses included officials from Federal, state/local 

agencies, and wireless companies. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCESS TO COMMUNICATION NETWORKS IN A

DIGITAL AGE

On September 8, 2004, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the implications for law enforcement of a migration of communications traffic from circuit-switched networks to packetswitched networks. Law enforcement officials strongly believe that 

they should have the same access to communications traffic offered 

through broadband services that law enforcement has with respect 

to traditional telephone services. Witnesses included representaVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
197 

tives from federal law enforcement agencies and representatives of 

the communications sector. 

TELEVISION VIOLENCE

On September 13, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the effect of 

television violence on children. The hearing took place in Chicago, 

Illinois. The hearing focused on the emotional and psychological 

impact that television violence has on young children as well as 

what can be done to reduce the exposure of children to such violent 

programming. Witnesses included trade and policy organizations, 

mental health experts, and legal scholars. 

On March 5, 2004 Full Committee Chairman Barton, Ranking 

Member Dingell, and 37 members of the committee signed a letter 

to FCC Chairman Powell asking the Commission to issue a notice 

of inquiry regarding excessively violent broadcast television programming. The Commission is to submit a report to the House Energy and Commerce Committee by January 1, 2005. 

WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

On September 29, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing to examine 

wireless directory assistance policies and programs. Witnesses included a U.S. Senator, representatives of the wireless industry, 

consumer groups, and technology companies. 

HEARINGS HELD

Health of the Telecommunications Sector: A Perspective from Investors and Economists.—Oversight hearing on the Health of the 

Telecommunications Sector: A Perspective from Investors and 

Economists. Hearing held on February 5, 2003. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–3. 

Health of the Telecommunications Sector: A Perspective from the 

Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission.—Oversight hearing on the Health of the Telecommunications Sector: A 

Perspective from the Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. Hearing held on February 26, 2003. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–6. 

Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act.—Hearing on H.R. 1320, 

the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act. Hearing held on 

March 25, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–12. 

Wireless E–911 Implementation: Progress and Remaining Hurdles.—Oversight hearing on Wireless E–911 Implementation: 

Progress and Remaining Hurdles. Hearing held on June 4, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–27. 

The Spectrum Needs of Our Nation’s First Responders.—Oversight hearing on the Spectrum Needs of Our Nation’s First Responders. Hearing held on June 11, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–34. 

Legislative Efforts to Combat Spam.—Joint hearing with the 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on 

Legislative Efforts to Combat Spam. Hearing held on July 9, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–35. 

198 

The Regulatory Status of Broadband Services: Information Services, Common Carriage, or Something in Between.—Oversight hearing on the Regulatory Status of Broadband Services: Information 

Services, Common Carriage, or Something in Between? Hearing 

held on July 21, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–40. 

E–911 Implementation Act of 2003.—Hearing on H.R. 2898, a bill 

to improve homeland security, public safety, and citizen activated 

emergency response capabilities through the use of enhanced 911 

wireless services. Hearing held on September 11, 2003. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–47. 

The Future of Universal Service.—Oversight hearing on the Future of Universal Service. Hearing held on September 24, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–49. 

Computer Viruses: The Disease, the Detection, and the Prescription for Protection.—Oversight hearing on Computer Viruses: The 

Disease, the Detection, and the Prescription for Protection. Hearing 

held on November 6, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–66. 

Digital Dividends and Other Proposals to Leverage Investment in 

Technology.—Oversight hearing on Digital Dividends and Other 

Proposals to Leverage Investment in Technology. Hearing held on 

November 19, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–50. 

‘‘Can you say that on TV?’’: An Examination of the FCC’s Enforcement with Respect to Broadcast Indecency.—Oversight hearing on 

‘‘Can you say that on TV?’’: An Examination of the FCC’s Enforcement with Respect to Broadcast Indecency. Hearing held on January 28, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–67. 

The Current State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace.—Oversight hearing on the Current State of Competition in 

the Communications Marketplace. February 4, 2004. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–63. 

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.—Hearing on H.R. 3717, the 

Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. Hearings held on February 

11, 2004 and February 26, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108– 

68. 

Oversight of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act.—Oversight hearing on the Oversight of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act. Hearing held on March 10, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–75. 

The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Reauthorization Act of 

2004.—Hearing on H.R. ll, the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2004. Hearing held on April 1, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–78. 

The ‘‘Dot Kids’’ Internet Domain: Protecting Children Online.— 

Oversight hearing on the ‘‘Dot Kids’’ Internet Domain: Protecting 

Children Online. Hearing held on May 6, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–84. 

Competition in the Communications Marketplace: How Convergence is Blurring the Lines Between Voice, Video, and Data Services.—Oversight hearing on Competition in the Communications 

Marketplace: How Convergence is Blurring the Lines Between 

Voice, Video, and Data Services. Hearing held on May 19, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–85. 

Advancing the DTV Transition: An Examination of the FCC 

Media Bureau Proposal.—Oversight hearing on Advancing the DTV 

199 

Transition: An Examination of the FCC Media Bureau Proposal. 

Hearing held on June 2, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–86. 

The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004.—Hearing on H.R. ll, the 

Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004. Hearing held on June 15, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–87. 

Protecting Homeland Security: A Status Report on Interoperability Between Public Safety Communications Systems.—Oversight 

hearing on Protecting Homeland Security: A Status Report on 

Interoperability Between Public Safety Communications Systems. 

Hearing held on June 23, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–98. 

Voice Over Internet Protocol Services: Will the Technology Disrupt 

the Industry or Will Regulation Disrupt the Technology?—Oversight 

hearing on Voice Over Internet Protocol Services: Will the Technology Disrupt the Industry or Will Regulation Disrupt the Technology? Hearing held on July 7, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 

108–104. 

Competition and Consumer Choice in the MVPD Marketplace— 

Including an Examination of Proposals to Expand Consumer 

Choice, Such as A La Carte and Themed-Tiered Offerings.—Oversight hearing on Competition and Consumer Choice in the MVPD 

Marketplace—Including an Examination of Proposals to Expand 

Consumer Choice, Such as A La Carte and Themed-Tiered Offerings. Hearing held on July 14, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 

108–110. 

The Digital Television Transition: What We Can Learn from Berlin.—Oversight hearing on the Digital Television Transition: What 

We Can Learn from Berlin. Hearing held on July 21, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–101. 

Law Enforcement Access to Communications Systems in the Digital Age.—Oversight hearing on Law Enforcement Access to Communications Systems in the Digital Age. Hearing held on September 8, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–115. 

The Effect of Television Violence on Children: What Policymakers 

Need to Know.—Oversight hearing on the Effect of Television Violence on Children: What Policymakers Need to Know. Hearing held 

on September 13, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–116. 

An Examination of Wireless Directory Assistance Policies and 

Programs.—Oversight hearing on an Examination of Wireless Directory Assistance Policies and Programs. Hearing held on September 29, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–122. 

(201) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

(Ratio 9–7) 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Vice Chairman 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

(ex officio) 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

(ex officio) 

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

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

INTRODUCTION

During the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations conducted inquiries with respect to Federal agencies 

within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including the Department of 

Health and Human Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 

Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, 

the Department of Energy, the Federal Communications Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. The Subcommittee’s oversight has exposed improper and illegal governmental and corporate activities, uncovered 

waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars, strengthened our national security and our defenses against terrorist attacks, improved 

health care and environmental protection, and promoted the enhanced protection of American consumers and investors. These investigations have provided the basis for enactment of corrective 

legislation in the 108th Congress, and will provide the foundation 

for legislative action in the 109th Congress. In addition, the Subcommittee’s inquiries have resulted in meaningful changes in the 

Executive Branch’s implementation and enforcement of current law 

and the establishment of cost-saving measures in the operations of 

the various departments and agencies. 

202 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING 

TO HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE 

HEARINGS

MEDICAL LIABILITY

On February 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing at St. Mary Medical Center in 

Langhorne, Pennsylvania, on issues surrounding the rise of medical 

liability insurance premiums. The hearing examined the impact of 

rising premiums on the provision of health care in the state, the 

business practices of Pennsylvania insurers, the influence of medical liability claims on the rates, and the current and proposed 

state and federal legislative initiatives directed at addressing medical liability insurance issues. The governor of Pennsylvania spoke 

on the first panel. The hearing’s second panel featured patients and 

physicians who testified to their experiences with the provision of 

health care, as well as a hospital administrator and a representative of the American Medical Association. The third panel featured 

representatives from the insurance industry, medical schools and 

other medical enterprises, academia, advocacy organizations, and 

the trial bar. The hearing helped focus attention on the effects and 

causes of rising medical liability premiums in Pennsylvania, and 

nationally. 

ACCESS TO PHARMACEUTICALS

On March 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing in Aventura, Florida, on South Florida’s access to affordable prescription drugs. The hearing examined 

the experiences of Florida’s senior citizens concerning the cost of 

drugs, the perspective of federal and state regulators regarding the 

safety and efficacy of drugs imported into Florida, and the perspective of pharmaceutical industry and pharmacy associations on efforts to assist low-income seniors in obtaining free or discounted 

pharmaceuticals. There were three panels of witnesses. The first 

panel was comprised of two private citizens and a representative 

of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). The second 

panel was comprised of representatives from the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) and the Bureau of Statewide Pharmaceutical 

Services of the Florida Department of Health. The third panel consisted of three representatives from the pharmacy and pharmaceutical industries. The hearing continued the Committee’s efforts 

to oversee and address issues surrounding the safety and efficacy 

of pharmaceuticals, particularly, the Subcommittee’s work in the 

107th Congress examining the ability of the FDA to protect against 

counterfeit or poor-quality imported pharmaceuticals. 

SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME (SARS)

On May 7, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a public Member briefing and then a hearing on public 

health issues surrounding an outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory 

Syndrome (SARS), and subsequent worldwide surveillance alert 

203 

surrounding the spread of this deadly viral infection from China in 

the Winter and Spring of 2003. The Subcommittee’s briefing with 

the executive director of the Communicable Diseases division of the 

World Health Organization provided information on the international public health community’s ability to respond to infectious 

disease outbreaks such as SARS. The hearing that followed the 

briefing served to (1) provide information about the causes of 

SARS, how SARS is affecting health agencies and hospitals, and 

the ability of hospitals to respond adequately to SARS and other 

major public health threats; (2) review research that could help develop vaccines or produce drugs that could treat the SARS outbreak, or help diagnosis the disease; and (3) examine the lessons 

learned from the SARS outbreak to determine whether the United 

States has sufficient resources and authority to prevent or contain 

SARS or other future outbreaks. The Subcommittee heard testimony from the three panels of witnesses. The first panel featured 

the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary 

for Public Health Emergency Preparedness, the Director of the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, an official with 

the FDA, and an official with the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office. The second panel was comprised of witnesses from the public health community, who could identify issues raised by the SARS 

outbreak. The third panel was comprised of witnesses from the 

therapeutic products industries, whose companies had produced or 

were attempting to produce medical products potentially useful for 

combating SARS. 

ORGAN DONATION

On June 3, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that examined initiatives the health care community is exploring to increase organ donation. There are 81,000– 

plus candidates in the United States waiting for an organ transplant. The hearing examined issues related to advances in science 

to improve the success of organ transplantation, issues surrounding 

potential financial incentives to increase organ donation, Health 

and Human Services’ Best Practices Initiative, and state initiatives 

to increase organ donations. Three panels of witnesses featured patients waiting for or who had received transplants, and representatives from state and federal organ donor networks, the Department 

of Health and Human Services, and the medical and advocacy community. 

IMPORTED PHARMACEUTICALS

On June 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that examined the system in place to protect 

against counterfeit and unapproved pharmaceutical imports. The 

purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony concerning (1) the 

measures taken by the FDA to prevent imported unapproved and 

counterfeit pharmaceuticals from being taken by U.S. consumers, 

(2) the release by FDA of 1,233 packages of counterfeit Viagra that 

were imported through Miami, Florida, and (3) the findings of the 

South Florida Statewide Grand Jury that highlighted a burgeoning 

counterfeit drug problem in Florida and which were a driving force 

204 

behind a Florida law designed to ensure the safety and efficacy of 

pharmaceuticals taken by Floridians. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from the FDA, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and Florida officials from agencies responsible for oversight 

of pharmaceutical imports, and the prosecution of violations of 

state import laws. The hearing provided a case study into the nationwide issues surrounding the import of pharmaceuticals for personal use. 

DIETARY SUPPLEMENT SAFETY

On July 23 and 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held two hearings, the second as a joint hearing with 

the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, 

on issues relating to ephedra-containing dietary supplements. The 

first hearing focused on manufacturers and distributors of ephedracontaining supplements and the advertising and labeling, and safety concerns related to their products. The second hearing focused 

on policies and concerns related to sports leagues and organizations, including the various positions sports leagues have taken on 

the use of ephedra-containing supplements by their athletes, and 

on issues related to the regulatory environment for ephedra-based 

products. At the July 23 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from the parents of victims, including a Major League Baseball pitcher, who died while taking ephedra-containing products; 

from witnesses with knowledge of ephedra industry practices; from 

medical authorities; and from the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office. All three witnesses on the second panel, who were associated with a particular ephedra-supplement maker and promoter, 

invoked their Fifth Amendment protections when faced with questions under oath. On the final panel, the Subcommittee received 

testimony from witnesses associated with three manufacturers and 

distributors of ephedra products. At the July 24 hearing, the Subcommittees received testimony from representatives of Major 

League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, 

the National Football League, NASCAR, Major League Soccer, and 

the National Collegiate Athletic Association. A second panel provided testimony from the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission. 

On June 16, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to examine the safety of dietary supplements 

for overweight children. The hearing focused on several companies 

that formulated, marketed, manufactured and/or distributed dietary supplements for use by children as young as six years of age 

and the safety and efficacy concerns surrounding the use of such 

products by children. The Subcommittee received testimony from 

two panels of witnesses: an official with the Federal Trade Commission, an official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and two expert witnesses on pediatric obesity testified on 

the first panel, and nine witnesses associated companies involved 

in the dietary supplement industry testified on the second panel. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICIES

On May 12 and 18, 2004 and on June 22, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held three hearings focusing on conflict-of-interest issues involving National Institutes of 

205 

Health (NIH) employees and drug companies. The purpose of the 

hearings was to: (1) assess the recommendations of the NIH Blue 

Ribbon Panel on Conflict of Interest Policies, which was appointed 

to examine conflicts of interest polices, especially those related to 

consulting arrangements and outside ‘‘awards’’ received by NIH officials; (2) review two case studies, one illustrating the Committee’s 

concerns about consulting arrangements, and the other illustrating 

the concerns about outside awards, as well as related legal and policy decisions by the Office of Government Ethics, the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the NIH; and, (3) assess 

the NIH’s response to the Committee’s concerns and the Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommendations, and explore whether the National Cancer Institute (NCI) properly managed conflict of interest 

issues. At the May 12 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from the NIH Director and the co-chairs of the NIH Blue 

Ribbon Panel. At the May 18 hearing, the Subcommittee received 

testimony from officials and employees in HHS Office of Government Ethics, the NIH, NCI and FDA, as well as from a legal authority from the Congressional Research Service. The June 22 

hearing received testimony from the NIH Director, the NIH General Counsel, officials from NCI, and representatives of two drug 

companies associated with the consulting arrangements in question. 

HOSPITAL BILLING AND COLLECTION PRACTICES

On June 24, 2004 the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to examine hospital billing and collection practices for uninsured/self-pay patients. The hearing focused on questions surrounding policies and practices for setting rates for and 

charging the uninsured or self-pay patients, the laws and regulations that affect the policies, and the guidance from the HHS regarding billing and collection practices. Because of the pricing system set up by hospitals under the interpretation of Medicare regulations, uninsured patients are charged the ‘‘list price’’ for hospital 

care. For insured patients, there are discounts as high as 50 percent from the list price, which are negotiated by their insurance 

companies. Such a system has the effect of charging the uninsured 

the highest prices for health care. As a result, uninsured patients 

have lost good credit ratings and have had liens placed on their 

residences. The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels of witnesses. The first panel featured expert and advocacy witnesses who testified about hospital management and finance, debtor-creditor law, bankruptcy, and the perspective of patients. The 

second panel featured the chief executive officers of the five largest 

hospital chains in the United States. And the third panel was comprised of representatives from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the HHS Office of Inspector General. During the 

hearing, all of the hospital chains present stated that they had implemented or would implement policies providing free or discounted 

care for low-income, uninsured patients. 

ANTI-DEPRESSANT USE BY CHILDREN

On September 9 and September 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations held hearings examining concerns 

206 

over the safety and efficacy of anti-depressants in children and 

whether data from various pediatric clinical trials of anti-depressants had been communicated adequately to the public. The September 9 hearing focused on publication and disclosure issues of 

the safety and efficacy data in pediatric anti-depressant clinical 

trials. The Subcommittee received testimony from representatives 

of the seven pharmaceutical companies that conducted pediatric 

clinical trials for depressed children, the FDA, and industry associations. The September 23 hearing focused primarily on the FDA’s 

regulatory process of reviewing the anti-depressant pediatric clinical trial safety data and whether the FDA informed the public in 

an accurate and timely manner about the risks associated with 

these drugs for children. Six witnesses from the FDA provided testimony. 

AVAILABILITY OF INFLUENZA VACCINATIONS

On November 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Health, 

to examine the current flu vaccine shortage and assess what is 

being done to protect high-risk individuals for 2004/2005 flu season 

and also to decrease the chances of shortages happening in the future. Broader vaccine marketplace issues were also examined. The 

Subcommittees received testimony from representatives from the 

Department of Health and Human Services, the Government Accountability Office, a state health department, and various segments of the health care industry. 

Additionally, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

initiated an investigation of issues surrounding the loss of nearly 

half of the flu vaccine needed by the United States for the 2004/ 

2005 flu season, as a result of contamination at the Liverpool, UK 

manufacturing facility of Chiron Corporation. Full Committee 

Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote the HHS, 

FDA, and the Chiron Corporation, on November 18, 2004, requesting documents relating to when the flu vaccine shortage first became apparent, and the company and agencies’ attention and response to the reports of problems as they emerged. This aspect of 

the investigation is ongoing. 

MEDICAID DRUG REIMBURSEMENT

On December 7, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on prescription drug reimbursement under 

Medicaid. The hearing focused on whether the Federal Medicaid 

program pays too much for prescription drugs, primarily because 

most states continue to reimburse based upon Average Wholesale 

Price, or AWP, a price reported by drug manufacturers solely for 

reimbursement purposes. Pricing data and documents obtained by 

the Subcommittee during its extensive investigation revealed that 

AWP bears little relationship to what pharmacies and physicians 

actually pay for the drugs, particularly for generic drugs. States 

have difficulty in obtaining accurate sales prices because, although 

CMS receives them from the manufacturers, it is barred by law 

from sharing them with the states. Some states have been very aggressive in establishing other mechanism to get accurate prices and 

additional price concessions from drug manufacturers. But all of 

207 

the witnesses agreed that the AWP system was ‘‘broken’’ and needed to be fixed. During the hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from two witnesses, from Ven-A-Care of Florida Keys, Inc., 

which had been instrumental in bringing various Medicare and 

Medicaid abuses to the attention of the Congress, as well as Federal and state agencies. The company also had prosecuted numerous false claims cases arising from the issues examined at the 

Hearing. The Subcommittee also received testimony from officials 

from the CMS, the Texas Attorney General’s office, the Texas 

Health and Human Services Commission, Michigan Department of 

Community Health, pharmacy chains, and generic and brand drug 

manufacturers. 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

NIH MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF RESEARCH

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an examination of the NIH management and 

oversight of its federally funded research. Between 1998 and 2002, 

Congress increased NIH’s appropriations from $13.6 billion to 

$23.1 billion, an increase of $9.5 billion. During this same period, 

NIH increased the amount of grant awards it issued from $9.5 billion to $16.6 billion, an increase of $7 billion. In a March 2003 letter to the NIH director, Full Committee Chairman Tauzin and Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood requested information relating to 

grant oversight; efforts to address waste, fraud, and abuse in federal grants; and information relating to NIH administration and 

administrative costs. The review is ongoing. 

NIH AWARDS PROCESS

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations opened an inquiry into the fairness of the NIH awards 

process, specifically whether in some cases NIH’s methods of 

awarding grants and contracts are structured to ensure or maximize the chances that certain institutions and/or individuals personally favored by high-ranking NIH officials win the awards. On 

November 10, 2003, Full Committee Chairman Tauzin and Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood issued letters to relevant parties 

requesting information relating to a March 2002 award to Harvard 

University of a five-year, $40 million subcontract for a molecular 

target laboratory (MTL) through a prime contract funded by the 

National Cancer Institute. Documents obtained by the Committee 

raised questions about whether the outcome of the award was predetermined. The review is ongoing. 

NIH PROCUREMENT PROCESS

As part of its oversight of NIH financial management, and its 

broader review of procurement policies at agencies within its jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an examination of the standards used to award contracts and 

the nature of the procurement process at NIH. In a March 2004 

letter to the NIH director, Full Committee Chairman Barton and 

Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood requested records relating to 

the use of purchase cards, purchase orders, telecommunications 

208 

support contracts, and technology acquisition contracts at the agency. The review is ongoing. 

NIH SALARY LIMITATIONS

As part of its oversight of the ethics programs at the NIH, the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations identified issues 

concerning the NIH’s use of special authority under Title 42 of the 

Public Health Service Act. The special authority, 42 U.S.C. 209(f) 

‘‘Special Consultants,’’ provides that under certain circumstances, 

special consultants may be employed ‘‘to assist and advise in the 

operations of the [Public Health] Service’’ without regard to civil 

service laws. Since 2000, the NIH, without the knowledge of Congress, has been using 42 U.S.C. 209(f) as a mechanism to increase 

the salaries of government scientists by evading the salary limitations in the civil service system and treating these full-time, government scientists as if they were temporary expert consultants. As 

a result, the NIH has compensated nearly 4,000 out of 6,000 of its 

scientists under this mechanism, including paying some NIH Institute Directors and other senior NIH officials at annual salary rates 

greater than the salary of the Secretary of the Department of 

Health and Human Services. The Subcommittee raised legal and 

policy questions about the perceived misuse of special-consultant 

authority during its NIH oversight hearings. As a result of the 

Subcommittee’s raising the issue, the NIH is working with the 

Committee on a legislative solution that addresses the concerns 

raised. 

FEDERAL WORKPLACE DRUG TESTS

In a February 2003 letter to the Secretary of HHS, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations raised concerns about 

delays to include alternative drug tests in federal workplace programs and requested that the agency expedite review of alternative 

drugs tests and take appropriate action to strengthen the federal 

workplace drug-testing program. Federal workplace drug testing 

policy continues to be based only on testing of urine, as it has since 

1988. However, since 1988 the FDA has approved alternative drug 

tests using hair, sweat, and saliva. Notwithstanding FDA clearance 

of alternatives to urine-testing for drugs-of-abuse, increased use of 

alternative tests in the private sector, and the meetings of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA)’s Drug Testing Advisory Board over a five-year period, 

SAMHSA had not published proposed guidelines on alternative 

specimens for notice and comment. As a result of the Subcommittee’s inquiry, HHS published proposed revisions to federal mandatory drug-testing guidelines in the Federal Register. These revisions require federal workers who submit to drug screening to have 

their saliva, sweat or hair tested as the Administration increases 

efforts to deter and detect illegal drug use among 1.6 million civilian employees. 

STATES’ ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICAID

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations launched an investigation into potential waste, fraud, 

209 

and abuse in the Medicaid program. In January 2003, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed Medicaid for the 

first time on its list of government programs at ‘‘High Risk’’ of 

fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement. On June 12, 2003, the 

Subcommittee issued letter requests to all 50 states for documents 

and information on a range of matters relating to each State’s administration and oversight of the Medicaid program. Part of this 

inquiry involved an examination of intergovernmental transfers 

and state financing mechanisms: Among the matters principally at 

issue with intergovernmental transfers is the use of certain financing mechanisms by some states to generate additional Federal 

Medicaid matching funds. Included in these financing mechanisms 

is a process by which excessive Medicaid payments to state-owned 

health facilities are subsequently returned to the state treasury 

and then reported to the Federal government for the purposes of 

obtaining Medicaid matching dollars. The Subcommittee has been 

investigating the scope and prevalence of such mechanisms, and 

whether this is common practice among certain states and their 

public hospitals. 

STATES’ EFFORTS TO REDUCE MEDICAID SPENDING ON DRUGS

As part of its ongoing investigation into prescription drug reimbursement under Medicaid, Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood, 

in February 2004, requested a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of Medicaid prescription drug reimbursement approaches by the states. Among states, outlays for Medicaid ranked 

second only to elementary and secondary education. The Subcommittee requested that GAO determine whether states have 

been obtaining all available drug rebates under the Medicaid Drug 

Rebate program to which they are entitled and that GAO examine 

means by which states can constrain the growth in drug spending 

without affecting enrollees’ access to quality prescription drugs. A 

report from GAO is expected in the 109th Congress. 

THE 340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM

In August 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations opened an investigation into Department of Health and 

Human Services’ management of the 340B Drug Discount Program, 

which was created to provide discount drug prices for various entities that serve low-income patients, including community health 

centers and public hospitals. The investigation was prompted by 

two inspection reports issued in June 2004 by the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General (HHS– 

OIG). The reports focused on the administration of the program 

and revealed that 340B entities are often overcharged for the drugs 

and that there are major structural defects in the management and 

oversight of the Program on the part of HHS’s Health Resources 

and Services Administration (HRSA). The first of these inspection 

reports compared the prices that a sample of the 340B entities actually paid in September 2002 to the 340B ceiling prices for those 

drugs and found that many of the sampled prices exceeded the ceiling prices, resulting in substantial overcharges. These overcharges 

are often passed on to Medicaid, because if covered entities dispense drugs purchased through the 340B Program to Medicaid reVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
210 

cipients, they are required to bill Medicaid at acquisition cost. The 

report went on to explain that HRSA has no processes or procedures to ensure that 340B entities receive the discounted prices 

from the drug manufacturers, nor does it have the authority to 

remedy any overcharges it may uncover. The second report found 

serious problems with the database used by HRSA to administer 

the Program and concluded that these deficiencies compromised 

HRSA’s ability to manage the Program successfully. Full Committee Chairman Barton sent a letter to HRSA on August 9, 2004 

asking HRSA to describe its management of the 340B Program and 

what steps it has taken to improve its oversight in light of the 

HHS–OIG reports. Chairman Barton also sent a request letter to 

HHS–OIG on October 31, 2004 requesting additional examination 

of this issue. 

DESIGNER STEROIDS

As part of its investigation of the marketing of dangerous, unregulated supplements, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an inquiry into the proliferation of ‘‘pro-steroid’’ 

and ‘‘precursor steroid’’ and related products in the marketplace— 

increasingly used by teenagers. Neither the 1990 Controlled Substances Act nor the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 specifically empowers the FDA and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to 

regulate or, where appropriate, ban these substances, which may 

in fact be more powerful than the steroids and related products 

Congress banned in 1990. Because of news reports that marketers 

may have taken advantage of this potential regulatory loophole, 

the Committee sent letter requests to the FDA and DEA for information on efforts to address the safety and regulatory concerns 

surrounding the development and market of these products. 

ILLICIT INTERNET PHARMACIES

On December 9, 2003, as part of its continuing oversight of the 

problems of counterfeit drugs, Internet pharmacies, and imported 

drugs, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated 

an investigation of enablers of illegal Internet pharmacies and 

what efforts have been made toward discouraging these enablers 

from facilitating illicit Internet pharmacies. Enablers include: 

Internet search engines that accept advertising from illicit Internet 

pharmacies, consignment carriers used by Web sites to ship drugs 

from these pharmacies, and credit card companies used in advertising by illicit Internet pharmacies. The Committee sent letters to 

the FDA, and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to get 

details about any companies that these agencies have contacted, 

and whether any of these companies committed to discontinue 

doing business with illicit Internet pharmacies. In addition, the 

Committee wrote to the CEOs of Federal Express, United Parcel 

Service, Visa International, and MasterCard International, for information about each company’s actions or counter-measures taken 

relating to illicit Internet pharmacy websites. 

211 

PAINKILLER ABUSE

In connection with the Subcommittee’s ongoing oversight of pharmaceutical abuse and diversion in general, and of the abuse and 

diversion of the painkiller Oxycontin in particular, the Subcommittee initiated an examination of Palladone, a high dose, extended release formulation that contains hydromorhone, a Schedule 

II narcotic painkiller. Palladone is currently undergoing FDA evaluation. On February 26, 2003, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member 

Dingell, Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood, and Subcommittee 

Ranking Member Deutsch wrote Purdue Pharma L.P. for records 

relating to risk management, safety, and marketing of Palladone. 

As part of this inquiry the Subcommittee continued its oversight of 

efforts to reduce deaths and addiction associated with Oxycontin, 

while at the same time enabling legitimate patients access to effective palliative medication. In addition, Subcommittee Chairman 

Greenwood, with Appropriations’ Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee Chairman Wolf and Mr. Harold Rogers, requested that 

the GAO examine Oxycontin abuse and diversion and efforts to address the problem. In December 2003, the GAO issued its report 

and recommended that the FDA Commissioner ensure that FDA’s 

risk-management plan guidance encourages pharmaceutical manufacturers that submit new drug applications for these substances to 

include plans that contain a strategy for monitoring the use of 

these drugs and identifying potential abuse and diversion problems. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY

As part of its continuing oversight of the public health and the 

safety of prescription drugs, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations initiated an investigation of issues surrounding the 

withdrawal of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) 

Cox-2 inhibitor called rofecoxib, known commercially as Vioxx, by 

its manufacturer Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). On September 30, 

2004, Merck publicly announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal 

of Vioxx, a medicine approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in treating osteoarthritis and the management of acute pain in adults, and 

later, for rheumatoid arthritis. The publicly reported reason for 

this withdrawal was new data from a three-year clinical trial that 

showed a two-fold increase in cardiovascular adverse events in patients taking Vioxx. On November 23, 2004, Committee Chairman 

Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote Merck and the FDA to 

request more information and documentation relating to: (1) FDA 

knowledge about these cardiovascular adverse events associated 

with Vioxx, (2) when FDA learned about this information, (3) the 

action FDA took in response to cardiovascular safety concerns associated with Vioxx. The investigation is ongoing. 

212 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING 

TO ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

HEARINGS

MANAGEMENT OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

On February 26 and March 12, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings on procurement and property mismanagement and theft at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

The purpose of the hearings was to: (1) assess reports of theft and 

loss of governmental property and misuse of government procurement mechanisms by personnel at Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(LANL), (2) review the actions of the University of California (UC) 

and LANL management in response to such reports, and (3) review 

the effectiveness of oversight of LANL by UC and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). At the February 26 hearing, 

the Subcommittee received testimony from two employees who 

were terminated during their investigation of theft at LANL, from 

the Department of Energy’s Inspector General, and from a UC official who reviewed LANL issues. At the March 12 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from three LANL officials involved in 

the Lab’s response to reported fraud and theft, a LANL employee 

responsible for a critical management contract, officials responsible 

for setting procurement and property management policy, and the 

former Director of LANL, the UC officials responsible for Laboratory Management, and an NNSA official responsible for direct federal oversight of LANL. 

On May 1, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 

management of LANL, and LANL’s response to the issues discussed in the previous hearings. The day before the hearing, the 

Secretary of Energy announced that the LANL contract would be 

competitively bid in 2005 for the first time in 60 years as a result 

of the management failings revealed in the Committee’s and other 

investigations. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Deputy Secretary of Energy, the acting Administrator of the NNSA, the 

DOE Inspector General, and the President of the University of 

California and other UC officials. 

DOE’S HIGH-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

On July 17, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review the DOE’s radioactive high-level 

waste management program. The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues raised by a GAO report that evaluated the DOE’s 

$230 billion program to clean-up high-level radioactive waste at 

former nuclear weapons production sites, and to identify weaknesses within DOE’s cleanup plan. The Subcommittee received testimony from the DOE, GAO, and environmental officials from 

Washington State and the South Carolina. The hearing provided 

information supportive of the Committee’s successful efforts to help 

pass legislation to speed cleanup of these wastes. 

213 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

WORKER SAFETY AT HANFORD

In the summer of 2004, following reports of safety incidents at 

the high-level radioactive waste tank cleanup project at the Hanford site, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation opened 

an inquiry to review actions by the contractor in charge of the 

cleanup project and will continue to monitor the contractor and 

DOE efforts to improve worker safety at the tank farms. 

DOE PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION

All of the DOE’s weapons-usable surplus plutonium has been removed from the Rocky Flats, Colorado site, and relocated to the Savannah River, South Carolina site. In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations continued to review the 

numerous safety and physical security issues that must be resolved 

leading up to the final disposition of these 50 tons of materials, as 

well as the management of these materials, which will run into the 

tens of billions of dollars. 

EPA GRANTS MANAGEMENT

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) administration of assistance agreements, 

also known as grants, which, at more than $4.7 billion per year, 

account for more than half the Agency’s budget. On August 4, 2004, 

following an EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report that 

found that EPA had not properly used a competitive process when 

selecting some of its grant recipients, Committee Chairman Joe 

Barton wrote the Administrator of the EPA requesting documents 

relating to the agency’s grants management process. This review is 

ongoing. 

EPA PROCUREMENT

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated a review of EPA procurement practices. On 

August 4, 2004, Full Committee Chairman Barton sent a letter to 

the EPA Administrator concerning an audit by the EPA OIG that 

raised questions about the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Procurement process. The OIG audit indicated that a lack of competition 

existed in the compilation of the FSS. This lack of competition resulted from inadequate procurement planning, rushed procurements, a lack of training for contract project officers, and a failure 

to comply with policies, procedures, policies, and regulations outlined by the federal government. As a result, the Committee specifically asked the EPA for an explanation on all FSS procurements 

above $100,000 when only one contractor was involved and for any 

changes made by EPA in the wake of the OIG audit. This review 

is ongoing. 

HOMELAND SECURITY AT THE EPA

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated a review of EPA procedures as they relate to 

214 

Homeland Security. An EPA OIG audit indicated that the Agency 

had not developed a coordinated plan for ‘‘identifying, obtaining, 

maintaining, and tracking’’ counterterrorism and emergency-response equipment. On August 4, 2004, Full Committee Chairman 

Barton wrote the EPA Administrator requesting information related to the Agency’s actions in the wake of the OIG report. This 

review is ongoing. 

EPA IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

In April 2004, EPA issued its final rule designating 474 counties, 

in 31 states, as non-attainment areas under the new 8-hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because this was the 

first ruling on this new standard, Full Committee Chairman Barton and Subcommittee Vice-Chairman Walden wrote the EPA Administrator on August 23, 2004, requesting records relating to 

EPA’s discretionary-review process concerning non-attainment designations. This review is ongoing. 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING 

TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

HEARINGS

THE E-RATE PROGRAM

On June 17, July 22, and September 22, 2004, the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations held hearings on waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the E-rate program, the portion of the Universal Service 

Fund set up to subsidize telecommunications and Internet service 

and infrastructure in qualified schools and libraries. The hearings 

examined (1) the oversight and management of the E-rate program 

by the Federal Communications Commission and the program administrator, (2) issues and vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, and 

abuse in program set-up, and (3) case examples of problems in the 

program. The June 17 hearing featured a review of disbursements 

of more than $100 million in E-rate funding for the Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDOE). The Subcommittee received testimony from the Puerto Rico Office of the Comptroller, the PRDOE, 

the Inspector General of the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC), vendors that were contracted to supply telephone and internal connections to the PRDOE’s 1,500 schools, a representative of 

the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), and FCC 

officials. The July 22 hearing featured three panels of witnesses, 

and focused on a case of bid-rigging and wire fraud uncovered at 

the San Francisco Unified School District. The Subcommittee received testimony from the Superintendent of the San Francisco 

Unified School District, the former and current City Attorneys of 

San Francisco, a City Attorney’s Office special investigator, officials 

associated with a company that pleaded guilty to federal bid-rigging and wire fraud charges, and FCC and USAC officials. The 

September 22 hearing focused on both a case involving a nationwide conspiracy to defraud the E-rate program and an examination 

of issues surrounding the denial of over $500 million in E-rate 

funding requests by school districts. USAC and the FCC denied the 

funding after determining that the program applicants violated the 

215 

program’s competitive-bidding requirements. The Subcommittee received testimony from officials with USAC, FCC, and FCC OIG; 

representatives of school districts and vendors associated with the 

nationwide conspiracy for which a vendor pleaded guilty in March 

2003; and representatives of school districts and vendors associated 

with the denial of the $500 million in E-rate requests. 

In addition, the Full Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen requested in December 2003 that the GAO review FCC’s management of the E-rate program. GAO will complete that review early 

in the 109th Congress. 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING 

TO COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

HEARINGS

IDENTITY THEFT

On December 15, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, to assess the crime of personal identity theft. The purpose of the hearing to assess the crime of identity theft, to provide consumers with 

information on where to go for assistance if they become victims, 

and to provide preventative tips to stop the fraud from occurring 

in the first place. The Subcommittee received testimony from three 

panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of a Pennsylvania 

state representative, an identity theft victim, and a charitable organization representative. The second panel consisted of representatives from a national credit reporting agency and a state bank. The 

third panel included a Deputy Attorney General from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, the Deputy Commissioner of the 

Pennsylvania State Police Department, and officials with the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission and 

the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING 

TO HOMELAND SECURITY AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION 

HEARINGS

SECURITY AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

On March 18, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC) proposed changes to security requirements at 

nuclear power plants. While opening statements by Members and 

witnesses were open to the public, the hearing went into executive 

session for Member questioning of the witnesses. The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels of witnesses: the 

first panel featured the Chairman and two Commissioners of the 

NRC, the second panel featured representatives from the nuclear 

industry and nuclear power companies and facilities, and the third 

panel featured an advocacy group. The new changes were finalized 

and are now being implemented at nuclear plants across the country. 

216 

PORT AND BORDER SECURITY

Throughout the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations continued its focus on efforts of the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to secure the nation’s ports 

and borders from terrorist efforts to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States. On September 30, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to review the federal government’s 

progress toward installing radiation detection monitors at U.S. 

ports and borders. The hearing focused on CBP’s ongoing efforts to 

install radiation portal monitors at each port to screen incoming 

cargo for radiological weapons. Due to the subject matter, the hearing was conducted in a classified session. The Subcommittee received testimony from one panel of witnesses, consisting of representatives from the CBP, the U.S. Postal Service, and the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office. 

On December 16, 2003, and March 31, 2004 the Subcommittee 

held hearings to review the CBP’s targeting and inspection program for sea cargo. The hearings focused on CBP’s efforts to implement a system to screen all incoming sea cargo and target for evaluation and inspection high-risk cargo entering the United States. 

While opening statements by Members and witnesses were open to 

the public, the hearing went into executive session for Member 

questioning of the witnesses. At the December 16 field hearing held 

at the Delaware River Port Authority, in Camden, New Jersey, the 

Subcommittee received testimony from two panels of witnesses, 

consisting of representatives from the GAO, the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), CBP, and 

the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority. At the March 31, 2004, 

the Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the 

CBP, the GAO, the OIG, Council of Foreign Relations, and representatives from the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach and Port of 

New York-New Jersey. Port security continues to be a major priority for the Subcommittee. 

SECURITY AT DOE/NNSA NUCLEAR FACILITIES

On March 4 and May 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations held hearings to assess the state of security at 

DOE nuclear facilities, and the implementation of the revised design basis threat (DBT) at various sites managed by DOE and the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). While opening 

statements by Members and witnesses were open to the public, the 

hearings went into executive session for Member questioning of the 

witnesses. At the March 4 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from DOE, the DOE Office of Inspector General, NNSA, 

and nuclear security authorities. At the May 11 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from the DOE, NNSA, U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the Project on Government Oversight. 

217 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

SECURITY AND SAFETY PROBLEMS AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL

LABORATORY

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued review and monitoring of security and safety 

problems at LANL. The Lab continued to demonstrate a lack of 

rigor in its management of Classified Removable Electronic Media 

(CREM). In July 2004, two computer discs containing highly classified materials were thought to have been lost. As a result, all classified operations had been shut down at Los Alamos, and remain 

shut down. Full Committee Chairman Barton visited Los Alamos 

in July 2004 to review the situation personally. On October 15, 

2004, Chairman Barton sent letters to the NNSA Administrator 

and the LANL Director requesting a complete estimate of the costs 

to the taxpayers resulting from the ongoing stand-down at LANL 

due to the events. Review of the security and safety at LANL is ongoing. 

CHEMICAL PLANT SECURITY

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its review of 

Federal and industry efforts to improve security at sites possessing 

potentially dangerous chemicals. As part of this review, officials 

from the EPA met with Committee staff on February 26th to discuss the agency’s voluntary survey of security practices at approximately 31 high-risk chemical facilities across the country. On February 28, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman Tauzin, Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, 

and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood wrote the EPA Administrator requesting documents and information to assist the Committee in its continuing oversight of 

chemical plant security. Review of chemical plant security is ongoing. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION CONTRACTING

In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations opened an investigation into the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) management and oversight of its contract with a private firm to provide airport screeners. In March 

2002 the TSA signed a contract with Pearson Government Solutions to recruit 30,000 to 50,000 airport ‘‘screeners’’ in response to 

the events of 9/11. This contract was initially valued at approximately $104 million; however, it subsequently increased to more 

than $850 million. The Subcommittee is examining the reasons for 

this significant increase and TSA’s oversight of the program. 

HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING 

TO CORPORATE ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND OVERSIGHT 

HEARINGS

FINANCIAL COLLAPSE OF HEALTHSOUTH

On October 16 and November 5, 2003, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations held two hearings to examine the fiVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00223 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
218 

nancial collapse of the HealthSouth Corporation. Stockholders, including employees, lost more than $4 billion when it was revealed 

that the accounting had been deliberately manipulated to increase 

sales and reduce costs. Five former chief financial officers have 

pled guilty to fraud charges, as have several other employees. The 

former chief executive officer is expected to be tried on criminal 

charges next year. The hearings focused on the (1) failure of internal controls and corporate compliance within the health care services company, (2) the role that other parties, including the Board 

of Directors, the outside auditors and the investment bankers, 

played in the company’s failure to detect and report financial fraud 

earlier, and the effect new Corporate accountability laws, passed in 

the 107th Congress, have on Corporate oversight. At the October 

16 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from current and 

former HealthSouth corporate officers and employees with insight 

into company operations and practices, as well as the Chief Executive Officer and former Senior Vice President of Corporate Finance, 

both of whom invoked their Fifth Amendment protections at the 

hearing. At the November 5 hearing, the Subcommittee received 

testimony from a representative on the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on 

the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. Sentencing Commission; certain members of the HealthSouth Board of Directors, 

the acting CEO; and representatives of HealthSouth’s outside accounting, banking, and legal advisors. 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

SEC DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

During the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations initiated a review of the role of the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC) with respect to the SEC’s own reviews and investigations of the financial collapse of 13 selected 

companies. This oversight effort continued in the 108th Congress 

and included an April 9, 2003, letter from Full Committee Chairman Tauzin to the SEC Chairman requesting the agency release 

certain internal agency documents relating to its financial reviews 

of the companies at issue, which the agency had withheld from 

Committee staff. Following the request, the SEC supplied the internal records. 

MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE 

ACTIVITIES 

INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

UNITED NATION’S OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM

The Committee first conducted oversight hearings on the United 

Nation’s Oil for Food Program in the 106th Congress. In the 108th 

Congress the Committee continued its oversight of the Program. 

On May 23, 2003, and July 8, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Air Quality held hearings on the Program. (See Energy and 

Air Quality Subcommittee section of this report for details.) As part 

of the Committee’s intensified oversight, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations launched an in-depth review of the 

219 

Program, including document reviews and interviews with State 

Department, Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Treasury, IRS, 

former United Nations and Iraqi officials. Full Committee Chairman Barton and other Energy and Commerce Committee members 

and staff traveled to Baghdad, Iraq, in September 2004 to conduct 

interviews and perform site visits related to the program. On October 7 and October 18, 2004, Chairman Barton wrote United Nations Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan requesting his personal involvement in the expeditious discovery and release by the United 

Nations of information and documents related to the Committee’s 

investigation. On October 22, 2004, Chairman Barton wrote 

Jacques Chirac, President of France, requesting the French government’s cooperation in the Committee’s investigation of the Program. Chairman Barton met with the French Ambassador in December 2004, to discuss this matter. 

FEDERAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT AND ETHICS OVERSIGHT

In the 108th Congress, as part of the Committee’s oversight responsibilities generally and as an expansion of its review of conflict-of-interest policies in particular, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an examination of ethics policies 

and practices at Federal agencies and commissions within the 

Committee’s jurisdiction. On June 18, 2004, Full Committee Chairman Barton and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Chairman Greenwood requested information and documents relating to this investigation from 15 Federal agencies: the Department 

of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Health and 

Human Services, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission, 

Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 

Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical 

Review Board, and Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The 

review of agency policies is ongoing. 

HEARINGS HELD

The Medical Liability Insurance Crisis: A Review of the Situation 

in Pennsylvania.—Oversight hearing on The Medical Liability Insurance Crisis: A Review of the Situation in Pennsylvania. Hearing 

held on February 10, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–4. 

Procurement and Property Mismanagement and Theft at Los Alamos National Laboratory.—Oversight hearing on Procurement and 

Property Mismanagement and Theft at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Hearings held on February 26, 2003 and March 12, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–13. 

South Florida’s Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs: Costs 

and Benefits of Alternative Solutions.—Oversight hearing on South 

Florida’s Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs: Costs and Benefits of Alternative Solutions. Hearing held on March 10, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–9. 

A Review of NRC’s Proposed Security Requirements for Nuclear 

Power Plants.—Oversight hearing on A Review of NRC’s Proposed 

220 

Security Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants. Hearing held on 

March 18, 2003. NOT PRINTED. 

SARS: Assessment, Outlook, and Lessons Learned.—Oversight 

hearing on SARS: Assessment, Outlook, and Lessons Learned. 

Hearing held on May 7, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–20. 

Assessing Initiatives to Increase Organ Donations.—Oversight 

hearing on Assessing Initiatives to Increase Organ Donations. 

Hearing held on June 3, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–36. 

A System Overwhelmed: The Avalanche of Imported, Counterfeit, 

and Unapproved Drugs into the U.S.—Oversight hearing on A System Overwhelmed: The Avalanche of Imported, Counterfeit, and 

Unapproved Drugs into the U.S. Hearing held on June 24, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–29. 

A Review of DOE’s Radioactive High-Level Waste Cleanup Program.—Oversight hearing on A Review of DOE’s Radioactive HighLevel Waste Cleanup Program. Hearing held on July 17, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–42. 

Issues Relating to Ephedra-containing Dietary Supplements.— Oversight hearing on Issues Relating to Ephedra-containing Dietary Supplements. Hearing held on July 23, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–43. 

Issues Relating to Ephedra-containing Dietary Supplements.— Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection on Issues Relating to Ephedracontaining Dietary Supplements. Hearing held on July 24, 2003. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–43. 

Nuclear Terrorism Prevention: A Review of the Federal Government’s Progress toward Installing Radiation Detection Monitors at 

U.S. Ports and Borders.—Oversight hearing on Nuclear Terrorism 

Prevention: A Review of the Federal Government’s Progress toward 

Installing Radiation Detection Monitors at U.S. Ports and Borders. 

Hearing held on September 30, 2003. NOT PRINTED. 

The Financial Collapse of HealthSouth.—Oversight hearing on 

the Financial Collapse of HealthSouth. Hearings held on October 

16, 2003 and November 5, 2003. PRINTED, Serial Numbers 108– 

53 and 108–59. 

Identity Theft: Assessing the Problem and Efforts to Combat It.— 

Oversight hearing on Identity Theft: Assessing the Problem and Efforts to Combat It. Hearing held on December 15, 2003. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–60. 

Port Security: A Review of the Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection’s Targeting and Inspection Program for Sea Cargo.— 

Oversight hearing on Port Security: A Review of the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection’s Targeting and Inspection Program for Sea Cargo. Hearing held on December 16, 2003. NOT 

PRINTED. 

A Review of Security at DOE Nuclear Facilities and the Implementation of the Revised Design Basis Threat.—Oversight hearing 

on A Review of Security at DOE Nuclear Facilities and the Implementation of the Revised Design Basis Threat. Hearing held on 

March 4, 2004. NOT PRINTED. 

A Review to Assess Progress with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection’s Targeting Program for Sea Cargo.—Oversight hearing on A Review to Assess Progress with the Bureau of customs 

221 

and Border Protection’s Targeting Program for Sea Cargo. Hearing 

held on March 31, 2004. NOT PRINTED. 

DOE Nuclear Security: What Are the Challenges, and What’s 

Next?—Oversight hearing on DOE Nuclear Security: What Are the 

Challenges, and What’s Next? Hearing held on May 11, 2004. NOT 

PRINTED. 

NIH Ethics Concerns: Consulting Arrangements and Outside 

Awards.—Oversight hearings on NIH Ethics Concerns: Consulting 

Arrangements and Outside Awards. Hearings held on May 12, 

2004, May 18, 2004, and June 22, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 

108–88. 

Parents Be Aware: Health Concerns about Dietary Supplements 

for Overweight Children.—Oversight hearing on Parents Be Aware: 

Health Concerns about Dietary Supplements for Overweight Children. Hearing held June 16, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108– 

93. 

Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse 

Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools to the Internet.— 

Oversight hearing on Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, 

Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools 

to the Internet. Hearing held on June 17, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–92. 

A Review of Hospital Billing and Collection Practices.—Oversight 

hearing on A Review of Hospital Billing and Collection Practices. 

Hearing held on June 24, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108– 

109. 

Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse 

Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools to the Internet.— 

Oversight hearing on Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, 

Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools 

to the Internet. Hearing held on July 22, 2004. PRINTED, Serial 

Number 108–103. 

Publication and Disclosure Issues in Anti-Depressant Pediatric 

Clinical Trials.—Oversight hearing on Publication and Disclosure 

Issues in Anti-Depressant Pediatric Clinical Trials. Hearing held 

on September 9, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–121. 

Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse 

Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools to the Internet.— 

Oversight hearing on Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, 

Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools 

to the Internet. Hearing held on September 22, 2004. PRINTED, 

Serial Number 108–124. 

FDA’s Role in Protecting the Public Health: Examining FDA’s Review of Safety & Efficacy Concerns in Anti-Depressant Use by Children.—Oversight hearing on FDA’s Role in Protecting the Public 

Health: Examining FDA’s Review of Safety & Efficacy Concerns in 

Anti-Depressant Use by Children. Hearing held on September 23, 

2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–125. 

Flu Vaccine: Protecting High-Risk Individuals and Strengthening 

the Market.—Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee on 

Health on Flu Vaccine: Protecting High-Risk Individuals and 

Strengthening the Market. Hearing held on November 18, 2004. 

PRINTED, Serial Number 108–134. 

222 

Medicaid Prescription Drug Reimbursement: Why the Government 

Pays Too Much.—Oversight hearing on Medicaid Prescription Drug 

Reimbursement: Why the Government Pays Too Much. Hearing 

held on December 7, 2004. PRINTED, Serial Number 108–126. 

(223) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OVERSIGHT 

PLAN FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS 

Clause 2(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 108th Congress requires each standing Committee in 

the first session of a Congress to adopt an oversight plan for the 

two-year period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committee on Government Reform and to the Committee on House Administration. 

Clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI requires each Committee to submit to 

the House not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a 

report on the activities of that committee under Rules X and XI 

during the Congress ending at noon on January 3 of such year. 

Clause 1(d)(3) of Rule XI also requires that such report shall include a summary of the oversight plans submitted by the Committee pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule X; a summary of the actions 

taken and recommendations made with respect to each such plan; 

and a summary of any additional oversight activities undertaken 

by the Committee, and any recommendations made or action taken 

thereon. 

Part A of this section contains the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce Oversight Plan for the 108th Congress, which was considered and adopted by a voice vote of the Full Committee on February 12, 2003, a quorum being present. 

Part B of this section contains a summary of the actions taken 

by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to implement the 

Oversight Plan for the 108th Congress and the recommendations 

made with respect to this plan. 

(225) 

PART A 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OVERSIGHT PLAN

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

108TH CONGRESS

CONGRESSMAN W. J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN

Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the House requires each 

standing Committee to adopt an oversight plan for the two-year period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committees on 

Government Reform and House Administration not later than February 15 of the first session of the Congress. 

This is the oversight plan of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the 108th Congress. It includes the areas in which the 

Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 108th Congress, 

but does not preclude oversight or investigation of additional matters as the need arises. 

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES 

VEHICLE AND TIRE SAFETY

During the 106th Congress, the Committee’s oversight of the 

Firestone tire recall matter led to the passage of legislation—the 

Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act—mandating that the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) institute rulemakings to require the submission of data on safety-related problems, claims, 

and lawsuits (whether foreign or domestic) from manufacturers of 

products within NHTSA’s purview, including tires and vehicles. In 

the 107th Congress, the Committee conducted oversight of 

NHTSA’s implementation of the TREAD Act, as well as industry’s 

continuing response to the safety issues that led to its enactment. 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee intends to continue its review of the implementation of the TREAD Act, including creation 

of an early warning database system, rollover standard setting, and 

general vehicle safety issues. 

DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF HEALTH-RELATED PRODUCTS

During the past two years, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

has increased its enforcement efforts in the area of deceptive advertising of health-related products, particularly weight-loss supplements. Despite these increased efforts by the FTC to crack down 

on deceptive advertising in this area, advertising of weight-loss 

products continues to saturate all advertising mediums. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee will examine the enforcement efVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00231 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
226 

forts to date of the FTC with respect to deceptive advertising of 

weight-loss products, and investigate issues related to recidivism in 

this industry, as well as emerging products that are being marketed directly to children or are dietary products designed for use 

exclusively by children. 

THE FTC’S CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to review the 

management, operations, rulemaking, and enforcement actions of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in safeguarding consumers. 

In particular, the Committee will continue to review Commission 

activity with regard to franchises, business opportunities, telemarketing and identity theft. The Committee also will examine the 

FTC’s consumer protection mandate and performance as part of its 

reauthorization process. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to review the 

management, operations, and activities of the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) in safeguarding consumers, and particularly their children, from faulty or dangerous products. In particular, the Committee will review the adequacy of the CPSC’s data 

gathering and dissemination efforts with respect to products within 

its jurisdiction. The Committee also will examine other activities 

that enhance consumer product safety, such as safety standard organizations. 

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

The Committee’s oversight of corporate accounting scandals during the 107th Congress led to the passage of corporate governance 

and accounting reform legislation in 2002. In the 108th Congress, 

the Committee will conduct oversight of accounting standards 

changes and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 

projects implemented in response to the new law and the corporate 

financial collapses of 2001 and 2002. In particular the Committee 

will monitor changes to standards relating to accounting for derivatives and hedging, disclosure requirements for guarantees, and disclosures about fair value and revenue recognition. The Committee 

will seek to ensure that the FASB standard-setting process is independent and transparent, and that the standards set by FASB result in unbiased financial information that reflects economic reality 

and promotes transparency in corporate disclosure. The Committee 

also will review the implementation of the funding mechanism provided for FASB through the Public Company Accounting Oversight 

Board created under last year’s corporate reform act. 

In addition, the Committee will monitor the progress of the 

International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and its effect on 

U.S. accounting standards and standard setting. The Committee 

also will review the Securities and Exchange Commission study regarding principles-based accounting to explore the costs and benefits of a rules-based vs. principles-based system of accounting for 

U.S. companies. 

227 

INTERSTATE AND E-COMMERCE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to examine 

issues that substantially impact or affect interstate commerce, with 

particular interest in activities that impede such commerce. The 

Committee will continue its review of consumer information privacy in the commercial context. The Committee also will continue 

to examine impediments to electronic commerce, including state 

legal and regulatory impediments. 

In addition, the Committee will continue to review and consider 

issues relating to private-sector cyber security, fraud, and other 

criminal issues confronting e-commerce. The Committee also will 

continue to examine whether there is a need for further liability reform in a number of areas, including product liability and punitive 

damage awards generally. 

TRADE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to monitor 

and examine both multilateral trade agreements (including World 

Trade Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements such as 

the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements, as those agreements relate to services within the Committee’s jurisdiction—including telecommunications, electronic commerce, food and drugs, 

and energy. The Committee also will examine non-tariff trade barriers, such as legal and regulatory barriers, to electronic commerce 

and other services within the Committee’s jurisdiction. In addition, 

the Committee will examine the role of the Office of the United 

States Trade Representative with respect to the assessment of 

international telecommunications trade and the implementation of 

trade agreements in this area. The Committee also will continue to 

examine the issue of foreign government ownership of companies in 

service industries within the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS (ECNS)

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to evaluate 

the role of electronic communications networks (ECNs) in providing 

competition in the securities marketplace. The Committee will review impediments to competition and innovation in the securities 

markets, and explore ways to eliminate barriers while preserving 

investor protections. The Committee also will examine the current 

issues surrounding the availability of market data, and will consider appropriate treatment of last sale and quotation information. 

ATHLETICS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to conduct 

oversight of issues affecting amateur athletics, including the role of 

commercialism, athletic opportunities, drug abuse, and the health 

and welfare of student athletes. In addition, the Committee will 

monitor the governance of organizations responsible for administering athletics, including the U.S. Olympic Committee. 

TRAVEL AND TOURISM

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the travel and 

tourism industries were severely impacted by the decrease in busiVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
228 

ness and vacation travel. In the 108th Congress, the Committee 

will review the obstacles that stand in the way of a full recovery 

for the travel and tourism industries, as well as how the industries, 

along with Federal and state governments, can encourage and promote the United States as a travel destination for international 

and domestic passengers. 

ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES 

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

During the 108th Congress, the Committee will undertake an examination of national energy policy, examining U.S. policies as 

they relate to conservation, energy efficiency, production, and consumption of electricity, oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric 

power, nuclear power, and renewable energy. The Committee will 

examine the impact government policies are having on the exploration, production, and development of domestic energy resources. 

The Committee will review the Department of Energy’s Office of 

Fossil Energy to ensure that its programs and resources are being 

optimized to support the domestic petroleum industry. The Committee also will examine global crude oil supplies in light of potential supply interruptions, such as a war with Iraq, political turmoil 

in Venezuela, and increasing competition from other countries for 

swing supply. The Committee will examine other issues relating to 

the nation’s current energy infrastructure with a view towards its 

expansion. 

In May 2001, Vice President Cheney and the other members of 

the National Energy Policy Development Group issued a report on 

a National Energy Policy. The report recommends specific legislative and regulatory reforms necessary to ensure the nation’s longterm energy security and to meet short-term energy needs. The report contains numerous recommendations for action by specific 

agencies within the Federal government. The Committee will conduct oversight of the activities of these agencies with regard to the 

recommendations contained in the National Energy Policy report. 

THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to examine 

the activities of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) relating to electric industry restructuring, protection of 

consumers, and the development of efficient and vigorous wholesale 

markets for electricity. In particular, the Committee will focus on 

FERC’s review of applications for regional transmission organizations (RTOs), its review of comments on its proposed standard market design rulemaking, the adequacy and reliability of the nation’s 

interstate transmission grid, and other matters relating to wholesale electricity markets and the development of infrastructure 

needed to support such markets. The Committee will examine 

whether FERC’s policies appropriately address the interests of each 

region of the country, the situation of industry participants with 

pending RTO applications, and the overall benefits of well-functioning wholesale markets. The Committee also will continue its 

oversight of FERC’s handling of, and lessons learned from, the crisis in California and western electricity markets during 2001–2002, 

229 

including review of the Commission staff’s forthcoming investigative report and the Commission’s other enforcement activity. 

THE FEDERAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will conduct oversight of 

the activities of the Federal Power Marketing Administrations 

(PMAs) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The Federal 

government has been marketing electricity since the 1930s. According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Federal government today markets more than 10 percent of the nation’s power 

through the PMAs and TVA. The majority of this power is sold to 

‘‘preference customers,’’ which includes cooperatives, municipal 

utilities, irrigation districts, large industrial customers, and military installations. The Committee will conduct oversight of the 

PMAs and TVA regarding issues such as debt reduction through 

recovery of costs, consistency with electricity transmission policies 

of the Federal government to promote competitive wholesale power 

markets, transmission and generation infrastructure upgrades, and 

compliance with relevant statutes. 

OIL AND NATURAL GAS MARKETS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine the reliability and transparency of natural gas markets, including price indices as well as the industry’s use of derivatives and risk management as a means to stabilize commodity prices in the energy sector. 

The Committee also will examine whether domestic oil and gas 

companies are disadvantaged compared to foreign companies when 

competing for exploration and development programs in other 

countries. 

THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

With a potential war with Iraq looming and the political turmoil 

in Venezuela reducing oil exports from that country, the Committee 

will examine the appropriate uses of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Executive Branch’s ability to withdraw inventories, and 

a potential expansion and filling of the reserve to its Congressionally authorized amount of one billion barrels. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue its review of 

technological advances and other issues relating to ‘‘clean coal.’’ 

The Committee will examine the potential for various technologies 

to achieve increased efficiency, decreased environmental impacts 

(including air emissions), and the long-term ability of such technology to maintain a diverse energy supply for the nation. Past reviews have indicated that, while some technologies have begun to 

attract private capital, many technologies have yet to achieve economic viability in the marketplace. Thus, the Committee will examine whether the Federal government has a role to play in the expedited deployment of such power plant equipment, how different incentives could affect the deployment of new technologies, and the 

likely costs and benefits of different approaches. 

230 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The Committee will continue to monitor international negotiations on climate change during the 108th Congress. The Committee 

will consider whether international agreements are achievable, effective and fair to various U.S. interests. The Committee also will 

consider whether agreements on climate change are scientifically 

well grounded. In addition, the Committee will review components 

of ongoing climate programs—including activities carried out under 

the Global Change Research Program, the Climate Change Technology Initiative, and Section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 

1992—to ensure compliance with Congressional intent and guidance in this area. 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ITS

NATIONAL LABORATORIES

As in previous Congresses, the Committee will continue its comprehensive review of general management issues at the Department of Energy (DOE), including management of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the national laboratories. The Committee will examine DOE’s budget requests and determine whether they are consistent with the Committee’s priorities. The Committee will also continue to examine whether DOE 

is effectively managing the contractors that operate the national 

laboratories, and whether more competition is necessary in the contracting process. The Committee will continue to review the treatment of whistleblowers by DOE and its contractors. 

In the 107th Congress, the Committee began a detailed investigation of procurement and property management deficiencies at 

Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of DOE’s national laboratories run by the University of California. The Committee also recently requested that GAO review procurement and property inventory practices at the other two major national laboratories managed and operated by the University of California—the Lawrence 

Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee will continue to review these matters. 

DOE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND HIGH-LEVEL WASTE CLEAN

UP PROGRAM

The Department of Energy’s Environmental Management (EM) 

program initiated a comprehensive accelerated cleanup initiative in 

Fiscal Year 2003. The Committee will continue its review of this 

initiative to ensure that increased funding intended to achieve accelerated cleanup will actually result in real cleanup progress. The 

Committee also will review EM’s high-level waste disposal program, including the construction and operation of high-level waste 

facilities at the Hanford site, the Idaho Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, and the Savannah River site. 

THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

In the 107th Congress, the Committee reported H.J. Res. 87 approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development 

by the Department of Energy (DOE) of a permanent repository for 

231 

the disposal of commercial and government-owned spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. DOE cannot begin construction activities at Yucca Mountain until the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission approves the construction authorization license. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee will oversee DOE’s progress toward 

completing its license application for construction authorization. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Spent nuclear fuel is currently located at hundreds of storage 

sites across the country at private and government-owned facilities. 

Spent fuel storage facilities include above-ground dry storage facilities and wet storage basins. Under current Federal plans, spent 

nuclear fuel will eventually be transported to a permanent disposal 

facility at Yucca Mountain. In the 108th Congress, the Committee 

will review issues relating to the current safety and security of 

spent nuclear fuel in storage, as well as the safety and security of 

spent nuclear fuel in transport. 

DOE NUCLEAR SAFETY PROGRAMS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue its oversight 

of implementation of nuclear safety regulations by the Department 

of Energy (DOE) and its contractor employees. As part of this review, the Committee will monitor closely the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) efforts to coordinate with appropriate nuclear safety offices at DOE to ensure that investigations 

are initiated and enforcement actions are taken whenever nuclear 

safety violations occur at facilities managed by NNSA. 

DOE SECURITY PROGRAMS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue its extensive 

oversight of security matters at Department of Energy (DOE) sites, 

particularly at the national nuclear weapon laboratories, in order 

to ensure that continuing improvements are made in the protection 

of classified information and nuclear materials—whether in storage, in use, or in transport. The Committee also will review DOE’s 

efforts to finalize and implement a new design basis threat for its 

facilities and laboratories. 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

As in previous Congresses, the Committee will review the activities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee 

will examine NRC’s budget requests, conduct oversight of how the 

Commission discharges its various responsibilities, and review 

whether the Commission is an effective regulator of nuclear facilities. In particular, the Committee will monitor closely NRC’s efforts 

to increase security requirements at nuclear facilities and develop 

a new design basis threat for these facilities. In addition, as part 

of the Committee’s oversight of nuclear safety generally, the Committee will continue its review of nuclear safety issues at the 

Davis-Besse nuclear power plant—a situation that raises additional 

concerns about the Commission’s ability to conduct adequate safety-related oversight of its regulated facilities. 

232 

ADVANCED AUTOMOBILE AND HYDROGEN FUEL INITIATIVES

In the 107th Congress, the Committee began a review of the 

FreedomCAR program run by the Department of Energy. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee will continue to review the Department’s FreedomCAR and FreedomFUEL advanced automobile and 

hydrogen fuels and infrastructure initiatives. This oversight effort 

will include an assessment of program set-up, cost-effectiveness, 

the hurdles that must be overcome to develop and bring to market 

advanced automobile technologies, and the infrastructures necessary to support them. The Committee also will continue to explore advanced vehicle technologies that may provide benefits in 

the near-term, such as clean diesel and hybrid technologies. 

EPA IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

In previous Congresses, the Committee has taken an active role 

in overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the Clean Air Act and various amendments to this 

Act, including such matters as the 1997 revision to ozone and particulate matter standards, EPA’s diesel engine certification program, EPA’s regional haze program, implementation of Title VI of 

the Clean Air Act relating to metered-dose inhalers, and other related matters. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue 

to review significant activities regarding the Clean Air Act and the 

success of various efforts in achieving improved air quality in a 

manner that allows both administrative flexibility and improved 

cost-effectiveness. The Committee’s review will include oversight of 

EPA strategies to attain Clean Air Act standards, including the implementation and assessment of vehicle emission inspection and 

maintenance programs. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ‘‘EQUIP’’ PROGRAM

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 significantly revised and expanded the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQUIP). This program provides incentive payments and 

cost-share payments to assist producers in their compliance with 

local, state and Federal environmental laws regarding soil, water, 

air quality, and wildlife habitat. Recently, the EQUIP program has 

funded such items as the purchase of less-polluting diesel generators on farms in California. In the 108th Congress, the Committee 

will review how both increased funding levels and the broadened 

legislative focus of the program assists communities in meeting obligations under Federal environmental statutes within the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES 

EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

During the 108th Congress, the Committee intends to continue 

its general oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), including reviewing EPA’s mission and identifying programs 

or initiatives that deviate from that mission. The Committee also 

will review the agency’s funding decisions, resource allocation, 

grants, research activities, enforcement actions, relations with 

233 

State and local governments, and program implementation. Moreover, in light of an EPA Office of Inspector General’s suggestion 

that the agency needs to improve its planning, measuring, and accountability practices, the Committee intends to monitor EPA’s efforts to correct these deficiencies. 

EPA PROTECTION OF SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will oversee Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to protect security preparedness and vulnerability information submitted to the agency 

under the provisions of the Public Health and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. In addition, the Committee 

will review EPA’s relationship to, and coordination with, the Department of Homeland Security. 

EPA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATES

In a report released in the previous Congress, the General Accounting Office (GAO) identified the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) relationship with the States as a ‘‘major performance and accountability challenge,’’ citing disagreements over respective roles and responsibilities, priorities, and the proper conduct of Federal oversight. The Committee intends to monitor EPA’s 

commitment to improving the agency’s long-term relationship with 

the States under the National Environmental Performance Partnership. In addition, the Committee will continue to examine progressions and innovations made in the States’ environmental programs, and evaluate whether there are Federal or state-level barriers to further success in these areas. 

THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM AND BROWNFIELDS

In past Congresses, the Committee has conducted a review of the 

Superfund program run by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), including (1) regional enforcement and implementation of 

the cleanup program; (2) program management concerns identified 

by EPA’s Inspector General; and (3) EPA expenditures from the 

Superfund Trust Fund. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will 

continue its review of the efficiency, effectiveness, funding, and 

pace of progress of the Superfund program. As part of the overall 

Superfund review, the Committee intends to monitor the implementation of the new brownfields remediation and grants law. In 

particular, the Committee is interested in reviewing whether EPA 

is properly administering the law and whether existing state 

brownfields programs are being inappropriately hampered by any 

implementation or management practices at the Federal level. 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT IMPLEMENTATION

The Committee will review the Environmental Protection Agency’s relationship to the States’ toxic waste cleanup programs, and 

whether Federal program reforms, additional funding, or stronger 

enforcement under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

are necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste sites. 

234 

EPA RISK ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will conduct oversight 

with respect to Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment 

practices. 

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS

In the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996, 

Congress authorized a drinking water state revolving loan fund 

(DWSRF) program to help public water systems finance infrastructure projects needed to comply with Federal drinking water regulations and to protect public health. Under this program, States receive capitalization grants to make loans for drinking water 

projects and to support certain other activities. Since the law’s enactment, the Committee has examined the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the 1996 SDWA Amendments, including the conduct and adequacy of safe drinking water 

research and state funding of drinking water programs. At the end 

of Fiscal Year 2003, the current authorization for the DWSRF will 

expire. As part of the Committee’s efforts to meet the needs of the 

nation’s drinking water delivery systems and reauthorize the 

DWSRF, the Committee will continue its review of the 1996 

Amendments and the magnitude of any funding ‘‘gap’’ between 

identified resources and identified needs for drinking water delivery systems. In addition, the Committee will assess EPA’s implementation of non-grant components of the 1996 SDWA Amendments, including compliance rates and future safe drinking water 

delivery challenges. 

The Committee also will review EPA’s implementation of Title IV 

of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and 

Response Act of 2002 with respect to security of drinking water 

systems from terrorist attack. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

Last year, the Department of Defense (DOD) asserted that its 

ability to train the country’s armed forces is being hampered by 

certain Federal environmental laws—three of which fall within the 

jurisdiction of the Committee. As the committee responsible for 

passage of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, the Committee 

will review DOD’s environmental activities and ascertain its record 

of clean-up effectiveness, ongoing monitoring, and compliance with 

Federal and state environmental laws and regulations. In addition, 

the Committee will examine DOD’s actions in response to two GAO 

reports issued in the 107th Congress, which raised concerns about 

DOD’s overall environmental efforts at Formerly Utilized Defense 

Sites. 

HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES 

MEDICARE MODERNIZATION

Given the growing financial pressures facing the Medicare program because of an aging population, the Committee will continue 

to examine ways to strengthen and modernize the program for current and future generations. Today, Medicare consumes approxiVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
235 

mately 12 percent of the Federal budget—a number expected to increase to over 30 percent by 2030. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will review proposals to address program growth, examine 

the adequacy of existing Part A and Part B funding mechanisms, 

and review proposals to improve beneficiaries’ basic benefit packages. Specifically, the Committee will explore initiatives that enhance beneficiary choice, provide patients with better access to preventive benefits and a catastrophic cap on out-of-pocket expenditures, and reform cost-sharing mechanisms. 

CHILDHOOD VACCINE SHORTAGES

Since the summer of 2001, there has been a reported shortage of 

doses to protect children against eight of 11 vaccine-preventable 

diseases, including chicken pox, diphtheria, and whooping cough. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC), this vaccine shortage is the worst in 24 years, causing vaccines to be unavailable to millions of children. Moreover, the number of domestic manufacturers of vaccines has dropped from 37 to 

four. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine the factors that may contribute to shortages of vaccines. In particular, the 

Committee will review whether government policies or regulations 

in this area provide disincentives to vaccine research, development, 

and production, and whether the Federal vaccine injury compensation and liability system is working effectively. 

SAFETY OF BREAST IMPLANTS

Over the last several years, the Committee has monitored the 

oversight by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the 

breast-implant industry and the safety and efficacy of saline-filled 

and silicone-filled breast implants. Under a provision of the medical device user fee law passed in the last Congress, the National 

Institutes of Health is required to issue a report this year on the 

safety of breast implants. In addition, FDA will be reviewing premarket applications for silicone breast implants this year. Given 

these developments, the Committee will continue its review in this 

area during the 108th Congress. 

FDA DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS REFORM

Last year, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

held two hearings concerning ImClone Systems and the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) review and rejection of its cancer treatment drug Erbitux. This inquiry revealed inconsistencies in the 

drug review processes between the two FDA centers that consider 

drug applications and their policies for interacting with drug companies submitting such applications. By exposing these issues, the 

Committee helped spur a FDA reorganization of therapeutic drug 

reviews and other policy changes to improve the drug approval 

process. The Committee will continue to monitor and examine 

these FDA policy changes to improve the drug approval process 

during the 108th Congress. 

236 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY AND ABUSE

In previous Congresses, the Committee has investigated safety 

and misuse concerns surrounding several prescription drugs approved for sale by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including the acne drug Accutane and the top-selling analgesic 

Oxycontin. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to 

monitor issues relating to these two drugs, as well as FDA’s pending evaluation of Palladone, another narcotic analgesic. 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee also will continue its prior 

investigations into the safety of imported (and re-imported) drugs, 

including counterfeit or unapproved drugs and bulk ingredients imported for use in finished drug products. The Committee’s efforts 

will include a continuing review of FDA activities to address the 

growing problems of prescription drugs being sold illegally to U.S. 

residents from Internet sites, and the potential consequences such 

activities pose to public health. In addition, the Committee will 

continue its review of the growing emergence of Mexican border 

pharmacies, and the potential threats such sources may pose to 

U.S. travelers seeking medicines from such sources. The Committee’s efforts also will focus on what actions FDA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and various mail couriers (including the U.S. 

Postal Service, FedEx, and UPS) are taking to prevent or limit a 

variety of dangerous drugs (including controlled substances) from 

illegally entering the United States. Finally, given FDA’s pending 

investigations of several cases of counterfeit finished drugs found 

by patients and pharmacists in the United States, the Committee 

will continue to examine the evolving nature of this issue and the 

efforts FDA and the pharmaceutical industry are taking to reduce 

this threat. 

NURSING HOMES QUALITY OF CARE

As part of the Committee’s jurisdiction over programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including Medicare Part B and Medicaid, the Committee will examine quality-of-care issues in nursing homes during the 108th Congress. The Committee will monitor HHS’ efforts to promote quality 

care in nursing homes, and whether consumers are receiving sufficient information to help them evaluate quality. Moreover, as part 

of the Committee’s continuing oversight of corporate accountability, 

the Committee will review the management of publicly-traded 

nursing homes and the public disclosures to investors concerning 

the financial health of these companies, particularly given the recent bankruptcies (and subsequent reorganizations) of many of the 

largest nursing home chains. 

CMS’ MANAGEMENT OF THE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PROGRAMS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to assess the 

management by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) of the fiscal intermediaries and carriers that are responsible 

for processing all Medicare claims and payments. Although CMS 

provides overall policy guidance for the administration of Medicare, 

day-to-day operation of the program is dependent on contractors 

that process beneficiary claims and make Medicare payments to 

237 

healthcare providers. The Committee’s prior oversight in this area 

has revealed how several of these contractors fraudulently misrepresented their performance, submitted false financial data, compromised the integrity of audits, and destroyed relevant documents 

in order to receive greater incentive payments from CMS—and how 

CMS failed to detect these activities because of lax oversight coupled with complex and often contradictory directives from CMS 

headquarters and regional offices. In response, CMS initiated significant efforts to reform its management of Medicare contractors, 

and has sought new authority to expand the types of entities that 

can serve as Medicare contractors. The Committee will continue to 

review CMS oversight of these contractors and examine the current 

contractor eligibility requirements and the Medicare claims payment system. 

During the 108th Congress, the Committee also will continue efforts to streamline administrative and regulatory burdens on beneficiaries and providers. As part of this effort, the Committee will 

monitor CMS’ implementation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 

(BBA), the Balanced Budget Refinement Act (BBRA), the Benefits 

Improvement and Protection Act (BIPA), as well as any regulatory 

relief legislation that this Congress may pass. The Committee also 

will review the Medicare appeals process to evaluate its efficiency 

and effectiveness in resolving disputes over Medicare coverage affecting the program’s 40 million beneficiaries. The new Medicare 

appeals process was included in BIPA, which was enacted in 2000. 

In addition, these laws contain provisions having an impact on the 

Medicaid program and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S–CHIP), which the Committee will review as well. 

MEDICARE+CHOICE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to examine 

the Medicare+Choice market and the policies that affect plans’ decisions to participate in the program. Over the last several years, 

hundreds of plans have withdrawn from the Medicare+Choice program, affecting more than 2.4 million beneficiaries. In addition, 

many plans have reduced benefits or increased beneficiary costsharing, making these plans less attractive to beneficiaries. The 

Committee will carefully examine these issues, and attempt to 

identify solutions that will guarantee that beneficiaries will continue to have access to Medicare+Choice plans. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

As part of the Congressional effort to enact a new prescription 

drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, the Committee will continue to review issues relating to prescription drugs. These issues 

will include assessing beneficiaries’ pharmaceutical needs, utilization and expenditures, as well as the special circumstances of lowincome seniors, and how all of these factors might relate to possible 

benefit designs. The Committee will examine innovative strategies 

for harnessing purchasing power to lower costs, and for providing 

better disease management for Medicare beneficiaries. In addition, 

the Committee will continue its oversight into the abuses associated with drug-price reporting practices, particularly the use of AvVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
238 

erage Wholesale Price (‘‘AWP’’) to set reimbursements for both the 

Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

THE UNINSURED

Forty-one million Americans lack access to health insurance. In 

the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine ways to expand 

insurance coverage to these individuals and improve the insurance 

marketplace. 

MEDICARE PREVENTATIVE CARE

As part of its oversight of how the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services manages the delivery of health care, the Committee will continue to assess policies concerning beneficiary use 

and the cost effectiveness of clinical preventive benefits and services under Medicare. 

PREVENTING WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN FEDERAL HEALTHCARE

PROGRAMS

The Medicare program continues to be at risk of considerable 

losses due to waste, fraud and abuse. Because of the program’s 

large size and scope—providing health care coverage for 40 million 

Americans, with expenditures in excess of $241 billion each year— 

the Committee will focus considerable attention on efforts to eliminate improper payments. In particular, the Committee will review 

Federal financial management processes and controls, and information technology and systems used to prevent and detect fraud. 

The Committee also will examine Medicare reimbursement policies to identify and eliminate potential areas in which the program 

may be vulnerable to fraud and abuse. These initiatives will include an examination of reimbursements to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other providers, including outlier payment issues. 

The Committee also will review issues relating to healthcare financing highlighted by the recent collapse of National Century Financial Enterprises. In this context, the Committee will examine 

the pace of reimbursement from Medicaid and Medicare programs, 

and the potential impact this may have upon providers and their 

reliance on risky and expensive cash flow financing from lenders 

such as National Century. The Committee also will examine how 

these financing arrangements may threaten healthcare providers 

with bankruptcy, as the National Century case has demonstrated. 

REFORM OF THE MEDICAID PROGRAM

Medicaid is a program jointly funded by the Federal government 

and the States to provide healthcare coverage for approximately 44 

million low-income Americans. In Fiscal Year 2001, Medicaid had 

total expenditures of $228 billion, with the Federal share equaling 

approximately 57 percent. It is estimated that total Medicaid 

spending for Fiscal Year 2002 will, for the first time, exceed spending for Medicare, and Medicaid spending is projected to double 

within the next ten years. On average, Medicaid currently consumes 15–20 percent of all state budgets, and is often the second 

largest budget item for States after education expenses. 

239 

The challenges inherent in overseeing a program of Medicaid’s 

size, growth and diversity, combined with the open-ended nature of 

its Federal funding, places the program at risk for exploitation and 

waste. During the 108th Congress, the Committee will review the 

Medicaid program to assess its current operations and determine 

how they may be improved. These efforts will include examining 

the current system for financing Medicaid, and whether it may create incentives for States and providers to attempt to inappropriately obtain additional Federal funds. The Committee also will 

focus its attention on the needs of the elderly and disabled populations within Medicaid, and assess new strategies for improving 

the quality and cost effectiveness of the care they receive. In this 

regard, the Committee will examine state efforts to modify and improve the Medicaid program, and whether these efforts are meeting 

the needs of elderly and disabled beneficiaries. 

IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine why imageguided biopsy, a minimally invasive procedure used to determine if 

a patient has breast cancer, is used significantly less than surgical 

biopsy. Image-guided biopsy involves less cost to the patient and 

does not involve general anesthesia, unlike surgical biopsy. Yet 

surgical biopsy continues to be the method of biopsy most doctors 

use, despite the lack of data indicating that it is more effective or 

accurate than image-guided biopsy. Evidence also suggests that 

many patients are not made aware that they have an option for a 

less-invasive procedure. The Committee will review whether patients are receiving adequate information about this option, and 

whether the use of surgical biopsy over image-guided biopsy may 

result from the larger reimbursement rates under Medicare for the 

surgical biopsy procedure. 

THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

Building on the Committee’s prior oversight work to ensure the 

adequacy of Federal, state, and local efforts to respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies, the Committee will investigate ways to improve the grant making process at the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention to strengthen the capacity of 

the public health infrastructure at the state and local level. In particular, the Committee plans to review the effectiveness of current 

chronic disease prevention programs with respect to reducing the 

incidence of these diseases. The Committee also will review ways 

to improve infectious disease surveillance and control. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Over the past five years, Congress has invested considerable additional resources into the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 

roughly doubling its budget. With approximately $27 billion per fiscal year, NIH is the largest source of funding for health research 

in the world. In Spring 2003, the Institute of Medicine is expected 

to release a report on the organizational structure of NIH, specifically focusing on whether the current structure is meeting the scientific research needs of the United States. 

240 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will conduct an examination of NIH’s organizational structure, priority setting, and research activities. In particular, the Committee will examine how 

NIH exercises oversight over grant-receiving institutions. During 

one of the Committee’s investigations last year, the Committee 

learned that NIH was providing grants to the Coulston Foundation, 

a registered animal research facility in Alamagordo, New Mexico, 

which had recently declared bankruptcy and had been cited by two 

other Federal agencies for violations of various Federal regulations. 

This incident raises the question whether NIH oversight ensures 

that its grant funds are properly managed, and that grantee institutions are not in violation of Federal regulations. 

HHS PROGRAMS AFFECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

The Committee will continue to conduct oversight of Department 

of Health and Human Services grant programs that affect the 

health of children and families. The Committee will evaluate the 

current distribution of funding for these programs, assess whether 

the monies are being spent effectively, and examine the extent to 

which these programs comply with statutory requirements and 

Congressional intent. In addition, the Committee will review the 

implementation of those aspects of the welfare reform provisions 

that are within the Committee’s jurisdiction. These provisions are 

scheduled for reauthorization this year. 

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will review the efforts and 

recommendations of the Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial 

Resistance, which was statutorily authorized under the Public 

Health Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106–505). This oversight 

will involve assessment of the Federal surveillance and monitoring 

programs, prevention and control efforts, and research and development activities relating to antimicrobial resistance. 

ORGAN DONATIONS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee intends to review the current organ donation system, and whether improvements can be 

made to the system in order to increase the availability of donated 

organs for patients on transplant waiting lists. 

DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT & PREVENTION

For the last several years, the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has been attempting to 

publish mandatory guidelines for testing of alternative specimens 

(such as hair, sweat, and oral fluid) and on-site testing techniques 

for potential drugs of abuse. These alternative testing matrices 

could help bolster the accuracy and capability of workplace drug 

testing. The Committee intends to examine the reasons for the 

delay in publication of these guidelines, and whether the process 

for issuing these guidelines can be expedited. 

The Committee also will review more generally SAMHSA and 

the programs it administers, in order to identify strengths and 

weaknesses of the current grant structure. In addition, the ComVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00246 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
241 

mittee will examine the Administration’s new initiative to help 

drug-addicted Americans find needed treatment. 

MEDICAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to focus on 

issues relating to medical liability insurance. In particular, the 

Committee plans to review the extent and causes of the medical liability insurance crisis, which may be contributing to providers’ unwillingness to continue practicing in certain jurisdictions and in 

certain specialties. 

PATIENT SAFETY

As part of its jurisdiction over public health, the Committee will 

continue to address the issues of patient safety and medical errors. 

In its 1999 report, To Err Is Human, the Institute of Medicine estimated that 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die each year as a result 

of medical errors. While there has been some dispute about the accuracy of these precise estimates, the Committee intends to explore 

possible incentives to encourage the healthcare industry to reduce 

medical errors, and will review the Federal government’s overall 

role in promoting patient safety. 

PEDIATRIC DRUG TESTING

Late last year, a Federal court ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not have the authority to issue its ‘‘Pediatric Rule,’’ which required manufacturers of drugs and biologics to 

test their drugs intended for adults on children. In light of this decision, the Committee intends to review FDA efforts to ensure the 

appropriate testing of drugs in children, and will consider whether 

statutory changes are necessary. 

GENERIC DRUG COMPETITION

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently proposed a 

rule that would re-interpret the 30-month stay provision of the 

Hatch-Waxman Act, among other things. Prior to the re-interpretation, brand-name drug manufacturers, in limited instances, could 

obtain multiple 30-month stays to forestall generic competition. 

The proposed rule would allow for only one 30-month stay. The 

Committee intends to monitor FDA’s promulgation of the final rule 

during the 108th Congress. 

FOOD ALLERGEN LABELING

In the 108th Congress, the Committee intends to review whether 

the food industry is adequately labeling food products for the presence of eight major food allergens in a manner that is easily understood by consumers. 

MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES

Last year, the President signed into law the Medical Device User 

Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. Among other things, this legislation required device manufacturers to pay user fees to the Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) for the review of their medical devices. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will conduct oversight 

242 

in this area to ensure timely and effective implementation of this 

law. 

ANIMAL DRUG ISSUES

Approval of animal drugs takes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) longer than virtually any other drug application. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee will review the reasons for this 

delay, and consider whether it is necessary to develop a user fee 

program for animal drugs. Under such a program, industry would 

pay fees to FDA for review of animal drug applications and, with 

such fees, FDA would hire additional personnel in order to speed 

the animal drug review process. 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES 

THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE PROGRAM

In previous Congresses, the Committee has reviewed the operations of the Universal Service Program administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Universal service was 

first implemented as a government policy with the Charleston Plan 

of implicit subsidies in 1951 as a means of ensuring that all Americans enjoyed a ubiquitous, reliable, and affordable communications 

system. Universal service policies were amended after the breakup 

of AT&T in the early 1980s and again in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the changes made in 1996 was the expansion 

of the program to include the subsidization of telecommunications 

services provided to schools, libraries, and rural health care providers. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will review the effectiveness of the universal service program and evaluate several possible reforms, including whether the fund should be expanded to include additional services, whether the fund should be reduced to 

account for advances in technology, and whether the methodology 

for how funds are collected and distributed should be changed. 

The part of the program focused on schools, libraries, and rural 

healthcare providers is known as the ‘‘E-Rate’’ program, and its 

roughly $2 billion annual fund is administered for the FCC by an 

independent company, the Universal Service Administrative Company. All telecommunications carriers that provide interstate and 

international services pay contributions into the E-Rate program, 

which are distributed by the FCC in the form of grants to schools, 

libraries, and rural health care providers. Recent reports by the 

FCC’s Inspector General and certain public interest groups, as well 

as recent criminal charges filed by the Department of Justice, indicate the potential for significant fraud, waste, and abuse within the 

E-Rate program, and suggest a lack of effective oversight of the 

program by the FCC. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will 

investigate these reports. 

HEALTH OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR

The prosperity of the telecommunications and technology sector 

provided a driving force behind the unprecedented economic growth 

experienced by the United States from 1995 to 2000. The massmarket commercialization of the Internet and the passage of the 

1996 Telecommunications Act unleashed a massive investment in 

243 

telecommunications and Internet companies. This boom, however, 

turned to bust in 2000 and 2001, as new investment from Wall 

Street dried up. There has been much analysis and speculation regarding the reasons for this change of fortunes in the telecommunications industry. Some analysts have suggested a glut in Internet 

backbone capacity led to the industry’s decline; others have suggested that too many local exchange competitors had poor business 

plans. Investors also shifted from evaluating companies based on 

revenue growth to evaluating them based upon profitability—and 

few of these companies were making any profit. In addition, even 

companies that had been profitable, such as incumbent local exchange carriers and cable companies, faced a decline in profitability 

due to increased intermodal competition and the overall decline in 

both business and consumer spending. As a result, hundreds of 

thousands of employees of telecommunications service and manufacturing companies have lost their jobs and dozens of companies 

have filed for bankruptcy. 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine what caused 

the downward spiral of the telecommunications sector, whether the 

causes were purely business-related, or whether there were regulatory or policy reasons for the slowdown. 

FCC IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

In 1996, Congress enacted a major overhaul of the country’s telecommunications laws. Among the many changes made in 1996, two 

in particular have spurred a tremendous amount of interest and 

controversy. First, in order to spur multi-platform facilities-based 

competition among telecommunications providers, Congress required incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to make parts of 

their networks available to competitors seeking to offer telecommunications services. These competitors then would be able to 

offer telecommunications services while they gradually built out 

their own networks. Second, the 1996 Telecommunications Act created, for the first time, a statutory distinction between telecommunications services (essentially transmission services in 

which information does not change content or form) and information services (which do alter the content or form of information that 

is being transmitted). Companies interested in offering competitive 

telecommunications services were granted rights such as the ability 

to interconnect with an incumbent’s network, the permission to resell an incumbent’s retail services, the opportunity to enable a telephone customer to keep his or her phone number even if he or she 

switched carriers, and the right to lease parts of an incumbent’s 

networks and collocate equipment in an incumbent’s offices. Information services, on the other hand, were essentially left unregulated. 

There has been widespread disagreement about whether the 

rules implementing these provisions from the 1996 Telecommunications Act have been effective in achieving the goals of the Act. 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to examine the 

implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act by the Federal 

Communications Commission. 

244 

WIRELESS E–911 DEPLOYMENT

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has required 

mobile telecommunications service providers to put technology in 

their networks and/or consumer handsets that enable a public safety official to determine a wireless caller’s location with a certain degree of accuracy. This program, known as E–911, has the potential 

to save lives in cases in which 911 emergency calls are made from 

mobile phones but the caller is unable to provide precise location 

information. However, the deployment of location technology in mobile networks and handsets has been slower than expected. In 

2002, former FCC Chief Engineer Dale Hatfield led a study of E– 

911 implementation and made several findings. He cited the need 

to bring incumbent local exchange carriers into closer coordination 

with respect to E–911 implementation. Hatfield also recommended 

that the FCC urge stakeholders to develop industry-wide procedures for testing and certification of wireless E–911 to ensure that 

they meet the accuracy requirements specified in the Commission’s 

rules. In addition, Hatfield recommended that there be closer cooperation between the FCC and local and state 911 operations. 

In the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet held a hearing on the status of the implementation of E–911. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue 

its examination in this regard and explore the recommendations 

from the Hatfield report. 

DIGITAL TELEVISION

In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress gave television 

broadcasters additional 6 MHz blocks of spectrum to begin broadcasting in digital format, and required them to cease analog broadcasting and return 6 MHz blocks of spectrum the later of December 

31, 2006, or once more than 85% of television households have access to digital television channels. While many digital stations already are in operation in major metropolitan areas, the overall conversion to digital television has been criticized as being slow, unorganized and unrealistic. There are a number of open proceedings 

at the Commission that will impact the success of the transition to 

digital television. The Committee intends to monitor the FCC’s actions in these proceedings to ensure the rapid deployment of digital 

television in all areas of the country in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Further, the 

Committee plans to continue its in-depth review of the transition 

to digital television to determine what barriers exist to its full development and deployment. 

EFFICIENT USE OF SPECTRUM AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

Management of spectrum within the United States is shared between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (governing 

private sector use of the spectrum) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (governing governmental use of the spectrum). Virtually all usable spectrum already 

has been allocated. The recent popularity and growth of the wireless telecommunications industry has increased demand for the allocation and assignment of additional spectrum in order to provide 

245 

new services, such as third generation (‘‘3G’’) wireless services and 

Wi-Fi. The tension created by the current shortfall has a significant 

impact on the U.S. economy and the ability of U.S. wireless providers to compete with wireless companies in other nations that are 

rushing to offer new wireless services. The Committee plans an extensive review of spectrum management functions in the 108th 

Congress, in order to ensure efficient use of spectrum, particularly 

by Federal government users. In addition, the Committee will review efforts to promote spectrum sharing that may be beneficial to 

the promotion of new wireless technologies. 

MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES

The 1996 Telecommunications Act mandated that the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) immediately liberalize a number of its broadcast ownership rules. On an ongoing basis, the Act 

also requires the FCC to review its ownership rules biennially to 

‘‘determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public 

interest as the result of competition.’’ In September 2002, the FCC 

consolidated three pending broadcast ownership proceedings into a 

single Biennial Review on six broadcast ownership rules: the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule; the local radio ownership 

rule; the television-radio cross-ownership rule; the dual network 

rule; the local television ownership rule; and the national television 

ownership rule. In addition to the Biennial Review, the FCC has 

before it a separate pending proceeding on the cable horizontal 

ownership cap. The need to reassess these ownership rules was 

made more urgent by the determination of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that, if the Commission 

is to retain its media ownership rules in their present form, it must 

first justify their need. In the 107th Congress, the Committee corresponded with the FCC and met with its staff on these issues. The 

issue of whether the media ownership rules should be relaxed has 

many proponents and opponents and, during the 108th Congress, 

the Committee will monitor closely the FCC’s progress in these proceedings. A decision on the Biennial Review is expected in Spring 

2003. 

ICANN

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

(ICANN) governs the management and registration of the domain 

name system. In the 108th Congress, the Committee plans to examine the structure and operations of ICANN, and its effort—along 

with that of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration—to privatize the domain name system and determine 

the rightful ownership of the root server. ICANN also will be selecting and approving an unspecified number of new Internet domains. Past ICANN selections of new domains have been met with 

considerable controversy, and the Committee will exercise oversight 

to ensure that the selection process is open, fair, and competitive. 

DOT KIDS

During the 107th Congress, the ‘‘Dot Kids Implementation and 

Efficiency Act’’ was passed into law. That law requires the operator 

246 

of the ‘‘.us’’ country-code domain to create and maintain the ‘‘.kids’’ 

secondary domain. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will monitor closely the implementation of the ‘‘.kids’’ domain to ensure that 

the site is created consistent with the content mandates of the law. 

The Committee also will exercise oversight over the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s role in the creation and publication of the ‘‘.kids’’ domain. 

CONTENT PROTECTION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO E-COMMERCE

As the digital arena continues to grow, questions about the protection of intellectual property arise that never existed in an analog 

world. Because digital copies are as perfect as originals, the question of how to ensure content protection in a digital age is critical 

in the development of all digital distribution platforms. The methods by which to protect the right of digital content producers, however, may impinge on the traditional expectations that consumers 

have grown accustomed to from living in the analog world. There 

also is a threat that particular technological means of content protection may stifle e-commerce and the further development of the 

Internet. In the 108th Congress, the Committee intends to examine 

how developing technologies in digital rights management, including watermarking and deterrents for peer-to-peer file sharing, affect traditional content protections. Further, the Committee will review whether traditional content protections warrant any changes, 

and whether new mechanisms are necessary to strike the proper 

balance between protecting works and encouraging the continued 

growth of the digital economy. 

INTERNET SPAM AND POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS

Internet users are expressing increasing frustration over the 

growing number of unsolicited e-mails they receive from commercial vendors, as well as the frequency of pop-up advertisements 

during Internet use. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine the extent of this problem and any efforts by the government and private sectors to control or limit such practices. 

THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) 

in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Historically, the Committee 

has been charged with monitoring the activities of CPB and authorizing appropriations. In the 108th Congress, the Committee 

will continue to review the level of Federal funding necessary for 

the continuation of public broadcasting from stations across the 

country. The Committee also will examine issues relating to the efficiency of CPB, its funding mechanisms, and its relationship to the 

national program distribution services—the Public Broadcasting 

Service and National Public Radio. Further, the Committee intends 

to conduct an examination of the estimated transition costs of the 

public broadcasters for converting from analog to digital television, 

as well as the intended uses that public broadcasters have for this 

new technology. 

247 

HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

In 1997, the President’s Council on Critical Infrastructure Protections recommended that the Federal government initiate increased efforts to ensure that critical infrastructures within the 

United States, including the electric power grid, telecommunications and transportation systems, and water supplies, are adequately secure from threats posed by malicious actors, foreign governments, and terrorists. Partially in response to this report, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 63 and created 

the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, which was originally 

housed within the Department of Commerce but will soon be transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security. In 2001, 

President Bush expanded upon this structure, and included additional sectors of the economy within this framework. In the previous Congress, the Committee closely followed efforts to improve 

critical infrastructure protections and, in the 108th Congress, the 

Committee intends to continue to review infrastructure assurance 

efforts that affect areas within the Committee’s jurisdiction. In particular, the Committee will review protection efforts in the electricity, energy, nuclear, postal/shipping, and information and telecommunications industries, as well as with respect to the food and 

drinking water supplies and the public health infrastructure. 

Specifically with respect to the chemical sector, the Committee 

expects to receive in March 2003 a report it requested from the 

General Accounting Office (GAO) on issues relating to chemical facility security, and will review its findings and recommendations. 

The Committee also will review the efforts of Federal agencies and 

the private sector to assess the vulnerabilities of such facilities and 

enhance security measures, including the Department of Justice’s 

implementation of the requirements of the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act of 1999 and 

whether the Department has access to adequate funding for this 

purpose. 

NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

Because of the large volume of imports and a limited number of 

resources, the United States Customs Service inspects only about 

two percent of all cargo containers entering U.S. ports. In addition, 

Customs’ effort to target inspections to suspect shipments is hampered by its reliance on cargo manifest data that is often vague, incomplete, and inconsistent. Because of these limitations, Customs 

must implement non-intrusive technological devices in order to effectively scan cargo for nuclear and/or radiological materials. 

The United States, principally through the Second Line of Defense program run by the Department of Energy (DOE), has installed over 300 sophisticated portal monitors in the former Soviet 

Union to detect the exportation of smuggled nuclear or radiological 

materials from those countries. Yet as of November 2002 there 

were no analogous systems in place in the United States to prevent 

the importation of nuclear or radiological material. As a result of 

this Committee’s oversight in the 107th Congress, Customs has improved coordination with DOE and has begun to deploy radiation 

248 

portal monitoring systems along the northern U.S. border in December 2002 and January 2003. Customs plans on installing additional portal monitoring systems along the northern border in the 

first quarter of 2003. In addition, as a result of past Committee 

oversight, FedEx and UPS have taken steps to heighten their security procedures to prevent the importation of nuclear material 

through their systems. 

Considerable oversight of these areas will be required to ensure 

that the U.S. becomes better secured from these threats, and to ensure that scarce resources are not expended on ineffective technologies. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to 

monitor Federal government and private sector efforts at border 

crossings, seaports, and mail facilities. The Committee’s review will 

analyze and assess Customs’ and DOE’s efforts and equipment 

aimed at detecting and preventing the smuggling of dangerous 

commerce, particularly nuclear and radiological weapons of mass 

destruction. 

BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

In the 107th Congress, the Committee’s oversight of the adequacy of Federal, state and local efforts to prepare for and effectively respond to bioterrorism and other public health emergencies 

led to the passage of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. In the 108th Congress, the 

Committee will oversee the implementation of this Act by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the coordination between HHS and the Department of Homeland Security with 

respect to setting priorities and goals for bioterrorism-related research and preparedness activities. 

As part of this review, the Committee will examine the implementation of pre-event smallpox vaccination of select groups of 

health care workers (including review of issues relating to liability 

and compensation for adverse events), as well as the Administration’s Bioshield proposal to accelerate the development and stockpiling of new vaccines and countermeasures for dangerous biological agents. The Committee also will review HHS efforts in the area 

of education and training of certain categories of health care professionals, as well as the implementation of tighter regulatory controls 

on the possession, use, and transfer of dangerous biological agents. 

Further, the Committee intends to monitor the Food and Drug 

Administration’s (FDA) promulgation of rules intended to combat 

possible bioterrorist activities relating to food products by ensuring 

that FDA has additional information about foods entering the country and is better able to track food shipments throughout the country. Under last year’s bioterrorism law, FDA must promulgate by 

October 2003 final rules pertaining to prior notice of food shipments, registration of food facilities, record-keeping requirements, 

and administrative detention of food shipments. 

PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM

A major communications problem identified by the September 11 

tragedy was the absence of interoperable spectrum used by public 

safety officials. Police, fire, and rescue personnel from different jurisdictions often are not able to communicate with each other using 

249 

their respective communications devices because they operate using 

different, incompatible frequencies. Finding or creating spectrum 

bands that could be used for interoperability among different public 

safety operations is critical if the United States is to be prepared 

to prevent or mitigate another terrorist strike. Moreover, to the extent that spectrum currently encumbered by broadcasters during 

the digital transition might be slated for public safety once the 

broadcaster gives it back, this issue is tied to the digital television 

transition. 

In the 108th Congress, the Committee will examine this interoperability and spectrum management problem, gathering information from public safety officials at the Federal, state, and local 

level, the Federal Communications Commission, manufacturers of 

equipment that could be used for public safety purposes, and carriers that offer communications services for public safety operations. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included a separate legislative provision entitled the Federal Information Security Management Act, which reauthorized and enhanced a government-wide 

cyber security program under the direction of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In the 107th Congress, the Committee reviewed the efforts of Federal agencies within its jurisdiction to comply with the original government-wide cyber security law, which 

passed in October 2000. During the 108th Congress, the Committee 

will continue these efforts to ensure that Federal agencies are complying with the cyber security provisions of the new Homeland Security Act. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

Last year, Congress passed the historic Homeland Security Act 

of 2002, which created a new Department of Homeland Security to 

consolidate and coordinate homeland defense activities currently 

spread throughout the Federal government. The Committee’s prior 

oversight and legislative activities in this area contributed significantly to the development and passage of this legislation. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee will oversee the implementation of 

this new law as it pertains to matters within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including critical infrastructure protection, research and 

development, and emergency preparedness. 

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES 

MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASE AND TRAVEL CARDS

In 2002, the Committee’s investigation of misuse of government 

purchase cards at agencies under the jurisdiction of the Committee 

spurred the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take an 

active role in restructuring and improving the purchase card programs at all Federal government agencies. In the 108th Congress, 

the Committee will continue to work with OMB to ensure that the 

new programs are successful in preventing fraud, waste, and abuse 

in the use of this procurement tool. The Committee also requested 

that the General Accounting Office (GAO) conduct an audit of the 

250 

travel card program at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This report is due to be completed in February 2003. 

The Committee intends to continue its review of the travel card 

programs at HHS and other relevant agencies. 

(251) 

PART B 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

OVERISGHT PLAN FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS

COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES 

VEHICLE AND TIRE SAFETY

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its work reviewing motor vehicle and tire safety. The National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) is charged to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses that result from motor vehicle crashes by 

setting safety performance standards for vehicles and equipment. 

NHTSA further investigates safety defects, use of safety belts, child 

safety seats and air bags, and provides consumer education on 

motor vehicle safety. On March 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight 

hearing on the reauthorization of NHTSA. That hearing focused on 

the vehicle safety initiatives and regulatory priorities of NHTSA 

currently and into the future, including vehicle compatibility, rollovers, seat belt use, and tire safety. The hearing witnesses included 

government regulators, automobile industry representatives, insurance organizations, and automobile safety advocates. 

DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF HEALTH-RELATED PRODUCTS

During the 107th Congress, the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) increased its enforcement efforts in the area of deceptive advertising of health-related products, particularly weight-loss supplements. Despite these increased efforts by the FTC to crack down 

on deceptive advertising in this area, advertising of weight-loss 

products continues to saturate all advertising mediums. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee examined the enforcement efforts 

to date of the FTC with respect to deceptive advertising of weightloss products. On July 23 and 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held two hearings, the second hearing held 

jointly with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection, to examine the marketing and use of ephedrine-containing dietary supplements in light of reports of adverse reactions 

by consumers using such products, including the death of a professional baseball player. The first hearing focused on manufacturers 

and distributors of ephedra-containing supplements and the advertising and labeling, and safety concerns related to their products. 

The second hearing focused on policies and concerns related to 

sports leagues and organizations, including the various positions 

sports leagues have taken on the use of ephedra-containing supplements by their athletes, and on issues related to the regulatory enVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
252 

vironment for ephedra-based products. Following the hearings, the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted a re-examination 

of dietary supplements containing ephedra, such products were 

banned from sale effective April 2004. 

THE FTC’S CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee examined the actions of 

the FTC in safeguarding consumers. On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a 

joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet on legislative efforts to combat spam. In addition to 

spam causing disruptions of consumer Internet accounts, spam has 

also been used to commit fraud through deceptive and fraudulent 

solicitations. The hearing focused on anti-spam legislative proposals in the 108th Congress. 

On December 15, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, on 

personal identity theft. The purpose of the hearing was to assess 

the crime of identity theft, to provide consumers with information 

on where to go for assistance if they become victims, and to provide 

preventative tips to stop the fraud from occurring in the first place. 

The Subcommittee received testimony from a Pennsylvania state 

representative, an identity theft victim, and a charitable organization representative. A second panel consisted of representatives 

from a national credit reporting agency and a state bank. The third 

panel included a Deputy Attorney General from the Pennsylvania 

Attorney General’s Office, the Deputy Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police Department, and officials with the Bureau of 

Consumer Protection at the FTC and the U.S. Postal Inspection 

Service. In addition, on September 28, 2004, the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing on protecting the privacy of consumers’ Social Security Numbers. The 

hearing also focused on identity theft and the integrity of social security numbers as well as legislative efforts to enhance protections 

for both. The FTC has responsibility for maintaining the Identity 

Theft Clearinghouse. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to examine children’s product safety issues. On October 6, 2004, the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing to 

assess current consumer product safety standards and the existing 

authority and resources of the Consumer Produce Safety Commission are sufficient to protect children. The hearing explored particular hazards to children and the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) process for dealing with dangerous products. The 

Committee also kept abreast of fire safety rulemaking at the CPSC 

and developments with regard to antifreeze safety. 

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS

The Committee’s oversight of corporate accounting scandals during the 107th Congress led to the passage of corporate governance 

and accounting reform legislation in 2002. In the 108th Congress, 

253 

the Committee conducted oversight of accounting standards 

changes and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 

projects implemented in response to the new law and the corporate 

financial collapses of 2001 and 2002. The Committee also examined 

issues related to current financial reporting failures. On September 

25, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection held a hearing on Freddie Mac and accounting issues 

raised by the Doty report. The hearing focused on the report, which 

was prepared for the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac, and considered the accounting matters raised in the report as a case study 

for broader issues with the formation and application of accounting 

standards. The Subcommittee received testimony from the author 

of the report, a forensic accountant who assisted in the report’s 

preparation, and an expert on accounting issues. On July 22, 2003, 

the Subcommittee held a hearing on FASB derivative accounting 

standards. The hearing examined the application of accounting 

standards to derivatives, particularly Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging 

Activities. It also examined the application of FAS 133 by Freddie 

Mac and Fannie Mae to their respective derivatives transactions 

and hedging activities. The Subcommittee received testimony from 

a member of FASB, an executive officer from Freddie Mac, a representative from a think tank, and an accounting professor. In addition, on July 8, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the 

FASB proposal on stock option expensing. The hearing focused on 

the FASB’s proposal on the accounting treatment for stock options 

and the impact of Federal legislation on the proposal. The Committee heard testimony from the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), the FASB, as well as industry representatives. 

As part of the Committee’s oversight of corporate accounting 

practices, on October 16 and November 5, 2003, the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations held two hearings to examine the 

financial collapse of the HealthSouth Corporation. The hearings focused on the (1) failure of internal controls and corporate compliance within the health care services company, (2) the role that 

other parties, including the Board of Directors, the outside auditors 

and the investment bankers, played in the company’s failure to detect and report financial fraud earlier, and the affect the new corporate governance and accounting reform legislation, passed in the 

107th Congress, have on Corporate oversight. At the October 16 

hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from current and 

former HealthSouth corporate officers and employees with insight 

into company operations and practices, as well as the Chief Executive Officer and former Senior Vice President of Corporate Finance, 

both of whom invoked their Fifth Amendment protections at the 

hearing. At the November 5 hearing, the Subcommittee received 

testimony from a representative on the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on 

the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines, U.S. Sentencing Commission; certain members of the HealthSouth Board of Directors, 

the acting CEO; and representatives of HealthSouth’s outside accounting, banking, and legal advisors. 

The Committee also worked with the GAO on accounting standards for loan commitments. 

254 

INTERSTATE AND E-COMMERCE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee examined issues that substantially impact or affect interstate commerce, with particular interest in activities that impede such commerce. On October 30, 

2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing titled E-Commerce: The Case of Online Wine 

Sales and Direct Shipment. The hearing focused on state restrictions to interstate commerce involving the sale of wine. Because 

states have different laws regarding the sale of alcohol over the 

Internet, customers in many states with such restrictions are unable to purchase out of state wine over the Internet. Witnesses included a representative from the FTC and representatives from the 

wine industry. 

The Committee continued its review of consumer information privacy issues in the commercial context. On April 29, 2004, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a 

hearing on spyware. Concern has been growing that individuals are 

losing their privacy when they connect to the Internet as companies increasingly monitor and ‘‘follow’’ the users across different 

Websites for various purposes. The most pernicious forms of 

spyware can install software programs onto a consumer’s computer 

in order to track Web usage for directed advertising, or in the 

worst-case scenario, to steal or transmit private information. The 

hearing focused on problems associated with spyware, efforts to 

protect computer users against spyware, and possible legislative 

and regulatory solutions. As a result of the hearing, the Committee 

worked to develop legislation to address the problems related to 

spyware and provide Federal penalties and remedies. H.R. 2929, 

introduced by Mrs. Bono, was reported by the Full Committee, as 

amended, on July 20, 2004 (H. Rpt. 108–619). The House passed 

H.R. 2929 under suspension of the rules on October 5, 2004. 

The Committee also reviewed and considered issues relating to 

private-sector cyber security. On November 6, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on computer viruses. The hearing focused on the increasing threat from malicious code, known as computer worms 

and viruses, as well as the financial impact on business and consumers of computer viruses. Testimony was received from representatives of cyber security companies, software companies, and 

Internet service providers. On November 19, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a 

hearing on cyber-security and consumer data. The hearing focused 

on the risks and costs of cyber-security threats and efforts to respond to those threats. The witnesses included the FTC, e-commerce companies, and various types of computer-related companies 

with an interest in Internet security. 

TRADE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor and 

examine both multilateral trade agreements (including World 

Trade Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements such as 

the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements, as those agreements relate to services within the Committee’s jurisdiction—inVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00260 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
255 

cluding telecommunications, electronic commerce, food and drugs, 

and energy. The Committee’s concern is primarily non-tariff trade 

barriers, such as legal and regulatory barriers, to electronic commerce and other services within the Committee’s jurisdiction. As 

part of this oversight, on May 8, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing on the significance of the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. The 

hearing focused on services and e-commerce provisions of the trade 

agreements. The Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, 

the Department of Commerce, various trade associations, a labor 

union, and a policy group. On March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee 

held a hearing on U.S.-China trade and the preparations for the 

Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. The U.S.-China Joint 

Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) was established in 

1983 as a forum for high-level discussions on bilateral trade issues 

and a vehicle for promoting commercial relations between China 

and the United States. The hearing examined the main issues that 

would be discussed at the joint session including intellectual property protection and piracy in China, non-tariff barriers to U.S. 

manufacturing products in China, and labor and environmental 

issues in China. Witnesses included the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, as well as representatives from the games, music, and 

movie industries, representatives from the manufacturing industry, 

and a representative from a labor union. 

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS (ECNS)

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor market data issues and how current market data regulations impact 

competition in the securities markets. The Committee focused on 

these issues in the context of database protection legislation. The 

Committee held hearings on the database issue and held markup 

sessions for two database bills. 

The Committee also continued to work with the GAO to review 

the state of readiness of financial institutions and markets, including ECNs, for terrorist acts that would be disruptive of the financial markets. GAO submitted a report to the Committee on September 27, 2004, and committed to provide a follow-up report in 

the 109th Congress on progress in correcting weaknesses in telecommunications resilience, physical controls, and business continuity planning for these institutions and markets. 

ATHLETICS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to conduct oversight of issues affecting amateur athletics, specifically collegiate 

athletes, including the role of commercialism and the health and 

welfare of student athletes. On March 11, 2004, the Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight 

hearing to examine National Collegiate Athletic Association 

(NCAA) rules governing the recruiting of college athletes and the 

enforcement of those rules by member universities and the NCAA. 

The impetus for the hearing was the media reported allegations of 

misconduct and possible criminal violations that occurred at various college and university campuses. Witnesses included repVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00261 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
256 

resentatives from the NCAA, the University of Colorado, Vanderbilt University, and the founder of a private organization specializing in counseling student athletes. In addition, on May 18, 2004, 

the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on actions taken by 

the NCAA to address recruiting practices of potential student athletes. The hearing was also in response to numerous reports of alleged behavior—including possible criminal violations—that occurred at colleges and universities. Contemporaneous with the 

media reports of those incidents, the NCAA convened a task force 

to examine current practices, guidelines, and rules regarding recruiting behavior and offer recommendations to the NCAA. The 

hearing examined the recommendations of the task force as well as 

broader issues that were affecting the enforcement of rules and the 

accountability of universities, athletic departments, and the student athletes. 

The Committee also examined the governance of organizations 

responsible for administering athletics, including the U.S. Olympic 

Committee. On March 19, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine issues related to the structure of the USOC and their effect 

on the USOC’s ability to fulfill its mission. The hearing focused on 

the USOC governance, the division of labor between paid staff and 

volunteers, and the stated mission of the USOC and how it affected 

their ability to function efficiently. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included current and former U.S. Olympic athletes, including 

two Members of the 108th Congress, as well as current and former 

representatives of the USOC, the current head of the Athlete’s Advisory Committee, the head of the National Governing Bodies 

Council and a member of the board of directors. The Subcommittee 

held a second oversight hearing on July 16, 2003, to examine the 

recommendations to reform the USOC put forth by the USOC’s internal Task Force on Governance and Ethics and a second set of 

recommendations proposed by the Independent Commission of the 

USOC. The hearing focused on how each set of proposals would affect USOC governance. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included members of both groups as well as a representative of the 

Disabled Sports USA. 

TRAVEL AND TOURISM

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the travel and 

tourism industry were severely impacted by the decrease in business and vacation travel. In the 108th Congress, the Committee reviewed the obstacles that stand in the way of a full recovery for the 

travel and tourism industry, as well as how the industry, along 

with Federal and state governments, can encourage and promote 

the United States as a travel destination for international and domestic passengers. On April 30, 2003, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing 

on the state of the travel and tourism industry. The hearing focused on the efforts to improve travel to the United States in light 

of new regulatory requirements initiated for security purposes. The 

Subcommittee also held an oversight hearing on June 23, 2004, to 

examine the status and implementation of homeland security procedures affecting the travel industry and their effectiveness. The 

257 

hearing focused specifically on the strengths and weaknesses of 

new security measures, the availability of information for travelers 

regarding security requirements, and suggestions that would improve security without sacrificing the efforts of the industry to promote and attract travel. 

ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES 

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

During the 108th Congress, the Committee examined the Nation’s energy policy, including policies relating to natural gas, coal, 

hydropower, nuclear, energy efficiency and conservation, energy 

markets, ultradeep water research and development, the status of 

the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and pipeline safety generally, the 

potential for hydrogen as an energy source, and the status of the 

Nation’s refining industry. The Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee initiated its oversight with a series of hearings on a 

comprehensive national energy policy, held on March 5, 12 and 13, 

2003. These hearings were followed on May 20, 2003, with a Subcommittee hearing on the potential for a hydrogen energy economy, 

and on June 10, 2003, the Full Committee held a hearing on domestic natural gas supply and demand issues. 

To assist the Committee in its consideration of comprehensive 

energy legislation, and Energy Star measures in particular, Full 

Committee Chairman Tauzin sent a letter to the Department of 

Energy (DOE) on March 21, 2003, requesting an explanation of the 

current process for designating a product with the Energy Star 

label, with emphasis on (1) statutory, due process, and administrative procedure requirements, (2) solicitation and consideration of 

stockholder comments, and (3) energy savings and other factors 

used to determine whether a product should receive the Energy 

Star label. 

Looking into research developments, on June 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing on the future 

options for generation of electricity from coal. And on April 29, 

2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing that examined the benefits 

of ultradeep water research and development. The hearing addressed the issue of benefits that may accrue to the nation as a result of programs that focus on the use of technology for exploring 

and producing oil and natural gas in ultradeep waters. 

In additional national energy policy oversight, on July 15, 2004, 

the Subcommittee held a hearing on the status of the U.S. refining 

industry. The hearing updated members on refining capacity, gasoline prices, and the likelihood of building new domestic refining capacity. Finally, on July 20, 2004, the Subcommittee held a hearing 

on pipeline safety. The hearing examined the implementation of 

the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002, and presented views 

from various stakeholders. 

THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates 

electric utilities, hydropower facilities, and natural gas and oil 

pipelines. In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to examine the activities of the FERC. In particular, the Committee’s 

258 

oversight focused on FERC’s role in managing the August 14, 2003 

electricity blackout, the largest in the nation’s history, and regional 

energy reliability and security issues that resulted from the crisis, 

and FERC’s role in the construction and operation of an Alaska 

natural gas transportation project. The Committee also looked at 

the Commission’s ability to promote hydropower and development 

of Nation’s waterways. On September 3 and 4, 2003, the Full Committee held a series of hearings investigating the causes of the August 14, 2003 electricity blackout, the largest in the nation’s history. Approximately 62,000 MW of customer load was lost, affecting 

an area with roughly 50 million people. 

On May 5, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 

held a hearing on the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Status Report. 

The hearing focused on status of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline 

project and the probability of its being built. 

On June 9, 2004, Full Committee Chairman Barton sent a letter 

to Chairman Patrick Wood concerning FERC’s ability to promote 

hydropower and development of Nation’s waterways. 

THE FEDERAL ELECTRIC UTILITIES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor the 

activities of Federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and 

the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), specifically with regard to 

the August 14, 2003 electricity blackout. 

OIL AND NATURAL GAS MARKETS

In the 108th Congress, and in light of the war in Iraq, the Committee examined the status of oil and natural gas markets. As part 

of its oversight, on June 10, 2003, the Full Committee held a hearing on domestic natural gas supply and demand issues, looking at 

the projected natural gas supply and demand imbalance and its effect on prices for the 2003 Winter season. Following the hearing, 

Speaker Hastert formed the Task Force For Affordable Natural 

Gas (TFANG), naming Chairman Tauzin and Committee on Resources Chairman Pombo as co-chairs. TFANG held several public 

meetings to investigate causes of today’s natural gas shortage; the 

impact of natural gas prices on the American economy; and, shortand long-term ideas to encourage a stable supply of natural gas to 

ease prices. 

In connection with its oversight of oil markets, the Committee 

continued its oversight of the United Nation’s Oil for Food Program. The Committee first conducted oversight hearings on the 

Program in the 106th Congress. In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held two hearings examining 

the Program, its effect on oil markets, and alleged improprieties involving the program. A May 14, 2003 hearing examined the Program’s effect on oil markets, and whether it should be continued. 

Following the hearing, on May 23, 2003, Full Committee Chairman 

Tauzin and Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Barton wrote United Nations Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan requesting internal and external audits of the oil for food program. 

A July 8, 2004, Subcommittee hearing on the Program updated 

members on the investigations into the alleged improprieties involving the Oil for Food Program. The Committee intensified its 

259 

oversight of the Oil for Food Program with the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations launching an in-depth review of the 

Program, including document reviews and interviews with State 

Department, Central Intelligence Agency, U.S. Treasury, IRS, 

former United Nations and Iraqi officials. Full Committee Chairman Barton and other Energy and Commerce Committee members 

and staff traveled to Baghdad, Iraq, in September 2004 to conduct 

interviews and perform site visits related to the program. On October 7 and October 18, 2004, Chairman Barton wrote United Nations Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan requesting his personal involvement in the expeditious discovery and release by the United 

Nations of information and documents related to the Committee’s 

investigation. On October 22, 2004, Chairman Barton wrote 

Jacques Chirac, President of France, requesting the French government’s cooperation in the Committee’s investigation of the Program. Chairman Barton met with the French Ambassador in December 2004, to discuss this matter. 

THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

With the war with Iraq and the political turmoil in Venezuela reducing oil exports from that country, the Committee, while it took 

no direct oversight action, continued to monitor developments concerning the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during the 108th Congress. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGIES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its review of 

technological advances and other issues relating to ‘‘clean coal.’’ On 

June 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held 

a hearing examining the status of new technologies, and the improvements to existing technologies for the future use of coal for 

electric generation. The hearing also provided information on the 

current and projected cost, reliability, and overall competitiveness 

of coal in the marketplace. 

GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

The Committee continued to monitor international negotiations 

on climate change during the 108th Congress. In addition, while 

the Committee took no direct oversight action with regard to global 

climate change, it continued to monitor developments concerning 

whether international agreements are achievable, effective and fair 

to various U.S. interests and whether agreements on climate 

change are scientifically well grounded. The Committee also continued to monitor components of ongoing climate programs—including 

activities carried out under the President’s Global Climate Change 

Initiatives (GCCI), Global Change Research Program, the Climate 

Change Technology Initiative, and Section 1605(b) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992—to ensure compliance with Congressional intent 

and guidance in this area. The Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality held two hearings on DOE programs supporting the President’s initiative. The first, on May 20, 2003, focused on the potential for the use of hydrogen in both stationary and transportation 

applications, and the second, on June 24, 2003, examined the staVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00265 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
260 

tus of new technologies, and the improvements to existing technologies for the future use of coal for electric generation. 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ITS

NATIONAL LABORATORIES

As in previous Congresses, the Committee continued its comprehensive review of general management issues at the DOE, including management of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the national laboratories. On July 13, 2004, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing to review 

proposals to consolidate the Offices of Counter Intelligence at National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and DOE. Witnesses included the Administrator of NNSA and the National 

Counterintelligence Executive. Additionally, The Committee also 

examined DOE’s budget requests to determine whether they are 

consistent with the Committee’s priorities. 

The Committee also continued to examine whether DOE is effectively managing the contractors that operate the national laboratories, and whether more competition is necessary in the contracting process. In the 107th Congress, the Committee began a detailed investigation of procurement and property management deficiencies at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), one of DOE’s 

national laboratories run by the University of California. In the 

108th Congress, on February 26 and on March 12, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings on procurement and property mismanagement and theft at LANL. The 

purpose of the hearings was to: (1) assess reports of theft and loss 

of governmental property and misuse of government procurement 

mechanisms by personnel at LANL, (2) review the actions of the 

University of California and LANL management in response to 

such reports, and (3) review the effectiveness of oversight of LANL 

by the University and the NNSA. On May 1, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review the DOE’s management of LANL, and LANL’s response to the 

issues discussed in the previous hearings. The day before the hearing, the Secretary of Energy announced that the LANL contract 

would be competitively bid in 2005 for the first time in 60 years 

as a result of the management failings revealed in the Committee’s 

and other investigations. The Subcommittee received testimony 

from the Deputy Secretary of Energy, the acting Administrator of 

the NNSA, the DOE Inspector General, and the President of the 

University of California and other UC officials. 

In addition to oversight of LANL management, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued review and 

monitoring of security and safety problems at LANL. The Lab continued to demonstrate a lack of rigor in its management of Classified Removable Electronic Media (CREM). In July 2004, two computer discs containing highly classified materials were thought to 

have been lost. As a result, all classified operations had been shut 

down at Los Alamos, and remain shut down. Full Committee 

Chairman Barton visited Los Alamos in July 2004 to review the 

situation personally. On October 15, 2004, Chairman Barton sent 

letters to the NNSA Administrator and the LANL Director requesting a complete estimate of the costs to the taxpayers resulting from 

261 

the ongoing stand-down at LANL due to the events. Review of the 

security and safety at LANL is ongoing. 

DOE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND HIGH-LEVEL WASTE CLEAN

UP PROGRAM

The DOE’s Environmental Management (EM) program initiated 

a comprehensive accelerated cleanup initiative in Fiscal Year 2003. 

The Committee continued to monitor this initiative to ensure that 

increased funding intended to achieve accelerated cleanup will actually result in real cleanup progress. The Committee also reviewed EM’s high-level waste disposal program. On July 17, 2003, 

the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing 

to review the DOE’s radioactive high-level waste management program. The purpose of the hearing was to examine issues raised by 

a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that evaluated the DOE’s $230 billion program to clean-up high-level radioactive waste at former nuclear weapons production sites, identify 

weaknesses within DOE’s cleanup plan. The Subcommittee received testimony from the DOE, GAO, and environmental officials 

from Washington State and the South Carolina. The hearing provided information supportive of the Committee’s successful efforts 

to help pass legislation to speed cleanup of these wastes in the 

FY05 Defense Authorization Act 

THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

In the 107th Congress, the Committee reported H.J. Res. 87 approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development 

by the DOE of a permanent repository for the disposal of commercial and government-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. DOE cannot begin construction activities at Yucca 

Mountain until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approves the construction authorization license. In the 108th Congress, on March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 

Quality held a hearing to review the Department of Energy’s Yucca 

Mountain Project. The hearing focused on the DOE’s progress toward submission of a license application to the NRC to develop 

Yucca Mountain as a long-term repository for the disposal of radioactive waste, and legislation to reclassify contributions to the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) proposed in H.R. 3429 and H.R. 3981. 

Witnesses included Members of Congress, representatives from the 

DOE, NRC, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, a state 

regulatory commission, and the nuclear industry. 

SAFETY AND SECURITY OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Spent nuclear fuel is currently located at hundreds of storage 

sites across the country at private and government-owned facilities. 

Spent fuel storage facilities include aboveground dry storage facilities and wet storage basins. Under current Federal plans, spent 

nuclear fuel will eventually be transported to a permanent disposal 

facility at Yucca Mountain. In the 108th Congress, the Committee 

continued to monitor issues relating to the current safety and security of spent nuclear fuel in storage, as well as the safety and security of spent nuclear fuel in transport. 

262 

DOE NUCLEAR SAFETY PROGRAMS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its oversight of 

implementation of nuclear safety regulations by DOE and its contractor employees. As part of this review, on July 13, 2004, the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing to review 

proposals to consolidate the Offices of Counter Intelligence at 

NNSA and DOE. Witnesses included the Administrator of NNSA 

and the National Counterintelligence Executive. 

All of the DOE’s weapons-usable surplus plutonium has been removed from the Rocky Flats, Colorado site, and relocated to the Savannah River, South Carolina site. In the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations continued to review the 

numerous safety and physical security issues that must be resolved 

leading up to the final disposition of these 50 tons of materials, as 

well as the management of these materials, which will run into the 

tens of billions of dollars. 

As part of its oversight of safety regulations, in the summer of 

2004, following reports of safety incidents at the high-level radioactive waste tank cleanup project at the Hanford site, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation opened an inquiry to review actions by the contractor in charge of the cleanup project and 

will continue to monitor the contractor and DOE efforts to improve 

worker safety at the tank farms. 

DOE SECURITY PROGRAMS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its extensive 

oversight of security matters at DOE sites, particularly at the national nuclear weapon laboratories, in order to ensure that continuing improvements are made in the protection of classified information and nuclear materials—whether in storage, in use, or in 

transport. On March 4 and May 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations held hearings to assess the state of 

security at DOE nuclear facilities, and the implementation of the 

revised design basis threat (DBT) at various sites managed by DOE 

and the NNSA. While opening statements by Members and witnesses were open to the public, the hearings went into executive 

session for Member questioning of the witnesses. At the March 4 

hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony from DOE, the DOE 

Office of Inspector General, NNSA, and nuclear security authorities. At the May 11 hearing, the Subcommittee received testimony 

from the DOE, NNSA, GAO, and the Project on Government Oversight. 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

As in previous Congresses, the Committee reviewed the activities 

of the NRC. In particular, the Committee monitored closely NRC’s 

efforts to increase security requirements at nuclear facilities and 

develop a new design basis threat for these facilities. On March 18, 

2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a 

hearing to review NRC’s proposed changes to security requirements 

at nuclear power plants. While opening statements by Members 

and witnesses were open to the public, the hearing went into executive session for Member questioning of the witnesses. The SubVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
263 

committee received testimony from the Chairman and two Commissioners of the NRC, representatives from the nuclear industry and 

nuclear power companies and facilities, and an advocacy group. 

The new changes were finalized and are now being implemented at 

nuclear plants across the country. 

In addition, as part of the Committee’s oversight of nuclear safety generally, the Committee continued to monitor nuclear safety 

issues at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant—a situation that 

raised additional concerns about the NRC’s ability to conduct adequate safety-related oversight of its regulated facilities. 

ADVANCED AUTOMOBILE AND HYDROGEN FUEL INITIATIVES

In the 107th Congress, the Committee began a review of the 

FreedomCAR program run by the Department of Energy. In the 

108th Congress, the Committee continued to review the DOE’s 

FreedomCAR and FreedomFUEL advanced automobile and hydrogen fuels and infrastructure initiatives. On May 20, 2003, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing on a hydrogen 

energy economy focusing on the potential for the use of hydrogen 

in both stationary and transportation applications, specifically the 

DOE’s Freedom Car and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. In addition, the 

predicted benefits for the use of hydrogen as an energy source as 

well as the challenges faced in make such a substantial change to 

our nation’s energy and equipment infrastructure, and issues concerning the production, distribution and safe utilization of hydrogen were considered. 

EPA IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT

In previous Congresses, the Committee has taken an active role 

in overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementation of the Clean Air Act and various amendments to this 

Act. In the 108th Congress, the Committee will continue to review 

significant activities regarding the Clean Air Act and the success 

of various efforts in achieving improved air quality in a manner 

that allows both administrative flexibility and improved cost-effectiveness. In April 2004, EPA issued its final rule designating 474 

counties, in 31 states, as non-attainment areas under the new 8- 

hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Because this 

was the first ruling on this new standard, Full Committee Chairman Barton and Subcommittee Vice-Chairman Walden wrote the 

EPA Administrator on August 23, 2004, requesting records relating 

to EPA’s discretionary-review process concerning non-attainment 

designations. This review is ongoing. 

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality also held a number of hearings examining the EPA’s implementation of the Clean 

Air Act and various amendments to this Act. On July 8, 2003, the 

Subcommittee held a hearing that explored the basic framework 

and elements of the Administration’s Clear Skies Initiative, how 

this proposal would change current law regarding the regulation of 

affected facilities, and the anticipated costs and benefits of this approach to controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOX) and mercury (Hg) from affected facilities. A July 22, 

2003, Subcommittee hearing looked at the ‘‘Bump-Up’’ Policy 

Under Title I of the Clean Air Act, and addressed the attainment 

264 

date extension policy issued by the EPA in 1998, the current situation facing various ‘‘nonattainment’’ areas following court decisions 

invalidating this policy, and the ability of the EPA, states and local 

areas to address downwind attainment problems in the future. The 

Subcommittee held a field hearing on January 12, 2004 to explore 

efforts in the Coachella Valley in Palm Desert, California, to meet 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the unique circumstances presented by Southern California geography, the desert 

environment and continuing growth in the region. The Subcommittee hearing also considered emissions of particulate matter 

associated with natural conditions in the valley as well as other activities and conditions, including declining water levels in the 

Salton Sea. In addition, the Subcommittee held a hearing on July 

21, 2004, to examine the current use of methyl bromide in the 

United States, alternatives to the use of methyl bromide, the international process underway to implement the Montreal Protocol, 

and the U.S. efforts to comply with the Montreal Protocol. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ‘‘EQUIP’’ PROGRAM

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 significantly revised and expanded the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQUIP). This program provides incentive payments and 

cost-share payments to assist producers in their compliance with 

local, state, and Federal environmental laws regarding soil, water, 

air quality, and wildlife habitat. While the Committee took no direct oversight action in the 108th Congress, it continued to monitor 

how the program assists communities in meeting obligations under 

Federal environmental statutes within the Committee’s jurisdiction. 

ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES 

EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

During the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its general 

oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As part 

of this oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an investigation into the EPA’s administration of assistance agreements, also known as grants, which, at more than 

$4.7 billion per year, account for more than half the Agency’s budget. On August 4, 2004, following an EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report that found that EPA had not properly used a 

competitive process when selecting some of its grant recipients, 

Committee Chairman Joe Barton wrote the Administrator of the 

EPA requesting documents relating to the agency’s grants management process. This review is ongoing. The Subcommittee also initiated a review of EPA procurement practices. On August 4, 2004, 

Full Committee Chairman Barton sent a letter to the EPA Administrator concerning an audit by the EPA OIG that raised questions 

about the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Procurement process. The 

OIG audit indicated that a lack of competition existed in the compilation of the FSS. This lack of competition resulted from inadequate procurement planning, rushed procurements, a lack of 

training for contract project officers, and a failure to comply with 

policies, procedures, and regulations outlined by the Federal GovVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
265 

ernment. As a result, the Committee specifically asked the EPA for 

an explanation on all FSS procurements above $100,000 when only 

one contractor was involved and for any changes made by EPA in 

the wake of the OIG audit. This review is also ongoing. 

EPA PROTECTION OF SECURITY-RELATED INFORMATION

In the 108th Congress, the Committee monitored EPA efforts to 

protect security preparedness and vulnerability information submitted to the agency under the provisions of the Public Health and 

Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. On September 30, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing entitled Controlling Bioterror: Assessing Our Nation’s Drinking Water Security. The hearing focused 

on oversight of the Bioterrorism Act, and options available to manage the vulnerability of the nation’s water supply and water quality 

systems to terrorist attack. The EPA and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified. 

The Committee also reviewed EPA’s relationship to, and coordination with, the Department of Homeland Security. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated a review of 

EPA procedures as they relate to Homeland Security. An EPA OIG 

audit indicated that the Agency had not developed a coordinated 

plan for ‘‘identifying, obtaining, maintaining, and tracking’’ 

counter-terrorism and emergency-response equipment. On August 

4, 2004, Full Committee Chairman Barton wrote the EPA Administrator requesting information related to the Agency’s actions in the 

wake of the OIG report. This review is ongoing. 

EPA’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATES

In a report released in the previous Congress, the GAO identified 

the EPA’s relationship with the States as a ‘‘major performance 

and accountability challenge,’’ citing disagreements over respective 

roles and responsibilities, priorities, and the proper conduct of Federal oversight. The Committee monitored the EPA’s commitment to 

improving the agency’s long-term relationship with the States 

under the National Environmental Performance Partnership. While 

the Subcommittee did not hold any specific hearings that focused 

on the Federal-State dynamic, many issues the Subcommittee addressed in hearings either had state witnesses who testified about 

the operation of Federal statutes within states, the role of state primacy in enforcing Federal environmental statutes, or those challenges being faced in environmental protection because of gaps or 

friction in coverage between Federal and State legal activities. 

Since most environmental laws within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials have both a 

Federal and state role envisioned—the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, 

and the Solid Waste Disposal Act—the Subcommittee will continue 

to examine the questions of Federalism in environmental law as 

well as what provisions allow for the most effective and efficient 

protection of human health and the environment. 

266 

THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM AND BROWNFIELDS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its ongoing review of the efficiency, effectiveness, funding, and pace of progress 

of the Superfund program. The Subcommittee made several unofficial inquiries of the EPA and had the EPA conduct a subcommittee-wide briefing on the status of the Federal statutory 

brownfields program on September 13, 2004. The focus of the briefing and other inquiries was on the processing of grant applications, 

interest in redevelopment of brownfields under the new law, coordination between EPA and the states on cleanup and grant responsibilities, and the impact that increasing grant eligibility for bonafide prospective purchasers would have on the overall program. 

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT IMPLEMENTATION

On May 20, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC), in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. In late 2002, the EPA created the RCC as a cross-agency 

initiative that focuses on partnerships and collaboration with 

States and the private sector to find solutions to specific national 

environmental problems by reducing waste production potential. 

The RCC is composed of voluntary programs and projects with a 

focus on efficient materials management or recycling and the RCC 

is results oriented. The solutions being advanced by the RCC are 

mostly voluntary, but may include regulatory approaches, to allow 

material recycling and reuse, as well as protection of human health 

and the environment. A representative from EPA testified on the 

status of the program and possible goals for future RCC efforts. In 

addition, as described earlier in this Report, the Subcommittee held 

a hearing on March 5, 2003, on the effectiveness of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks programs under Subtitle I of the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act. 

EPA RISK ASSESSMENT PRACTICES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee conducted oversight with 

respect to EPA risk assessment practices. On July 13, 2004, the 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a 

hearing entitled POPs, PIC, and LRTAP: the Role of the United 

States and Draft Legislation to Implement These International 

Conventions. The hearing focused on a discussion draft that contained provisions to bring the United States into compliance with 

international agreements. Much of the testimony before the panel 

focused on provisions in a draft legislative package that would require risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. 

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS

Since the law’s enactment, the Committee has examined the 

EPA’s implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) Amendments, including the conduct and adequacy of safe 

drinking water research and state funding of drinking water programs. While it took no direct oversight action, the Committee continued its review of the 1996 Amendments and the magnitude of 

any funding ‘‘gap’’ between identified resources and identified 

267 

needs for drinking water delivery systems. As part of its oversight 

of the SDWA generally, on July 22, 2004, the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on the discovery of elevated amounts of lead in drinking water in the District 

of Columbia, and drinking water infrastructure needs related to 

the providing of safe drinking water. Witnesses included representatives from the EPA, District of Columbia, the GAO, environmental 

advocates, stakeholders, and industry representatives. Also, as already noted, the Committee continued to oversee EPA’s implementation of Title IV of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 

Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 with respect to security of 

drinking water systems from terrorist attack. 

In addition, on April 2, 2004, the Subcommittees on Environment 

and Hazardous Materials held a hearing on H.R. 2771, a bill to 

amend the SDWA to reauthorize the New York City Watershed 

Protection Program. The New York City Watershed program is one 

of 14 authorizations in the SDWA that had expired. During the 

hearing there was not only discussion about the importance of reauthorizing the New York City Watershed, but also the status and 

significance of the other 13 authorizations. Witnesses included 

Members of Congress, representatives from the EPA, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation, and the Catskills Watershed Corporation. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

In the 107th Congress, the Department of Defense (DOD) asserted that its ability to train the country’s armed forces is being 

hampered by certain Federal environmental laws—three of which 

fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee. On April 21, 2004, the 

Subcommittees on Environment and Hazardous Materials and Energy and Air Quality held a joint hearing on environmental issues 

affecting the readiness of the DOD. The hearing focused on several 

legislative proposals by the DOD, which would either amend or affect the operation of Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, the SDWA, and the Clean Air Act. Witnesses included representatives from the DOD, the EPA, state regulators, 

and environmental advocates. 

HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES 

MEDICARE MODERNIZATION

During the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to examine 

ways to strengthen and modernize the Medicare program for current and future generations. The Committee reviewed proposals to 

address Medicare program growth, examined the adequacy of existing Part A and Part B funding mechanisms, and reviewed proposals to improve beneficiaries’ basic benefit packages and to design a Medicare drug benefit. As part of this oversight, on April 8, 

2003, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to provide Members with a better understanding of the complexity involved in designing a Medicare drug benefit and some of the issues that needed 

to be considered in developing legislation creating the drug benefit, 

including program design and management tools necessary to enVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
268 

sure its affordability and long-term sustainability. Witnesses included former government officials and economic advisers from the 

Congressional Budget Office, the President’s Council of Economic 

Advisors, and the Health Care Financing Administration, as well 

as consumer advocacy groups. On April 9, 2003, the Subcommittee 

held an oversight hearing to examine the long-term fiscal situation 

of the Medicare program and options for improving beneficiary 

choices within the program. Witnesses included a representative 

from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, policy and 

industry specialists, and a consumer advocacy group. In addition, 

one witness testified as a Medicare beneficiary. Information provided at these hearings assisted the Committee in design of the 

Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which was signed into law by 

the President on December 8, 2003. The legislation is more fully 

described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of the 

Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

CHILDHOOD VACCINE SHORTAGES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to examine the 

factors that may contribute to shortages of vaccines. The Committee continued to examine whether government policies or regulations in this area provide disincentives to vaccine research, development, and production, and whether the Federal vaccine injury 

compensation and liability system is working effectively. 

Additionally, as part of the Committee’s oversight of vaccine supply issues, on November 18, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health and 

the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a joint 

hearing on the flu vaccine shortage, ways to protect high-risk individuals for this flu season, and decrease the chances of this problem happening next year. The Committee received testimony from 

representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a 

state health department, and various segments of the health care 

industry. Following the hearing, the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations initiated an investigation of issues surrounding 

the loss of nearly half of the flu vaccine needed by the United 

States for the 2004/2005 flu season, as a result of contamination 

at the Liverpool, UK manufacturing facility of Chiron Corporation. 

Full Committee Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell 

wrote the HHS, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the 

Chiron Corporation, on November 18, 2004, requesting documents 

relating to when the flu vaccine shortage first became apparent, 

and the company and agencies’ attention and response to the reports of problems as they emerged. This aspect of the investigation 

is ongoing. 

SAFETY OF BREAST IMPLANTS

Over the past several years, the Committee has monitored the 

oversight by the FDA of the breast-implant industry and the safety 

and efficacy of saline-filled and silicone-filled breast implants. In 

addition, the Committee reauthorized the Mammography Quality 

Standards Act, to help ensure that women receive accurate mammography results, including women with breast implants. 

269 

FDA DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS REFORM

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor and 

examine FDA policy changes to improve the drug approval process. 

As part of this oversight the Committee also examined FDA monitoring of drugs already on the market. On September 9 and September 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings examining concerns over the safety and efficacy 

of anti-depressants in children and whether data from various pediatric clinical trials of anti-depressants had been communicated 

adequately to the public. The September 9th hearing focused on 

publication and disclosure issues of the safety and efficacy data in 

pediatric anti-depressant clinical trials. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from representatives of the seven pharmaceutical companies that conducted pediatric clinical trials for depressed children, 

the FDA, and industry associations. The September 23rd hearing 

focused primarily on the FDA’s regulatory process of reviewing the 

anti-depressant pediatric clinical trial safety data and whether the 

FDA informed the public in an accurate and timely manner about 

the risks associated with these drugs for children. Six witnesses 

from the FDA provided testimony. 

In addition, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee initiated an investigation of issues surrounding the withdrawal of a 

non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Cox-2 inhibitor 

called rofecoxib, known commercially as Vioxx, by its manufacturer 

Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). On September 30, 2004, Merck publicly 

announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, a medicine 

approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in treating osteoarthritis and 

the management of acute pain in adults, and later, for rheumatoid 

arthritis. The publicly reported reason for this withdrawal was new 

data from a three-year clinical trial that showed a two-fold increase 

in cardiovascular adverse events in patients taking Vioxx. On November 23, 2004, Committee Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote Merck and the FDA to request more information 

and documentation relating to: (1) FDA knowledge about these cardiovascular adverse events associated with Vioxx; (2) when FDA 

learned about this information; and, (3) the action FDA took in response to cardiovascular safety concerns associated with Vioxx. The 

investigation is ongoing. 

PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY AND ABUSE

In the 108th Congress, in connection with the Committee’s ongoing oversight of pharmaceutical abuse and diversion in general, 

and of the abuse and diversion of the painkiller Oxycontin in particular, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated 

an examination of the FDA evaluation of Palladone, a high dose, 

extended release formulation that contains hydromorhone, a Schedule II narcotic painkiller. Palladone is currently undergoing FDA 

evaluation. On February 26, 2003, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking 

Member Dingell, Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood, and Ranking Member Deutsch wrote Purdue Pharma L.P. for records relating to risk management, safety, and marketing of Palladone. As 

part of this inquiry the Subcommittee continued its oversight of efforts to reduce deaths and addiction associated with Oxycontin, 

270 

while at the same time enable legitimate patients access to effective palliative medication. In addition, Subcommittee Chairman 

Greenwood, with Appropriations’ Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee Chairman Wolf and Mr. Harold Rogers, requested that 

the GAO examine Oxycontin abuse and diversion and efforts to address the problem. In December 2003, the GAO issued its report 

and recommended that the FDA Commissioner ensure that FDA’s 

risk management plan guidance encourages pharmaceutical manufacturers that submit new drug applications for these substance to 

include plans that contain a strategy for monitoring the use of 

these drugs and identifying potential abuse and diversion problems. Relatedly, on March 4, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health 

held an oversight hearing on prescription drug monitoring programs. The hearing focused on examining the role of prescription 

drug monitoring programs in preventing and deterring prescription 

drug abuse. Witnesses testifying included a Member of Congress, 

the Secretary of the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, and representatives of the GAO and two trade associations. 

The Committee also continued its prior investigations into the 

safety of imported (and re-imported) drugs, including counterfeit or 

unapproved drugs and bulk ingredients imported for use in finished drug products. On June 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that examined the system 

in place to protect against counterfeit and unapproved pharmaceutical imports. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony concerning: (1) the measures taken by the FDA to prevent 

imported unapproved and counterfeit pharmaceuticals from being 

taken by U.S. consumers; (2) the release by FDA of 1,233 packages 

of unapproved Viagra that were imported through Miami, Florida; 

and, (3) the findings of the South Florida Statewide Grand Jury 

that highlighted a burgeoning counterfeit drug problem in Florida 

and which were a driving force behind a Florida law designed to 

ensure the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals taken by Floridians. The Subcommittee received testimony from the FDA, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and Florida officials from 

agencies responsible for oversight of pharmaceutical imports, and 

the prosecution of violations of state import laws. The hearing provided a case study into the nationwide issues surrounding the import of pharmaceuticals for personal use. 

On December 9, 2003, as part of this continuing oversight, the 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee initiated an investigation of enablers of illegal Internet pharmacies and what efforts 

have been made toward discouraging these enablers from facilitating illicit Internet pharmacies. Enablers include: Internet search 

engines that accept advertising from illicit Internet pharmacies, 

consignment carriers used by Web sites to ship drugs from these 

pharmacies, and credit card companies used in advertising by illicit 

Internet pharmacies. The Committee sent letters to the FDA, the 

Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Bureau of Customs & 

Border Protection to get details about any companies that these 

agencies have contacted, and whether any of these companies committed to discontinue doing business with illicit Internet pharmacies. In addition, the Committee wrote to the CEOs of Federal 

Express, United Parcel Service, Visa International, and 

271 

MasterCard International, for information about each company’s 

actions or counter-measures taken relating to illicit Internet pharmacy websites. 

In addition, the Committee advanced legislation that would provide grants to states through the Department of Health and 

Human Services to monitor the dispensing of Schedule II, III, and 

IV drugs as defined by the Controlled Substances Act. The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Act passed 

the House under suspension of the rules. The legislation is more 

fully described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section 

of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

NURSING HOMES’ QUALITY OF CARE

As part of the Committee’s jurisdiction over programs administered by HHS, including Medicare Part B and Medicaid, the Committee examined quality-of-care issues in nursing homes during the 

108th Congress. Although the Committee did not engage in any direct oversight action on this topic during the 108th Congress, it 

continued to monitor developments in this area. 

CMS’ MANAGEMENT OF THE MEDICARE AND MEDICAID PROGRAMS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to assess the 

management by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) of the fiscal intermediaries and carriers that are responsible 

for processing all Medicare claims and payments. While the Committee took no direct oversight action, it continued to review CMS 

oversight of these contractors and examine the current contractor 

eligibility requirements and the Medicare claims payment system. 

The Committee also continued oversight of efforts to streamline 

the program for beneficiaries and providers. On May 5, 2004, the 

Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on Medicare reimbursements for physicians and other health professionals. The 

hearing also focused on the mechanics of the current payment system, including the formula used to annually update payment made 

under the fee schedule. Witnesses included representatives from 

the U.S. GAO, Congressional Budget Office, and Medicare Payment 

Advisory Commission. 

MEDICARE+CHOICE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee examined the 

Medicare+Choice market and the policies that affect plans’ decisions to participate in the program. In recent years, hundreds of 

plans have withdrawn from the Medicare+Choice program, affecting more than 2.4 million beneficiaries. In addition, many plans 

have reduced benefits or increased beneficiary cost-sharing, making 

these plans less attractive to beneficiaries. The Committee has examined these issues, and made changes to the program in the 

Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, to attract more plans to the 

program. The Committee renamed Medicare+Choice as Medicare 

Advantage plans and increased payments to ensure beneficiary access to these types of plans. The legislation is more fully described 

in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

272 

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

As part of the Congressional effort to enact a new prescription 

drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries, the Committee reviewed 

issues relating to prescription drugs and continued its oversight 

into the abuses associated with drug-price reporting practices. The 

Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) took important steps 

to address abuses in drug pricing under Part B. The legislation is 

more fully described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation 

section of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

On May 20, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 

regarding implementation of the Medicare Drug Discount Card 

Program established in by MMA. The hearing focused on efforts to 

educate seniors about the new benefit, and savings that seniors can 

recognize from enrolling in the program. Witnesses included the 

Administrator for CMS, as well as industry and consumer advocacy 

representatives and a Medicare beneficiary. 

On March 10, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a field hearing in Aventura, Florida, on South Florida’s access to affordable prescription drugs. The hearing examined 

the experiences of Florida’s senior citizens concerning the cost of 

drugs, the perspective of federal and state regulators regarding the 

safety and efficacy of drugs imported into Florida, and the perspective of pharmaceutical industry and pharmacy associations on efforts to assist low-income seniors in obtaining free or discounted 

pharmaceuticals. The Subcommittee received testimony from private citizens, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), 

the FDA, and the Bureau of Statewide Pharmaceutical Services of 

the Florida Department of Health, and the pharmacy and pharmaceutical industries. The hearing continued the Committee’s efforts 

to oversee and address issues surrounding the safety and efficacy 

of pharmaceuticals, particularly, the Subcommittee’s work in the 

107th Congress examining the ability of the FDA to protect against 

counterfeit or poor-quality imported pharmaceuticals. 

As part of the Committee’s oversight of drug-price reporting practices, on December 7, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on prescription drug reimbursement 

under Medicaid. The hearing focused on whether the Federal Medicaid program pays too much for prescription drugs, primarily because most states continue to reimburse based upon Average 

Wholesale Price, or AWP, a price reported by drug manufacturers 

solely for reimbursement purposes. Pricing data and documents obtained by the Subcommittee during its extensive investigation revealed that AWP bears little relationship to what pharmacies and 

physicians actually pay for the drugs, particularly for generic 

drugs. States have difficulty in obtaining accurate sales prices because, although CMS receives them from the manufacturers, it is 

barred by law from sharing them with the states. Some states have 

been very aggressive in establishing other mechanism to get accurate prices and additional price concessions from drug manufacturers. But all of the witnesses agreed that the AWP system was ‘‘broken’’ and needed to be fixed. During the hearing, the Subcommittee 

received testimony from two witnesses, from Ven-A-Care of Florida 

Keys, Inc., which had been instrumental in bringing various MediVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
273 

care and Medicaid abuses to the attention of the Congress, as well 

as Federal and state agencies. The company also had prosecuted 

numerous false claims cases arising from the issues examined at 

the hearing. The Subcommittee also received testimony from officials from CMS, the Texas Attorney General’s office, the Texas 

Health and Human Services Commission, the Michigan Department of Community Health, pharmacy chains, and generic and 

brand drug manufacturers. In addition, as part of the ongoing investigation into prescription drug reimbursement under Medicaid, 

Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood, in February 2004, requested 

a GAO review of Medicaid prescription drug reimbursement approaches by the states. The Subcommittee requested that GAO determine whether states have been obtaining all available drug rebates under the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to which they are 

entitled and that GAO examine means by which states can constrain the growth in drug spending without affecting enrollees’ access to quality prescription drugs. A report from GAO is expected 

in the 109th Congress. 

In addition, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

opened an investigation in August 2004 into HHS management of 

the 340B Drug Discount Program, which was created to provide 

discount drug prices for various entities that serve low-income patients, including community health centers and public hospitals. 

The investigation was prompted by two inspection reports issued in 

June 2004 by the HHS Office of Inspector General (HHS–OIG). The 

reports focused on the administration of the program and revealed 

that 340B entities are often overcharged for the drugs and that 

there are major structural defects in the management and oversight of the Program on the part of HHS’s Health Resources and 

Services Administration (HRSA). The first of these inspection reports compared the prices that a sample of the 340B entities actually paid in September 2002 to the 340B ceiling prices for those 

drugs and found that many of the sampled prices exceeded the ceiling prices, resulting in substantial overcharges. These overcharges 

are often passed on to Medicaid, because if covered entities dispense drugs purchased through the 340B Program to Medicaid recipients, they are required to bill Medicaid at acquisition cost. The 

report went on to explain that HRSA has no processes or procedures to ensure that 340B entities receive the discounted prices 

from the drug manufacturers, nor does it have the authority to 

remedy any overcharges it may uncover. The second report found 

serious problems with the database used by HRSA to administer 

the Program and concluded that these deficiencies compromised 

HRSA’s ability to manage the Program successfully. Full Committee Chairman Barton sent a letter to HRSA on August 9, 2004 

asking HRSA to describe its management of the 340B Program and 

what steps it has taken to improve its oversight in light of the 

HHS–OIG reports. Chairman Barton also sent a request letter to 

HHS–OIG on October 31, 2004 requesting additional examination 

of this issue. 

THE UNINSURED

In the 108th Congress the Committee continued to monitor ways 

to expand insurance coverage to the more than 40 million individVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
274 

uals who are uninsured and ways to improve the insurance marketplace. As part of its oversight of health insurance issues, on 

June 24, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

held a hearing to examine hospital billing and collection practices 

for uninsured/self-pay patients. The hearing focused on policies and 

practices for setting rates for and charging the uninsured or selfpay patients, the laws and regulations that affect the policies, and 

the guidance from the HHS regarding billing and collection practices. Because of the pricing system set up by hospitals under their 

interpretation of Medicare regulations, uninsured patients are 

charged the ‘‘list price’’ for hospital care. For insured patients, 

there are discounts as high as 50 percent from the list price, which 

are negotiated by their insurance companies. Such a system has 

the effect of charging the uninsured the highest prices for health 

care. As a result, uninsured patients have lost good credit ratings 

and have had liens placed on their residences. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from three panels of witnesses. The first panel 

featured expert and advocacy witnesses who testified about hospital management and finance, debtor-creditor law, bankruptcy, 

and the perspective of patients. The second panel featured the chief 

executive officers of the five largest hospital chains in the United 

States. And the third panel was comprised of representatives from 

the CMS and the HHS–OIG. During the hearing, all of the hospital 

chains present stated that they had implemented or would implement policies providing free or discounted care for low-income uninsured patients. 

MEDICARE PREVENTIVE CARE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to assess policies concerning beneficiary use of and the cost effectiveness of clinical preventive benefits and services under Medicare. On September 21, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing to examine the preventive benefits in the Medicare program, specifically 

the expansion of preventive benefits under the MMA. Witnesses 

provided insight on the need for these services, how the medical 

community determines the appropriateness of utilizing these services, and mechanisms to ensure beneficiaries take advantage of 

them. Witnesses included representatives from the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality, GAO, and an industry representative. 

PREVENTING WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN FEDERAL HEALTHCARE

PROGRAMS

The Medicare program continues to be at risk of considerable 

losses due to waste, fraud and abuse. Because of the program’s 

large size and scope—providing health care coverage for 40 million 

Americans, with expenditures in excess of $241 billion each year— 

the Committee focused considerable attention on efforts to eliminate improper payments. The Committee also reviewed Federal financial management processes and controls, and information technology and systems used to prevent and detect fraud. In the MMA, 

the Committee addressed many of these issues, including: Medicare 

secondary payor; competitive bidding for durable medical equipment (DME); use of recovery audit contractors; and background 

275 

checks on direct access employees of long-term care facilities or 

providers. In addition, MMA reformed payment for outpatient 

drugs and biologicals. MMA abolished the costly average wholesale 

price (AWP) for physician-administered drugs under Part B. Providers will now be reimbursed for drug costs determined by a new 

market-based price or average sales price (ASP). The legislation is 

more fully described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation 

section of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

In addition, as part of the Committee’s broader assessment of 

Medicaid, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

launched a broad investigation into potential waste, fraud, and 

abuse in the Medicaid program. In January 2003, the GAO placed 

Medicaid for the first time on its list of government programs at 

‘‘High Risk’’ of fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement. On June 12, 

2003, the Subcommittee issued letter requests to all 50 states for 

documents and information on a range of matters relating to each 

State’s administration and oversight of the Medicaid program. Part 

of this inquiry involves an examination of intergovernmental transfers and state financing mechanisms: Among the matters principally at issue with intergovernmental transfers is the use of certain financing mechanisms by some states to generate additional 

Federal Medicaid matching funds. Included in these financing 

mechanisms is a process by which excessive Medicaid payments to 

state-owned health facilities are subsequently returned to the state 

treasury and then reported to the Federal government for the purposes of obtaining Medicaid matching dollars. The Subcommittee 

has been investigating the scope and prevalence of such mechanisms, and whether this is common practice among certain states 

and their public hospitals. 

REFORM OF THE MEDICAID PROGRAM

During the 108th Congress, the Committee reviewed the Medicaid program to assess its current operations and determine how 

they may be improved. These efforts included a focus on the needs 

of the elderly and disabled populations within Medicaid, and assessment of strategies to improve the quality and cost effectiveness 

of the care they receive. On March 12, 2003, the Subcommittee on 

Health held an oversight hearing examining the Medicaid program. 

The hearing focused on the governors’ assessment of the current 

Medicaid program. Specifically, the hearing focused on current and 

long term Medicaid financing, and other issues surrounding Medicaid. The only witnesses were three Governors who provided their 

views on the Medicaid program. On October 8, 2003, the Health 

Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the challenges facing 

the Medicaid program, including incentives for states to maximize 

Federal contributions and financing. Witnesses at the hearing provided perspectives on the challenges facing the Medicaid program 

and suggested program changes. Witnesses included the CMS Administrator, a delegate to a State House of Representatives, and a 

policy specialist from the health care industry. 

As part of its efforts to assess ways to improve patient care, on 

June 5, 2003, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing to examine 

several state demonstration projects that allow Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities to manage some of their personal care 

276 

services. The hearing focused on these demonstration programs, 

known generically as Cash and Counseling, which allow certain 

beneficiaries to choose to receive a monthly cash-allowance for personal care services based on a professional assessment of their 

needs. Witnesses discussed whether this program should be expanded nationwide and concerns with including other Medicaidcovered services within the program. Witnesses included representatives from Florida’s program, as well as an advocacy group representing disabled beneficiaries, and the mother of a disabled beneficiary. And on October 15, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing 

to examine how the Medicaid program coordinates care for its 

beneficiaries to improve health and quality of care. The hearing focused on the efforts to coordinate care through disease management, Primary Care Case Management programs, integrated managed care plans, and other new innovative state approaches. Witnesses included government health care officials from Florida, 

North Carolina and Indiana, and representatives from health care 

organizations. 

In addition, as part of this Committee work, the Subcommittee 

on Health held an oversight hearing on March 18, 2004, to examine 

how some states use inter-governmental transfers, and the impact 

this funding mechanisms have on the growth in Federal Medicaid 

spending. Its use has allowed some states to shift a significant portion of their fiscal obligations for the program onto federal taxpayers. In addition, monies diverted through this mechanism were 

used for non-Medicaid expenditures. Witnesses included officials 

from GAO and the HHS–OIG, as well as a hospital representative. 

On April 1, 2004, the Health Subcommittee held its second oversight hearing to examining inter-governmental transfers. Witnesses 

included representative from CMS and the Ohio Office of Medicaid. 

IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to evaluate 

issues related to image-guided biopsy, a minimally invasive procedure used to determine if a patient has breast cancer. Evidence 

suggested the use of surgical biopsy over image-guided biopsy may 

have resulted from the larger reimbursement rates under Medicare 

for the surgical biopsy procedure. While the Committee took no direct oversight action, it continued to monitor the issues. 

THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

In the 108th Congress, the Committee investigated several approaches to improving the grant making process at the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several of the CDC programs were evaluated as part of Committee negotiations of referred 

legislation. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

In the 108th Congress, the Committee initiated a broad examination of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) organizational 

structure, priority setting, and research activities. Over the past 

five years, Congress has invested considerable additional resources 

into NIH, roughly doubling its budget. With approximately $27 bilVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
277 

lion per fiscal year, NIH is the largest source of funding for health 

research in the world. At the same time, the majority of NIH authorities have expired. 

The Subcommittee on Health held a series of hearings to evaluate how NIH operates. The first hearing, held on May 22, 2003, focused on how NIH is utilizing taxpayer dollars to improve and expand its research activities in the field of genomics research. On 

July 10, 2003, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to 

evaluate how NIH’s technology transfer policies are working to 

bring new products to the market and improve public health, and 

evaluated whether NIH’s technology transfer policies prohibit the 

federal government from fairly recouping research investments. On 

March 25, 2004, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to review how NIH is conducting clinical research and highlighted areas 

for improvement. On June 2, 2004, the Subcommittee on Health 

held a hearing to examine how the National Institutes of Health 

sets research priorities to meet public health needs and advance 

scientific opportunities. 

In addition to the Subcommittee on Health hearings, on October 

2, 2003, the Full Committee and the Senate Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions Committee held a joint oversight hearing on 

the organizational structure of the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH). The hearing focused on how the current organizational 

structure of NIH impacts the management of the agency, priority 

setting, and the advancement of science. Testimony was received 

from both the current and past Director of the NIH, as well as a 

representative of the National Academy of Sciences. 

As part of examination of NIH, the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations initiated an examination of the NIH management infrastructure. In a March 2003 letter to the NIH director, 

Full Committee Chairman Tauzin and Subcommittee Chairman 

Greenwood requested information relating to grant oversight; efforts to address waste, fraud, and abuse in federal grants; and information relating to NIH administration and administrative costs. 

The review is ongoing. In addition, as part of the Committee’s oversight of NIH financial management, and its broader review of procurement policies at agencies within its jurisdiction, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated an examination of the standards used to award contracts and the nature of the 

procurement process at NIH. In a March 2004 letter to the NIH director, Full Committee Chairman Barton and Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood requested records relating to the use of purchase 

cards, purchase orders, telecommunications support contracts, and 

technology acquisition contracts at the agency. The review is ongoing. 

On May 12 and 18 and June 22, 2004, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations held three hearings focusing on conflict-of-interest issues involving NIH employees and drug companies. The purpose of the hearings was to: (1) assess the recommendations of the NIH Blue Ribbon Panel on Conflict of Interest Policies, which was appointed to examine conflicts of interest 

polices, especially those related to consulting arrangements and 

outside ‘‘awards’’ received by NIH officials; (2) review two case 

studies, one illustrating the Committee’s concerns about consulting 

278 

arrangements, and the other illustrating the concerns about outside awards, as well as related legal and policy decisions by the Office of Government Ethics, the HHS, and the NIH; and (3) assess 

the NIH’s response to the Committee’s concerns and the Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommendations, and explore whether the National Cancer Institute (NCI) properly managed conflict of interest 

issues. 

As part of its oversight of the ethics programs at the NIH, the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations identified issues 

concerning the NIH’s use of special authority under Title 42 of the 

Public Health Service Act. The special authority, 42 U.S.C. 209(f) 

‘‘Special Consultants,’’ provides that under certain circumstances, 

special consultants may be employed ‘‘to assist and advise in the 

operations of the [Public Health] Service’’ without regard to civil 

service laws. Since 2000, the NIH, without the knowledge of Congress, has been using 42 U.S.C. 209(f) as a mechanism to increase 

the salaries of government scientists by evading the salary limitations in the civil service system and treating these full-time, government scientists as if they were temporary expert consultants. As 

a result, the NIH has compensated nearly 4,000 out of 6,000 of its 

scientists under this mechanism, including paying some NIH Institute Directors and other senior NIH officials at annual salary rates 

greater than the salary of the Secretary of the Department of 

Health and Human Services. The Subcommittee raised legal and 

policy questions about the perceived misuse of special-consultant 

authority during its NIH oversight hearings. 

In addition, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee also 

opened an inquiry into the fairness of the NIH awards process, specifically whether in some cases NIH’s methods of awarding grants 

and contracts are structured to ensure or maximize the chances 

that certain institutions and/or individuals personally favored by 

high-ranking NIH officials win the awards. On November 10, 2003, 

Full Committee Chairman Tauzin and Subcommittee Chairman 

Greenwood issued letters to relevant parties requesting information 

relating to a March 2002 award to Harvard University of a fiveyear, $40 million subcontract for a molecular target laboratory 

(MTL) through a prime contract funded by the NCI. Documents obtained by the Committee raised questions about whether the outcome of the award was pre-determined. The review is ongoing. 

HHS PROGRAMS AFFECTING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to conduct oversight of HHS grant programs that affect the health of children and 

families. Several of the HHS programs were evaluated as part of 

Committee negotiations of referred legislation. 

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

In the 108th Congress, while the Committee engaged in no specific oversight activity, it continued to monitor and assess Federal 

surveillance and monitoring programs, prevention and control efforts, and research and development activities relating to antimicrobial resistance. 

279 

ORGAN DONATIONS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued its oversight of 

the organ donation system. On June 3, 2003, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations held a hearing that examined initiatives the health care community is exploring to increase organ donation. There are 81,000-plus candidates in the United States waiting for an organ transplant. The hearing examined issues related 

to advances in science to improve the success of organ transplantation, issues surrounding potential financial incentives to increase 

organ donation, HHS’ Best Practices Initiative, and state initiatives 

to increase organ donations. The Subcommittee heard testimony 

from patients waiting for or who had received transplants, representatives from state and federal organ donor networks, HHS, 

and the medical and advocacy community. 

The Committee also advanced legislation to improve organ donation. The Committee approved H.R. 399, the Organ Donation Improvement Act, on January 29, 2003. This bill was incorporated 

into H.R. 3926, which was signed into Public Law 108–216 on April 

5, 2004. 

DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT & PREVENTION

In a February 2003 letter to the HHS Secretary, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations raised concerns about 

delays to include alternative drug tests in federal workplace programs and requested that the agency expedite review of alternative 

drugs tests and take appropriate action to strengthen the federal 

workplace drug-testing program. Federal workplace drug testing 

policy continues to be based only on testing of urine, as it has since 

1988. However, since 1988 the FDA has approved alternative drug 

tests using hair, sweat, and saliva. These alternative tests could 

strengthen security of the federal workplace. Notwithstanding FDA 

clearance of alternatives to urine-testing for drugs-of-abuse, increased use of alternative tests in the private sector, and the meetings of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)’s Drug Testing Advisory Board over a five-year 

period, SAMHSA had not published proposed guidelines on alternative specimens for notice and comment. As a result of the Subcommittee’s inquiry, HHS published proposed revisions to federal 

mandatory drug-testing guidelines in the Federal Register. These 

revisions require federal workers who submit to drug screening to 

have their saliva, sweat, or hair tested as the Administration increases efforts to deter and detect illegal drug use among 1.6 million civilian employees. 

MEDICAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to review the 

extent and causes of the medical liability crisis. On February 10, 

2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a 

field hearing at St. Mary Medical Center in Langhorne, Pennsylvania, on issues surrounding the rise of medical liability insurance 

premiums. The hearing examined the impact of rising premiums on 

the provision of health care in the state, the business practices of 

Pennsylvania insurers, the influence of medical liability claims on 

280 

the rates, and the current and proposed state and federal legislative initiatives directed at addressing medical liability insurance 

issues. The governor of Pennsylvania spoke on the first panel. The 

hearing’s second panel featured patients and physicians who testified to their experiences with the provision of health care, as well 

as a hospital administrator and a representative of the American 

Medical Association. The third panel featured representatives from 

the insurance industry, medical schools and other medical enterprises, academia, advocacy organizations, and the trial bar. The 

hearing helped focus attention on the effects and causes of rising 

medical liability premiums in Pennsylvania, and nationally. On 

February 27, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 

hearing assessing the need to enact medical liability reform. The 

hearing focused on the current medical liability crisis, what other 

factors contribute to rising medical malpractice insurance premiums and the potential impact of medical liability reforms, such 

as those proposed in H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, LowCost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003, on patients’ 

rights, insurance companies and physicians. Testimony was received from a patient perspective and a health law attorney, as 

well as industry representatives and consumer advocacy groups. 

On March 6, 2003, the Committee approved H.R. 5, with an 

amendment, by voice vote. The House approved the legislation on 

March 13, 2003 by a vote of 229 yeas and 196 nays, with one Member voting present. 

PATIENT SAFETY

As part of its jurisdiction over public health, the Committee continued to monitor the issues of patient safety and medical errors. 

In addition, the Committee pursued oversight of this area in the 

context of legislative activity. Health Subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis introduced H.R. 663, to amend the Public Health Service Act 

to provide for the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the 

incidence of events that adversely affect patient safety, on February 11, 2003. The bill passed by voice vote in the Full Committee 

on February 12, 2003. The legislation passed the House on March 

12, 2003. The legislation is more fully described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

PEDIATRIC DRUG TESTING

In 2002, a Federal court ruled that the FDA did not have the authority to issue its ‘‘Pediatric Rule,’’ which required manufacturers 

of drugs and biologics to test their drugs intended for adults on 

children. In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor FDA efforts to ensure the appropriate testing of drugs in children. In addition, the Committee advanced legislation that would 

provide the FDA the authority to require tests of drugs intended 

for adults on children. The bill passed the House under suspension 

of the rules. The Pediatric Research Equity Act was signed into law 

by the President on December 3, 2003. The legislation is more fully 

described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of the 

Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

281 

GENERIC DRUG COMPETITION

The Committee instituted changes to the Hatch/Waxman laws in 

the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, which will speed the approval of generic drugs. Brand drug companies will only be allowed 

one 30-month stay of the approval of a generic competitor. The legislation also forces generics to forego their 180-day generic exclusivity if they do not bring a product to market within a specified 

time period. Additionally, the law ensures that all agreements between innovators and generics related to the 180-day exclusivity 

must be reported to the Federal Trade Commission; thereby, preventing potential anti-competition arrangements. 

FOOD ALLERGEN LABELING

In the 108th Congress, the Committee monitored developments 

concerning food allergen labeling. As part of this work, the Committee advanced legislation that required food manufacturers to 

disclose allergens contained in their product on its label. The bill 

then passed the House under suspension of the rules. The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law 

by the President on August 2, 2004. The legislation is more fully 

described in the Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of the 

Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES

In the 107th Congress, the President signed into law the Medical 

Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. Among other 

things, this legislation required device manufacturers to pay user 

fees to the FDA for the review of their medical devices. During the 

108th Congress, the Committee monitored implementation of the 

Act. As part of this work, the Committee advanced legislation to 

make technical corrections to the Act. The bill passed the House 

under suspension of the rules. The President on Apri1 1, 2004, 

signed the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act into law. The 

legislation is more fully described in the Subcommittee on Health 

Legislation section of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th 

Congress. 

ANIMAL DRUG ISSUES

During the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor 

developments with regard to the speed of animal drug application 

approvals. As part of this work, the Committee advanced legislation that provides the FDA the authority to approve animal drugs 

for minor species and for minor uses in an expedited process. The 

legislation also provides incentives to manufacturers to produce 

drugs for minor species and for minor uses. The bill passed the 

House under suspension of the rules. The Minor Use and Minor 

Species Animal Health Act was signed into law by the President 

on August 2, 2004. The legislation is more fully described in the 

Subcommittee on Health Legislation section of the Committee’s Activity Report for the 108th Congress. 

282 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES 

THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE PROGRAM

In previous Congresses, the Committee has reviewed the operations of the various universal service programs administered by 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Universal service 

was first implemented as a government policy with the Charleston 

Plan of implicit subsidies in 1951 as a means of ensuring that all 

Americans enjoyed a ubiquitous, reliable, and affordable communications system. Universal service policies were amended after the 

breakup of AT&T in the early 1980s and again in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. One of the changes made in 1996 was the expansion of the program to include the subsidization of telecommunications services provided to schools, libraries, and rural 

health care providers. 

On September 24, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the future 

of universal service, competition and advances in technology, and 

current and future funding mechanisms. Witnesses from Federal 

and state regulatory bodies as well as large and small telecommunications companies provided testimony. Further, on June 

17, July 22, and September 22, 2004, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse 

in the E-rate program, the portion of the Universal Service Fund 

set up to subsidize telecommunications and Internet services and 

infrastructure in qualified schools and libraries. The hearings examined (1) the oversight and management of the E-rate program 

by the FCC and the program administrator, (2) issues and 

vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, and abuse in program set-up, and 

(3) case examples of problems in the program. The Subcommittee 

received testimony from school officials, Federal administrators of 

the program, representatives of corporations that were contracted 

to supply telephone and internal connections to schools. In addition, the Full Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen requested in 

December 2003 that the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) review FCC’s management of the E-rate program. GAO will complete 

that review early in the 109th Congress. 

HEALTH OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR

The mass-market commercialization of the Internet and the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act unleashed a massive investment in telecommunications and Internet companies. This 

boom, however, turned to bust in 2000 and 2001, as new investment from Wall Street dried up. As a result, hundreds of thousands of employees of telecommunications service and manufacturing companies have lost their jobs and dozens of companies have 

filed for bankruptcy. On February 5, 2003 and February 26, 2003 

the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

oversight hearings focusing on the current health of the telecommunications sector. These hearings explored the telecommunications sector’s economic slump, its affect on service providers and 

equipment manufacturers, and the impact of Commission regulations on the telecommunications sector. The Subcommittee received 

283 

testimony from Federal officials, financial analysts, and public policy and research organizations. 

On January 29, 2003, Chairman Tauzin, Ranking Member Dingell, and 20 Members of the Committee wrote the FCC to express 

concern that the Commission’s local competition rules were subverting the intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and undermining the economic well-being of the telecommunications sector. The Members asked the Commission to foster facilities-based 

competition by providing all competitors with the incentive to build 

new networks. 

On March 17, 2004, Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, 

and Mr. Upton and Mr. Boucher wrote to U.S. Attorney General 

John Ashcroft to request that the Solicitor General not appeal a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that struck 

down the Commission’s February 2003 unbundling rules. The authors of the letter believed that the court’s decision would have a 

positive impact on the health of the telecommunications sector. 

FCC IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

In 1996, Congress enacted a major overhaul of the country’s telecommunications laws. Among the many changes made in 1996, two 

in particular have spurred a tremendous amount of interest and 

controversy: Congress’s requirement that incumbent local exchange 

carriers (ILECs) make parts of their networks available to competitors seeking to offer telecommunications services and the distinction between regulated telecommunications services (essentially 

transmission services in which information does not change content 

or form) and essentially unregulated information services (which do 

alter the content or form of information that is being transmitted). 

There has been widespread disagreement about whether the rules 

implementing these provisions from the 1996 Telecommunications 

Act have been effective in achieving the goals of the Act. Throughout the 108th Congress, the Committee examined the implementation of the 1996 Telecommunications Act by the FCC and the effect 

of those provisions on the telecommunications industry. 

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held 

a series of hearings to explore the changing telecommunications 

marketplace and the regulatory treatment of broadband services. 

On July 21, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the disparity in regulation and what the proper regulatory framework for 

broadband Internet access services should be. On July 7, 2004, the 

Subcommittee held a hearing on the impact of Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VOIP) services on the communications industry as well as 

the impact of the current statutory/regulatory framework for communications services on VOIP services. On February 4, 2004 and 

May 19, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet held oversight hearings on the state of competition in the 

communications marketplace in general as well as how the convergence of voice, video, and data services is enabling companies using 

different technology platforms to compete head-to-head. The Subcommittee received testimony from financial analysts and economists, witnessed demonstrations of new technology devices that reflect the convergence of voice, video, and data services and heard 

284 

testimony regarding the delivery of broadband services using the 

electricity grid. 

Members of the Committee also wrote a series of letters to address concerns with Broadband regulations, VOIP services and 

packet switch facilities. A January 29, 2003, letter to the FCC 

urged that unbundling rules are not applied to broadband facilities; 

a January 22, 2004, letter to the Commission asked that it resolve 

ambiguities in the Commission’s 2003 broadband rules; a March 

17, 2004, letter to the Attorney General urged the Solicitor General 

not to appeal the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit that upheld the Commission’s rules that exempted packetswitched and fiber facilities from onerous facilities; a September 

23, 2004, letter to the Commission to urge that the Commission’s 

unbundling rules imposed under section 271 of the Communications Act be reconciled with the Commission’s unbundling rules imposed under Section 251 to ensure that companies investing in new 

broadband facilities have the maximum incentive to deploy such facilities as quickly and ubiquitously as possible; an October 5, 2004, 

letter to the Commission urged the agency to determine that VOIP 

services are interstate and subject to the Commission’s exclusive 

jurisdiction; and, an October 20, 2004, letter from 23 Members of 

the Committee supporting the notion that VOIP service is interstate in nature and that the Commission should have exclusive jurisdiction over rate regulation of VOIP. The October 20th letter 

also urged the Commission to proceed with careful deliberation on 

matters dealing with VOIP and not disrupt the critical and longstanding role of the states in protecting consumers and ensuring 

public safety. 

WIRELESS E–911 DEPLOYMENT

The roll out of the FCC program known as E–911, a requirement 

that mobile telecommunications service providers put technology in 

their networks and/or consumer handsets that enable a public safety official to determine a wireless caller’s location with a certain degree of accuracy, has been slower than expected. In the 108th Congress the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 

held hearings on the status of the implementation of E–911. On 

June 4, 2003, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing which 

explored the progress that wireless carriers, local exchange carriers 

(LECs), and public safety answering points (PSAPs) were making 

in their efforts to deploy Phase II Enhanced 911 service within the 

deadlines and parameters established by the FCC. The Committee 

received testimony from a Federal agency, representatives of large 

wireless providers, and a representative of the National Emergency 

Number Association. 

DIGITAL TELEVISION

In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress gave television 

broadcasters additional 6 MHz blocks of spectrum to begin broadcasting in digital format, and required them to cease analog broadcasting and return 6 MHz blocks of spectrum the later of December 

31, 2006, or once more than 85% of television households have access to digital television channels. During the 108th Congress, the 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications held hearings, and roundVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00290 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
285 

table discussions with industry representatives to monitor the 

FCC’s actions in proceedings that will impact the success of the 

transition to digital television in all areas of the country in accordance with the schedule set forth in the Balanced Budget Act of 

1997. On June 2, 2004, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the digital television transition. Witnesses included industry 

representatives, advocacy groups, and a representative of a think 

tank. On July 21, 2004, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on a digital television transition plan implemented in Berlin, 

Germany. On July 22, 2004, the Committee hosted a digital television roundtable discussion, designed to solicit updates from the 

Commission, industry and consumer groups on the DTV transition’s progress and remaining DTV issues. 

EFFICIENT USE OF SPECTRUM AND SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

Management of spectrum within the United States is shared between the FCC (governing private sector use of the spectrum) and 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) (governing governmental use of the spectrum). With virtually all usable spectrum already allocated there is increased demand for the allocation and assignment of additional spectrum in 

order to provide new wireless services. During the 108th Congress 

the Committee reviewed spectrum management functions and efforts to promote spectrum sharing that may be beneficial to the 

promotion of new wireless technologies. 

In addition, on June 11, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the 

spectrum needs of our nation’s first responders. Topics that were 

explored included interference problems on radio frequencies used 

by first responders, interoperability communication difficulties with 

officials in other agencies on common radio frequencies, and modernizing communications systems. The Subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress, state and local officials, commercial mobile service providers, and equipment manufacturers. 

MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES

The 1996 Telecommunications Act required the FCC to relax a 

number of its broadcast ownership restrictions. It also required the 

FCC to review its ownership restrictions biennially to ‘‘determine 

whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as 

the result of competition.’’ The FCC consolidated three pending 

broadcast ownership proceedings in September 2002 into a single 

Biennial Review. The Committee wrote nine letters to the Commission between February 2003 and May 2003 weighing in on various 

aspects of the proceeding and checking in on its status. 

In June 2003, the FCC: (1) raised the national television potential audience reach limit to 45 percent from 35 percent; (2) relaxed 

some of the limits on the ownership of two television stations in a 

market, referred to as ‘‘duopolies’’; (3) allowed, for the first time, 

ownership of three television stations in a market, referred to as 

‘‘triopolies,’’ in certain limited circumstances; (4) slightly tightened 

the limit on the number of local radio stations an entity may own 

by using a more restrictive, Arbitron-based definition of the relevant local market for purposes of applying the rule; (5) loosened 

286 

the restrictions on the cross ownership of a TV station and a radio 

station in the same market; (6) allowed, for the first time, ownership of a newspaper and a radio station or a newspaper and TV 

station in the same market, in certain circumstances; and, (7) preserved the existing dual network rule. Congress rolled back the national television potential audience reach limit to 39 percent in the 

2004 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Third Circuit remanded most of the remaining ownership rules 

in June 2004, telling the FCC that while the rules may be justifiable, the FCC needs to do a better job of supporting them. In particular, the court remanded the television duopoly/triopoly, local 

radio ownership, and cross-ownership rules for further explanation 

and support. Any Supreme Court appeal must be filed by the end 

of December. The FCC and a number of broadcasters are each currently deciding whether to do so. In the 109th Congress, the Committee will continue to monitor any FCC or court decisions on the 

broadcast ownership rules. 

ICANN

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

(ICANN) governs the management and registration of ‘‘generic toplevel domain’’ names (gTLDs) such as .com or .gov. ICANN operates through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Commerce. As ICANN moves toward complete privatization of the domain name system from the Department of Commerce, the Committee continued to monitor its progress. Specifically, the Committee met with officials from NTIA to discuss the 

movement toward rewriting the Memorandum of Understanding 

between ICANN and the Department and when ICANN independence could occur. 

DOT KIDS

During the 107th Congress, the ‘‘Dot Kids Implementation and 

Efficiency Act’’ was passed into law. That law requires the operator 

of the ‘‘.us’’ country-code domain to create and maintain the ‘‘.kids’’ 

secondary domain. In the 108th Congress, on May 6, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on The ‘‘Dot Kids’’ Internet Domain: Protecting Children Online. This hearing focused on the roll out of the new ‘‘dot 

kids’’ Internet domain and what actions industry, government and 

other organizations could take to ensure the domain is a success. 

The Subcommittee received testimony from government officials, 

industry representatives, and child safety organizations. 

CONTENT PROTECTION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO E-COMMERCE

As broadcasters and cable operators continue to move from analog to digital technology, and broadband deployment continues, 

questions about the protection of content persist. Conventional wisdom holds that consumers will not embrace digital technology in 

large numbers until a greater amount of compelling content is 

available that takes advantage of digital platforms. Conventional 

wisdom also holds that content owners will not make a greater 

amount of compelling digital content available until they have betVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00292 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
287 

ter assurances that their content will not be unlawfully copied and 

distributed over broadband networks. Promoting the development 

of broadband and digital platforms turns in a large part, then, on 

testing this conventional wisdom and, if accurate, addressing the 

concerns it raises. Maximizing growth in digital and broadband 

platforms will require striking the right balance between content 

owners’ expectations that they will be able to exert controls over 

their content, and consumers’ expectations that digital and 

broadband platforms will bring them more flexibility, not less, in 

using content and electronics. The Committee kept an eye on these 

issues in the 108th Congress by drafting letters, convening roundtable discussions with industry and consumer representatives, and 

holding hearings. Topics included the amount and form of digital 

content available over broadcast and cable platforms, and content 

protection mechanisms such as those implemented by the FCC in 

its broadcast flag and cable plug-and-play regulations. The Committee will continue to monitor these issues in the 109th Congress, 

and may hold additional roundtables or hearings on content-protection related topics in the context of the DTV transition, broadband 

deployment, video streaming, and peer-to-peer networks. 

INTERNET SPAM AND POP-UP ADVERTISEMENTS

Internet users are expressing increasing frustration over the 

growing number of unsolicited e-mails they receive from commercial vendors, as well as the frequency of pop-up advertisements 

during Internet use. On July 9, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a joint oversight hearing 

with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection on the legislative efforts to combat unsolicited commercial 

email, also known as spam. The hearing explored the problems created by spam, which has been a ballooning problem for electronic 

mail users, businesses, and Internet service providers. Witnesses 

included representatives of large Internet service providers, Federal and state/local officials, and representatives of consumers. 

THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) 

in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Historically, the Committee 

has been charged with monitoring the activities of CPB and authorizing appropriations. In the 108th Congress, the Committee reviewed the level of Federal funding necessary for the continuation 

of public broadcasting from stations across the country. Specifically, the Committee examined the funding of the television future 

fund created within CPB. After a GAO report was released indicating that monies used to finance the Future Fund were not being 

properly allocated, Chairman Barton wrote a letter with Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton, 

Mr. Burr, and Mr. Regula on May 21, 2004, to Mr. Robert Coonrad, 

President and CEO for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, asking for the remaining money in the television future fund be returned to the public television stations since using community service grant money for future fund purposes was contrary to CPB’s 

statute. 

288 

HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES 

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor protection efforts in the electricity, energy, nuclear, postal/shipping, 

and information and telecommunications industries, as well as 

with respect to the food and drinking water supplies and the public 

health infrastructure. As part of this oversight, the Committee continued its review of Federal and industry efforts to improve security at sites possessing potentially dangerous chemicals. As part of 

this review, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) met with Committee staff on February 26th to discuss the 

agency’s voluntary survey of security practices at approximately 31 

high-risk chemical facilities across the country. On February 28, 

2004, the Full Committee Chairman Tauzin, Environment and 

Hazardous Materials Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood wrote 

the EPA Administrator requesting documents and information to 

assist the Committee in its continuing oversight of chemical plant 

security. Review of chemical plant security is ongoing. In addition, 

on March 18, 2003, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) proposed changes to security requirements at nuclear 

power plants. While opening statements by Members and witnesses 

were open to the public, the hearing went into executive session for 

Member questioning of the witnesses. The Subcommittee received 

testimony from the Chairman and two Commissioners of the NRC, 

representatives from the nuclear industry and nuclear power companies and facilities, and an advocacy group. The new changes 

were finalized and are now being implemented at nuclear plants 

across the country. 

NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

Throughout the 108th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations continued its focus on efforts of the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to secure the nation’s ports 

and borders from terrorist efforts to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States. As part of this oversight, on September 30, 2003, the Subcommittee held a hearing to review the 

federal government’s progress toward installing radiation detection 

monitors at U.S. ports and borders. The hearing focused on CBP’s 

ongoing efforts to install radiation portal monitors at each port to 

screen incoming cargo for radiological weapons. Due to the subject 

matter, the hearing was conducted in a classified session. The Subcommittee received testimony from one panel of witnesses, consisting of representatives from the CBP, the U.S. Postal Service, 

and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). On December 12, 2003, and March 31, 2004 the Subcommittee held hearings 

to review the CBP’s targeting and inspection program for sea cargo. 

The hearings focused on CBP’s efforts to implement a system to 

screen all incoming sea cargo and target for evaluation and inspection high-risk cargo entering the United States. While opening 

statements by Members and witnesses were open to the public, the 

hearing went into executive session for Member questioning of the 

289 

witnesses. At the December 12 field hearing held at the Delaware 

River Port Authority, in Camden, New Jersey, the Subcommittee 

received testimony from two panels of witnesses, consisting of representatives from the GAO, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), CBP, and the Philadelphia 

Regional Port Authority. At the March 31, 2004, the Subcommittee 

received testimony from representatives of the CBP, the GAO, the 

OIG, Council of Foreign Relations, and representatives from the 

Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach and Port of New York-New Jersey. 

Port security continues to be a major priority for the Subcommittee. 

BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

In the 108th Congress, the Committee monitored the implementation of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness 

and Response Act of 2002 by the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), and the coordination between HHS and 

the Department of Homeland Security with respect to setting priorities and goals for bioterrorism-related research and preparedness 

activities. As part of this review, on March 27, 2003, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on Project Bioshield. Project Bioshield aims to spur the research and development of new vaccines, drugs, and other countermeasures to deal 

with those biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological agents that 

pose a material threat to our national security. Witnesses included 

HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, and other experts in vaccine 

and drug research and development. In addition, on June 25, 2004, 

the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing to review 

the implementation of food security provisions of the Act. The hearing reviewed new requirements for registration of food processors, 

prior notice of imported food shipments, establishment and maintenance of records, and administrative detention. The Public Health 

Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act mandated these requirements. Witnesses included representatives of 

the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Customs, the food processing and distribution industries. 

As part of the Committee’s oversight of its other areas of jurisdiction under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act, the Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials held a hearing on September 30, 2004, to 

oversee EPA’s implementation of Title IV of the Act with respect 

to security of drinking water systems from terrorist attack. As part 

of its oversight of bioterrorism preparedness activities, the Committee reviewed issues relating to liability and compensation for 

adverse events regarding pre-event smallpox vaccination. As a result of this, the Committee also worked on the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003, which provides benefits for 

certain individuals with injuries resulting from administration of a 

smallpox vaccine, and for other purposes. The President signed this 

bill into law on April 30, 2003. Also, on May 11, 2004, the Health 

Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 3266, the Faster, Smarter 

Funding for First Responders Act of 2004. The primary focus of the 

hearing was the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of functions 

and the need for coordination between the Department of HomeVerDate Aug 04 2004 04:20 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00295 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR803.XXX HR803
290 

land Security and the HHS. Among other items, the hearing reviewed implementation of current bioterrorism and public health 

emergency preparedness and response programs for first responders. 

PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM

A major communications problem identified by the September 11 

tragedy was the absence of interoperable spectrum used by public 

safety officials. Police, fire, and rescue personnel from different jurisdictions often are not able to communicate with each other using 

their respective communications devices because they operate using 

different, incompatible frequencies. On June 11, 2003, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the spectrum needs of our nation’s first responders. The Subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress, state and local officials, commercial mobile service providers, 

and equipment manufacturers. Topics that were explored included 

interference problems on radio frequencies used by first responders, 

interoperability communication difficulties with officials in other 

agencies on common radio frequencies, and modernizing communications systems. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM

During the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor 

the efforts of Federal agencies within its jurisdiction to ensure the 

agencies are complying with the cyber security provisions of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT

In the 108th Congress, the Committee monitored implementation 

of Homeland Security Act of 2002 as it pertains to matters within 

the Committee’s jurisdiction, including critical infrastructure protection, research and development, and emergency preparedness. 

As part of this oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations initiated a review of EPA procedures as they relate to 

Homeland Security. An EPA OIG audit indicated that the Agency 

had not developed a coordinated plan for ‘‘identifying, obtaining, 

maintaining, and tracking’’ counter-terrorism and emergency-response equipment. In August 4, 2004, Full Committee Chairman 

Barton wrote the EPA Administrator requested information related 

to the Agency’s actions in the wake of the OIG report. This review 

is ongoing. In addition, the Subcommittee opened an investigation 

into the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) management and oversight of its contract with a private firm to provide 

airport screeners. In March 2002 the TSA signed a contract with 

Pearson Government Solutions to recruit 30,000 to 50,000 airport 

‘‘screeners’’ in response to the events of 9/11. This contract was initially valued at approximately $104 million; however, it subsequently increased to more than $850 million. The Subcommittee is 

examining the reasons for this significant increase and TSA’s oversight of the program. 

In addition, on June 23, 2004, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing which 

291 

focused on protecting homeland security, and explored the progress 

made in ensuring that public safety communications systems and 

therefore communications between different public-safety agencies 

are interoperable. This hearing explored whether interoperability is 

an achievable goal and the steps that need to be taken in order to 

achieve that goal. Witnesses included officials from Federal, state/ 

local agencies, and wireless companies. 

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES 

MISUSE OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASE AND TRAVEL CARDS

In the 108th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor implementation of OMB guidelines to ensure that the new purchase 

card programs are successful in preventing fraud, waste, and abuse 

in the use of this procurement tool. As part of this oversight, the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings, on 

February 26 and on March 12, 2003, that involved review of procurement and property management deficiencies at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, one of the Department of Energy’s national 

laboratories run by the University of California. (For details, see 

the General Management of the Department of Energy and Its National Laboratories, above.) Additionally, in a March 2004 letter to 

the National Institutes of Health director, Full Committee Chairman Barton and Subcommittee Chairman Greenwood requested 

records relating to the use of purchase cards, purchase orders, telecommunications support contracts, and technology acquisition contracts at the agency. The review is ongoing. 

(293) 

APPENDIX I 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Summary of Committee Activities 

Total Bills and Resolutions Referred to Committee ..................................... 1114 

Public Laws ...................................................................................................... 55 

Bills and Resolutions Reported to the House ................................................ 49 

Hearings Held: 

Days of Hearings ...................................................................................... 154 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 9 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 31 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality ...................................... 20 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials ............ 8 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 26 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet ............... 28 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 32 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 458:44 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 30:52 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 71:25 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality ...................................... 63:46 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials ............ 21:30 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 67:34 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet ............... 68:34 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 125:03 

Legislative Markups: 

Days of Markups ...................................................................................... 35 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 21 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 3 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality ...................................... 2 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials ............ 2 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 3 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet ............... 4 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 80:13 

Full Committee .................................................................................. 62:35 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection ... 1:08 

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality ...................................... 7:44 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials ............ 3:58 

Subcommittee on Health .................................................................. 1:48 

Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet ............... 3:18 

Business Meetings: 

Days of Meetings ...................................................................................... 4 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 4 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 1:22 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 1:22 

Executive Sessions: 

Days of Meetings ...................................................................................... 6 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 6 

Hours of Sitting ........................................................................................ 10:54 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................. 10:54 

(295) 

APPENDIX II 

This list includes: (1) legislation on which the Committee on Energy and Commerce acted directly; (2) legislation developed 

through Committee participation in House-Senate conferences; and 

(3) legislation which included provisions within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including legislation enacted by reference as part of 

other legislation. 

PUBLIC LAWS: 55 

Public Law Date approved Bill Title 

108–10 March 11, 2003 H.R. 395 Do Not Call Implementation Act. 

108–12 April 22, 2003 H.R. 397 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois. 

108–20 April 30, 2003 H.R. 1770 Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003. 

108–39 June 30, 2003 H.R. 2312 ORBIT Technical Corrections Act of 2003. 

108–40 June 30, 2003 H.R. 2350 Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2003. 

108–41 July 1, 2003 H.R. 389 Automatic Defibrillation in Adam’s Memory Act. 

108–74 August 15, 2003 H.R. 2854 To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend the availability 

of allotments for fiscal years 1998 through 2001 under the State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes. 

108–75 August 15, 2003 S. 1015 Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act. 

108–82 September 29, 2003 H.R. 3161 To ratify the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to establish a 

do-not-call registry. 

108–89 October 1, 2003 H.R. 3146 To extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 

program, and certain tax and trade programs, and for other purposes. 

108–127 November 17, 2003 H.R. 3288 To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to make technical corrections with respect to the definition of qualifying State. 

108–130 November 18, 2003 S. 313 Animal Drug User Fee Act of 2003. 

108–136 November 24, 2003 H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

108–154 December 3, 2003 S. 286 Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2003. 

108–155 December 3, 2003 S. 650 Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003. 

108–163 December 6, 2003 H.R. 3058 Health Care Safety Net Amendments Technical Corrections Act of 

2003. 

108–164 December 6, 2003 H.R. 3140 Fairness to Contact lens Consumers Act. 

108–173 December 8, 2003 H.R. 1 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 

2003. 

108–176 December 12, 2003 H.R. 2115 Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. 

108–179 December 15, 2003 H.R. 1813 Torture Victims Relief Reauthorization Act of 2003. 

108–187 December 16, 2003 S. 877 Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing 

Act of 2003. 

108–194 December 19, 2003 S. 686 Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act Amendments 

of 2003. 

108–197 December 19, 2003 S. 1929 Mental Health Parity Reauthorization Act of 2003. 

108–210 March 31, 2004 S. 2231 Welfare Reform Extension Act of 2004. 

108–214 April 1, 2004 S. 1881 Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act. 

108–216 April 5, 2004 H.R. 3926 Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act. 

108–228 May 18, 2004 S. 2315 To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to extend the 

deadline for the INTELSAT initial public offering. 

108–265 June 30, 2004 S. 2507 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. 

108–276 July 21, 2004 S. 15 Project BioShield Act of 2004. 

108–282 August 2, 2004 S. 741 Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004. 

108–304 September 24, 2004 H.R. 361 Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act. 

108–308 September 30, 2004 H.R. 5149 To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block 

grant program through March 31, 2005, and for other purposes. 

296 

PUBLIC LAWS: 55—Continued 

Public Law Date approved Bill Title 

108–328 October 16, 2004 H.R. 2771 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York 

City Watershed Protection Program. 

108–336 October 18, 2004 S. 551 Southern Ute and Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation Act of 2004. 

108–343 October 18, 2004 S. 2319 Tapoco Project Licensing Act of 2004. 

108–355 October 21, 2004 S. 2634 Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act. 

108–357 October 22, 2004 H.R. 4520 American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. 

108–358 October 22, 2004 S. 2195 Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. 

108–362 October 25, 2004 H.R. 3858 Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004. 

108–365 October 25, 2004 H.R. 4555 Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2004. 

108–371 October 25, 2004 S. 2896 A bill to modify and extend certain privatization requirements of the 

Communications Satellite Act of 1962. 

108–375 October 28, 2004 H.R. 4200 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

108–377 October 30, 2004 H.R. 2023 Asthmatic Schoolchildren’s Treatment and Health Management Act of 

2003. 

108–406 October 30, 2004 H.R. 5131 Special Olympics Sport and Empowerment Act of 2004. 

108–414 October 30, 2004 S. 1194 Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003. 

108–426 November 30, 2004 H.R. 5163 Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Reorganization Act. 

108–427 November 30, 2004 H.R. 5213 Research Review Act of 2004. 

108–437 December 3, 2004 S. 1146 Three Affiliated Tribes Health Facility Compensation Act. 

108–441 December 3, 2004 S. 2302 A bill to improve access to physicians in medically underserved 

areas. 

108–446 December 3, 2004 H.R. 1350 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. 

108–447 December 8, 2004 H.R. 4818 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005. 

108–448 December 8, 2004 S. 2618 A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend medicare 

cost-sharing for the medicare part B premium for qualifying individuals through September 2005. 

108–458 December 17, 2004 S. 2845 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. 

108–490 December 23, 2004 H.R. 5204 To amend section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (relating to 

children’s hospitals) to modify provisions regarding the determination of the amount of payments for indirect expenses associated 

with operating approved graduate medical residency training programs. 

108–494 December 23, 2004 H.R. 5419 Enhance 911 Act of 2004. 

(297) 

APPENDIX III 

PART A 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

108–1 The Do Not Call List Authorization (Full Committee Briefing) January 8, 2003 

108–2 Assessing the Need to Enact Medical Liability Reform (Subcommittee on Health) February 27, 2003 

108–3 Health of the Telecommunication Sector: A Perspective From Investors and Economists (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) February 5, 2003 

108–4 The Medical Liability Insurance Crisis: A Review of the Situation in Pennsylvania 

(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) 

February 10, 2003 

108–5 Does the U.S. Olympic Committee’s Organizational Structure Impede Its Mission? 

(Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

March 19, 2003 

108–6 Health of the Telecommunications Sector: A Perspective From the Commissioners of 

the Federal Communications Commission (Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet) 

February 26, 2003 

108–7 Comprehensive National Energy Policy (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) March 5, 2003, March 

12, 2003, and 

March 13, 2003 

108–8 A Review of the Administration FY2004 Health Care Priorities (Full Committee) February 12, 2003 

108–9 South Florida’s Access to Affordable Prescription Drugs: Costs and Benefits of Alternative Solutions (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) March 10, 2003 

108–10 HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria: Combating a Global Pandemic (Subcommittee on 

Health) 

March 20, 2003 

108–11 Furthering Public Health Security: Project Bioshield (Subcommittee on Health, Joint 

hearing with the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response of 

the Select Committee on Homeland Security) 

March 27, 2003 

108–12 The Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet) 

March 25, 2003 

108–13 Investigation of Management Problems at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) February 26, 2003 and 

March 12, 2003 

108–14 Review of the University of California’s Management Contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) May 1, 2003 

108–15 Travel and Tourism in America Today (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection) 

April 30, 2003 

108–16 The Effectiveness of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Programs (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials) March 5, 2003 

108–17 A Review of FASB Action Post-Enron and Worldcom (Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

March 4, 2003 

108–18 The United Nations Oil for Food Program (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) May 14, 2003 

108–19 Trade in Services and E-Commerce: The Significance of the Singapore and Chile 

Free Trade Agreements (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

May 8, 2003 

108–20 SARS: Assessment, Outlook, and Lessons Learned (Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations) 

May 7, 2003 

108–21 The Hydrogen Energy Economy (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) May 20, 2003 

108–22 Strengthening and Improving Medicare (Subcommittee on Health) April 9, 2003 

108–23 The National Institutes of Health: Decoding our Federal Investment in Genomic Research (Subcommittee on Health) May 22, 2003 

108–24 Medicaid Today: The States’ Perspective (Subcommittee on Health) March 12, 2003 

108–25 Designing a Twenty-First Century Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit (Subcommittee on Health) April 8, 2003 

108–26 Natural Gas Supply and Demand (Full Committee) June 10, 2003 

108–27 Wireless E–911 Implementation: Progress and Remaining Hurdles (Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

June 4, 2003 

298 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

108–28 Consumer Directed Services: Improving Medicaid Beneficiaries’ Access to Quality 

Care (Subcommittee on Health) 

June 5, 2003 

108–29 A System Overwhelmed: The Avalanche of Imported, Counterfeit, and Unapproved 

Drugs Into the U.S. (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) 

June 24, 2003 

108–30 Reauthorization of the Federal Trade Commission: Positioning the Commission for 

the Twenty-First Century (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 

Protection) 

June 11, 2003 

108–31 Can Tobacco Cure Smoking? A Review of Tobacco Harm Reduction (Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

June 3, 2003 

108–32 Future Options for Generation of Electricity from Coal (Subcommittee on Energy 

and Air Quality) 

June 24, 2003 

108–33 Hearing on H.R. 382, H.R. 411, and H.R 1730 (Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials) 

July 23, 2003 

108–34 The Spectrum Needs of our Nation’s First Responders (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) June 11, 2003 

108–35 Legislative Efforts to Combat Spam (Joint Hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

July 9, 2003 

108–36 Assessing Initiatives to Increase Organ Donations (Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations) 

June 3, 2003 

108–37 FASB Derivative Accounting Standards (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection) 

July 22, 2003 

108–38 NIH: Moving Research from the Bench to the Bedside (Subcommittee on Health) July 10, 2003 

108–39 Legislative Efforts to Reform the U.S. Olympic Committee (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) July 16, 2003 

108–40 The Regulatory Status of Broadband Services: Information Services, Common Carriage, or Something in Between? (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet) 

July 21, 2003 

108–41 Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 

Consumer Protection) 

September 9, 2003 

108–42 A Review of Department of Energy’s Radioactive High-Level Waste Cleanup Programs (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) July 17, 2003 

108–43 Issues Relating to Ephedra-Containing Dietary Supplements (Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations) 

July 23, 2003 

108–43 Issues Relating to Ephedra-Containing Dietary Supplements (Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection and Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations) 

July 24, 2003 

108–44 The Health Insurance Certificate Act of 2003 (Subcommittee on Health) July 17, 2003 

108–45 The International Consumer Protection Act of 2003 (Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

September 17, 2003 

108–46 Database and Collections of Information Misappropriations (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Joint Hearing with the Committee on 

the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property) 

September 23, 2003 

108–47 E–911 Implementation Act of 2003 (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet) 

September 11, 2003 

108–48 Freddie Mac: Accounting Standards Issues Raised in the DOTY Report (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) September 25, 2003 

108–49 The Future of Universal Service (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet) 

September 24, 2003 

108–50 Digital Dividends and other Proposals to Leverage Investment in Technology (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) November 19, 2003 

108–51 E-Commerce: The Case of Online Wine Sales and Direct Shipment (Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

October 30, 2003 

108–52 Cybersecurity and Consumer Data: What’s at Risk for the Consumer (Subcommittee 

on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

November 19, 2003 

108–53 The Financial Collapse of Healthsouth, Part 1 (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) October 16, 2003 

108–54 Blackout 2003: How Did it Happen and Why? (Full Committee) September 3, 2003 and 

September 4, 2003 

108–55 The Status of Methyl Bromide Under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol 

(Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) 

June 3, 2003 

108–56 Managing Biomedical Research to Prevent and Cure Disease in the 21st Century: 

Matching NIH Policy with Science (Full Committee, Joint Hearing with the Senate 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) 

October 2, 2003 

299 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

108–57 Evaluation Coordination of Care in Medicaid: Improving Quality and Clinical Outcomes (Subcommittee on Health) October 15, 2003 

108–58 Challenges Facing the Medicaid Program in the 21st Century (Subcommittee on 

Health) 

October 8, 2003 

108–59 The Financial Collapse of Healthsouth, Part 2 (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) November 5, 2003 

108–60 Identity Theft: Assessing the Problem and Efforts to Combat It (Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations) 

December 15, 2003 

108–61 Air Quality Issues in the Coachella Valley (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) January 12, 2004 

108–62 ‘‘Bump-Up’’ Policy Under Title I of the Clean Air Act (Subcommittee on Energy and 

Air Quality) 

July 22, 2003 

108–63 The Current State of Competition in the Communications Marketplace (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) February 4, 2004 

108–64 College Recruiting: Are Student Athletes Being Protected? (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) March 11, 2004 

108–65 The Clear Skies Initiative: A Multipollutant Approach to the Clean Air Act (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) July 8, 2003 

108–66 Computer Viruses: The Disease, The Detection, and the Prescription for Protection 

(Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

November 6, 2003 

108–67 ‘‘Can You Say That on TV?’’: An Examination of the FCC’s Enforcement with Respect to Broadcast Decency (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet) 

January 28, 2004 

108–68 The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet) 

February 11, 2004 and 

February 26, 2004 

108–69 NIH: Re-engineering Clinical Research (Subcommittee on Health) March 25, 2004 

108–70 A Review of the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project, and Proposed 

Legislation to Alter the Nuclear Waste Trust Fund (Subcommittee on Energy and 

Air Quality) 

March 25, 2004 

108–71 Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) March 18, 2004 

108–72 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City Watershed 

Protection Program (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials) 

April 2, 2004 

108–73 Prescription Drug Monitoring: Strategies to Promote Treatment and Deter Prescription Drug Abuse (Subcommittee on Health) March 4, 2004 

108–74 U.S.-China Trade: Preparations for the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade 

(Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

March 31, 2004 

108–75 Oversight of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) March 10, 2004 

108–76 Inter-governmental Transfers: Violations of the Federal-State Medicaid Partnership 

or Legitimate State Budget Tool? (Subcommittee on Health) 

March 18, 2004 and 

April 1, 2004 

108–77 Ultradeep Water Research and Development: What Are the Benefits? (Subcommittee 

on Energy and Air Quality) 

April 29, 2004 

108–78 The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

April 1, 2004 

108–79 The State of U.S. Industry (Full Committee) March 24, 2004 

108–80 FY 2005 Budget Priorities for the Department of Energy (Full Committee) April 1, 2004 

108–81 EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials) May 20, 2004 

108–82 Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Status Report (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) May 5, 2004 

108–83 Regional Energy Reliability and Security: DOE Authority to Energize the Cross Sound 

Cable (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) 

May 19, 2004 

108–84 The ‘‘Dot Kids’’ Internet Domain: Protecting Children Online (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) May 6, 2004 

108–85 Competition in the Communications Marketplace: How Convergence is Blurring the 

Lines Between Voice, Video, and Data Services (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

May 19, 2004 

108–86 Advancing the DTV Transition: An Examination of the FCC Media Bureau Proposal 

(Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

June 2, 2004 

108–87 The Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2004 (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 

the Internet) 

June 15, 2004 

108–88 NIH Ethics Concerns: Consulting Arrangements and Outside Awards (Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations) 

May 12, 2004, May 18, 

2004, and June 22, 

2004 

300 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

108–89 Spyware: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection) 

April 29, 2004 

108–90 Online Pornography: Closing the Doors on Pervasive Smut (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) May 6, 2004 

108–91 Supporting Our Intercollegiate Student-Athletes: Proposed NCAA Reforms (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) May 18, 2004 

108–92 Problems with the E-rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools to the Internet, Part 1 (Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations) 

June 17, 2004 

108–93 Parents Be Aware: Health Concerns about Dietary Supplements for Overweight Children (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) June 16, 2004 

108–94 Assessing Digestive Diseases Research and Treatment Opportunities (Subcommittee 

on Health) 

July 8, 2004 

108–95 Physician Fee Schedule: A Review of the Current Medicare Payment System (Subcommittee on Health) May 5, 2004 

108–96 Travel, Tourism, and Homeland Security: Improving Both without Sacrificing Either 

(Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

June 23, 2004 

108–97 Tapped Out? Lead in the District of Columbia and the Providing of Safe Drinking 

Water (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials) 

July 22, 2004 

108–98 Protecting Homeland Security: A Status Report on Interoperability Between Public 

Safety Communications Systems (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 

Internet) 

June 23, 2004 

108–99 FASB Proposals on Stock Option Expensing (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 

and Consumer Protection) 

July 8, 2004 

108–100 A Review of the Administration’s FY2005 Health Care Priorities (Full Committee) March 10, 2004 

108–101 The Digital Television Transition: What We Can Learn From Berlin (Subcommittee 

on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

July 21, 2004 

108–102 Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2004 (Subcommittee on 

Health) 

May 11, 2004 

108–103 Problems with the E-Rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools to the Internet, Part 2 (Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations) 

July 22, 2004 

108–104 Voice Over Internet Protocol Services: Will the Technology Disrupt the Industry or 

Will Regulation Disrupt the Technology? (Subcommittee on Telecommunications 

and the Internet) 

July 7, 2004 

108–105 Freddie Mac’s Accounting Restatement: Are Accounting Standards Working? (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) January 28, 2004 

108–106 United Nations Oil for Food Program (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) July 8, 2004 

108–107 A Review of Hospital Billing and Collections Practices (Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations) 

June 24, 2004 

108–108 RFID Technology: What the Future Holds for Commerce, Security, and the Consumer 

(Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

July 14, 2004 

108–109 The Digital Media Consumers’ Right Act of 2003 (Subcommittee on Commerce, 

Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

May 12, 2004 

108–110 Competition and Consumer Choice in the MVPD Marketplace—Including an Examination of Proposals to Expand Consumer Choice, Such as A La Carte and 

Themed-Tiered Offerings (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) 

July 14, 2004 

108–111 Pipeline Safety (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) July 20, 2004 

108–112 POPS, PIC, and LRTAP: The Role of the U.S. and Draft Legislation to Implement 

these International Conventions (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 

Materials) 

July 13, 2004 

108–113 The Statues of the U.S. Refining Industry (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) July 15, 2004 

108–114 Implementation of the Food Security Provisions of the Public Health Security and 

Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Subcommittee on Health) 

June 25, 2005 

108–115 Law Enforcement Access to Communication Systems in the Digital Age (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) September 8, 2004 

108–116 The Effect of TV Violence on Children: What Policymakers Need to Know (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) September 13, 2004 

108–117 Keeping Seniors Healthy: New Perspective Benefits in the Medicare Modernization 

Act (Subcommittee on Health)‘ 

September 21, 2004 

108–118 Methyl Bromide: Update on Achieving the Requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

the Montreal Protocol (Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) 

July 21, 2004 

301 

PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE—Continued 

Serial No. Hearing title Hearing date(s) 

108–119 Current Environmental Issues Affecting the Readiness of the DOD (Subcommittee 

on Energy and Air Quality and Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 

Materials) 

April 21, 2004 

108–120 Repairing the 21st Century Car: Is Technology Locking the Consumer Out? (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) September 22, 2004 

108–121 Publication and Disclosure Issues in Antidepressant Pediatric Clinical Trials (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) September 9, 2004 

108–122 An Examination of Wireless Directory Assistance Policies and Programs (Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet) September 29, 2004 

108–123 Controlling Bioterror: Assessing Our Nation’s Drinking Water Security (Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials) September 30, 2004 

108–124 Problems with the E-rate Program: Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the Wiring of Our Nation’s Schools to the Internet, Part 3 (Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations) 

September 22, 2004 

108–125 FDA’s Role in Protecting Public Health: Examining FDA’s Review of Safety & Efficacy Concerns in Anti-Depressant Use by Children (Subcommittee on Oversight 

and Investigations) 

September 23, 2004 

108–126 Medicaid Prescription Drug Reimbursement: Why the Government Pays Too Much 

(Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) 

December 7, 2004 

108–127 Examining Professional Boxing: Are Further Reforms Needed? (Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

September 9, 2004 

108–128 Protecting the Privacy of Consumers’ Social Security Number (Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) 

September 28, 2004 

108–129 Child Product Safety: Do Current Standards Provide Enough Protection? (Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection) October 6, 2004 

108–130 Medicare Prescription Drug Discount Cards: Immediate Savings for Seniors (Subcommittee on Health) May 20, 2004 

108–131 Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Balancing NIH’s Priority Setting Process 

(Subcommittee on Health) 

June 2, 2004 

108–132 Health Information Technology: Improving Quality and Value of Patient Care (Subcommittee on Health) July 22, 2004 

108–133 Improving Women’s Health: Understanding Depression After Pregnancy (Subcommittee on Health) September 29, 2004 

108–134 Flu Vaccine: Protecting High-Risk Individuals and Strengthening the Market (Subcommittee on Health and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) November 18, 2004 

PART B 

COMMITTEE PRINTS 

Serial No. Title 

108–A Committee Rules. 

108–B Compilation of Selected Acts With the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce—Environmental Law, Volume 2. 

108–C Compilation of Selected Energy-Related Legislation—Oil, Gas, and Nonnuclear Fuels. 

108–D Compilation of Selected Acts Within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce—Communications Law. 

Æ