H. Rept. 109-751 - 109th Congress (2005-2006)
January 02, 2007, As Reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 109-751 - REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY of the COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE FOR THE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS




[House Report 109-751]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]





                                                 Union Calendar No. 453
109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-751

======================================================================


                         REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY

                                 of the

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                                FOR THE

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>


January 2, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                 _____

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                           WASHINGTON : 2007
31-394






                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                      JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas                 JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida           HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
  Vice Chairman                      EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
FRED UPTON, Michigan                 EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio                FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia                 SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BART GORDON, Tennessee
CHARLES NORWOOD, Georgia             BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               BART STUPAK, Michigan
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico           ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona             ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,       GENE GREEN, Texas
  Mississippi, Vice Chairman         TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York              DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana                 MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California        TOM ALLEN, Maine
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       JIM DAVIS, Florida
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARY BONO, California                HILDA L. SOLIS, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  JAY INSLEE, Washington
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey            TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee


                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                   Washington, DC, January 2, 2007.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith a 
report on the activity of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
for the 109th Congress, including the Committee's review and 
study of legislation within its jurisdiction and the oversight 
activities undertaken by the Committee.
            Sincerely,
                                              Joe Barton, Chairman.


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Jurisdiction.....................................................     1
Rules for the Committee..........................................     2
Members and Organization.........................................    21
Legislative and Oversight Activity...............................    27
Full Committee...................................................    29
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.........    35
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality...........................    61
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials..............    97
Subcommittee on Health...........................................   121
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet..............   205
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.....................   231
Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress............................   265
Appendix I--Legislative Summary..................................   307
Appendix II--Public Laws.........................................   309
Appendix III--Publications of the Committee......................   311




                                                 Union Calendar No. 453
109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-751

======================================================================



 
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE FOR THE 
                             109TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 January 2, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Barton, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

    ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 109th CONGRESS

    The jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
as prescribed by Clause 1(f) of rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, is as follows:
    (1) Biomedical research and development.
    (2) Consumer affairs and consumer protection.
    (3) Health and health facilities (except health care 
supported by payroll deductions).
    (4) Interstate energy compacts.
    (5) Interstate and foreign commerce generally.
    (6) Exploration, production, storage, supply, marketing, 
pricing, and regulation of energy resources, including all 
fossil fuels, solar energy, and other unconventional or 
renewable energy resources.
    (7) Conservation of energy resources.
    (8) Energy information generally.
    (9) The generation and marketing of power (except by 
federally chartered or Federal regional power marketing 
authorities); reliability and interstate transmission of, and 
ratemaking for, all power; and siting of generation facilities 
(except the installation of interconnections between Government 
waterpower projects).
    (10) General management of the Department of Energy and 
management and all functions of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
    (11) National energy policy generally.
    (12) Public health and quarantine.
    (13) Regulation of the domestic nuclear energy industry, 
including regulation of research and development reactors and 
nuclear regulatory research.
    (14) Regulation of interstate and foreign communications.
    (15) Travel and tourism.
    The committee shall have the same jurisdiction with respect 
to regulation of nuclear facilities and of use of nuclear 
energy as it has with respect to regulation of non-nuclear 
facilities and of use of non-nuclear energy.
    In addition, clause 3(c) of rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives provides that the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce shall review and study on a continuing basis laws, 
programs, and Government activities relating to nuclear and 
other energy and nonmilitary nuclear energy research and 
development including the disposal of nuclear waste.

     Rules for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of 
                    Representatives, 109th Congress


Rule 1. General Provisions.

    (a) Rules of the Committee. The Rules of the House are the 
rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (hereinafter the 
``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far as is applicable, 
except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to 
dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or 
resolution, if printed copies are available, is nondebatable 
and privileged in the Committee and its subcommittees.
    (b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the 
Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the 
authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so 
far as applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee, not 
inconsistent with the Rules of the House, shall be binding on 
each subcommittee of the Committee.

Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings.

    (a) Regular Meeting Days. The Committee shall meet on the 
fourth Tuesday of each month at 10 a.m., for the consideration 
of bills, resolutions, and other business, if the House is in 
session on that day. If the House is not in session on that day 
and the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee 
shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the 
House is again in session. The chairman of the Committee may, 
at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any meeting required 
under this section, after consultation with the ranking 
minority member.
    (b) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and convene, 
as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee 
for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before 
the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. 
The Committee shall meet for such purposes pursuant to that 
call of the chairman.
    (c) Vice Chairmen; Presiding Member. The chairman shall 
designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice 
chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority 
member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each 
subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or 
subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any meeting 
or hearing during the temporary absence of the chairman. If the 
chairman and vice chairman of the Committee or subcommittee are 
not present at any meeting or hearing, the ranking member of 
the majority party who is present shall preside at the meeting 
or hearing.
    (d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Except as provided by the 
Rules of the House, each meeting of the Committee or any of its 
subcommittees for the transaction of business, including the 
markup of legislation, and each hearing, shall be open to the 
public including to radio, television and still photography 
coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule XI of the 
Rules of the House.

Rule 3. Agenda.

    The agenda for each Committee or subcommittee meeting 
(other than a hearing), setting out the date, time, place, and 
all items of business to be considered, shall be provided to 
each member of the Committee at least 36 hours in advance of 
such meeting.

Rule 4. Procedure.

    (a)(1) Hearings. The date, time, place, and subject matter 
of any hearing of the Committee or any of its subcommittees 
shall be announced at least one week in advance of the 
commencement of such hearing, unless the Committee or 
subcommittee determines in accordance with clause 2(g)(3) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House that there is good cause to 
begin the hearing sooner.
    (2)(A) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter 
of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday, 
Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session, shall 
be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays, 
Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session 
on such days) in advance of the commencement of such meeting.
    (B) Other Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject 
matter of a meeting (other than a hearing or a meeting to which 
subparagraph (A) applies) shall be announced at least 72 hours 
in advance of the commencement of such meeting.
    (3) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to 
day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24 
hours), and to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a 
bill or resolution if printed copies are available shall be 
decided without debate.
    (b)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to 
appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with 
the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in 
advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as 
determined by the chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, 
of a written statement of his or her proposed testimony to 
provide to members and staff of the Committee or subcommittee, 
the news media, and the general public. Each witness shall, to 
the greatest extent practicable, also provide a copy of such 
written testimony in an electronic format prescribed by the 
chairman. Each witness shall limit his or her oral presentation 
to a brief summary of the argument. The chairman of the 
Committee or of a subcommittee, or the presiding member, may 
waive the requirements of this paragraph or any part thereof.
    (2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest 
extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness 
appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a 
curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by 
agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) 
or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the 
current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal years 
by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness.
    (c)(1) Questioning Witnesses. The right to interrogate the 
witnesses before the Committee or any of its subcommittees 
shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each 
member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of 
witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has had 
an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be 
recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a 
witness until each member of the Committee present has been 
recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee or 
subcommittee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the 
interrogation of witnesses, the chairman shall recognize in 
order of appearance members who were not present when the 
meeting was called to order after all members who were present 
when the meeting was called to order have been recognized in 
the order of seniority on the Committee or subcommittee, as the 
case may be.
    (2) Questions for the Record. Each member may submit to the 
Chairman of the Committee or the subcommittee additional 
questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who 
have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the 
questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the Committee 
no later than ten business days following a hearing. The 
Chairman shall transmit all questions received from members of 
the Committee or the subcommittee to the appropriate witness, 
and include the transmittal letter and the responses from the 
witnesses in the hearing record.
    (d) Explanation of Subcommittee Action. No bill, 
recommendation, or other matter reported by a subcommittee 
shall be considered by the full Committee unless the text of 
the matter reported, together with an explanation, has been 
available to members of the Committee for at least 36 hours. 
Such explanation shall include a summary of the major 
provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the 
relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary of the 
need for the legislation. All subcommittee actions shall be 
reported promptly by the clerk of the Committee to all members 
of the Committee.
    (e) Opening Statements. (1) All written opening statements 
at hearings conducted by the committee or any of its 
subcommittees shall be made part of the permanent hearing 
record.
    (2) Statements shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the 
chairman and ranking minority member (or their respective 
designee) of the Committee or subcommittee, as applicable, and 
3 minutes each for all other members. With the consent of the 
Committee, prior to the recognition of the first witness for 
testimony, any Member, when recognized for an opening 
statement, may completely defer his or her opening statement 
and instead use those three minutes during the initial round of 
questioning.
    (3) At any hearing of the full Committee, the chairman may 
limit opening statements for Members (including, at the 
discretion of the Chairman, the chairman and ranking minority 
member) to one minute. At any hearing conducted by any 
subcommittee, the chairman of that subcommittee, with the 
consent of its ranking minority member, may reduce the time for 
statements by members or defer statements until the conclusion 
of testimony.

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

    Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by 
a majority of those present and voting (a majority being 
present) of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may be.

Rule 6. Quorum.

    Testimony may be taken and evidence received at any hearing 
at which there are present not fewer than two members of the 
Committee or subcommittee in question. A majority of the 
members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the 
purposes of reporting any measure or matter, of authorizing a 
subpoena, or of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 
2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided 
in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)). For the purposes of taking any 
action other than those specified in the preceding sentence, 
one-third of the members of the Committee or subcommittee shall 
constitute a quorum.

Rule 7. Official Committee Records.

    (a)(1) Journal. The proceedings of the Committee shall be 
recorded in a journal which shall, among other things, show 
those present at each meeting, and include a record of the vote 
on any question on which a record vote is demanded and a 
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other 
proposition voted. A copy of the journal shall be furnished to 
the ranking minority member.
    (2) Record Votes. A record vote may be demanded by one-
fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a 
quorum, by any one member. No demand for a record vote shall be 
made or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a record 
vote or in the apparent absence of a quorum. The result of each 
record vote in any meeting of the Committee shall be made 
available in the Committee office for inspection by the public, 
as provided in Rule XI, clause 2(e) of the Rules of the House.
    (b) Archived Records. The records of the Committee at the 
National Archives and Records Administration shall be made 
available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the 
Rules of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking 
minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or 
clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a record otherwise 
available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee 
for a determination on the written request of any member of the 
Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking minority 
member on any communication from the Archivist of the United 
States or the Clerk of the House concerning the disposition of 
noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of the Rule.

Rule 8. Subcommittees.

    There shall be such standing subcommittees with such 
jurisdiction and size as determined by the majority party 
caucus of the Committee. The jurisdiction, number, and size of 
the subcommittees shall be determined by the majority party 
caucus prior to the start of the process for establishing 
subcommittee chairmanships and assignments.

Rule 9. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees.

    Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, 
receive testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the 
Committee on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen 
shall set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of 
the chairman of the Committee with a view toward assuring the 
availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous 
scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings 
whenever possible.

Rule 10. Reference of Legislation and Other Matters.

    All legislation and other matters referred to the Committee 
shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate 
jurisdiction within two weeks of the date of receipt by the 
Committee unless action is taken by the full committee within 
those two weeks, or by majority vote of the members of the 
Committee, consideration is to be by the full Committee. In the 
case of legislation or other matter within the jurisdiction of 
more than one subcommittee, the chairman of the Committee may, 
in his discretion, refer the matter simultaneously to two or 
more subcommittees for concurrent consideration, or may 
designate a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction and also refer 
the matter to one or more additional subcommittees for 
consideration in sequence (subject to appropriate time 
limitations), either on its initial referral or after the 
matter has been reported by the subcommittee of primary 
jurisdiction. Such authority shall include the authority to 
refer such legislation or matter to an ad hoc subcommittee 
appointed by the chairman, with the approval of the Committee, 
from the members of the subcommittee having legislative or 
oversight jurisdiction.

Rule 11. Ratio of Subcommittees.

    The majority caucus of the Committee shall determine an 
appropriate ratio of majority to minority party members for 
each subcommittee and the chairman shall negotiate that ratio 
with the minority party, provided that the ratio of party 
members on each subcommittee shall be no less favorable to the 
majority than that of the full Committee, nor shall such ratio 
provide for a majority of less than two majority members.

Rule 12. Subcommittee Membership.

    (a) Selection of Subcommittee Members. Prior to any 
organizational meeting held by the Committee, the majority and 
minority caucuses shall select their respective members of the 
standing subcommittees.
    (b) Ex Officio Members. The chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee shall be ex officio members with voting 
privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not assigned 
as members and may be counted for purposes of establishing a 
quorum in such subcommittees.

Rule 13. Managing Legislation on the House Floor.

    The chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which 
member shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to 
the House.

Rule 14. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff Appointments.

    (a) Delegation of Staff. Whenever the chairman of the 
Committee determines that any professional staff member 
appointed pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of Rule X of 
the House of Representatives, who is assigned to such chairman 
and not to the ranking minority member, by reason of such 
professional staff member's expertise or qualifications will be 
of assistance to one or more subcommittees in carrying out 
their assigned responsibilities, he may delegate such member to 
such subcommittees for such purpose. A delegation of a member 
of the professional staff pursuant to this subsection shall be 
made after consultation with subcommittee chairmen and with the 
approval of the subcommittee chairman or chairmen involved.
    (b) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members 
appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of 
Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority 
member of the Committee and not to the chairman of the 
Committee, shall be assigned to such Committee business as the 
minority party members of the Committee consider advisable.
    (c) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the 
professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of 
the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee 
shall be entitled to make such appointments to the professional 
and clerical staff of the Committee as may be provided within 
the budget approved for such purposes by the Committee. Such 
appointee shall be assigned to such business of the full 
Committee as the chairman of the Committee considers advisable.
    (d) Sufficient Staff. The chairman shall ensure that 
sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to 
carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the 
Committee.
    (e) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of 
Committee Staff. The chairman shall ensure that the minority 
members of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of 
Committee staff.
    (f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services. Any 
contract for the temporary services or intermittent service of 
individual consultants or organizations to make studies or 
advise the Committee or its subcommittees with respect to any 
matter within their jurisdiction shall be deemed to have been 
approved by a majority of the members of the Committee if 
approved by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee. Such approval shall not be deemed to have been given 
if at least one-third of the members of the Committee request 
in writing that the Committee formally act on such a contract, 
if the request is made within 10 days after the latest date on 
which such chairman or chairmen, and such ranking minority 
member or members, approve such contract.

Rule 15. Supervision, Duties of Staff.

    (a) Supervision of Majority Staff. The professional and 
clerical staff of the Committee not assigned to the minority 
shall be under the supervision and direction of the chairman 
who, in consultation with the chairmen of the subcommittees, 
shall establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of 
such staff members and delegate such authority as he determines 
appropriate.
    (b) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and 
clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the 
supervision and direction of the minority members of the 
Committee, who may delegate such authority as they determine 
appropriate.

Rule 16. Committee Budget.

    (a) Preparation of Committee Budget. The chairman of the 
Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority member 
of the Committee and the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall 
for the 109th Congress prepare a preliminary budget for the 
Committee, with such budget including necessary amounts for 
professional and clerical staff, travel, investigations, 
equipment and miscellaneous expenses of the Committee and the 
subcommittees, and which shall be adequate to fully discharge 
the Committee's responsibilities for legislation and oversight. 
Such budget shall be presented by the chairman to the majority 
party caucus of the Committee and thereafter to the full 
Committee for its approval.
    (b) Approval of the Committee Budget. The chairman shall 
take whatever action is necessary to have the budget as finally 
approved by the Committee duly authorized by the House. No 
proposed Committee budget may be submitted to the Committee on 
House Administration unless it has been presented to and 
approved by the majority party caucus and thereafter by the 
full Committee. The chairman of the Committee may authorize all 
necessary expenses in accordance with these rules and within 
the limits of the Committee's budget as approved by the House.
    (c) Monthly Expenditures Report. Committee members shall be 
furnished a copy of each monthly report, prepared by the 
chairman for the Committee on House Administration, which shows 
expenditures made during the reporting period and cumulative 
for the year by the Committee and subcommittees, anticipated 
expenditures for the projected Committee program, and detailed 
information on travel.

Rule 17. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings.

    Any meeting or hearing that is open to the public may be 
covered in whole or in part by radio or television or still 
photography, subject to the requirements of clause 4 of Rule XI 
of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any hearing or other 
proceeding of the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by 
television, radio, or still photography shall be under the 
direct supervision of the chairman of the Committee, the 
subcommittee chairman, or other member of the Committee 
presiding at such hearing or other proceeding and may be 
terminated by such member in accordance with the Rules of the 
House.

Rule 18. Comptroller General Audits.

    The chairman of the Committee is authorized to request 
verification examinations by the Comptroller General of the 
United States pursuant to Title V, Part A of the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163), after consultation 
with the members of the Committee.

Rule 19. Subpoenas.

    The Committee, or any subcommittee, may authorize and issue 
a subpoena under clause 2(m)(2)(A) of Rule XI of the House, if 
authorized by a majority of the members of the Committee or 
subcommittee (as the case may be) voting, a quorum being 
present. Authorized subpoenas may be issued over the signature 
of the chairman of the Committee or any member designated by 
the Committee, and may be served by any person designated by 
such chairman or member. The chairman of the Committee may 
authorize and issue subpoenas under such clause during any 
period for which the House has adjourned for a period in excess 
of 3 days when, in the opinion of the chairman, authorization 
and issuance of the subpoena is necessary to obtain the 
material set forth in the subpoena. The chairman shall report 
to the members of the Committee on the authorization and 
issuance of a subpoena during the recess period as soon as 
practicable but in no event later than one week after service 
of such subpoena.

Rule 20. Travel of Members and Staff.

    (a) Approval of Travel. Consistent with the primary expense 
resolution and such additional expense resolutions as may have 
been approved, travel to be reimbursed from funds set aside for 
the Committee for any member or any staff member shall be paid 
only upon the prior authorization of the chairman. Travel may 
be authorized by the chairman for any member and any staff 
member in connection with the attendance of hearings conducted 
by the Committee or any subcommittee thereof and meetings, 
conferences, and investigations which involve activities or 
subject matter under the general jurisdiction of the Committee. 
Before such authorization is given there shall be submitted to 
the chairman in writing the following: (1) the purpose of the 
travel; (2) the dates during which the travel is to be made and 
the date or dates of the event for which the travel is being 
made; (3) the location of the event for which the travel is to 
be made; and (4) the names of members and staff seeking 
authorization.
    (b) Approval of Travel by Minority Members and Staff. In 
the case of travel by minority party members and minority party 
professional staff for the purpose set out in (a), the prior 
approval, not only of the chairman but also of the ranking 
minority member, shall be required. Such prior authorization 
shall be given by the chairman only upon the representation by 
the ranking minority member in writing setting forth those 
items enumerated in (1), (2), (3), and (4) of paragraph (a).

  Clauses 2 and 4 or Rule XI and Clauses 2 and 3 of Rule XIII of the 
      Rules of the House of Representatives for the 109th Congress


                            JANUARY 4, 2005

       RULE XI: PROCEDURES OF COMMITTEES AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS


                       Clause 2: Committee Rules


Adoption of written rules

    2. (a)(1) Each standing committee shall adopt written rules 
governing its procedure. Such rules--
          (A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the 
        public unless the committee, in open session and with a 
        quorum present, determines by record vote that all or 
        part of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the 
        public;
          (B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the 
        House or with those provisions of law having the force 
        and effect of Rules of the House; and
          (C) shall in any event incorporate all of the 
        succeeding provisions of this clause to the extent 
        applicable.
    (2) Each committee shall submit its rules for publication 
in the Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the 
committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
    (3) A committee may adopt a rule providing that the 
chairman be directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule 
XXII whenever the chairman considers it appropriate.

Regular meeting days

    (b) Each standing committee shall establish regular meeting 
days for the conduct of its business, which shall be not less 
frequent than monthly. Each such committee shall meet for the 
consideration of a bill or resolution pending before the 
committee or the transaction of other committee business on all 
regular meeting days fixed by the committee unless otherwise 
provided by written rule adopted by the committee.

Additional and special meetings

    (c)(1) The chairman of each standing committee may call and 
convene, as he considers necessary, additional and special 
meetings of the committee for the consideration of a bill or 
resolution pending before the committee or for the conduct of 
other committee business, subject to such rules as the 
committee may adopt. The committee shall meet for such purpose 
under that call of the chairman.
    (2) Three or more members of a standing committee may file 
in the offices of the committee a written request that the 
chairman call a special meeting of the committee. Such request 
shall specify the measure or matter to be considered. 
Immediately upon the filing of the request, the clerk of the 
committee shall notify the chairman of the filing of the 
request. If the chairman does not call the requested special 
meeting within three calendar days after the filing of the 
request (to be held within seven calendar days after the filing 
of the request) a majority of the members of the committee may 
file in the offices of the committee their written notice that 
a special meeting of the committee will be held. The written 
notice shall specify the date and hour of the special meeting 
and the measure or matter to be considered. The committee shall 
meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the 
notice, the clerk of the committee shall notify all members of 
the committee that such special meeting will be held and inform 
them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be 
considered. Only the measure or matter specified in that notice 
may be considered at that special meeting.

Temporary absence of chairman

    (d) A member of the majority party on each standing 
committee or subcommittee hereof shall be designated by the 
chairman of the full committee as the vice chairman of the 
committee or subcommittee, as the case may be, and shall 
preside during the absence of the chairman from any meeting. If 
the chairman and vice chairman of a committee or subcommittee 
are not present at any meeting of the committee or 
subcommittee, the ranking majority member who is present shall 
preside at that meeting.

Committee records

    (e)(1)(A) Each committee shall keep a complete record of 
all committee action which shall include--
          (i) in the case of a meeting or hearing transcript, a 
        substantially verbatim account of remarks actually made 
        during the proceedings, subject only to technical, 
        grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized 
        by the person making the remarks involved; and
          (ii) a record of the votes on any question on which a 
        record vote is demanded.
    (B)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (B)(ii) and 
subject to paragraph (k)(7), the result of each such record 
vote shall be made available by the committee for inspection by 
the public at reasonable times in its offices. Information so 
available for public inspection shall include a description of 
the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition, the name of 
each member voting for and each member voting against such 
amendment, motion, order, or proposition, and the names of 
those members of the committee present but not voting.
    (ii) The result of any record vote taken in executive 
session in the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct may 
not be made available for inspection by the public without an 
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the committee.
    (2)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), all committee 
hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept 
separate and distinct from the congressional office records of 
the member serving as its chairman. Such records shall be the 
property of the House, and each Member, Delegate, and the 
Resident Commissioner shall have access thereto.
    (B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other 
than members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, 
may not have access to the records of that committee respecting 
the conduct of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, 
officer, or employee of the House without the specific prior 
permission of that committee.
    (3) Each committee shall include in its rules standards for 
availability of records of the committee delivered to the 
Archivist of the United States under rule VII. Such standards 
shall specify procedures for orders of the committee under 
clause 3(b)(3) and clause 4(b) of rule VII, including a 
requirement that nonavailability of a record for a period 
longer than the period otherwise applicable under that rule 
shall be approved by vote of the committee.
    (4) Each committee shall make its publications available in 
electronic form to the maximum extent feasible.

Prohibition against proxy voting

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

Open meetings and hearings

    (g)(1) Each meeting for the transaction of business, 
including the markup of legislation, by a standing committee or 
subcommittee thereof (other than the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct or its subcommittees) shall be open to the 
public, including to radio, television, and still photography 
coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open 
session and with a majority present, determines by record vote 
that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day 
shall be in executive session because disclosure of matters to 
be considered would endanger national security, would 
compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to 
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would 
violate a law or rule of the House. Persons, other than members 
of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates, 
Resident Commissioner, congressional staff, or departmental 
representatives as the committee may authorize, may not be 
present at a business or markup session that is held in 
executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to open 
committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of 
rule X or by subparagraph (2).
    (2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or 
subcommittee (other than the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct or its subcommittees) shall be open to the public, 
including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, 
except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and 
with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or 
part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be 
closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, 
or other matters to be considered would endanger national 
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement 
information, or would violate a law or rule of the House.
    (B) Notwithstanding the requirements of subdivision (A), in 
the presence of the number of members required under the rules 
of the committee for the purpose of taking testimony, a 
majority of those present may--
          (i) agree to close the hearing for the sole purpose 
        of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be 
        received would endanger national security, would 
        compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or 
        would violate clause 2(k)(5); or
          (ii) agree to close the hearing as provided in clause 
        2(k)(5).
    (C) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not be 
excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at a hearing of a 
committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct or its subcommittees) unless the 
House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee or 
subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings 
on a particular article of legislation or on a particular 
subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members, 
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same procedures 
specified in this subparagraph for closing hearings to the 
public.
    (D) The committee or subcommittee may vote by the same 
procedure described in this subparagraph to close one 
subsequent day of hearing, except that the Committee on 
Appropriations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the 
subcommittees thereof, may vote by the same procedure to close 
up to five additional, consecutive days of hearings.
    (3) The chairman of each committee (other than the 
Committee on Rules) shall make public announcement of the date, 
place, and subject matter of a committee hearing at least one 
week before the commencement of the hearing. If the chairman of 
the committee, with the concurrence of the ranking minority 
member, determines that there is good cause to begin a hearing 
sooner, or if the committee so determines by majority vote in 
the presence of the number of members required under the rules 
of the committee for the transaction of business, the chairman 
shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. An 
announcement made under this subparagraph shall be published 
promptly in the Daily Digest and made available in electronic 
form.
    (4) Each committee shall, to the greatest extent 
practicable, require witnesses who appear before it to submit 
in advance written statements of proposed testimony and to 
limit their initial presentations to the committee to brief 
summaries thereof. In the case of a witness appearing in a 
nongovernmental capacity, a written statement of proposed 
testimony shall include a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of 
the amount and source (by agency and program) of each Federal 
grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract 
thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of 
the two previous fiscal years by the witness or by an entity 
represented by the witness.
    (5)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a point of 
order does not lie with respect to a measure reported by a 
committee on the ground that hearings on such measure were not 
conducted in accordance with this clause.
    (B) A point of order on the ground described in subdivision 
(A) may be made by a member of the committee that reported the 
measure if such point of order was timely made and improperly 
disposed of in the committee.
    (6) This paragraph does not apply to hearings of the 
Committee on Appropriations under clause 4(a)(1) of rule X.

Quorum requirements

    (h)(1) A measure or recommendation may not be reported by a 
committee unless a majority of the committee is actually 
present.
    (2) Each committee may fix the number of its members to 
constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving 
evidence, which may not be less than two.
    (3) Each committee (other than the Committee on 
Appropriations, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee 
on Ways and Means) may fix the number of its members to 
constitute a quorum for taking any action other than one for 
which the presence of a majority of the committee is otherwise 
required, which may not be less than one-third of the members.
    (4)(A) Each committee may adopt a rule authorizing the 
chairman of a committee or subcommittee--
          (i) to postpone further proceedings when a record 
        vote is ordered on the question of approving a measure 
        or matter or on adopting an amendment; and
          (ii) to resume proceedings on a postponed question at 
        any time after reasonable notice.
    (B) A rule adopted pursuant to this subparagraph shall 
provide that when proceedings resume on a postponed question, 
notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous 
question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to 
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the 
question was postponed.

Limitation on committee sittings

    (i) A committee may not sit during a joint session of the 
House and Senate or during a recess when a joint meeting of the 
House and Senate is in progress.

Calling and questioning of witnesses

    (j)(1) Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a 
measure or matter, the minority members of the committee shall 
be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of them 
before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses 
selected by the minority to testify with respect to that 
measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon.
    (2)(A) Subject to subdivisions (B) and (C), each committee 
shall apply the five-minute rule during the questioning of 
witnesses in a hearing until such time as each member of the 
committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question 
each witness.
    (B) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting a 
specified number of its members to question a witness for 
longer than five minutes. The time for extended questioning of 
a witness under this subdivision shall be equal for the 
majority party and the minority party and may not exceed one 
hour in the aggregate.
    (C) A committee may adopt a rule or motion permitting 
committee staff for its majority and minority party members to 
question a witness for equal specified periods. The time for 
extended questioning of a witness under this subdivision shall 
be equal for the majority party and the minority party and may 
not exceed one hour in the aggregate.

Hearing procedures

    (k)(1) The chairman at a hearing shall announce in an 
opening statement the subject of the hearing.
    (2) A copy of the committee rules and of this clause shall 
be made available to each witness on request.
    (3) Witnesses at hearings may be accompanied by their own 
counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their 
constitutional rights.
    (4) The chairman may punish breaches of order and decorum, 
and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure 
and exclusion from the hearings; and the committee may cite the 
offender to the House for contempt.
    (5) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee 
that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, 
degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a 
witness that the evidence or testimony that the witness would 
give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate 
the witness--
          (A) notwithstanding paragraph (g)(2), such testimony 
        or evidence shall be presented in executive session if, 
        in the presence of the number of members required under 
        the rules of the committee for the purpose of taking 
        testimony, the committee determines by vote of a 
        majority of those present that such evidence or 
        testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate 
        any person; and
          (B) the committee shall proceed to receive such 
        testimony in open session only if the committee, a 
        majority being present, determines that such evidence 
        or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or 
        incriminate any person. In either case the committee 
        shall afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to 
        appear as a witness, and receive and dispose of 
        requests from such person to subpoena additional 
        witnesses.
    (6) Except as provided in subparagraph (5), the chairman 
shall receive and the committee shall dispose of requests to 
subpoena additional witnesses.
    (7) Evidence or testimony taken in executive session, and 
proceedings conducted in executive session, may be released or 
used in public sessions only when authorized by the committee, 
a majority being present.
    (8) In the discretion of the committee, witnesses may 
submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for 
inclusion in the record. The committee is the sole judge of the 
pertinence of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing.
    (9) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of his testimony 
given at a public session or, if given at an executive session, 
when authorized by the committee.

Supplemental, minority, or additional views

    (l) If at the time of approval of a measure or matter by a 
committee (other than the Committee on Rules) a member of the 
committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental, 
minority, or additional views for inclusion in the report to 
the House thereon, that member shall be entitled to not less 
than two additional calendar days after the day of such notice 
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when 
the House is in session on such a day) to file such views, in 
writing and signed by that member, with the clerk of the 
committee.

Power to sit and act; subpoena power

    (m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions 
and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters 
referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or 
subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))--
          (A) to sit and act at such times and places within 
        the United States, whether the House is in session, has 
        recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings 
        as it considers necessary; and
          (B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the 
        attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
        production of such books, records, correspondence, 
        memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers 
        necessary.
    (2) The chairman of the committee, or a member designated 
by the chairman, may administer oaths to witnesses.
    (3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a 
subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or 
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an 
investigation or series of investigations or activities only 
when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority 
being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under 
subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chairman of the 
committee under such rules and under such limitations as the 
committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed 
by the chairman of the committee or by a member designated by 
the committee.
    (ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on 
Standards of Official Conduct, a subpoena may be authorized and 
issued only by an affirmative vote of a majority of its 
members.
    (B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return 
other than at a meeting or hearing of the committee or 
subcommittee authorizing the subpoena.
    (C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or 
subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as 
authorized or directed by the House.

      Clause 4: Audio and Visual Coverage of Committee Proceedings


Audio and visual coverage of committee proceedings

    4. (a) The purpose of this clause is to provide a means, in 
conformity with acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and 
decorum, by which committee hearings or committee meetings that 
are open to the public may be covered by audio and visual 
means--
          (1) for the education, enlightenment, and information 
        of the general public, on the basis of accurate and 
        impartial news coverage, regarding the operations, 
        procedures, and practices of the House as a legislative 
        and representative body, and regarding the measures, 
        public issues, and other matters before the House and 
        its committees, the consideration thereof, and the 
        action taken thereon; and
          (2) for the development of the perspective and 
        understanding of the general public with respect to the 
        role and function of the House under the Constitution 
        as an institution of the Federal Government.
    (b) In addition, it is the intent of this clause that radio 
and television tapes and television film of any coverage under 
this clause may not be used, or made available for use, as 
partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the 
candidacy of any person for elective public office.
    (c) It is, further, the intent of this clause that the 
general conduct of each meeting (whether of a hearing or 
otherwise) covered under authority of this clause by audio or 
visual means, and the personal behavior of the committee 
members and staff, other Government officials and personnel, 
witnesses, television, radio, and press media personnel, and 
the general public at the hearing or other meeting, shall be in 
strict conformity with and observance of the acceptable 
standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum 
traditionally observed by the House in its operations, and may 
not be such as to--
          (1) distort the objects and purposes of the hearing 
        or other meeting or the activities of committee members 
        in connection with that hearing or meeting or in 
        connection with the general work of the committee or of 
        the House; or
          (2) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the 
        committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
        Commissioner or bring the House, the committee, or a 
        Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into 
        disrepute.
    (d) The coverage of committee hearings and meetings by 
audio and visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in 
strict conformity with the purposes, provisions, and 
requirements of this clause.
    (e) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee 
or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall 
be open to coverage by audio and visual means. A committee or 
subcommittee chairman may not limit the number of television or 
still cameras to fewer than two representatives from each 
medium (except for legitimate space or safety considerations, 
in which case pool coverage shall be authorized).
    (f) Each committee shall adopt written rules to govern its 
implementation of this clause. Such rules shall contain 
provisions to the following effect:
          (1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or 
        meeting is to be presented to the public as live 
        coverage, that coverage shall be conducted and 
        presented without commercial sponsorship.
          (2) The allocation among the television media of the 
        positions or the number of television cameras permitted 
        by a committee or subcommittee chairman in a hearing or 
        meeting room shall be in accordance with fair and 
        equitable procedures devised by the Executive Committee 
        of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
          (3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to 
        obstruct in any way the space between a witness giving 
        evidence or testimony and any member of the committee 
        or the visibility of that witness and that member to 
        each other.
          (4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed 
        positions but may not be placed in positions that 
        obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing or 
        meeting by the other media.
          (5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the 
        television and radio media may not be installed in, or 
        removed from, the hearing or meeting room while the 
        committee is in session.
          (6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), 
        floodlights, spotlights, strobelights, and flashguns 
        may not be used in providing any method of coverage of 
        the hearing or meeting.
          (B) The television media may install additional 
        lighting in a hearing or meeting room, without cost to 
        the Government, in order to raise the ambient lighting 
        level in a hearing or meeting room to the lowest level 
        necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a 
        hearing or meeting at the current state of the art of 
        television coverage.
          (7) In the allocation of the number of still 
        photographers permitted by a committee or subcommittee 
        chairman in a hearing or meeting room, preference shall 
        be given to photographers from Associated Press Photos 
        and United Press International Newspictures. If 
        requests are made by more of the media than will be 
        permitted by a committee or subcommittee chairman for 
        coverage of a hearing or meeting by still photography, 
        that coverage shall be permitted on the basis of a fair 
        and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing 
        Committee of Press Photographers.
          (8) Photographers may not position themselves between 
        the witness table and the members of the committee at 
        any time during the course of a hearing or meeting.
          (9) Photographers may not place themselves in 
        positions that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of 
        the hearing by the other media.
          (10) Personnel providing coverage by the television 
        and radio media shall be currently accredited to the 
        Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
          (11) Personnel providing coverage by still 
        photography shall be currently accredited to the Press 
        Photographers' Gallery.
          (12) Personnel providing coverage by the television 
        and radio media and by still photography shall conduct 
        themselves and their coverage activities in an orderly 
        and unobtrusive manner.

               RULE XIII: CALENDARS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS


                Clause 2: Filing and Printing of Reports

    2. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), all 
reports of committees (other than those filed from the floor as 
privileged) shall be delivered to the Clerk for printing and 
reference to the proper calendar under the direction of the 
Speaker in accordance with clause 1. The title or subject of 
each report shall be entered on the Journal and printed in the 
Congressional Record.
    (2) A bill or resolution reported adversely shall be laid 
on the table unless a committee to which the bill or resolution 
was referred requests at the time of the report its referral to 
an appropriate calendar under clause 1 or unless, within three 
days thereafter, a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
makes such a request.
    (b)(1) It shall be the duty of the chairman of each 
committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the 
House a measure or matter approved by the committee and to take 
or cause to be taken steps necessary to bring the measure or 
matter to a vote.
    (2) In any event, the report of a committee on a measure 
that has been approved by the committee shall be filed within 
seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is 
not in session) after the day on which a written request for 
the filing of the report, signed by a majority of the members 
of the committee, has been filed with the clerk of the 
committee. The clerk of the committee shall immediately notify 
the chairman of the filing of such a request. This subparagraph 
does not apply to a report of the Committee on Rules with 
respect to a rule, joint rule, or order of business of the 
House, or to the reporting of a resolution of inquiry addressed 
to the head of an executive department.
    (c) All supplemental, minority, or additional views filed 
under clause 2(l) of rule XI by one or more members of a 
committee shall be included in, and shall be a part of, the 
report filed by the committee with respect to a measure or 
matter. When time guaranteed by clause 2(l) of rule XI has 
expired (or, if sooner, when all separate views have been 
received), the committee may arrange to file its report with 
the Clerk not later than one hour after the expiration of such 
time. This clause and provisions of clause 2(l) of rule XI do 
not preclude the immediate filing or printing of a committee 
report in the absence of a timely request for the opportunity 
to file supplemental, minority, or additional views as provided 
in clause 2(l) of rule XI.

                     Clause 3: Contents of Reports


Content of reports

    3. (a)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2), the 
report of a committee on a measure or matter shall be printed 
in a single volume that--
          (A) shall include all supplemental, minority, or 
        additional views that have been submitted by the time 
        of the filing of the report; and
          (B) shall bear on its cover a recital that any such 
        supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any 
        material submitted under paragraph (c)(3)) are included 
        as part of the report.
    (2) A committee may file a supplemental report for the 
correction of a technical error in its previous report on a 
measure or matter. A supplemental report only correcting errors 
in the depiction of record votes under paragraph (b) may be 
filed under this subparagraph and shall not be subject to the 
requirement in clause 4 concerning the availability of reports.
    (b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report 
a measure or matter of a public nature, and on any amendment 
offered to the measure or matter, the total number of votes 
cast for and against, and the names of members voting for and 
against, shall be included in the committee report. The 
preceding sentence does not apply to votes taken in executive 
session by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.
    (c) The report of a committee on a measure that has been 
approved by the committee shall include, separately set out and 
clearly identified, the following:
          (1) Oversight findings and recommendations under 
        clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
          (2) The statement required by section 308(a) of the 
        Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except that an 
        estimate of new budget authority shall include, when 
        practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
        funding level for the relevant programs to the 
        appropriate levels under current law.
          (3) An estimate and comparison prepared by the 
        Director of the Congressional Budget Office under 
        section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if 
        timely submitted to the committee before the filing of 
        the report.
          (4) A statement of general performance goals and 
        objectives, including outcome-related goals and 
        objectives, for which the measure authorizes funding.
    (d) Each report of a committee on a public bill or public 
joint resolution shall contain the following:
          (1) A statement citing the specific powers granted to 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.
          (2)(A) An estimate by the committee of the costs that 
        would be incurred in carrying out the bill or joint 
        resolution in the fiscal year in which it is reported 
        and in each of the five fiscal years following that 
        fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of any 
        program authorized by the bill or joint resolution if 
        less than five years);
          (B) a comparison of the estimate of costs described 
        in subdivision (A) made by the committee with any 
        estimate of such costs made by a Government agency and 
        submitted to such committee; and
          (C) when practicable, a comparison of the total 
        estimated funding level for the relevant programs with 
        the appropriate levels under current law.
          (3)(A) In subparagraph (2) the term ``Government 
        agency'' includes any department, agency, 
        establishment, wholly owned Government corporation, or 
        instrumentality of the Federal Government or the 
        government of the District of Columbia.
          (B) Subparagraph (2) does not apply to the Committee 
        on Appropriations, the Committee on House 
        Administration, the Committee on Rules, or the 
        Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and does 
        not apply when a cost estimate and comparison prepared 
        by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
        under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
        1974 has been included in the report under paragraph 
        (c)(3).
    (e)(1) Whenever a committee reports a bill or joint 
resolution proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part 
thereof, it shall include in its report or in an accompanying 
document--
          (A) the text of a statute or part thereof that is 
        proposed to be repealed; and
          (B) a comparative print of any part of the bill or 
        joint resolution proposing to amend the statute and of 
        the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, 
        showing by appropriate typographical devices the 
        omissions and insertions proposed.
    (2) If a committee reports a bill or joint resolution 
proposing to repeal or amend a statute or part thereof with a 
recommendation that the bill or joint resolution be amended, 
the comparative print required by subparagraph (1) shall 
reflect the changes in existing law proposed to be made by the 
bill or joint resolution as proposed to be amended.
  MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

    ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

           (Ratio 31-26)

 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

    JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee               ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
BART STUPAK, Michigan                JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
GENE GREEN, Texas                    CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                   Mississippi, Vice Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              VITO FOSSELLA, New York
LOIS CAPPS, California               ROY BLUNT, Missouri*
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
HILDA L. SOLIS, California           MARY BONO, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JAY INSLEE, Washington               LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
                                     C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
                                     SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
                                     JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

*Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) resigned from the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce on October 26, 2005. Representative J. Gresham Barrett (R-
SC) was elected to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 26, 
2005, pursuant to H. Res. 513. Representative J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC) 
resigned from the Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 7, 2006. 
Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) was elected to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce on February 8, 2006, pursuant to H. Res. 671.
               SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AND JURISDICTION


        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection


           (Ratio 16-13)

 CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas                    MARY BONO, California
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                 LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas             Vice Chairman
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
  (Ex Officio)                       TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign commerce, including all trade 
matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; regulation of 
commercial practices (the FTC), including sports-related matters; 
consumer affairs and consumer protection, including privacy matters 
generally; consumer product safety (the CPSC); product liability; motor 
vehicle safety; regulation of travel, tourism, and time; and, homeland 
security-related aspects of the foregoing, including cybersecurity.

                 Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality


           (Ratio 18-15)

    RALPH HALL, Texas, Chairman

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York               Vice Chairman
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                 CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
LOIS CAPPS, California                 Mississippi
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       VITO FOSSELLA, New York
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   MARY BONO, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
  (Ex Officio)                       JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy, 
renewable energy resources and synthetic fuels; energy conservation; 
energy information; energy regulation and utilization; utility issues 
and regulation of nuclear facilities; interstate energy compacts; 
nuclear energy and waste; the Clean Air Act; all laws, programs, and 
government activities affecting such matters; and, homeland security-
related aspects of the foregoing.

          Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials


           (Ratio 16-13)

  PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman

HILDA L. SOLIS, California           RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan                HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
LOIS CAPPS, California                 Vice Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       VITO FOSSELLA, New York
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington               MARY BONO, California
GENE GREEN, Texas                    LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
  (Ex Officio)                       JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Environmental protection in general, including the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and risk assessment matters; solid waste, hazardous 
waste and toxic substances, including Superfund and RCRA; mining, oil, 
gas, and coal combustion wastes; noise pollution control; and, homeland 
security-related aspects of the foregoing.

                         Subcommittee on Health


           (Ratio 18-15)

  NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, Chairman

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
BART GORDON, Tennessee               CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                 CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado                Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California               STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   MARY BONO, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan              Vice Chairman
  (Ex Officio)                       MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
                                     SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
                                     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction; 
mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection 
in general, including Medicaid and national health insurance; food and 
drugs; drug abuse; and, homeland security-related aspects of the 
foregoing.

          Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet


           (Ratio 18-15)

  FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas            BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JAY INSLEE, Washington               JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey         Mississippi
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  VITO FOSSELLA, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee               GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Vice Chairman
BART STUPAK, Michigan                GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            LEE TERRY, Nebraska
  (Ex Officio)                       MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
                                     JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign telecommunications including, but 
not limited to all telecommunication and information transmission by 
broadcast, radio, wire, microwave, satellite, or other mode; and 
homeland security-related aspects of the foregoing.

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations


            (Ratio 9-7)

 ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman

BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Mississippi
JAY INSLEE, Washington               CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             GREG WALDEN, Oregon
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersy
  (Ex Officio)                       MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments, 
and programs within the jurisdiction of the full committee, and for 
conducting investigations within such jurisdiction.
                            COMMITTEE STAFF


C. H. ``Bud'' Albright, Jr., Staff 
             Director 
David L. Cavicke, General Counsel/
    Chief Counsel for Commerce 
Andy Black, Deputy Staff Director 
            for Policy 
  Lawrence A. Neal, Deputy Staff 
   Director for Communications 
 David J. McCarthy, Chief Counsel 
    for Energy and Environment 
 Mark A. Paoletta, Chief Counsel 
 for Oversight and Investigations 
Howard Waltzman, Chief Counsel for 
        Telecommunications 
   Michael Abraham, Legislative 
     Clerk/Assistant Systems 
          Administrator 
 Ryan Ambrose, Legislative Clerk 
    Courtney Anderson, Counsel 
      Kelli Andrews, Counsel 
    Melissa Bartlett, Counsel 
      Kurt W. Bilas, Counsel 
  Michael D. Bloomquist, Deputy 
         General Counsel 
 Annie Caputo, Professional Staff 
              Member 
   Krista L. Carpenter, Counsel 
William Carty, Professional Staff 
              Member 
 Dwight Cates, Professional Staff 
              Member 
   Karen E. Christian, Counsel 
     Brandon J. Clark, Policy 
           Coordinator 
  Sean Corcoran, Documents Clerk 
      Julie Cordell, Analyst 
 Gerald Couri, Policy Coordinator 
 Whitney Drew, Special Assistant 
      Thomas Feddo, Counsel 
 Julie Fields, Special Assistant 
     Neil R. Fried,  Counsel 
  Chad Grant, Legislative Clerk 
    Garrett J. Golding, Staff 
            Assistant 
    John P. Halliwell, Policy 
            Coordinator
William Harvard, Legislative Clerk 

  Thomas Hassenboehler, Counsel 
Eric M. Hutchins, Energy Assistant 

 Matthew P. Johnson, Legislative 
               Clerk
Nandan Kenkeremath, Senior Counsel 

Peter E. Kielty, Legislative Clerk 

Terry Lane, Deputy Communications 
             Director 
    Theresa Lavery, Associate 
   W. Christopher Leahy, Policy 
           Coordinator 
        Ryan Long, Counsel 
Katherine J. Martin, Professional 
           Staff Member
Clayton Matheson, Research Analyst 

    Stephanie Mayfield, Staff 
            Assistant 
Christine McCarty, Press Assistant 

  Brian McCollough, Professional 
           Staff Member 
    Jean McGinley, Director of 
      Information Technology 
Lisa Miller, Deputy Communications 
             Director 
  Anh Nguyen, Legislative Clerk 
 William D. O'Brien, Legislative 
    Analyst for Health Policy 
      Randolph Pate, Counsel 
 Scott Schmidt, Energy Assistant 
  Kevin Schweers, Communications 
             Director 
    Jerome Sikorski, Archivist 
 Robert E. Simison, Professional 
           Staff Member 
   Chase Simmons, Senior Staff 
            Assistant 
  Alan M. Slobodin, Deputy Chief 
    Counsel for Oversight and 
          Investigations 
    Andrew L. Snowdon, Counsel 
Peter Spencer, Professional Staff 
              Member 
     Elizabeth Stack, Policy 
           Coordinator 
 Ryan Thompson, Assistant to the 
             Chairman
 Linda Walker, Administrative and 
   Human Resources Coordinator 
  Shannon Weinberg, Professional 
           Staff Member 
                             MINORITY STAFF


 Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff 
    Director and Chief Counsel 
David R. Schooler, Minority Deputy 
Staff Director and General Counsel 

 Sharon E. Davis, Chief Minority 
              Clerk 
 Candace E. Butler, Deputy Chief 
 Minority Clerk/LAN Administrator 
 Jonathan Brater, Minority Staff 
            Assistant 
  Jonathan J. Cordone, Minority 
      Deputy General Counsel 
   Angela Davis-West, Minority 
            Secretary 
   Elizabeth B. Ertel, Minority 
      Senior Staff Assistant 
 Peter J. Filon, Minority Counsel 
  John P. Ford, Minority Counsel 
   Richard A. Frandsen, Senior 
         Minority Counsel 
     William Garner, Minority 
    Professional Staff Member 
 Alec Gerlach, Minority Research 
    Assistant/Press Assistant 
Amy B. Hall, Minority Professional 
           Staff Member 
      Bruce Harris, Minority 
 Professional Staff Member/Policy 
           Coordinator 
 Voncille Trotter Hines, Minority 
        Research Assistant 
 Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel 
  Carla R.V. Hultberg, Minority 
  Assistant Clerk-Administrative/
    Assistant LAN Administrator
  Purvee Kemph, Minority Counsel 
  Raymond R. Kent, Jr., Minority 
        Finance Assistant 
   Christopher Knauer, Minority 
           Investigator 
   Jessica A. McNiece, Minority 
        Research Assistant 
    David W. Nelson, Minority 
      Investigator/Economist 
Lorie J. Schmidt, Minority Counsel 

   Annie Scott, Minority Staff 
            Assistant 
Jodi Seth, Minority Communications 
             Director 
   Johanna M. Shelton, Minority 
             Counsel 
 Sue D. Sheridan, Senior Minority 
             Counsel 
  Bridgette E. Taylor, Minority 
 Professional Staff Member/Chief 
      Health Finance Advisor
 Christopher A. Treanor, Minority 
         Staff Assistant 
David A. Vogel, Minority Research 
            Assistant 
  Consuela M. Washington, Senior 
         Minority Counsel 
          LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY OF THE COMMITTEE

    During the 109th Congress, 1319 bills and resolutions were 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Full 
Committee reported 53 measures to the House (not including 
conference reports). There were 55 measures regarding issues 
within the Committee's jurisdiction were enacted into law.
    In areas as diverse as health, telecommunications, energy, 
and the environment, the Committee made great strides towards 
the goal of creating a more effective, less expensive, and more 
accountable government that better serves all Americans.
    The following is a summary of the legislative and oversight 
activities of the Committee on Energy and Commerce during the 
109th Congress. This report includes a summary of the 
activities taken by the Committee to implement its Oversight 
Plan for the 109th Congress, which was submitted by the 
Committee under clause 2(d) of Rule X. In addition, pursuant to 
clause 1(d)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, this reports contains a summary of any 
additional oversight activities undertaken by the Committee and 
the recommendations made or actions taken thereon.
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

                             FULL COMMITTEE

           (Ratio 31-26)

    JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts        Vice Chairman
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               FRED UPTON, Michigan
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART GORDON, Tennessee               ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
BART STUPAK, Michigan                JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
GENE GREEN, Texas                    CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                   Mississippi, Vice Chairman
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              VITO FOSSELLA, New York
LOIS CAPPS, California               ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
HILDA L. SOLIS, California           MARY BONO, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JAY INSLEE, Washington               LEE TERRY, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
                                     C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
                                     SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
                                     JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

                          Oversight Activities


  THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET PROPOSAL AND THE 
                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

    On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal 
Year 2006 Budget Proposal and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
The hearing focused on the Administration's proposed budget for 
fiscal year 2006, and also on the Department of Energy's 
comments on the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Committee 
received testimony from the Secretary of U.S. Department of 
Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, and representatives of consumers, 
industry, and other stakeholders.

    A REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2006 HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES

    On February 17, 2005, the Committee on Energy Commerce held 
an oversight hearing to examine the President's Proposed FY 
2006 Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services. 
The sole witness was Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services.

   MEDICAID REFORM: THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION'S BIPARTISAN 
                                ROADMAP

    On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce held an oversight hearing to examine the National 
Governors Association's (NGA) interim Medicaid reform policy 
and continuing efforts to refine policy proposals. There was 
one panel consisting of NGA Chairman and Governor of the State 
of Virginia and NGA Vice Chairman Governor of the State of 
Arkansas.

      LEGISLATION TO REAUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

    On July 19, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 
an oversight hearing on legislation to reauthorize the NIH. The 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the Federal government's 
principal medical research agency, armed with a mission to 
advance research in pursuit of fundamental knowledge that will 
lead to better health outcomes for all. Funding for the NIH 
represents nearly half of the discretionary budget of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. The Director of NIH 
was the only witness.

        HURRICANE KATRINA'S EFFECT ON GASOLINE SUPPLY AND PRICES

    On September 7, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing on the impact and recovery efforts in 
States affected by Hurricane Katrina. The hearing focused 
specifically on issues related to energy and communications 
infrastructure. The committee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration, 
the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Governor of the State of Mississippi, the State 
of Louisiana, consumer and environmental advocates, and 
representatives involved in the pricing of gasoline along the 
gasoline supply chain: production, refining, pipeline, 
marketing, and futures trading.

        MEDICAID: EMPOWERING BENEFICIARIES ON THE ROAD TO REFORM

    On September 8, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and 
Commerce held an oversight hearing to examine Medicaid reform 
proposals and explore the effect of these proposals on 
beneficiary access to health care services, create incentives 
for the better utilization of existing services, improve health 
outcomes and reduce instances of beneficiaries improperly 
transferring assets in order to gain Medicaid coverage for 
institutional care. The Committee heard testimony from several 
advocacy groups and professional health service providers.

         ASSESSING THE NATIONAL PANDEMIC FLU PREPAREDNESS PLAN

    On November 8, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing to look into the national pandemic 
flu preparedness plan. The hearing followed two recent actions 
by the Administration. On Tuesday, November 1, 2005, the 
President gave a speech outlining a national strategy to 
prepare for the risk of pandemic flu and requested $7 billion 
in new spending to support this strategy. The President's 
proposal also included legislation to limit the liability of 
vaccine manufacturers and others with respect to pandemic flu. 
On November 2, 2005 HHS also released its detailed Pandemic 
Influenza Preparedness and Response Plan. The sole witness was 
Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services.

          THE ADMINISTRATION'S FY 2007 HEALTH CARE PRIORITIES

    On February 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing to examine the President's Proposed 
FY 2007 Budget for the Department of Health and Human Services. 
The FY 2007 budget for the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) totals $698 billion in outlays. This was an 
increase of $58 billion over the President's Proposed FY 2006 
budget. The sole witness was Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

      THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET PROPOSAL

    On March 9, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 
an oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 
2007 Budget Proposal. The Committee received testimony from the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy.

 H.R. ------, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 
     ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) TO SET PASSENGER FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

    On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a 
hearing on H.R. __, a bill to authorize the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel 
economy standards. The committee received testimony from a 
Member of Congress, the Secretary of Transportation, and other 
stakeholders.

                        WORLD CRUDE OIL PRICING

    On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 
an oversight hearing on World Crude Oil Pricing. The hearing 
examined the role of supply and demand fundamentals on world 
oil pricing, as well as geopolitical concerns that also affect 
price. The Committee received testimony from the Energy 
Information Administration, Cambridge Energy Research 
Associates, New York Mercantile Exchange, and the Government 
Accountability Office.

              GASOLINE: SUPPLY, PRICE, AND SPECIFICATIONS

    On May 10 and 11, 2006, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce held an oversight hearing on gasoline supply, price, 
and specifications in the wake of rising domestic gasoline 
prices. The hearing focused on fuel specification transitions, 
logistics, infrastructure, and transportation, and how boutique 
fuels affect gasoline prices. The Committee received testimony 
from representatives from Federal government and State and 
local air quality officials. The Committee also received 
testimony from the motor fuels industry, focusing on 
production, refining, transportation, and retail sales.

  DISCUSSION DRAFT OF H.R. ------, BOUTIQUE FUEL REDUCTION ACT OF 2006

    On June 7, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 
a hearing on a discussion draft entitled H.R. __, Boutique 
Fuels Reduction Act of 2006, which would amend the Clean Air 
Act by providing for a reduction in the number of boutique 
fuels. The discussion draft sought to build on the limitation 
placed on the number of boutique fuels eligible for use in 
State Implementation Plans, established in the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, by requiring EPA, in coordination with DOE, to 
promulgate an approvable Federal fuels list of no more than 3 
gasoline fuels each with a different Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP). 
The discussion draft also sought to clarify temporary waiver 
authority of the Environmental Protection Agency in extreme and 
unusual fuel supply or fuel additive supply circumstances to 
include unexpected problems with distribution or delivery 
equipment necessary for transportation and delivery of fuel or 
fuel additives. The Committee received testimony from 
representatives from the Federal government, State and local 
air quality officials, and the motor fuels industry.

         GROWTH, OPPORTUNITY, COMPETITION--AMERICA GOES TO WORK

    On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will 
held an oversight hearing on Growth, Opportunity, Competition--
America Goes to Work. The purpose of the hearing was to explore 
the Department of Commerce's mission to promote foreign and 
domestic commerce of the United States. The Department of 
Commerce has taken the responsibility to promote economic 
development and technological advancement in the U.S. through 
its various programs and bureaus. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
Commerce.

EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON THE MEDICAID PROGRAM AND 
                     OUR HEALTHCARE DELIVERY SYSTEM

    The Committee on Energy and Commerce had a two-day field 
hearing to provide Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
with a forum within which to examine the impact of illegal 
immigration on the health delivery systems of the areas 
surrounding Brentwood, Tennessee, and Dalton, Georgia, and how 
recent legislative efforts may impact this growing problem. 
Specifically, witnesses at the field hearing provided testimony 
on how Sec. 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Improved 
Enforcement of Documentation Requirements) is being implemented 
in Tennessee and Georgia, and any State plans to potentially 
implement Sec. 6043 of the DRA (Emergency Room Co-payments for 
Non-emergency Room Care). The first day of the field hearing 
took place on August 10, 2006, in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the 
Committee received testimony from Tennessee State 
Representatives and Senators, CMS, Tenncare, and several local 
hospitals.
    The second day of the hearing took place on August 15, 2006 
in Dalton, Georgia. The Committee received testimony from 
Georgia State Representatives and Senators, Georgia Department 
of Human Resources (DHR), CMS, and several local hospitals.

 IMPROVING NIH MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION: A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON THE 
                         NIH REFORM ACT OF 2006

    On September 19, 2006 the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing to encourage legislation on NIH 
reauthorization. The Committee received testimony from Johns 
Hopkins Medicine, the American Heart Association, the American 
Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and the Association 
of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Director of the 
NIH.

                             Hearings Held

    Combating Spyware: H.R. 29, the Spy Act.--Hearing on 
Combating Spyware: H.R. 29, the Spy Act. Hearing held on 
January 26, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-10.
    Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal and 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005: Ensuring Jobs for Our Future 
with Secure and Reliable Energy.--Oversight hearing on 
Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal and the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005: Ensuring Jobs for Our Future with 
Secure and Reliable Energy. Hearing held on February 9, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-3.
    A Review of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Health 
Care Priorities.--Oversight hearing on A Review of the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Health Care Priorities. 
Hearing held on February 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
35.
    Competition in the Communications Marketplace: How 
Technology is Changing the Structure of the Industry.--
Oversight hearing on Competition in the Communications 
Marketplace: How Technology is Changing the Structure of the 
Industry. Hearing held on March 2, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 
109-13.
    Medicaid Reform: The National Governors Association's 
Bipartisan Roadmap.--Oversight hearing on Medicaid Reform: The 
National Governors Association's Bipartisan Roadmap. Hearing 
held on June 15, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-22.
    Legislation to Reauthorize the National Institutes of 
Health.--Hearing on Legislation to Reauthorize the National 
Institutes of Health. Hearing held on July 19, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-40.
    Hurricane Katrina's Effect on Gasoline Supply and Prices.--
Oversight hearing on Hurricane Katrina's Effect on Gasoline 
Supply and Prices. Hearing held on September 7, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-32.
    Medicaid: Empowering Beneficiaries on the Road to Reform.--
Oversight hearing on Medicaid: Empowering Beneficiaries on the 
Road to Reform. Hearing held on September 8, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-49.
    Assessing the National Pandemic Flu Preparedness Plan.--
Oversight hearing on Assessing the National Pandemic Flu 
Preparedness Plan. Hearing held on November 8, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-59.
    Phone Records For Sale: Why Aren't Phone Records Safe From 
Pretexting?--Oversight hearing on Phone Records For Sale: Why 
Aren't Phone Records Safe From Pretexting? Hearing held on 
February 1, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-53.
    The Administration's FY '07 Health Care Priorities.--
Oversight hearing on The Administration's FY '07 Health Care 
Priorities. Hearing held on February 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-113.
    Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal.--
Oversight hearing on Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007 
Budget Proposal. Hearing held on March 9, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-82.
    H.R. __, a bill to authorize the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel economy 
standards.--Hearing on H.R. __, a bill to authorize the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set 
passenger car fuel economy standards. Hearing held on May 3, 
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-95.
    World Crude-Oil Pricing.--Oversight hearing on World Crude-
Oil Pricing. Hearing held on May 4, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-96.
    Gasoline: Supply, Price, and Specifications.--Oversight 
hearings on Gasoline: Supply, Price, and Specifications. 
Hearings held on May 10, 2006, and May 11, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-94.
    Discussion draft providing for a reduction in the number of 
boutique fuels.--Hearing on a Discussion draft providing for a 
reduction in the number of boutique fuels. Hearing held on June 
7, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-106.
    Growth, Opportunity, Competition--America Goes to Work.--
Oversight hearing on Growth, Opportunity, Competition--America 
Goes to Work. Hearing held on June 29, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-116.
    Examining the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Medicaid 
Program and Our Healthcare Delivery System.--Oversight hearing 
on Examining the Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Medicaid 
Program and Our Healthcare Delivery System. Hearings held on 
August 10, 2006, and August 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 
109-134.
    Improving NIH Management and Operation: A Legislative 
Hearing on the NIH Reform Act of 2006.--Hearing on Improving 
NIH Management and Operation: A Legislative Hearing on the NIH 
Reform Act of 2006. Hearing held on September 19, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-140.
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection

           (Ratio 16-13)

 CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, Chairman

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas                  NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
GENE GREEN, Texas                    MARY BONO, California
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                 LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas             Vice Chairman
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
  (Ex Officio)                       TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign commerce, including all trade 
matters within the jurisdiction of the full committee; regulation of 
commercial practices (the FTC), including sports-related matters; 
consumer affairs and consumer protection, including privacy matters 
generally; consumer product safety (the CPSC); product liability; motor 
vehicle safety; regulation of travel, tourism, and time; and, homeland 
security-related aspects of the foregoing, including cybersecurity.

                         Legislative Activities


    WOOL SUIT FABRIC LABELING FAIRNESS AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
                             CONFORMING ACT

                     Public Law 109-428 (H.R. 4583)

    To amend the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 to revise 
the requirements for labeling of certain wool and cashmere 
products.

Summary

    H.R. 4583 amends the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 
revising the labeling requirements for certain wool and 
cashmere products. By revising the labeling requirements, the 
bill protects consumers and industry participants from 
deceptively labeled or mislabeled wool or cashmere products by 
establishing a legal standard for labeling superfine wool and 
cashmere products based on internationally accepted standards.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4583 was introduced in the House by Mrs. Blackburn on 
December 16, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
    On January 3, 2006, H.R. 4583 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4583 reported to the 
House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 8, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4583 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-644).
    On September 19, 2006, H.R. 4583 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed, as amended, by 
voice vote.
    On September 20, 2006, H.R. 4583 was received in the Senate 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 4583 was discharged from the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by unanimous 
consent, and passed the Senate without amendment by unanimous 
consent, clearing H.R. 4583 for the White House.
    On December 11, 2006, H.R. 4583 was presented to the 
President and was signed by the President on December 20, 2006 
(Public Law 109-428).

UNDERTAKING SPAM, SPYWARE, AND FRAUD ENFORCEMENT WITH ENFORCERS BEYOND 
                          BORDERS ACT OF 2005

                      Public Law 109-455 (S. 1608)

    A bill to enhance Federal Trade Commission enforcement 
against illegal spam, spyware, and cross-border fraud and 
deception, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 1608 provides the Federal Trade Commission with new 
authority to combat cross border fraud. Specifically, the Act 
amends the FTC Act definition of ``unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices'' to include acts of foreign commerce that: (1) cause 
or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the 
United States; or (2) involve material conduct occurring within 
the United States. S. 1608 creates remedies for such unfair and 
deceptive acts or practices, including restitution to domestic 
or foreign victims. S. 1608 also permits the FTC to provide 
assistance to and share information with foreign government law 
enforcement agencies in the investigation and enforcement of 
violations of anti-fraud laws.
    Additionally, S. 1608 requires a report by the FTC on its 
actions with any recommendations for additional legislation.

Legislative History

    S. 1608 was introduced by Senator Smith on July 29, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On December 15, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation met in open markup session and ordered S. 
1608 reported without amendment.
    On March 14, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation reported S. 1608 without amendment, with written 
report No. 109-219, and it was placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 372.
    On March 16, 2006, S. 1608 passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent.
    The House received S. 1608 on March 28, 2006, and S. 1608 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee.
    On April 19, 2006, S. 1608 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 1608 passed the House, with an 
amendment, by unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House 
amendment to S. 1608, and S. the bill was cleared for the White 
House.
    On December 20, 2006, S. 1608 was presented to the 
President and was signed by the President on December 22, 2006 
(Public Law 109-455).

     SECURELY PROTECT YOURSELF AGAINST CYBER TRESPASS ACT (SPY ACT)

                               (H.R. 29)

    To protect users of the Internet from unknowing 
transmission of their personally identifiable information 
through spyware programs, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 29, the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber 
Trespass, or SPY ACT, makes it unlawful for any person who is 
not the owner or authorized user (user) of a protected computer 
(a computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution 
or the U.S. Government, or a computer used in interstate or 
foreign commerce or communication) to engage in unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices in connection with specified 
conduct, including: (1) taking unsolicited control of the 
computer; (2) modifying computer settings; (3) collecting 
personally identifiable information; (4) inducing the owner or 
authorized user to disclose personally identifiable 
information; (5) inducing the unsolicited installation of 
computer software; and (6) removing or disabling a security, 
anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology.
    Further, the bill makes it unlawful for a person to: (1) 
transmit to a protected computer any information collection 
program (a program that collects personally identifiable 
information and uses the information to send advertising), 
unless such program provides notice required by the Act before 
execution of any of the program's collection functions; or (2) 
execute any collection information program installed on a 
protected computer unless, before execution, the user has 
consented to such execution under notice requirements of the 
Act. The SPY ACT provides an exception with respect to Web 
pages visited within a particular website when the information 
collected is sent only to the provider of the website accessed.
    The bill provides for enforcement of violations as unfair 
or deceptive acts or practices. It also makes the Act 
inapplicable with respect to: (1) law enforcement actions; (2) 
monitoring undertaken for network security; and (3) Good 
Samaritan actions (actions taken in good faith, and with the 
user's consent, by a computer software or service provider to 
remove or disable a program which violates this Act).
    H.R. 29 directs the Federal Trade Commission to report to 
Congress: (1) annually on enforcement actions taken under the 
Act; (2) regarding the use of computer tracking cookies in the 
delivery or display of advertising to computer owners and 
users; and (3) concerning information collection programs 
installed before the effective date of the Act. The bill 
becomes effective 12 months after its enactment, and is 
inapplicable after December 31, 2011.

Legislative History

    H.R. 29 was introduced by Ms. Bono and referred to the 
House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 4, 2005.
    On January 26, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held a hearing on H.R. 29. The Committee received testimony 
from two high-tech companies, a company specializing in 
cybersecurity; and a technology think tank.
    On February 4, 2005, H.R. 29 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
    On February 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session to consider 
H.R. 29, and the bill was forwarded by the Subcommittee to Full 
Committee, amended, by a voice vote.
    On March 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 29 reported to the 
House, amended, by a record vote of 43 yeas and 0 nays, a 
quorum being present.
    On April 12, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 29 to the House (H. Rept. 109-32), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 15.
    On May 23, 2005, H.R. 29 was considered under suspension of 
the rules and passed the House, as amended, by a roll call vote 
of 393 yeas and 4 nays.
    On May 24, 2005, H.R. 29 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation. No further action was taken on H.R. 29 in the 
109th Congress.

                   TO AMEND THE HORSE PROTECTION ACT

                               (H.R. 503)

    To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, 
transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, 
purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to 
be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 503 amends the Horse Protection Act to define: (1) 
``human consumption'' as ingestion by people as a source of 
food; and (2) ``slaughter'' as the killing of one or more 
horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the 
flesh for human consumption. The bill also sets forth 
additional congressional findings.
    H.R. 503 prohibits the shipping, transporting, moving, 
delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or 
donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for 
human consumption. The bill authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture to detain for examination, testing, or the taking 
of evidence: (1) any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, 
or horse sale or auction which is sore or which the Secretary 
has probable cause to believe is sore; and (2) any horse or 
other equine which the Secretary has probable cause to believe 
is being shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received, 
possessed, purchased, sold, or donated in violation of such 
prohibition. Finally, this legislation increases the annual 
authorization of appropriations for administration of the Horse 
Protection Act from $500,000 to $5,000,000.

Legislative History

    H.R. 503 was introduced by Mr. Sweeney and referred to the 
House Committee on Energy and Commerce on February 1, 2005.
    On February 25, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    On July 13, 2006, the bill was also referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture, pursuant to a unanimous consent 
request for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker.
    On July 25, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 503. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress, a 
businessman from Texas, a professor of veterinary medicine, two 
practicing veterinarians, the owner of a horse farm, and an 
equine slaughterhouse business.
    On September 6, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 503.
    On September 6, 2006, the Committee on Agriculture received 
an unfavorable executive comment on the bill from the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
    On September 6, 2006, the Committee on Agriculture met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 503 reported adversely to 
the House, amended, by a record vote of 37 yeas and 3 nays. 
That same day, the Committee on Agriculture reported H.R. 503 
to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-617, Part I), and H.R. 
503 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 357.
    On September 7, 2006, H.R. 503 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 981, and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 263 yeas, 146 nays, and 1 present.
    On September 8, 2006, H.R. 503 was received in the Senate, 
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 
under Read the First Time.
    On September 11, 2006, H.R. 503 was read the second time 
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 603.
    On September 18, 2006, the Senate's previous actions were 
vitiated by unanimous consent, and H.R. 503 was returned to the 
House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1011 by unanimous 
consent.
    On September 20, 2006, H.R. 503 was received in the Senate, 
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First 
Time.
    On September 21, 2006, H.R. 503 was read the second time 
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 631.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 503 in the 109th 
Congress.

                  UNITED STATES BOXING COMMISSION ACT

                              (H.R. 1065)

    To establish the United States Boxing Commission to protect 
the general welfare of boxers and to ensure fairness in the 
sport of professional boxing.

Summary

    H.R. 1065 establishes a Federal Boxing Commission within 
the Department of Commerce to oversee all professional boxing 
in the United States and requires the commission to promulgate 
uniform standards for professional boxing and license boxing 
personnel, among other things.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1065 was introduced by Mr. Stearns on March 2, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 1065 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
    On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection met in open markup session and H.R. 1065 
was forwarded to full Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 29, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 1065 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 25 yeas and 
16 nays, a quorum being present.
    On July 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1065 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-209, 
Part I.).
    On July 28, 2005, H.R. 1065 was referred sequentially to 
the Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later 
than September 30, 2005, for consideration of such provisions 
of the bill and the amendment as fall within the jurisdiction 
of that committee pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X.
    On July 28, 2005, the House Committee on Education and the 
Workforce was granted an extension for further consideration 
ending not later than September 30, 2005.
    On September 29, 2005, the Judiciary Committee met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 1065 to be reported without 
recommendation, amended, by voice vote.
    On September 30, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary reported 
H.R. 1065 to the House, amended, without recommendation (H. 
Rept. 109-209, Part II).
    The Committee on Education and the Workforce was discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 1065 on September 30, 2005, 
and H.R. 1065 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
134.
    On November 16, 2005, H.R. 1065 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 553. H.R. 1065 failed by a roll 
call vote of 190 yeas and 233 nays.
    No further Action was taken on H.R. 1065 in the 109th 
Congress.

           THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 1078)


Summary

    H.R. 1078 prohibits the sale or purchase of Social Security 
numbers and provides for enforcement of the Act. The Federal 
Trade Commission is directed to promulgate regulations 
restricting the sale and purchase of Social Security numbers 
and unfair or deceptive acts in connection with the sale or 
purchase of Social Security numbers. Additionally, the FTC is 
directed to include exceptions in their regulations for certain 
permissible purposes. Enforcement is conducted by the FTC and 
permits State enforcement of the Act with certain limitations.

Legislative History

    Mr. Markey introduced H.R. 1078 on March 3, 2005, and it 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 1078 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
    On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1078 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1078 to the House, as amended, (H. Rept. 109-708 
Part I), and the Committee on Ways and Means was granted an 
extension for further consideration ending not later than 
November 17, 2006.
    On November 17, 2006, Committee on Ways and Means was 
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 
than December 8, 2006.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1078 in the 109th 
Congress.

                          DRUG FREE SPORTS ACT

                   (H.R. 1862, H.R. 2829, H.R. 3084)

    To direct the Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations 
requiring testing for steroids and other performance-enhancing 
substances for certain sports associations engaged in 
interstate commerce.

Summary

    H.R. 1862, the Drug Free Sports Act directs the Secretary 
of Commerce to issue regulations requiring professional sports 
associations to adopt and enforce policies and procedures for 
testing athletes for the use of performance-enhancing 
substances. The regulations include the substances to be tested 
and the procedures for testing athletes. The legislation also 
provides for penalties and fines for violations by athletes or 
sports leagues for failure to comply with the Act. The Act also 
provides for certain studies on steroids to be conducted.

Legislative History

    On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1862 was introduced by Mr. Stearns 
(FL) in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
    On May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held a hearing on H.R. 1862, the Drug Free 
Sports Act of 2005. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
representatives of United States Anti-Doping Agency, and the 
major professional sports leagues and their respective players 
associations.
    On May 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection continued its hearing on H.R. 1862, the 
Drug Free Sports Act of 2005. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from additional major professional sports leagues and 
their respective players associations.
    On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection met in open markup session and approved 
H.R. 1862 for Full Committee consideration, amended, by voice 
vote, a quorum being present.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1862 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On June 28, 2005, H.R. 3084 was introduced by Mr. Stearns 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On June 29, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3084 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 38 yeas and 
2 nays, a quorum being present.
    On July 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3084 to the House (H. Rept. 109-210 Part I), and 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce was granted an 
extension for further consideration ending not later than 
September 30, 2005.
    On September 30, 2005, Committee on Education and the 
Workforce was discharged, and H.R. 3084 was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 133.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 3084 in the 109th 
Congress.
    H.R. 2829 was introduced by Mr. Souder on June 9, 2005, and 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition 
to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and 
Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On June 16, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On June 17, 2005, H.R. 2829 was referred to Energy and 
Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health.
    On November 18, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform 
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315 
Part I). The Amended version included Title II, which provided 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy authority to 
promulgate rules regarding steroid policies and testing 
procedures for professional sports leagues.
    On November 18, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, and Intelligence (Permanent Select) were 
granted an extension until December 17, 2005. In addition H.R. 
2829 was referred sequentially to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce for a period ending not later than December 
17, 2005, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(e), rule X.
    On December 17, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and 
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until 
December 31, 2005.
    On December 31, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and 
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until 
February 3, 2006.
    On February 3, 2006, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and 
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until 
March 3, 2006.
    On February 16, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the 
House, without recommendation, amended, by voice vote. H.R. 
2829 was amended by striking Title II and replacing it with the 
text of H.R. 3084, as reported by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On March 2, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R.2829 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote.
    On March 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315, 
Part II.). Similarly, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended. (H. Rept. 109-315, Part 
III.). The Committees on Intelligence (Permanent) and Education 
and Workforce both were discharged from further consideration 
of H.R. 2829, and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar 
No. 209.
    On March 9, 2006, H.R. 2829 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 713. H.R. 2829 passed the House 
by a roll call vote: 399 yeas and 5 nays.
    On March 16, 2006, H.R. 2829 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2829 in the 109th 
Congress.

             THE MOTOR VEHICLE OWNER'S RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT

                              (H.R. 2048)

    To protect the rights of consumers to diagnose, service, 
and repair motor vehicles in the United States, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 2048 requires a manufacturer of a motor vehicle sold 
or introduced into commerce in the United States to disclose to 
the vehicle owner or to a repair facility of the motor vehicle 
owner's choosing the information necessary to diagnose, 
service, or repair the vehicle. This information includes the 
same diagnostic tools and capabilities related to vehicle 
repair that are made available to franchised dealerships shall 
be made available to independent repair facilities.
    The bill also sets forth protections for trade secrets and 
stipulates that nothing in the Act should be interpreted to 
require the disclosure of trade secrets.
    Under H.R. 2048, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is 
instructed to prescribe a uniform methodology for manufacturer 
disclosure in writing and on the Internet. However, it 
prohibits the FTC from prescribing rules that interfere with 
the authority of the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency regarding motor vehicle emissions control 
diagnostics systems.
    A violation, including manufacturer noncompliance with this 
Act, constitutes an unfair method of competition and an unfair 
or deceptive act or practice affecting commerce. This is within 
the purview of the Federal Trade Commission Act and all 
penalties available to it under the Act.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2048 was introduced by Mr. Barton on May 3, 2005, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 13, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
    The Subcommittee held an oversight hearing regarding the 
state of industry negotiations to reach a non-legislative 
solution on November 10, 2005. The purpose of the hearing was 
to examine the status of industry negotiations to reach a non-
legislative solution regarding the availability of service and 
repair information. Specifically, the industry participants 
held a series of meetings--facilitated by the Council of Better 
Business Bureaus--during August and September 2005 in an effort 
to reach agreement. Witnesses included the Federal Trade 
Commission, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the 
Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, the AAA Auto Repair Network, the Automotive 
Service Association, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, and 
the National Automobile Dealers Association.
    The Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on May 17, 
2006, on H.R. 2048. Witnesses included Federal Trade 
Commission, the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, the 
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and the National 
Automotive Task Force.
    On May 25, 2006, the Subcommittee met in open markup 
session and H.R. 2048 was forwarded to the Full Committee, 
amended, by a record vote of 14 yeas and 13 nays.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2048 in the 109th 
Congress.

                  AMERICAN SPIRIT FRAUD PREVENTION ACT

                              (H.R. 3675)

    To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil 
penalties for violations involving unfair or deceptive acts or 
practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or 
major disaster, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission 
to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought 
under section 13 of that Act.

Summary

    The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act amends the Federal 
Trade Commission Act to double the existing statutory civil 
penalty for a violation involving an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice in either a national emergency period or disaster 
period, or relating to an international disaster, if the act or 
practice exploits popular reaction to the national emergency or 
major disaster.
    H.R. 3675 directs the court, in such a case, to hold the 
relevant person, partnership, or corporation liable for a civil 
penalty of not more than $22,000 for each such violation.

Legislative History

    On September 7, 2005, H.R. 3675 was introduced by Mr. Bass 
and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 19, 2005, H.R. 3675 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    On October 25, 2005, H.R. 3675 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 399 yeas and 3 nays.
    On October 26, 2005, H.R. 3675 was received in the Senate 
and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On September 27, 2006, H.R. 3675 was ordered reported 
favorably, without amendment, by the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
    On December 5, 2006, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation reported H.R. 3675 without amendment, without 
written report, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 669.
    No further action taken on H.R. 3675 in the 109th Congress.

                   DATA ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUST ACT

                         (H.R. 3997, H.R. 4127)

    To protect consumers by requiring reasonable security 
policies and procedures to protect computerized data containing 
personal information, and to provide for nationwide notice in 
the event of a security breach.

Summary

    The Data Accountability and Trust Act (DATA) requires the 
Federal Trade Commission ( FTC) to promulgate regulations that 
require each person engaged in interstate commerce that owns or 
possesses data in electronic form containing personal 
information to establish and implement policies and procedures 
regarding security practices for the treatment and protection 
of such information. The Act also provides for the terms of 
notification to consumers when their data is breached. 
Additional provisions provide for the conduct and obligations 
of data brokers. The Act stipulates penalties for violations 
and remedies for consumers. Finally, the Act provides for the 
relationship between Federal and State laws governing 
information security and notification practices.

Legislative History

    On July 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held a hearing on a Discussion Draft of 
Data Protection Legislation. The subcommittee received 
testimony from representatives of companies in the private 
sector.
    H.R. 3997 was introduced October 6, 2005, by Mr. LaTourette 
and referred to the Committee on Financial Services.
    On March 16, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3997 reported to the 
House, amended, by a record vote of 48 yeas and 17 nays.
    On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services 
reported H.R. 3997 to the House, as amended, (H. Rept. 109-454 
Part I). H.R. 3997 was referred sequentially to the House 
Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later 
than June 2, 2006, for consideration of such provisions of the 
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
Committee pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
    On May 24, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3997 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 42 yeas and 0 nays, 
a quorum being present.
    On June 2, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3997 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-454 
Part II), and H.R. 3997 was placed on the Union Calendar, 
Calendar No. 269.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 3997 in the 109th 
Congress.
    H.R. 4127 was introduced by Mr. Stearns and referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce on October 25, 2005.
    On November 1, 2005, it was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    On November 3, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection met in open markup session and 
forwarded H.R. 4127 to the full Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, amended, by a record vote of 13 yeas and 8 nays.
    On March 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4127 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 41 yeas and 0 nays, 
a quorum being present.
    On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4127 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-453, 
Part I), and H.R. 4127 was referred jointly and sequentially to 
the Committee on Financial Services for a period ending not 
later than June 2, 2006, for consideration of such provisions 
of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of 
that committee pursuant to clause 1(g), rule X, and the 
Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than 
June 2, 2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill 
and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(1), rule X.
    On May 24, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4127 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 25, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 4127 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote.
    On May 26, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 4127 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-453, Part II).
    On June 2, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services 
reported H.R. 4127 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-453, 
Part III).
    On June 2, 2006, H.R. 4127 was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 270.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4127 in the 109th 
Congress.

          PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO PHONE RECORDS ACT

                              (H.R. 4943)

    To prohibit fraudulent access to telephone records.

Summary

    The Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act 
makes it unlawful to attempt to obtain, or cause to be 
disclosed to any person, customer proprietary network 
information (CPNI) relating to any other person by: (1) making 
a false or fraudulent statement to an officer, employee, or 
agent of a telecommunications carrier; or (2) providing any 
document or other information to such officer, employee, or 
agent that the presenter knows or should have known to be 
forged, lost, stolen, or otherwise fraudulently obtained, or to 
contain a false or fraudulent statement or representation. The 
legislation also prohibits: (1) the solicitation of another 
person to fraudulently obtain such information; and (2) the 
sale or other disclosure of CPNI obtained under false 
pretenses. H.R. 4943 further provides for enforcement through 
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
    The legislation also amends the Communications Act of 1934 
to expand the responsibilities of telecommunications carriers 
with respect to the confidentiality of subscriber (customer) 
calling records. The legislation directs the FCC to prescribe 
regulations adopting more stringent security standards for CPNI 
(including detailed customer telephone records) to detect and 
prevent the fraudulent discloser of such information.

Legislative History

    On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held a hearing on the fraudulent sale of 
telephone records. The Committee received testimony from the 
Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade 
Commission, the Attorney General of Illinois, and 
representatives of telecommunications providers and privacy 
groups.
    On March 8, 2006, the Full Committee met in open markup 
session and ordered a Committee Print favorably reported to the 
House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. A 
request by Mr. Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill 
to be introduced by Mr. Barton, and that the actions of the 
Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, was agreed to by 
unanimous consent.
    On March 14, 2006, H.R. 4943 was introduced by Mr. Barton 
in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On March 16, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4943 (H. Rept. 109-398) which was placed on the 
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 217.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4943 in the 109th 
Congress.

              FEDERAL ENERGY PRICE PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5253)

    To prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel 
fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5253 requires the FTC to promulgate rules against the 
unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal 
Trade Commission Act for any person to sell crude oil, 
gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, or any biofuel at a 
price that constitutes price gouging. The bill contains 
guidelines for enforcement as well as civil and criminal 
penalties for violations.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5253 was introduced by Ms. Wilson (NM) on May 2, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and on 
the same day referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection.
    On May 3, 2006, H.R. 5253 was considered in the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed by a roll call vote of 389 
yeas and 34 nays.
    On May 4, 2006, H.R. 5253 was received in the Senate.
    On May 26, 2006, H.R. 5253 was read the first time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First 
Time.
    On June 5, 2006, H.R. 5253 was read the second time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 461.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5253 in the 109th 
Congress.

 REFORM OF NATIONAL SECURITY REVIEWS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS ACT

                              (H.R. 5337)

    To ensure national security while promoting foreign 
investment and the creation and maintenance of jobs, to reform 
the process by which such investments are examined for any 
effect they may have on national security, to establish the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5337 strengthens the process for reviewing foreign 
investment transactions in U.S. companies, clarify the role of 
the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States 
(CFIUS) and its membership, and improve transparency in the 
process. The bill establishes CFIUS and its membership as a 
standing inter-agency Committee chaired by the Secretary of 
Commerce and sets forth requirements for reviews and 
investigations and the timing thereof. H.R. 5337 provides 
criteria and requirements for reviews and automatic 
investigations of foreign government controlled transactions as 
well as covered transactions. Additionally, the bill sets forth 
reporting requirements for CFIUS on its activities to 
Congressional leadership and the Congressional Committees of 
jurisdiction.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5337 was introduced in the House on May 10, 2006, by 
Mr. Blunt and was referred to the Committee on Financial 
Services, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and 
Commerce, and International Relations, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On June 5, 2006, H.R. 5337 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
    On June 14, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5337 reported to the 
House, amended, by a record vote of 64 yeas and 0 nays.
    On June 22, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services 
reported H.R. 5337 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-523, 
Part I).
    On June 22, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
Committee on International Relations was granted an extension 
for further consideration ending not later than July 17, 2006.
    On July 11, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5337. 
Witnesses included representatives from the Business 
Roundtable, the Emergency Committee on American Trade, United 
States-China Economic and Security Review Commission, and a 
trade expert.
    On July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5337 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On July 17, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5337 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-523, 
Part II).
    The Committee on International Relations discharged H.R. 
5337 on July 17, 2006, and the bill was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 329.
    On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5337 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 424 yeas and 0 nays.
    On July 27, 2006, H.R. 5337 was received in the Senate and 
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
(Calendar No. 538.)
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5337 in the 109th 
Congress.

                    POOL AND SPA SAFETY ACT OF 2006

                               (S. 3718)

    A bill to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by 
requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and 
pool and spa drainage systems, by establishing a swimming pool 
safety grant program administered by the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission to encourage States to improve their pool and 
spa safety laws and to educate the public about pool and spa 
safety, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 3718 establishes swimming pool and spa safety 
requirements, and authorizes State and local governments to 
enforce these requirements. Violators are subject to the same 
penalties that would apply for violations of related State and 
local laws. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) to establish recommended minimum State law 
standards for swimming pools and spas requiring: (1) that any 
outdoor swimming pool or spa is enclosed by an appropriate 
fence or other barrier to prevent children from gaining 
unsupervised access; and (2) that any swimming pool or spa with 
a main drain is equipped with at least one anti-entrapment 
device.
    S. 3718 also directs the CPSC to require, at a minimum, one 
or more of the following: (1) a safety vacuum release system; 
(2) a suction-limiting vent system; (3) a gravity drainage 
system; (4) an automatic pump shut-off system; or (5) some 
device or system that disables the drain.
    S. 3718 requires the CPSC to establish: (1) a state 
swimming pool safety grant program to provide assistance to 
States in hiring and training State and local government 
employees in implementing and enforcing State swimming pool 
standards, educating the public, and administering safety 
programs; and (2) an education program to inform the public of 
methods to prevent drownings and entrapment in swimming pools 
and spas.
    Finally, S. 3718 authorizes $10 million to be appropriated 
to fund a CPSC grant program to incentivize the States to pass 
these minimum requirements, and authorizes $5 million to fund a 
CPSC consumer education program. Both of these authorizations 
of annual appropriations would extend for 5 years.

Legislative History

    S. 3718 was introduced by Senator Allen on July 24, 2006, 
and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On September 27, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation met in open markup session and ordered S. 
3718 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute favorably.
    On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation reported S. 3718 with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute with written report No. 109-357. S. 3718 
was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 654.
    On December 6, 2006 the Senate passed S. 3718 by unanimous 
consent.
    The House received S. 3718 on December 7, 2006, and it was 
held at the desk.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 3718 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and S. 3718 failed by a roll 
call vote of 191 yeas and 109 nays.
    No further action was taken on S. 3718 in the 109th 
Congress.

 EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT THE FEDERAL 
 TRADE COMMISSION SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE PUBLICATION OF THE VIDEO GAME 
     `GRANT THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS' TO DETERMINE IF THE PUBLISHER 
INENTIONALLY DECEIVED THE ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE RATINGS BOARD TO AVOID 
                        AN `ADULTS-ONLY' RATING.

                             (H. Res. 376)


Summary

    H. Res. 376 expresses the sense of the House of 
Representatives that: (1) the Federal Trade Commission should 
investigate the publication of the video game ``Grand Theft 
Auto: San Andreas'' to determine if the publisher, Rockstar 
Games, intentionally deceived the Entertainment Software 
Ratings Board to avoid an ``Adults-Only'' rating; and (2) if it 
determines Rockstar Games to have committed such deception or 
fraud, the Commission should apply the toughest of penalties.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 376 was introduced by Mr. Upton and referred to the 
House Committee on Energy and Commerce on July 22, 2005.
    On July 25, 2005, H. Res. 376 was considered under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House, amended, by a 
roll call vote of 355 yeas, 21 nays, and 1 voting present.

                          Oversight Activities


    STEROIDS IN SPORTS: CHEATING THE SYSTEM AND GAMBLING YOUR HEALTH

    On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Steroids in 
Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your Health. The 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 
examined the effect of increased use and availability of 
steroids on the health of the individuals and integrity of the 
competitions. Additionally, the Subcommittee examined methods 
to combat the use of steroids. Witnesses included a current 
Congressman, a parent of a deceased high school athlete who 
used steroids, health experts and researchers, the U.S. anti-
doping agency, and representatives of professional, collegiate, 
and high school athletic leagues and associations.

    PROTECTING CONSUMER'S DATA: POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY CHOICEPOINT

    On March 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Protecting 
Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint. The 
purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to data 
security and identity theft. The Subcommittee examined whether 
existing law provides sufficient protection for consumer 
information. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
Federal Trade Commission, two data brokers, a cybersecurity 
expert, and an expert on privacy law.

      THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC-CENTRAL AMERICA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

    On April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Dominican 
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, a representative from the U.S. business 
industry, a labor group, an advocate for free trade, American 
manufacturers, the American sugar industry, an economics 
professor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and an environmental 
group.

     SECURING CONSUMERS' DATA: OPTIONS FOLLOWING SECURITY BREACHES

    On May 11, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Securing 
Consumers' Data: Options Following Security Breaches. This 
hearing continued the Subcommittee's examination of consumer 
data security practices and consumer identify theft. The 
Subcommittee's primary focus was on whether existing law 
provides adequate protection for consumers and their data. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from two data brokers, a credit 
card company, a company specializing in digital encryption, and 
a law professor.

   ISSUES BEFORE THE US-CHINA JOINT COMMISSION ON COMMERCE AND TRADE 
                                 (JCCT)

    On June 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on issues before 
the JCCT. Under Secretary Dudas was Chair of the Intellectual 
Property Rights Working Group of the JCCT and thus the focus of 
the hearing centered on IP infringement to U.S. businesses that 
are estimated to be $2.5 to 3.5 billion in lost sales in 2004. 
Specifically, China's obligation as a member of the WTO and its 
commitments to prevent piracy and protect IP were examined, 
including China's commitments made at the prior meeting of the 
JCCT. The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Jon W. 
Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, 
Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    On June 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on 
Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. The purpose of the hearing was to inform 
Subcommittee Members about the pending reauthorization language 
in the Senate Transportation bill, and the potential inclusion 
of that language in the Transportation Conference report. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway 
Traffic and Safety Administration, the insurance industry, the 
automobile manufacturers, a public interest association that 
deals with automobile issues, an interest group that 
specializes in safety with regard to children.

     PRODUCT COUNTERFEITING: HOW FAKES ARE UNDERMINING U.S. JOBS, 
                    INNOVATION, AND CONSUMER SAFETY

    On Wednesday, June 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on 
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs, 
Innovation, and Consumer Safety. The purpose of the hearing was 
to examine issues related to the effects of product 
counterfeiting on the U.S. economy and consumers. The 
Subcommittee received testimony demonstrating the global 
marketplace for counterfeit goods has increased to $600 billion 
annually, regardless of quality of the product. The witnesses 
also described the safety implications for consumers and 
businesses who unknowingly buy or sell fake goods that do not 
meet safety regulations, such as faulty brake pads and 
counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Witnesses included representatives 
from a range of businesses engaged in manufacturing consumer 
products and pharmaceuticals, trade associations, and coalition 
of businesses formed to combat counterfeiting.

 THE COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION IMPLICATIONS OF HURRICANE KATRINA

    On September 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on The 
Commerce and Consumer Protection Implications of Hurricane 
Katrina. This hearing focused on the implications of Hurricane 
Katrina for the U.S. economy, as well as what might be done to 
protect consumers from deception and fraud that may arise from 
the disaster. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the 
manufacturing industry, the travel industry, and a think tank.

                 PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS AFTER KELO

    On October 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Protecting 
Property Rights After Kelo. The hearing examined the impact on 
property rights for homeowners and businesses of the Supreme 
Court decision in the Kelo et al v. New London Development 
Corporation case. Specifically, the use of eminent domain was 
examined in light of the interpretation to permit condemnation 
for economic development, or ``public benefit,'' rather than 
the traditional constitutional interpretation of ``public 
use.'' The Subcommittee received testimony from a law 
professor, property rights advocates, civil rights groups, 
think tanks, and an association representing property 
developers.

     RIGHT TO REPAIR: INDUSTRY DISCUSSIONS AND LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS

    On November 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Right 
to Repair: Industry Discussions and Legislative Options. The 
purpose of the hearing was to examine the status of industry 
negotiations to reach a non-legislative solution regarding the 
availability of service and repair information. Specifically, 
the industry participants held a series of meetings--
facilitated by the Council of Better Business Bureaus--during 
August and September 2005 in an effort to reach agreement. 
Witnesses included the Federal Trade Commission, the Council of 
Better Business Bureaus, the Coalition for Auto Repair 
Equality, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the AAA 
Auto Repair Network, the Automotive Service Association, the 
National Federation of Independent Business, Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers, Automotive Aftermarket 
Industry Association, and the National Automobile Dealers 
Association.

            FAIR USE: ITS EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY

    On November 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Fair Use: 
Its Effects on Consumers and Industry. The hearing focused on 
the concept of ``fair use'' of copyrighted works: what it is 
and how it affects consumers and industry. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from a law professor, the consumer 
electronics industry, the research libraries; the internet 
community, two think tanks, the video game industry, and 
representative from the writing community.

DETERMINING A CHAMPION ON THE FIELD: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE BCS 
                    AND POSTSEASON COLLEGE FOOTBALL

    On December 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on 
Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review of 
the BCS and Postseason College Football. The purpose of the 
hearing was to examine the current system for determining a 
national champion for Division I college football. Included in 
the discussion of whether the system was fair was the financial 
impact the bowl system and BCS system have on BCS and non-BCS 
teams and conferences. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
witnesses representing bowl coalitions, athletic conferences, a 
university chancellor, and individual bowls including a BCS 
bowl and a non-BCS bowl.

                 LAW AND ECONOMICS OF INTERCHANGE FEES

    On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Law 
and Economics of Interchange Fees. The hearing explored what 
these fees are, how payment systems are structured, and how 
they affect consumers, small businesses, and others. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the electronic payments 
industry, the convenience store industry, a coalition of small 
businesses, and a public interest group.

 CAR TITLE FRAUD: ISSUES AND APPROACHES FOR KEEPING CONSUMERS SAFE ON 
                                THE ROAD

    On March 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine Car 
Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe 
on the Road. Specifically, the Subcommittee examined the safety 
and fraud aspects for consumers that results when a damaged car 
receives a new title from another State that does not show the 
damage and is then sold to consumers fraudulently representing 
or hiding its actual condition. Witnesses described 
alternatives to the Federal regulatory regimes and the previous 
attempts to provide uniform Federal titling laws. The 
subcommittee received testimony from witnesses representing a 
State Department of Motor Vehicles, a consumer group, and 
industry participants.

THE INTERSECTION OF THE CONTENT INDUSTRIES AND THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS 
                                INDUSTRY

    On March 29 and May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a two-part oversight 
hearing exploring the intersection of the content industry and 
the consumer electronics industry, both how they are 
interdependent now and how they will continue to be in the 
future. The March 29, 2006, hearing focused on the video side 
of the industry, and the Subcommittee received testimony from 
two consumer electronics companies, the motion picture 
industry, and the video game industry. The May 3, 2006, hearing 
focused on the audio side of the industry, and the Subcommittee 
received testimony from a satellite radio company, the 
recording industry, the broadcasters; the songwriters, and a 
high-tech company.

 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS IN COMMERCE: RECONCILING BENEFICIAL USES WITH 
                           THREATS TO PRIVACY

    On May 11, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Social 
Security Numbers In Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with 
Threats to Privacy. The hearing focused on privacy threats with 
regard to the dissemination of Social Security Numbers. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade 
Commission, the financial industry, an expert in pensions, a 
lawyer, and an expert in consumer privacy.

  VIOLENT AND EXPLICIT VIDEO GAMES: INFORMING PARENTS AND PROTECTING 
                                CHILDREN

    On June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Violent & 
Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents & Protecting Children. 
The hearing focused on the content of video games and the 
system of rating those games. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the Federal Trade Commission, a large retailer, 
the video game industry, the video games rating group, a 
professor of risk analysis and decision science, an expert in 
technology for children, and a media review public interest 
group.

                   PRIVACY IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD II

    On June 20, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Privacy in the 
Commercial World II. The hearing focused on the state of 
privacy protections in commercial transactions. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from an online auction site, a 
think tank, a law professor, a high-tech company, and an expert 
in consumer privacy.

  MOTOR VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY AND THE CONSUMER: VIEWS FROM THE NATIONAL 
                 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    On July 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Motor Vehicle 
Technology and the Consumer: Views from the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. The hearing was about new 
technologies developing in the world of automobiles. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway 
Traffic and Safety Administration.

       CONTACT LENS SALES: IS MARKET REGULATION THE PRESCRIPTION?

    On September 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Contact 
Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the Prescription? The focus of 
the hearing was the current state of the contact lens market. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade 
Commission, the Attorney General of the State of Utah, a 
contact lens retailer, a contact lens manufacturer, a 
representative of the American Academy of Ophthalmology; and a 
representative of the American Optometric Association.

               ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE: IS IT WORKING?

    On September 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to examine 
issues related to ICANN. Specifically the Subcommittee examined 
the trade-related issues of the current structure for U.S. 
businesses and the consumer benefits of non multi national 
governmental entity supervising or regulating the Internet, as 
had been proposed by some countries. The Subcommittees received 
testimony from the Department of Commerce, the chief executive 
officer of ICANN, and representatives of the software and 
information industry as well as public policy organizations.

       EDITING HOLLYWOOD'S EDITORS: CLEANING FLICKS FOR FAMILIES

    On September 26, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Editing 
Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for Families. The hearing 
focused on different methods and new technologies that allow 
consumers to view movies while muting or removing content that 
some viewers may find offensive or unnecessarily explicit. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from a consumer electronics 
company, the motion picture industry, a representative of the 
creative community, and a high-tech think tank.

                             Hearings Held

    United States Boxing Commission Act.--Hearing on United 
States Boxing Commission Act. Hearing held on March 3, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-6.
    Steroids in Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your 
Health.--Oversight hearing on Steroids in Sports: Cheating the 
System and Gambling Your Health. Hearing held on March 10, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-65.
    Protecting Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by 
ChoicePoint.--Oversight hearing on Protecting Consumer's Data: 
Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint. Hearing held on March 15, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-76.
    Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement.--
Oversight hearing on Dominican Republic-Central America Free 
Trade Agreement. Hearing held on April 28, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-18.
    Securing Consumers' Data: Options Following Security 
Breaches.--Oversight hearing on Securing Consumers' Data: 
Options Following Security Breaches. Hearing held on May 11, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-14.
    The Drug Free Sports Act of 2005.--Hearings on The Drug 
Free Sports Act of 2005. Hearings held on May 18, 2005, and May 
19, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-15.
    Issues Before the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce 
and Trade.--Oversight hearing on Issues Before the U.S.-China 
Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade. Hearing held on June 9, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-73.
    Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. 
Jobs, Innovation, and Consumer Safety.--Oversight hearing on 
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs, 
Innovation, and Consumer Safety. Hearing held on June 15, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-26.
    Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration.--Oversight hearing on Reauthorization of the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hearing held on 
June 23, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-27.
    Data Security: The Discussion Draft of Data Protection 
Legislation.--Hearing on Data Security: The Discussion Draft of 
Data Protection Legislation. Hearing held on July 28, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-48.
    The Commerce and Consumer Protection Implications of 
Hurricane Katrina.--Oversight hearing on The Commerce and 
Consumer Protection Implications of Hurricane Katrina. Hearing 
held on September 22, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-74.
    Protecting Property Rights After Kelo.--Oversight hearing 
on Protecting Property Rights After Kelo. Hearing held on 
October 19, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-55.
    Right to Repair: Industry Discussions and Legislative 
Options.--Oversight hearing on Right to Repair: Industry 
Discussions and Legislative Options. Hearing held on November 
10, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-81.
    Fair Use: Its Effects on Consumers and Industry.--Oversight 
hearing on Fair Use: Its Effects on Consumers and Industry. 
Hearing held on November 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
78.
    Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review 
of the BCS and Postseason College Football.--Oversight hearing 
on Determining a Champion on the Field: A Comprehensive Review 
of the BCS and Postseason College Football. Hearing held on 
December 7, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-42.
    The Law and Economics of Interchange Fees.--Oversight 
hearing on The Law and Economics of Interchange Fees. Hearing 
held on February 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-61.
    Car Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping 
Consumers Safe on the Road.--Oversight hearing on Car Title 
Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe on the 
Road. Hearing held on March 1, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 
109-64.
    Digital Content and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 
21st Century Consumer.--Oversight hearings on Digital Content 
and Enabling Technology: Satisfying the 21st Century Consumer. 
Hearings held on March 29, 2006, and May 3, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-90.
    Social Security Numbers in Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial 
Uses with Threats to Privacy.--Oversight hearing on Social 
Security Numbers in Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with 
Threats to Privacy. Hearing held on May 11, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-91.
    H.R. 2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act of 
2005.--Hearing on H.R. 2048, The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to 
Repair Act of 2005. Hearing held on May 17, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-93.
    Violent and Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents and 
Protecting Children.--Oversight hearing on Violent and Explicit 
Video Games: Informing Parents and Protecting Children. Hearing 
held on June 14, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-105.
    Privacy in the Commercial World II.--Oversight hearing on 
Privacy in the Commercial World II. Hearing held on June 20, 
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-99.
    CFIUS Reform: H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security 
Reviews of Foreign Direct Investments Act.--Hearing on CFIUS 
Reform: H.R. 5337, the Reform of National Security Reviews of 
Foreign Direct Investments Act. Hearing held on July 11, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-110.
    Motor Vehicle Technology and the Consumer: Views from the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.--Oversight 
hearing on Motor Vehicle Technology and the Consumer: Views 
from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
Hearing held on July 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-111.
    H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act.--
Hearing on H.R. 503, a bill to amend the Horse Protection Act. 
Hearing held on July 25, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-127.
    Contact Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the 
Prescription?.--Oversight hearing on Contact Lens Sales: Is 
Market Regulation the Prescription? Hearing held on September 
15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-139.
    ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working?.--Joint oversight 
hearing with the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the 
Internet on ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working? Hearing 
held on September 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-142.
    Editing Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for 
Families.--Oversight hearing on Editing Hollywood's Editors: 
Cleaning Flicks for Families. Hearing held on September 26, 
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-144.
                 Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality

           (Ratio 18-15)

    RALPH HALL, Texas, Chairman

                                     MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
                                     ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
                                     JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
                                       Vice Chairman
                                     HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
                                     JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
                                     CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
                                       Mississippi
                                     VITO FOSSELLA, New York
                                     GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
                                     MARY BONO, California
                                     GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
                                     C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
                                     JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
LOIS CAPPS, California
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JIM DAVIS, Florida
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
  (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: National energy policy generally; fossil energy, 
renewable energy resources and synthetic fuels; energy conservation; 
energy information; energy regulation and utilization; utility issues 
and regulation of nuclear facilities; interstate energy compacts; 
nuclear energy and waste; the Clean Air Act; all laws, programs, and 
government activities affecting such matters; and, homeland security-
related aspects of the foregoing.

                         Legislative Activities


                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

                 Public Law 109-58 (H.R. 6, H.R. 1640)

    To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and 
reliable energy.

Summary

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) includes a wide 
variety of provisions intended to increase energy supply and 
encourage energy efficiency. Provisions within the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce are highlighted below.
    EPAct 2005 provides for incentive-based electric 
transmission rates, allows transmission owners in certain 
instances with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 
approval to exercise the right of eminent domain to site new 
transmission lines, and gives new, but limited, authority to 
FERC over municipal and cooperative transmission systems. In 
addition, EPAct 2005 repeals the Public Utility Holding Company 
Act of 1935 (PUHCA) and gives FERC and State public utility 
commissions access to books and records, prospectively repeals 
the mandatory purchase requirement of the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), and establishes market 
transparency rules.
    EPAct 2005 also authorizes FERC to certify an electric 
reliability organization to develop and enforce reliability 
standards for the bulk transmission system. The Act also 
provides for a system to improve transparency of electricity 
markets, prohibits round trip trades, and increases civil and 
criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act.
    EPAct 2005 also amends procedures for the relicensing of 
hydroelectric dams.
    Additionally, EPAct 2005 reauthorizes the Price-Anderson 
Act nuclear liability system through December 31, 2025. Under 
Price-Anderson, commercial reactor accident damages are paid 
through a combination of private-sector insurance and a nuclear 
industry self-insurance system. Price-Anderson also authorizes 
the Department of Energy (DOE) to indemnify its nuclear 
contractors.
    With regard to transportation, EPAct 2005 creates a 
renewable fuel standard (RFS) requiring in 2006 the blending of 
4.0 billion gallons of renewable fuel with gasoline sold or 
dispensed to consumers. This number increases to 7.5 billion 
gallons in 2012. Qualifying as renewable fuel are ethanol (both 
cellulosic and waste-derived), biodiesel, and other renewable 
feedstocks. EPAct 2005 amends the Clean Air Act by eliminating 
the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline while 
maintaining the emissions reductions gained by the reformulated 
gasoline program.
    EPAct 2005 also provides new Federal authorities and 
requirements for the Federal Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
program. For example, it requires onsite inspections of 
underground storage tanks every three years, establishes 
operator-training programs where they do not already exist, and 
institutes a specific new funding category to clean up tank-
related releases of oxygenated fuel additives in gasoline, like 
MTBE.
    EPAct 2005 also authorizes EPA, in consultation with DOE, 
to temporarily waive motor fuel requirements under certain 
motor fuel supply emergencies and to limit the number of fuels 
permitted for use in State Implementation Plans.
    With regard to energy conservation, EPAct 2005 directs DOE 
to set efficiency standards for various appliances and sets 
standards for various commercial appliances. EPAct 2005 also 
requires progressive annual reductions in energy use by Federal 
buildings from FY 2003 levels, culminating in a 20% reduction 
by FY 2015. Furthermore, EPAct 2005 amends the starting and 
ending dates for Daylight Savings Time beginning in 2007, and 
authorizes Energy Savings Performance Contracts through 2016.
    EPAct 2005 also authorizes the filling of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve to a capacity of one billion barrels.
    With regard to technology advancement, EPAct 2005 provides 
incentives through cost sharing to improve and bring to market 
new clean coal technologies, and also provides authorization 
for new programs to develop hydrogen fuel infrastructure. In 
addition, EPAct 2005 also provides incentives for the 
development of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind 
energy.
    EPAct 2005 provides authorizations for DOE's fossil fuel 
program for existing and new coal-based research and 
development, and provides authorization for the Secretary of 
Energy to carry out the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which will 
provide funding to those projects that can demonstrate advanced 
coal-based power generating technologies that achieve 
significant reductions in emissions, and where at least 70 
percent of this authorization will be used for projects related 
to coal-based gasification technology.
    Finally, EPAct 2005 launches a program to support hydrogen-
powered automobiles on the road by 2020, along with the 
necessary infrastructure to provide for the safe delivery of 
hydrogen fuels.

Legislative History

    On February 9, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and 
Commerce held a legislative hearing on the Energy Policy Act of 
2005. The Committee received testimony from the Secretary of 
Energy.
    On February 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality conducted a legislative hearing to examine the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. The perspectives of the Department of 
Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and various representatives of the energy 
industry were considered. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from energy representatives of the Federal government, private 
industry, consumers, and other stakeholders.
    On February 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a legislative hearing to examine the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss oil and 
gas issues, motor fuels and ethanol, nuclear energy, and coal. 
Also discussed was renewable energy, specifically 
hydroelectric, hydrogen and solar energy. The subcommittee 
received testimony from representatives of the oil and gas 
industry as well as the nuclear power and coal industries, 
representatives from consumer groups, environmental advocates 
and advocates for the various types of renewable energy.
    On April 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered a Committee 
Print reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 39 
yeas and 16 nays, a quorum being present. A request by Mr. 
Barton that the Committee be permitted to file a report on a 
bill to be introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be 
deemed as action on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous 
consent.
    H.R. 1640 was introduced by Mr. Barton on April 14, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in 
addition, to the Committees on Science, Resources, Education 
and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial 
Services, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned.
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1640, as 
amended, to the House, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request, on July 29, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-215, Part I).
    All Committees were discharged from further consideration 
of the bill on July 29, 2005, and no further action on H.R. 
1640 was taken in the 109th Congress.
    On April 18, 2005, Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6, which was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, 
Financial Services, Agriculture, Resources, Science, Ways and 
Means, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to 
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    As introduced, H.R. 6 contained provisions that were 
substantially similar to provisions in H.R. 1640, as well as 
H.R. 1530, H.R. 1533, and H.R. 1705.
    On April 20 and April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 was considered in 
the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 219.
    On April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the House, as amended, by 
a roll call vote of 249 yeas and 183 nays.
    H.R. 6 was received in the Senate on April 26, 2005. On 
June 9, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 124.
    H.R. 6 was considered in the Senate on June 14, 15, 16, 20, 
21, 22, and 23, 2005.
    On June 23, 2005, the Senate invoked cloture on H.R. 6 by a 
record vote of 92 yeas and 4 nays.
    On June 28, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by a record vote of 85 yeas and 12 nays, and on July 
1, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the House and 
appointed conferees.
    On July 13, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference. On July 14, 2005, the 
Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce for consideration of the House bill and Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference.
    The Conference Committee met on July 14, 19, 21, and 24, 
2005. The conferees agreed to file the conference report on 
July 26, 2005, and the conference report was filed on July 27, 
2005 (H. Rept. 109-190).
    The House considered and agreed to the conference report, 
pursuant to H. Res. 394, on July 28, 2005, by a vote of 275 
yeas and 156 nays.
    On July 28, 2005, the conference report was considered in 
the Senate by unanimous consent, and on July 29, 2005, the 
conference report was agreed to by a record vote of 74 yeas and 
26 nays and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 6 was presented to the President on August 4, 2005, 
and was signed by the President on August 8, 2005 (Public Law 
109-58).

  SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A 
                            LEGACY FOR USERS

                       Public Law 109-59 (H.R. 3)


Summary

    Titles I and IV of the Safe Accountable, Flexible, 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 
contain provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce. Title I expands the projects 
and programs eligible for funding under the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). 
Additional eligible projects include advanced truck stop 
electrification, the purchase of alternative fuels, and diesel 
retrofits, which are given priority along with other cost-
effective congestion mitigation activities. It amends Section 
108 of the Clean Air Act to limit eligibility of transportation 
control measures and projects to those that are likely to 
contribute to a high level of effectiveness in reducing air 
pollution. Title VI amends Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act 
governing transportation conformity. It adjusts the frequency 
of conformity determinations for Metropolitan Transportation 
Plans and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs) including 
statewide transportation improvement plans to every four years 
in nonattainment and maintenance areas, unless a metropolitan 
planning organization (MPO) elects to update the plan or TIP 
more frequently or conformity is triggered by an EPA SIP 
action. The length of time into the future an MPO must examine 
when determining conformity is also adjusted from 20 years to 
10 years in certain circumstances. A one year grace period of 
12 months is permitted before a conformity lapse shall be 
considered to exist and the consequences of a conformity lapse 
apply. Furthermore certain barriers are removed for regions 
implementing transportation control measures (TCMs) to improve 
regional air quality. In addition, Title VI directs EPA to 
conduct a study of the ability of monitors to differentiate 
coarse particulate matter and requires EPA to promulgate 
regulations permitting Governors to petition EPA to exclude air 
quality data directly due to events such as forest fires or 
volcanic eruptions from determinations of whether a region is 
meeting its air quality goals as required under the Clean Air 
Act. Title VI also includes provisions establishing an EPA 
program to award grants for the retrofit or replacement of 
school buses to help localities reduce emissions.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on February 9, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
    On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3, to discuss the 
provisions that would amend the Clean Air Act. The purpose of 
the hearing was to allow the subcommittee to seek methods of 
conformity and how those adjustments in the conformity process 
as described by H.R. 3 will aid in developing transportation 
plans that meet air quality goals. The subcommittee received 
testimony from Federal government officials, as well as 
individuals from the private sector.
    On March 2, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
    On March 7, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 
109-12, Part I).
    On March 8, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure filed a supplemental report for H.R. 3 to the 
House, amended (H. Rept. 109-12, Part II).
    On March 9 and 10, 2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 140 and H. Res. 144.
    On March 10, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the House, as amended, by 
a roll call vote of 417 yeas and 9 nays.
    H.R. 3 was received in the Senate on March 20, 2005. On 
April 6, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.
    On April 26, 2005, cloture on motion to proceed to 
consideration of H.R. 3 was invoked in Senate by a record vote 
of 94 yeas and 6 nays.
    On April 27 and 28, and May 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17, 
2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the Senate.
    On May 17, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the Senate with an amendment 
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 11 nays.
    On May 26, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the 
House and appointed conferees.
    On May 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of provisions in the House bill and Senate 
amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of 
transportation planning contained in secs. 6001 and 6006 of the 
House bill, and sections 6005 and 6006 of the Senate amendment; 
and sections 1210, 1824, 1833, 5203, and 6008 of the House 
bill, and sections 1501, 1511, 1522, 1610-1619, 1622, 4001, 
4002, 6016, 6023, 7218, 7223, 7251, 7252, 7256-7262, 7324, 
7381, 7382, and 7384 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference.
    The conference committee met on June 9, 2005, and the 
conferees agreed to file the conference report on July 28, 2005 
(H. Rept. 109-203).
    The House considered and agreed to the conference report, 
pursuant to H. Res. 399, on July 29, 2005, by a roll call vote 
of 412 yeas and 8 nays.
    On July 29, 2005, the conference report was considered in 
the Senate, agreed to by a record vote of 91 yeas and 4 nays, 
and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 3 was presented to and signed by the President on 
August 10, 2005 (Public Law 109-59).

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    Section 3201 of both bills authorized funds for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1815 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 26, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 20, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 1815.
    On May 20, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services reported 
H.R. 1815 to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 109-89). H.R. 1815 
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
    On May 25, 2005, H.R. 1815 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 293, and passed the House, as amended, by a 
roll call vote of 390 yeas and 39 nays.
    H.R. 1815 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2005, read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On November 15, 2005, H.R. 1855 was laid before the Senate 
and passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On December 15, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and on December 16, 
2005, the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for consideration of sections 314, 601, 
1032, and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 312, 1084, 2893, 
3116, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference.
    On December 18, 2005, the conferees filed the conference 
report (H. Rept. 109-360).
    On December 18, 2005, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 1815 was considered in the House, and on December 19, 
2005, the conference report as unfinished business, and passed 
the House by a roll call vote of 374 yeas and 41 nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report was considered 
in the Senate, agreed to by a voice vote, and cleared for the 
White House.
    H.R. 1815 was presented to the President on January 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 6, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163).

TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE ENERGY 
                           POLICY ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-168 (H.R. 4637)

    To make certain technical corrections in amendments made by 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Summary

    H.R. 4637 makes technical corrections to Title XVII of 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 in Section 1703(c)(4) by striking 
``clean coal power initiative under subtitle A of title IV 
for'' and inserting ``Department of Energy's Clean Coal Power 
Initiative for Fischer-Tropsch'' and in Section 1704(b) by 
striking ``clean coal power initiative under subtitle A of 
title IV'' and inserting ``Clean Coal Power Initiative''.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4637 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on December 18, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On December 19, 2005, H.R. 4637 was discharged from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce by unanimous consent, and the 
bill was considered and passed by the House by unanimous 
consent.
    H.R. 4637 was received in the Senate on December 19, 2005, 
and read twice. On December 22, 2005, H.R. 4637 passed the 
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent and was cleared 
for the White House.
    H.R. 4637 was presented to the president on January 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 10, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-168).

                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

                Public Law 109-171 (S. 1932, H.R. 4241)


                     (Title IX--LIHEAP Provisions)

    To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 
(H. Con. Res. 95).

Summary

    Section 1301 amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment 
Act of 2002 to reduce FY 2007 funding for the renewable energy 
systems and energy efficiency improvements program.
    Title IX appropriates to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services for one-time only obligation and expenditure for low-
income energy assistance: (1) $250 million for FY2007; and (2) 
$750 million for FY2007. A sunset date of September 30, 2007 is 
established for the provisions of this section.

Legislative History

    On October 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print 
entitled Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina energy 
relief, as amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 22 nays. A 
motion by Mr. Barton to transmit the recommendations of the 
Committee, and all appropriate accompanying material including 
additional, supplemental, or dissenting views, to the House 
Committee on the Budget, in order to comply with the 
reconciliation directive included in Section 201(a) of the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H. 
Con. Res. 95, and consistent with Section 310 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, was 
agreed to by a voice vote.
    On October 27, 2005, Mr. Gregg introduced S. 1932 and the 
Senate Committee on the Budget reported without a written 
report.
    On November 3, 2005, S. 1932 was passed and agreed to in 
the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 nays.
    On November 7, 2005, Mr. Nussle introduced H.R. 4241, which 
included the Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina 
energy relief, and the House Committee on The Budget reported 
an original measure (H. Rept. 109-276).
    On November 17, 2005, H.R. 4241 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 560, and passed the House on November 18, 
2005, by a roll call vote of 217 yeas and 215 nays. No further 
action was taken on H.R. 4241 in the 109th Congress.
    On November 18, 2005, S. 1932 was considered in the House 
by unanimous consent, and was agreed to, amended, without 
objection.
    On December 14, 2005, the Senate disagreed to the amendment 
of the House, and requested a conference on S. 1932 by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 15, 2005, the Senate appointed conferees.
    On December 16, 2005, Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent 
that the House insist upon its amendment, and agree to a 
conference. The request was agreed to without objection.
    On December 16, 2005, the Speaker of the House appointed 
conferees for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House 
amendment thereto, and modifications committed to conference. 
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce for consideration of title III and title VI of the 
Senate bill and title III of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Deal (GA), 
and Dingell.
    On December 19, 2005, the conference report to accompany S. 
1932 (H. Rept. 109-362) was filed, considered under the 
provisions of H. Res. 640, and the House agreed to the 
conference report by a roll call vote of 212 yeas and 206 nays.
    On December 19, 20, and 21, 2005, the conference report was 
considered in the Senate.
    On December 21, 2005, Senate concurred in the House 
amendment with an amendment by a record vote of 51 yeas and 50 
nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report was defeated by 
operation of the Budget Act.
    On January 31, 2006, the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 
653 provided for consideration of S. 1932, upon adoption of the 
resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
    On February 1, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653.
    On February 7, 2006, S. 1932 was presented to the President 
and was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006 
(Public Law 109-171).

A BILL TO MAKE AVAILABLE FUNDS INCLUDED IN THE DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 
2005 FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                      2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                      Public Law 109-204 (S. 2320)

    A bill to make available funds included in the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 2320 makes available $1 billion in additional LIHEAP 
funds for fiscal year 2006. The funds are allocated as $500 
million in regular funds and $500 million in contingency funds. 
These funds were reallocated and moved to fiscal year 2006 from 
fiscal year 2007 as provided in Title IX of the Deficit 
Reduction Act of 2005.

Legislative History

    S. 2320 was introduced by Ms. Snowe on February 16, 2006, 
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 
under Read the First Time.
    On February 17, 2006, S. 2320 was read twice and placed on 
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar 
No. 363.
    On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed a motion to waive the 
Budget Act with respect to the measure by a record vote of 66 
yeas and 31 nays.
    On March 2, 3, and 7, 2006, S. 2320 was considered by the 
Senate, and on March 7, 2006, the Senate invoked cloture on the 
bill by a record vote of 75 yeas and 25 nays.
    On March 7, 2006, S. 2320 passed the Senate by voice vote.
    S. 2320 was received in the House on March 7, 2006, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On March 16, 2006, S. 2320 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, passed by a roll call vote of 
287 yeas and 128 nays, and cleared for the White House.
    S. 2320 was presented to the President on March 17, 2006, 
and signed by the President on March 20, 2006 (Public Law 109-
204).

        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

                     Public Law 109-295 (H.R. 5441)

    Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    Title IV of H.R. 5441 contained language, relevant to the 
jurisdiction of the Committee, that prohibited reimbursement of 
other Federal agencies with Federal funds in fiscal year 2009 
and that not more than $3,000 shall be available for official 
reception and representation purposes. In addition, Title IV 
prohibited the Department of Homeland Security from obtaining 
$15 million unless the Domestic Nuclear Detention Office had 
officially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
with each Federal entity and organization that such MOU 
included a description of the role, responsibilities, and 
resource commitment of each Federal entity or organization for 
the global architecture. Finally, Title IV prohibited Federal 
funding of the Advanced Spectroscopic Portal Monitors (ASPM) 
until the Department of Homeland Security could certify that a 
significant increase in operational effectiveness for the ASPM 
will be achieved.
    As part of the General Provisions of H.R. 5441, and related 
to Rule X, Clause 1(f)(6) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, Section 533 requires the Director of the 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to operate extramural and 
intramural research, development, demonstrations, testing and 
evaluation programs so as to distribute funding through grants, 
cooperative agreements, other transactions and contracts.
    In addition, in Section 611 of H.R. 5441, relating to the 
Committee's public health jurisdiction, Sections 501 and 504 of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 311 et seq.) 
concerning the Nuclear Incident Response Team were transferred 
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and subsumed into 
other sections of Title V, including Section 517 under that 
Act.

Legislative History

    On May 22, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations 
reported an original measure, (H. Rept. 109-476), which was 
introduced by Mr. Rogers (KY) as H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441 was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 264.
    On May 25, 2006 and June 6, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered 
in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 836. On June 6, 
2006, H.R. 5441 passed the House by a roll call vote of 389 
yeas and 9 nays.
    On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 5441 reported with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
    On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations reported 
by Senator Gregg with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, with written report No. 109-273, and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 
503.
    On July 11, 12, and 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by 
Senate, and on July 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 passed the Senate with 
an amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. The 
Senate insists on its amendment, asked for a conference, and 
appointed conferees.
    On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment, and agreed to a conference.
    On September 25, 2006, the conferees agreed to file 
conference report.
    On September 28, 2006, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 5441 was filed (H. Rept. 109-699).
    The conference report to accompany H.R. 5441 was considered 
in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1054 on 
September 29, 2006, and passed the House by a roll call vote of 
412 yeas and 6 nays.
    On September 29, 2006, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 5441 was considered in the Senate, agreed to by a voice 
vote, and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 5441 was presented to the President on October 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on October 4, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-295).

     TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 
              HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF ALASKA

                      Public Law 109-297 (S. 176)

    To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 
a hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

Summary

    S. 176 extends the time in the project license to begin 
construction on the 5 MW Reynolds Creek hydroelectric project 
in Alaska for three additional two-year periods that begin four 
years after the original license was issued by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission.

Legislative History

    S. 176 was introduced by Ms. Murkowski on January 26, 2005, 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
    On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources ordered S. 176 reported without amendment favorably.
    On March 10, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With 
written report No. 109-29. S. 176 was placed on Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 42.
    On July 26, 2006, S. 176 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    S. 176 was received in the House on July 27, 2005, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On August 5, 2006, S. 176 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Air Quality.
    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a two part hearing. The first half of the hearing 
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear 
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of 
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and 
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
    The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R. 
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the 
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee 
received testimony from Members of Congress and a 
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered S. 176 favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported S. 176 to the House (H. Rept. 109-681), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 411.
    On September 26, 2006, S. 176 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed by voice vote.
    S. 176 was cleared for the White House on September 26, 
2006, and presented to the President on September 28, 2006. The 
President signed S. 176 on October 5, 2006 (Public Law 109-
297).

     TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF A 
             HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE STATE OF WYOMING

                      Public Law 109-298 (S. 244)

    To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 
a hydroelectric project in the State of Wyoming.

Summary

    S. 244 extends the time in the project license to begin 
construction on the 1.5 MW Swift Creek hydroelectric project in 
Wyoming for three additional two-year periods that begin four 
years after the original license was issued by the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission.

Legislative History

    S. 244 was introduced by Mr. Thomas (WY) on February 1, 
2005, read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
    On February 9, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources ordered S. 244 reported without amendment favorably.
    On March 10, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With 
written report No. 109-32. S. 244 was placed on Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 45.
    On July 26, 2006, S. 244 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    S. 244 was received in the House on July 27, 2005, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held a hearing 
on the bill on September 13, 2006.
    On August 5, 2006, S. 244 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Air Quality.
    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a two part hearing. The first half of the hearing 
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear 
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of 
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and 
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
    The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R. 
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the 
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee 
received testimony from Members of Congress and a 
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered S. 244 favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported S. 244 to the House (H. Rept. 109-682), and it was 
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 412.
    On September 26, 2006, S. 244 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice 
vote.
    S. 244 was cleared for the White House on September 26, 
2006, and presented to the President on September 28, 2006. The 
President signed S. 244 on October 5, 2006 (Public Law 109-
298).

             SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT

                     Public Law 109-347 (H.R. 4954)

    To improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced 
layered defenses, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 4954 authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to 
establish programs to increase the security of maritime 
commerce and the international supply chain including 
provisions to improve detection of biological or radiological 
threats, coordinate responses to those threats among several 
agencies including the Department of Energy and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, and protocols for the resumption of 
trade following an incident.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4954 was introduced by Mr. Lundgren on March 14, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
    On April 26, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4954 reported to the 
House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On April 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
the Committee on Homeland Security exchanged correspondence 
relating to H.R. 4954.
    On April 28, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security 
reported H.R. 4954 to the House (H. Rept. 109-447, Part I.). 
H.R. 4954 was referred sequentially to the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for a period ending not later 
than May 1, 2006, for consideration of such provisions of the 
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
committee pursuant to clause 1(r), rule X.
    On May 1, 2006, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure was discharged from further consideration of 
H.R. 4954.
    On May 4, 2006, pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 789, 
H.R. 4954 was considered by the House and passed by a roll call 
vote of 421 yeas and 2 nays.
    On May 8, 2006, H.R. 4954 was received in the Senate.
    On May 15, 2006, H.R. 4954 was read the first time, and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under read the First 
Time.
    On May 16, 2006, H.R. 4954 was read the second time, and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 432.
    On September 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14, 2006, H.R. 4954 was 
considered in the Senate.
    On September 14, 2006, cloture was invoked in Senate by a 
record vote of 98 yeas and 0 nays, and H.R. 4954 passed the 
Senate with an amendment by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0 
nays.
    On September 19, 2006, the Senate requested a conference 
with the House and appointed conferees.
    On September 28, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference. The Speaker appointed 
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for 
consideration of Titles VI and X and section 1104 of the Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference.
    The conference report to accompany H.R. 4954 (H. Rept. 109-
711) was filed on September 29, 2006.
    On September 29, 2006, pursuant to the provisions H. Res. 
1064, the conference report to accompany H.R. 4954 was 
considered in the House and on September 30, 2006, the 
conference report was agreed to by a roll call vote of 409 yeas 
and 2 nays.
    The Senate agreed to the conference report by unanimous 
consent on September 30, 2006, and cleared H.R. 4954 for the 
White House.
    H.R. 4954 was presented to the President on October 3, 
2006, and was signed by the President on October 13, 2006, 
(Public Law No. 109-347).

  JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122, S. 2766)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5122 directs the Secretary to designate energy 
performance goals for DOD military transportation and support 
systems and installations consistent with the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005. The bill requires the Secretary to include 
consideration of alternate energy initiatives for vehicles and 
military support equipment. It authorizes the Secretary to 
consider longer positive net value returns for certain 
equipment upgrades supporting industrial processes. In 
addition, it requires the Secretary to ensure that energy-
efficient products meeting DOD's requirements, if cost-
effective over the life cycle of the product and readily 
available, be used in new facility construction in connection 
with such systems and installations.
    The bill authorizes appropriations to the Department of 
Energy (DOE) for FY2007 for: (1) activities of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in carrying out programs 
necessary for national security, with specified allocations for 
weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation 
activities, naval reactors, and the Office of the Administrator 
for Nuclear Security; and (2) environmental restoration and 
waste management activities in carrying out national security 
programs, with specified allocations for defense environmental 
cleanup, other defense activities, and defense nuclear waste 
disposal.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5122 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 6, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House, 
amended, by a record vote of 60 yeas and 1 nay.
    On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services reported 
H.R. 5122 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-452). H.R. 
5122 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
    On May 9, 2006, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 5122.
    On May 10 and 11, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5122 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 806 and H. Res. 811. On 
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5122, passed the House by a roll call vote 
of 396 ayes and 31 nays.
    On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5122 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 431.
    On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5122 was laid before the Senate and 
passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On September 7, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of sections 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117, 
and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 332-335, 352, 601, 
722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    The Conference Committee met on September 12, 2005, and the 
conferees filed the conference report to accompany H.R. 5122 on 
September 29, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-702).
    On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5122 pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 1062, and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 398 yeas 
and 23 nays.
    On September 30, 2006, the conference report was considered 
in the Senate, agreed to by unanimous consent, and cleared for 
the White House. H.R. 5122 was presented to the President on 
October 5, 2006, and signed by the President on October 17, 
2006 (Public Law 109-364).

    TO EXTEND THE TIME REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A HYDROELECTRIC 
                    PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                     Public Law 109-393 (H.R. 4377)

    To extend the time required for construction of a 
hydroelectric project, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 4377 extends the time in the project license to begin 
construction on the 15 MW Arrowrock hydroelectric project in 
Idaho by three years from the date of enactment of the bill.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4377 was introduced by Mr. Otter on November 17, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On December 2, 2005, H.R. 4377 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a two-part hearing. The first half of the hearing 
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear 
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of 
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and 
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
    The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R. 
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the 
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee 
received testimony from Members of Congress and a 
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4377 favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4377 to the House (H. Rept. 109-684), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 414.
    On September 26, 2006, H.R 4377 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice 
vote.
    H.R. 4377 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006, 
read twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 643.
    On November 16, 2006, H.R. 4377 passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent.
    H.R. 4377 was presented to the President on December 5, 
2006, and signed by the President on December 13, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-393).

 TO STUDY AND PROMOTE THE USE OF ENERGY EFFICIENT COMPUTER SERVERS IN 
                           THE UNITED STATES

                     Public Law 109-431 (H.R. 5646)

    To study and promote the use of energy efficient computer 
servers in the United States.

Summary

    H.R. 5646 is a bill to study and promote energy efficient 
data centers and computer servers. It calls on the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the Energy Star 
program, to submit to Congress within 180 days a study 
analyzing the growth and energy consumption of data centers. 
Specifically, the study, with public input, should include 
items such as growth trends associated with data centers, 
analysis of industry usage of energy efficient microchips, 
potential cost savings associated with the use of energy 
efficient data centers and servers, potential cost savings to 
the energy supply chain associated with energy efficient data 
centers and servers, the use of stationary fuel cells, and 
their impact on the electric grid, overview of current 
government incentives, and recommendations for incentives and 
voluntary programs to encourage use of energy efficient data 
centers and computing. The bill also states that it is the 
sense of Congress that it is in the best interest of the United 
States for purchasers of computer servers to give a high 
priority to energy efficiency.

Legislative History

    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered a Committee Print, to study 
and promote the use of energy efficient computer servers in the 
United States, reported to the House by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present. A request by Mr. Barton to allow a report to be 
filed on a bill to be introduced by Mr. Rogers, and that the 
actions of the Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, was 
agreed to by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 5646 was introduced by Mr. Rogers (MI) on June 20, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5646 to the House, pursuant to the unanimous 
consent request, (H. Rept. 109-538), and it was placed on the 
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 302.
    On July 12, 2006, H.R 5646 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 417 ayes and 4 nays.
    H.R. 5646 was received in the Senate on July 13, 2006, and 
on August 4, 2006, was read twice and referred to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.
    On December 7, 2006, H.R. 5646 was discharged by the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by unanimous consent, 
and passed the Senate by unanimous consent, clearing H.R. 5646 
for the White House.
    On December 11, 2006, H.R. 5646 was presented to the 
President and was signed by the President on December 20, 2006 
(Public Law 109-431).

              THE PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-468 (H.R. 5782)

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide for 
enhanced safety and environmental protection in pipeline 
transportation, to provide for enhanced reliability in the 
transportation of the Nation's energy products by pipeline, and 
for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5782 adds a new Federal requirement to existing one-
call civil enforcement provisions in the Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act (PSIA) for any person who engages in 
demolition, excavation, tunneling, or construction. The bill 
amends the State Pipeline Safety Program Certification Section 
of PSIA (Sec 60105 (b)) to require States to show they are 
encouraging, promoting, and establishing State programs 
designed to prevent damage by demolition, excavation, 
tunneling, or construction activity with appropriate penalties. 
The bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) 
to pay for up to 80 percent of the cost of personnel, 
equipment, and activities the State authority requires during 
the calendar year. It also requires the Secretary to issue 
regulations subjecting low stress hazardous liquid pipelines to 
the same standards and regulations as other hazardous liquid 
pipelines, except for the limited exceptions. The bill also 
authorizes studies, including one with DOE, in consultation 
with DOT, to review and analyze the domestic transport of crude 
oil and other petroleum products by pipeline and identify areas 
where reliability concerns exist or where failure or unplanned 
loss of individual pipeline facilities may cause shortages of 
crude oil, petroleum products, or price disruptions. Finally, 
H.R. 5782 requires the Secretary of DOT to provide a monthly 
updated summary to the public of all gas and liquid pipeline 
enforcement actions taken by the Secretary or PHMSA, from the 
time a notice commencing an action is issued until the 
enforcement action is final.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5782 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on July 13, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On July 19, 2006, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered the bill 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
    On July 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality conducted a hearing to examine proposed legislation 
that would reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 
2002, a Committee Print and H.R. 5782, the Pipeline Safety 
Improvement Act of 2006. The subcommittee received testimony 
from a representative of the Department of Transportation, 
State and industry representatives, and a safety advocate.
    On August 1, 2006, H.R. 5782 was referred to the Energy and 
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, for a period 
to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
    On September 27, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5782 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported 
H.R. 5782 to the House on December 5, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-717, 
Part I).
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 5782 to 
the House on December 5, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-717, Part II), and 
H.R. 5782 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 429.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5782 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as 
amended, by voice vote.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5782 was received in the Senate 
and read twice.
    On December 7, 2006, H.R. 5782 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White 
House.
    H.R. 5782 was presented to the President on December 20, 
2006, and was signed by the President on December 29, 2006 
(Public Law 109-468).

  TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN 
     HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS IN CONNECTICUT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                               (H.R. 971)

    To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 
certain hydroelectric projects in Connecticut, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 971 extends the time in the project licenses to begin 
construction on three hydroelectric projects in Connecticut 
until May 30, 2007. The three projects are the 440 kW Hale 
project, the 373 kW Collinsville Upper and the 1.1 MW 
Collinsville Lower project. The bill also authorizes the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the construction 
start date for the projects for two additional two-year 
periods.

Legislative History

    H.R. 971 was introduced by Mr. Simmons on February 17, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 971 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a two part hearing. The first half of the hearing 
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear 
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of 
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and 
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
    The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R. 
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the 
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee 
received testimony from Members of Congress and a 
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 971 favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
report H.R. 971 to the House (H. Rept. 109-683), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 413.
    On September 26, 2006, H.R. 971 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice 
vote.
    H.R. 971 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006.
    On November 13, 2006, H.R. 971 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    No further action was taken on H.R. 971 during the 109th 
Congress.

 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                              (H.R. 1817)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the 
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 1817 mandates the Department of Homeland Security to 
create a plan and report on how to protect the Nation's 
``critical infrastructure,'' including energy, financial 
services, water, and transportation networks.

Legislative History

    On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1817 was introduced by Mr. Cox in 
the House and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
    On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security 
Committee reported H.R. 1817 (H. Rept. 109-71, Part I) and H.R. 
1817 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, Committee on Government Reform, Committee 
on the Judiciary, Committee on Science, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Ways and Means, 
and Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period 
ending not later than May 13, 2005, for consideration of such 
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X.
    On May 11, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 12, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote.
    On May 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. Rept. 109-71, Part II). The 
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. 
Rept. 109-71, Part III). On the same day, the Committee on 
Government Reform, Committee on Science, Committee on 
Transportation, Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on 
Intelligence (Permanent) were discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 1817.
    On May 18, 2005, H.R. 1817 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 283 and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 424 yeas and 4 nays.
    On May 19, 2005, H.R. 1817 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1817 in the 109th 
Congress.

              UNITED STATES-ISRAEL ENERGY COOPERATION ACT

                              (H.R. 2730)

    To authorize funding for eligible joint ventures between 
United States and Israeli businesses and academic persons, to 
establish the International Energy Advisory Board, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 2730 establishes the framework for a grant program 
within the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy under existing DOE authorities. 
The grants are to promote and facilitate joint ventures between 
the United States and Israel concerning renewable energy, 
alternative energy, and energy efficiency. Specifically, it 
directs the Secretary of Energy (Secretary), to consult with 
the United States-Israel Binational Industrial Research and 
Development Foundation (BIRD) and the United States-Israel 
Binational Science Foundation (BSF) on the development of the 
program, the application process, the determination of entities 
eligible to receive grants and the amount of the grants. It 
also provides the Secretary with the discretion to seek 
recoupment of grants from grant recipients where the project 
has led to a product or process which is marketed or used. The 
bill also establishes an International Energy Advisory Board 
within DOE to advise the Secretary on criteria for recipients 
of the grants and the amounts of the grants. The Board is to be 
composed of two members from the United States and two members 
from Israel. The Board members are not paid, except for travel 
expenses and per diem. The grant program and the Board 
established under the Act terminate seven years after enactment 
of the Act. H.R. 2730 authorizes $20 million per year for 
fiscal years 2006 through 2012.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2730 was introduced by Mr. Shadegg on May 26, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 3, 2005, H.R. 2730 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Air Quality.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2730 favorably reported 
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 2730 to the House (H. Rept. 109-543). The bill 
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 305.
    On July 26, 2006, H.R. 2730 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as 
amended, by voice vote.
    H.R. 2730 was received in the Senate on July 27, 2006, read 
twice, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2730 during the 109th 
Congress.

              GASOLINE FOR AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 3893)

    To expedite the construction of new refining capacity in 
the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy 
for the American people, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3893, the GAS Act, sets forth a statutory framework in 
the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to: (1) increase 
refinery capacity for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and 
jet fuel; (2) modify environmental and other regulations 
affecting refineries under the Clean Air Act; and (3) 
coordinate permitting requirements and other regulations 
affecting refineries at the Federal, State, and local levels. 
In particular, the bill includes provisions to encourage the 
siting of new refineries by giving States, at the request of 
their Governor, the opportunity to use reformed refinery siting 
procedures. The bill also directs the President to designate 
sites on Federal lands, including closed military 
installations, that are appropriate for the purposes of siting 
a refinery. Refineries sited pursuant to this Presidential 
designation would be eligible to use reformed siting 
procedures, which include identifying the DOE as lead agency 
for the purposes of coordinating all authorizations required to 
site and operate a refinery pursuant to Federal law.
    The bill also directs the EPA, under the Clean Air Act New 
Source Review program, to use the maximum legal flexibility 
under existing law in order to enable energy industry 
facilities to undertake projects to maintain, to restore, and 
to improve the efficiency, the reliability, or the availability 
of such facilities. In addition, the bill provides the 
President the authority to temporarily waive Federal, and local 
fuel or fuel additive requirements in the event of an extreme 
and unusual supply circumstance caused by a natural disaster. 
The GAS Act also directs the EPA to develop a Federal Fuels 
List comprised of a total of 6 gasoline and diesel fuels for 
use in States except California or States dependent on 
refineries in California for gasoline or diesel fuel. Section 
109 of the GAS Act permits a downwind area to seek, by 
petitioning EPA, an attainment date extension 18 months prior 
to or within 18 months after its attainment date deadline. The 
bill also directs the Secretary of Energy to establish and 
carry out a program to encourage the use of carpooling and 
vanpooling to reduce the consumption of gasoline and to utilize 
the internet for carpool and vanpool outreach and marketing 
activities. The Secretary may make grants to Federal and local 
governments for carpooling or vanpooling projects.
    In addition, H.R. 3893 requires the Federal Trade 
Commission to study and investigate nationwide gasoline prices 
in the aftermath of Katrina, including any evidence of price 
gouging and to study and report to Congress on the effect crude 
and gasoline futures trading has on gasoline prices. Finally, 
the bill authorizes the creation of a Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve Expansion Fund to finance the acquisition of increased 
capacity for the Reserve and requires that crude oil sold from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to refiners be used for 
consumption in the United States and not be resold before it 
has been refined.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3893 was introduced by Mr. Barton on September 26, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
in addition to the Committees on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, Armed Services, and Resources, for a period to 
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On September 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3893 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On October 6, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3893, as amended, to the House (H. Rept. 109-244, 
Part I). The Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
Armed Services, and Resources were discharged from further 
consideration of the bill at it was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 135.
    The House considered H.R. 3893 under the provisions of H. 
Res. 481 on October 7, 2005, and passed the bill by a roll call 
vote of 212 ayes and 210 nays.
    H.R. 3893 was received in the Senate on October 17, 2005, 
and on October 24, 2005, the bill was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 3893 during the 109th 
Congress.

             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4128)

    To protect private property rights.

Summary

    H.R. 4128, among other things, prohibits States or their 
political subdivisions that receive Federal funds from 
exercising their power of eminent domain to further economic 
development. The bill would terminate the flow of Federal funds 
to any State or political subdivision that violates the 
prohibition. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
jurisdiction over the bill because of its potential impact on 
Federal health payments, telecommunications grants, and energy 
grant programs, prohibited Federal funds which could include 
many items under our jurisdiction.

Legislative History

    Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005, 
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    On October 27, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to 
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
    On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 109-262), and 
H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 143.
    On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence 
concerning H.R. 1428.
    On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a 
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rpt. 109-262, Part II).
    On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed 
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 376 yeas and 38 
nays.
    H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th 
Congress.

  TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSTATEMENT OF A LICENSE FOR A CERTAIN FEDERAL 
                       ENERGY REGULATORY PROJECT

                              (H.R. 4417)

    To provide for the reinstatement of a license for a certain 
Federal Energy Regulatory project.

Summary

    H.R. 4417 reinstates the project license and extends the 
time in the project license to begin construction on the 20 MW 
Tygart Dam hydroelectric project in West Virginia until 
December 31, 2007.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4417 was introduced by Mr. Mollohan on November 18, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On December 2, 2005, H.R. 4417 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a two-part hearing. The first half of the hearing 
examined the Administration's proposal to reform the Nuclear 
Waste Fund and address impediments to successful completion of 
the repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, State and 
industry representatives, and an environmental advocate.
    The second half of the hearing examined five bills, H.R. 
4377, H.R. 4417, H.R. 971, S. 176, and S. 244, to extend the 
start of construction dates in hydroelectric licenses issued by 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The subcommittee 
received testimony from Members of Congress and a 
representative of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4417 favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4417 to the House (H. Rept. 109-685), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 415.
    On September 26, 2006, H.R. 4417 was considered in the 
Hosue under suspension of the rules and passed the bill by 
voice vote.
    H.R. 4417 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006, 
read twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 644.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4417 during the 109th 
Congress.

                DEEP OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 4761)

    To provide for exploration, development, and production 
activities for mineral resources on the outer Continental 
Shelf, and for other purposes.

Summary

    Section 4 of H.R. 4761 amends the Outer Continental Shelf 
Lands Act (OCSLA) to revise the determination of adjacent zones 
and planning areas in the subsoil and seabed of the outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS).
    Section 20 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to repeal 
the requirement for a comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and 
natural gas resources.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4761 was introduced by Mr. Jindal on February 15, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on Resources.
    On June 21, 2006, the Committee on Resources met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 4761 reported to the House, 
amended, by a record vote of 29 yeas and 9 nays.
    On June 26, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Resources concerning H.R. 4761.
    On June 26, 2006, the Committee on Resources reported H.R. 
4761 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-531), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 295.
    On June 29, 2006, the House considered H.R. 4761 under the 
provisions of H. Res. 897, and passed the bill by a roll call 
vote of 232 ayes and 187 nays.
    H.R. 3893 was received in the Senate on July 10, 2006. The 
bill was read twice and on September 5, 2006, placed on the 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 
588.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4761 in the 109th 
Congress.

                  REFINERY PERMIT PROCESS SCHEDULE ACT

                              (H.R. 5254)

    To set schedules for the consideration of permits for 
refineries.

Summary

    H.R. 5254 authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), upon the request of a State Governor, 
to provide financial assistance to hire additional personnel to 
assist the State with expertise in fields relevant to 
consideration of Federal refinery authorizations.
    The bill requires a Federal agency responsible for refinery 
authorization to provide, upon the request of a State Governor, 
technical, legal, or other nonfinancial assistance to 
facilitate State consideration of such authorizations.
    The bill also directs the President to appoint a Federal 
coordinator to facilitate such authorizations.
    H.R. 5254 requires the coordinator, upon the request of an 
applicant seeking a Federal refinery authorization, to 
establish a memorandum of agreement, executed by relevant 
Federal and Federal agencies, setting forth the most 
expeditious coordinated schedule possible for completion of all 
such authorizations.
    The bill grants the U.S. District Court for the district in 
which the proposed refinery is located exclusive jurisdiction 
over any civil action for the review of the failure of an 
agency or official to act on a Federal refinery authorization 
in accordance with the schedule established pursuant to the 
memorandum of agreement, and requires expedited review of the 
civil action.
    H.R. 5254 instructs the President to designate at least 
three closed military installations as potentially suitable for 
the construction of a refinery, requires that at least one such 
site be designated as potentially suitable for construction of 
a refinery to refine biomass in order to produce biofuel, and 
requires the redevelopment authority, in preparing or revising 
the redevelopment plan for each such installation, to consider 
the feasibility and practicability of siting a refinery on it.
    In addition, H.R. 5254 amends the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
to repeal its requirements for refinery revitalization.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5254 was introduced by Mr. Bass on May 2, 2006, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. In addition, the bill 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
    On May 3, 2006, H.R. 5254 was considered in the House under 
suspension of the rules and failed by a roll call vote of 237 
yeas and 188 nays.
    On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5254 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 842 and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 238 yeas and 179 nays.
    H.R. 5254 was received in the Senate on June 8, 2006, read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a 
hearing on H.R. 5254 on July 13, 2006.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5254 during the 109th 
Congress.

  TO AMEND THE AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 49, UNITED 
 STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION TO SET FUEL 
   ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES BASED ON ONE OR MORE 
                           VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES

                              (H.R. 5359)

    To amend the automobile fuel economy provisions of title 
49, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
Transportation to set fuel economy standards for passenger 
automobiles based on one or more vehicle attributes.

Summary

    H.R. 5359 amends Federal transportation law to revise 
passenger automobile fuel economy standards (CAFE standards) to 
require that average fuel economy standards in effect for the 
preceding model year for a passenger automobile shall apply to 
such model year and beyond if the Secretary of Transportation 
does not prescribe new average fuel economy standards for a 
given model year. Authorizes the Secretary to prescribe 
regulations amending average fuel economy standards for 
passenger automobiles to a maximum feasible average fuel 
economy level that the Secretary decides automobile 
manufacturers can achieve in a model year based on one or more 
vehicle attributes related to fuel economy. (Currently, the 
Secretary can prescribe average fuel economy standards that the 
Secretary decides are the maximum feasible average fuel economy 
level for that model year). The bill eliminates the 
congressional approval requirement if the Secretary prescribes 
an amendment that makes an average fuel economy standard more 
stringent.
    The bill also directs the Administrator of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration to conduct a study, and 
report the results to Congress and the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, on the effects of the 
requirement of separate fuel economy calculations for domestic 
and foreign automobiles.

Legislative History

    On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a 
hearing on H.R. __, a bill to authorize the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set passenger car fuel 
economy standards. The committee received testimony from a 
Member of Congress, the Secretary of Transportation, and other 
stakeholders.
    On Wednesday May 10, 2006, the Full Committee met in open 
markup session and ordered a Committee Print entitled to amend 
the automobile fuel economy provisions of title 49, United 
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to 
set fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles based on 
one or more vehicle attributes, favorably reported to the 
House, amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 26 nays, a 
quorum being present. A request by Mr. Barton to allow a report 
to be filed on a bill to be introduced by Mr. Barton, and that 
the actions of the Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, 
was agreed to by unanimous consent.
    On May 11, 2006, H.R. 5359 was introduced by Mr. Barton, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 22, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5359 to the House, pursuant to the unanimous 
consent request, (H. Rept. 109-475), and it was placed on Union 
Calendar No. 263.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5359 during the 109th 
Congress.

 TO ESTABLISH A GRANT PROGRAM WHEREBY MONEYS COLLECTED FROM VIOLATIONS 
   OF THE CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY PROGRAM ARE USED TO EXPAND 
 INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO INCREASE THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE 
                                 FUELS

                              (H.R. 5534)

    To provide grants from moneys collected from violations of 
the corporate average fuel economy program to be used to expand 
infrastructure necessary to increase the availability of 
alternative fuels.

Summary

    H.R. 5534 establishes in the Treasury a Fuel Economy Fund 
to be: (1) funded by fines, penalties, and other moneys 
obtained through certain enforcement actions; and (2) used by 
the Secretary of Energy to implement a grant program for the 
construction or expansion of infrastructure necessary to 
increase the availability to consumers of alternative fuels.
    The bill declares eligible for such grant any entity also 
eligible for assistance through the Clean Cities Program of the 
Department of Energy, and declares ineligible for such grant 
any large, vertically integrated oil company.
    H.R. 5534 prohibits any grant award totaling more than 
$60,000 in any fiscal year.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5534 was introduced by Mr. Rogers (MI) on June 6, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 19, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Air Quality.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5534 favorably reported 
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5534 to the House (H. Rept. 109-535), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 299.
    On July 24, 2006, H.R. 5534 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House a rollcall 
vote of 355 yeas and 9 nays.
    H.R. 5534 was received in the Senate on July 25, 2006, and 
on August 4, 2006, the bill was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5534 during the 109th 
Congress.

                     FUEL CONSUMPTION EDUCATION ACT

                              (H.R. 5611)

    To provide for the establishment of a partnership between 
the Secretary of Energy and appropriate industry groups for the 
creation of a transportation fuel conservation education 
campaign, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5611 directs the Secretary of Energy to enter into a 
partnership with: (1) interested industry groups to create a 
public education campaign for U.S. drivers about immediate 
measures that can be taken to conserve transportation fuel 
(limits the Federal share of costs to 50%); and (2) and State 
and local governments to create an education campaign that 
provides information to such governments and the private sector 
about best practices to ensure adequate fuel supplies during 
emergency evacuations.
    The Bill authorizes the Secretary to expend not more than 
$3,000,000 to carry out this section from funds previously 
authorized to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5611 was introduced by Mr. Conaway on June 14, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 19, 2006, the bill was refereed to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Air Quality.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5611 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5611 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-536), 
the was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 300.
    On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5611 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    H.R. 5611 was received in the Senate on July 27, 2006, and 
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5611 during the 109th 
Congress.

 TO AMEND CHAPTER 301 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE, TO ESTABLISH A 
  NATIONAL TIRE FUEL EFFICIENCY CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAM, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                              (H.R. 5632)

    To amend Chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, to 
establish a national tire fuel efficiency consumer information 
program, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5632 amends Federal transportation law to direct the 
Secretary of Transportation to promulgate rules establishing a 
national motor vehicle tire fuel efficiency consumer 
information program to educate consumers about the effect of 
tires on automobile fuel efficiency. The bill requires 
information to be provided to consumers at the point of sale 
and other sites.
    The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct periodic 
assessments of the rules to determine the utility of such rules 
to consumers, the level of cooperation by industry, and the 
contribution to national goals with respect to energy 
consumption.
    In addition, the bill prohibits the Secretary from 
requiring permanent labeling concerning tire fuel efficiency 
information on a tire.
    H.R. 5632 permits a State to enforce a law or regulation on 
tire fuel efficiency consumer information in effect on January 
1, 2006. The bill allows a State to adopt or enforce a tire 
fuel efficiency consumer information law or regulation that is 
enacted after January 1, 2006, only if it is identical to the 
Federal requirement. The bill prohibits anything in this Act 
from being construed to preempt a State from regulating the 
fuel efficiency of tires not otherwise preempted under Federal 
transportation law.
    H.R. 5632 Sets forth a civil penalty for persons who fail 
to comply with the consumer information program requirements of 
this Act.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5632 was introduced by Mr. Shimkus on June 16, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 19, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Air Quality.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5632 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by voice vote.
    On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5632 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-537), 
and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 301.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5632 during the 109th 
Congress.

                          Oversight Activities


       FUNDING OPTIONS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY PROGRAM

    On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss and review funding 
options for the Yucca Mountain repository program including 
guaranteeing that annual Nuclear Waste Fund payments are made 
accessible to the program for funding purposes. The Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and its amendments of 1987 
established Yucca Mountain as the primary site of long-term 
nuclear waste disposal. In February of 2002, the President 
recommended to Congress that Yucca Mountain undergo development 
into a repository site and instructed the Department of Energy 
to proceed with construction licensing. On April 8, 2002, 
however, the Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the 
House a statement of disapproval regarding the proposed 
construction on Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy was 
cleared to proceed with construction when on May 8, 2002, the 
House passed H.J. Res. 87 which overrode the objections voiced 
by the State of Nevada. The subcommittee received testimony 
from the State of Nevada as well as from both Federal and State 
government organizations.
    Other impediments will likely prevent the completion of the 
site by 2010. These include establishment of a transportation 
program, acquiring Federal land to surround the Yucca Mountain 
site, and construction activities. The first goal of this 
hearing was to discuss and establish funding options so that 
the estimate of commencing operations in 2010 would be met (DOE 
later revised this estimate to be 2017 as the earliest 
practicable date and this change is reflected in other sections 
of this report).

              THE ADMINISTRATION'S CLEAR SKIES INITIATIVE

    On May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 
held an oversight hearing to discuss and evaluate the structure 
of the Administration's Clear Skies Initiative. The goal of the 
hearing was to illustrate the relationship of the Clear Skies 
Initiative and the Current Clean Air Act and state the policy 
goals and principles of the CSI. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Council on Environmental Quality and the 
EPA.

   EIA'S REPORT ON SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK AND WINTER FUELS OUTLOOK

    On October 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss the EIA's 
projections for the supply and price of crude oil, gasoline, 
heating oil, diesel, natural gas, propane, coal and electricity 
for this winter. The subcommittee received testimony from a 
representative of the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

             NATURAL GAS AND HEATING OIL FOR AMERICAN HOMES

    On November 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to investigate the supply and 
cost of heating oil and natural gas for the winter season. 
These two fuels are primarily used in heating American 
households during the winter months. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Energy, 
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 
representatives of the home heating industry, and advocates of 
energy efficiency.

                   UNDERSTANDING THE PEAK OIL THEORY

    On December 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to address the challenges of 
``peak oil,'' where the rate of world oil production will not 
be able to increase. Experts believe the peak will occur as 
early as the year 2025. The subcommittee received testimony 
from Members of Congress, representatives of the Association 
for the Study of Peak Oil, the Science Applications 
International Cooperation, the Cambridge Energy Research 
Associates and the Canadian Embassy.

                  STATUS OF THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT

    On March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss the status of 
funding for the development of Yucca Mountain into a repository 
site for nuclear waste disposal. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Department of Energy.

    PIPELINE SAFETY: A PROGRESS REPORT SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF ``THE 
               PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002''

    On April 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to oversee implications of 
the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 by the Pipelines 
and Hazardous Material Safety Administration as well as Federal 
and industry regulators in order to consider reauthorizing the 
Act. The subcommittee received testimony from the Department of 
Transportation, the National Transportation Safety Board, the 
Government Accountability Office, the National Association of 
Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the National Association 
of Pipeline Safety Representatives, and from various advocates 
of the pipeline industry.

         UNLOCKING AMERICA'S ENERGY RESOURCES: NEXT GENERATION

    On May 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 
held an oversight hearing to describe and explore current 
research into technologies developed for generating electricity 
for the future. The hearing was an update for the members of 
the subcommittee on renewable electric generation technologies 
and the costs associated with such technology as well as 
forecast the direction such research is heading. The 
subcommittee received testimony from various government and 
private representatives of the energy industry.

             VEHICLE AND FUELS TECHNOLOGY: NEXT GENERATION

    On May 24, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 
held an oversight hearing to examine developments in next 
generation vehicle and fuel technology. This included an 
evaluation of hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles as well as the 
use of diesel fuel, fuel cells, ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas 
and coal-to-liquids. The subcommittee received testimony from 
representatives of the Department of Energy, motor car 
manufacturers, and representatives of the fuel industry.

               DOE'S REVISED SCHEDULE FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN

    On July 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to examine the Department of 
Energy's revised schedule for the development of Yucca Mountain 
as a nuclear waste repository. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Department of Energy.

               NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL POLICY

    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to examine nuclear waste 
storage and disposal policy including H.R. 5360, the Nuclear 
Fuel Management and Disposal Act. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from representatives of the Department of Energy, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and several industry and 
stakeholder groups.

                             Hearings Held

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005.--Hearings on The Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. Hearings held on February 10, 2005, and 
February 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-1.
    Clean Air Act Transportation Conformity Provisions 
Contained in H.R. 3, ``The Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users''.--Hearing on Clean Air Act Transportation 
Conformity Provisions Contained in H.R. 3, ``The Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users''. Hearing held on March 2, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-11.
    Funding Options for the Yucca Mountain Repository 
Program.--Oversight hearing on Funding Options for the Yucca 
Mountain Repository Program. Hearing held on March 10, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-37.
    The Administration's Clear Skies Initiative.--Oversight 
hearing on The Administration's Clear Skies Initiative. Hearing 
held on May 26, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-39.
    EIA's Report on Short-term Energy Outlook and Winter Fuels 
Outlook.--Oversight hearing on EIA's Report on Short-term 
Energy Outlook and Winter Fuels Outlook. Hearing held on 
October 19, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-80.
    Natural Gas and Heating Oil for American Homes.--Oversight 
hearing on Natural Gas and Heating Oil for American Homes. 
Hearing held on November 2, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
58.
    Understanding the Peak Oil Theory.--Oversight hearing on 
Understanding the Peak Oil Theory. Hearing held on December 7, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-41.
    Status of the Yucca Mountain Project.--Oversight hearing on 
the Status of the Yucca Mountain Project. Hearing held on March 
15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-71.
    Pipeline Safety: A Progress Report Since the Enactment of 
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002.--Oversight hearing 
on Pipeline Safety: A Progress Report Since the Enactment of 
The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. Hearing held on 
April 27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-84.
    Unlocking America's Energy Resources Next Generation.--
Oversight hearing on Unlocking America's Energy Resources Next 
Generation. Hearing held on May 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-101.
    Vehicle and Fuels Technology: Next Generation.--Oversight 
hearing on Vehicle and Fuels Technology: Next Generation. 
Hearing held on May 24, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-103.
    DOE's Revised Schedule for Yucca Mountain.--Oversight 
hearing on DOE's Revised Schedule for Yucca Mountain. Hearing 
held on July 19, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-118.
    Discussion Draft on the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act 
Reauthorization and H.R. 5782, the Pipeline Safety Improvement 
Act of 2006.--Hearing on Discussion Draft on the Pipeline 
Safety Improvement Act Reauthorization and H.R. 5782, the 
Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2006. Hearing held on July 
27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-133.
    Nuclear waste storage and disposal policy, and 
hydroelectric license extension and energy efficiency 
legislation.--Oversight hearing on Nuclear waste storage and 
disposal policy, and hydroelectric license extension and energy 
efficiency legislation. Hearing held on September 13, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-138.
          Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials

           (Ratio 16-13)

  PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman

HILDA L. SOLIS, California           RALPH M. HALL, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BART STUPAK, Michigan                HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
LOIS CAPPS, California                 Vice Chairman
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       VITO FOSSELLA, New York
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAY INSLEE, Washington               MARY BONO, California
GENE GREEN, Texas                    LEE TERRY, Nebraska
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
  (Ex Officio)                       JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Environmental protection in general, including the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and risk assessment matters; solid waste, hazardous 
waste and toxic substances, including Superfund and RCRA; mining, oil, 
gas, and coal combustion wastes; noise pollution control; and, homeland 
security-related aspects of the foregoing.

                         Legislative Activities


                          REAL ID ACT OF 2005

                Public Law 109-13 (H.R. 1268, H.R. 418)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State 
driver's license and identification document security 
standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws 
of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for 
inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious 
construction of the San Diego border fence.

Summary

    Section 102 of H.R. 418 provides the Secretary of Homeland 
Security with the authority to waive applicable environmental 
law, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 
and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act CERCLA, for the purpose of building roads and 
barriers.

Legislative History

    H.R. 418 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on January 26, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and, in 
addition, to the Committees on Homeland Security and Government 
Reform for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On February 8, 2005, there was an exchange of 
correspondence between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 
the Committee on the Judiciary concerning H.R. 418.
    On February 9, 2005, H.R. 418 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 71.
    On February 10, 2005, the bill was considered as unfinished 
business in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 75 
and passed the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 261 
yeas and 161 nays.
    H.R. 418 was received in the Senate on February 14, 2005, 
and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 418 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On March 11, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations reported 
an original measure to the House (H. Rept. 109-16).
    H.R. 1268 was introduced by Mr. Lewis (CA) on March 11, 
2005, and placed on the Union Calendar.
    On March 16, 2005, the House considered H.R. 1268 pursuant 
to the provisions of H. Res. 151, and the text of H.R. 418, as 
passed House, was appended as Division B to the end of H.R. 
1268. The House passed H.R. 1268, as amended, by a roll call 
vote of 388 yeas and 43 nays.
    H.R. 1268 was received in the Senate on March 16, 2005, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    On April 6, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1268 reported to the 
Senate, amended. The Committee on Appropriations reported by 
Senator Cochran with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
and an amendment to the title with written report No. 109-52, 
and the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar 
under General Orders. Calendar No. 67.
    On April 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 21, 2005, H.R. 
1268 was considered in the Senate.
    On April 19, 2005, cloture was invoked in the Senate by a 
record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays.
    On April 21, 2005, H.R. 1268 passed the Senate by a record 
vote of 99 yeas and 0 nays, requested a conference with the 
House, and appointed conferees.
    On April 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees.
    The conference met on April 27 and 28, 2005.
    On May 3, 2005, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1268 was filed in the House (H. Rept. 109-72).
    The conference report to accompany H.R. 1268 was considered 
in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 258 on May 
5, 2005, and passed the House by a roll call vote of 368 yeas, 
58 nays, and 1 present.
    On May 10, 2005, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1268 was considered in the Senate and agreed to by a vote of 
100 yeas and 0 nays and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 1268 was presented to and signed by the President on 
May 11, 2005 (Public Law 109-13).

                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

                 Public Law 109-58 (H.R. 6, H.R. 1640)

    To ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and 
reliable energy.

Summary

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) includes a wide 
variety of provisions intended to increase domestic energy 
supply and encourage energy efficiency. The bill is based 
largely on energy legislation that was passed in differing 
forms by the House and Senate in the 108th Congress (H.R. 6), 
but ultimately not enacted.
    With regard to the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains two 
major provisions on issues that fall with the jurisdiction: 
hydraulic fracturing and Leaking Underground Storage Tank. 
Section 322 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amends Section 
1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 
330h(d)(1)) to exempt the practice of hydraulic fracturing, 
unless diesel fuel is the fluid or propping agent used, from 
Federal regulation under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
relating to Underground Injection Control. In addition, 
Subtitle B of Title XV (Sections 1521-1533) contains several 
provisions that reform the Leaking Underground Storage Tank 
(LUST) Program. These include increased funding for underground 
storage tank (UST) cleanup efforts, mandatory periodic onsite 
inspections of USTs, the institution of delivery prohibitions 
for non-compliant tanks, the creation of UST operator training 
programs, and options for States to require secondary 
containment of USTs or establish financial assurance mechanisms 
cleanup of releases caused by UST installers.

Legislative History

    On February 9, 2005, the full Committee on Energy and 
Commerce held a legislative hearing on the Energy Policy Act of 
2005. The Committee received testimony from the Secretary of 
Energy.
    On February 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality conducted a legislative hearing to examine the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. The perspectives of the Department of 
Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and various representatives of the energy 
industry were considered. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from energy representatives of the Federal government, private 
industry, consumers, and other stakeholders.
    On February 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a legislative hearing to examine the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss oil and 
gas issues, motor fuels and ethanol, nuclear energy, and coal. 
Also discussed was renewable energy, specifically 
hydroelectric, hydrogen, and solar energy. The subcommittee 
received testimony from representatives of the oil and gas 
industry as well as the nuclear power and coal industries, 
representatives from consumer groups, environmental advocates, 
and advocates for the various types of renewable energy.
    On April 5, 6, 12, and 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered a Committee 
Print reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 39 
yeas and 16 nays, a quorum being present. A request by Mr. 
Barton that the Committee be permitted to file a report on a 
bill to be introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be 
deemed as action on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous 
consent.
    H.R. 1640 was introduced by Mr. Barton on April 14, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in 
addition, to the Committees on Science, Resources, Education 
and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Financial 
Services, and Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned.
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 1640, as 
amended, to the House, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request, on July 29, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-215, Part I).
    All Committees were discharged from further consideration 
of the bill on July 29, 2005, and no further action on H.R. 
1640 was taken in the 109th Congress.
    On April 18, 2005, Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6, which was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, 
Financial Services, Agriculture, Resources, Science, Ways and 
Means, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to 
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    As introduced, H.R. 6 contained provisions that were 
substantially similar to provisions in H.R. 1640, as well as 
H.R.1530, H.R.1533, and H.R.1705.
    On April 20 and April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 was considered in 
the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 219.
    On April 21, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the House, as amended, by 
a roll call vote of 249 yeas and 183 nays.
    H.R. 6 was received in the Senate on April 26, 2005. On 
June 9, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 124.
    H.R. 6 was considered in the Senate on June 14, 15, 16, 20, 
21, 22, and 23, 2005.
    On June 23, 2005, the Senate invoked cloture on H.R. 6 by a 
record vote of 92 yeas and 4 nays.
    On June 28, 2005, H.R. 6 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by a record vote of 85 yeas and 12 nays, and on July 
1, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the House and 
appointed conferees.
    On July 13, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference. On July 14, 2005, the 
Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce for consideration of the House bill and Senate 
amendment, and modifications committed to conference.
    The Conference Committee met on July 14, 19, 21, and 24, 
2005. The conferees agreed to file the conference report on 
July 26, 2005, and the conference report was filed on July 27, 
2005 (H. Rept. 109-190).
    The House considered and agreed to the conference report, 
pursuant to H. Res. 394, on July 28, 2005, by a vote of 275 
yeas and 156 nays.
    On July 28, 2005, the conference report was considered in 
the Senate by unanimous consent, and on July 29, 2005, the 
conference report was agreed to by a record vote of 74 yeas and 
26 nays and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 6 was presented to the President on August 4, 2005, 
and was signed by the President on August 8, 2005 (Public Law 
109-58).

  SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A 
                            LEGACY FOR USERS

                       Public Law 109-59 (H.R. 3)


Summary

    H.R. 3, the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, authorizes the 
Federal programs related to all aspects of multi-modal surface 
transportation. There are two major Sections (6017 and 6018) 
that contain provisions which fall within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on 
Environment and Hazardous Materials. Section 6017 amends 
Subtitle F to the Solid Waste Disposal Act to create a new 
Section 6005 that requires a federally-funded transportation-
related construction project that uses cement or concrete to 
increase the procurement of cement and concrete that contains 
recovered materials. Section 6018, which also amends Subtitle F 
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, creates a new Section 6006 to 
direct the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency to establish criteria for the safe and environmentally 
protective use of the granular mine tailings from the Tar 
Creek, Oklahoma Mining District for cement or concrete 
projects, and for federally funded highway construction 
projects. The criteria would include an evaluation of whether 
to establish numerical standards for the concentration of lead 
and other hazardous substances in the tailings, and EPA would 
be required to consider their current and past use as an 
aggregate for asphalt, as well as the environmental and public 
health risks and benefits of their use in transportation 
projects.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on February 9, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
    On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3, to discuss the 
provisions that would amend the Clean Air Act. The purpose of 
the hearing was to allow the subcommittee to seek methods of 
conformity and how those adjustments in the conformity process 
as described by H.R. 3 will aid in developing transportation 
plans that meet air quality goals. The subcommittee received 
testimony from Federal government officials, as well as 
individuals from the private sector.
    On March 2, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
    On March 7, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 
109-12, Part I).
    On March 8, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure filed a supplemental report for H.R. 3 to the 
House, amended (H. Rept. 109-12, Part II).
    On March 9 and 10, 2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 140 and H. Res. 144.
    On March 10, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the House, as amended, by 
a roll call vote of 417 yeas and 9 nays.
    H.R. 3 was received in the Senate on March 20, 2005. On 
April 6, 2005, the bill was read twice and placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 69.
    On April 26, 2005, cloture on motion to proceed to 
consideration of H.R. 3 was invoked in Senate by a record vote 
of 94 yeas and 6 nays.
    On April 27 and 28, and May 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17, 
2005, H.R. 3 was considered in the Senate.
    On May 17, 2005, H.R. 3 passed the Senate with an amendment 
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 11 nays.
    On May 26, 2005, the Senate requested a conference with the 
House and appointed conferees.
    On May 26, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of provisions in the House bill and Senate 
amendment relating to Clean Air Act provisions of 
transportation planning contained in sections 6001 and 6006 of 
the House bill, and sections 6005 and 6006 of the Senate 
amendment; and sections 1210, 1824, 1833, 5203, and 6008 of the 
House bill, and sections 1501, 1511, 1522, 1610-1619, 1622, 
4001, 4002, 6016, 6023, 7218, 7223, 7251, 7252, 7256-7262, 
7324, 7381, 7382, and 7384 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    The conference committee met on June 9, 2005, and the 
conferees agreed to file the conference report on July 28, 2005 
(H. Rept. 109-203).
    The House considered and agreed to the conference report, 
pursuant to H. Res. 399, on July 29, 2005, by a roll call vote 
of 412 yeas and 8 nays.
    On July 29, 2005, the conference report was considered in 
the Senate, agreed to by a record vote of 91 yeas and 4 nays, 
and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 3 was presented to and signed by the President on 
August 10, 2005 (Public Law 109-59).

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 1815 authorizes appropriations for FY2006 for the 
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft, 
missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, 
shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. Subtitle B 
of this legislation had two provisions impacting the 
jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Environment and Hazardous Materials. The first provision allows 
for the elimination and simplification of certain items 
required in the annual Defense Department report on 
environmental quality programs and other environmental 
activities. The second provision authorizes payment for 
activities at former defense property that is subject to 
Section 120(h) covenants for additional remedial action under 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 
Liability Act of 1980.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1815 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 26, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 20, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 1815.
    On May 20, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services reported 
H.R. 1815 to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 109-89). H.R. 1815 
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
    On May 25, 2005, H.R. 1815 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 293, and passed the House, as amended, by a 
roll call vote of 390 yeas and 39 nays.
    H.R. 1815 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2005, read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On November 15, 2005, H.R. 1815 was laid before the Senate 
and passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On December 15, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and on December 16, 
2005, the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for consideration of sections 314, 601, 
1032, and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 312, 1084, 2893, 
3116, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference.
    On December 18, 2005, the conferees filed the conference 
report (H. Rept. 109-360).
    On December 18, 2005, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 1815 was considered in the House, and on December 19, 
2005, the conference report was considered as unfinished 
business, and was agreed to by the House by a roll call vote of 
374 yeas and 41 nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report was considered 
in the Senate, agreed to by a voice vote, and cleared for the 
White House.
    H.R. 1815 was presented to the President on January 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 6, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163).

TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE ENERGY 
                           POLICY ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-168 (H.R. 4637)

    To make certain technical corrections in amendments made by 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Summary

    H.R. 4637 makes technical corrections to the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with 
respect to: (1) regulation of underground storage tanks; and 
(2) government-owned tanks.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4637 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on December 18, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On December 19, 2005, H.R. 4637 was discharged from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce by unanimous consent, and the 
bill was considered and passed by the House by unanimous 
consent.
    H.R. 4637 was received in the Senate on December 19, 2005, 
and read twice. On December 22, 2005, H.R. 4637 passed the 
Senate without amendment by unanimous consent and was cleared 
for the White House.
    H.R. 4637 was presented to the president on January 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 10, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-168).

        USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-177 (H.R. 3199)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    To extend and modify authorities needed to combat 
terrorism, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3199 addresses Federal surveillance programs, 
including foreign surveillance programs, as authorized by the 
USA PATRIOT Act. Section 742 of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3199 amends Section 3001 of the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act to require the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), every two years, to submit a report setting forth 
information collected by the EPA from law enforcement agencies, 
States, and other relevant stakeholders that identifies the 
byproducts of the methamphetamine production process and 
whether EPA considers each of the byproducts to be a hazardous 
waste pursuant to this section and relevant regulations. In 
addition, Section 743 of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 3199 addresses the payment of cleanup costs, by 
responsible parties, for contamination resulting from 
methamphetamine laboratories.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3199 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on July 11, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On July 13, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3199 reported to the 
House, as amended, by a record vote of 23 yeas and 14 nays.
    On July 13, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent 
Select) met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3199 
reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On July 18, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-174, Part I).
    On July 18, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent 
Select) reported H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 
109-174, Part II).
    On July 21, 2005, pursuant to the provisions H. Res. 369, 
the House considered H.R. 3199, and passed the bill by a roll 
call vote of 257 ayes and 171 nays.
    On July 25, 2005, H.R. 3199 was received in the Senate and 
read twice.
    On July 29, 2005, H.R. 3199 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate requested a 
conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On November 9, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to a conference, and the Speaker appointed 
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 
consideration of Sections 124 and 231 of the House bill, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    On December 8, 2005, the conferees filed the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 3199 (H. Rept. 109-333).
    On December 14, 2005, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 3199 pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 595 and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 251 yeas 
and 174 nays.
    On December 14, 15, and 16, 2005, the Senate considered the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3199.
    On December 16, 2005, motion to invoke cloture was not 
agreed to in the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 
nays.
    On March 1, 2006, motion to proceed to consideration of the 
motion to reconsider was agreed to in the Senate by a record 
vote of 86 yeas and 13 nays, and upon reconsideration, cloture 
invoked in Senate by a record vote of 84 yeas and 15 nays.
    The conference report to accompany H.R. 3199 was agreed to 
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 10 nays on March 2, 2006, and 
cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 3199 was presented to the President on March 8, 2006, 
and signed by the President on March 9, 2006 (Public Law 109-
177).

          COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-241 (H.R. 889)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    To authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal 
year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws 
administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 889 authorizes appropriations for FY2006 for the Coast 
Guard (CG). The bill contains one section that waives the 
application of Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA) to effectuate an ``as is'' transfer of the Coast Guard 
Cutter MACKINAW to the City of Cheboygan, Michigan for use as a 
museum. In addition, this section relieves the Federal 
government of environmental liability under TSCA regarding PCB 
exposure, thereby leaving the local community responsible for 
any environmental contamination and ultimate cleanup of PCBs.

Legislative History

    H.R. 889 was introduced by Mr. Young (AK) on February 17, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
    On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open markup and ordered H.R. 889 reported 
to the House, amended, by voice vote.
    On July 28, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure reported H.R. 889 to the House, amended (H. 
Rept. 109-204, Part I), and was referred sequentially to the 
House Committee on Homeland Security for a period ending not 
later than July 29, 2005, for consideration of such provisions 
of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of 
that committee pursuant to clause 1(i) of rule X.
    On July 29, 2005, Committee on Homeland Security discharged 
H.R. 889, and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
124.
    On September 15, 2005, H.R. 889 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 440, and passed, as 
amended, by a roll call vote of 415 yeas and 0 nays.
    On September 19, 2005, H.R. 889 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
    On October 27, 2005, H.R. 889 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate requested a 
conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On November 3, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment, agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of section 408 of the House bill, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    The conference committee met on November 16, 2005.
    On April 6, 2006, the conference report to accompany H.R. 
889 was filed (H. Rept. 109-413).
    On June 26, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 889 under suspension of the rules, and 
on June 27, 2006, the House passed the conference report by a 
roll call vote of 413 yeas and 0 nays.
    On June 27, 2006, the Senate agreed to the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 889 by unanimous consent.
    The Senate vitiated previous adoption of the conference 
report, and on June 28, 2006, the Senate agreed to the 
conference report by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 889 was cleared for the White House on June 28, 2006, 
and presented to the President on June 30, 2006. The President 
signed H.R. 889 on July 12, 2006 (Public Law 109-241).

        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

                     Public Law 109-295 (H.R. 5441)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5441 included the Chemical Facility Security Act of 
2006 that requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 
within 6 months of enactment, to establish risk and performance 
based regulations--which may last no longer than three years--
concerning the creation of vulnerability assessments and site 
security plans by high risk chemical facilities. DHS is further 
given authority under this legislation to approve the use of 
chemical facility security regimes developed by other public 
and private interests that meet the requirements of the 
legislation, but cannot disapprove a specific site security 
plan at a facility based on the presence or absence of a 
particular security measure. In addition, the bill extends 
information protections to the vulnerability assessments and 
the site security plans and prohibits unauthorized parties from 
obtaining these materials through civil litigation. Finally, 
the bill provides DHS the authority to inspect and audit 
facilities covered by this legislation and empowers DHS to 
temporarily close a recalcitrant chemical facility until it 
comes into full compliance with this legislation.

Legislative History

    On May 22, 2006, the House Committee on Appropriations 
reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-476, which was 
introduced by Mr. Rogers (KY) as H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441 was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 264.
    On May 25, 2006 and June 6, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered 
in the House under the provisions of H. Res. 836. On June 6, 
2006, H.R. 5441 passed the House by a roll call vote of 389 
yeas and 9 nays.
    On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 5441 reported with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
    On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations reported 
by Senator Gregg with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, with written report No. 109-273, and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 
503.
    On July 11, 12, and 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by 
Senate, and on July 13, 2006, H.R. 5441 passed the Senate with 
an amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. The 
Senate insists on its amendment, asked for a conference, and 
appointed conferees.
    On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment, and agreed to a conference.
    On September 25, 2006, the conferees agreed to file 
conference report.
    On September 28, 2006, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 5441 was filed (H. Rept. 109-699).
    The conference report to accompany H.R. 5441 was considered 
in the House pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1054 on 
September 29, 2006, and passed the House by a roll call vote of 
412 yeas and 6 nays.
    On September 29, 2006, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 5441 was considered in the Senate, agreed to by a voice 
vote, and cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 5441 was presented to the President on October 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on October 4, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-295).

  JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122, S. 2766)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5122 authorizes appropriations for FY2007 for the 
Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft, 
missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, 
shipbuilding and conversion, and other procurement. The 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials had five 
provisions in this legislation that touched upon its 
jurisdiction. House Section 313 and Senate Section 334, 
regarding the funding of cooperative agreements under the 
Defense Department's Environmental Restoration Program; Senate 
Section 332, regarding the extension of requirements under 
Section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act relating to 
importation of foreign manufactured polychlorinated biphenyls; 
Senate Section 333, regarding ocean munitions dumping; Senate 
Section 335, concerning the reimbursement of the Environmental 
Protection Agency for costs incurred at the Moses Lake 
Wellfield Superfund site; and Senate Section 352, relating to a 
study on drinking water contaminant exposure at Camp Lejeune.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5122 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 6, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House, 
amended, by a record vote of 60 yeas and 1 nay.
    On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services reported 
H.R. 5122 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-452). H.R. 
5122 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
    On May 9, 2006, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 5122.
    On May 10 and 11, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5122 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 806 and H. Res. 811. On 
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5122, passed the House by a roll call vote 
of 396 ayes and 31 nays.
    On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5122 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 431.
    On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5122 was laid before the Senate and 
passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On September 7, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of sections 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117, 
and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 332-335, 352, 601, 
722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    The Conference Committee met on September 12, 2006, and the 
conferees filed the conference report to accompany H.R. 5122 on 
September 29, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-702).
    On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5122 pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 1062, and agreed to the conference report by a roll call 
vote of 398 yeas and 23 nays.
    On September 30, 2006, the conference report was considered 
in the Senate, agreed to by unanimous consent, and cleared for 
the White House. H.R. 5122 was presented to the President on 
October 5, 2006, and signed by the President on October 17, 
2006 (Public Law 109-364).

 FEDERAL AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT REAL PROPERTY ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-396 (H.R. 3699)

    To provide for the sale, acquisition, conveyance, and 
exchange of certain real property in the District of Columbia 
to facilitate the utilization, development, and redevelopment 
of such property, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3699 provides for the sale, acquisition, and 
conveyance of title or management responsibilities for certain 
real property in the District of Columbia between the District 
of Columbia and the Federal government. H.R. 3699 seeks to 
statutorily waive environmental liability for the District or 
the United States as transferor of the property. Section 101(d) 
as reported by the Government Reform Committee limits any 
environmental liability, response actions, remediation, 
corrective action, damages, costs or expenses for the District 
of Columbia associated with any property for which title is 
conveyed to the Federal government. This section also provides 
that liability, responsibility, remediation, damages and costs 
required by applicable Federal, State, and local law including 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Solid Waste 
Disposal Act, and other environmental laws shall be borne by 
the U.S. In the same way, Section 402 as reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform environmental liability and 
response actions of the Federal government for any property for 
which title is conveyed to the District of Columbia. When the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce met in open markup on February 
3, 2006, to consider H.R. 3699, it struck sections 101(d) and 
402 before reporting the amended legislation to the House.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3699 was introduced by Mr. Davis on September 8, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Government Reform, in addition 
to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned.
    On September 29, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform 
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3699 reported to 
the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On November 18, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform 
reported H.R. 3699 to the House, as amended, (H. Rept. 109-316, 
Part I), and H.R. 3699 was referred sequentially to the 
Committees on Energy and Commerce and Transportation and 
Infrastructure for a period ending not later than December 17, 
2005, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of the committees 
pursuant to Rule X. The committee on Resources was granted an 
extension for further consideration ending not later than 
December 17, 2005.
    On December 7, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 
3699 reported to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On December 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 3699 reported to 
the House, without recommendation, as amended, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.
    On December 16, 2005, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure reported H.R. 3699 to the House, as amended (H. 
Rept. 109-316, Part II).
    On December 17, 2005, Committee on Resources and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce were granted an extension for 
further consideration ending not later than December 31, 2005.
    On December 31, 2005, Committee on Resources and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce were granted an extension for 
further consideration ending not later than February 3, 2006.
    On February 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3699 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-316, 
Part III), the Committee on Resources was discharged from 
further consideration of the bill, and H.R. 3699 was placed on 
the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 200
    On September 30, 2006, the House considered H.R. 3699 by 
unanimous consent, and the bill was passed without objection.
    H.R. 3699 was received in the Senate on September 30, 2006.
    On November 15, 2006, H.R. 3699 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
    On November 16, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs discharged H.R. 3699 by unanimous 
consent, and H.R. 3699 was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources, who, on the same day, discharged H.R. 
3699 by unanimous consent. H.R. 3699 passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent
    H.R. 3699 was presented to the President on December 5, 
2006, and signed by the President on December 15, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-396).

                     RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2005

                      Public Law 109-451 (S. 895)

    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a 
rural water supply program in the Reclamation States to provide 
a clean, safe, affordable, and reliable water supply to rural 
residents.

Summary

    Title I of S. 895 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 
set up, in consultation with other Federal agencies, a rural 
water supply program for specified ``Reclamation'' states, as 
defined under Federal reclamation law. This program is supposed 
to identify opportunities for, plan the design of, review and 
rank, and approve and oversee the construction of water supply 
projects for small communities and rural areas that are 
recommended by the Secretary and authorized by Congress.
    Title II of S. 895 directs the Secretary of Interior to 
develop and publish criteria for determining the eligibility of 
a rural water supply or reclamation project for financial 
assistance, authorizes the Secretary to make loan guarantees 
available to lenders for eligible projects to supplement 
private-sector or lender financing, and limits guarantees by 
the Secretary to 90 percent of a project's cost.
    S. 895 creates a program directly intersecting with and 
subject to regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
as well as buttress the provision of clean and reliable 
drinking water to rural communities, as outlined in the 
``Background and Need'' and ``Historical Background'' sections 
of the Report of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources (Senate Report 109-148).

Legislative History

    S. 895 was introduced by Senator Domenici on April 25, 2005 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a 
hearing on S. 895 on May 11, 2005 (S.Hrg. 109-105).
    On September 28, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources met in open markup session and ordered S. 895 
favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
    On October 19, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources reported S. 895 with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, with written report No. 109-148, and S. 895 was 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 240.
    On November 16, 2005, the Senate passed S. 895 with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On November 17, 2005, S. 895 was received in the House, and 
was referred to the Committee on Resources.
    On December 2, 2005, S. 895 was referred to the Committee 
on Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power.
    On July 27, 2006, the Committee on Resources Subcommittee 
on Water and Power held a hearing on S. 895.
    On December 6, 2005, the Committee on Resources and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence 
concerning S. 895.
    On December 6, 2006, S. 895 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House 
amendments to S. 895 by unanimous consent and cleared the 
legislation for the White House.
    S. 895 was presented to the President on December 20, 2006, 
and signed by the President on December 22, 2006 (Public Law 
109-451).

 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                              (H.R. 1817)


                       (Environmental Provisions)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the 
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 1817 mandates the Department of Homeland Security to 
create a plan and report on how to protect the Nation's 
``critical infrastructure,'' including energy, financial 
services, water, and transportation networks.

Legislative History

    On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1817 was introduced by Mr. Cox in 
the House and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
    On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security 
Committee reported H.R. 1817 (H. Rept. 109-71, Part I) and H.R. 
1817 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, Committee on Government Reform, Committee 
on the Judiciary, Committee on Science, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Ways and Means, 
and Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period 
ending not later than May 13, 2005, for consideration of such 
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X.
    On May 11, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 12, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote.
    On May 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. Rept. 109-71, Part II). The 
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. 
Rept. 109-71, Part III). On the same day, the Committee on 
Government Reform, Committee on Science, Committee on 
Transportation, Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on 
Intelligence (Permanent) were discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 1817.
    On May 18, 2005, H.R. 1817 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 283 and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 424 yeas and 4 nays.
    On May 19, 2005, H.R. 1817 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1817 in the 109th 
Congress.

    INTERNATIONAL SOLID WASTE IMPORTATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 2491)

    To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize States 
to restrict receipt of foreign municipal solid waste and 
implement the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement 
of Hazardous Waste between the United States and Canada, and 
for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 2491 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize 
States to enact laws or issue regulations or orders restricting 
the receipt and disposal of foreign municipal solid waste, as 
defined by this Act, within their borders until the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
issues regulations implementing and enforcing the Agreement 
Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste 
between the United States and Canada (Agreement). The bill 
declares that State actions authorized by this Act shall not be 
considered a burden on, or otherwise impede, interstate and 
foreign commerce.
    H.R. 2491 requires the Administrator to: (1) perform the 
functions of the Designated Authority of the United States with 
respect to the importation and exportation of municipal solid 
waste under the Agreement; (2) implement and enforce the notice 
and consent and other provisions of the Agreement; and (3) 
issue final regulations on the Administrator's responsibilities 
as Designated Authority of the United States.
    The legislation also requires the Administrator to give 
substantial weight to the views of affected States and local 
governments before consenting to the importation of foreign 
municipal solid waste into the United States under the 
Agreement, and to consider the impact of such importation on: 
(1) the continued public support for Federal and local 
recycling programs; (2) landfill capacities; (3) air emissions 
and road deterioration from increased vehicular traffic; and 
(4) homeland security, public health, and the environment.
    Finally, H.R. 2491 makes it unlawful for any person to 
import, transport, or export municipal solid waste for final 
disposal or for incineration in violation of the Agreement and 
authorizes the Administrator to assess civil penalties for any 
past or current violations of this Act or to commence a civil 
action in the U.S. district court.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2491 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on May 19, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 3, 2005, H.R. 2491 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
    On June 8, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and forwarded 
the bill to the full committee, amended, by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.
    On June 29, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session, and ordered H.R. 2491 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On September 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 2491 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-235).
    On September 6, 2006, the House considered H.R. 2491 under 
suspension of the rules and passed the bill, as amended, by 
voice vote.
    H.R. 2491 was received in the Senate, read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works on 
September 7, 2006.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2491 in the 109th 
Congress.

                    ANTIFREEZE BITTERING ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 2567)

    To amend the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to require 
engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering agent so 
as to render it unpalatable.

Summary

    Subject to a study by the Federal Consumer Product Safety 
Commission in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, H.R. 2567 requires engine coolant or 
antifreeze that is manufactured six months after the enactment 
of the bill, and that contains more than 10 percent ethylene 
glycol, to include a bittering agent at a minimum of 30 parts 
per million and a maximum of 50 parts per million so as to 
render the coolant or antifreeze unpalatable.
    In addition, H.R. 2567 requires a coolant or antifreeze 
manufacturer to maintain records of compliance with this Act.
    The bill also limits the liability of manufacturers, 
distributors, recyclers, or sellers of engine coolant or 
antifreeze who are in compliance with the requirements of the 
bill for personal and property loss or damage to the 
environment that results from the inclusion of denatonium 
benzoate in any coolant or antifreeze.
    Finally, H.R. 2567 declares the bill inapplicable to: (1) 
the sale of a motor vehicle that contains engine coolant or 
antifreeze; or (2) wholesale containers of engine coolant or 
antifreeze containing 55 gallons or more of engine coolant or 
antifreeze.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2567 was introduced by Mr. Ackerman on May 24, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 17, 2005, H.R. 2567 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
    On May 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials held a hearing to address H.R. 2567 and the 
issues related to mandating the addition of denatonium benzoate 
to antifreeze. The subcommittee received testimony from 
Representative Ackerman, officials of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and other private and governmental 
organizations.
    On July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2567 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 30 yeas and 15 nays, 
a quorum being present.
    On December 8, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 2567 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-730, 
Part I). H.R. 2567 was referred jointly and sequentially to the 
Committee on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than 
December 8, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the 
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
committee pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X, and referred jointly 
and sequentially to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for a period ending not later than December 8, 
2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(r), rule X. The Committees on the 
Judiciary and Transportation and Infrastructure were discharged 
from further consideration of H.R. 2567 on December 8, 2006, 
and H.R. 2567 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
433.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2567 in the 109th 
Congress.

             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4128)

    To protect private property rights.

Summary

    H.R. 4128, among other things, prohibits States or their 
political subdivisions that receive Federal funds from 
exercising their power of eminent domain to further economic 
development. The bill would terminate the flow of Federal funds 
to any State or political subdivision that violates the 
prohibition. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
jurisdiction over the bill because of its potential impact on 
Federal health payments, telecommunications grants, and energy 
grant programs, prohibited Federal funds which could include 
many items under our jurisdiction.

Legislative History

    Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005, 
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    On October 27, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to 
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
    On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-262), 
and H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
143.
    On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence 
concerning H.R. 4128.
    On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a 
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rept. 109-262, Part II).
    On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed 
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 376 yeas and 38 
nays.
    H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th 
Congress.

           STOCKHOLM AND ROTTERDAM TOXICS TREATY ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4591)

    To implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 
Pollutants, the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to 
the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and 
the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent 
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in 
International Trade.

Summary

    H.R. 4591 amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to 
provide for the implementation of three international 
environmental agreements: (1) the Stockholm Convention on 
Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention); (2) the 
Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to the 1979 
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP 
POPs Protocol); and (3) the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior 
Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and 
Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention). 
Specifically, H.R. 4591 bans several chemicals, pursuant to 
obligations of the United States under the POPs Convention and 
the LRTAP POPs Protocol, provides new regulatory authority for 
the United States to deal with chemicals added in the future to 
the POPs Convention or the LRTAP POPs Protocol, and establishes 
notice requirements and other requirements pursuant to the PIC 
Convention.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4591 was introduced by Mr. Gillmor on December 16, 
2005, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On January 3, 2006, H.R. 4591 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
    On March 2, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials held a hearing on Legislation to Implement 
the POPs, PIC, and LRTAP POPs Agreements to evaluate the U.S.'s 
role as a signatory to these treaties. Congress must enact 
enabling legislation to amend current law so the United States 
can full implement the POPs and PIC Treaties. The subcommittee 
received testimony from officials of the Department of State, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, and various State and 
private organizations.
    On May 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials met in open markup session and forwarded 
the bill to the full committee, amended, by a record vote of 15 
yeas and 10 nays, a quorum being present.
    On July 12, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4591 reported to the 
House, as amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 15 nays, a 
quorum being present.
    On November 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4591 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-714), 
and was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 426.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4591 in the 109th 
Congress.

 TO AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY EMERGENCY EXTENSIONS TO CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS TO 
 THE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS UNDER THE 
                      TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT

                              (H.R. 5863)

    To authorize temporary emergency extensions to certain 
exemptions to the requirements with respect to polychlorinated 
biphenyls under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Summary

    H.R. 5863 amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to: (1) 
authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to extend 
temporary emergency exemptions to requirements concerning 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for 30 days for the purpose of 
authorizing their safe, effective, and efficient shipment into 
the United States for disposal, treatment, or storage; and (2) 
require any person granted such an exemption to report to 
Congress on the status of foreign-manufactured PCBs generated 
by or under the control of that person outside of the United 
States.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5863 introduced by Mr. Barton on July 24, 2006, and 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5863 reported to the 
House, without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On September 14, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5863 to the House (H. Rept. 109-659), and was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 392.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5863 in the 109th 
Congress.

  TO PERMIT CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE 
                            TANK TRUST FUND

                              (H.R. 6131)

    To permit certain expenditures from the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank Trust Fund.

Summary

    H.R. 6131 amends the Internal Revenue Code to authorize 
expenditures from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust 
Fund to carry out various programs enacted by the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 to protect groundwater, including underground 
storage tank and piping, secondary containment, maintenance of 
government-owned tanks, tank inspection, training for tank 
operators, Federal compliance and enforcement activities, 
prevention of delivery of a regulated substance into a tank, 
and protection of tanks on Indian reservations or tribal lands. 
In addition, this legislation makes a technical change in 
Section 9014 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Legislative History

    H.R. 6131 was introduced by Mr. Chocola on September 21, 
2006, and referred the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On September 26, 2006, the House considered H.R 6131 under 
suspension of the rules and passed the bill by voice vote.
    H.R. 6131 was received in the Senate on September 27, 2006.
    On November 13, 2006, H.R. 6131 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Finance.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 6131 in the 109th 
Congress.

                          Oversight Activities


ELECTRONIC WASTE: AN EXAMINATION OF CURRENT ACTIVITY, IMPLICATIONS FOR 
         ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, AND THE PROPER FEDERAL ROLE

    The Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 
conducted a two-part oversight hearing to evaluate the proper 
definition of electronic waste and investigate appropriate 
methods of regulation. On July 20, 2005, the Subcommittee 
discussed the status of both public and private electronic 
waste programs in the United States as well as the differences 
between three Federal enacted programs. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from officials representing the Department 
of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
States of Maryland, Maine, and California.
    On September 8, 2005, the Subcommittee resumed 
consideration of matters related to interstate commerce issues 
raised by regulation of electronic waste, the role of the 
private sector and non-profits in managing electronic waste, 
and environmental concerns with the status quo. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of 
electronics retailers, electronic product manufacturers, 
recycling businesses, environmental groups, and charitable 
organizations.

     HURRICANE KATRINA: ASSESSING THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS

    On September 29, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to evaluate the 
current impact of Hurricane Katrina on the environment. The 
purpose of the hearing was to assess the damage Hurricane 
Katrina caused on the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and 
Mississippi and evaluate the role of government agencies in 
providing relief to victims of the tragedy. The subcommittee 
received testimony from officials representing the U.S. Army, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, and officials of various organizations 
in the State of Louisiana.

 COMPREHENSIVELY COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINES: IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND THE 
                              ENVIRONMENT

    On October 20, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials and the Subcommittee on Health held a joint 
oversight hearing to review the health and environmental 
impacts concerning the production and use of methamphetamines. 
The subcommittees heard testimony from the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the 
Department of Health and Human Services, State and local 
government officials, and over-the-counter drug industry 
representatives.

                 SUPERFUND LAWS AND ANIMAL AGRICULTURE

    On November 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to discuss the 
consolidation of livestock and agriculture and evaluate the 
risk agricultural inputs, products, and byproducts put on the 
environment. The subcommittee received testimony from officials 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other various 
environmental and agricultural organizations.

                             Hearings Held

    Electronic Waste: An Examination of Current Activity, 
Implications for Environmental Stewardship, and the Proper 
Federal Role.--Oversight hearings on Electronic Waste: An 
Examination of Current Activity, Implications for Environmental 
Stewardship, and the Proper Federal Role. Hearings held on July 
20, 2005, and September 8, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-33.
    Comprehensively Combating Methamphetamines: Impacts on 
Health and the Environment.--Joint oversight hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Health on Comprehensively Combating 
Methamphetamines: Impacts on Health and the Environment. 
Hearing held on October 20, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
57.
    Hurricane Katrina: Assessing the Present Environmental 
Status.--Oversight hearing on Hurricane Katrina: Assessing the 
Present Environmental Status. Hearing held on September 29, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-77.
    Superfund Laws and Animal Agriculture.--Oversight hearing 
on Superfund Laws and Animal Agriculture. Hearing held on 
November 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-72.
    Legislation to Implement the POPs, PIC, and LRTAP POPs 
Agreements.--Hearing on Legislation to Implement the POPs, PIC, 
and LRTAP POPs Agreements. Hearing held on March 2, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-63.
    H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005.--Hearing 
on H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. Hearing 
held on May 23, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-89.
                         Subcommittee on Health

           (Ratio 18-15)

  NATHAN DEAL, Georgia, Chairman

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  RALPH M. HALL, Texas
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California          MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey       PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
BART GORDON, Tennessee               CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ANNA G. ESHOO, California            JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
GENE GREEN, Texas                    JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
TED STRICKLAND, Ohio                 CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado                Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California               STEVE BUYER, Indiana
TOM ALLEN, Maine                     JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JIM DAVIS, Florida                   MARY BONO, California
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan              Vice Chairman
  (Ex Officio)                       MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
                                     SUE MYRICK, North Carolina
                                     MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Public health and quarantine; hospital construction; 
mental health and research; biomedical programs and health protection 
in general, including Medicaid and national health insurance; food and 
drugs; drug abuse; and, homeland security-related aspects of the 
foregoing.

                         Legislative Activities


                  WELFARE REFORM EXTENSION ACT OF 2005

                      Public Law 109-4 (H.R. 1160)

    Reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
block grant program through June 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes

Summary

    H.R. 1160 reauthorizes and extends through June 30, 2006, 
in the manner authorized for FY2005, the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant Program under part A of 
title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA), additional grants to 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, 
funding for Federal abstinence education programs under SSA 
title V (Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant), and 
eligibility for Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) under SSA 
title XIX (Medicaid).
    The bill also reauthorizes and extends the national random 
sample study of child welfare and child welfare waiver 
authority through June 30, 2006, in the manner authorized for 
FY2005.

Legislative History

    Mr. Herger introduced H.R. 1160 on March 8, 2005, and it 
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On March 12, 2005, H.R. 1160 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 1160 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice 
vote.
    On March 15, 2005, H.R. 1160 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 1160 was cleared for the White House on March 15, 
2005.
    H.R. 1160 was presented to the President on March 17, 2005, 
and was signed by the President on March 25, 2005 (Public Law 
109-4).

 PATIENT NAVIGATOR OUTREACH AND CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-18 (H.R. 1812)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize a 
demonstration grant program to provide patient navigator 
services to reduce barriers and improve health care outcomes, 
and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 1812 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services to conduct a demonstration program to 
promote model ``patient navigator'' programs to improve health 
care outcomes for individuals with cancer or other chronic 
diseases, with a specific emphasis on health disparity 
populations.
    H.R. 1812 requires the Secretary to study the program and 
report to Congress on the results including an evaluation of 
program outcomes and recommendations as to whether such 
programs could be used to improve patient outcomes in other 
public health areas.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1812 was introduced by Mr. Menendez on April 25, 2005, 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1812 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and H.R. 1812 was forwarded to the Full 
Committee by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in 
open markup session and H.R. 1812 was ordered favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 7, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1812 to the House (H. Rept. 109-104), and was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 58.
    On June 13, 2005, H.R. 1812 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    On June 14, 2005, H.R. 1812 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    On June 22, 2005, H.R. 1812 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the 
President.
    On June 27, 2005, H.R. 1812 was presented to the President 
and was signed by the President on June 29, 2005 (Public Law 
109-18).

  TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) EXTENSION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-19 (H.R. 3021)

    Reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
block grant program through September 30, 2005, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3021 reauthorizes and extends through September 30, 
2005, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block 
Grant Program under part A of title IV of the Social Security 
Act (SSA), funding for State abstinence education programs 
under SSA title V (Maternal and Child Health Services Block 
Grant), and eligibility for Transitional Medical Assistance 
(TMA) under SSA title XIX (Medicaid).
    The bill reauthorizes and extends the national random 
sample study of child welfare and child welfare waiver 
authority through September 30, 2005.

Legislative History

    Mr. Herger introduced H.R. 3021 on June 22, 2005, and it 
was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
    On June 29, 2005, H.R. 3021 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    H.R. 3021 was received in the Senate and read twice on June 
29, 2005.
    The Senate passed H.R. 3021 without amendment by unanimous 
consent on June 30, 2006.
    H.R. 3021 was cleared for the White House on June 30, 2005, 
and presented to and signed by the President on July 1, 2005 
(Public Law 109-19).

           PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005

                 Public Law 109-41 (H.R. 3205, S. 544)

    To amend title IX of the Public Health Service Act to 
provide for the improvement of patient safety and to reduce the 
incidence of events that adversely effect patient safety.

Summary

    S. 544 encourages the reporting and analysis of medical 
errors and health care quality by providing peer review 
protection of information reported to patient safety 
organizations (PSOs).
    S. 544 establishes certification procedures for patient 
safety organizations and requires the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to maintain a list of certified PSOs. The bill 
would also require the Secretary to develop a uniform database, 
establish national standards for the collection and maintenance 
of patient safety data, and provide technical assistance to 
PSOs.

Legislative History

    On March 8, 2005, Senator Jeffords introduced S. 544, it 
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On March 9, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S. 
544 reported without amendment favorably.
    Mr. Bilirakis introduced H.R. 3205 on July 12, 2005, and it 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 14, 2005, H.R. 3205 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On July 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and forwarded H.R. 3205 to the full Committee by 
voice vote a quorum being present.
    On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3205 to be favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On July 21, 2005, the Senate passed S. 544 by unanimous 
consent, it was received in the House, and referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3205 to the House (H. Rept. 109-197), and it was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 117.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 3205 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On July 27, 2005, S. 544 was considered in the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call 
vote of 428 yeas and 3 nays.
    On July 28, 2005, S. 544 was presented to the President, 
and was signed by the President on July 29, 2005 (Public Law 
109-41).

           MEDICAL DEVICE USER FEE STABILIZATION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-43 (H.R. 3423)

    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 
respect to medical device user fees.

Summary

    Subsection (a) addresses amendments to the device user fee 
program authorized in Section 738 of the FFDCA. Subsection 
(a)(1) eliminates the statutory fee revenue targets for device 
user fees in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 in section 738(b).
    Subsection (a)(2) eliminates the inflationary, workload, 
compensating, and final year adjustments previously used in 
annual fee-setting calculations, as provided for in Section 
738(c). Subsection (a)(2) also sets the pre-market application 
user fee at $259,600 for fiscal year 2006 and $281,600 for 
fiscal year 2007, which is an 8.5% increase each year (fees for 
other device submissions are then determined as a percentage of 
the pre-market application fee, as provided generally in 
section 738(a)(2)(A)). Finally, subsection (a)(2) also amends 
Section 738(c) to permit FDA to use up to two-thirds of fees 
carried over from previous years to supplement fee revenues in 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007. FDA must notify Congress if it 
intends to use these carryover balances.
    Subsection (a)(3) amends Section 738(d) to clarify that the 
small business threshold for the purposes of a first-time 
waiver of the fee on a pre-market approval application or a 
pre-market report remains at $30 million, as under current law. 
It raises the small business threshold from $30 million to $100 
million for the purposes of fee reductions on all other 
applications, reports, and supplements. Subsection (a)(3) also 
eliminates the ability of the FDA to reset this new small 
business threshold if user fee revenues are reduced by 16 
percent because of the small business fee reduction. Subsection 
(a)(4) amends section 738(e) to raise the small business 
threshold from $30 million to $100 million for the purposes of 
fee reductions on pre-market notifications.
    Subsection (a)(5) amends Section 738(g) to eliminate the 
``trigger'' requirement of additional appropriations in the FY 
2003 and FY 2004 for FDA to be able to collect user fees in FY 
2006 and FY 2007. It also builds in a 1% tolerance on the 
appropriations trigger for FY 2006 and FY 2007, to cushion 
against possible across-the-board rescission in the 
appropriations process for those years, which would lead to 
accidental termination of the program.
    Subsection (a)(6) eliminates the statutory authorization 
targets for FY 2006 and FY 2007, and subsection (a)(7) makes a 
conforming amendment throughout Section 738.
    Subsection (c)(1) amends Section 502(u) of the FFDCA to 
address the marking and tracking of reprocessed medical devices 
intended for single-use by the original manufacturer. Section 
502(u) as amended requires reprocessors to mark a reprocessed 
device if the original manufacturer has marked the device. If 
the original manufacturer does not mark the device, the 
reprocessor must still mark the device, but has more 
flexibility in how to mark the device, such as by using a 
detachable label on the package of the device that is intended 
to be placed in the medical record of the patient on whom the 
device is used.
    Subsection (d) amends Section 301(b) of MDUFMA to make the 
amendment made by subsection (c)(1) to Section 502(u) of the 
FFDCA effective 12 months after the date of enactment of the 
act, or 12 months after the original manufacturer has first 
marked its device, if that is later.

Legislative History

    On July 25, 2005, Mr. Pitts introduced H.R. 3423, which was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 26, 2005, H.R. 3423 was considered in the House by 
unanimous consent which passed the House without objection.
    H.R. 3423 was received in the Senate on July 27, 2005, and 
was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 
without amendment by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 3423 was presented to the President on July 29, 2005, 
and was signed by the President on August 1, 2005 (Public Law 
109-43).

   A BILL TO AMEND THE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO LIFT THE PATIENT 
    LIMITATION ON PRESCRIBING DRUG ADDICTION TREATMENTS BY MEDICAL 
        PRACTITIONERS IN GROUP PRACTICES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                  Public Law 109-56 (H.R. 869, S. 45)

    To amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift the patient 
limitation on prescribing drug addiction treatments by medical 
practitioners in group practices, and for other purposes.

Summary

    In 2000, Congress passed the Drug Addiction Treatment Act. 
Section 2(a)(2) of the Act establishing a new waiver mechanism 
for schedule IV or V treatment programs. The waiver is 
available to qualified physicians for maintenance treatment and 
detoxification treatment using approved schedule IV or V 
narcotic drugs, either alone or in combination.
    Subject to regulatory adjustment by the Secretary, neither 
sole practitioners nor any collection of physicians practicing 
as a group may treat more than 30 patients at any one time.
    H.R. 869 lifts the 30 patient limitation for group 
practices. The individual physician limitation of 30 patients 
remains in place.

Legislative History

    On February 15, 2005, Mr. Souder introduced H.R. 869, which 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in 
addition, to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 869 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and forwarded H.R. 869 to the Full Committee by 
voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 869 favorably reported to 
the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 869 to 
the House on June 9, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part I).
    On June 23, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in 
open markup session and H.R. 869 and forwarded to Full 
Committee by voice vote.
    On June 29, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 869 reported to the House, 
without amendment, by a voice vote.
    The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 869 to the 
House on July 11, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part II), and H.R. 
869 was placed on the Union Calendar (Calendar No. 100).
    No further action was taken on H.R. 869 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On January 24, 2005, Mr. Levin introduced S. 45, and was 
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
    On February 1, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions discharged S. 45 by unanimous consent.
    On February 1, 2005, S. 45 was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
    On July 19, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary discharged 
S. 45 by unanimous consent.
    On July 19, 2005, S. 45 passed the Senate without amendment 
by unanimous consent.
    S. 45 was received in the House on July 21, 2005, and held 
at the desk.
    On July 27, 2005, S. 45 was considered by the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a rollcall vote 
of 429 yeas and 0 nays.
    On July 29, 2005, S. 45 was presented to the President, and 
was signed by the President on August 2, 2006 (Public Law 109-
56).

            CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES EXPORT REFORM ACT OF 2005

                 Public Law 109-57 (H.R. 184, S. 1395)

    To amend the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act to 
provide authority to the Attorney General to authorize any 
controlled substance that is in schedule I or II or is a 
narcotic drug in schedule III or IV to be exported from the 
United States to a country for subsequent export from that 
country to another country, if certain conditions are met.

Summary

    S. 1395 amends the Controlled Substances Import and Export 
Act to authorize the Attorney General to allow any controlled 
substance that is in schedule I or II or that is a narcotic 
drug in schedule III or IV to be exported from the United 
States to a country (first country) for subsequent export to 
another country (second country) if: (1) both such countries 
are parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, 
and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; (2) each 
of such countries has maintained an adequate system of 
substance import controls; (3) the substance is consigned to a 
holder of permits or licenses required under the first 
country's laws and a permit to import the substance has been 
issued; (4) substantial evidence that the substance is to be 
consigned to a permit holder as required under the second 
country's laws is furnished, a permit to import it is to be 
issued, the substance is to be applied exclusively to 
legitimate uses within that country, and it will not be re-
exported; (5) within 30 days after export from the first 
country, the person who exported it from the United States 
certifies that re-export has occurred; and (6) the Attorney 
General has issued a permit to export the substance from the 
United States.

Legislative History

    On January 4, 2005, Mr. Pitts introduced H.R. 184, which 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and, in 
addition, to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On February 4, 2005, H.R. 184 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session forwarded H.R. 184 to the Full Committee by a 
voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 184 favorably reported to 
the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 184 to 
the House on June 9, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part I).
    On June 23, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in 
open markup session and H.R. 184, as amended, was forwarded by 
the Subcommittee to Full Committee by voice vote.
    On June 29, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 184 to be reported to the 
House, as amended, by voice vote.
    The Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 184 to the 
House on July 11, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-115, Part II), and H.R. 
184 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 99.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 184 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On July 13, 2005 Senator Hatch introduced S. 1395, which 
was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 
without amendment by unanimous consent.
    S. 1395 was received in the House on July 14, 2005 and held 
at the desk.
    On July 27, 2005, S. 1395 was considered by the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice vote.
    On July 29, 2005, S. 1395 was presented to the President, 
and was signed by the President on August 2, 2006 (Public Law 
109-57).

  NATIONAL ALL SCHEDULES PRESCRIPTION ELECTRONIC REPORTING ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-60 (H.R. 1132)

    To provide for the establishment of a controlled substance 
monitoring program in each State.

Summary

    H.R. 1132 provides grants through the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS) to the States to establish and operate 
prescription drug monitoring programs. The Act requires the 
Secretary of HHS to develop minimum requirements for states to 
ensure security of information collected, database accuracy, 
and the use and disclosure of information.
    The bill also requires the Secretary to complete a study 
and report to Congress three years after enactment of the 
legislation on the progress of States establishing and 
implementing controlled substance monitoring programs.

Legislative History

    On March 3, 2005, Mr. Whitfield introduced H.R. 1132, which 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On March 22, 2005, H.R. 1132 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On June 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and forwarded H.R. 1132 to the Full Committee by 
voice vote.
    On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5574 reported to the 
House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1132 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-191), 
and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 115.
    On July 27, 2005, H.R. 1132 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    H.R. 1132 was received in the Senate on July 28, 2005, and 
read twice.
    On July 29, 2005, H.R. 1132 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 1132 was presented to the President on August 4, 2005, 
and was signed by the President on August 11, 2005 (Public Law 
109-60).

   QI, TMA, AND ABSTINENCE PROGRAMS EXTENSION AND HURRICANE KATRINA 
                    UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-91 (H.R. 3971)

    To extend Medicare cost-sharing for qualifying individuals 
through September 2007, to extend transitional medical 
assistance and the program for abstinence education through 
December 2005, to provide unemployment relief for States and 
individuals affected by Hurricane Katrina, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3971 amends Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social 
Security Act to extend from September 2005 through September 
2007 the qualified individual program, under which medical 
assistance is available for Medicare cost-sharing for 
individuals who would be qualified Medicare beneficiaries but 
for the fact that their income exceeds the State-established 
income level, and is between 120% and 135% of the official 
poverty line. It also prescribes additional allocations for 
such program for the extended period.
    H.R. 3971 extends through December 31, 2005, Transitional 
Medical Assistance (TMA) and the separate program for 
abstinence education, and eliminates Medicare and Medicaid 
coverage under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 
of drugs used for the treatment of sexual or erectile 
dysfunction, beginning in 2007.
    H.R. 3971 amends Title IX of the Social Security Act to 
direct the Secretary to transfer from the Federal unemployment 
account: $15 million to the account of Alabama in the 
Unemployment Trust Fund; $400 million to the account of 
Louisiana in the Unemployment Trust Fund; and $85 million to 
the account of Mississippi in the Unemployment Trust Fund, and 
authorizes any Federal to use any amounts received by such 
Federal pursuant to Title III of the Social Security Act to 
assist in the administration of claims for compensation on 
behalf of any other State, if a major disaster was declared 
with respect to such other Federal or any area within it, under 
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
Act, by reason of Hurricane Katrina.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3971 was introduced in the House by Mr. Deal on 
October 6, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
Means in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On October 6, 2005, H.R. 3971 was considered by the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice 
vote.
    On October 7, 2005, H.R. 3971 was received in the House and 
passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent.
    On October 19, 2005, the House agreed to the Senate 
amendment with amendments pursuant to H. Res. 501.
    On October 19, 2005, the Senate agreed to the amendments of 
the House by unanimous consent, clearing the measure for the 
President.
    On October 20, 2005, H.R. 3971 was presented to and signed 
by the President (Public Law 109-91).

A BILL TO AMEND THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT TO PROVIDE FOR 
THE REGULATION OF ALL CONTACT LENSES AS MEDICAL DEVICES, AND FOR OTHER 
                                PURPOSES

                       Public Law 109-96 (S. 172)

    A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical 
devices, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 172 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to: 
(1) regulate all contact lenses as medical devices; and (2) 
state that such regulation shall not be construed as having any 
legal effect on any other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-
regulated article.

Legislative History

    On January 26, 2005, Senator Mike DeWine introduced S. 172 
and it was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    On March 9, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and S. 172 was 
ordered to be reported favorably without amendment.
    On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions reported by Senator Enzi with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute with written report (No. 109-110) 
and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders.
    On July 29, 2005, the Senate passed S. 172 with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On September 6, 2005, S. 172 was referred to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 19, 2005, S. 172 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On October 26, 2005, S. 172 was considered by the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice 
vote.
    On October 28, 2005, S. 172 was presented to the President, 
and on November 9, 2005, S. 172 was signed by the President 
(Public Law 109-96).

 A BILL TO EXTEND THE SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH 
                              FOR 2 YEARS

                       Public Law 109-100 (S. 37)

    A bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast 
cancer research for 2 years.

Summary

    S. 37 extends the U.S. Postal Service's authority to issue 
special postage stamps to help provide funding for breast 
cancer research through December 31, 2007.

Legislative History

    On January 24, 2005, Ms. Feinstein introduced S. 37, which 
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
    On June 22, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs met in open markup session and ordered S. 
37 to be reported to the Senate without amendment favorably.
    On September 26, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security 
and Government Affairs reported by Senator Collins without 
amendment with written report (No. 109-140), and was placed on 
the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders (Calendar 
No. 221).
    On September 27, 2005, S. 37 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    S. 37 was received by the House on September 28, 2005, and 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition 
to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On October 20, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform met 
in open markup session and ordered S. 37 reported to the House 
by unanimous consent.
    On October 27, 2005, S. 37 was considered in the House by 
unanimous consent and passed the House without objection.
    On October 11, 2005, S. 37 was presented to the President, 
and was signed by the President on October 11, 2005 (Public Law 
109-100).

             STEM CELL THERAPEUTIC AND RESEARCH ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-129 (H.R. 2520)

    To provide for the collection and maintenance of human cord 
blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and research, 
and to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the 
C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.

Summary

    H.R. 2520, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 
2005 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
contract with qualified cord blood stem cell banks to assist in 
the collection and maintenance of 150,000 new units of high-
quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation 
through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program.
    H.R. 2520 also requires the Secretary to establish a three-
year demonstration project under which qualified cord blood 
banks may use a portion of the funding received under a 
contract for the collection and storage of cord blood units for 
a family where a relative has been diagnosed with a condition 
that will benefit from transplantation at no cost to such 
family.
    H.R. 2520 requires the Secretary to establish and maintain 
the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program to increase 
the number of transplants for recipients suitably matched to 
biologically unrelated donors of bone marrow and cord blood, 
and requires the Secretary to establish a related advisory 
council on Program activities. It also requires the Secretary 
to recognize one or more accreditation entities for the 
accreditation of cord blood banks and, through a public 
process, examine issues of informed consent, including the 
timing of such consent and the information provided to the 
maternal donor regarding all of her medically appropriate cord 
blood options.
    H.R. 2520 requires the Secretary to ensure that health care 
professionals and patients are able to search electronically 
for and facilitate access to cells from bone marrow donors and 
cord blood units through a single point of access.
    It also requires the Secretary to establish and maintain an 
office of patient advocacy and requires the Secretary to 
establish and maintain a scientific database of information 
relating to recipients of a stem cell therapeutics product, 
including bone marrow and cord blood, from a donor.
    H.R. 2520 requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a 
report on the progress made by the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) in developing requirements for the licensing of cord 
blood units.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2520 was introduced by Mr. Smith (NJ) on May 23, 2005, 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 24, 2005, H.R. 2520 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Health.
    On May 24, 2005, H.R. 2520 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 431 yeas and 1 nay.
    On May 25, 2005, H.R. 2520 was received in the Senate.
    On October 24, 2005, H.R. 2520 was read twice and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 
256
    On December 16, 2005, H.R. 2520 was passed the Senate, as 
amended, by unanimous consent.
    On December 17, 2005, H.R. 2520 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended 
by the Senate, by a roll call vote of 413 yeas and 0 nays, 
clearing H.R. 2520 for the President.
    On December 19, 2005, H.R. 2520 was presented to the 
President and on December 20, 2005, H.R. 2520 signed by the 
President (Public Law 109-129).

 PUBLIC READINESS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                       APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-148 (H.R. 2863)

    Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 2863 provides authority for the Secretary of the 
Department of Health and Human Services to declare and provide 
for targeted liability protections for pandemic, epidemic, and 
other security countermeasures. The law further provides for a 
Covered Countermeasure Process Fund for purposes of providing 
timely, uniform, and adequate compensation to eligible 
individuals for covered injuries directly caused by the 
administration or use of a covered countermeasure pursuant to 
such declaration.

Legislative History

    Mr. Young introduced and the House Committee on 
Appropriations reported H.R. 2863 on June 10, 2005 (H. Rept. 
109-119), and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
67.
    On June 20, 2005, the H.R. 2863 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 315, and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 398 yeas and 19 nays.
    On June 21, 2005, H.R. 2863 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    On September 26, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Defense met in open markup session and approved 
for full committee consideration with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute favorably.
    On September 28, 2005, the Committee on Appropriations met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R 2863 to be reported with 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. The 
Committee on Appropriations reported by Senator Stevens with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, without written 
report, and H.R. 2863 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 
under General Orders. Calendar No. 230.
    On September 29, 2005, Senator Stevens from Committee on 
Appropriations filed written report (Report No. 109-141).
    H.R. 2863 was considered in the Senate on September 30, 
2005, October 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 2005. On October 5, 2005, 
Cloture was invoked in the Senate by a record vote of 95 yeas 
and 4 nays.
    On October 7, 2005, H.R. 2863 passed Senate, with an 
amendment, by a record vote of 97 yeas and 0 nays. The Senate 
insisted on its amendment, and asked for a conference.
    On December 14, 2005 the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment, and agreed to a conference.
    On December 18, 2005 the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2863 was filed (H. Rept. 109-359).
    On December 19, 2005, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2863 under the provisions of H. Res. 
639, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 2863 passed 
the House by a roll call vote of 308 yeas, 106 nays, and 2 
present.
    On December 19 and 21, 2005, the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2863 was considered in the Senate.
    On December 21, 2005, cloture on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2863 not invoked in Senate by a record vote of 
56 yeas and 44 nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2863 passed the Senate, by a record vote of 93 yeas and 0 
nays.
    On December 28, 2005, H.R. 2863 was presented to the 
President, and on December 30, 2005, the President signed H.R. 
2863 (Public Law 109-148).

                  EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PRESERVATION ACT

                     Public Law 109-151 (H.R. 4579)

    To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by one year 
provisions requiring parity in the application of certain 
limits to mental health benefits.

Summary

    H.R. 4579 extends through 2006 mental health parity 
provisions, which require group health plans to treat equally 
mental health benefits and medical and surgical benefits for 
purposes of lifetime limits or annual limits on benefits 
covered by the plan

Legislative History

    Mr. Boehner introduced H.R. 4579 on December 16, 2005, and 
it was referred to the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and 
Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned.
    On December 17, 2005, H.R. 4579 was considered by the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice 
vote.
    H.R. 4579 was received in the Senate and read twice on 
December 17, 2005.
    On December 22, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 4579 without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 4579 was presented to the President on December 28, 
2005, and was signed by the President on December 30, 2005 
(Public Law 109-151).

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815, S. 1042)


                          (Health Provisions)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    Section 601 authorized the Public Health Service Corps to 
receive the same pay raise as the rest of the uniformed 
services.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1815 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 26, 2005, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On May 18, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 1815 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 20, 2005, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 1815.
    On May 20, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services reported 
H.R. 1815 to the House, amended, (H. Rept. 109-89). H.R. 1815 
was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47.
    On May 25, 2005, H.R. 1815 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 293, and passed the House, as amended, by a 
roll call vote of 390 yeas and 39 nays.
    H.R. 1815 was received in the Senate on June 6, 2005, read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On November 15, 2005, H.R. 1855 was laid before the Senate 
and passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On December 15, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and on December 16, 
2005, the Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, for consideration of sections 314, 601, 
1032, and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 312, 1084, 2893, 
3116, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications 
committed to conference.
    On December 18, 2005, the conferees filed the conference 
report (H. Rept. 109-360).
    On December 18, 2005, the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 18144 was consider in the House, and on December 19, 2005, 
the conference report as unfinished business, and passed the 
House by a roll call vote of 374 yeas and 41 nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report was considered 
in the Senate, agreed to by a voice vote, and cleared for the 
White House.
    H.R. 1815 was presented to the President on January 3, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 6, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163).

       TRAFFICKING VICTIMS PROTECTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-164 (H.R. 972)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 
for the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 972 amends the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2000 to direct The United States Agency for International 
Development (USAID), the Department of State (Department), and 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to incorporate anti-trafficking 
and protection measures for vulnerable populations, 
particularly women and children, into their post-conflict and 
humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities.
    H.R. 972 also amends the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act of 1994 to extend the sexually violent offender 
registration program to foreign offenses. It also amends the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to revise the 
Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking (Task 
Force) membership and minimum standards for the elimination of 
trafficking, includes HIV/AIDS within the health risk research 
on the effects of trafficking, requires the Human Smuggling and 
Trafficking Center to report to the appropriate congressional 
committees respecting research initiatives on domestic and 
international trafficking, and requires that the Secretary's 
annual trafficking report include information on measures taken 
by the United Nations (U.N.), the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO), and other multilateral organizations in which the 
United States participates to prevent the involvement of the 
organization's employees, contractor personnel, and 
peacekeeping forces in trafficking.
    It also directs the Secretary, prior to voting for a 
peacekeeping mission, to notify the appropriate committees 
respecting measures taken to prevent peacekeeping personnel 
from involvement in trafficking or sexual exploitation, and 
amends the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to require foreign 
service training to include instruction on international 
documents and U.S. policy on trafficking.
    The legislation authorizes the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services to make grants (75% maximum Federal share) to 
states, Indian tribes, local government, and nonprofit, 
nongovernmental victims' service organizations to establish or 
expand assistance programs for U.S. citizens or permanent 
resident aliens who are the subject of sex trafficking or 
severe forms of trafficking that occurs in the United States. 
This section authorizes FY2006-FY2007 appropriations to carry 
out such purposes.
    H.R. 972 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
to: carry out a pilot program to establish residential 
treatment facilities in the United States for juveniles 
subjected to trafficking; and submit an implementation report 
to Congress. Section 203 authorizes FY2006-FY2007 
appropriations to carry out these purposes.

Legislative History

    Mr. Smith (NJ) introduced H.R. 972 on February 17, 2005, 
and it was referred to the Committee on International 
Relations, in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, the 
Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On March 10, 2005, the Committee on International Relations 
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International 
Relations met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 972 to 
the full committee, amended, by voice vote.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 972 was referred to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, for a period to 
be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
    On October 7, 2005, the Committee on International 
Relations met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 972 
reported to the House, amended, by voice vote.
    On November 18, 2005, the Committee on International 
Relations reported H.R. 972 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 
109-317, Part I). The Committees on Armed Services and Energy 
and Commerce were discharged from further consideration of H.R. 
972, and the Committee on Judiciary was granted an extension 
for further consideration ending not later than December 8, 
2005.
    On December 8, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 972 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote. On the same day, the Committee on the 
Judiciary reported H.R. 972 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 
109-317, Part II), and H.R. 972 was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 183.
    On December 14, 2005, the H.R. 972 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as 
amended, by a roll call vote of 426 yeas and 0 nays.
    On December 15, 2005, H.R. 972 was received in the Senate 
and read twice.
    On December 22, 2005, H.R. 972 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On January 3, 2006, H.R. 972 was presented to the President 
and was signed by the President on January 10, 2006 (Public Law 
109-164).

           TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-165 (H.R. 2017)

    To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to 
authorize appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and 
foreign programs and centers for the treatment of victims of 
torture, and for other purposes

Summary

    H.R. 2017 authorizes the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) to provide grants to programs in the United 
States to cover the costs of services provided by domestic 
treatment centers in the rehabilitation of victims of torture 
(including treatment of the physical and psychological effects 
of torture), social and legal services, and research and 
training of health care providers outside of treatment centers 
or programs to enable them to provide such services; grants to 
treatment centers and programs in foreign countries that carry 
out projects and activities specifically designed to treat 
victims of torture for the physical and psychological effects 
of torture; and voluntary contributions to the United Nations 
Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2017 was introduced by Mr. Smith (NJ) on April 28, 
2005, and it was referred to the Committee on International 
Relations, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On May 13, 2005, H.R. 2017 was referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
    On May 19, 2005, H.R. 2017 was referred to the Committee on 
International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human 
Rights and International Relations.
    On June 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human 
Rights and International Relations met in open markup session 
and H.R. 2017 was forwarded to the Full Committee by voice 
vote.
    On June 30, 2005, the Committee on International Relations 
met in open markup session and the Committee Agreed to Seek 
Consideration under suspension of the rules, by unanimous 
consent.
    On December 6, 2005, H.R. 2017 was considered in the Hosue 
under suspension and passed the Hosue by voice vote.
    H.R. 2017 was received in the Senate on December 12, 2005. 
On December 22, 2005, H.R. 2017 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On January 3, 2006, H.R. 2017 was presented to the 
President, and was signed by the President on January 10, 2006 
(Public Law 109-165).

                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

                Public Law 109-171 (S. 1932, H.R. 4241)


               (Title V and Title VI--Health Provisions)

    To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 
(H. Con. Res. 95).

Summary

    The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) makes no changes to current 
law with respect to reimbursement for single source drugs. 
However, average manufacturer price (AMP) data will be made 
available to states and to the public so that there will be 
greatly increased pricing transparency. For multiple source 
drugs, the new Federal upper limit will be increased to 250% of 
the lowest AMP. Under current law, the Federal upper limit is 
150% of the lowest published price.
    The DRA makes no changes to current law with respect to 
dispensing fees. States have the ability to set the dispensing 
fee at the appropriate amount. AMP data will be available to 
States and made public on a Web site, and reported on a monthly 
basis, creating greater transparency in prescription drug 
pricing. This transparency should improve market competition, 
bring prices down for consumers, and protect the taxpayer from 
needless waste.
    In the DRA, wholesalers' customary prompt pay discounts 
will be excluded from the calculation of AMP, which will 
increase the AMP number. Additionally, the Secretary may 
contract with a vendor to determine retail survey prices (RSP) 
for prescription drugs, to further ensure that pharmacies are 
being reimbursed fairly. States must annually report to the 
Secretary on their pharmacy payment rates, dispensing fees, and 
utilization data for non-innovator multiple source (generic) 
drugs.
    There is some ambiguity in current law as to the treatment 
of generic drugs that are produced by the brand manufacturer. 
These drugs are commonly referred to as ``authorized generic'' 
drugs. The Medicaid drug rebate program includes different 
calculations for brand name products and generics. For brand 
name drugs, the rebate amount is the greater of 15.1% of the 
AMP or the AMP minus the manufacturer's best price. The generic 
drug rebate is 11% of the AMP. When manufacturers produce both 
a brand name version of a drug and a generic version of the 
drug, the generic versions of the drugs are not included in the 
price that is calculated for the rebate. This provision 
modifies the existing drug price reporting requirements to 
require manufacturers to include authorized generics in their 
average manufacturer price and best price.
    Current law states that under the 340(B) drug discount 
program, certain health care providers, including community 
health centers and disproportionate share hospitals, are 
allowed access to prescription drug prices that are similar to 
the prices paid by Medicaid agencies after being reduced by 
manufacturer rebates. The DRA adds Children's Hospitals to the 
list of providers that may have access to the 340(B) discounted 
prices.
    The DRA makes changes to the collection and submission of 
utilization data for certain physician administered drugs. This 
provision requires States to submit the utilization and coding 
information for these drugs so that rebates can be collected. 
In certain hardship cases, the Secretary may delay the 
application of the reporting requirements for a Federal that 
requires additional time to implement these reporting systems.
    The DRA would allow states to impose premiums and cost 
sharing on certain groups of individuals, subject to 
restrictions. It indexes nominal cost-sharing to medical 
inflation and increases cost sharing limits on prescription 
drugs and emergency room visits. For some higher income 
populations states would be permitted to charge higher premiums 
with a cap of 5 percent of a family's income. The DRA would 
allow states to permit providers participating in Medicaid to 
require a beneficiary to pay authorized cost-sharing. However, 
a provider would be allowed to reduce or waive cost-sharing 
requirements on a case by case basis. The DRA increases state 
flexibility by allowing them to provide Medicaid beneficiaries 
alternative benefit packages.
    Prior to the Deficit Reduction Act, states were only 
required to obtain documentary evidence from individuals who 
declared that they were not citizens or nationals. Under 
changes made by the DRA, States now must obtain documentary 
evidence of both citizenship and identity from individuals who 
declare that they are citizens or nationals (with certain 
exceptions) in order to receive Federal reimbursement for 
Medicaid services provided to these individuals.
    DRA also expanded Medicaid eligibility to low and middle 
income families with children with disabilities. These children 
are exempted from being mandated into benefit flexibility 
packages.
    The DRA lengthens the look-back period for Medicaid 
eligibility and implements changes in beginning date for the 
period of ineligibility. The look-back period for all transfers 
is increased to five years. The current penalty rules are 
modified so that the current penalty period may begin when the 
person is determined eligible for Medicaid, rather than from 
the time they transferred the asset.
    This provision is prospective only and shall apply to 
transfers made on or after the date of enactment. Under the 
DRA, each State would be required to provide a hardship waiver 
process. A hardship would exist when the application of the 
transfer of assets provision would deprive the individual of 
medical care that would endanger their health or life or 
deprive them of food, clothing, shelter, or other necessities 
of life. Determinations under the hardship waiver process must 
be timely and there must be process to appeal an adverse 
determination.
    The DRA increases the look-back period from 3 to 5 years 
for general transfers so it is now the same as the look-back 
for period for certain trusts. Additionally, the penalty rule 
for improper transfers would begin most often when an 
individual would otherwise be eligible and receiving care 
rather than at the time the asset was transferred.
    The DRA similarly strengthens Medicaid asset transfer 
policies by: Not allowing states to ``round down,'' or not 
include in the ineligibility period the quotient amounts that 
are less than one month, as is under current law. Allowing 
States to determine the penalty period for individuals who 
dispose of multiple fractional transfers of assets in more than 
one month for less than fair market value on or after the 
applicable look-back date as the total as one transfer. Adding 
additional assets that would be subject to the look-back 
period, and thus a penalty, if established or transferred for 
less than fair market value. Such assets would include funds 
used to purchase a promissory note, loan or mortgage, as well 
as life estate interest in another individual's home.
    To protect seniors making transfers for a non-Medicaid 
purpose, the conference agreement does not impose a penalty or 
affect access to Medicaid for those transfers. Even if the 
senior cannot document the non-Medicaid purpose for the 
transfer, the conference agreement codifies existing hardship 
procedure so no one is denied vital care.
    The DRA limits Medicaid eligibility so that an individual 
with more than $500,000 in home equity cannot qualify, and 
provides the states with the option to increase this limit to 
$750,000. This limit doesn't apply when there is a spouse, 
minor, or disabled child living in the home or in the case of a 
demonstrated hardship.
    States would be authorized to provide home and community-
based services as an optional State plan benefit without a 
waiver to seniors, the disabled, persons with a developmental 
disability, mental retardation or a related condition. States 
could also offer self-directed personal assistance services 
(e.g., ``Cash & Counseling'') as an optional State plan benefit 
without requiring a waiver. Participants can purchase eligible 
services and hire, fire, supervise and manage service providers 
who can now include spouses and parents.
    The DRA allows every State to establish a Long-Term Care 
Partnership whereby states offer enhanced asset protection for 
purchasers of long-term care insurance if insured ever applies 
for Medicaid.
    Title V, Subtitle A, amends Title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act to require hospitals that do not submit certain 
required data to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in 
fiscal year 2007 and each subsequent year to have the 
applicable market basket percentage reduced by two percentage 
points. It also provides that, for discharges occurring on or 
after October 1, 2008, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) 
assigned for a described discharge shall be a DRG that does not 
result in higher payment based on the presence of a secondary 
described diagnosis code. It requires a hospital to report an 
individual's secondary diagnosis at admission with the 
information submitted with respect to the individual's 
discharge in order for payment to be made, and requires the 
Secretary to select diagnosis codes associated with at least 
two conditions.
    Title V, Subtitle A, also permits the Secretary to include 
inpatient hospital days of patients eligible for medical 
assistance under a certain demonstration waiver in the Medicare 
disproportionate share hospital (DSH) adjustment calculation, 
and ratifies certain existing regulations. It extends the 
Medicare dependent hospital (MDH) status for qualifying rural 
hospitals through discharges occurring before October 1, 2011. 
It authorizes an MDH, with respect to discharges occurring on 
or after October 1, 2006, to elect payments based on its fiscal 
year 2002 hospital-specific costs, if that would result in 
higher Medicare payments. It bases MDH payments on 75 percent 
of their adjusted hospital-specific costs starting for 
discharges on October 1, 2006.
    It also reduces payments to skilled nursing facilities for 
allowable bad debts attributable to Medicare coinsurance by 30 
percent for those individuals who are not dually eligible for 
Medicare and Medicaid. It directs the Secretary to apply 
certain applicable percentages in the classification criterion 
used to determine whether a hospital or hospital unit is an 
inpatient rehabilitation facility for Medicare purposes. It 
directs the Secretary to develop a strategic and implementing 
plan regarding physician investment in specialty hospitals that 
address issues related to proportionality of investment return, 
bona fide investments, annual disclosure of investment 
information, and the provision of Medicaid and charity care by 
specialty hospitals. It directs the Secretary to establish a 
qualified gainsharing demonstration program for projects to: 
(1) test and evaluate methodologies and arrangements between 
hospitals and physicians designed to govern the utilization of 
inpatient hospital resources and physician work to improve the 
quality and efficiency of care provided to Medicare 
beneficiaries; and (2) develop improved operational and 
financial hospital performance with sharing of remuneration as 
specified in the project. It directs the Secretary to establish 
a demonstration program for the purposes of understanding costs 
and outcomes across different post-acute care sites.
    Title V, Subtitle B, amends title XVIII of the Social 
Security Act to: (1) require the supplier to transfer the title 
of durable medical equipment (DME) in the capped rental 
category to the beneficiary after a thirteen month rental 
period; (2) eliminate automatic payments to the supplier every 
six months for maintenance and servicing; and (3) allow 
reasonable and necessary payments (for parts and labor not 
covered by the supplier's or manufacturer's warranty). It 
requires the supplier of oxygen equipment (including portable 
oxygen equipment) to transfer the title to the beneficiary 
after a 36-month rental period. It allows reasonable and 
necessary payments for maintenance and servicing of the 
equipment.
    It provides that reduced expenditures attributable to the 
multiple procedure payment reduction for imaging (under the 
final rule published November 21, 2005) shall not be taken into 
account for purposes of the budget neutrality calculation for 
2006 and 2007. It declares that, for specified imaging services 
furnished on or after January 1, 2007, if the technical 
component (including the technical component of a global fee) 
exceeds the Medicare outpatient department (OPD) fee schedule 
amount established under the prospective payment system (PPS) 
for such service, the Secretary shall substitute the Medicare 
OPD fee schedule amount, adjusted by the relevant geographic 
adjustment factor. It requires that ambulatory care surgery 
centers (ASC) be paid the Medicare OPD fee schedule amount 
whenever the ASC facility payment (without application of any 
geographic price differences) is greater than the Medicare OPD 
fee schedule amount for the same service.
    Title V, Subtitle B, also provides that the update to the 
single conversion factor for physicians' services for 2006 
shall be 0 percent, and requires the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission (MedPAC) to report to Congress on mechanisms that 
could be used to replace the sustainable growth rate system. It 
requires an increase in Medicare payments for covered OPD 
services in calendar 2006-2008 to non-sole community small 
rural hospitals with no more than 100 beds, if their OPD 
payments under the PPS are less than under the prior 
reimbursement system. It directs the Secretary to increase the 
amount of the composite rate component of the basic case-mix 
adjusted PPS for dialysis services furnished on or after 
January 1, 2006, by 1.6 percent above the amount of such 
component for such services furnished on December 31, 2005. It 
directs the Secretary to implement an exceptions process with 
respect to physical therapy, speech language pathology, and 
occupational therapy caps for expenses incurred in 2006. It 
directs the Secretary to implement clinically appropriate code 
edits with respect to Medicare part B payments for physical 
therapy services, occupational therapy services, and speech-
language pathology services in order to identify and eliminate 
improper payments.
    The legislation also revises requirements for the reduction 
in Medicare part B premium subsidy based on income, and 
increases the monthly adjustment amounts and accelerates their 
phase-in for higher income enrollees, with the provision fully 
effective in 2009. It authorizes Medicare coverage of 
ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms for an 
individual meeting certain criteria. It makes the part B 
deductible inapplicable to colorectal cancer screening tests. 
It adds diabetes self-management training and medical nutrition 
therapy services to those that may be covered under the all-
inclusive per visit payment rate for federally qualified health 
centers (FQHCs). It permits delayed enrollment under Medicare 
part B without a delayed enrollment penalty to individuals who: 
(1) serve as volunteers outside the United States through a 
program sponsored by a tax-exempt organization that covers at 
least 12 months; and (2) demonstrate health insurance coverage 
while serving in the program. It creates a special six-month 
special part B enrollment period for such individuals beginning 
on the first day of the month they were no longer in the 
program.
    Title V, Subtitle C, revises requirements for home health 
payments, eliminating the update for home health payments in 
2006. It requires a home health agency to submit certain 
quality data to the Secretary annually, or incur a 2% reduction 
in the fiscal year market basket update, and requires MedPAC to 
report to Congress on a detailed structure of value based 
payment adjustments for home health services under the Medicare 
program. It lengthens from 26 days to 28 days after a claim is 
received the period during which a Medicare administrative 
contract for the disbursement of funds must prohibit the 
payment of a claim not submitted electronically. It delays 
Medicare part A and B payments by nine days. It increases the 
Medicare Integrity Program funding amounts by $100 million for 
fiscal year 2006.
    Title V, Subtitle D, provides for the phase-out of risk 
adjustment budget neutrality over 2007 through 2010 in 
determining the amount of payments to Medicare Advantage 
Organizations. It directs the Secretary to establish a process 
and criteria to award site development grants to qualified 
Programs of All-inclusive Care for Elderly (PACE) providers 
that have been approved to serve a rural area.
    The Deficit Reduction Act provides for hurricane Katrina 
health care relief. The conference agreement appropriates $2 
billion, in addition to any funds made available for the 
National Disaster Medical System, for use by the Secretary of 
HHS to pay eligible states (those who have provided care to 
affected individuals or evacuees under a Section 1115 project). 
These funds may be used for the non-Federal share of 
expenditures for health care provided to affected individuals 
and evacuees under approved multi-state Section 1115 
demonstration projects; reasonable administrative costs related 
to such projects; the non-Federal share of expenditures for 
medical care provided to individuals under existing Medicaid 
and SCHIP Federal plans; and other purposes, if approved by the 
Secretary, to restore access to health care in impacted 
communities.
    Additionally the conference agreement provides funding for 
State high risk health insurance pools For FY2006, $75 million 
is authorized and appropriated for the losses incurred by a 
State in connection with the operation of their qualified high 
risk pool. There is also $15 million in FY2006 authorized and 
appropriated to fund seed grants to States to create, and 
initially fund, a high risk pool. This funding will also apply 
upon the enactment of the State High Risk Pool Funding 
Extension Act.

Legislative History

    On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print 
entitled Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina energy 
relief, as amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 22 nays. A 
motion by Mr. Barton to transmit the recommendations of the 
Committee, and all appropriate accompanying material including 
additional, supplemental, or dissenting views, to the House 
Committee on the Budget, in order to comply with the 
reconciliation directive included in Section 201(a) of the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H. 
Con. Res. 95, and consistent with Section 310 of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, was 
agreed to by a voice vote.
    On October 27, 2005, Mr. Gregg introduced S. 1932 and the 
Senate Committee on the Budget reported without a written 
report.
    On November 3, 2005, S. 1932 was passed and agreed to in 
the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 nays.
    On November 7, 2005, Mr. Nussle introduced H.R. 4241, which 
included the Medicaid, Katrina health relief, and Katrina 
energy relief, and the House Committee on the Budget reported 
an original measure (H. Rept. 109-276).
    On November 17, 2005, H.R. 4241 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 560, and passed the House on November 18, 
2006, by a roll call vote of 217 yeas and 215 nays. No further 
action was taken on H.R. 4241 in the 109th Congress.
    On November 18, 2005, S. 1932 was considered in the House 
by unanimous consent, and was agreed to, amended, without 
objection.
    On December 14, 2005, the Senate disagreed to the amendment 
of the House, and requested a conference on S. 1932 by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 15, 2005, the Senate appointed conferees.
    On December 16, 2005, Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent 
that the House insist upon its amendment, and agree to a 
conference. The request was agreed to without objection.
    On December 16, 2005, the Speaker of the House appointed 
conferees for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House 
amendment thereto, and modifications committed to conference. 
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce for consideration of title III and title VI of the 
Senate bill and title III of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Deal (GA), 
and Dingell.
    On December 19, 2005, the conference report to accompany S. 
1932 (H. Rept. 109-362) was filed, considered under the 
provisions of H. Res. 640, and the House agreed to the 
conference report by a roll call vote of 212 yeas and 206 nays.
    On December 19, 20, and 21, 2005, the conference report was 
considered in the Senate.
    On December 21, 2005, Senate concurred in the House 
amendment with an amendment by a record vote of 51 yeas and 50 
nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report was defeated by 
operation of the Budget Act.
    On January 31, 2006, the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 
653 provided for consideration of S. 1932, upon adoption of the 
resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
    On February 1, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653.
    On February 7, 2006, S. 1932 was presented to the President 
and was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006 
(Public Law 109-171).

           STATE HIGH RISK POOL FUNDING EXTENSION ACT OF 2006

               Public Law 109-172 (H.R. 4519, H.R. 3204)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to extend funding 
for the operation of State high risk health insurance pools.

Summary

    H.R. 4519 extends funding for the operation and 
establishment of State high risk health insurance pools. The 
bill increases the maximum allowable premium charged under a 
qualified high risk pool to 200% of the premium for applicable 
standard risk rates. It changes the allocation of such grants 
to give 40% to eligible states equally, 30% based on the number 
of uninsured individuals in a State relative to all States, and 
30% based on the number of enrollees in a State's qualified 
high risk pool relative to all States. The bill also requires a 
State which charges premiums that exceed 150% of the premium 
for applicable standard risks to use at least 50% of the grant 
amount to reduce premiums for enrollees.

Legislative History

    On July 12, 2005, Mr. Shadegg introduced H.R. 3204 and it 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 14, 2005, H.R. 3204 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health, and the Subcommittee on Health met in 
open markup session, and forwarded H.R. 3204 to the Full 
Committee by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3204 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce reported H.R. 3204 to 
the House, as amended, on July 27, 2005 (H. Rept. 109-192).
    On July 27, 2005, H.R. 3204 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    The bill was received in the Senate on July 28, 2005, read 
twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. Calendar No. 181.
    On October 19, 2005, H.R. 3204 passed the Senate, with an 
amendment, by unanimous consent.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 3204 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On December 13, 2005, Mr. Shadegg introduced H.R. 4519 and 
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On December 17, 2005, H.R. 4519 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice 
vote.
    The bill was received in the Senate on December 17, 2005.
    On January 27, 2006, H.R. 4519 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On February 1, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions discharged H.R. 4519 by unanimous consent, 
and H.R. 4519 passed the Senate by unanimous consent.
    H.R. 4519 was presented to the President on February 3, 
2006, and was signed by the President on February 10, 2006 
(Public Law 109-172).

        USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-177 (H.R. 3199)


                          (Health Provisions)


Summary

    H.R. 3199 included provisions dealing with combating 
methamphetamine abuse. It reduces the exemption to reporting 
requirements for individual sales of pseudoephedrine and 
phenylpropanolamine from 9 grams to 3.6 grams per transaction 
and eliminates the reporting exemption for blister packs, and 
extends the Attorney General's existing authority to set 
production quotas for certain controlled substances to 
methamphetamine precursor chemicals.
    H.R. 3199 also extends the Attorney General's existing 
authority to set import quotas for controlled substances to 
methamphetamine precursor chemicals, closes the loophole in the 
spot market for imports and exports of precursor chemicals for 
methamphetamine, and extends the current reporting 
requirements--as well as the current exemption for regular 
importers, exporters, and customers--to post-import or export 
transactions.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3199 was introduced by Mr. Sensenbrenner on July 11, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in 
addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On July 13, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open mark session and ordered H.R. 3199 reported to the House, 
as amended, by a record vote of 23 ayes and 14 nays.
    On July 13, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent 
Select) met in open mark session and ordered H.R. 3199 reported 
to the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On July 18, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-174, Part I).
    On July 18, 2005, the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent 
Select) reported H.R. 3199 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 
109-174, Part II).
    On July 21, 2005, pursuant to the provisions H. Res. 369, 
the House considered H.R. 3199, and passed the bill by a roll 
call vote of 257 ayes and 171 nays.
    On July 25, 2005, H.R. 3199 was received in the Senate and 
read twice.
    On July 29, 2005, H.R. 3199 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate requested a 
conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On November 9, 2005, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to a conference, and the Speaker appointed 
conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for 
consideration of Sections 124 and 231 of the House bill, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    On December 8, 2005, the conferees filed the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 3199 (H. Rept. 109-333).
    On December 14, 2005, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 3199 pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 595 and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 251 yeas 
and 174 nays.
    On December 14, 15, and 16, 2005, the Senate considered the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 3199.
    On December 16, 2005, motion to invoke cloture was not 
agreed to in the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 
nays.
    On March 1, 2006, motion to proceed to consideration of the 
motion to reconsider agreed to in Senate by a record vote of 86 
yeas and 13 nays, and upon reconsideration, cloture invoked in 
Senate by a record vote of 84 yeas and 15 nays.
    The conference report to accompany H.R. 3199 was agreed to 
by a record vote of 89 yeas and 10 nays on March 2, 2006, and 
cleared for the White House.
    H.R. 3199 was presented to the President on March 8, 2006, 
and signed by the President on March 9, 2006 (Public Law 109-
177).

  TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE NATIONAL 
     FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

                      Public Law 109-245 (S. 655)

    A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act with respect 
to the National Foundation for the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention.

Summary

    S. 655 amends Section 399G of the Public Health Service Act 
(PHSA) to provide increased flexibility in the amounts of 
Federal funding and support services allocated to the Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Foundation and 
requires the Foundation to: (1) include an accounting of the 
use of funds transferred from the CDC to the Foundation in its 
annual report; and (2) submit such reports to the appropriate 
congressional committees.

Legislative History

    S. 655 was introduced on March 17, 2005, in the Senate by 
Senator Johnny Isakson, and it was read twice and referred to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S. 
655 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute favorably.
    On July 27, 2005, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions reported by Senator Enzi with an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute with written report (No. 109-91), 
and S. 655 was paced on Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 140.
    On July 27, 2005, S.655 passed the Senate with an amendment 
by unanimous consent.
    S. 655 was received in the House on July 28, 2005, and was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On August 5, 2005, S. 655 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Health.
    On June 8, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and forwarded S. 655 to the full Committee 
without amendment by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered S. 655 favorably reported to 
the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported S. 655 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-510), and 
S. 655 was Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 286.
    On July 11, 2006, S. 655 was considered in the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by 
voice vote.
    On July 13, 2006, the Senate agreed to the House amendment 
by unanimous consent, clearing S. 655 for the President.
    On July 18, 2006, S. 655 was presented to the President and 
was signed by the President on July 26, 2006 (Public Law 109-
245).

        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

                      Public Law 109-295 (HR 5441)


                          (Health Provisions)

    Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5441 establishes the office of the Chief Medical 
Officer in the Department of Homeland Security. The legislation 
also authorizes $60 million for the Metropolitan Medical 
Response System. Finally, H.R. 5441 permanently transferred the 
National Disaster Medical System from the Department of 
Homeland Security to the Department Health and Human Services.

Legislative History

    On May 22, 2006, Mr. Rogers (KY) reported an original 
measure (H. Rept. 109-476) to the House.
    On May 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5441 and on June 
6, 2006, the House reconvened to consider H.R. 5441 as 
unfinished business and passed H.R. 5441 by a roll call vote of 
389 yeas and 9 nays.
    On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    On June 26, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved favorably for full 
committee consideration with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. On June 29, 2006, the Committee on Appropriations 
ordered H.R. 5441 to be reported favorably with an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute with written report no. 109-273.
    On July 11, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by the Senate 
and on July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441 with an 
amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. On July 13, 
2006, the Senate insisted on its amendment, and asked for a 
conference and appointed conferees.
    On July 17, 2006, H.R. 5814, Department of Homeland 
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, was introduced 
by Mr. King (NY) and referred to the House Committee on 
Homeland Security.
    On July 19, 2006, the House Committee on Homeland Security 
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 5814 to be 
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
    On November 9, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security 
reported H.R. 5814 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-713, 
Part I), and it was referred jointly and sequentially to the 
Committee on Ways and Means for a period ending not later than 
November 17, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the 
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
committee pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X, and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than November 
17, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5814 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On July 20, 2006, H.R. 5852 was introduced by Mr. Reichert 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and, in 
addition to the Committee on Homeland Security.
    On July 24, 2006, H.R. 5852 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
    On July 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5852 under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call 
vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays.
    On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5852 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. No further action was taken on H.R. 5852 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 5441, and agreed to a conference by voice 
vote. The Speaker appointed conferees.
    On September 25, 2006, Conferees agreed to file a 
conference report, and on September 28, 2006, the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) was filed, 
which included H.R. 5852 as a provision within the Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
    On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) under the 
provisions of H. Res. 1054, and agreed to the conference report 
by a roll call vote of 412 yeas and 6 nays. On the same day, 
the Senate agreed to the conference report by voice vote.
    On October 3, 2006, H.R. 5441 was presented to the 
President, and on October 4, H.R. 5441 was signed by the 
President (Public Law 109-295).

      CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL GME SUPPORT REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-307 (H.R. 5574)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize 
support for graduate medical education programs in children's 
hospitals.

Summary

    H.R. 5574 reauthorizes the Children's Hospital Graduate 
Medical Education program from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal 
year 2011.

Legislative History

    Mr. Deal introduced H.R. 5574 on June 9, 2006, and it was 
referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and approved H.R. 5574 for Full Committee 
consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present.
    On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5574 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5574 to the House (H. Rept 109-508).
    On June 21, 2006, H.R. 5574 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 421 yeas and 4 nays.
    On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5574 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    H.R. 5574 passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous 
consent on September 26, 2006.
    On September 28, 2006, the House considered the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 5574 under suspension of the rules, and 
passed the House by voice vote.
    H.R. 5574 was presented to the President on September 29, 
2006, and was signed by the President on October 6, 2006 
(Public Law 109-307).

  JOHN WARNER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

                Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122, S. 2766)


                          (Health Provisions)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for 
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    Section 601 authorized the Public Health Service Corps to 
receive the same pay raise as the rest of the uniformed 
services.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5122 was introduced by Mr. Hunter on April 6, 2006, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On May 3, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 5122 reported to the House, 
amended, by a record vote of 60 yeas and 1 nay.
    On May 5, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services reported 
H.R. 5122 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-452). H.R. 
5122 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 253.
    On May 9, 2006, there was an exchange of correspondence 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Armed Services concerning H.R. 5122.
    On May 10 and 11, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5122 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 806 and H. Res. 811. On 
May 11, 2006, H.R. 5122, passed the House by a roll call vote 
of 396 ayes and 31 nays.
    On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5122 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under 
General Orders. Calendar No. 431.
    On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5122 was laid before the Senate and 
passed with an amendment by unanimous consent. The Senate 
requested a conference with the House and appointed conferees.
    On September 7, 2006, the House disagreed with the Senate 
amendment and agreed to go to conference, and the Speaker 
appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
for consideration of sections 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117, 
and 3201 of the House bill, and sections 332-335, 352, 601, 
722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference.
    The Conference Committee met on September 12, 2005, and the 
conferees filed the conference report to accompany H.R. 5122 on 
September 29, 2006 (H. Rept. 109-702).
    On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5122 pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 1062, and passed the bill by a roll call vote of 398 yeas 
and 23 nays.
    On September 30, 2006, the conference report was considered 
in the Senate, agreed to by unanimous consent, and cleared for 
the White House. H.R. 5122 was presented to the President on 
October 5, 2006, and signed by the President on October 17, 
2006 (Public Law 109-364).

        RYAN WHITE HIV/AIDS TREATMENT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-415 (H.R. 6143)

    To amend title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act to 
revise and extend the program for providing life-saving care 
for those with HIV/AIDS.

Summary

    H.R. 6143 requires that grantees under Titles I, II, and 
III of the Ryan White Care program spend not less than 75 
percent of their funds on core medical services with the 
opportunity for eligible entities to receive a waiver from this 
requirement if certain conditions are met. States would be able 
to spend the remaining 25 percent of funds on support services 
if the Secretary determines the services are needed for 
individuals with HIV/AIDS to achieve their medical outcomes. 
H.R. 6143 also makes changes to the Title I and Title II 
formulas, basing both on the number of cases of HIV/AIDS rather 
than estimated living AIDS cases. H.R. 6143 changes the 
distribution for funds for Title I funds so that two-thirds of 
the funds will be awarded through a formula and one-third would 
be through supplement grants, and allows a hold harmless for 
EMAs at 95 percent of their FY 2006 award for FY 2007 and a 
hold harmless for FY 2008 and FY 2009 at 100 percent of the FY 
2007 award. H.R. 6143 provides a three-year transition period 
for grandfathered EMAs that no longer meet a required incidence 
and prevalence of AIDS cases threshold.
    The calculation of the Title II formula distribution is 
also changed from a .80/.20 calculation to a .75/.20, with an 
additional 5 percent of the funding distribution reserved for 
States with no Title I entities. All States receive a hold 
harmless at 95 percent of their FY 2006 award beginning in FY 
2007 and a hold harmless at 100 percent of their FY 2007 award 
for FY 2008 and FY 2009. H.R. 6143 provides an opportunity in 
all three years of the reauthorization for States (and Title I 
entities) that lose formula funds to apply for prioritized 
supplemental awards. H.R. 6143 also prevents otherwise 
potentially severe losses in funding under current law for FY 
2007 for States (and Title I entities) with code-based HIV 
reporting systems.
    H.R. 6143 increases the authorization levels for Titles I, 
II, and III by 3.7 percent. Administrative expenses are capped 
at 10 percent for each entity receiving funds through Titles I-
IV. In addition, H.R. 6143 includes $70 million in new money in 
the Title II base for 2007. New carryover provisions help keep 
funds awarded to entities within the Ryan White program rather 
than being returned to the Treasury. H.R. 6143 creates a new 
Title II supplemental award and disconnects the ADAP 
supplemental award from funding a Title II hold harmless 
provision should it be triggered. H.R. 6143 creates a minimum 
list drug list for antiretrovirals for ADAPs, and increases the 
ADAP set aside for the ADAP supplement from a 3 percent to a 5 
percent set aside.
    H.R. 6143 also codifies, in part, the Minority AIDS 
Initiative. In addition, it provides the Administration with 
the flexibility to address emergencies, to address emerging 
needs, and to promote the development of health information 
technology. H.R. 6143 also strengthens the Ryan White program 
by providing more accountability and transparency through more 
statewide coordination of funding. H.R. directs the Secretary 
to develop a severity of need index by September 30, 2008 and 
submit it to Congress (or a report on its progress if not 
ready). The reauthorization is for three years with the entire 
program to sunset FY 2010.

Legislative History

    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered a Committee Print 
entitled the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 
2006 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a record vote 
of 38 yeas and 10 nays, a quorum being present. A request by 
Mr. Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill to be 
introduced, and that the actions of the Committee be deemed as 
actions on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
    On September 21, 2006, Ms. Bono introduced H.R. 6143, and 
it was solely referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 25, 2006, H.R. 6143 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On September 28, 2006, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request on September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce reported H.R. 6143 to the House (H. Rept. 109-695) and 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 420.
    On September 28, 2006, H.R. 6143 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 325 yeas and 98 nays.
    On September 29, 2006, H.R. 6143 was received in the 
Senate.
    On November 13, 2006, H.R. 6143 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 6143 was discharged by the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions by 
unanimous consent, and passed the Senate with an amendment by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, the House concurred in the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 6143 by unanimous consent, clearing the bill 
for the White House.
    H.R. 6143 was presented to the President on December 15, 
2006, and signed by the President on December 19, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-415).

                       THE COMBATTING AUTISM ACT

                      Public Law 109-416 (S. 843)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to combat autism 
through research, screening, intervention and education.

Summary

    S. 843 requires the Director of NIH to expand, intensify, 
and coordinate autism spectrum disorder-related research. It 
allows the Director to consolidate program activities under 
this section to improve program efficiencies and outcomes.
    S. 843 also requires the Secretary of HHS, acting through 
the NIH Director, to conduct an NIH-wide review of centers of 
excellence and report to Congress with the following 
information with regard to the centers: (1) a performance and 
outcomes evaluation; (2) recommendations for promoting 
information coordination; and, (3) recommendations for 
improving effectiveness, efficiency, and outcomes.
    In addition S. 843 grants the Secretary of HHS, acting 
through the Director of CDC, the authority to award grants for 
the collection, analysis, and reporting of state-level 
epidemiological data on autism spectrum disorder and other 
developmental disabilities. In addition, the Secretary, acting 
through the CDC Director, may award grants for the 
establishment of regional centers of excellence in autism 
spectrum disorder epidemiology. S. 843 directs the Secretary to 
establish and evaluate activities to: (1) provide information 
and education to increase public awareness of autism's early 
warning signs; (2) promote early screening of those at higher 
risk for autism; (3) increase the number of health care 
professionals able to diagnose autism; (4) increase the number 
of professionals offering treatments for autism; and 5) promote 
the use of evidence-based interventions for those at higher 
risk for autism.
    S. 843 directs the Secretary of HHS to collaborate with the 
Secretary of the Department of Education to provide culturally 
competent information on ASD, including risk factors, 
characteristics, and evidence-based interventions to treat ASD. 
Such information shall be made available to the public through 
federal programs such as Head Start, Early Start, Healthy 
Start, the Child Care Development Block Grant, and other 
programs.
    Finally, S. 843 establishes and expands an existing 
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) to coordinate 
all efforts within HHS concerning ASD. The IACC will annually 
report on scientific advances in ASD research, monitor federal 
ASD-related activities, develop a strategic plan for ASD 
research, including proposed budgetary requirements, and make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding appropriate changes 
to such activities and public participation. The IACC will also 
create, update, and report to Congress annually a strategic 
plan for addressing autism at the federal level.

Legislative History

    S. 843 was introduced on April 19, 2005, in the Senate by 
Senator Santorum, and it was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On July 19, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S. 
843 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute favorably.
    On August 3, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 843i with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute with written report (No. 109-318), and 
S. 843 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. Calendar No. 578.
    On August 3, 2006, S. 843 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    S. 843 was received in the House on September 6, 2006, and 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 25, 2006, S. 843 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 6, 2006, S. 843 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    On December 7, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House 
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing S. 843 for the 
President.
    On December 11, 2006, S. 843 was presented to the President 
and was signed by the President on December 19, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-416).

               PANDEMIC AND ALL-HAZARDS PREPAREDNESS ACT

                      Public Law 109-417 (S. 3678)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to 
public health security and all-hazards preparedness and 
response, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 3678 reauthorizes the Public Health Security and 
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
188) to protect the public more effectively and efficiently by 
responding to public health emergencies with a clear line of 
authority from local to State to Federal officials. It also 
builds on the Project BioShield Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-276) to 
accelerate advanced research and development of drugs and 
vaccines to protect the United States from health emergencies, 
such as bird flu. By building on the lessons we have learned 
from Hurricane Katrina and September 11th, this bill will 
improve our public health and medical preparedness and response 
capabilities for emergencies.
    Among other items S. 3678 (1) identifies the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services as the lead Federal official in 
charge of public health and medical preparedness and response 
during a public health emergency; (2) requires States to meet 
preparedness benchmarks and performance standards; (3) promotes 
the use of Health Information Technology; (4) enhances HHS 
advanced development and procurement activities for medical 
countermeasures; and (5) provides a limited antitrust exemption 
to allow the Secretary of HHS and the Director of BARDA to 
collaborate and consult, as needed, with agency leaders, 
academia, and industry on developing needed medical 
countermeasures.

Legislative History

    Senator Burr introduced S. 3678 on July 18, 2006, it was 
read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    On July 19, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S. 
3678 reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
favorably.
    On August 3, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 3678 with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, with written report No. 109-319, and S. 
3678 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. Calendar No. 583.
    On December 5, 2006, S. 3678 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On December 6, 2006, S. 3678 was received in the House and 
held at the desk.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 3678 passed the House by unanimous 
consent, and was cleared for the White House.
    On December 14, 2006, S. 3678 was presented to the 
President and was signed by the President on December 19, 2006 
(Public Law 109-417).

            SOBER TRUTH ON PREVENTING UNDERAGE DRINKING ACT

                     Public Law 109-422 (H.R. 864)

    To provide for programs and activities with respect to the 
prevention of underage drinking.

Summary

    H.R. 864 requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to: (1) formally establish an existing interagency 
coordinating committee to guide policy and program development 
across the Federal Government on underage drinking; (2) issue 
an annual report summarizing the activities of each State in 
enacting, enforcing, and creating laws, regulations, and 
programs to prevent or reduce underage drinking; (3) develop a 
set of outcome measures for the report in (2) above, including 
the strictness of the minimum drinking age laws and the number 
of compliance checks conducted; (4) fund and oversee a national 
adult-oriented media public service campaign; (5) award grants 
to reduce the rate of underage alcohol use and binge drinking 
among students at institutions of higher education; and (6) 
collect data on, and conduct or support research on, underage 
drinking, including the impact alcohol use and abuse has upon 
adolescent brain development, the scope of the underage 
drinking problem, and progress in preventing and treating 
underage drinking.
    H.R. 864 also requires the Director of the Substance Abuse 
and Mental Health Agency to award grants to design, test, 
evaluate, and disseminate strategies to maximize the 
effectiveness of community-wide approaches to preventing and 
reducing underage drinking.
    Finally, H.R. 864 requires the Secretary to collect data on 
and conduct and support research on: (1) compiling information 
on every unnatural death of persons ages 12 to 20 for alcohol 
involvement; (2) obtaining new epidemiological data that 
identifies alcohol use and attitudes about alcohol use during 
pre- and early adolescence; and (3) developing or identifying 
successful clinical treatment for youth with alcohol problems.

Legislative History

    On February 16, 2005, H.R. 864 was introduced by Ms. 
Roybal-Allard, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On March 14, 2005, H.R. 864 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On November 14, 2006, H.R. 864 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by a roll call vote of 373 yeas and 23 nays.
    On November 15, 2006, H.R. 864 was received in the Senate 
and read twice.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 864 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On December 7 2006, H.R. 864 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and the House concurred in the 
Senate amendment by voice vote clearing H.R. 864 for the White 
House.
    H.R. 864 was presented to the President on December 11, 
2006, and signed by the President on December 20, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-422).

 AN ACT TO AMEND THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 TO EXTEND EXPIRING 
                   PROVISIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

               Public Law 109-432 (H.R. 6111, H.R. 6408)

    An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 6111 replaces the scheduled 5 percent cut for 
physician payment for 2007 with additional funds without 
adjusting the conversion factor under current law and provides 
an additional 1.5 percent bonus payment for physicians and 
other practitioners who report quality measures to the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2007. H.R. 6111 
sets up a separate pool of funds available for physician 
assistance and quality initiatives for 2008. H.R. 6111 also 
provides: a one-year extension of the exceptions process for 
therapy services for beneficiaries expected to exceed the 
annual cap and direct billing for the technical component for 
certain physician pathology services by independent 
laboratories; an extension of reasonable costs payment for lab 
tests furnished in small rural hospitals; a composite rate 
update of 1.6 percent for end stage renal disease (ESRD) 
facilities for 2007; and no changes to brachytherapy device 
payment methodology for 2007 and better coding for such 
products.
    H.R. 6111 also corrects the mid-year expiration of the 
Medicare hospital wage index reclassifications, requires the 
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and CMS to issue reports 
on the wage index, and eliminates unnecessary reports. It 
revises payment processing requirements in the Competitive 
Acquisition Program to allow for more efficient payment to 
providers for services delivered for administration of a Part B 
drug to a beneficiary. H.R. 6111 also establishes quality 
reporting for hospital outpatient and ambulatory care services, 
and requires reporting of anemia quality indicators for cancer 
anti-anemia drugs.
    H.R. 6111 provides reimbursement under Medicare Part B for 
the administration of vaccines for 2007, and payment through 
Medicare Part D for administering these vaccines beginning in 
2008. It requires an OIG study regarding the prevalence of and 
payment for medical services that directly harm Medicare 
patients (referred to as ``never events''), and creates a 
three-year Medical Home Demonstration program to examine the 
ability to manage targeted and coordinated care to patients 
suffering from one or more chronic conditions. H.R. 6111 also 
reduces Medicare overpayments by extending and expanding the 
recovery audit contractor program, and provides updated funding 
for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account to help 
reduce or eliminate fraud and abuse.
    H.R. 6111 extends the Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) 
and abstinence education programs for six months, and 
authorizes grants to develop a vaccine against Valley Fever. 
H.R. 6408 reduces the limit on provider taxes from 6 percent to 
5.5 percent from January 1, 2008, to September 30, 2011, and 
includes Medicare and Medicaid Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 
technical corrections. H.R. 6408 also provides DSH allotments 
for fiscal year 2007 for Tennessee and Hawaii and a 
clarification of a Nevada hospice satellite designation. H.R. 
6111 reduces payments to the Medicare Advantage stabilization 
fund to help offset Medicare provider payments.

Legislative History

    On September 19, 2006, Ms. Tauscher introduced H.R. 6111 
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
    On December 5, 2006, H.R. 6111 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 6111 was received in the Senate 
and read twice.
    On December 7, 2006, H.R. 6111 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent
    H.R. 6408 was introduced on December 7, 2006 by Congressman 
Bill Thomas, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, 
Resources, Education and the Workforce, and Government Reform, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 6409 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On December 8, 2006, H.R. 6111 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 1099, and agreed to the Senate 
amendment with amendments.
    On December 9, 2006, H.R. 6111 was received in the Senate 
and held at the desk.
    On December 9, 2006, motion to invoke cloture to concur in 
the House amendment to the Senate amendment agreed to by a 
record vote of 78 yeas and 10 nays.
    On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment by a record vote of 79 yeas 
and 9 nays.
    On December 8, 2006, Mr. Thomas moved that the House agree 
with amendments to the Senate amendment of H.R. 6111, and Mr. 
Markey moved to amend the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment of H.R. 6111, which failed by roll call vote of 205 
yeas and 207 nays. The House amendment to the Senate amendment 
of H.R. 6111 was agreed to by a roll call vote of 367 yeas and 
45 nays.
    On December 9, 2006, the Senate agreed to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment of H.R. 6111 by a roll call 
vote of 79 yeas and 9 nays, and agreed to the House amendment 
to the title by unanimous consent, and H.R. 6111 was cleared 
for the White House.
    On December 19, 2006, H.R. 6111 was presented to the 
President and was signed by the President on December 20, 2006 
(Public Law 109-432).

                   LIFESPAN RESPITE CARE ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-442 (H.R. 3248)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
program to assist family caregivers in accessing affordable and 
high-quality respite care, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3248 authorizes the Secretary of the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) to award grants to State Aging 
and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs) to develop lifespan 
respite care programs at the State and local levels; provide 
planned or emergency respite services for family caregivers of 
children and adults; training and recruiting respite workers 
and volunteers; provide information to caregivers about 
available respite and support services; and assist caregivers 
in gaining access to such services.
    H.R. 3248 limits grants to five years.
    H.R 3248 directs the Secretary of HHS to award a grant or 
cooperative agreement to a public or private nonprofit entity 
to establish the National Resource Center on Lifespan Respite 
Care to: (1) maintain a national database on lifespan respite 
care; (2) provide training and technical assistance to Federal, 
community, and nonprofit respite care programs; and (3) provide 
information, referral, and educational programs to the public 
on lifespan respite care.

Legislative History

    H.R. 3248 was introduced by Mr. Ferguson on July 12, 2005, 
and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 29, 2006, H.R. 3248 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3248 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On December 5, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3248 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-716), 
and H.R. 3248 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
428.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 3248 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as 
amended, by voice vote.
    H.R. 3248 was received in the Senate on December 6, 2006.
    On December 8, 2006, H.R. 3248 passed the Senate, without 
amendment, by voice vote, clearing it for the President.
    H.R. 3248 was presented to the President on December 20, 
2006, and signed by the President on December 21, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-442).

 PREMATURITY RESEARCH EXPANSION AND EDUCATION FOR MOTHERS WHO DELIVER 
                      INFANTS EARLY (PREEMIE) ACT

                      Public Law 109-450 (S. 707)

    A bill to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of 
pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, 
and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity.

Summary

    S. 707 expands research into the causes and prevention of 
prematurity and increases education and support services 
related to prematurity. S. 707 expands Federal research related 
to preterm labor and delivery, treatment, and outcomes of 
preterm and low birthweight infants. Additionally, S. 707 
provides for public and health care provider education and 
support service grants. In addition, the bill establishes an 
Interagency Coordinating Council on Prematurity and Low 
Birthweight.
    S. 707 also waives the Head Start regulation that requires 
all Head Start children to be transported only on school buses 
or school bus-like vehicles. S. 707 will allow the 6 percent of 
Head Start children nationwide who are transported in 
paratransit vehicles, which would otherwise not qualify as a 
school-bus like vehicle, to continue to use this option of 
transportation until June 30, 2007.

Legislative History

    S. 707 was introduced on April 5, 2005 in the Senate by 
Senator Alexander, read twice, and referred to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S. 
707 to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute favorably.
    On July 31, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 707 with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute with written report No. 109-298, and S. 
707 was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. Calendar No. 541.
    On August 1, 2006, S. 707 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    S. 707 was received in the House on August 2, 2006, and was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 707, was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, as amended, and failed by voice 
vote.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 707 passed the House, with an 
amendment, by unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, the Senate concurred in the House 
amendment by unanimous consent, and S. 707 was cleared for the 
White House.
    On December 20, 2006, S. 707 was presented to the President 
and was signed by the President on December 22, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-450).

  DIETARY SUPPLEMENT AND NONPRESCRIPTION DRUG CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

                      Public Law 109-462 (S. 3546)

    A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary 
supplements and nonprescription drugs, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 3546 requires manufacturers and distributors of 
supplements and Over the Counter drugs to report all serious 
adverse events, such as death, life-threatening conditions, 
hospitalization, a persistent or significant disability or 
incapacity, or a congenital anomaly or birth defect, to the 
FDA. The bill requires manufacturers to keep all adverse event 
records for six years, and allows the FDA to inspect these 
records. It also sets a 15-day time limit for manufacturers to 
give the FDA the reports of serious adverse events they 
receive. S. 3546 contains two rules of construction that state 
the submission of any adverse event report in compliance with 
this section shall not be construed as an admission that the 
dietary supplement or over the counter drug involved caused or 
contributed to the adverse event.

Legislative History

    S. 3546 was introduced on June 21, 2006, in the Senate by 
Senator Hatch, and it was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On June 28, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions met in open markup session and ordered S. 
3546 to be favorably reported with an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
    On September 5, 2006, the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions reported S. 3546 with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute with written report No. 109-324, and S. 
3546 was paced on Senate Legislative Calendar under General 
Orders. Calendar No. 140.
    On December 6, 2006, S. 3546 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 3546 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by a roll call vote of 203 yeas to 98 nays, and S. 3546 was 
cleared for the White House.
    On December 20, 2006, S. 3546 was presented to the 
President and was signed by the President on December 22, 2006 
(Public Law 109-462).

         GYNECOLOGIC CANCER EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ACT OF 2005

                     Public Law 109-475 (H.R. 1245)

    To provide for programs to increase the awareness and 
knowledge of women and health care providers with respect to 
gynecologic cancers.

Summary

    H.R. 1245, the Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness 
Act of 2005 or Johanna's Law, Directs the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to carry out a national campaign to increase 
the awareness and knowledge of women with respect to 
gynecologic cancers, which shall include: (1) maintaining a 
supply of written materials to provide information to the 
public on gynecologic cancers; and (2) developing and placing 
public service announcements to encourage women to discuss 
their risks of gynecologic cancers with their physicians.
    H.R. 1245 requires the Secretary, within 6 months of 
enactment, to report to the Congress on HHS's activities with 
respect to informing and educating the public and health care 
providers about different types of cancer, including 
gynecologic cancers.
    H.R. 1245 contains language directing CDC and FDA to 
enforce current law regarding condom labeling dealing with HPV 
virus.

Legislative History

    On March 3, 2005, H.R. 1245 was introduced by Mr. Issa and 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On March 22, 2005, H.R. 1245 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On November 14, 2006, H.R. 1245 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House as amended, 
by voice vote.
    On November 15, 2006, H.R. 1245 was received in the Senate 
and read twice.
    On December 8, 2006, H.R. 1245 passed the Senate with an 
amendment by unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, the House concurred in the Senate 
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing H.R. 1245 for the 
White House.
    H.R. 1245 was presented to the President on December 22, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 12, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-475).

   OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005

               Public Law 109-469 (H.R. 6344, H.R. 2829)

    To reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Act.

Summary

    H.R. 6344 repeals the sunset provision of the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 making 
such Act permanent. It requires the Office of National Drug 
Policy Control to evaluate the effectiveness of national drug 
control policy and programs by developing and applying specific 
goals and performance measurements. The legislation also grants 
executive branch rank and status to the Director of the Office.

Legislative History

    H.R. 2829 was introduced by Mr. Souder on June 9, 2005, and 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition 
to the Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and 
Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On June 16, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On June 17, 2005, H.R. 2829 was referred to Energy and 
Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health.
    On November 18, 2005, the Committee on Government Reform 
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315 
Part I). The Amended version included Title II, which provided 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy authority to 
promulgate rules regarding steroid policies and testing 
procedures for professional sports leagues.
    On November 18, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, and Intelligence (Permanent Select) were 
granted an extension until December 17, 2005. In addition H.R. 
2829 was referred sequentially to the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce for a period ending not later than December 
17, 2005, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(e), rule X.
    On December 17, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and 
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until 
December 31, 2005.
    On December 31, 2005, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and 
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until 
February 3, 2006.
    On February 3, 2006, the Committees on the Judiciary, 
Energy and Commerce, Intelligence (Permanent Select), and 
Education and the Workforce were granted an extension until 
March 3, 2006.
    On February 16, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the 
House, without recommendation, amended, by voice vote. H.R. 
2829 was amended by striking Title II and replacing it with the 
text of H.R. 3084, as reported by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On March 2, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 2829 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On March 3, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-315, 
Part II.). Similarly, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 2829 to the House, as amended. (H. Rept. 109-315, Part 
III.). The Committees on Intelligence (Permanent) and Education 
and Workforce both were discharged from further consideration 
of H.R. 2829, and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar 
No. 209.
    On March 9, 2006, H.R. 2829 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 713. H.R. 2829 passed the House 
by a roll call vote: 399 yeas and 5 nays.
    On March 16, 2006, H.R. 2829 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2829 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On December 5, 2006, Mr. Souder introduced H.R. 6344, which 
was referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in 
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, the 
Judiciary, Armed Services, and Intelligence (Permanent Select), 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On December 7, 2006, H.R. 6344 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice 
vote.
    On December 7, 2006, H.R. 6344 was received in the Senate 
and read twice.
    On December 8, 2006, H.R. 6344 passed the Senate without 
amendment by unanimous consent, clearing the bill for the White 
House.
    On December 19, 2006, H.R. 6344 was presented to the 
President on December 19, 2006, and was signed by the President 
on December 29, 2006 (Public Law 109-469).

            NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REFORM ACT OF 2006

                     Public Law 109-482 (H.R. 6164)

    To amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to 
revise and extend the authorities of the National Institutes of 
Health, and for other purposes.

                                Summary

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the Federal 
government's principal medical research agency, armed with a 
mission to advance research in pursuit of fundamental knowledge 
that will lead to better health outcomes for all. Funding for 
the NIH represents nearly half of the discretionary budget of 
the Department of Health and Human Services.
    H.R. 6164 increases of the overall authorization levels for 
NIH that would increase each year of the authorization period 
beginning at a $2 billion increase in fiscal year 2007, a $2.5 
billion increase for fiscal year 2008, and for such sums as 
necessary in fiscal year 2009. The legislation does not 
authorize specific line items for individual institutes and 
centers in the bill, nor will it combine line items for 
existing institutes and centers.
    H.R. 6164 establishes a new agency-wide electronic 
reporting system to catalogue all of the research activities of 
the NIH in a standardized format.
    Established within the bill is a formal strategic planning 
process for the entire research portfolio of the agency that 
transcends the research planning activities of individual 
institutes and centers through the establishment of the 
Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic 
Initiatives. The Office of the Director will be allocated a 
specific line item authorization of appropriations. This does 
not change the authority of individual institutes and centers 
to conduct their individual planning, priority setting, and 
research activities.
    H.R. 6164 also establishes a ``common fund'' to provide a 
permanent funding mechanism for trans-NIH research projects 
identified through the Division. The common fund is a reserve 
account that may be competitively drawn down by institutes, 
centers, and independent investigators to advance trans-NIH 
research.
    In addition, H.R. 6164 establishes a formal, public process 
to review the structural organizational design of the agency 
every seven years. A ``scientific management review'' group 
comprised of institute and center directors and other 
scientific experts will evaluate the structural design of the 
existing institutes and centers at NIH, and proposed new 
institutes, and recommend necessary restructuring plans. After 
a series of statutorily required public meetings, the 
scientific management review board must issue its first report 
to Congress within 18 months of the date of enactment of the 
bill. The scientific management review board must conduct a 
review of the agency and issue a report at least once every 
seven years.
    Included in H.R. 6164 is language relating to the 
redistribution of certain unused State Children's Health 
Insurance Program (SCHIP) allotments for fiscal years 2004 and 
2005 to reduce funding shortfalls for fiscal year 2007. The 
legislation states that the Secretary may redistribute unused 
funds from states carrying surplus SCHIP dollars from fiscal 
year 2004. These redistributed funds are to be allocated to the 
states reaching shortfall status beginning in January 2007. 
Funds may also be used for redistribution from states with 
fiscal year 2005 unused funds at the end of the first half of 
fiscal year 2007. No state may be responsible for fiscal year 
2005 unused allotments greater than $20 million or half of the 
estimated unexpended allotment from fiscal year 2005. For 
expenditures for which redistributed fiscal year 2005 funds are 
used, the enhanced federal matching rate cannot apply to any 
parties other than children or pregnant women.

Legislative History

    On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce met in open markup session and ordered a Committee 
Print entitled the National Institutes of Health Reform Act of 
2006 favorably reported to the House, amended, by a record vote 
of 42 yeas and 1 nay, a quorum being present. A request by Mr. 
Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill to be introduced 
by Mr. Barton, and that the actions of the Committee be deemed 
as actions on that bill, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
    On September 25, 2006, Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 6164, and 
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 26, 2006, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request on September 30, 2006, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce reported H.R. 6164 to the House (H. Rept. 109-687), 
and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 417.
    On September 26, 2006, H.R. 6164 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays.
    On September 27, 2006, H.R. 6164 was received in the 
Senate.
    On November 13, 2006, H.R. 6164 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On December 8, 2006, H.R. 6164 was discharged by the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions by 
unanimous consent, and passed the Senate with an amendment by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, the House concurred in the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 6164 by unanimous consent, clearing the bill 
for the White House.
    H.R. 6164 was presented to the President on December 22, 
2006, and signed by the President on January 15, 2006 (Public 
Law 109-482).

 HELP EFFICIENT, ACCESSIBLE, LOW-COST, TIMELY HEALTH CARE (HEALTH) ACT 
                                OF 2005

                                (H.R. 5)

    To improve patient access to health care services and 
provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden 
the liability system places on the health care delivery system.

Summary

    H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely 
Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005, sets forth provisions 
regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims concerning 
the provision of health care goods or services or any medical 
product affecting interstate commerce.
    H.R. 5 does not limit the recovery of economic damages, and 
limits non-economic damages to $250,000, requires court 
supervision over payment arrangements to protect against 
conflicts of interest, and allows the court to restrict the 
payment of attorney contingency fees and limits the fees to a 
percentage based on the amount awarded.
    H.R. 5 prohibits a punitive damage award, with exceptions, 
in a product liability suit against a manufacturer, 
distributor, or supplier of a medical product that has been 
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or that is 
generally recognized among qualified experts as safe and 
effective pursuant to conditions established by the FDA. It 
also prohibits a product liability suit against a medical care 
provider who prescribes or dispenses such a medical product 
approved by the FDA.
    H.R. 5 provides for periodic payments of future damage 
awards over $50,000, exempts civil actions brought for vaccine-
related injuries from this act to the extent that they are 
covered by the Public Health Service Act, and preempts State 
law to an extent.
    H.R. 5 expresses the sense of Congress that a health 
insurer should be liable for damages for harm caused when it 
makes a decision as to what care is medically necessary and 
appropriate.

Legislative History

    Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 5 on July 21, 2005 which was 
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On July 21, 2005, H.R. 5 was referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Chairman.
    On July 28, 2005, H.R. 5 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 385 and passed the House 
by a roll call vote of 230 yeas, 194 nays, and two present.
    On July 29, 2005, H.R. 5 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5 in the 109th 
Congress.

               STEM CELL RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

                               (H.R. 810)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human 
embryonic stem cell research.

Summary

    H.R. 810 requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human 
embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem 
cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos: 
have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics; were 
created for the purposes of fertility treatment; were in excess 
of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and 
would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be 
discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals 
seeking fertility treatment); and were donated by such 
individuals with written informed consent and without any 
financial or other inducements. H.R. 810 requires the Secretary 
to issue final guidelines to carry out this Act within 60 days 
and submit annual reports on activities and research conducted 
under this Act.

Legislative History

    H.R. 810 was introduced by Mr. Castle on February 15, 2005, 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 24, 2005, H.R. 810 was considered in the House 
pursuant to a previous order. On that day, H.R. 810 passed the 
House by a roll call vote of 238 yeas and 194 nays.
    On May 26, 2005, H.R. 810 was received in the Senate, read 
the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under 
Read the First Time.
    On June 6, 2005, H.R. 810 was read the second time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 119.
    On July 18, 2006, H.R. 810 passed the Senate without 
amendment by a record vote of 63 yeas and 37 nays, clearing it 
for the President.
    On July 19, 2006, H.R. 810 was presented to the President. 
That day, the President vetoed H.R. 810. The President's veto 
message was laid before the House on July 19, 2006. The 
question of passage, the objections of the President to the 
contrary notwithstanding, failed to reach the required two-
thirds majority by a roll call vote of 235 yeas and 193 nays.
    On July 19, 2006, the House agreed, without objection, to a 
motion to refer the bill and the accompanying veto message to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 810 in the 109th 
Congress.

      FASTER AND SMARTER FUNDING FOR FIRST RESPONDERS ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 1544)

    To provide faster and smarter funding for first responders, 
and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 1544 requires the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to appoint ex officio members and coordinate with the 
Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the selection of 
emergency medical professionals to serve as members of a task 
force on terrorism preparedness. In addition, the bill requires 
that, in establishing any national voluntary consensus 
standards for first responder equipment or training that 
involve or relate to health professionals, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security must coordinate with the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services.

Legislative History

    Mr. Cox introduced H.R. 1544 on April 12, 2005, and it was 
referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
    On April 19, 2005 the Subcommittee on Emergency 
Preparedness, Science, and Technology met in open markup 
session, and forwarded H.R. 1544 to the full committee by 
unanimous consent.
    On April 21, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1544 reported to the 
House, as amended, by a voice vote.
    On April 28, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security and 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence 
concerning H.R. 1544.
    On April 28, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security 
reported H.R. 1544 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 109-65), 
and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 32.
    On May 12, 2005, H.R. 1544 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 269, and passed the 
House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 409 yeas and 10 nays.
    H.R. 1544 was received in the Senate, read twice, and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs on May 12, 2005.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1544 in the 109th 
Congress.

                  THE CHRISTOPHER REEVE PARALYSIS ACT

                              (H.R. 1554)


Summary

    H.R. 1554 grants discretion to the Director of CDC to 
create innovative programs intended to improve quality of life 
and rehabilitation programs related to paralysis. The bill 
contains a Sense of Congress on the importance of trans-NIH 
research with respect to paralysis.

Legislative History

    H.R. 1554 was introduced on April 12, 2005, by Mr. 
Bilirakis and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On April 22, 2005, H.R. 1554 was referred to the Energy and 
Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 9, 2006, H.R. 1554 passed the House by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, H.R. 1554 was received in the Senate.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1554 in the 109th 
Congress.

                     HEALTH CARE CHOICE ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 2355)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage 
offered in interstate commerce.

Summary

    H.R. 2355 would allow an insurer to designate a primary 
State whose covered laws would apply to that individual health 
insurance coverage offered by the insurer. It would then allow 
the insurer to offer that coverage in any secondary State. H.R. 
2355 would exempt a health insurer from the covered laws of the 
secondary State with respect to the regulation of its insurance 
products. It would also allow secondary States to require an 
insurer to (1) pay applicable premium and other taxes 
(including high risk pool assessments) that are levied on 
insurers under the laws of the State; (2) register with and 
designate the State insurance commissioner as its agent for the 
purposes of receiving service of legal documents or process; 
(3) submit to an examination of its financial condition by the 
State insurance commissioner if the insurance commissioner of 
the primary State has not done an examination within a period 
of time recommended by the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners (NAIC) and in accordance with its examiner's 
handbook; (4) comply with a lawful order issued in a voluntary 
dissolution proceeding, or in a delinquency proceeding 
commenced by the State insurance commissioner where there has 
been a finding of financial impairment; (5) comply with an 
injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon 
petition by the State insurance commissioner alleging that the 
issuer is in hazardous financial condition; (6) participate, on 
a nondiscriminatory basis, in any insurance insolvency guaranty 
association or similar association to which a health insurance 
issuer in the State is required to belong; (7) comply with any 
State law regarding fraud and abuse (as defined in the bill), 
except that if the State seeks an injunction regarding 
fraudulent conduct, such an injunction must be obtained from a 
court of competent jurisdiction; and, (8) comply with any State 
law regarding unfair claims settlement practices (as defined in 
the bill).
    H.R. 2355 requires a health insurer to inform purchasers in 
a secondary State that the policy is governed by the laws and 
regulations of the primary State. The bill would also prohibit 
insurers from offering health insurance in a secondary State 
unless that coverage is currently offered for sale in the 
primary State.

Legislative History

    Mr. Shadegg introduced H.R. 2355 on May 12, 2005, and it 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 23, 2005, H.R. 2355 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Health.
    On June 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held a hearing 
on H.R. 2355, the Health Care Choice Act of 2005. The purpose 
of this hearing was to examine legislation that would allow 
health insurers to sell their products across Federal lines, 
but only be subject to the insurance regulations imposed by the 
Federal that they designate as their primary Federal of 
operations. The subcommittee received testimony from several 
advocacy groups.
    On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 2355 reported to the 
House, amended, by a record vote of 24 yeas and 23 nays, a 
quorum being present.
    On February 16, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3204 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-378).
    No further action was taken on H.R. 2355 in the 109th 
Congress.

            METHAMPHETAMINE EPIDEMIC ELIMINATION ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 3889)

    To further regulate and punish illicit conduct relating to 
methamphetamine, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 3889 reduces the exemption to reporting requirements 
for individual sales of pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine 
from 9 grams to 3.6 grams per transaction and eliminates the 
reporting exemption for blister packs. The legislation extends 
the Attorney General's existing authority to set production 
quotas for certain controlled substances to methamphetamine 
precursor chemicals.
    Additionally, the bill extends the Attorney General's 
existing authority to set import quotas for controlled 
substances to methamphetamine precursor chemicals. It closes 
the loophole in the spot market for imports and exports of 
precursor chemicals for methamphetamine, and extends the 
current reporting requirements--as well as the current 
exemption for regular importers, exporters, and customers--to 
post-import or export transactions.
    H.R. 3889, requires the Secretary of Transportation (DOT) 
and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) to consult with the Attorney General prior to the 
issuance of new regulations for the listing of methamphetamine 
by-products as hazardous materials under DOT rules and 
hazardous waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
    It clarifies existing law imposing the obligation of 
restitution for environmental cleanup costs on persons involved 
in methamphetamine production and trafficking.

Legislative History

    On September 22, 2005, Mr. Souder introduced H.R. 3889 
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, International 
Relations, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period 
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On October 7, 2005, H.R. 3889 was referred to the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
    On November 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 3889 favorably 
reported to the House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present.
    On September 26, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
referred the bill to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security. The Subcommittee held a hearing on September 
27, 2005.
    On November 3, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in 
open markup session and H.R. 3889, as amended, was forwarded to 
Full Committee by a recorded vote of 8 yeas and 2 nays.
    On November 9, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 3889 reported to the 
House, as amended, by a recorded vote of 31 yeas and 0 nays.
    On November 16, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary reported 
H.R. 3899 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-299, Part I).
    On November 17, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 3899 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-299, 
Part II), and the Committee on International Relations and the 
Committee on Transportation were discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 3889, and it was placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 167.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 3899 in the 109th 
Congress.

             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4128)

    To protect private property rights.

Summary

    HR 4128 prohibits States or their political subdivisions 
that receive Federal funds from exercising their power of 
eminent domain to further economic development. The bill would 
terminate the flow of Federal funds to any State or political 
subdivision that violates the prohibition.

Legislative History

    Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005, 
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    On October 27, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to 
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
    On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 109-262), and 
H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 143.
    On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence 
concerning H.R. 1428.
    On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a 
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rpt. 109-262, Part II).
    On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed 
the House, as amended, by a rollcall vote of 376 yeas and 38 
nays.
    H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th 
Congress.

          HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROMOTION ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 4157)

    To promote a better health information system.

Summary

    H.R 4157 codifies and expands the authorities and duties of 
the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology 
(National Coordinator) at the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS). The bill also requires that certain Federal 
health information collection systems be capable of receiving 
information in a form consistent with any guidelines endorsed 
by the National Coordinator within three years of endorsement. 
The bill provides that the President take steps to promote the 
use of non-identifiable electronic health information for 
health and health care research. In addition, the bill provides 
for a report on the work conducted by the American Health 
Information Community (Community) and its role in the future as 
well as a report on financing incentives. In addition, the bill 
provides grants to help integrated health systems relay health 
information and better coordinate the delivery of care for 
uninsured, underinsured and medically underserved populations. 
The bill also contains a demonstration program to promote 
adoption of health IT in the small physician setting.
    H.R. 4157 also makes revisions to Section 1173 of the 
Social Security Act and streamlines the process for updating 
additions and modifications to the Health Insurance Portability 
and Accountability Act (HIPAA) electronic financial and 
administrative healthcare transaction standards. The bill also 
sets deadlines for upgrading certain other electronic 
transaction standards and codes.
    H.R. 4157 creates safe harbors for providing certain health 
IT or related services under both Section 1128B of the Social 
Security Act (anti-kickback law) and Section 1877 of the Social 
Security Act (the physician referral law), contingent on a 
number of conditions in such safe harbors.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4157 was introduced H.R. 4157 on October 27, 2005, and 
it was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On November 4, 2005, H.R. 4157 was referred to the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
    On June 8, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and approved H.R. 4157 for Full Committee 
consideration, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.
    On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4157 favorably reported 
to the House, amended, by a record vote of 28 yeas and 14 nays, 
a quorum being present.
    On July 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4157 to the House, as amended (H. Rpt. 109-601 
Part I); the Committee on Ways and Means reported H.R. 4157 to 
the House, as amended, on July 26, 2006 (H. Rpt. 109-601 Part 
II), and it was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 347.
    On July 27, 2006, H.R. 4157 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 952, and H.R. 4157 passed 
the House by a rollcall vote of 270 yeas and 148 nays.
    H.R. 4157 was received in the Senate on July 28, 2006.
    On August 3, 2006, H.R. 4157 was read the first time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First 
Time.
    On September 5, 2006, H.R. 4157 was read the second time 
and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 587.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4157 in the 109th 
Congress.

                NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4167)

    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
provide for uniform food safety warning notification 
requirements, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 4167 establishes a uniform system of food label 
warnings. H.R. 4167 exempts from uniform labeling laws relating 
to freshness dating, open date labeling, grade labeling, a 
State inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling, organic or 
natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit pricing, 
a statement of geographic origin, dietary supplements, or a 
consumer advisory relating to food sanitation imposed on a food 
establishment or recommended by the Secretary.
    H.R. 4167 provides that this Act only takes effect if the 
Secretary certifies to Congress that its implementation will 
pose no additional risk to the public health or safety from 
terrorist attacks relating to the food supply. Additionally, 
the legislation excludes from the scope of this Act any State 
law, regulation, proposition, or other action that establishes 
a notification requirement regarding the presence or potential 
effects of mercury in fish and shellfish.

Legislative History

    On October 27, 2005, Mr. Rogers introduced H.R. 4167, which 
was then referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On November 4, 2005, the bill was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 15, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4167 favorably 
reported to the House by a recorded vote of 30 yeas and 18 
nays, a quorum being present.
    On February 28, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 4167 to the House (H. Rept. 109-379), and H.R. 
4167 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 208.
    On March 2, 2006, H.R. 4167 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 702.
    On March 8, 2006, was considered in the House pursuant to 
the provisions of H. Res. 710. H.R. 4167 passed the House by a 
recorded vote of 283 yeas and 139 nays.
    On March 9, 2006, the Senate received H.R. 4167 and it was 
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4167 in the 109th 
Congress.

              PROFICIENCY TESTING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4568)

    To improve proficiency testing of clinical laboratories.

Summary

    H.R. 4568 prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services from conducting laboratory proficiency testing of 
individuals involved in screening or interpreting cytological 
preparations for one year. It also requires the Secretary, 
within one year and before resuming testing, to revise such 
proficiency testing to: (1) reflect the collaborative clinical 
decision-making of laboratory personnel involved in screening 
or interpreting cytological preparations; (2) revise grading or 
scoring criteria to reflect current practice guidelines; (3) 
provide for such testing to be conducted no more than every two 
years; and (4) make such other revisions as necessary to 
reflect changes in laboratory operations and practices since 
the standards were promulgated.

Legislative History

    H.R. 4568 was introduced by Mr. Deal on December 16, 2005, 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On December 17, 2005, H.R. 4568 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a voice 
vote.
    On January 27, 2006, H.R. 4568 was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4568 in the 109th 
Congress.

               DEXTROMETHORPHAN DISTRIBUTION ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5280)

    To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 
respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, and 
for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5280 amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prohibit 
the distribution of bulk dextromethorphan to any person other 
than a registered producer of drugs and devices in order to 
protect the public health.

Legislative History

    H.R. 5280 was introduced by Mr. Upton on May 3, 2006, and 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5280 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Health.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5280 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.
    On December 7, 2006, H.R. 5280 was received in the Senate.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5280 in the 109th 
Congress.

      PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICAL EMERGENCY COORDINATION ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5438)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to transfer the 
National Disaster Medical System to the Department of Health 
and Human Services, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5438 transfers the functions, personnel, assets, and 
liabilities of the National Disaster Medical System to the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The legislation 
designates HHS as the primary agency for the coordination of 
Federal assistance to supplement State, local, and tribal 
resources for preparing for or responding to a bioterrorist 
attack or other public health or medical emergency.

Legislative History

    Mr. Barton introduced H.R. 5438 on May 22, 2006, and it was 
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 
to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On May 24, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5438 favorably reported 
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5438 in the 109th 
Congress.

      NATIONAL BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER EARLY DETECTION PROGRAM 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5472)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide waivers 
relating to grants for preventive health measures with respect 
to breast and cervical cancers.

Summary

    H.R. 5472, the National Breast and Cervical Early Detection 
Reauthorization Act of 2006, reauthorizes the National Breast 
and Cervical Early Detection Program for five years. The bill 
requires the Secretary of HHS to create a demonstration program 
whereby up to five State grantees may receive waivers from the 
usual 60/40 requirement for spending program funds (60% must be 
spent on screening, up to 40% on outreach, education, and other 
program aspects). States must demonstrate that the waiver will 
expand the number of women served and that quality of services 
will improve. The bill authorizes $1.25 billion over five years 
for the program.

Legislative History

    On May 24, 2006, Ms. Myrick introduced H.R. 5472 and it was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 5, 2006, H.R. 5472 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Health.
    On September 27, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5472 favorably 
reported to the House, amended, by a record vote of 45 yeas and 
0 nays, a quorum being present.
    On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5472 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-705), 
and was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 424.
    On December 9, 2006, H.R. 5472 passed the House, as 
amended, by unanimous consent.
    On December 9, 2006, H.R. 5472 was received in the Senate.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5472 in the 109th 
Congress.

    BIODEFENSE AND PANDEMIC VACCINE AND DRUG DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5533)

    To prepare and strengthen the biodefenses of the United 
States against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of 
illness, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5533 strengthens the biodefenses of the United States 
against deliberate, accidental, and natural outbreaks of 
illness. H.R. 5533 provides a single point of authority within 
the Department of Health and Human Services for the advanced 
research and development of medical countermeasures to make 
important procurement decisions. The legislation provides 
authorization to fund advanced research and development 
activities that were not covered by Project Bioshield. 
Additionally, the legislation will provide for further 
purchasing and contractual flexibility. Finally H.R. 5533 would 
authorize the appropriation of $160 million for each of fiscal 
years 2007 and 2008 for advanced countermeasure development 
activities.

Legislative History

    Mr. Rogers of Michigan introduced H.R. 5533 on June 6, 
2006, and it was referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 23, 2006, H.R. 5533 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On September 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
ordered H.R. 5533 favorably reported to the House, amended, by 
a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On September 26, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5533 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-686), 
and was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 416. H.R. 
5533 was considered in the House under suspension of the rules 
and passed the House, as amended, by voice vote.
    On September 27, 2006, H.R. 5533 was received in the 
Senate.
    On November 13, 2006, H.R. 5533 was read twice and referred 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5533 in the 109th 
Congress.

                   HEALTH CENTERS RENEWAL ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5573)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
additional authorizations of appropriations for the health 
centers program under section 330 of such Act.

Summary

    H.R. 5573 reauthorizes the existing Community Health Center 
Program for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. The Health Centers 
Renewal Act will ensure that community health centers can 
continue to offer health care services to millions of medically 
underserved and uninsured people.

Legislative History

    Mr. Deal introduced H.R. 5573 on June 9, 2006, and it was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and approved H.R. 5573 for full committee 
consideration, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present.
    On June 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5573 favorably reported 
to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5573 to the House (H. Rept. 109-509).
    On June 21, 2006, H.R. 5573 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 424 yeas and 3 nays.
    On June 22, 2006, H.R. 5573 was received in the Senate, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5573 in the 109th 
Congress.

 TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT TO MODIFY THE PROGRAM FOR THE 
 SANCTUARY SYSTEM FOR SURPLUS CHIMPANZEES BY TERMINATING THE AUTHORITY 
    FOR REMOVAL OF CHIMPANZEES FROM THE SYSTEM FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES

                              (H.R. 5798)

    To amend the Public Health Service Act to modify the 
program for the sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees by 
terminating the authority for removal of chimpanzees from the 
system for research purposes.

Summary

    Current law establishes a sanctuary system for surplus 
chimpanzees, but allows removal of chimpanzees for research 
under very limited and protective conditions. H.R. 5798 
eliminates the removal authority.

Legislative History

    Mr. McCrery introduced H.R. 5798 on July 18, 2006, which 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On August 1, 2006, H.R. 5798 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 5798 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice 
vote.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5798 in the 109th 
Congress.

           ESTATE TAX AND EXTENSION OF TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5970)

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 
unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion 
equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset provision for 
the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to extend 
expiring provisions, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5970 prescribes guidelines under which certain related 
persons and successors in interest are relieved of liability if 
health or death benefits or unassigned beneficiaries' premiums 
are prepaid; and modifies guidelines governing Federal 
transfers under mining laws and the board of trustees of the 
Combined Fund.

Legislative History

    Mr. Thomas introduced H.R. 5970 on July 28, 2006, and it 
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Education 
and Workforce, and Resources, for a period to be subsequently 
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
committee concerned.
    On July 28, 2006, H.R. 5970 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 966, and passed the House 
by a roll call vote of 230 yeas, 180 nays, and 1 present.
    On July 31, 2006, H.R. 5970 was received in the Senate and 
deemed read the first time on July 28, (Legislative Day July 
26) 2006, pursuant to the order of July 28.
    On July 31, 2006, H.R. 5970 was read a second time and 
placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 562.
    On August 3, 2006, cloture on the motion to proceed was not 
invoked in the Senate by a recorded vote of 56 yeas and 42 
nays.
    On August 3, 2006, motion to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 
5970 was not agreed to by a record vote of 56 yeas and 42 nays.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5970 in the 109th 
Congress.

                UNBORN CHILD PAIN AWARENESS ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 6099)

    To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed 
regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child.

Summary

    H.R. 6099 requires an abortion provider who knowingly 
performs an abortion of a pain-capable unborn child to follow 
certain procedures. A pain-capable unborn child is defined as 
an unborn child who has reached a probable stage of development 
of 20 weeks or more after fertilization. First, the abortion 
provider is to inform the woman of the probable age of the 
child. Second the provider is to make available to the woman an 
Unborn Child Pain Awareness. Third, information is to be 
provided that pain medicine administered to the mother may not 
prevent pain in the child, but in some cases anesthesia or 
pain-reducing drugs can be administered directly to the child. 
Fourth, the provider is to give the woman the best medical 
judgment of the risks and costs of such anesthesia or 
analgesic. Lastly, the provider is to obtain the woman's 
signature on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Decision Form and 
her explicit request for or refusal of the administration of 
drugs to the child.
    H.R. 6099 would require the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to develop the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Brochure, 
which is to include a statement that there is substantial 
evidence that the process of being killed in an abortion will 
cause the unborn child pain and that the mother has the option 
of having pain-reducing drugs administered directly to the 
child.
    H.R. 6099 also establishes civil penalties for willfully 
failing to comply with this Act by authorizing the Attorney 
General to bring a civil action under this Act; and private 
rights of action for violations of this Act.

Legislative History

    H.R. 6099 was introduced in the House by Mr. Chris Smith on 
September 19, 2006 and was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
    On September 25, 2006, H.R. 6099 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 6, 2006, H.R. 6099 was considered by the House 
under suspension of the rules and failed by a roll call vote of 
250 yeas and 162 nays.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 6099 in the 109th 
Congress.

    RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SUN SAFETY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                             (H. Res. 169)

    Recognizing the importance of sun safety, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H. Res. 169 resolves that the House of Representatives 
recognizes the importance of sun safety. The Resolution also 
encourages all Americans to protect themselves and their 
children from the dangers of excessive sun exposure. Further, 
H. Res. 169 congratulates organizations like the Sun Safety 
Alliance for their efforts to promote sun safety and prevent 
skin cancer and it supports the goals and ideals of National 
Sun Safety Week (June 5-June 11, 2005).

Legislative History

    H. Res. 169 was introduced by Mr. Bilirakis on March 17, 
2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On March 22, 2005, H. Res. 169 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health met in open 
markup session and forwarded H. Res. 169, as amended, to the 
Full Committee by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in 
open markup session and ordered H. Res. 169 favorably reported, 
as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 7, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H. Res. 169 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-
103).
    On June 7, 2005, H. Res. 169 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.

     RECOGNIZING THE UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, DR. JONAS SALK, THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND DR. THOMAS FRANCES, JR., ON THE FIFTIETH 
ANNIVERSARY OF THE DISCOVERY AND DECLARATION THAT THE SALK VACCINE WAS 
   POTENT, VIRTUALLY ELIMINATING THE DISEASE AND ITS HARMFUL EFFECTS

                             (H. Res. 208)

    Recognizing the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Jonas Salk, 
the University of Michigan, and Dr. Thomas Frances, Jr., on the 
fiftieth anniversary of the discovery and the declaration that 
the Salk vaccine was potent, virtually eliminating the disease 
and its harmful effects.

Summary

    H. Res. 208 recognizes the University of Pittsburgh and the 
University of Michigan on the 50th anniversary of the discovery 
of the Salk polio vaccine. It also recognizes the pioneering 
achievement of Dr. Jonas Salk and his University of Pittsburgh 
research team in the vaccine's development and the field trials 
conducted by Dr. Thomas Francis, Jr., and his University of 
Michigan team of statisticians and epidemiologists. H. Res. 208 
expresses appreciation to the University of Pittsburgh for the 
elimination of the disease, the members of Dr. Salk's research 
team, the individuals, a majority of whom were Allegheny 
County, Pennsylvania, residents, who agreed to participate in 
the vaccine clinical trials, the family members of Dr. Salk for 
their participation in medical history, the University of 
Michigan for its efforts in proving the vaccine was safe and 
effective, and the members of Dr. Francis' team.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 208 was introduced in the House by Mr. Murphy on 
April 12, 2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On April 18, 2005, H. Res. 208 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On April 20, 2005, H. Res. 208 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by a roll call vote of 422 yeas and 0 nays. The title of the 
measure was amended.

 RECOGNIZING AMERICA'S BLOOD CENTERS AND ITS MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS FOR 
  THEIR COMMITMENT TO PROVIDING OVER HALF THE NATION WITH A SAFE AND 
     ADEQUATE VOLUNTEER DONOR BLOOD SUPPLY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                             (H. Res. 220)

    Recognizing America's Blood Centers and its member 
organizations for their commitment to providing over half the 
Nation with a safe and adequate volunteer donor blood supply, 
and for other purposes.

Summary

    H. Res. 220 recognizes America's Blood Centers and its 
members for providing blood to patients, ensuring the safety of 
the blood supply, and promoting blood donor initiatives. It 
also acknowledges the efforts made by member community blood 
centers and other blood organizations to promote and protect 
the safety and adequacy of blood components provided to 
patients. Finally, H. Res. 220 recognizes the need to promote a 
stable blood supply and increase volunteer participation of 
blood donors.

Legislative History

    Mr. Boustany introduced H. Res. 220 on April 19, 2005, and 
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 220 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 220 favorably 
reported, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On October 25, 2005, H. Res. 220 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as 
amended, by voice vote.

        SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL NURSES WEEK

                             (H. Res. 245)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Nurses Week.

Summary

    H. Res. 245 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 
National Nurses Week.

Legislative History

    Ms. Johnson of Texas introduced this resolution on April 
27, 2005 and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 245 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On May 3, 2006, the H. Res. 245 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.

 SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL HEPATITIS B AWARENESS WEEK

                             (H. Res. 250)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Hepatitis B 
Awareness Week.

Summary

    H. Res. 250 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 
Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month (September). The resolution 
expresses the sense of Congress that the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of 
Women's Health should coordinate efforts to establish a 
National Gynecologic Cancer Awareness and Education Campaign 
targeting the medical community and all women regardless of 
ethnic or socioeconomic background.

Legislative History

    Mr. Murphy introduced H. Res. 250 on April 28, 2005 and it 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 2, 2005, H. Res. 250 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On May 4, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met in 
open markup session and ordered H. Res. 250 favorably reported 
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On May 5, 2005, H. Res. 250 was considered in the House by 
unanimous consent and passed the House without objection.

 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT 
 THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR 
 IMPLEMENTING THE MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT TO ASSESS THE QUALITY 
 OF CARE OF CANCER PATIENTS UNDERGOING CHEMOTHERAPY, AND SHOULD EXTEND 
   THE PROJECT THROUGH 2006, SUBJECT TO ANY APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS

                             (H. Res. 261)

    Resolution expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services should be commended for implementing the Medicare 
demonstration project to assess the quality of care of cancer 
patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend the project 
through 2006, subject to any appropriate modifications.

Summary

    H. Res. 261 urges the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services to: (1) extend through 2006 the Medicare demonstration 
project to assess the quality of care for patients undergoing 
chemotherapy by collecting data on the impact of chemotherapy 
on cancer patients' quality of life; (2) thoroughly review the 
merits of the demonstration project; and (3) use the results of 
the project to develop a system to pay for chemotherapy 
services under Medicare based on the quality of care delivered 
and the resources used to deliver that care.
    H. Res. 261 also calls for: (1) the demonstration project 
to be modified to accumulate even more useful data relating to 
quality of care; and (2) the continuation of payments to 
physicians for participation in the demonstration project to 
facilitate continued access of Medicare patients with cancer to 
chemotherapy treatment of the highest quality.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 261 was introduced by Mr. Hall on May 4, 2005, and 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, in 
addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 261 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On July 20, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H. Res. 261 favorably 
reported to the House, with amendment, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present.
    On October 6, 2005, H. Res. 261 was considered by the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by a voice vote. The title of the measure was amended.

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL OSTEOPOROSIS AWARENESS AND 
                            PREVENTION MONTH

                             (H. Res. 265)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Osteoporosis 
Awareness and Prevention Month.

Summary

    H. Res. 265 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 
National Osteoporosis Awareness and Prevention Month.

Legislative History

    Ms. Berkley and introduced H. Res. 265 on May 5, 2005 it 
was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On May 13, 2005, H. Res. 265 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On June 6, 2006, H. Res. 265 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by a voice vote.

 SUPPORTING EFFORTS TO INCREASE CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS, TREATMENT, 
                              AND RESEARCH

                             (H. Res. 323)

    Supporting efforts to increase childhood cancer awareness, 
treatment, and research.

Summary

    H. Res. 323 calls for Congress to support efforts to 
promote awareness of cancer in children; investment in 
childhood cancer research; efforts to encourage medical 
trainees and investigators to enter the field of pediatric 
oncology; efforts to encourage the development of drugs and 
biologics designed to treat pediatric cancers; policies that 
encourage participation in clinical trials; medical education 
curricula designed to improve pain management for cancer 
patients; and enhanced education, services, and other resources 
related to late effects from cancer treatment.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 323 was introduced on June 15, 2006, by Ms. Pryce 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 21, 2006, H. Res. 323 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by a roll call vote of 393 yeas and 0 nays.

 EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL EPIDERMOLYSIS 
                         BULLOSA AWARENESS WEEK

                             (H. Res. 335)


Summary

    Epidermolysis bullosa is a rare disease characterized by 
the presence of extremely fragile skin that results in the 
development of recurrent, painful blisters, open sores, and in 
some forms of the disease, in disfiguring scars, disabling 
musculoskeletal deformities, and internal blistering. H. Res. 
335 supports the goals and ideals of a National Epidermolysis 
Bullosa Awareness Week to raise public awareness and 
understanding of epidermolysis bullosa and of the need for a 
cure.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 335 was introduced on June 21, 2005, in the House 
by Mr. Bishop, and it was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
    On July 1, 2005, H. Res. 335 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 9, 2006, H. Res. 335 passed the House by 
unanimous consent.

  RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE 15TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE 
                AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990

                             (H. Res. 378)

    Recognizing and honoring the 15th anniversary of the 
signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Summary

    H. Res. 378 recognizes the 15th anniversary of the signing 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the work of the 
individuals and organizations who fought to advance the cause 
of people with disabilities. The resolution declares that the 
House of Representatives reaffirms its commitment to promoting 
the rights of Americans with disabilities, recognizes the 
important role of the Federal courts in securing those rights, 
and strongly supports the purposes and goals of such Act.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 378 was introduced on July 25, 2005, by Mr. 
Sensenbrenner Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
in addition to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, 
Transportation and Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On July 27, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 378 reported to the House 
by voice vote, and the Committee on the Judiciary reported H. 
Res. 378 to the House (H. Rept. 109-196, Part I). The 
Committees on Education and the Workforce, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and Energy and Commerce were discharged from 
further consideration and H. Res. 378 was placed on the House 
Calendar, Calendar No. 73.
    No Further action was taken on H. Res. 378 in the 109th 
Congress.

  GYNECOLOGICAL RESOLUTION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF OVARIAN CANCER EDUCATION

                             (H. Res. 444)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer 
Awareness Month.

Summary

    H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement 
of Ovarian Cancer Education, expresses support for the goals 
and ideals of National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month 
(September 2005). The resolution calls for funding ovarian 
cancer research so that a reliable screening test can be 
developed and a cure can be found.

Legislative History

    On September 15, 2005, Mr. Hall introduced H. Res. 444 
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 19, 2005, H. Res. 444 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On November 7, 2005, the House considered H. Res. 44 under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, by a 
roll call vote of 348 yeas and 0 nays.

                SUPPORTING THE GOALS OF RED RIBBON WEEK

                             (H. Res. 485)

    Supporting the goals of Red Ribbon Week.

Summary

    H. Res. 485 expresses support for the goals of Red Ribbon 
Week (October 23-October 31). The resolution encourages 
children and teens to live a drug-free life and the promotion 
of drug-free communities and participation in drug prevention 
activities.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 485 was introduced by Mr. Souder on October 6, 2005 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On October 17, 2005, H. Res. 485 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On October 25, 2005, H. Res. 485 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules, and passed the House, as 
amended by voice vote.

    SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF OBSERVING THE YEAR OF POLIO 
                               AWARENESS

                             (H. Res. 526)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of observing the Year of 
Polio Awareness.

Summary

    H. Res. 526 recognizes the need for every child to be 
vaccinated against polio. The resolution urges all appropriate 
Federal departments and agencies to take steps to educate 
Americans about the need for polio vaccination and U.S. polio 
survivors and medical professionals about the cause and 
treatment of post-polio sequelae. Finally, H. Res. 526 
expresses support for the goals and ideals of observing the 
Year of Polio Awareness.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 526 was introduced by Mr. Rothman on November 1, 
2005, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On September 19, 2006, the House considered H. Res. 526, as 
amended, under suspension of the rules and the resolution was 
agreed to by voice vote.

   ENCOURAGING ALL ELIGIBLE MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WHO HAVE NOT YET 
  ELECTED TO ENROLL IN THE NEW MEDICARE PART D BENEFIT TO REVIEW THE 
  AVAILABLE OPTIONS AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER ENROLLMENT IN A MEDICARE 
 PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLAN BEST MEETS THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS FOR 
                       PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE

                             (H. Res. 802)

    Encouraging all eligible Medicare beneficiaries who have 
not yet elected to enroll in the new Medicare Part D benefit to 
review the available options and to determine whether 
enrollment in a Medicare prescription drug plan best meets 
their current and future needs for prescription drug coverage.

Summary

    H. Res. 802 encourages all Medicare beneficiaries who are 
not yet enrolled in part D (Voluntary Prescription Drug Benefit 
Program) of title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act 
to: (1) review carefully all of the options available to them; 
and (2) determine whether enrollment in a Medicare prescription 
drug plan best meets their current and future needs for 
prescription drug coverage.

Legislative History

    On May 9, 2005, H. Res. 802 was introduced by Mrs. Johnson 
(CT), and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
    On May 9, 2005, H. Res. 802 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On May 10, 2005, H. Res. 802 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 406 yeas and 0 nays.

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WITH REGARD TO THE 
IMPORTANCE OF NATIONAL WOMEN'S HEALTH WEEK, WHICH PROMOTES AWARENESS OF 
 DISEASES THAT AFFECT WOMEN AND TO TAKE PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO ENSURE 
                              GOOD HEALTH

                             (H. Res. 833)

    Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 
regard to the importance of National Women's Health Week, which 
promotes awareness of diseases that affect women and which 
encourages women to take preventive measures to ensure good 
health.

Summary

    H. Res. 833 recognizes the importance of preventing 
diseases that commonly affect women and programs that provide 
research and collect data on common diseases in women. The 
resolution calls for people to use National Women's Health Week 
as an opportunity to learn about health issues that face women 
and women to observe National Women's Check-Up Day by receiving 
preventive screenings from their health care providers.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 833 was introduced by Mr. Hinchey on November May 
23, 2006 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On June 5, 2006, H. Res. 833 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On June 6, 2006, H. Res. 833 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as amended, 
by voice vote.

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF PLAN AHEAD WITH AN ADVANCE DIRECTIVE 
                                  WEEK

                             (H. Res. 934)


Summary

    H. Res. 934 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 
Plan Ahead with an Advance Directive Week. The resolution 
encourages people who are over the age of 18 to prepare advance 
directives; and also nonprofit organizations to encourage 
individuals to prepare advance directives to ensure that their 
wishes and rights with respect to end-of-life care are 
protected.

Legislative History

    H. Res. 934 was introduced in the House on July 20, 2006, 
in the by Mr. Gingrey, and it was referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
    On August 1, 2006, H. Res. 934 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On December 7, 2006, H. Res. 934 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, by 
voice vote.

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE 
                             AWARENESS WEEK

                             (H. Res. 982)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Peripheral 
Arterial Disease Awareness Week.

Summary

    H. Res. 982 expresses support for the goals and ideals of 
National Peripheral Arterial Disease Awareness Week and efforts 
to educate people about the disease, the consequences if it is 
not diagnosed and treated, and the need to seek appropriate 
care as a serious health issue. The resolution also 
acknowledges the importance of peripheral arterial disease 
awareness to improve national cardiovascular health.

Legislative History

    Ms. Capps introduced H. Res. 982 on September 6, 2006 and 
it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 19, 2006, H. Res. 982 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules, and passed the House by voice 
vote.

 SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL BLACK HIV/AIDS AWARENESS 
                                  DAY

                           (H. Con. Res. 30)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS 
Awareness Day.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 30 expresses support for the goals and ideals 
of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (February 7) and 
recognizes the fifth anniversary of its observation. The 
resolution encourages: State and local governments to recognize 
such day, publicize its importance among their communities, and 
encourage individuals to undergo HIV testing; media 
organizations to carry messages in support of such day; 
enactment of effective HIV prevention programs; and States to 
enact HIV surveillance programs consistent with recognized 
infectious disease control methods to ensure accurate data, 
better targeting of resources, and improved delivery of health 
services to those living with HIV. The resolution commends the 
President for highlighting HIV/AIDS in the State of the Union 
Address and for emphasizing the importance of addressing HIV/
AIDS in the African-American community.

Legislative History

    H. Con. Res. 30 was introduced on January 26, 2005 and was 
referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On February 25, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On February 9, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, as 
amended, by a roll call vote of 422 yeas and 0 nays.
    On February 14, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was received in the 
Senate.
    On February 17, 2005, H. Con. Res. 30 was referred to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 30 in the 109th 
Congress.

 EXPRESSING THE NEED FOR ENHANCED PUBLIC AWARENESS OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN 
   INJURY AND SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A NATIONAL BRAIN INJURY 
                            AWARENESS MONTH

                           (H. Con. Res. 99)

    Expressing the need for enhanced public awareness of 
traumatic brain injury and support for the designation of a 
National Brain Injury Awareness Month.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 99 expresses support for the designation of 
National Brain Injury Awareness Month.

Legislative History

    On March 15, 2005, H. Con. Res. 99 was introduced by Mr. 
Pascrell and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On March 22, 2005, H. Con. Res. 99 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On May 3, 2006, H. Con. Res. 99 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice 
vote.
    On May 4, 2006, H. Con. Res. 99 was received in the Senate 
and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 99 in the 109th 
Congress.

 RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO PURSUE RESEARCH INTO THE CAUSES, A TREATMENT, 
AND AN EVENTUAL CURE FOR IDIOPATHIC PULMONARY FIBROSIS, SUPPORTING THE 
 GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL IDIOPATHIC PULMONARY FIBROSIS AWARENESS 
                      WEEK, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                           (H. Con. Res. 178)

    Recognizing the need to pursue research into the causes, a 
treatment, and an eventual cure for idiopathic pulmonary 
fibrosis, supporting the goals and ideals of National 
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Week, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 178 recognizes the need to pursue research 
into the causes of, and a treatment and an eventual cure for, 
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The resolution expresses support 
for the work of advocates and organizations in educating, 
supporting, and providing hope for individuals who suffer from 
the disease and designation of National Idiopathic Pulmonary 
Fibrosis Awareness Week. Finally, H. Con. Res. 178 
congratulates advocates and organizations for their efforts to 
educate the public about the disease.

Legislative History

    On June 14, 2005, Mr. Norwood introduced H. Con. Res. 178, 
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 1, 2005, H. Con. Res. 178 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On September 28, 2005, the House considered H. Con. Res. 
178 under suspension of the rules, and passed the House on 
September 29, 2005, as amended, by a roll call vote of 401 yeas 
and 0 nays.
    On September 30, 2005, H. Con. Res. 178 was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 178 in the 
109th Congress.

SUPPORTING THE GOAL OF ELIMINATING SUFFERING AND DEATH DUE TO CANCER BY 
                             THE YEAR 2015

                           (H. Con. Res. 210)

    Supporting the goal of eliminating suffering and death due 
to cancer by the year 2015.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 210 expresses support for the goal of 
eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by 2015.

Legislative History

    H. Con. Res. 210 was introduced by Mr. Shaw on July 18, 
2005 and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On July 29, 2005, H. Con. Res. 210 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On September 19, 2006, H. Con. Res. 210 was considered in 
the House under suspension of the rules and passed the House, 
as amended, by a roll call vote of 403 yeas and 0 nays.
    On September 20, 2006, H. Con. Res. 210 was received in the 
Senate and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 210 in the 
109th Congress.

 SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL CYSTIC FIBROSIS AWARENESS 
                                 MONTH

                           (H. Con. Res. 357)

    Supporting the goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis 
Awareness Month.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 357 honors the goals and ideals of National 
Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month. It also expresses support for 
research to find a cure for cystic fibrosis by fostering an 
enhanced research program through a strong Federal commitment 
and expanded public-private partnerships.

Legislative History

    Mr. Stearns introduced H. Con. Res. 357 on March 14, 2006, 
and it was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On March 17, 2006, H. Con. Res. 357 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On March 29, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 357 favorably 
reported to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On April 25, 2006, H. Con. Res. 357 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by 
voice vote.
    On May 1, 2006, H. Con. Res. 357 was received in the Senate 
and was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
    On May 24, 2006, the resolution was considered in the 
Senate and passed without amendment and with a preamble by 
unanimous consent.

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO HONORING THE GOALS 
   AND IDEALS OF ALEX'S LEMONADE STAND DAYS, JUNE 9 THROUGH 11, 2006

                           (H. Con. Res. 368)

    Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to 
honoring the goals and ideals of Alex's Lemonade Stand Days, 
June 9 through 11, 2006.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 368 honors the goals and ideals of Lemonade 
Stand Days, and Alex's Lemonade Stand Days were designated as 
the second weekend in June by the Alex's Lemonade Stand 
Foundation, which was established in the memory of Alexandra 
Scott, a pediatric cancer patient and childhood cancer 
advocate. The resolution commends the Foundation's fundraising 
efforts for childhood cancer research.

Legislative History

    Mr. Gerlach introduced H. Con. Res. 368 on March 29, 2006 
and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 12, 2006, H. Con. Res. 368 was considered in the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by 
voice vote.
    On June 13, 2006, H. Con. Res. 368 was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 368 in the 
109th Congress.

  HONORING MARY ELIZA MAHONEY, AMERICA'S FIRST PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED 
                         AFRICAN AMERICAN NURSE

                           (H. Con. Res. 386)

    Honoring Mary Eliza Mahoney, America's first professionally 
trained African-American nurse.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 386 honors Mary Eliza Mahoney, the first 
African-American nurse, for an outstanding nursing career and 
exemplary contributions to professional nursing organizations 
and other African-American nurses who practice nursing with 
distinction. The resolution expresses support for the goals and 
activities of National Nurses Week and strategies to counteract 
the shortage of nurses.

Legislative History

    H. Con. Res. 386 was introduced on April 6, 2006, by Ms. 
Johnson of Texas and it was referred to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
    On April 19, 2006, H. Con. Res. 386 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Health.
    On September 19, 2006, H. Con. Res. 386, was considered in 
the House under suspension of the rules and passed the House as 
amended, by voice vote.
    On September 20, 2006, H. Con. Res. 386 was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 386 in the 
109th Congress.

   RECOGNIZING THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON THE OCCASION OF THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF 
  THE PASSAGE OF THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT FOR THE IMPORTANT SERVICE IT 
                         PROVIDES TO THE NATION

                           (H. Con. Res. 426)

    Recognizing the Food and Drug Administration of the 
Department of Health and Human Services on the occasion of the 
100th anniversary of the passage of the Food and Drugs Act for 
the important service it provides to the Nation.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 426 recognizes the United States Food and Drug 
Administration and its employees for: (1) 100 years of service 
in ensuring the safety of our food and the safety and efficacy 
of our medical products; (2) providing leadership to the world 
in the regulatory sciences; and (3) their hard work and 
extraordinary dedication to the protection and promotion of our 
nation's public health.

Legislative History

    H. Con. Res. 426 was introduced by Mr. Barton on June 12, 
2006, and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 15, 2006, the Energy and Commerce Committee met in 
open markup session and ordered H. Con. Res. 426 favorably 
reported to the House, without amendment, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present.
    On June 20, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H. Con. Res. 426 to the House (H. Rpt. 109-511), and 
was placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 197.
    On June 21, 2006, H. Con. Res. 426 was considered by the 
House under suspension of the rules and passed the House by 
voice vote.
    On June 22, 2006, H. Con. Res. 426 was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Senate and referred to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
    On June 29, 2006, H. Con. Res. 426 passed the Senate 
without amendment by unanimous consent.

                          Oversight Activities


           CURRENT ISSUES RELATED TO MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM

    On February 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing on the need to enact medical liability 
reform. The hearing focused on identifying the factors that 
have led to the current medical liability crisis and the 
potential impact of medical liability reforms. The subcommittee 
received testimony from a patient perspective, as well as 
industry expert witnesses on medical liability legislation.

SETTING THE PATH FOR REAUTHORIZATION: IMPROVING PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT AT 
                                THE NIH

    On March 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing to examine how the Office of the Director of 
the National Institutes of Health (NIH) manages the research 
portfolio of the 27 distinct research Institutes and Centers 
that form the NIH. Because the organizational structure of NIH 
largely determines how NIH research priorities are set and 
budgets determined, this hearing highlighted how the authority 
of the NIH Director impacts the management of the agency and 
the allocation of resources. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Director of NIH.

  LONG-TERM CARE AND MEDICAID: SPIRALING COSTS AND THE NEED FOR REFORM

    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing that examined long-term care within the 
context of Medicaid and entitlement spending generally and 
explored ideas to promote private long-term care financing 
options. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research 
Service, and several other expert witnesses from the industry.

 SPECIALTY HOSPITALS: ASSESSING THEIR ROLE IN THE DELIVERY OF QUALITY 
                              HEALTH CARE

    On May 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on specialty hospitals, particularly 
the expiration of the moratorium on physician referrals to 
specialty hospitals. The subcommittee received testimony from 
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services, the Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, and several doctors in the specialty hospital 
profession.

     INCREASING GENERIC DRUG UTILIZATION: SAVING MONEY FOR PATIENTS

    On May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing on the issue of generic drugs and their role 
in decreasing health care costs for patients. The hearing 
featured one panel of witnesses from advocacy groups and also 
private industry.

              THE THREAT OF AND PLANNING FOR PANDEMIC FLU

    On May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing in regards to pandemic flu. The hearing 
stressed that States have a major role in the event of a 
pandemic and are preparing for it by developing pandemic 
influenza plans or revising existing plans to be stronger and 
more effective. The key elements of these plans include 
surveillance, vaccination, antiviral drug use, community 
containment measures, communications, response of the health 
care system, and ability to maintain essential public services. 
The subcommittee received testimony from the Department of 
Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, 
the Government Accountability Office, and expert witnesses in 
the pandemic flu community.

                 PATIENT SAFETY AND QUALITY INITIATIVES

    On June 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing on patient safety. The purpose of the hearing 
was to focus on public and private sector initiatives to reduce 
the number of medical errors, improve patient outcomes, and 
improve quality. The hearing is intended to provide a broad 
overview of the general topic, an update on ongoing initiatives 
and identify options for possible further Congressional action. 
Last Congress, the House and Senate each passed legislation 
intended to improve patient safety by encouraging the creation 
of patient safety organizations and providing protections for 
certain communications to and from patient safety 
organizations. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
research and advocacy community.

   MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: EXAMINING OPTIONS FOR PAYMENT REFORM

    On June 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing that examined the Medicaid payments for 
prescription drugs. Witnesses at this hearing provided 
information about options that the States and Federal 
government have to ensure that there is more accuracy and 
transparency in prescription drug payments in the Medicaid 
program. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability 
Office, and other Medicaid prescription drug experts.

ASSESSING PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE DELIVERY OF CARE IN THE WAKE OF KATRINA

    On September 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation held a joint 
oversight hearing on how hurricane Katrina devastated lives, 
families, homes, businesses, and infrastructure. The purpose of 
this hearing was to provide an introduction to the public 
health and health care situation on the ground. The focus was 
to understand current health care activities and the current 
needs of the health care infrastructure. The subcommittees 
received testimony from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and representatives of hospitals, doctors, health 
centers, nurses, pharmacists, and the American Red Cross.

   COMPREHENSIVELY COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINES: IMPACTS ON HEALTH AND 
                              ENVIRONMENT

    On October 20, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health and the 
Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials held a 
joint oversight hearing to review issues relating to the 
production and use of methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is an 
addictive stimulant drug that strongly activates certain 
systems in the brain. The drug can be swallowed in pill form, 
snorted in powder form, smoked or, injected. Users may become 
addicted quickly, and will use the drug with increasing 
frequency and in increasing doses to produce the same effect. 
The subcommittees received testimony from witnesses in 
environmental, health and enforcement sectors of the government 
from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration, and from enforcement associations and 
groups who sell the over-the-counter drugs that are used in the 
production of methamphetamines.

   MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT: HOW TO BUILD A MORE EFFICIENT PAYMENT 
                                 SYSTEM

    On November 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing on Medicare physician payment. The hearing 
focused on Medicare fee-for-service payments for physicians in 
2006 and beyond and assessed their impact on beneficiary access 
to health care. In addition, the hearing provided a forum for 
discussing how to design a more stable reimbursement system 
that controls over utilization of services while ensuring 
patients receive efficient and effective quality health care. 
The subcommittee received testimony from the Administrator of 
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Chairman of the 
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and several 
specialty surgeons and researchers.

  IMPROVING AMERICA'S HEALTH: EXAMINING FEDERAL RESEARCH EFFORTS FOR 
                PULMONARY HYPERTENSION AND CHRONIC PAIN

    On December 8, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing examining Federal research efforts for 
pulmonary hypertension and chronic pain. The purpose of this 
hearing was to raise awareness about chronic pain and pulmonary 
hypertension and examine what the National Institutes of Health 
and others are doing to study these conditions and improve 
patient outcomes. The subcommittee received testimony from 
experts in these areas and also witnesses suffering from 
hypertension and chronic pain.

        MEDICARE PART D: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW DRUG BENEFIT

    On March 1, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on the implementation of the new 
Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The subcommittee 
received testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), experts, a beneficiary, and 
a representative from a State Governor's office.

WHAT'S THE COST? PROPOSALS TO PROVIDE CONSUMERS WITH BETTER INFORMATION 
                     ABOUT HEALTHCARE SERVICE COSTS

    On March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing that focused on the issue of price and 
quality transparency in the healthcare market. This hearing 
provided an opportunity for subcommittee members to examine the 
issue of transparency in our healthcare market. Witnesses 
reflected various perspectives on the role and utility of 
transparency in improving costs and quality of healthcare 
services. These individuals provided the Committee with input 
on both the economics of price transparency, but also give 
first-hand accounts of systems in the market today that are 
working to accomplish the goal of transparency in healthcare. 
The subcommittee received testimony from Members of Congress 
who sponsored related legislation in the area of transparency 
and also received testimony from several think tanks, 
economists, and representatives of the insurance industry.

   LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO PROMOTE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS AND A 
                   SMARTER HEALTH INFORMATION SYSTEM

    On March 16, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health had an 
oversight hearing on electronic health records. The hearing 
explored issues relating to the adoption of health information 
systems, the promise these systems hold for improving America's 
healthcare system and barriers that have slowed the adoption of 
such systems by hospitals, doctors, and other providers of 
healthcare. The hearing explored legislative proposals and 
ideas to help fulfill this promise and remove barriers to 
adoption. The subcommittee received testimony from industry 
leaders and healthcare providers.

                PROJECT BIOSHIELD REAUTHORIZATION ISSUES

    On April 6, 2006, The Subcommittee on Health had an 
oversight hearing to lay out where the current Project 
Bioshield Act of 2004 stands in relation to other Federal 
program activities to research, develop, and acquire 
countermeasures for chemical, biological, radiological and 
nuclear threats. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. 
Department of Defense, and professionals in the biosecurity and 
biotechnology industries.

 REAUTHORIZING THE RYAN WHITE CARE ACT: HOW TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM TO 
                         ENSURE ACCESS TO CARE

    On April 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on the reauthorization of the Ryan 
White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. The 
Ryan White CARE Act (RWCA) makes Federal funds available to 
States, eligible metropolitan areas (EMAs), and certain 
providers to assist in the health care costs and support 
services for persons with acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
(AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The 
subcommittee received testimony from the Health Resources and 
Services Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, and the Government Accountability Office.

             THE CRITICAL ROLE OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

    On May 4, 2006, Subcommittee on Health held an oversight 
hearing that examined issues related to the reauthorization of 
Community Health Centers which expires at the end of this year. 
The subcommittee received testimony from the Health Resources 
and Services Administration and numerous leaders of community 
health centers.

  EXAMINING THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

    On May 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing that examined issues related to the 
reauthorization of the CHGME program. The Children's Hospital 
Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) program was established on 
December 16, 1999, as part of the Public Health Services Act 
(P.L. 106-129) and was later amended by the Children's Health 
Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310). The authorization expired at the 
end of FY 2005. The program is administered by the Health 
Resources and Service Administration (HRSA). The subcommittee 
received testimony from the Health Resources and Services 
Administration and two Chief Executive Officers from children's 
hospitals.

                      PLANNING FOR LONG-TERM CARE

    On May 17, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing examining the growing number of options for 
Americans to plan ahead for potential LTC costs thereby 
delaying or avoiding Medicaid dependency. The hearing also 
examined issues related to donated and paid care giving and 
caregiver training. The subcommittee received testimony from 
the National Council on Aging, American Health Insurance Plans, 
American Council of Life Insurers, RTI International, AARP, 
American Red Cross, Schmieding Center for Senior Health and 
Education, and a union.

     EXAMINING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICA'S 
                              PHARMACISTS

    On May 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on the concerns raised by 
pharmacists in recent months. The pharmacists expressed 
concerns regarding services rendered under the new Medicare 
Part D prescription drug benefit. Specifically, pharmacists 
assert that prescription drug plans (PDPs) are not promptly 
reimbursing pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions. In 
addition, pharmacists allege that the Medication Therapy 
Management (MTM) program as prescribed by the Medicare 
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) is not being effectively 
administered and could be improved. Pharmacists also voiced 
concerns with regards to the listing of pharmacies on the 
beneficiary Part D card (referred to as ``co-branding''). Long-
term care pharmacists raised implementation concerns specific 
to the long-term care population including: network access 
issues, compliance with CMS marketing guidelines, and delays in 
payment due to glitches in Part D dual eligible enrollment. The 
subcommittee received testimony from the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services and several industry leaders in the 
pharmacist's community.

    MENTAL HEALTH AND BRAIN DISEASE: DISPELLING MYTHS AND PROMOTING 
                RECOVERY THROUGH AWARENESS AND TREATMENT

    On June 28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing on mental health and brain disease. This 
hearing focused on treatment for and recovery from severe 
mental illness (also called brain disease). The hearing helped 
to raise public awareness about the biological nature of mental 
illnesses; to reduce the stigma associated with severe mental 
illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder, and 
schizophrenia; to inform the public of effective treatment and 
prevention measures for mental illnesses; to emphasize the hope 
of recovery for those struggling with severe mental illness; 
and to highlight current research initiatives in the mental 
health field. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
National Institute of Mental Health, university professors, and 
three witnesses, all of whom have been affected by severe 
mental illness.

               INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO MEDICAL LIABILITY

    On July 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on innovative proposals for 
improving the performance of the medical liability system. The 
subcommittee heard testimony about the performance of the 
medical liability system in compensating injured patients, 
deterring negligent conduct, and ensuring access to quality 
medical care. Additionally, the witnesses discussed non-
traditional and innovative medical liability reform proposals 
from leading experts in the field. The subcommittee received 
testimony from several legal scholars and a health care 
accreditation organization.

   USE OF IMAGING SERVICES: PROVIDING APPROPRIATE CARE FOR MEDICARE 
                             BENEFICIARIES

    On July 18, 2006 the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on the growth in use of imaging 
services in Medicare and ways to address improper growth. The 
subcommittee received testimony from the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, doctors, imaging companies, and professional 
societies and organizations in the area of imaging.

MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT: HOW TO BUILD A PAYMENT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES 
           QUALITY, EFFICIENT CARE FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES

    On July 25 and 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held 
oversight hearings on Medicare physician payment. The hearing 
focused on the current Medicare physician payment system, the 
projected reductions to physician payment under the current 
payment formula, and the need to measure the quality and 
efficiency of physician services to pay accordingly. On July 
25, 2006, the hearing focused on the Medicare physician payment 
system. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability 
Office, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and the 
Program on Medicare's Future for The Commonwealth Fund. On July 
27, 2006, the hearing focused on quality measurement activities 
and the concept of pay-for-performance in physician payment. 
The subcommittee received testimony from the Administrator of 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and several physician-
group representatives.

              MEDICARE PHYSICIAN PAYMENTS: 2007 AND BEYOND

    On September 28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on addressing the impending Medicare 
physician payment cuts in 2007 and subsequent years. Physicians 
face a 5.1 percent cut in Medicare fee-for-service payment for 
2007 and 4-5 percent cuts are projected for each of the next 
several years. In July, the Subcommittee on Health held a 
series of physician payment hearings, and Dr. Burgess 
introduced a physician payment bill that would permanently 
replace the current physician payment formula (known as 
sustainable growth rate or the ``SGR'') with payments adjusted 
by inflation (known as the Medicare Economic Index or ``MEI'') 
minus 1 percent. Ranking Member Dingell introduced a bill, H.R. 
5916, that would provide a two-year period of stable positive 
payments to physicians, to allow Congress time to explore a 
permanent solution to the physician payment problem. The 
subcommittee received testimony from different advocacy groups.

                             Hearings Held

    Current Issues Related to Medical Liability Reform.--
Oversight hearing on Current Issues Related to Medical 
Liability Reform. Hearing held on February 10, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-36.
    Setting the Path for Reauthorization: Improving Portfolio 
Management at the NIH.--Oversight hearing on Setting the Path 
for Reauthorization: Improving Portfolio Management at the NIH. 
Hearing held on March 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-20.
    Long-Term Care and Medicaid: Spiraling Costs and the Need 
for Reform.--Oversight hearing on Long-Term Care and Medicaid: 
Spiraling Costs and the Need for Reform. Hearing held on April 
27, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-24.
    Specialty Hospitals: Assessing Their Role in the Delivery 
of Quality Health Care.--Oversight hearing on Specialty 
Hospitals: Assessing Their Role in the Delivery of Quality 
Health Care. Hearing held on May 12, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-38.
    Increasing Generic Drug Utilization: Saving Money for 
Patients.--Oversight hearing on Increasing Generic Drug 
Utilization: Saving Money for Patients. Hearing held on May 18, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-16.
    The Threat of and Planning for Pandemic Flu.--Oversight 
hearing on The Threat of and Planning for Pandemic Flu. Hearing 
held on May 26, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-21.
    Patient Safety and Quality Initiatives.--Oversight hearing 
on Patient Safety and Quality Initiatives. Hearing held on June 
9, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-17.
    Medicaid Prescription Drugs: Examining Options for Payment 
Reform.--Oversight hearing on Medicaid Prescription Drugs: 
Examining Options for Payment Reform. Hearing held on June 22, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-25.
    The Health Care Choice Act.--Hearing on The Health Care 
Choice Act. Hearing held on June 28, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-23.
    Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care in the 
Wake of Katrina.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations on Assessing Public Health and 
the Delivery of Care in the Wake of Katrina. Hearing held on 
September 22, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-50.
    Comprehensively Combating Methamphetamines: Impacts on 
Health and the Environment.--Joint oversight hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials on 
Comprehensively Combating Methamphetamines: Impacts on Health 
and the Environment. Hearing held on October 20, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-57.
    Medicare Physician Payment: How to Build a More Efficient 
Payment System.--Oversight hearing on Medicare Physician 
Payment: How to Build a More Efficient Payment System. Hearing 
held on November 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-75.
    Improving America's Health: Examining Federal Research 
Efforts for Pulmonary Hypertension and Chronic Pain.--Oversight 
hearing on Improving America's Health: Examining Federal 
Research Efforts for Pulmonary Hypertension and Chronic Pain. 
Hearing held on December 8, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
43.
    Medicare Part D: Implementation of the New Drug Benefit.--
Oversight hearing on Medicare Part D: Implementation of the New 
Drug Benefit. Hearing held on March 1, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-129.
    What's The Cost?: Proposals to Provide Consumers With 
Better Information About Healthcare Service Costs--Oversight 
hearing on What's The Cost?: Proposals to Provide Consumers 
With Better Information About Healthcare Service Costs. Hearing 
held on March 15, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-70.
    Legislative Proposals to Promote Electronic Health Records 
and a Smarter Health Information System.--Hearing on 
Legislative Proposals to Promote Electronic Health Records and 
a Smarter Health Information System. Hearing held on March 16, 
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-114.
    Project Bioshield Reauthorization Issues.--Oversight 
hearing on Project Bioshield Reauthorization Issues. Hearing 
held on April 6, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-97.
    Reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act: How to Improve the 
Program to Ensure Access to Care.--Oversight hearing on 
Reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act: How to Improve the 
Program to Ensure Access to Care. Hearing held on April 27, 
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-88.
    The Critical Role of Community Health Centers in Ensuring 
Access to Care.--Oversight hearing on The Critical Role of 
Community Health Centers in Ensuring Access to Care. Hearing 
held on May 4, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-86.
    Examining the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical 
Education Program.--Oversight hearing on Examining the 
Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Program. Hearing 
held on May 9, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-87.
    Planning for Long-Term Care.--Oversight hearing on Planning 
for Long-Term Care. Hearing held on May 17, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-100.
    Examining the Federal Government's Partnership with 
America's Pharmacists.--Oversight hearing on Examining the 
Federal Government's Partnership with America's Pharmacists. 
Hearing held on May 23, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-102.
    Mental Illness and Brain Disease: Dispelling Myths and 
Promoting Recovery Through Awareness and Treatment.--Oversight 
hearing on Mental Illness and Brain Disease: Dispelling Myths 
and Promoting Recovery Through Awareness and Treatment. Hearing 
held on June 28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-120.
    Innovative Solutions to Medical Liability.--Oversight 
hearing on Innovative Solutions to Medical Liability. Hearing 
held on July 13, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-117.
    Use of Imaging Services: Providing Appropriate Care for 
Medicare Beneficiaries.--Oversight hearing on Use of Imaging 
Services: Providing Appropriate Care for Medicare 
Beneficiaries. Hearing held on July 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-132.
    Medicare Physician Payment: How to Build a Payment System 
that Provides Quality, Efficient Care for Medicare 
Beneficiaries.--Oversight hearings on Medicare Physician 
Payment: How to Build a Payment System that Provides Quality, 
Efficient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries. Hearings held on 
July 25, 2006, and July 27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
130.
    Medicare Physician Payments: 2007 and Beyond.--Oversight 
hearing on Medicare Physician Payments: 2007 and Beyond. 
Hearing held on September 28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
147.
          Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet

           (Ratio 18-15)

  FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland             PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania       ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
CHARLES A GONZALEZ, Texas            BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JAY INSLEE, Washington               JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York             CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey         Mississippi
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  VITO FOSSELLA, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee               GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Vice Chairman
BART STUPAK, Michigan                GREG WALDEN, Oregon
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            LEE TERRY, Nebraska
  (Ex Officio)                       MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
                                     JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Interstate and foreign telecommunications including, but 
not limited to all telecommunication and information transmission by 
broadcast, radio, wire, microwave, satellite, or other mode; and 
homeland security-related aspects of the foregoing.

                         Legislative Activities


                    JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2005

                       Public Law 109-21 (S. 714)

    To amend section 227 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 227) relating to the prohibition on junk fax 
transmissions.

Summary

    S. 174 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit a 
person from using any telephone facsimile (fax) machine, 
computer, or other device to send, to another fax machine, an 
unsolicited advertisement to a person who has requested that 
such sender not send such advertisements, or to any other 
person, unless: (1) the sender has an established business 
relationship with the person; (2) the sender obtained the fax 
number through voluntary communication from the recipient or 
from an Internet directory or site to which the recipient 
voluntarily made the fax number available for public 
distribution; and (3) the advertisement contains a conspicuous 
notice on its first page that the recipient may request not to 
be sent any further unsolicited advertisements, and such notice 
includes a domestic telephone and fax number (neither of which 
can be a pay-per-call number) for sending such a request.
    This Act requires the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) to provide that a request not to send unsolicited 
advertisements complies with FCC requirements if: (1) the 
request identifies the recipient fax number to which the 
request relates; (2) the request is made to the telephone or 
fax number of the sender; and (3) the person making the request 
has not subsequently provided express invitation or permission 
to have such advertisements sent. The Act authorizes the FCC 
to: (1) allow professional tax-exempt trade associations to 
send unsolicited advertisements to their members in furtherance 
of association purposes; and (2) establish a time limit on 
established business relationships for purposes of this Act.
    This Act requires the: (1) FCC to report annually to 
Congress on the enforcement of the above requirements; and (2) 
Comptroller General to study, and report to specified 
congressional committees on, complaints received by the FCC 
concerning unsolicited advertisements sent to fax machines.

Legislative History

    On April 6, 2005, S. 714 was introduced by Mr. Smith and 
was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Subcommittee on Trade, Tourism, and Economic 
Development held a hearing on S. 714.
    On June 7, 2005, S. 714 was favorably ordered reported by 
Mr. Stevens with amendments and placed on Senate Legislative 
Calendar under General Orders.
    On June 24, 2005, S. 714 passed the Senate by unanimous 
consent with amendments, was sent to the House, and held at the 
desk.
    On June 28, 2005, S. 714 was considered in the House under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House by voice vote.
    S. 174 was presented to the President on June 30, 2005, and 
on July 9, 2005, S. 714 was signed by the President (Public Law 
109-21).

A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE ACT OF 1962 TO STRIKE THE 
PRIVATIZATION CRITERIA FOR INTELSAT SEPARATED ENTITIES, REMOVE CERTAIN 
 RESTRICTIONS ON SEPARATED AND SUCCESSOR ENTITIES TO INTELSAT, AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

                      Public Law 109-34 (S. 1282)

    To amend the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to strike 
the privatization criteria for INTELSAT separated entities, 
remove certain restrictions on separated and successor 
entities, and for other purposes.

Summary

    S. 1282 amends Title VI (Open-market Reorganization for the 
Betterment of International Telecommunications Act or ORBIT 
Act) of the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to permit the 
re-affiliation of INTELSAT separated entities with INTELSAT, 
and to remove other regulatory restrictions on such separated 
entities. The legislation also requires the United States to 
preserve the space segment capacity of the GMDSS (Global 
Maritime Distress and Safety System), and it directs the 
Federal Communications Commission to review competitive market 
conditions of domestic and international satellite 
communications services and include in an annual report an 
analysis of those conditions.

Legislative History

    On June 21, 2005, S. 1282 was introduced by Mr. Burns in 
the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and 
passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent and received in 
the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On June 29, 2005, S. 1282 was discharged from the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce and passed the House without objection.
    S. 1282 was presented to the President on June 30, 2005, 
and on July 12, 2005, was signed by the President (Public Law 
109-34).

                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

                Public Law 109-171 (S. 1932, H.R. 4241)


    (Title III--Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act)

    To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of 
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 
(H. Con. Res. 95).

Summary

    Title III of Public Law 109-171, the Deficit Reduction Act 
of 2005, creates a firm deadline for completion of full-power 
broadcasters' transition to digital television (DTV) while 
helping consumers to continue to use their analog televisions, 
and makes spectrum available for commercial and public safety 
mobile communications.
    First, Title III directs the Federal Communication 
Commission (FCC) to take all steps necessary to require that 
full-power television stations stop analog broadcasting by 
midnight, February 17, 2009, and broadcast exclusively in 
digital format on channels 2 to 36 and 38 to 51. This enables 
channels 52 to 62 and 65 to 67 to be auctioned, and channels 
63, 64, 68, and 69 to be used for public-safety purposes.
    Second, Title III extends the FCC's auction authority 
through September 30, 2011. By January 28, 2008, the FCC is 
required to auction the spectrum recovered as a result of the 
end of analog broadcasting by full-power stations. On September 
30, 2009, $7.36 billion of the auction revenues is to be 
transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.
    Third, to help consumers who wish to continue receiving 
broadcast programming over-the-air using analog-only 
televisions, Title III authorizes the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to 
create a digital-to-analog converter box program. The NTIA is 
initially allocated up to $990 million of the spectrum auction 
revenues to create a program to provide up to two $40 coupons 
to each U.S. household that requests to participate in the 
program. If, as the program progresses, NTIA certifies to 
Congress that it cannot operate the program without more money, 
the funds available for the program increase to $1.5 billion.
    Fourth, Title III makes $1 billion in grants available to 
our nation's first responders for the purchase of mobile 
communications equipment that can utilize existing channels 63, 
64, 68, and 69 for interoperable emergency communications. 
Title III also makes (1) up to $30 million available to New 
York City broadcasters to build interim digital broadcast 
facilities until facilities can be built atop the Freedom 
Tower; (2) up to $10 million available to low-power translator 
stations for devices to help them convert signals back to 
analog format for their viewers that continue to use analog 
televisions, and (3) up to $65 million available to help 
convert low-power television stations and television translator 
stations from analog to digital transmissions.

Legislative History

    The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held three hearings on the digital television transition during 
the first session of the 109th Congress. The Subcommittee 
received testimony in an oversight hearing on February 17, 
2005, regarding the expected costs of digital-to-analog 
converter boxes and various potential digital-to-analog 
converter-box programs from representatives of the electronics 
and broadcasting industries and the Government Accountability 
Office.
    On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee received testimony in 
an oversight hearing regarding consumer education efforts for 
the DTV transition. The Committee received testimony from 
representatives of retailers and consumer groups.
    On May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee received testimony in a 
legislative hearing on a staff draft of DTV transition 
legislation from government officials from the Federal 
Communications Commission, Government Accountability Office, 
and the Montgomery County Maryland 911 Emergency Communications 
Center, and representatives of the cable, broadcasting, 
broadband, and manufacturing industries, and consumer groups.
    On October 26, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
met in open markup session and approved the Committee Print 
entitled Digital Television Transition Act of 2005, as amended, 
by a record vote of 33 yeas and 17 nays. A motion by Mr. Barton 
to transmit the recommendations of the Committee, and all 
appropriate accompanying material including additional, 
supplemental, or dissenting views, to the House Committee on 
the Budget, in order to comply with the reconciliation 
directive included in Section 201(a) of the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95, 
and consistent with Section 310 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, was agreed to by a voice vote.
    On October 27, 2005, Mr. Gregg introduced S. 1932 and the 
Senate Committee on the Budget reported without a written 
report.
    On November 3, 2005, S. 1932 was passed and agreed to in 
the Senate by a record vote of 52 yeas and 47 nays.
    On November 7, 2005, Mr. Nussle introduced H.R. 4241, which 
included the Digital Television Transition Act, and the House 
Committee on The Budget reported an original measure (H. Rept. 
109-276).
    On November 17, 2005, H.R. 4241 was considered in the House 
pursuant to H. Res. 560, and passed the House on November 18, 
2006, by a roll call vote of 217 yeas and 215 nays. No further 
action was taken on H.R. 4241 in the 109th Congress.
    On November 18, 2005, S. 1932 was considered in the House 
by unanimous consent, and was agreed to, amended, without 
objection.
    On December 14, 2005, the Senate disagreed to the amendment 
of the House, and requested a conference on S. 1932 by 
unanimous consent.
    On December 15, 2005, the Senate appointed conferees.
    On December 16, 2005, Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent 
that the House insist upon its amendment, and agree to a 
conference. The request was agreed to without objection.
    On December 16, 2005, the Speaker of the House appointed 
conferees for consideration of the Senate bill, and the House 
amendment thereto, and modifications committed to conference. 
The Speaker appointed conferees from the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce for consideration of title III and title VI of the 
Senate bill and title III of the House amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Deal (GA), 
and Dingell.
    On December 19, 2005, the conference report to accompany S. 
1932 (H. Rept. 109-362) was filed, considered under the 
provisions of H. Res. 640, and the House agreed to the 
conference report by a roll call vote of 212 yeas and 206 nays.
    On December 19, 20, and 21, 2005, the conference report was 
considered in the Senate.
    On December 21, 2005, Senate concurred in the House 
amendment with an amendment by a record vote of 51 yeas and 50 
nays.
    On December 21, 2005, the conference report was defeated by 
operation of the Budget Act.
    On January 31, 2006, the Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 
653 provided for consideration of S. 1932, upon adoption of the 
resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the 
Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
    On February 1, 2006, the House agreed to the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment pursuant to H. Res. 653.
    On February 7, 2006, S. 1932 was presented to the President 
and was signed into law by the President on February 8, 2006 
(Public Law 109-171).

             BROADCAST DECENCY AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005

                 Public Law 109-235 (H.R. 310; S. 193)

    To increase the penalties for violations by television and 
radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of 
obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other 
purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 310 amends the Communications Act of 1934 to raise the 
maximum penalty cap for broadcast stations, networks and 
performers to $500,000 for each indecency violation; gives the 
Commission guidance to set penalties so the agency takes into 
consideration whether the violator is a small or large 
broadcaster, company or individual, and the type of entity 
responsible for the indecent programming; allows the Commission 
to pursue an individual or network for a first indecency 
offense; requires the Commission to complete action on 
indecency complaints within 270 days; requires the Commission 
to take indecency violations into account during license 
application, renewal and modifications; and, after three 
indecency violations, requires the Commission to hold a license 
revocation hearing to consider revoking the broadcast station's 
license.

Legislative History

    On January 25, 2005, H.R. 310 was introduced by Mr. Upton 
in the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On February 2, 2005, H.R. 310 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and that 
same day, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.
    On February 9, 2005, the Full Committee met in open markup 
session and ordered H.R. 310 favorably reported to the House by 
a record vote of 46 yeas and 2 nays, a quorum being present.
    On February 14, 2005, H.R. 310 was reported (109-5) by the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and placed on the Union 
Calendar, Calendar No. 2.
    On February 16, 2005, considered in the House under the 
provisions of H. Res. 95, passed the House by a roll call vote 
389 yeas and 38 nays, and received in the Senate.
    On February 17, 2005, H.R. 310 was read the first time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First 
Time.
    On February 18, 2005, H.R. 310 was read the second time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 17.
    On January 26, 2005, S. 193 was introduced by Mr. Brownback 
and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On May 18, 2006, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation discharged S. 193 by unanimous consent and 
the same day the Senate passed S. 193 without amendment by 
unanimous consent.
    On May 19, 2006, S. 193 was referred to the House Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
    On June 5, 2006, S. 193 was referred to the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet.
    On June 6, 2006, S. 193 was considered in the House under 
suspension of the rules.
    On June 7, 2006, S. 193 passed the House with a roll call 
vote of 379 yeas to 35 nays.
    On June 8, 2006, S. 193 was presented to the President, and 
on June 15, 2006, was signed by the President (Public Law No: 
109-235).

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

     (Emergency Communications Provisions, 21st Century Emergency 
                      Communications Act of 2006)


          Public Law 109-295 (H.R. 5441, H.R. 5814, H.R. 5852)

    Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    Section 503 provides for the creation of a Federal 
Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland 
Security. Section 505 transfers into such agency the 
Directorate of Preparedness, as constituted on June 1, 2006, 
including all of its functions, personnel, assets, components, 
authorities, grant programs, and liabilities, and including the 
functions of the Under Secretary for Preparedness relating 
thereto. However, Section 505 explicitly exempts from such 
transfer The Office of Infrastructure Protection, the National 
Communications System. The National Cybersecurity Division, the 
Office of the Chief Medical Officer, and the functions, 
personnel, assets, components, authorities, and liabilities of 
each such entity.
    Section 671 creates an Office of Emergency Communications 
in the Department of Homeland Security that will be responsible 
for administering the emergency communications functions of the 
Department. Section 671 also requires the head of the Office of 
Emergency Communications (the Director for Emergency 
Communications) to develop a National Emergency Communications 
Plan regarding how the United States should promote the 
continued operation of certain governmental communications 
operations in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and 
the interoperability of emergency communications systems. The 
Director is also responsible for assessing and reporting on the 
communications capabilities and needs of emergency response 
providers and relevant government officials.
    Section 672 clarifies the responsibilities of the Director 
of the Office for Interoperability and Compatibility. Section 
673 provides for a comprehensive research and development 
program to support and promote the continued operation of 
certain governmental communications operations in the event of 
a natural or man-made disaster and the interoperability of 
emergency communications systems.

Legislative History

    On May 22, 2006, Mr. Rogers (KY) reported an original 
measure (H. Rept. 109-476) to the House.
    On May 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5441 and on June 
6, 2006, the House reconvened to consider H.R. 5441 as 
unfinished business and passed H.R. 5441 by a roll call vote of 
389 yeas and 9 nays.
    On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5441 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
    On June 27, 2006, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 
Subcommittee on Homeland Security approved H.R. 5441 favorably 
for full committee consideration with an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. On June 29, 2006, the Committee on 
Appropriations ordered H.R. 5441 to be reported favorably with 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute with written report 
no. 109-273.
    On July 11, 2006, H.R. 5441 was considered by the Senate 
and on July 13, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 5441 with an 
amendment by a record vote of 100 yeas and 0 nays. On July 13, 
2006, the Senate insisted on its amendment, asked for a 
conference, and appointed conferees.
    On July 17, 2006, H.R. 5814, Department of Homeland 
Security Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, was introduced 
by Mr. King (NY) and referred to the House Committee on 
Homeland Security.
    On July 19, 2006, the House Committee on Homeland Security 
met in open mark-up session and ordered H.R. 5814 to be 
reported, as amended, by voice vote.
    On November 9, 2006, the Committee on Homeland Security 
reported H.R. 5814 to the House, as amended (H. Rept. 109-713, 
Part I), and it was referred jointly and sequentially to the 
Committee on Ways and Means for a period ending not later than 
November 17, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the 
bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that 
committee pursuant to clause 1(t), rule X, and the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than November 
17, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5814 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On July 20, 2006, H.R. 5852 was introduced by Mr. Reichert 
and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and, in 
addition to the Committee on Homeland Security.
    On July 24, 2006, H.R. 5852 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
    On July 25, 2006, the House considered H.R. 5852 under 
suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll call 
vote of 414 yeas and 2 nays.
    On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5852 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs. No further action was taken on H.R. 5852 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On September 21, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 5441, and agreed to a conference by voice 
vote. The Speaker appointed conferees.
    On September 25, 2006, Conferees agreed to file a 
conference report, and on September 28, 2006, the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) was filed, 
which included H.R. 5852 as a provision within the Department 
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007.
    On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 5441 (H. Rept. 109-699) under the 
provisions of H. Res. 1054, and agreed to the conference report 
by a roll call vote of 412 yeas and 6 nays. On the same day, 
the Senate agreed to the conference report by voice vote.
    On October 3, 2006, H.R. 5441 was presented to the 
President, and on October 4, H.R. 5441 was signed by the 
President (Public Law 109-295).

  SECURITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY PORT ACT OR THE SAFE PORT ACT

    (Title VI--Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act Provisions)


         Public Law No. 109-347 (H.R. 4954, S. 1753, H.R. 5785)

    To improve maritime and cargo security through enhanced 
layered defenses, and for other purposes.

Summary

    H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, 
was the framework for Title VI of H.R. 4954, which creates a 
voluntary framework through which commercial mobile service 
providers can elect to transmit emergency alerts to 
subscribers. Title VI requires the Federal Communications 
Commission to complete a proceeding to adopt relevant technical 
standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical 
requirements based on the recommendations of the Commercial 
Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee that will enable 
commercial mobile service providers to transmit emergency 
alerts. The legislation also provides liability protection to 
such providers that transmit emergency alerts.

Legislative History

    On September 22, 2005, S. 1753, the Warning, Alert, and 
Response Network Act of 2006, was introduced by Mr. DeMint in 
the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
    On October 20, 2005, the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation held a markup session and S. 1753 was 
ordered favorably reported with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. On December 8, 2005, S. 1753 was reported to the 
Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute with 
written report No. 109-204, and placed on the Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 321.
    On March 14, 2006, H.R. 4954 was introduced by Mr. Lungren 
and was referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security. 
H.R. 4954 was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic 
Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity on March 
15, 2006.
    On March 30, 2006, the Subcommittee met in open mark-up 
session and forwarded H.R. 4954 to the Full Committee, amended, 
by voice vote.
    On April 4, 2006, the Full Committee held a hearing, and on 
April 26, 2006, the Full Committee met in open mark-up session 
and ordered H.R. 4954 reported to the House, amended, by voice 
vote.
    On April 28, 2006, the Homeland Security Committee reported 
H.R. 4954 to the House (H. Rept. 109-447, Part I) which was 
sequentially referred to the House Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure for a period ending not later than May 1, 
2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee. On 
May 1, 2006, the Committee on Transportation discharged H.R. 
4954.
    On May 4, 2006, the House considered H.R. 4954 under the 
provisions of H. Res. 789 by a roll call vote of 421 yeas and 2 
nays.
    On July 13, H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response 
Network Act was introduced by Mr. Shimkus and referred to the 
House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
    On July 20, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held a hearing on H.R. 5785 and received 
testimony from government officials from the Federal 
Communications Commission and the Maryland Sheriffs' 
Association, and representatives of the communications 
industry. No further action was taken on H.R. 5785 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On September 7, 2006, H.R. 4954 was laid before the Senate 
by unanimous consent. On September 8, 2006, Mr. Stevens offered 
an amendment for Mr. DeMint to establish a unified national 
hazard alert system and for other purposes, and the amendment 
was agreed to by voice vote. On September 11, 2006, Mr. Stevens 
offered a second degree amendment for Mr. DeMint to modify the 
previous amendment, and the second degree amendment was agreed 
to by unanimous consent.
    On September 14, 2006, the Senate passed H.R. 4954, as 
amended, by a record vote of 98 yeas and 0 nays, and on 
September 19, 2006, the Senate insisted on its amendment, 
requested a conference, and appointed conferees.
    On September 28, 2006, the House disagreed to the Senate 
amendment, and agreed to a conference, without objection, 
moving the House to instruct conferees by a roll call vote of 
281 yeas and 140 nays. The Speaker appointed conferees from the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of Titles VI 
and X and section 1104 of the Senate amendment, and 
modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Upton, and 
Dingell.
    On September 29, 2006, the House considered the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 4954 (H. Rept. 109-711) under the 
provisions of H. Res. 1064.
    On September 30, 2006, the House agreed to the conference 
report by a roll call vote of 409 yeas and 2 nays.
    On September 30, 2006, the Senate agreed to the conference 
report by unanimous consent.
    On October 3, 2006, H.R. 4954 was presented to the 
President, and on October 13, 2006, H.R. 4954 was signed by the 
President (Public Law 109-347).

                       THE CALL HOME ACT OF 2006

                      Public Law 109-459 (S. 2653)

    A bill to direct the Federal Communications Commission to 
make efforts to reduce telephone rates for Armed Forces 
personnel deployed overseas.

Summary

    S. 2653 amends Section 213 of the Telecommunications 
Authorization Act of 1992 to direct the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) to take whatever action possible, short of 
regulating rates, to reduce the phone bills of military 
personnel who are stationed anywhere outside of the United 
States, not just in certain selected countries. The FCC must 
look at waiving government fees, assessments and other charges 
on these phone calls. The FCC must also work with the 
Department of Defense and the Department of State to (1) 
analyze the cost of military personnel's phone calls; (2) 
evaluate ways to reduce rates, including use of new 
technologies such as VOIP; (3) encourage carriers to provide 
service personnel and their dependents with flexible spending 
plans; (4) seek agreements with foreign governments to reduce 
international surcharges on telephone calls. S. 2653 also 
requires that the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA) spend by September 30, 2007 the $1 
Billion set aside for Public Safety Interoperability in the 
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Legislative History

    S. 2653 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Stevens on 
April 26, 2006, with 36 cosponsors, and was referred to the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
    On December 6, 2206, the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation discharged S. 2653 by unanimous 
consent, and passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous 
consent.
    On December 7, 2006, S. 2653 was received in the House.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 2653 passed the House by unanimous 
consent, and was cleared for the White House.
    On December 20, 2006, S. 2653 was presented to the 
President, and on December 22, 2006, S. 2653 was signed by the 
President (Public Law 109-459).

    A BILL TO CLARIFY CERTAIN LAND USE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO

                      Public Law 109-466 (S. 4092)

    A bill to clarify certain land use in Jefferson County, 
Colorado.

Summary

    S. 4092 authorizes certain television broadcast stations 
currently transmitting analog signals from Lookout Mountain in 
Jefferson County, Colorado, to modify their antennas and towers 
for digital broadcasting, so long as the antennas and towers 
are the same height or lower than the tallest existing analog 
broadcast antennas or towers on Lookout Mountain.

Legislative History

    S. 4092 was introduced in the Senate by Mr. Allard on 
December 6, 2006, read twice, considered, read the third time, 
and passed without amendment by unanimous consent.
    On December 7, 2006, S. 4092 was received in the House, and 
held at the desk.
    On December 9, 2006, S. 4092 passed the House by unanimous 
consent, and was cleared for the White House.
    On December 20, 2006, S. 4092 was presented to the 
President, and on December 22, 2006, S. 4092 was signed by the 
President (Public Law 109-466).

 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

                              (H.R. 1817)

    To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for the 
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

Summary

    Section 308 includes a Sense of Congress that the 
Department of Homeland Security should implement, as 
expeditiously as possible, the initiatives assigned to the 
Office for Interoperability and Compatibility under section 
7303 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 
2004.
    Section 312 establishes in the Department of Homeland 
Security an Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and assigns 
certain responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection to the Assistant 
Secretary.

Legislative History

    On April 26, 2005, H.R. 1817 was introduced by Mr. Cox in 
the House and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security.
    On April 27, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 3, 2005, the Committee on Homeland Security 
Committee reported H.R. 1817 (H. Rept. 109-71, Part I) and H.R. 
1817 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, Committee on Government Reform, Committee 
on the Judiciary, Committee on Science, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Ways and Means, 
and Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select) for a period 
ending not later than May 13, 2005, for consideration of such 
provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the 
jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1, rule X.
    On May 11, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On May 12, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 1817 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote.
    On May 13, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. Rept. 109-71, Part II). The 
Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 1817 to the House (H. 
Rept. 109-71, Part III). On the same day, the Committee on 
Government Reform, Committee on Science, Committee on 
Transportation, Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on 
Intelligence (Permanent) were discharged from further 
consideration of H.R. 1817.
    On May 18, 2005, H.R. 1817 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 283 and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 424 yeas and 4 nays.
    On May 19, 2005, H.R. 1817 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 1817 in the 109th 
Congress.

             PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

                              (H.R. 4128)

    To protect private property rights.

Summary

    H.R. 4128, among other things, prohibits States or their 
political subdivisions that receive Federal funds from 
exercising their power of eminent domain to further economic 
development. The bill would terminate the flow of Federal funds 
to any State or political subdivision that violates the 
prohibition. The Committee on Energy and Commerce has 
jurisdiction over the bill because of its potential impact on 
Federal health payments, telecommunications grants, and energy 
grant programs, prohibited Federal funds which could include 
many items under our jurisdiction.

Legislative History

    Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 4128 on October 25, 2005, 
and it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    On October 27, 2005 the Committee on the Judiciary met in 
open markup session and ordered H.R. 4128 favorably reported to 
the House, amended, by a record vote of 27 yeas and 3 nays.
    On October 31, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary 
reported H.R. 4128 to the House, amended (H. Rpt. 109-262), and 
H.R. 4128 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 143.
    On November 2, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce exchanged correspondence 
concerning H.R. 1428.
    On November 3, 2005, the Committee on Judiciary filed a 
supplemental report to H.R. 4128 (H. Rpt. 109-262, Part II).
    On November 3, 2005, H.R. 4128 was considered in the House 
pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 527, and H.R. 4128 passed 
the House, as amended, by a roll call vote of 376 yeas and 38 
nays.
    H.R. 4128 was received in the Senate on November 4, 2005, 
read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4128 in the 109th 
Congress.

                    INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBTION ACT

                         (H.R. 4411, H.R. 4777)

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to expand and 
modernize the prohibition against interstate gambling, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    Section 3 of H.R. 4777 provides, in part, that a common 
carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal 
Communications Commission is required to prevent the use of its 
facilities for the transmission or receipt of certain gambling 
information.

Legislative History

    On November 18, 2005, H.R. 4411 was introduced by Mr. Leach 
and referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
    On January 5, 2006, H.R. 4411 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.
    On March 15, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 4411 reported to the 
House, amended, by voice vote.
    On April 6, 2006, the Committee on Financial Services 
reported H.R. 4411 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-412, 
Part I). H.R. 4411 was referred sequentially to the Committee 
on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than May 26, 
2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and 
amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee 
pursuant to clause 1(l), rule X.
    On May 25, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 4411 reported to the House, 
amended, by voice vote.
    On May 26, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 4411 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-412, Part II), 
and H.R. 4411 was placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 
267.
    On February 16, 2006, H.R. 4777 was introduced by Mr. 
Goodlatte and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    On March 31, 2006, H.R. 4777 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and on 
April 5, 2006, the subcommittee held a hearing on the bill.
    On May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security met in open markup session and forwarded H.R. 
4777 to the Full Committee by voice vote.
    On May 25, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary met in open 
markup session and ordered H.R. 4777 reported to the House, 
amended, by a record vote of 25 yeas and 11 nays.
    On July 10, 2006, the Committee on the Judiciary reported 
H.R. 4777 to the House, amended (H. Rept. 109-552, Part I), and 
was referred sequentially to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce for a period ending not later than Sept. 15, 2006, for 
consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as 
fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to 
clause 1(f), rule X.
    On September 15, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
granted an extension for further consideration ending not later 
than Sept. 22, 2006.
    On September 22, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
discharged, and H.R. 4777 was placed on the Union Calendar, 
Calendar No. 405.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4777 in the 109th 
Congress.
    On July 11, 2006, H.R. 4411 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 907. H. Res. 907 incorporated 
Section 3 from H.R. 4777 into H.R. 4411 under the jurisdiction 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. An exchange of letters 
between the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on the Judiciary was entered into the Congressional Record 
concerning H.R. 4411. H.R. 4411 passed the House by a roll call 
vote of 317 yeas and 93 nays.
    On July 12, 2006, H.R. 4411 was received in the Senate, 
read the first time, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar 
under Read the First Time.
    On July 13, 2006, H.R. 4411 was read the second time and 
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. 
Calendar No. 519.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4411 in the 109th 
Congress.

          PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO PHONE RECORDS ACT

                              (H.R. 4943)

    To prohibit fraudulent access to telephone records.

Summary

    The Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act 
makes it unlawful to attempt to obtain, or cause to be 
disclosed to any person, customer proprietary network 
information (CPNI) relating to any other person by: (1) making 
a false or fraudulent statement to an officer, employee, or 
agent of a telecommunications carrier; or (2) providing any 
document or other information to such officer, employee, or 
agent that the presenter knows or should have known to be 
forged, lost, stolen, or otherwise fraudulently obtained, or to 
contain a false or fraudulent statement or representation. The 
legislation also prohibits: (1) the solicitation of another 
person to fraudulently obtain such information; and (2) the 
sale or other disclosure of CPNI obtained under false 
pretenses. H.R. 4943 further provides for enforcement through 
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
    The legislation also amends the Communications Act of 1934 
to expand the responsibilities of telecommunications carriers 
with respect to the confidentiality of subscriber (customer) 
calling records. The legislation directs the FCC to prescribe 
regulations adopting more stringent security standards for CPNI 
(including detailed customer telephone records) to detect and 
prevent the fraudulent discloser of such information.

Legislative History

    On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held a hearing on the fraudulent sale of 
telephone records. The Committee received testimony from 
government officials from the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General 
of Illinois, and representatives of telecommunications 
providers and privacy groups.
    On March 8, 2006, the Full Committee met in open markup 
session and ordered a Committee Print favorably reported to the 
House, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. A 
request by Mr. Barton to allow a report to be filed on a bill 
to be introduced by Mr. Barton, and that the actions of the 
Committee be deemed as actions on that bill, was agreed to by 
unanimous consent.
    On March 14, 2006, H.R. 4943 was introduced by Mr. Barton 
in the House and was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On March 16, 2006, H.R. 4943 the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce reported H.R. 4943 (H. Rept. 109-398) which was placed 
on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 217.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 4943 in the 109th 
Congress.

                     TRUTH IN CALLER ID ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5126)

    To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit 
manipulation of caller identification information, and for 
other purposes.

Summary

    The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006 amends the 
Communications Act of 1934 to make it unlawful for any person 
in the United States, in connection with any telecommunication 
service or VOIP service, to cause any caller identification 
service to transmit misleading or inaccurate caller 
identification information, unless such transmission is 
exempted in connection with authorized activities of law 
enforcement agencies.

Legislative History

    On April 6, 2006, H.R. 5126 was introduced by Mr. Barton in 
the House and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. On April 19, 2006, H.R. 5126 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
    The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held a hearing on H.R. 5126 on May 18, 2006. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the Wireline Bureau Chief of the 
Federal Communications Commission, communications industry 
representative, and privacy groups.
    On May 24, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce met 
in open markup session and ordered H.R. 5126 reported to the 
House, amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 6, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5126 to the House (H. Rept. 109-489) which was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 274. H.R. 5126 was 
considered in the House under suspension of the rules and 
passed the House, as amended. by voice vote.
    On June 7, 2006, H.R. 5126 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5126 in the 109th 
Congress.

   COMMUNICATIONS OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5252)


Summary

    The purpose of the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, 
and Enhancement Act of 2006 is to promote the deployment of 
broadband networks and services. The bill does so by: (1) 
creating a streamlined, pro-competitive national process under 
which companies can enter the cable service market with new, 
advanced networks capable of providing broadband video, voice, 
and data services; (2) authorizing the Federal Communications 
Commission to enforce its Broadband Policy Statement and the 
principles incorporated therein on a case-by-case basis; (3) 
facilitating and requiring the provision of 911 and enhanced 
911 (E911) services to consumers by Voice Over Internet 
Protocol (VOIP) providers; (4) ensuring that municipalities 
have the option to provide telecommunications, information, and 
cable services to their communities; (5) ensuring consumers 
have the option to purchase broadband services on a stand-alone 
basis; and (6) facilitating the development of multi-function, 
multi-platform wireless devices capable of offering a range of 
converging broadband services.
    In particular, Title I creates an alternative, national 
cable franchise process that companies may opt into in lieu of 
the local franchising process. Recognizing the role of 
localities, however, the bill: (1) preserves municipalities' 
existing authority to collect a franchise fee of up to 5 
percent of gross revenues from cable service; (2) preserves the 
municipalities' authority to manage their local rights-of-way, 
so long as such management is reasonable, competitively-
neutral, and nondiscriminatory; (3) continues to require 
carriage of public, educational, and governmental (PEG) 
channels and allows municipalities to require holders of 
national franchises to increase the number of PEG channels over 
time; (4) preserves institutional networks (iNets) used for 
governmental and other public safety purposes; (5) allows 
municipalities to collect, in addition to the 5 percent 
franchise fee, another one percent of gross revenues from cable 
services to support PEG channels and institutional networks; 
(6) requires the FCC to establish national consumer protection 
and customer service standards that the municipalities may 
enforce; and (7) creates a strong antidiscrimination provision 
that prohibits holders of national franchises from refusing to 
provide cable service to a group of consumers based on the 
income of that group.

Legislative History

    During the first session of the 109th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held four 
oversight hearings on how Internet Protocol-enabled services 
are changing the face of communications. The Subcommittee held 
the first of those oversight hearings on February 9, 2005, and 
received testimony from representatives of the communications 
industry.
    The Subcommittee held the second hearing on March 16, 2005, 
to examine the voice marketplace. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from representatives of the communications industry 
and the Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network, and South 
Dakota Network Communications.
    On April 20, 2005, the Subcommittee held the third hearing 
to examine the video and data services marketplace. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from communications industry 
executives.
    The Subcommittee held the fourth hearing on April 27, 2005. 
The hearing focused on a view from government officials. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of the 
American Public Power Association, National Association of 
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National Association 
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Florida Public Service 
Commission, National Association of State Utility Consumer 
Advocates, National Governors Association, and a consumer 
group.
    During the First Session of the 109th Congress, the 
Subcommittee also held one legislative hearing on November 9, 
2005, on a staff discussion draft of legislation to create a 
statutory framework for Internet Protocol and broadband 
services. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
representatives of the industry and consumer groups.
    During the Second Session of the 109th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held one 
legislative hearing on March 30, 2006, on a Committee Print 
entitled ``The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and 
Enhancement Act of 2006.'' The Subcommittee received testimony 
from a government official on behalf of the National 
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the 
National League of Cities, the National Conference of Mayors, 
and representatives of the communications industry, public 
policy, and consumer groups.
    On Tuesday, April 4, 2006, and Wednesday, April 5, 2006, 
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet met in 
open markup session and approved the Committee Print entitled 
the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act 
of 2006 for Full Committee consideration, as amended, by a 
record vote of 27 yeas and 4 nays, a quorum being present.
    On Tuesday, April 25, 2006, and Wednesday, April 26, 2006, 
the Full Committee met in open markup session and ordered a 
Committee Print entitled the Communications Opportunity, 
Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 favorably reported to 
the House, as amended, by a record vote of 42 yeas and 12 nays, 
a quorum being present. A request by Mr. Barton to allow a 
report to be filed on a bill to be introduced by Mr. Barton, 
and that the actions of the Committee be deemed as actions on 
that bill, was agreed to by unanimous consent.
    On May 1, 2006, H.R. 5252 was introduced by Mr. Barton in 
the House and referred to the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On May 17, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
reported H.R. 5252 to the House (H. Rept. 109-470) which was 
placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 259.
    On June 6, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce filed 
a supplemental report to H.R. 5252 (H. Rept. 109-470, Part II).
    On June 8, 2006, H. R. 5252 was considered in the House 
under the provisions of H. Res. 850, and passed the House by a 
roll call vote of 321 yeas and 101 nays.
    On June 12, 2006, H.R. 5252 was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    On June 22, 2006, and June 27, 2006, the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a markup session.
    On June 28, 2006, H.R. 5252 was favorably reported with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute by the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
    On September 29, 2006, the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation reported by Senator Stevens with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, with a written report 
No. 109-355, and additional views, and was placed on Senate 
Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 652.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5252 in the 109th 
Congress.

                 DELETING ONLINE PREDATORS ACT OF 2006

                              (H.R. 5319)

    An Act to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require 
schools and libraries that receive Federal universal service 
support to protect minors from commercial social networking 
websites and chat rooms.

Summary

    H.R. 5319 requires schools and libraries which receive 
Federal universal service funding to take protective measures 
against allowing students to access Internet social networking 
websites or chat rooms, which often allow minors to easily 
access obscene or indecent material, or to be easily subject to 
unlawful sexual advances from adults. Under the legislation, 
schools which receive Federal universal service support funding 
could only allow access to such sites for educational purposes, 
and libraries which receive funding would need parental consent 
prior to allowing minors access to access social networking 
sites and chat rooms. This legislation directs the Federal 
Communications Commission to define social networking sites and 
chat rooms, and the Federal Trade Commission to issue consumer 
alerts on the dangers these sites can pose to children.

Legislative History

    On May 9, 2006, H.R. 5319 was introduced by Mr. Fitzpatrick 
in the House and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
    On May 15, 2006, H.R. 5319 was referred to the Subcommittee 
on Telecommunications and the Internet.
    The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held a hearing on July 11, 2006, on H.R. 5319. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from law enforcement officials including the 
Texas Attorney General, and representatives from schools, 
libraries, Internet safety advocacy groups, and the Internet 
industry.
    On July 26, 2006, H.R. 5319 was considered in the House 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House by a roll 
call vote of 410 yeas and 15 nays.
    On July 27, 2006, the bill was referred to the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
    No further action was taken on H.R. 5319 in the 109th 
Congress.

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRSS REGARDING OVERSIGHT OF THE INTERNET 
               CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS

                           (H. Con. Res. 268)

    A resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding 
oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbers.

Summary

    H. Con. Res. 268 expresses the Sense of Congress that: (1) 
the United States and other responsible governments should send 
clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of 
oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and 
addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible 
benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and (2) the 
authoritative root zone server should remain physically located 
in the United States, and the Secretary of Commerce should 
maintain oversight of ICANN (the Internet Corporation for 
Assigned Names and Numbers) so that ICANN can continue to 
effectively manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's 
domain and addressing system.

Legislative History

    On October 18, 2005, H. Con. Res. 268 was introduced by Mr. 
Doolittle in the House and referred to the House Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
    On November 4, 2005, H. Con. Res. 268 was referred to the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
    On November 16, 2005, was considered under suspension of 
the rules and passed the House by a roll call vote of 423 yeas 
and 0 nays.
    On November 17, 2005, H. Con. Res. 268 was received in the 
Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
    No further action was taken on H. Con. Res. 268 in the 
109th Congress.

                          Oversight Activities


                HEALTH OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR

    The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held a series of hearings to explore the changing 
telecommunications marketplace and the regulatory treatment of 
broadband services. On February 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on the impact of Internet Protocol-Enabled Services on the 
communications industry. The witnesses provided a broad 
overview of their IP products and how IP technology has enabled 
them to seamlessly offer voice, video, and data services on a 
converged platform. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
executives of telecommunications equipment manufacturers.
    On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on competition in 
the communications marketplace. This hearing focused on how 
Internet Protocol (IP) and broadband technologies have changed 
the dynamics of the communications industry by (1) enabling the 
same suite of voice, video, and data services to be offered 
over different network platforms and (2) permitting entry into 
these markets by ``virtual'' operators that use IP to provide 
applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP) to consumers who 
subscribe to broadband services. These trends have resulted in 
a ``hollowing out'' of some traditional telephone market 
segments such as residential and enterprise long-distance 
telephone service as well as residential local exchange 
service. These industry trends have also led service providers 
with complementary IP and broadband assets to merge. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from industry executives, 
industry analysts, public policy, and research organizations.
    On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the impact of 
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services on the 
communications industry. This hearing examined the public 
policy issues related to the provision of VoIP services. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from executives of 
communications providers, and, and the Greater Harris County 
911 Emergency Network.
    The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held an oversight hearing on April 20, 2005, regarding the 
impact of Internet Protocol (IP) on video and data services. 
This hearing examined the public policy issues surrounding the 
delivery of video and data over broadband networks. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from executives of the 
communications industry.
    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing on 
government officials' perspectives on the impact of IP 
technology on the communications sector. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from government officials representing State 
and local regulatory bodies and a consumer group 
representative.

                     DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION

    On February 17, 2005, The Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
regarding the expected costs of digital-to-analog converter 
boxes and various potential digital-to-analog converter-box 
programs from representatives of the electronics and 
broadcasting industries, and the Government Accountability 
Office.
    On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing regarding consumer 
education efforts for the DTV transition. The Committee 
received testimony from representatives of the retailers and 
consumer groups.

                        SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

    On April 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing to examine the ORBIT 
Act and the progress made in privatizing the satellite 
communications marketplace. The hearing examined how the 
satellite marketplace has changed since the implementation of 
the ORBIT Act, and whether Intelsat and Inmarsat should be 
permanently certified to be privatized. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from officials of the Federal Communications 
Commission and the Government Accountability Office, as well as 
executives of the satellite industry.

                  PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS

    On September 29, 2005, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on the U.S. public safety communications infrastructure and how 
much progress has been made since September 11, 2001, and 
Hurricane Katrina in making that infrastructure more robust and 
interoperable. The hearing examined the major gaps in 
communications among Federal, State, and local officials, the 
spectrum needs of our Nation's first responders, interoperable 
emergency communications networks, and the vulnerability of 
these networks during emergencies. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from Federal government officials, State and local 
officials, commercial mobile service providers, and equipment 
manufacturers.

                       CONSUMER TELEPHONE RECORDS

    On January 23, 2006, Full Committee Chairman Barton, 
Ranking Member Dingell, Telecommunications and the Internet 
Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Markey sent a letter to FCC Chairman Martin to ask when the 
review of the Electronic Privacy Information Center petition 
will be complete, and to determine what actions should be taken 
in response to the petition. The Members also requested the 
Commission to forward the last annual certifications from the 5 
largest wireline and wireless carriers regarding their privacy 
policies, and their accompanying statements explaining how 
their internal procedures protect the confidentiality of 
consumer information.
    On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the fraudulent 
sale of telephone records. The Committee received testimony 
from government officials from the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General 
of Illinois, and representatives of telecommunications 
providers and privacy groups.

                               CALLER ID

    On April 4, 2006, House Speaker Hastert, House Majority 
Leader Boehner, and Full Committee Chairman Barton, sent a 
letter to FCC Chairman Martin requesting the Commission respond 
to questions regarding what the FCC is doing to prohibit Caller 
ID spoofing and whether the FCC has the statutory authority to 
enact regulations banning this type of fraud. The Members asked 
the Commission to make recommendations for Congress concerning 
the authority the FCC would need to combat this type of fraud.

                     MULTICHANNEL VIDEO COMPETITION

    On June 7, 2006, Chairman Barton and Telecommunications and 
the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton wrote a letter to 
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Martin opposing any 
FCC order imposing multicast must-carry requirements on cable 
operators or other multichannel video programming distributors. 
The letter pointed out that allowing each broadcaster to force 
video distributors to carry multiple streams of a broadcaster's 
programming would be inconsistent with language in the 
Communications Act limiting the must-carry right to each 
broadcaster's primary video transmission. Congress would need 
to amend the statute before the FCC could require otherwise. 
The letter also stated that the balance between the carriage of 
broadcast and non-broadcast programming should be left to 
consumer preferences and market forces.
    On July 19, 2006, Chairman Barton, Telecommunications and 
the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Reps. Deal and 
Bass hosted a roundtable discussion on retransmission consent. 
Under the retransmission consent rules, a television 
broadcaster may seek monetary or non-monetary compensation in 
exchange for allowing a cable or satellite operator to transmit 
the broadcaster's signal to subscribers. Some cable operators, 
satellite providers, and independent programmers criticize 
certain broadcasters' practices of conditioning carriage of one 
channel on carriage of another. The critics argue that such 
practices make it harder for video programming distributors to 
tailor their program offerings, and for independent programmers 
to gain carriage on the systems of such distributors. Broadcast 
networks and affiliates counter that retransmission consent is 
simply a negotiation based on the value of the programming, and 
that regulating the prices, terms or conditions of that 
negotiation would be an unwarranted interference with market 
forces and the right to contract. They also point out that they 
often make an offer of stand-alone carriage in exchange for 
cash, but that the cable and satellite operators usually prefer 
not to pay money. Moreover, they contend that the bundling of 
programming can help launch new programming. Representatives of 
cable programmers, broadcast networks, broadcast affiliates, 
cable operators, and satellite providers participated in the 
roundtable.

                        UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM

    On June 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the Federal high-
cost portion of the universal service support mechanisms. 
Competition and technology have begun to erode the existing 
universal service system, and, in the long term, current 
universal service policies do not seem sustainable. The hearing 
focused on current and future funding mechanisms used to 
support consumers in all regions of the Nation to ensure that 
access to and rates for telecommunications services are 
reasonably comparable to those in urban areas. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from Federal and State regulatory bodies as 
well as large and small telecommunications companies.

                           CONTENT PROTECTION

    On June 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the audio and 
video flags. The hearing examined digital audio and video 
content protection technologies; whether content protection can 
be negotiated among content owners, service providers, and 
device manufacturers; and the appropriateness and impact of any 
government regulation. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
representatives of the music and video broadcasting, and 
distribution industries, and a public policy group.

                             CYBERSECURITY

    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on cybersecurity and what can be done to protect America's 
critical infrastructure, economy, and consumers. The hearing 
focused on whether the U.S., public and private sectors are 
prepared to respond to and recover from a major Internet 
disruption, and the impact of such a disruption on U.S. 
business today. The hearing also examined the recent GAO report 
that expressed concerns regarding the Department of Homeland 
Security's capabilities to prevent and mitigate cyberattacks. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from Federal government 
officials and representatives of Internet security 
organizations.

                       ICANN INTERNET GOVERNANCE

    On September 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet and the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight 
hearing on Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
(ICANN) Internet Governance. This hearing focused on the 
relationship of the Department of Commerce and ICANN. The 
Subcommittees received testimony from the Department of 
Commerce, the chief executive officer of ICANN, and 
representatives of the software and information industry as 
well as public policy organizations.
    Full Committee Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell, 
Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Markey sent a letter on October 2, 2005, to Ambassador Gross 
and Assistant Secretary Gallagher in support of the United 
States position on Internet governance as the United States 
delegation headed to Geneva for the Preparatory Committee for 
the United Nation's World Summit on the Information Society. 
The letter also urged the United States to take no action that 
would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and 
efficient operation of the domain name system and that would 
maintain its historic role to ensure stability and security of 
the Internet domain name system.

                             Hearings Held

    How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the 
Face of Communications: A View from Technology Companies.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are 
Changing the Face of Communications: A View from Technology 
Companies. Hearing held on February 9, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-12.
    The Role of Technology in Achieving a Hard Deadline for the 
DTV Transition.--Oversight hearing on The Role of Technology in 
Achieving a Hard Deadline for the DTV Transition. Hearing held 
on February 17, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-9.
    Preparing Consumers for the End of the Digital Television 
Transition.--Oversight hearing on Preparing Consumers for the 
End of the Digital Television Transition. Hearing held on March 
10, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-5.
    How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the 
Face of Communications: A Look at the Voice Marketplace.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are 
Changing the Face of Communications: A Look at the Voice 
Marketplace. Hearing held on March 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-44.
    The Orbit Act: An Examination of Progress Made in 
Privatizing the Satellite Communications Marketplace.--
Oversight hearing on The Orbit Act: An Examination of Progress 
Made in Privatizing the Satellite Communications Marketplace. 
Hearing held on April 14, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-8.
    How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the 
Face of Communications: A Look at Video and Data Services.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are 
Changing the Face of Communications: A Look at Video and Data 
Services. Hearing held on April 20, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-19.
    How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the 
Face of Communications: A View from Government Officials.--
Oversight hearing on How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are 
Changing the Face of Communications: A View from Government 
Officials. Hearing held on April 27, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-4.
    DTV Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV Transition Act of 
2005.--Hearing on DTV Staff Discussion Draft of the DTV 
Transition Act of 2005. Hearing held on May 26, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-28.
    Public Safety Communications from 9/11 to Katrina: Critical 
Public Policy Lessons.--Oversight hearing on Public Safety 
Communications from 9/11 to Katrina: Critical Public Policy 
Lessons. Hearing held on September 29, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-52.
    Hearing on a Staff Discussion Draft of the Internet 
Protocol and Broadband Services Legislation.--Hearing on a 
Staff Discussion Draft of the Internet Protocol and Broadband 
Services Legislation. Hearing held on November 9, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-68.
    Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act 
of 2006.--Hearing on Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and 
Enhancement Act of 2006. Hearing held on March 30, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-83.
    H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006.--Hearing on 
H.R. 5126, the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006. Hearing held on 
May 18, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-92.
    Universal Service: What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1: 
The High-Cost Fund.--Oversight hearing on Universal Service: 
What Are We Subsidizing and Why? Part 1: The High-Cost Fund. 
Hearing held on June 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-109.
    The Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and 
Technological Innovation Coexist?.--Oversight hearing on The 
Audio and Video Flags: Can Content Protection and Technological 
Innovation Coexist?. Hearing held on June 27, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-112.
    H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006.--
Hearing on H.R. 5319, the Deleting Online Predators Act of 
2006. Hearing held on July 11, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 
109-121.
    H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act of 
2006.--Hearing on H.R. 5785, the Warning, Alert, and Response 
Network Act of 2006. Hearing held on July 20, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-125.
    CyberSecurity: Protecting America's Critical 
Infrastructure, Economy, and Consumers.--Oversight hearing on 
CyberSecurity: Protecting America's Critical Infrastructure, 
Economy, and Consumers. Hearing held on September 13, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-137.
    ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working?.--Joint oversight 
hearing with the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection on ICANN Internet Governance: Is It Working?. 
Hearing held on September 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
142.
              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

            (Ratio 9-7)

 ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman

BART STUPAK, Michigan                CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois               Mississippi
JAY INSLEE, Washington               CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             GREG WALDEN, Oregon
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California            Vice Chairman
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan            MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
  (Ex Officio)                       MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
                                     JOE BARTON, Texas
                                       (Ex Officio)

Jurisdiction: Responsibility for oversight of agencies, departments, 
and programs within the jurisdiction of the full committee, and for 
conducting investigations within such jurisdiction.

                              Introduction

    During the 109th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations conducted major inquiries with respect to 
virtually all Federal agencies within the Committee's 
jurisdiction, including the Department of Health and Human 
Services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, 
and the Federal Communications Commission. The Subcommittee's 
oversight has exposed improper and illegal governmental and 
corporate activities, uncovered waste, fraud and abuse of 
taxpayer dollars, strengthened our national security and our 
defenses against terrorist attacks, improved health care and 
environmental protection, and promoted the enhanced protection 
of American families, consumers, and investors. These 
investigations have provided the basis for enactment of 
corrective legislation in the 109th Congress, and will provide 
the foundation for legislative action in the 110th Congress. In 
addition, the Subcommittee's inquiries have resulted in 
meaningful changes in the Executive Branch's implementation and 
enforcement of current law and the establishment of cost-saving 
measures in the operations of the various departments and 
agencies.

 HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO HEALTH AND HEALTH 
                                  CARE


                                Hearings


          THE STATE OF READINESS FOR THE 2005-2006 FLU SEASON

    On May 4, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to determine the state of 
readiness of the United States for the 2005-2006 flu season. 
This hearing served to build upon a related investigation and 
hearing held on November 18, 2004 (conducted in the 108th 
Congress). That hearing related to news in October 2004 that 
Chiron, one of the country's two largest producers of influenza 
vaccine, would not provide any of its planned 46-48 million 
doses of flu vaccine to the United States. These events 
prompted Committee review of preparations for the upcoming flu 
season and beyond. The Subcommittee heard from a single panel, 
comprised of the Directors of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), the National Vaccine Program Office, and 
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA).

                        COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

    On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the community health center program, which operates under 
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, in reaching the 
medically underserved. Community health centers play a critical 
role in the nation's healthcare safety net. At the time of the 
hearing, more than 900 community health centers provided a 
spectrum of primary health care services through 3,600 urban 
and rural sites located in every State and territory. According 
to the Bureau of Primary Healthcare, community health centers 
in 2003 treated more than 12 million people in medically 
underserved areas, including 4.8 million uninsured people. The 
hearing sought to examine various aspects of the program, 
including the Federal grant process, the role of Medicaid and 
Medicare, and ways to improve the delivery of care to the 
medically underserved. The Subcommittee took testimony from two 
panels of witnesses, consisting of the Administrator of the 
Health Resources and Services Administration, the Director of 
the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, representatives 
of community health centers, a Federal primary care 
association, and a primary care policy analyst.
    In connection with the Subcommittee's oversight of the 
community health center program, on March 21, 2005, the 
Subcommittee Chairman requested the U.S. Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to study how community health 
centers improve public health and help reduce health care costs 
overall. The study is expected in the 110th Congress.

                  SUBVERSION OF DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS

    On May 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing concerning the subversion of drug 
testing programs. This issue involved the manufacture, 
distribution, marketing, sale, and use of devices and 
substances that are used to substitute ``clean,'' drug-free 
urine for drug-positive urine, and/or substances that dilute, 
cleanse, or adulterate drug-positive urine to cause a false-
negative drug test. Testimony primarily focused on the extent 
of illegal drug use generally and in the workplace, the purpose 
and effect of drug testing, and the effect of products that 
subvert drug testing as to human, economic, and national 
security costs. The hearing featured four panels of witnesses. 
The first panel included witnesses from GAO, the Office of 
Special Investigations; Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration; the District Attorney of Bexar County, 
Texas; the Commonwealth's Attorney, 21st Judicial Circuit, 
Kentucky. The second panel included witnesses from the Drug and 
Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA); the Substance 
Abuse Program Administrators Association (SAPAA); Quest 
Diagnostics; University of Texas Health Sciences Center at 
Houston; and First Advantage Corporation. The third panel 
featured an inmate at the Eastern Correctional Institution, 
Westover, Maryland. The fourth panel included representatives 
from companies that appeared to be marketing products for the 
purpose of subverting drug testing programs. These fourth panel 
witnesses were compelled to appear by subpoena, and invoked 
their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination not to 
testify.

           PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF MASS TORT SCREENING

    In August 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations began an investigation into the public health 
implications of mass tort screenings in the wake of a legal 
opinion issued by United States District Court Judge Janis 
Graham Jack (In Re: Silica). In that opinion, Judge Jack 
detailed how physicians and medical screening companies 
generated diagnoses of silicosis, a largely incurable and often 
fatal pulmonary disease, for approximately 10,000 patients for 
the purpose of personal injury lawsuits. The Subcommittee's 
investigation resulted in four hearings on this matter.
    The Subcommittee's first several hearings examined the role 
of the doctors and screening companies in mass tort screening. 
On March 8, 2006, the Subcommittee heard testimony from several 
key doctors, the owner of one screening company, and experts on 
the medical and legal aspects of mass screening. During this 
hearing, three doctors, who generated a combined 1,800 
silicosis diagnoses, invoked their Fifth Amendment privileges 
when asked whether their work complied with all applicable 
medical practices, standards, and ethics. One doctor, credited 
with some 3,600 diagnoses, testified that he did not intend to 
diagnose any patients and, in fact, did not even know the 
criteria to make such a diagnosis. Finally, the owner of the 
medical screening company testified that he was paid by at 
least one law firm for positive diagnoses only. The second 
hearing held on March 31, 2006, included testimony, under 
subpoena, from representatives of two law firms who refused to 
cooperate with the Committee's requests for information about 
their silica-related work. On June 6, 2006, the Subcommittee 
heard testimony from representatives of the Mississippi and 
Texas Departments of Health and Medical Licensure. These 
witnesses testified that several of the screening companies 
used in the silicosis litigation were not properly licensed in 
Mississippi and Texas and that diagnoses based upon mass tort 
screenings constituted the practice of medicine and created a 
doctor-patient relationship. Moreover, the owners and operators 
of two medical screening companies invoked their Fifth 
Amendment privileges and declined to testify.
    On July 26, 2006, the Subcommittee held its fourth 
silicosis hearing, which focused on the conduct of the 
attorneys. Representatives from several law firms with large 
numbers of clients in the In Re: Silica litigation testified 
concerning, among other things, their roles in the tort 
screening process, how their firms identified potential 
plaintiffs, and what steps they took to ensure that their 
clients received appropriate medical care. In addition, one 
doctor who diagnosed over 200 plaintiffs in the In Re: Silica 
litigation invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and declined 
to testify.

   PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE DELIVERY OF CARE FOLLOWING NATURAL DISASTER

    On September 22, 2005 the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 
Health to assess public health and delivery of care issues 
raised by the impact of Hurricane Katrina. For a description, 
refer to the Subcommittee on Health section of this report.

           ACCESS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES OVER THE INTERNET

    On December 13, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing about strengthening efforts to 
combat the sales of controlled substances over the Internet. 
This issue involved the access to highly addictive controlled 
substances, which can be imported by consumers of any age, 
sometimes without a prescription or consultation with a 
physician. Testimony primarily focused on current assessments 
concerning the nature and extent of access to controlled 
substances over the Internet, current actions being taken to 
curtail such access, current restraints on further actions that 
could be taken, and identification of possible actions that 
would require Federal legislation, administrative action, or 
private sector initiatives. The hearing featured two panels of 
witnesses. The first panel included witnesses from the Federal 
government: the GAO, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, and Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement 
Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Assistant 
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP); Director, Office of Drug Evaluation 
II, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research, FDA. The second panel included a witness from 
IntegriChain, Inc.; a former official with FDA's Office of 
Criminal Investigations; the Senior Vice President, Public 
Policy, Visa, U.S.A., Inc.; an outside counsel on behalf of 
Mastercard International; the Vice President, Corporate 
Security, FedEx Corporation; the Corporate Security Manager, 
UPS; the Senior Policy Counsel, Google; and Vice President, 
Yahoo! Inc.

                       340B DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM

    Under the 340B Drug Discount Program (340B Program), drug 
manufacturers that participate in the Medicaid Program are 
required to provide outpatient drugs to certain covered 
entities at or below a specified ceiling price. These covered 
entities include community health centers, public hospitals, 
and various Federal grantees. Participating 340B entities spent 
approximately $3.4 billion on outpatient drugs in calendar year 
2003, roughly 1.7 percent of the U.S. drug market. The 340B 
Program is administered by the Health Resources and Services 
Administration (HRSA), a division of the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS).
    On December 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to examine problems with the 
oversight and administration of the 340B Program, as well as 
possible solutions to improve efficiency and transparency. Many 
of the structural and logistical problems with the 340B Program 
were detailed in an October 2005 report prepared by HHS' Office 
of Inspector General (OIG), including: (1) systemic problems 
with the accuracy and reliability of the government's record of 
340B ceiling prices; (2) lack of detailed, written procedures 
for calculating the 340B ceiling price; (3) lack of a system 
for ensuring that participating entities receive the statutory 
discount; (4) failure to compare the government's 340B ceiling 
prices to those of the drug manufacturers; (5) lack of 
necessary legislative, regulatory, or contractual authority to 
enforce compliance; and (6) the inability of participating 
entities to verify independently that they were paying at or 
below the ceiling price due to confidentiality provisions. 
Witnesses at this hearing included representatives of: (1) OIG; 
(2) HRSA; (3) the Public Hospital Pharmacy Coalition; (4) the 
340B prime vendor; and (5) GlaxoSmithKline, the only 
pharmaceutical manufacturer which had agreed to provide ceiling 
price calculations to the prime vendor.

                     HOSPITAL DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

    On January 26, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a field hearing in New Orleans, Louisiana, 
to examine issues surrounding hospital disaster preparedness. 
The hearing explored assumptions made by hospitals in the New 
Orleans flood zone in preparing for Hurricane Katrina, what 
happened to those hospitals during the hurricane, and how the 
hospitals were able to eventually evacuate patients and staff. 
The hearing also explored insights into improving future 
disaster preparedness plans for hospitals. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from two panels of witnesses, consisting of 
the Assistant Secretary of Health for HHS, the Medical Director 
and State Health Officer for the Louisiana Department of Health 
and Hospitals, representatives of five hospitals in the New 
Orleans metro area, and representatives of three national 
hospital chains, which participated in New Orleans emergency 
operations.

         PUBLIC REPORTING OF HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED INFECTION RATES

    Hospital-aquired infections (HAIs) are a major health 
problem in the United States, resulting in 90,000 deaths and 
$4.5 billion in excess healthcare costs annually. In an effort 
to reduce these figures, six states have recently passed 
legislation requiring mandatory public reporting of hospital-
acquired infections rates, and more than 20 other states have 
been studying this issue or have legislation pending. The CDC 
currently tracks HAI data, but participation in this program is 
voluntary, and the CDC does not make public data for individual 
hospitals. On March 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to examine whether public 
reporting is an effective mechanism for reducing HAIs, and 
whether it is necessary and appropriate to develop and 
implement uniform national standards that will provide 
consumers with meaningful, scientifically sound data. Witnesses 
at this hearing included: an individual who helped drive 
passage of the Missouri public reporting law after his son 
contracted a serious HAI; the Director of the CDC's National 
Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Healthcare Quality 
Promotion; the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Health 
Care Cost Containment Council; the Executive Director of the 
Michigan Hospital Association's Keystone Center for Patient 
Safety and Quality; and representatives of several major 
hospitals from whom the Subcommittee had requested HAI data.

       HUMAN TISSUE SAMPLES: NIH RESEARCH POLICIES AND PRACTICES

    On June 13, 2006, and on June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations held hearings about how the 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) deals with human tissue 
samples in its intramural research programs. The focus of the 
hearings concerned a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 
scientist who had personally received over $612,000 in 
compensation from a drug company for outside activities, 
including $285,000 for those that were derived directly from 
his official acts in providing the company access to spinal 
fluid samples and plasma samples (over 3000 tubes of NIH 
property and linked clinical data) and who had also used NIH 
employees and resources to provide such access.
    The hearing on June 13th featured a witness from the 
National Institute of Aging who had raised with Committee staff 
the issue about the adequacy of NIH policies on human tissue 
samples, and about the NIMH scientist's handling of samples. 
The hearing on June 14th featured three panels of witnesses. 
The first panel included the Director of the NIMH, accompanied 
by the NIMH Clinical Director, the NIMH Executive Officer, and 
the NIMH Technology Transfer Officer; and an Alzheimer's 
disease researcher formerly with Pfizer, Inc. The second panel 
included the NIMH scientist and his database manager formerly 
with NIMH. The witnesses on this panel appeared pursuant to a 
subpoena to testify and exercised their constitutional rights 
against self-incrimination. The third panel featured the Deputy 
Director for Intramural Research, NIH.

ETHICS AND MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AT THE NIH AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 
                           COMMISSIONED CORPS

    On September 13, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held hearings about continuing ethics and 
management concerns at the NIH and the Public Health Service 
Commissioned Corps (``Commissioned Corps''). The hearing 
followed up on two sets of Subcommittee oversight hearings 
concerning NIH: hearings held in May and June 2004, in the 
108th Congress, on NIH ethics concerns, and the hearings held 
in June 2006 on NIH policies on human tissue samples (see item 
above).
    The hearing on September 13th featured one panel of 
witnesses: the Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS, who 
testified on issues involving the Commissioned Corps; the 
Deputy Director of the NIH; the Director of the NIMH; the 
Executive Officer and Deputy Ethics Counselor at NIMH; and the 
Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI).

                        Investigative Activities


                MEDICAID PRESCRIPTION DRUG REIMBURSEMENT

    As part of its continuing oversight of Medicaid 
prescription drug reimbursement, the Full Committee Chairman 
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent 
a letter to the Medicaid directors of all 50 states on February 
10, 2005, requesting information to help understand what steps 
each was taking to control rising drug expenditures. This 
letter asked the states to provide ingredient reimbursement and 
dispensing fee information for 20 popular brand and generic 
drugs, as well as a description of the steps taken to control 
drug spending.

                        MEDICAID ESTATE PLANNING

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee opened an oversight 
inquiry into the practice of Medicaid estate planning. This 
practice involves potential Medicaid recipients using a variety 
of wealth transfers and methods to alter assets and income 
streams to obtain eligibility for Medicaid nursing home 
coverage. On April 27, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote the 
Medicaid officials of the 50 states to learn the extent and 
nature of actions the states have been taking with regard to 
Medicaid estate planning.

               HOSPITAL BILLING AND COLLECTION PRACTICES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued its 
oversight of hospital billing and collection practices for 
uninsured/self-pay patients. As part of this oversight, on 
April 25, 2005 the Full Committee Chairman and Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote ten hospital 
corporations seeking information on questions concerning the 
clarity of medical consumer billing records and the impact of 
hospital ``master'' or ``list'' prices on medical consumers. 
These issues were raised in the course of the Committee's 
review of the hospital billing practices during the previous 
Congress.

                    FDA DRUG SAFETY DECISION-MAKING

    As part of the Committee's ongoing oversight of drug safety 
issues, on June 10, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman asked the 
GAO to conduct a review of FDA's current organizational 
structure and decision-making process for postmarket drug 
safety. In March 2006, the GAO issued its report and concluded 
that the FDA ``lacks clear and effective processes for making 
decisions about'' the safety of medicines that millions of 
Americans rely on. Among the GAO's findings:
          
 FDA's postmarket safety decision-making 
        process is ``complex and iterative.''
          
 The agency ``lacks clear and effective 
        processes for making decisions about, and providing 
        management oversight of, postmarket safety issues.''
          
 GAO noted a ``lack of criteria for 
        determining what safety actions to take and when to 
        take them.''
          
 While recent initiatives, such as the 
        establishment of a Drug Safety Oversight Board, offer 
        promise, they do not address the ``lack of systemic 
        tracking of ongoing safety issues.''

                        PRESCRIPTION DRUG SAFETY

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued 
to investigate issues surrounding the withdrawal of a non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Cox-2 inhibitor called 
rofecoxib, known commercially as Vioxx, by its manufacturer 
Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). On September 30, 2004, Merck 
publicly announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, a 
medicine approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in treating 
osteoarthritis and the management of acute pain in adults, and 
later, for rheumatoid arthritis. The publicly reported reason 
for this withdrawal was new data from a three-year clinical 
trial that showed a two-fold increase in cardiovascular adverse 
events in patients taking Vioxx. On November 23, 2004, 
Committee Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote 
Merck and the FDA to request more information and documentation 
relating to: (1) FDA knowledge about these cardiovascular 
adverse events associated with Vioxx, (2) when FDA learned 
about this information, and (3) the action FDA took in response 
to cardiovascular safety concerns associated with Vioxx. In 
December 2004, Pfizer Inc., announced it was suspending sales 
of Celebrex, also a Cox-2 inhibitor drug, based on some recent 
data on cardiovascular events in an on-going study. Shortly 
thereafter, the Committee wrote Pfizer requesting information 
on adverse cardiovascular events occurring in patients that 
took Celebrex and Pfizer's other marketed Cox-2 inhibitor, 
Bextra. In spring 2005, the FDA advisory committee concluded 
that Bextra should be removed permanently from the market, 
based primarily on adverse skin reactions occurring with the 
drug. Pfizer voluntarily agreed to remove Bextra from the U.S. 
market. The FDA advisory committee agreed that Celebrex should 
remain on the market with a black box warning concerning 
cardiovascular events. Celebrex continues to be on the U.S. 
market. The FDA committee was split on the recommendation 
concerning Vioxx. However, Merck did not seek to reinstate 
Vioxx to the worldwide market.

                               NIH ETHICS

    On August 8, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman requested 
a GAO study of internal control procedures over conflicts of 
interest, involving employees of the NIH, NIH contractors, and 
outside experts. The GAO is undertaking the request, with a 
focus on the rules of recusal at the NIH for employees, 
contractors, and outside experts, and a description of the 
structures that are in place for the application, monitoring, 
and enforcement of the rules of recusal among NIH institutes 
and centers.

                              NIH LEASING

    On October 14, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman wrote to 
the GAO, requesting that the GAO examine certain parts of NIH's 
procedures for obtaining leases for real property. The GAO 
issued its report in September 2006. It found that the NIH 
implemented a formal leasing process that, if carried out 
effectively, should comply with budget scorekeeping guidelines 
and OMB's requirements for classifying operating and capital 
leases. This process should ensure that no Antideficiency Act 
violations occur due to leasing. However, NIH had taken no 
action to address five prospectus-level leases that were not 
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in past 
years.

                         NIH GRANT COMPENSATION

    On September 20, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
the HHS Inspector General to request that the OIG determine if 
Federal taxpayer dollars have been used by Federal universities 
to compensate graduate research assistants for tuition 
remission rather than for their actual work on programs funded 
by the NIH. In addition, it was requested that, to the extent 
such use of funds is substantiated, the OIG determine if such 
compensation practices violate any Federal law, regulation, or 
policy, or an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars. The OIG 
agreed to conduct a nationwide, randomized audit of graduate 
student compensation as a first step to examine this issue.

                          NIH GRANTS DIVERSION

    In an August 16, 2005 article, The Wall Street Journal 
examined allegations that universities misuse Federal grant 
money received from the NIH. Some of these allegations have 
resulted in recent multi-million dollar settlements between NIH 
university grantees and the U.S. Department of Justice. For 
example, in a complaint-in-intervention filed June 15, 2005, 
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New 
York (U.S. Attorney's office) alleged that a university grantee 
failed to comply with NIH guidelines for clinical research 
programs and made false statements in applications to NIH for 
renewal of its General Clinical Research Center grant. In 
particular, the U.S. Attorney's office highlighted the 
disparities between the number of research activities projected 
by the grantee in its grant applications or grant continuation 
applications to NIH, and the actual number of research 
activities performed by the grantee after receiving the NIH 
grant money, as reflected in the grantee's internal data, and 
to some extent, the grantee's annual progress reports submitted 
to NIH.
    In light of concerns such as those alleged by the U.S. 
Attorney's office, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman requested 
on September 20, 2005 that the HHS OIG examine whether there 
are widespread disparities between the numbers of research 
activities grantees projected to obtain taxpayer funds from the 
NIH and the numbers of research activities actually performed 
with these funds. To that end, it was further requested that 
the OIG conduct an audit of some of the largest NIH clinical 
research center grants to review the number of research 
activities each respective institution projected to the NIH and 
what research activities these institutions actually performed. 
Given that the General Clinical Research Grant program is being 
phased out, the OIG told the Committee staff that the issues 
raised in the request letter were being pursued in ongoing work 
and that the OIG would consider an audit of this kind with 
respect to the Clinical Translational Science Awards program.

               NIH POLICYMAKING FROM THE HIVNET 012 STUDY

    On April 29, 2004, the bipartisan leadership of the Full 
Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
sent the NIH a request concerning questions raised about the 
findings of the HIVNET 012 study. In 1997, the Division of 
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, National Institute for 
Allergies and Infectious Diseases, sponsored HIVNET 012, a 
trial comparing two drugs, nevirapine and zidovudine (AZT), and 
their efficacy in the prevention of transmission of Human 
Immunodeficiency Virus from mother to child. The findings of 
this landmark study were relied upon in the establishment of 
global strategies for addressing the AIDS crisis. The Committee 
asked the NIH to answer the following question: After a 
comprehensive review of all records and information relating to 
HIVNET 012, does NIH stand behind the findings of HIVNET 012?
    In response to the Committee's request, the NIH Director 
asked NIH staff to review the records and information relating 
to the HIVNET 012 study and other related studies. On July 12, 
2004, the NIH Director informed the Committee that he had 
decided to ask the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a 
more detailed independent review of the HIVNET 012 study 
process. The IOM released its report on the HIVNET 012 study on 
April 7, 2005. The Committee staff also received a briefing by 
members and staff of the IOM on the IOM's review of the HIVNET 
012 study. Based on that briefing and on that IOM committee 
report, the Committee staff were satisfied that the data and 
findings presented in the published papers can, as the report 
said, ``be relied upon for scientific and policy-making 
purposes.''

                        FDA DRUG SAFETY LABELING

    On August 16, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
FDA about a drug-safety issue arising from the Committee's 
oversight of the FDA's regulatory decisions concerning 
Palladone, described by FDA as ``a once-a-day pain management 
drug containing a very potent narcotic.'' On July 13, 2005, the 
FDA requested Purdue Pharma, L.P. (``Purdue'') to withdraw the 
painkiller prescription drug, Palladone, from the market 
because of concerns that patients could die from taking the 
drug together with alcohol. In reviewing how and why the FDA 
approved and later requested the withdrawal of Palladone, the 
Committee staff learned that while Palladone was still 
marketed, FDA posted on its website only safety information 
about the risks of alcohol interaction with Palladone as 
reflected in the language of the labeling and medication 
formally approved by the FDA. However, after approving 
Palladone in September 2004 but prior to the product's launch 
in November 2004, the FDA permitted Purdue under a special 
process called a CBE (Changes Being Effected) supplement, to 
use stronger labeling and medication guide language about the 
alcohol risks shown in early results of studies conducted by 
Purdue that began in early September 2004. That safety 
language, which was in fact the actual labeling and medication 
guide used in the marketing of Palladone, was reflected on 
Purdue's website but not on the FDA's website. While there was 
no final FDA approval for the Purdue label with the alcohol 
warning language, the Committee requestors were concerned that 
patients and practitioners who accessed the FDA website were 
not informed of the most current safety risks of Palladone and 
alcohol interaction. Updating such information even without 
final FDA approval is vital to ensuring the safety of American 
consumers taking prescription drugs.
    In furtherance of helping the American public get the most 
current and accurate drug-safety information from the FDA, the 
Chairmen's letter requested the FDA to respond with (1) a list, 
as of July 1, 2005, of any other drugs besides Palladone for 
which the labeling and medication guide information on the FDA 
website has been superceded by new labeling and medication 
guide information permitted under a CBE supplement but not 
finally approved and (2) the specific actions taken by FDA to 
ensure that the agency's website reflects the most current 
safety information about approved drugs (or other FDA-approved 
products generally). On October 20, 2005 the FDA sent a written 
response, acknowledging that FDA's policy has been to post only 
approved labeling on its website and that there may be a period 
of time during which there may be a discrepancy between the 
company's labeling and the FDA's posted labeling. The FDA noted 
that the agency was considering a change to this policy to 
address this issue. In September 2006, the FDA published a 
draft guidance document for comment announcing to holders of 
new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, or a 
biologics license applications who intend to submit a ``Changes 
Being Effected'' supplement (CBE supplement) to make a post-
approval labeling change, that the FDA will make labeling 
revisions identified in the CBE supplement publicly available 
upon receipt of the supplement by FDA.

           EXTRA-TERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL FDCA

    On August 7, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
the Attorney General of the United States, requesting that the 
Department of Justice provide its updated views concerning the 
application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) 
to individuals operating outside the United States who sell 
counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs to consumers in 
the United States, and who cannot be prosecuted on other 
statutory grounds.

                     FEDERAL WORKPLACE DRUG-TESTING

    On September 19, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) about efforts to 
improve the mandatory drug-testing guidelines for the Federal 
Workplace Drug Testing Program (``mandatory guidelines'') by 
testing hair, sweat, and oral fluid specimens in addition to 
urine specimens.
    Federal workplace drug testing policy continues to be based 
only on testing of urine specimens, as it has since 1988. 
However, alternative drug tests using hair, oral fluid, and 
sweat specimens could strengthen security and safety of the 
Federal workplace. These tests complement drug detection using 
urine specimens and can offer significant advantages that tests 
using urine specimens cannot provide.
    According to information listed with the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, on June 30, 2006, HHS and SAMHSA withdrew 
the final rule on the mandatory guidelines that OMB had 
received on April 4, 2006. Given the interest in the timely 
improvement of the mandatory guidelines, it was requested that 
SAMHSA provide the Committee with more information about what 
led to the withdrawal of the final rule and what issues (if 
any) are pending for future improvement of the mandatory 
guidelines.

                             CDC OVERSIGHT

    On October 23, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
the Director of the CDC to request a briefing on the 
reorganization of the CDC. In addition, the request letter 
asked for a draft internal assessment of CDC's financial 
management office, information about CDC's systems for tracking 
human tissue samples, and information about CDC's systems for 
tracking certain property.

                           FDA FOOD SECURITY

    On October 24, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations wrote to the 
Acting Commissioner of the FDA about the adequacy of FDA's food 
safety and food security efforts. In particular, the request 
letter asked for certain information gained from the FDA's 
Security and Surveillance Assignment conducted in 2004 and how 
some of this information was leveraged to prevent and/or detect 
outbreaks such as E. coli in spinach.

  HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO ENERGY AND THE 
                              ENVIRONMENT


                                Hearings


         MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

    On May 5, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review management concerns at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The hearing reviewed a 
wide range of ongoing management problems identified by the DOE 
Inspector General (DOE IG) and the Defense Nuclear Facility 
Safety Board (DNFSB), as well as more recent security and 
safety problems that led to the shutdown of operations at LANL. 
The laboratory was shut down due to the mishandling of 
classified material and a major safety incident that resulted 
in the partial blinding of an employee at LANL. In addition to 
these problems, the DOE IG described ongoing weaknesses at LANL 
including problems with project management, security, and 
contract administration. The Chairman of the DNFSB described 
significant and complex safety issues at the lab, and 
identified several corrective actions needed to improve safety 
at the laboratory.

           PLUTONIUM CONSOLIDATION AND DISPOSAL AT DOE SITES

    On October 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review GAO findings regarding 
DOE's efforts to consolidate surplus plutonium inventories. 
Consolidation of plutonium inventories to one site would reduce 
significant health and safety issues and reduce large security 
costs associated with storing this material in multiple 
locations. For example, moving plutonium out of the Hanford 
site would save the Department more than $85 million annually 
in security costs at Hanford. GAO testified that DOE cannot 
move forward with plans to consolidate plutonium inventories at 
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina due to legal 
impediments and insufficient storage areas at the site. GAO 
recommended DOE develop a comprehensive plan to stabilize, 
store, and dispose of plutonium inventories across the complex. 
At the hearing, DOE testified that it would move forward and 
develop a plan for plutonium consolidation within two years.
    On May 1, 2006, the Committee sent a follow-up letter 
requesting that GAO review the extent to which NNSA has 
sufficient storage space to store and monitor plutonium pit 
storage containers at Pantex safely and cost-effectively, and 
the effect of the delays that NNSA is experiencing constructing 
the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and the MOX Fuel 
Fabrication Facility in its ability to dispose of surplus 
weapons-grade plutonium permanently.

                        PADUCAH SITE OPERATIONS

    On January 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a field hearing in Paducah, Kentucky, to 
review DOE operations at the Paducah site. The DOE Assistant 
Secretary for Environmental Management provided testimony on a 
range of issues including environmental cleanup challenges at 
the site, the conversion of approximately 490,000 tons of 
depleted uranium hexafluoride, and DOE's plans to recycle 9,700 
tons of scrap nickel at the site. The second panel consisted of 
the President of Bechtel Jacobs, an environmental cleanup 
contractor at Paducah, as well as representatives from the 
Paducah community including the Mayor of Paducah and a local 
labor union representing workers at Paducah.
    The hearing also focused on DOE's implementation of Section 
633 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, concerning the employee 
benefits of contractor employees working at the Paducah and 
Portsmouth sites. Section 633 provides that, when DOE changes 
its contractors at Paducah or Portsmouth, the contractor 
employees do not lose their accrued benefits. Subcommittee 
Members expressed concern that DOE had not fully implemented 
this section. Following the hearing, DOE clarified that it 
would fully implement Section 633 for all affected employees.

                         CYBER SECURITY AT DOE

    On June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review cyber security 
challenges at DOE. The first panel of witnesses included the 
DOE Inspector General, and the Director of DOE's Office of 
Security and Safety Performance Assurance, who described 
several internal and external reviews that identified 
significant weaknesses in both the management processes and the 
operational controls relied upon to protect the unclassified 
information systems vital to DOE operations. At the hearing, 
the Subcommittee revealed that a cyber attack at National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) site resulted in the 
removal of a file with personal information on over 1,500 NNSA 
contractor employees, including their social security numbers. 
The Administrator of NNSA, testified that although he had been 
aware of the stolen personnel information for several months, 
he only informed the Secretary of the breach two days before 
the Subcommittee hearing. After the hearing, NNSA took 
immediate steps to inform each employee whose personal 
information had been stolen.
    In response to overall weaknesses in the Department's cyber 
security program, the DOE's Chief Information Officer testified 
that he had developed a 12-month plan to revitalize the DOE 
cyber security posture. The NNSA Director and the DOE Under 
Secretary for Energy, Science, and Environment described their 
own efforts to improve cyber security. The DOE IG and the 
Director for the Office of Security and Safety Performance 
Assurance testified that they will continue to evaluate the 
status of DOE cyber security systems.

                    NRC'S REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS

    On June 16, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review NRC's reactor oversight 
process (ROP). NRC developed the ROP to regulate the nuclear 
industry more effectively and efficiently, by applying more 
objective, timely, and risk-informed criteria when assessing 
nuclear plant performance. Under the ROP, few nuclear plants 
have experienced significant safety performance issues overall, 
and even fewer plants have experienced multiple or repetitive 
degraded conditions. According to testimony from GAO, of the 
4,000 inspection findings between 2001 and 2005, 97 percent of 
these findings were of ``very low'' safety significance. GAO 
also determined that NRC continues to make improvements to its 
reactor oversight process in key areas. NRC testified that it 
would continue to improve the ROP by increasing its 
transparency and incorporate additional risk informed measures.

                   CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE ASSESSMENTS

    On July 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held the first of two hearings to examine 
questions surrounding certain historical temperature studies in 
connection with the studies' use in the United Nation's 2001 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third 
Assessment Report. The hearing focused on two independent 
reports concerning the reliability of two particular studies 
that were influential to a finding of the IPCC concerning 
millennial temperature trends and what the prominent use of 
these studies indicated about the reliability of the IPCC 
assessment process. The Subcommittee took testimony from two 
panels of witnesses, consisting of the chairman of an Ad Hoc 
Committee that had prepared an independent report on the two 
studies in question, the chairman of a National Research 
Council (NRC) committee that had examined historical 
temperature studies, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration witness who oversaw relevant portions of the 
IPCC report in question, and three academic and independent 
researchers who provided comments on the temperature studies in 
question and the IPCC process in general.
    At a second hearing, on July 26, 2006, the Subcommittee 
received testimony from the president of the National Academy 
of Sciences, the lead author of the studies in question, a 
representative of an environmental policy organization, a 
scientist associated with the aforementioned NRC committee and 
the IPCC report, as well as two witnesses returning from the 
July 19 hearing.

          PIPELINE SPILLS AT THE GREATER PRUDHOE BAY OIL FIELD

    On September 7, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing regarding the crude oil 
production pipelines on the North Slope of Alaska that are 
operated and maintained by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BP). 
The hearing focused on the issues surrounding the March 2, 
2006, and August 6, 2006, oil spills from corroded crude oil 
transmission pipelines for the Greater Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, 
including issues related to the adequacy of BP's corrosion 
control and monitoring program and BP's failure to inspect and 
maintain the pipelines properly. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel's three 
witnesses included the Chairman and President of BP America, 
Inc., the President of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., and the 
former manager of the Corrosion, Inspection, and Chemicals 
Group for BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. The second panel's two 
witnesses were the head of U.S. Department of Transportation's 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the 
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation.
    The Subcommittee continued to examine issues related to 
pipeline sludge, sediment, and corrosion. On October 6, 2006 
the leadership of the Full Committee and the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to BP requesting 
further information about BP's prior knowledge of sediment 
buildup in the transmission pipelines and the need to conduct 
pigging operations in those lines.

                        Investigative Activities


                       SAFETY AT DOE LABORATORIES

    Los Alamos National Laboratory is not alone in standing 
down its facilities. In October 2004, the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center had a stand-down of operations for nearly 5 
months following a serious electrical accident. Lawrence 
Livermore Laboratory's Plutonium Facility, also operated by the 
University of California, had a stand-down in January 2005 
because of safety concerns, and resumed reduced activities only 
in October 2005. On May 1, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman 
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent 
a letter to GAO requesting a review of the safety performance 
of the DOE's major laboratories. Specifically, we requested (1) 
the safety records of these laboratories; (2) nuclear safety 
violations and resulting penalties paid by the laboratories 
under the Price Anderson Act; (3) the circumstances of recent 
stand-downs, including the reasons for and duration of each 
stand-down and the process for resuming activities; and (4) 
actions taken by DOE to improve the safety performance of its 
management and operating contractors.

                           HANFORD TANK FARMS

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued 
its review of DOE's efforts to clean up 177 underground storage 
tanks containing radioactive wastes at the Hanford site in 
Richland, Washington. On July 12, 2005, the Full Committee 
Chairman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
Chairman sent a letter to Energy Secretary Bodman requesting 
information on the cost and status of the construction of 
vitrification plants for the immobilization of the high and 
low-level radioactive wastes. DOE has failed to develop a 
reliable cost and schedule baseline for the project. As a 
result, the initial December 2000 cost estimate for the project 
of $4.32 billion has grown to a recent cost estimate of $12.2 
billion. DOE has asked the US Army Corps of Engineers to 
validate these costs, and the Department is working towards 
finalizing a baseline for the project by the Spring of 2007.

                             YUCCA MOUNTAIN

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has 
continued its review of DOE's efforts to submit a license 
application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC. DOE missed its 
December 2005 deadline for submitting the license application, 
and had subsequently announced plans to submit the license 
application by June 30, 2008, and open the repository by 2017. 
On March 24, 2005, the Committee sent a letter to Energy 
Secretary Bodman to obtain documents relating to falsification 
of documentation by employees of the United States Geological 
Survey at the Yucca Mountain project. The documentation in 
question related to computer modeling involving water 
infiltration and climate. The Department has taken several 
steps to review and analyze the data in question to ensure that 
the technical aspects of the repository license application are 
not impacted.

                       CITGO HEATING OIL PROGRAM

    On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee sent a letter to 
Citgo Petroleum Corp. (Citgo) requesting information about its 
proposed discount heating oil program. Citgo is a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of the Venezuelan state-owned oil company, which is 
controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken 
critic of the United States. The Subcommittee's letter 
reflected a concern that Chavez's discount heating oil program 
was not motivated by altruism, but rather was an improper 
attempt to politicize the debate over U.S. energy policy. Citgo 
responded to the Subcommittee's letter on March 23, 2006, and 
April 21, 2006.

                     DOMESTIC OIL REFINERY CAPACITY

    On May 3, 2006, the Chairman of the Full Committee and 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
wrote the five largest integrated oil companies to gather 
information about each company's plans and priorities for 
ensuring ample domestic oil refinery capacity and gasoline 
supply. A shortage of domestic refining capacity was one of the 
primary factors contributing to gasoline price spikes in the 
Spring of 2006. The letters requested information concerning 
historical capacity levels of each company's domestic 
refineries, as affected by maintenance and other factors that 
can temporarily restrict refinery supply, and information 
concerning long-term priorities for expanding refinery capacity 
and for providing a reliable and abundant supply of fuel in the 
future.

      QUALITY OF FEDERALLY FUNDED CLIMATE RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENTS

    In the 109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman and 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman opened an 
inquiry into the quality of federally funded climate research 
and assessments that may inform the Committee's decision-
making. Portions of this inquiry resulted in hearings 
concerning use of historical temperature studies (see Climate 
Change Science Assessments, above). On May 19, 2006, the 
Chairmen requested that the GAO examine the practices and 
policies that support and ensure the underlying quality of 
federally funded climate data and research. In particular, the 
GAO was asked to examine practices and policies related to the 
preservation and sharing of datasets and analyses. A report 
from GAO is expected in the 110th Congress.

 HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS


                                Hearings


                           THE E-RATE PROGRAM

    On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing on Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) management and oversight of the E-rate 
program. The E-rate program is the portion of the Universal 
Service Fund set up to subsidize telecommunications and 
Internet service and infrastructure in qualified schools and 
libraries. The hearing examined findings and recommendations by 
a GAO review of FCC's management of the program. This review 
was initiated at the request of the Full Committee and 
Subcommittee Chairmen in the previous Congress during the 
Subcommittee's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the program. The Subcommittee took testimony from one panel of 
witness, representing the GAO, the FCC, and the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) of the FCC.
    On October 6, 2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
examine the FCC's plans for E-rate program relief to Gulf Coast 
communities recovering from the destruction of Hurricane 
Katrina. The Subcommittee took testimony from the FCC Inspector 
General, the Chief of the FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, 
the CEO of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), 
which administers the E-rate program, and the State E-rate 
Coordinator for the Mississippi Department of Information 
Technology Services.
    In culmination of the Subcommittee of Oversight and 
Investigations' two-year investigation into the E-rate program, 
the Subcommittee held a business meeting on October 18, 2005, 
at which it unanimously adopted the bi-partisan staff report, 
``Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in the E-rate Program,'' 
which detailed findings and recommendations from the 
investigation to help guide reform of the E-rate program.

           SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN OVER THE INTERNET

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a 
series of hearings in 2006 examining issues relating to the 
sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The purpose 
of these hearings was to examine the efforts undertaken by the 
following entities to combat the proliferation of sexually 
exploitative images of children over the Internet: (1) U.S. 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement; (2) Federal 
agencies, including the FCC and the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC); (3) the Internet Service Provider industry; (4) the 
financial services industry; (5) social networking sites; (6) 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) 
and (7) several Internet safety education groups. Through the 
Subcommittee's efforts on this topic, several measures were 
undertaken by various entities that would enhance the efforts 
of law enforcement and industry to detect and stop the 
proliferation of sexually exploitative images of children over 
the Internet, including: (1) the Internet Service Provider 
industry started blocking access to sites that NCMEC determined 
had images of child pornography and which do not need to remain 
open for law enforcement investigative purposes; (2) a 
Technology Coalition consisting of major ISP's including AOL, 
Google, Yahoo! and Earthlink was voluntarily formed, with a $1 
million donation by each provider, to enhance the technological 
capabilities of the industry and law enforcement to detect and 
take down these illegal sites; (3) Comcast voluntarily agreed 
to lengthen its data retention period for Internet Protocol 
(IP) addresses attached to subscriber information from 30 days 
to 180 days to assist law enforcement in investigations 
involving the exploitation of children over the Internet; (4) 
the FCC issued a declaratory ruling that cellular carriers are 
subject to the cybertipline reporting requirements, which will 
enhance cybertipline reporting of illegal images and content 
and (5) the financial services industry formed a Financial 
Coalition with NCMEC to enhance the ability of credit card 
companies and merchant banks to detect and eliminate on-line 
merchants with commercial child pornography sites.
    At the April 4 hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony 
from the following witnesses: Justin Berry, a 19-year-old who, 
beginning at 13 years old, was sexually exploited by various 
child predators on the Internet initially through the use of 
webcam; Kurt Eichenwald, a reporter for The New York Times, who 
wrote investigative articles about child pornography over the 
Internet and this child's case in particular, which were 
published on December 19 and 20, 2005; a forensic pediatrician 
and expert in child sexual abuse cases; the President of NCMEC 
and from representatives of two Internet safety groups, I-Safe 
and WiredSafety.org. In addition, the Committee subpoenaed a 
person that was identified by Justin Berry as someone who 
sexually molested him and was involved in running a commercial 
child pornography site. That individual declined to testify, 
citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. 
Shortly after the hearing, he was arrested by Michigan Federal 
authorities on several felony charges relating to Mr. Berry's 
public allegations against him, as well as, based on additional 
evidence related to child pornography charges. At the April 6 
hearing, the Subcommittee focused on the U.S. law enforcement 
effort to combat child pornography over the Internet. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives from the U.S. 
Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Postal Inspection 
Service, and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. 
The Subcommittee also heard testimony from Grier Weeks, 
Executive Director for PROTECT, a group that focuses on 
enhancing Federal laws relating to crimes against children.
    The Subcommittee's May 3 hearing was focused on the 
testimony of Masha Allen, a child-victim, whose images of 
sexual abuse were posted on the Internet, and on the efforts of 
the U.S. Department of Justice and the Innocent Images Section 
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to combat crimes against 
children over the Internet. Masha Allen is a 14-year-old girl 
who was adopted from Russia when she was 5 years old by a 
single man in the United States, and then subsequently sexually 
abused by her adoptive father. Her adoptive father posted 
images of her sexual abuse on the Internet. Rep. Phil Gingrey 
(R-GA), introduced Masha at the hearing and briefly discussed 
legislation he introduced in the House (known as Masha's Law), 
which was subsequently signed into law by President Bush as 
part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. 
Masha's law increases the civil penalties that victims may 
recover for images of their sexual abuse posted on the 
Internet, as well as, provides a cause of action for adults who 
find out that images of their sexual abuse as a minor are on 
the Internet to recover civil damages. A follow up hearing on 
the Masha Allen case was held on September 27, 2006 (see 
Miscellaneous Hearings and Investigative Activities, below).
    At the June 27 hearing, the Subcommittee focused on what 
measures the Internet Service Provider industry has taken to 
find and remove sexually exploitative images of children on 
their network. The Subcommittee heard testimony about the 
varied practices among the industry to monitor their network 
for child pornography, as well as, to retain IP address and 
subscriber information that is critical to law enforcement in 
these investigations. The providers all followed a similar 
practice with respect to reporting suspected images to the 
cybertipline, run by NCMEC. Representatives from the following 
Internet Service Providers testified: (1) AOL; (2) Comcast; (3) 
Google; (4) Yahoo; (5) Verizon; (6) Microsoft; and (7) 
Earthlink. In addition, the Subcommittee heard testimony from 
Chris Hansen, an investigative reporter for Dateline NBC, who 
headlined a series of reports called ``To Catch a Predator,'' 
which took place in various towns throughout the United States. 
Each episode featured various adult men arriving at a house in 
which they believed a minor child, whom they had communicated 
with on-line, would engage in sexual activity with them. The 
person the adult males were communicating with were not minors, 
but persons posing as minors on the Internet.
    The Subcommittee's June 28 hearing focused on what measures 
social networking sites are taking to protect children from 
child predators on their sites, as well as, hearing testimony 
from Federal agency representatives and a Federal attorney 
general about their roles in regulating the Internet Service 
Providers industry and social networking sites. Representatives 
from the following social networking sites testified at the 
hearing: (1) Myspace.com; (3) Xanga.com and (3) Facebook.com. 
In addition, representatives from the FCC and the FTC 
testified, as well as the Attorney General for the State of 
Connecticut. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from a 
Detective from the Rocky Hill, Connecticut Police Department.
    On July 10, the Subcommittee held a field hearing in New 
Jersey exploring how the State of New Jersey is combating the 
sexual exploitation of children over the Internet. The 
Subcommittee heard testimony from the U.S. Attorney for the 
District of New Jersey, representatives from several New Jersey 
Federal and local law enforcement agencies and representatives 
to address Internet safety programs being taught in schools to 
children and parents.
    At the September 21 hearing, the Subcommittee focused on 
what measures the financial services industry has taken to 
eradicate commercial child pornography websites over the 
Internet. Representatives from the following credit card 
companies testified: (1) American Express; (2) Visa; and (3) 
MasterCard. In addition, representatives from PayPal and E-
gold, which are alternative payment mechanisms, also testified. 
The President of NCMEC testified about the Financial Coalition, 
which consists of members of the financial services industry, 
Federal law enforcement and NCMEC to help eradicate commercial 
child pornography over the Internet. Representatives from the 
largest U.S.-based merchant banks testified, including: (1) 
Bank of America; (2) NOVA Information Systems; (3) Chase 
Paymentech Solutions and (4) First Data Corporation. A 
representative from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
and the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey testified about the 
efforts of their respective offices in investigating and 
prosecuting individuals involved in a case known as ``Regpay,'' 
which was a world-wide and large-scale ring of people running 
over 60 commercial child pornography sites.
    On September 26, the Subcommittee heard testimony from 
several experts about the characteristics of a child predator 
generally, as well as, specific information about the behaviors 
of child predators on-line. In addition to these witnesses, 
Kurt Eichenwald of The New York Times, who testified at the 
December 19 hearing, testified about his observations of an on-
line pedophile forum that he was able to infiltrate, which was 
also published in an article he wrote. The Subcommittee also 
heard testimony from a representative of a web-hosting company, 
Blue Gravity Communications, and from a domain name registry 
company, GoDaddy.com.

 HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO COMMERCE, TRADE, 
                        AND CONSUMER PROTECTION


                                Hearings


                       THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING

    On October 18 and November 17, 2005, and May 9, 2006, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings 
related to the nation's thoroughbred horse racing industry. In 
particular, the purpose of the hearings was to focus on the 
state of ``on-track'' injury insurance and other health and 
welfare issues that are faced by jockeys, exerciser riders, and 
other workers in the thoroughbred horse racing industry.
    The October 18 hearing primarily focused on the Jockeys' 
Guild--an association of licensed professional jockeys that had 
historically taken care of its members' health insurance and 
welfare needs, and also provided assistance to permanently 
disabled riders. The hearing examined allegations that under 
the leadership and direction of the Guild's then-Chief 
Executive Officer, the Guild's management had improperly 
canceled a catastrophic injury insurance policy, without 
notice; and that the then-CEO had mismanaged the Guild's 
finances, including several disability funds. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from three panels of witnesses. On the first 
panel, a former professional jockey who was permanently 
paralyzed during a horse race at Mountaineer Park, in West 
Virginia, and the jockey's wife, testified. The second panel 
consisted of nine current or former professional jockeys, 
including Hall of Fame riders, who were then or formerly 
involved with management of the Guild. Three witnesses 
testified during the third panel, including the Guild's then-
CEO, the Guild's Chief Operating Officer, and the Guild's 
General Counsel.
    The November 17 hearing focused on efforts by various 
stakeholders in the horse racing industry to improve the health 
and welfare of jockeys and other workers, including steps taken 
to establish better catastrophic insurance coverage or create 
workers' compensation programs. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel of 
seven witnesses consisted of representatives from five of the 
nation's major race track companies, as well as the 
Thoroughbred Racing Association and the National Thoroughbred 
Racing Association. The second panel of ten witnesses included 
representatives of: various trade associations for race horse 
trainers, breeders, and owners; the Kentucky Racing Health & 
Welfare Fund; the New York State Jockey Injury Compensation 
Fund; the California Horse Racing Board; the Delaware 
Thoroughbred Racing Commission; and the Jockeys' Guild.
    The May 9 hearing focused on the status of the Jockeys' 
Guild following its November 15, 2005, decision by its Board of 
Directors to fire the then-CEO and his management team, and to 
receive further testimony from the head of racing at 
Mountaineer Park race track. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel 
consisted of three witnesses--the Guild's interim National 
Manager, the Guild's Chairman of the Board, and the Guild's 
interim General Counsel. On the second panel one witness 
testified; the Director of Racing at Mountaineer Race Track & 
Gaming Resort, in Chester, West Virginia.

                      DATA BROKERS AND PRETEXTING

    In 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
held three hearings regarding the Internet-based data broker 
industry. The purpose of the hearings was to examine the use by 
these data brokers and their subcontractors of pretexting or 
``social engineering''--that is, deceit, impersonation, and 
fraud--to procure and sell consumers' confidential cell phone 
calling records and other personal consumer information, such 
as bank account activity or credit card statements.
    A June 21 hearing focused on the actual data brokers and 
how they acquire the information and to whom they sell the 
records, and the Subcommittee received testimony from three 
panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of one witness 
who had been a victim of a data broker that repeatedly procured 
his cell phone records without his consent. On the second 
panel, two witnesses testified; the former owner of the 
Colorado data broker Touch Tone Information, Inc., and a 
``skiptracer'' who works for the repossession industry. The 
third panel included eleven witnesses, all of whom were data 
brokers that the Subcommittee had focused on during its 
investigation. All eleven witnesses refused to testify, each 
invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination.
    A June 22 hearing focused on (1) Federal efforts to combat 
illicit data brokers and (2) the use of data brokers by Federal 
and local law enforcement agencies to procure phone records. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels of 
witnesses. The first panel consisted of two assistant attorneys 
general--one from the Missouri Attorney General's Office and 
another from the Florida Attorney General's Office. The second 
panel consisted of representatives from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Drug 
Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives, and the Department of Homeland 
Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. During the 
third panel, police officers representing Miami-Dade Police 
Department and the Austin (Texas) Police Department testified.
    A September 29 hearing focused on progress made by Federal 
agencies to combat illicit data brokers, as well as steps being 
taken by the nation's largest wireless phone carriers to 
protect consumers' phone records from pretexters. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from four panels of witnesses. 
The first panel's single witness was a private investigator and 
frequent data broker customer for calling records, who refused 
to testify on the basis of their Fifth Amendment right against 
self-incrimination. The second panel's single witness was a 
journalist for a major newspaper whose phone records were 
procured by a pretexter. The third panel consisted of 
representatives of the nation's six largest wireless phone 
companies, including Cingular Wireless, Verizon Wireless, T-
Mobile USA, Sprint Nextel, Alltel Wireless, and US Cellular. 
The fourth panel received testimony from officials from the FCC 
and the FTC.

                  HEWLETT-PACKARD'S PRETEXTING SCANDAL

    On September 28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing related to the use of private 
investigators and pretexters by Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) to 
investigate its Board of Directors, journalists, employees, and 
others. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the methods 
and scope of HP's internal investigation into leaks of 
corporate information that involved procuring the personal 
telephone records of numerous individuals, without their 
consent. The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels 
of witnesses. The first panel's ten witnesses included HP's 
General Counsel, an HP Senior Counsel, HP's Manager of Global 
Security Investigations, the managing director of the outside 
consultant Security Outsourcing Solutions, Inc., the owner of 
the data broker Action Research Group, and five subcontractors 
to the data broker--all of whom refused to testify on the basis 
of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The 
second panel's three witnesses included the former HP Chairman 
of the Board, the outside counsel to HP's Board of Directors, 
and an HP ``IT Security'' employee. The third panel's single 
witness was HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.

 HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES PERTAINING TO HOMELAND SECURITY 
                 AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION


                                Hearings


       A REVIEW OF SECURITY INITIATIVES AT DOE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

    On March 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review security initiatives at 
DOE nuclear facilities. In the aftermath of the September 11, 
2001, attacks, physical security requirements at DOE and NNSA 
sites were dramatically increased to reflect the possibility of 
large attacks with terrorist that are willing to die to inflict 
massive damage. The hearing reviewed the implementation of 
several ongoing security initiatives at NNSA sites, and 
specifically reviewed security problems that led to the 
shutdown of operations at the LANL. The shutdown at LANL was 
also the subject of a subsequent hearing on May 5, 2005. The 
Administrator of NNSA provided testimony on NNSA's progress on 
improving physical security and the security of classified 
material. The Director of the Office of Security and Safety 
Performance Assurance, DOE, outlined several security issues 
that needed greater attention, including cyber security, 
technology deployment, and the consolidation of nuclear 
materials. The Director of LANL provided testimony regarding 
major incidents that led to the shutdown of the laboratory, 
including the mishandling of classified removable electronic 
media.

                REDUCING THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM

    On May 24, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review the DOE's Global Threat 
Reduction Initiative (GTRI), a program to secure high-risk 
nuclear and radiological materials around the world that could 
pose a threat when used in a radiological dispersion device 
(RDD or ``dirty bomb'') or in an improvised nuclear devise. 
Witnesses from DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
described efforts to recover vulnerable, high-risk nuclear 
material worldwide. Domestically, GTRI has targeted 25 research 
reactors for conversion from high-risk HEU fuel to lower-risk 
LEU fuel. DOE and NRC also discussed their working relationship 
to identify and secure radiological sources located in the 
United States, including new security requirements for medical 
and research facilities, and manufacturers of sealed 
radioactive sources.

                             Investigations


                MARITIME ENERGY TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

    On January 31, 2005, the Full Committee leadership along 
with the leadership of the Committee on Homeland Security sent 
a letter to GAO to conduct a review of the vulnerabilities of 
foreign and domestic maritime energy transport infrastructure 
to terrorist attack, and efforts by governmental and private 
sector entities to reduce these vulnerabilities through 
enhanced security, planning, and other prevention, 
preparedness, and response activities. Although there is no 
known terrorist threat to domestic energy transportation 
infrastructure, there have been several attacks in Iraq and the 
Middle-East. A successful attack could have significant public 
health and economic consequences.

          MISCELLANEOUS HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES


                                Hearings


       IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ALL-HAZARDS SATELLITE WARNING SYSTEM

    On March 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to examine efforts by the United 
States and other countries to implement a Global Earth 
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) all-hazards warning 
system. GEOSS represents an initiative to link satellites and 
other technology into an integrated system to share data, 
enabling improved prediction of weather- and geological-related 
events, such as the December 2004 South Asia tsunami. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from three panels of witnesses 
to consider the benefits of an all-hazards warning system for 
the energy, environment, and public health and emergency 
preparedness sectors. The Subcommittee heard from the 
Department of Commerce Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Administrator and representatives from the Department of 
Energy, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 
and the Environmental Protection Agency. In addition, the 
Subcommittee heard from representatives of the GEOSS program, 
the meteorological community, public health community, and 
satellite community, who spoke to specific aspects and 
potential of the program.

                  UNITED NATIONS' OIL-FOR-FOOD PROGRAM

    The Committee's oversight of the United Nations' Oil-for-
Food Program (the Program) began in the 106th Congress. As part 
of this oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations launched an in-depth investigation into abuses 
of the Program by the former Iraqi Regime of Saddam Hussein 
(the Regime) during the 108th and 109th Congresses. This 
investigation revealed that the Regime exploited lax oversight 
of the Program and political divisions within the United 
Nations to enrich itself at the expense of the Iraqi 
population.
    The Subcommittee's investigation of the Program culminated 
in two hearings during the 109th Congress. The first hearing, 
which took place on May 16, 2005, focused on the Regime's abuse 
of the oil allocation process. Documents disclosed at the 
hearing--many of which had been translated from Arabic for the 
Subcommittee--detailed how the Regime used lucrative oil 
allocations to bribe influential individuals and foreign 
governments in an effort to undermine sanctions. Witnesses at 
this hearing included: an Arabic linguist who was retained by 
the Committee to analyze and translate many of the documents, 
the author of a comprehensive report on the Program, a 
university professor knowledgeable about the Program and 
sanctions generally, and the Director of the Office of 
Peacekeeping, Sanctions & Counter-Terrorism in the State 
Department's International Organizations and Affairs Bureau. On 
June 21, 2005, the Subcommittee held a second hearing to 
examine how internal divisions within the United Nations' 
Security Council adversely impacted the effectiveness of the 
Program. Several representatives from the United States Mission 
to the United Nations testified about discussions within the 
``661 Sanctions Committee,'' which was responsible for general 
oversight of the Program. A portion of this hearing was 
conducted in executive session due to the classified status of 
some of the documents involved.

              WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE IN POST KATRINA RECOVERY

    On September 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review the oversight plans and 
activities of various Inspectors General with regard to 
spending for disaster relief and recovery in the Gulf Coast 
following hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The hearing focused on 
efforts to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse and issues 
related to such oversight of funding and of programs that will 
be involved in long-term rebuilding. The Subcommittee took 
testimony from a single panel of witnesses, which was comprised 
of a representative of the GAO and the Inspector Generals for 
the Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, 
Department of Defense (acting), Environmental Protection 
Agency, Department of Commerce, and Federal Communications 
Commission. The Deputy Inspector General for Audits and Deputy 
Inspector General for Investigations for the Department of 
Health and Human Services also testified. In response to the 
Subcommittee Chairman's request at the hearing, the President's 
Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and Executive 
Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE), the two 
coordinating entities for Federal Inspectors General, issued a 
90-day progress report to Congress regarding oversight of Gulf 
Coast hurricane recovery. The PCIE/ECIE subsequently continued 
to provide progress reports in the form of semi-annual 
oversight reports of Gulf Coast hurricane recovery.

             ISSUES RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF MASHA ALLEN

    On September 27, 2006 the Subcommittee held a hearing to 
follow-up on issues raised at the May 3, 2006 hearing 
concerning the adoption of Masha Allen (see hearings, above, 
relating to sexual exploitation of children over the Internet). 
At the May 3 hearing, Masha Allen, along with her attorney, 
raised questions about what adoption agency was responsible for 
her placement with Matthew Mancuso, whether any follow-up was 
done by any U.S. agency once she was brought to the U.S. by 
Mancuso, and whether there were any red flags in Mancuso's 
adoption application that should have been picked up by any of 
the U.S. agencies involved in the adoption. At the September 27 
hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony from representatives 
of Families Through International Adoption, the agency that 
initially processed Mancuso's preliminary paperwork; Adagio 
Health Services, the agency that performed the home study 
evaluation of Mancuso prior to his adoption of Masha, and 
several current and former employees of Reaching Out Through 
International Adoption, the adoption agency that was primarily 
responsible for placing Masha with Mancuso and for performing 
any required follow-up work associated with an international 
adoption. Testimony at the hearing established that Reaching 
Out Through International Adoption, a N.J. agency, was not 
licensed during the time period when they provided Mancuso with 
the referral of Masha and that the agency was responsible for 
all material aspects of Mancuso's adoption of Masha, including 
ensuring that in-person post-placement reports were conducted 
by a licensed agency in Pennsylvania, the State in which Masha 
and Mancuso were residents. In addition, the Subcommittee heard 
testimony from two witnesses about the general practices 
employed by U.S. agencies performing international adoptions.

                             Investigations


                    DATA QUALITY ACT IMPLEMENTATION

    In the 109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman opened a 
review of agency implementation of the Data Quality Act. As 
part of this review, on January 13, 2005 the Chairman wrote 15 
agencies and commissions within the Committee's jurisdiction, 
seeking documents and other information relating to each 
agency's implementation of the data-quality guidelines and 
procedures required by Section 515 of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriates Act for Fiscal 2001, which is commonly 
known as the Data Quality Act. Under the Act, each agency is 
required to issue guidelines for ``ensuring and maximizing the 
quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information'' 
that agencies disseminate. The review seeks to assess agency 
implementation as well as the general effectiveness and impact 
of the Act's requirements.

      REDUCTION OF UNNECESSARILY BURDENSOME RULES AND REGULATIONS

    In the 109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman and 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman opened a 
review of efforts by Federal agencies to reduce unnecessarily 
burdensome regulations, particularly regulations on small 
businesses. As part of this review, on April 5, 2005 the 
Chairmen wrote ten Federal agencies within the Committee's 
jurisdiction, seeking documents and information relating to 
each agency's compliance with Section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. Under Section 610, each Federal 
agency must plan for, and conduct, the periodic review of its 
rules that have or will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, i.e. small businesses, 
small government jurisdictions, and other small organizations. 
The letters sought information to help determine the general 
impact and effectiveness of this regulatory-review requirement 
for meeting the goals of RFA. On May 19, 2006, the Chairmen 
requested that the GAO examine the impact of Section 610, both 
to assess implementation of the provision specifically and to 
provide insights into the implementation of retrospective 
regulatory reviews in general. A GAO report is expected in the 
110th Congress.

                             Hearings Held

    The Implementation of GEOSS: A Review of the All-Hazards 
Warning System and its Benefits to Public Health, Energy, and 
the Environment.--Oversight hearing on The Implementation of 
GEOSS: A Review of the All-Hazards Warning System and its 
Benefits to Public Health, Energy, and the Environment. Hearing 
held on March 9, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-2.
    Problems with the E-Rate Program: GAO Review of FCC 
Management and Oversight.--Oversight hearing on Problems with 
the E-Rate Program: GAO Review of FCC Management and Oversight. 
Hearing held on March 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-7.
    A Review of Security Initiatives at DOE Nuclear 
Facilities.--Oversight hearing on A Review of Security 
Initiatives at DOE Nuclear Facilities. Hearing held on March 
18, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-66.
    The State of Readiness for the 2005-2006 Flu Season.--
Oversight hearing on The State of Readiness for the 2005-2006 
Flu Season. Hearing held on May 4, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 
109-79.
    A Review of Ongoing Management Concerns at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory.--Oversight hearing on A Review of Ongoing 
Management Concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Hearing 
held on May 5, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-45.
    The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program: Saddam Hussein's 
Use of Oil Allocations to Undermine Sanctions and the United 
Nations Security Council.--Oversight hearing on The United 
Nations Oil-For-Food Program: Saddam Hussein's Use of Oil 
Allocations to Undermine Sanctions and the United Nations 
Security Council. Hearing held on May 16, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-29.
    Subversion of Drug Testing Programs.--Oversight hearing on 
Subversion of Drug Testing Programs. Hearing held on May 17, 
2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-47.
    Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism: A Review of the 
Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative.--
Oversight hearing on Reducing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism: 
A Review of the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction 
Initiative. Hearing held on May 24, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-67.
    A Review of Community Health Centers: Issues and 
Opportunities.--Oversight hearing on A Review of Community 
Health Centers: Issues and Opportunities. Hearing held on May 
25, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-31.
    The United Nations Oil-For-Food Program: A Review of the 
661 Sanctions Committee.--Oversight hearing on The United 
Nations Oil-For-Food Program: A Review of the 661 Sanctions 
Committee. Hearing held on June 21, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-30.
    Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care in the 
Wake of Katrina.--Joint oversight hearing with the Subcommittee 
on Health on Assessing Public Health and the Delivery of Care 
in the Wake of Katrina. Hearing held on September 22, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-50.
    Guarding Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Post-Katrina 
Relief and Recovery: The Plans of Inspectors General.--
Oversight hearing on Guarding Against Waste, Fraud, and Abuse 
in Post-Katrina Relief and Recovery: The Plans of Inspectors 
General. Hearing held on September 28, 2005. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-51.
    FCC's E-Rate Plans to Assist Gulf Coast Recovery: Ensuring 
Effective Implementation.--Oversight hearing on FCC's E-Rate 
Plans to Assist Gulf Coast Recovery: Ensuring Effective 
Implementation. Hearing held on October 6, 2005. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-54.
    A Review of GAO's Findings and Recommendations Regarding 
the Department of Energy's Efforts to Consolidate Surplus 
Plutonium Inventories.--Oversight hearing on A Review of GAO's 
Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Department of 
Energy's Efforts to Consolidate Surplus Plutonium Inventories. 
Hearing held on October 7, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-56.
    Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining 
On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare 
Issues.--Oversight hearing on Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys 
and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other 
Health and Welfare Issues. Hearing held on October 18, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-34.
    Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining 
On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare 
Issues.--Oversight hearing on Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys 
and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other 
Health and Welfare Issues. Hearing held on November 17, 2005. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-62.
    Safety of Imported Pharmaceuticals: Strengthening Efforts 
to Combat the Sales of Controlled Substances Over the 
Internet.--Oversight hearing on Safety of Imported 
Pharmaceuticals: Strengthening Efforts to Combat the Sales of 
Controlled Substances Over the Internet. Hearing held on 
December 13, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-46.
    Oversight and Administration of the 340B Drug Discount 
Program: Improving Efficiency and Transparency.--Oversight 
hearing on Oversight and Administration of the 340B Drug 
Discount Program: Improving Efficiency and Transparency. 
Hearing held on December 15, 2005. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-
108.
    A Review of DOE Paducah Site Operations.--Oversight hearing 
on A Review of DOE Paducah Site Operations. Hearing held on 
January 19, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-60.
    Hospital Disaster Preparedness: Past, Present, and 
Future.--Oversight hearing on Hospital Disaster Preparedness: 
Past, Present, and Future. Hearing held on January 26, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-115.
    The Silicosis Story: Mass Tort Screening and the Public 
Health.--Oversight hearings on The Silicosis Story: Mass Tort 
Screening and the Public Health. Hearings held on March 8, 
2006, March 31, 2006, June 6, 2006, and July 26, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-124.
    Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: What 
Parents, Kids and Congress Need to Know About Child 
Predators.--Oversight hearings on Sexual Exploitation of 
Children Over the Internet: What Parents, Kids and Congress 
Need to Know About Child Predators. Hearings held on April 4, 
2006, April 6, 2006, and May 3, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 
109-126.
    Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys and Workers: Examining 
On-Track Injury Insurance and Other Health and Welfare 
Issues.--Oversight hearing on Thoroughbred Horse Racing Jockeys 
and Workers: Examining On-Track Injury Insurance and Other 
Health and Welfare Issues. Hearing held on May 9, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-98.
    Public Reporting of Hospital-Acquired Infection Rates: 
Empowering Consumers, Saving Lives.--Oversight hearing on 
Public Reporting of Hospital-Acquired Infection Rates: 
Empowering Consumers, Saving Lives. Hearing held on March 29, 
2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-85.
    Cyber Security Challenges at the Department of Energy.--
Oversight hearing on Cyber Security Challenges at the 
Department of Energy. Hearing held on June 9, 2006. PRINTED, 
Serial Number 109-107.
    Human Tissue Samples: NIH Research Policies and 
Practices.--Oversight hearings on Human Tissue Samples: NIH 
Research Policies and Practices. Hearings held on June 13, 
2006, and June 14, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-119.
    A Review of NRC's Reactor Oversight Process.--Oversight 
hearing on A Review of NRC's Reactor Oversight Process. Hearing 
held on June 19, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-104.
    Internet Data Brokers and Pretexting: Who Has Access to 
Your Private Records?.--Oversight hearings on Internet Data 
Brokers and Pretexting: Who Has Access to Your Private Records? 
Hearings held on June 21, 2006, June 22, 2006, and September 
29, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-131.
    Making the Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISPs and 
Social Networking Sites.--Oversight hearings on Making the 
Internet Safe for Kids: The Role of ISPs and Social Networking 
Sites. Hearings held on June 27, 2006, and June 28, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-123.
    Sexual Exploitation of Children over the Internet: How the 
State of New Jersey is Combating Child Predators on the 
Internet.--Oversight hearing on Sexual Exploitation of Children 
over the Internet: How the State of New Jersey is Combating 
Child Predators on the Internet. Hearing held on July 10, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-122.
    Questions Surrounding the `Hockey Stick' Temperature 
Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments.--
Oversight hearings on Questions Surrounding the `Hockey Stick' 
Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change 
Assessments. Hearings held on July 19, 2006, and July 27, 2006. 
PRINTED, Serial Number 109-128.
    BP's Pipeline Spills at Prudhoe Bay: What Went Wrong?.--
Oversight hearing on BP's Pipeline Spills at Prudhoe Bay: What 
Went Wrong? Hearing held on September 7, 2006. PRINTED, Serial 
Number 109-135.
    Continuing Ethics and Management Concerns at NIH and the 
Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.--Oversight hearing on 
Continuing Ethics and Management Concerns at NIH and the Public 
Health Service Commissioned Corps. Hearing held on September 
13, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-136.
    Deleting Commercial Child Pornography Sites From the 
Internet: The U.S. Financial Industry's Efforts to Combat This 
Problem.--Oversight hearing on Deleting Commercial Child 
Pornography Sites From the Internet: The U.S. Financial 
Industry's Efforts to Combat This Problem. Hearing held on 
September 21, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-141.
    Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: The Face 
of a Child Predator and Other Issues.--Oversight hearing on 
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: The Face of 
a Child Predator and Other Issues. Hearing held on September 
26, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-143.
    Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: Follow-
up Issues to the Masha Allen Adoption.--Oversight hearing on 
Sexual Exploitation of Children Over the Internet: Follow-up 
Issues to the Masha Allen Adoption. Hearing held on September 
27, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-145.
    Hewlett-Packard's Pretexting Scandal.--Oversight hearing on 
Hewlett-Packard's Pretexting Scandal. Hearing held on September 
28, 2006. PRINTED, Serial Number 109-146.
 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE OVERSIGHT PLAN FOR THE 109TH CONGRESS

    Clause 2(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives for the 109th Congress requires each standing 
Committee in the first session of a Congress to adopt an 
oversight plan for the two-year period of the Congress and to 
submit the plan to the Committee on Government Reform and to 
the Committee on House Administration.
    Clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI requires each Committee to submit 
to the House not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered 
year, a report on the activities of that committee under Rules 
X and XI during the Congress ending at noon on January 3 of 
such year. Clause 1(d)(3) of Rule XI also requires that such 
report shall include a summary of the oversight plans submitted 
by the Committee pursuant to clause 2(d) of Rule X; a summary 
of the actions taken and recommendations made with respect to 
each such plan; and a summary of any additional oversight 
activities undertaken by the Committee, and any recommendations 
made or action taken thereon.
    Part A of this section contains the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress, which was 
considered and adopted by a voice vote of the Full Committee on 
February 9, 2005, a quorum being present.
    Part B of this section contains a summary of the actions 
taken by the Committee on Energy and Commerce to implement the 
Oversight Plan for the 109th Congress and the recommendations 
made with respect to this plan.
                                 PART A

            Committee on Energy and Commerce Oversight Plan

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             109TH CONGRESS

                    CONGRESSMAN JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN

    Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the House requires each 
standing Committee to adopt an oversight plan for the two-year 
period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committees 
on Government Reform and House Administration not later than 
February 15 of the first session of the Congress.
    This is the oversight plan of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce for the 109th Congress. It includes the areas in which 
the Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 109th 
Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of 
additional matters as the need arises.
                              ----------                              

    Rule X, clause 2(d) of the Rules of the House requires each 
standing Committee to adopt an oversight plan for the two-year 
period of the Congress and to submit the plan to the Committees 
on Government Reform and House Administration not later than 
February 15 of the first session of the Congress.
    This is the oversight plan of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce for the 109th Congress. It includes the areas in which 
the Committee expects to conduct oversight during the 109th 
Congress, but does not preclude oversight or investigation of 
additional matters as the need arises.
                              ----------                              


            COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES

       THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIONS CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
management, operations, rulemaking, and enforcement actions of 
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In particular, the 
Committee will review Commission activity with regard to 
franchises, business opportunities, telemarketing and identity 
theft, as well as actions regarding false and deceptive 
advertising in safeguarding consumers.

                        CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
management, operations, and activities of the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission (CPSC) in safeguarding consumers, and 
particularly children, from faulty or dangerous products. This 
may include review of the adequacy of the CPSC's authority and 
data gathering and dissemination efforts with respect to 
products within its jurisdiction, and other activities that 
enhance consumer product safety, such as safety standard 
organizations.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
management, operations, and activities of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, particularly as they pertain to 
motor vehicle-related safety.

                       INTERSTATE AND E-COMMERCE

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine issues 
that substantially impact or affect interstate commerce, with 
particular interest in activities that impede such commerce. 
The Committee will review consumer information privacy in the 
commercial context. The Committee also will examine impediments 
to electronic commerce, including Federal legal and regulatory 
impediments. In addition, the Committee will review and 
consider issues relating to private-sector cyber security, 
fraud, and other criminal issues confronting e-commerce.

                                 TRADE

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will monitor and 
examine both multilateral trade agreements (including World 
Trade Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements as 
those agreements relate to services within the Committee's 
jurisdiction--including telecommunications, electronic 
commerce, food and drugs, and energy. The Committee also will 
examine non-tariff trade barriers, such as legal and regulatory 
barriers, to electronic commerce and other services within the 
Committee's jurisdiction.

                           TRAVEL AND TOURISM

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review issues 
affecting the travel and tourism industries, as well as how the 
industries, along with Federal and Federal governments, can 
encourage and promote the United States as a travel destination 
for international and domestic passengers.

                                 SPORTS

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine issues in 
the commerce of professional and amateur sports, including the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (and the recruiting of 
athletes). The Committee will also examine the abuse of 
steroids by amateur and professional athletes.

                     ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES


                         NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine 
issues relating to national energy policy, including U.S. 
policies that relate to production, supply, and consumption of 
electricity, oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power, 
nuclear power, and renewable energy. The Committee will examine 
the impact of government policies and programs on the 
exploration, production, and development of domestic energy 
resources. The Committee also will examine global crude oil 
supplies in light of potential supply interruptions, and 
increasing competition from other countries for swing supply. 
The Committee will examine other issues relating to the 
nation's current energy infrastructure with a view towards its 
expansion.

                          ELECTRICITY MARKETS

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review 
electricity transmission policies of the Federal government to 
promote competitive wholesale power markets, transmission, and 
generation infrastructure upgrades, and compliance with 
relevant statutes. It will examine the activities of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relating to 
electric industry restructuring, protection of consumers, and 
the development of efficient and vigorous wholesale markets for 
electricity.

  MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ITS NATIONAL LABORATORIES

    The Committee will oversee management and operations issues 
at the Department of Energy (DOE), including management and 
operations of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA) and the national laboratories. The Committee will also 
review DOE management of the contractors that operate the 
national laboratories. The Committee's oversight work will 
include a review of the implementation of new nuclear security 
requirements at NNSA and DOE facilities, ongoing safety and 
security problems at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the 
Office of Environmental Management's accelerated cleanup 
program and high-level waste management efforts, and DOE's 
progress toward submitting a license application for Yucca 
Mountain.

                   THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    The Committee will review the activities of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee will examine NRC's 
budget requests, conduct oversight of how the Commission 
discharges its various responsibilities, and review whether the 
Commission is an effective regulator of nuclear facilities. In 
particular, the Committee will monitor closely the efforts of 
NRC to fully implement new security requirements at commercial 
nuclear power plants.

                             CLEAN AIR ACT

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review 
significant activities regarding the Clean Air Act and the 
success of various efforts in achieving improved air quality in 
a manner that allows both administrative flexibility and 
improved cost-effectiveness. The Committee's review will 
include oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) strategies and actions to attain Clean Air Act standards.

               ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES


                     EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee intends to conduct 
its general oversight of the EPA, including review of the 
agency's funding decisions, resource allocation, grants, 
research activities, enforcement actions, relations with State 
and local governments, and program management and 
implementation.

                       HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
efficiency, effectiveness, funding, and pace of progress of the 
Superfund program. The Committee will review the EPA's 
relationship to the States' toxic waste cleanup programs, and 
whether Federal program reforms, additional funding, or 
stronger enforcement under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act are necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste 
sites. The Committee will conduct and review global hazardous 
materials treaties which the United States is a signatory and 
monitor compliance of these agreements with Federal and Federal 
environmental laws and regulations.

        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

    The Committee will review DOD's environmental activities 
and ascertain its record of clean-up effectiveness, ongoing 
monitoring, and compliance with Federal and Federal 
environmental laws and regulations.

                      HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES


                      FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
management, operations, and activities of the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA), including its implementation of relevant 
statutes and regulations connected to its mission to ensure the 
safety of drugs and the food supply. This will include the 
review of issues connected to the approval process and post- 
market surveillance of drugs and medical devices, as well as 
issues surrounding the innovation and development of vaccines, 
drugs, and devices.

               CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
management, operations, and activity of the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), including its management 
and oversight of the programs it administers. The Committee 
will also examine and review Medicare and Medicaid management 
and activity as it relates to ongoing Committee efforts to 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal health care 
programs.

               CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
management, operations, and activity of the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention, with particular focus on its work 
relating to surveillance and prevention of disease outbreaks.

                     NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine the 
National Institutes of Health's (NIH) organizational structure, 
priority setting, and research activities. This effort will 
include oversight of management and operations of internal NIH 
programs as well as NIH-funded extramural research.

                       TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES


                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its 
oversight of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) management 
and operations, including the impact of its decisions and 
actions on the U.S. economy and economic growth.

                 AVAILABILITY OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine the 
availability of broadband technologies and the deployment of 
broadband services and facilities. The Committee will also 
evaluate the impact of the Communications Act and FCC 
regulations on the deployment of new technologies, services, 
and facilities, and whether the law and the regulations are 
maximizing the incentives that all entities have to make 
investments in broadband networks.

                        UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine the FCC's 
universal service support policies and evaluate how these 
policies can be modernized to reflect the redistribution of 
communications traffic among new communications mediums, as 
well as the efficacy of utilizing fixed and mobile wireless 
technologies to reduce the costs of ensuring that high cost and 
low income consumers have reasonable access to 
telecommunications services. The Committee will also review 
whether the program's structure and internal processes need to 
be changed to control waste, fraud and abuse of Universal 
Service funds.

                           DIGITAL TELEVISION

    Congress gave each broadcaster an additional 6 MHz 
allocation of spectrum in 1997 to transmit television in 
digital format while they continue to provide analog broadcasts 
on their original 6 MHz channels. Each television broadcast 
licensee is supposed to return a 6 MHz channel and transmit 
exclusively in digital by Dec. 31, 2006, or once 85 percent of 
television households in the market can receive digital 
channels, whichever is later. Some of that spectrum has been 
earmarked for public-safety use upon return and some for 
auction for advanced commercial services, such as wireless 
broadband. In the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine 
the Commission's progress in completing the DTV transition.

              ENFORCEMENT OF THE FCC'S DECENCY REGULATIONS

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its 
oversight of the FCC's enforcement of broadcast decency laws 
and regulations, including examining how Congress and the FCC 
can help broadcasters to reduce the level of indecent material 
on television and radio.

                          SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its 
oversight of the FCC's management of the nation's spectrum. An 
increasing portion of communications services utilize spectrum 
to provide voice, video, and data services to consumers. The 
Committee will evaluate the FCC's spectrum-management policies 
to ensure that such policies are maximizing the use of the 
public airwaves for innovative communications services.

                        HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES


              CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee intends to review 
infrastructure assurance efforts that affect areas within the 
Committee's jurisdiction.

                           NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will monitor Federal 
government and private sector efforts at border crossings, 
seaports, and mail facilities. The Committee's review will 
analyze and assess Customs' and DOE's efforts and equipment 
aimed at detecting and preventing the smuggling of dangerous 
commerce, particularly nuclear and radiological weapons of mass 
destruction.

                 BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will review the 
implementation of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism 
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 by the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS), and the coordination between 
HHS and the Department of Homeland Security with respect to 
setting priorities and goals for bioterrorism-related research 
and preparedness activities.

                PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee will examine 
whether the communications needs of first responders are being 
met. The Committee will examine the progress being made to 
ensure that first responders have interoperable communications 
capabilities with local, Federal, and Federal public safety 
officials. The Committee will also consider whether first 
responders have an adequate amount of spectrum for voice, 
video, and data transmissions. In addition, the Committee will 
conduct oversight regarding the implementation of Phase II E911 
services, which enable Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) 
to pinpoint the location of wireless subscribers who dial 911.

        IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included a separate 
legislative provision entitled the Federal Information Security 
Management Act, which reauthorized and enhanced a government-
wide cyber security program under the direction of the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). During the 109th Congress, the 
Committee will review efforts to ensure that Federal agencies 
are complying with the cyber security provisions of the new 
Homeland Security Act.

                          MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES


                  UNITED NATION'S OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its 
investigation of the United Nation's Oil for Food Program.

                       FEDERAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT

    As part of the Committee's oversight responsibilities 
generally and as an expansion of its review of conflict-of-
interest policies in particular, the Committee will examine 
ethics policies and practices at Federal agencies and 
commissions within the Committee's jurisdiction. The Committee 
will also examine agency procurement practices and contracts, 
as well as agency implementation of laws and regulations. The 
Committee will also review agency risk assessment practices and 
implementation of the Data Quality Act.
                                 PART B

 Implementation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Overisght Plan 
                         for the 109th Congress

                              ----------                              


            COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES

       THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION'S CONSUMER PROTECTION EFFORTS

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review 
the management, operations, rulemaking, and enforcement actions 
of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As part of this 
oversight, the Committee reviewed Commission activity with 
regard to identity theft, as well as actions relating to false 
and deceptive advertising and consumer protection efforts and 
opportunities in general.
    On June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Violent & 
Explicit Video Games: Informing Parents & Protecting Children. 
The hearing focused on the content of video games and the 
system of rating those games. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from the Federal Trade Commission, a large retailer, 
the video game industry, the video games rating group, a 
professor of risk analysis and decision science, an expert in 
technology for children, and a media review public interest 
group. Relatedly, on September 26, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight 
hearing on Editing Hollywood's Editors: Cleaning Flicks for 
Families. The hearing focused on different methods and new 
technologies that allow consumers to view movies while muting 
or removing content that some viewers may find offensive or 
unnecessarily explicit. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from a consumer electronics company, the motion picture 
industry, a representative of the creative community, and a 
high-tech think tank.
    On September 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Contact 
Lens Sales: Is Market Regulation the Prescription? The focus of 
the hearing was the current state of the contact lens market. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade 
Commission, the Attorney General of the State of Utah, a 
contact lens retailer, a contact lens manufacturer, a 
representative of the American Academy of Ophthalmology; and a 
representative of the American Optometric Association.

                        CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

    In the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no direct 
oversight action, it continued to review the management, 
operations, and activities of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (CPSC) in safeguarding consumers, and particularly 
children, from faulty or dangerous products.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review 
the management, operations, and activities of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, particularly as they 
pertain to motor vehicle-related safety. As part of this 
oversight, on June 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on 
Reauthorization of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration. The purpose of the hearing was to inform 
Subcommittee Members about the pending reauthorization language 
in the Senate Transportation bill, and the potential inclusion 
of that language in the Transportation Conference report. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway 
Traffic and Safety Administration, the insurance industry, the 
automobile manufacturers, a public interest association that 
deals with automobile issues, an interest group that 
specializes in safety with regard to children.
    On July 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Motor Vehicle 
Technology and the Consumer: Views from the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. The hearing was about new 
technologies developing in the world of automobiles. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the National Highway 
Traffic and Safety Administration.

                       INTERSTATE AND E-COMMERCE

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to examine 
issues that substantially impact or affect interstate commerce, 
with particular interest in activities that impede such 
commerce. The Committee reviewed consumer information privacy 
in the commercial context and also examined impediments to 
electronic commerce, including Federal legal and regulatory 
impediments. In addition, the Committee reviewed and examined 
issues relating to private-sector cyber security, fraud, and 
other criminal issues confronting e-commerce.
    With regard to information privacy and related issues, on 
March 15, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Protecting 
Consumer's Data: Policy Issues Raised by ChoicePoint. The 
purpose of the hearing was to examine issues related to data 
security and identity theft. The Subcommittee examined whether 
existing law provides sufficient protection for consumer 
information. The Subcommittee received testimony from the 
Federal Trade Commission, two data brokers, a cybersecurity 
expert, and an expert on privacy law. On May 11, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held 
an oversight hearing on Securing Consumers' Data: Options 
Following Security Breaches. This hearing continued the 
Subcommittee's examination of consumer data security practices 
and consumer identity theft. The Subcommittee's primary focus 
was on whether existing law provides adequate protection for 
consumers and their data. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from two data brokers, a credit card company, a company 
specializing in digital encryption, and a law professor.
    Relatedly, in 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held three hearings regarding the Internet-based 
data broker industry. The purpose of the hearings was to 
examine the use by these data brokers and their subcontractors 
of pretexting or ``social engineering''--that is, deceit, 
impersonation, and fraud--to procure and sell consumers' 
confidential cell phone calling records and other personal 
consumer information, such as bank account activity or credit 
card statements. A June 21 hearing focused on the actual data 
brokers and how they acquire the information and to whom they 
sell the records, and the Subcommittee received testimony from 
three panels of witnesses. The first panel consisted of one 
witness who had been a victim of a data broker that repeatedly 
procured his cell phone records without his consent. On the 
second panel, two witnesses testified; the former owner of the 
Colorado data broker Touch Tone Information, Inc., and a 
``skiptracer'' who works for the repossession industry. The 
third panel included eleven witnesses, all of whom were data 
brokers that the Subcommittee had focused on during its 
investigation. All eleven witnesses refused to testify, each 
invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-
incrimination. A June 22 hearing focused on (1) Federal efforts 
to combat illicit data brokers and (2) the use of data brokers 
by Federal and local law enforcement agencies to procure phone 
records. The Subcommittee received testimony from three panels 
of witnesses. The first panel consisted of two assistant 
attorneys general--one from the Missouri Attorney General's 
Office and another from the Florida Attorney General's Office. 
The second panel consisted of representatives from the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. 
Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and the Department of 
Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 
During the third panel, police officers representing Miami-Dade 
Police Department and the Austin (Texas) Police Department 
testified. A September 29 hearing focused on progress made by 
Federal agencies to combat illicit data brokers, as well as 
steps being taken by the nation's largest wireless phone 
carriers to protect consumers' phone records from pretexters. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from four panels of 
witnesses. The first panel's single witness was a private 
investigator and frequent data broker customer for calling 
records, who refused to testify on the basis of their Fifth 
Amendment right against self-incrimination. The second panel's 
single witness was a journalist for a major newspaper whose 
phone records were procured by a pretexter. The third panel 
consisted of representatives of the nation's six largest 
wireless phone companies, including Cingular Wireless, Verizon 
Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint Nextel, Alltel Wireless, and US 
Cellular. The fourth panel received testimony from officials 
from the FCC and the FTC.
    On May 11, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Social 
Security Numbers In Commerce: Reconciling Beneficial Uses with 
Threats to Privacy. The hearing focused on privacy threats with 
regard to the dissemination of Social Security Numbers. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the Federal Trade 
Commission, the financial industry, an expert in pensions, a 
lawyer, and an expert in consumer privacy. On June 20, 2006, 
the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 
held an oversight hearing on Privacy in the Commercial World 
II. The hearing focused on the state of privacy protections in 
commercial transactions. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from an online auction site, a think tank, a law professor, a 
high-tech company, and an expert in consumer privacy.
    In connection with the Committee's oversight of issues 
affecting interstate commerce, on November 10, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held 
an oversight hearing on the Right to Repair: Industry 
Discussions and Legislative Options. The purpose of the hearing 
was to examine the status of industry negotiations to reach a 
non-legislative solution regarding the availability of service 
and repair information. Specifically, the industry participants 
held a series of meetings--facilitated by the Council of Better 
Business Bureaus--during August and September 2005 in an effort 
to reach agreement. Witnesses included the Federal Trade 
Commission, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the 
Coalition for Auto Repair Equality, the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, the AAA Auto Repair Network, the Automotive 
Service Association, the National Federation of Independent 
Business, Association of International Automobile 
Manufacturers, Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, and 
the National Automobile Dealers Association.
    On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Law 
and Economics of Interchange Fees. The hearing explored what 
these fees are, how payment systems are structured, and how 
they affect consumers, small businesses, and others. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the electronic payments 
industry, the convenience store industry, a coalition of small 
businesses, and a public interest group.
    On March 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing to examine Car 
Title Fraud: Issues and Approaches for Keeping Consumers Safe 
on the Road. Specifically, the Subcommittee examined the safety 
and fraud aspects for consumers that results when a damaged car 
receives a new title from another State that does not show the 
damage and is then sold to consumers fraudulently representing 
or hiding its actual condition. Witnesses described 
alternatives to the Federal regulatory regimes and the previous 
attempts to provide uniform Federal titling laws. The 
subcommittee received testimony from witnesses representing a 
State Department of Motor Vehicles, a consumer group, and 
industry participants.
    On March 29 and May 3, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection held a two-part oversight 
hearing exploring the intersection of the content industry and 
the consumer electronics industry, both how they are 
interdependent now and how they will continue to be in the 
future. The March 29, 2006, hearing focused on the video side 
of the industry, and the Subcommittee received testimony from 
two consumer electronics companies, the motion picture 
industry, and the video game industry. The May 3, 2006, hearing 
focused on the audio side of the industry, and the Subcommittee 
received testimony from a satellite radio company, the 
recording industry, the broadcasters, the songwriters, and a 
high-tech company.

                                 TRADE

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee monitored and examined 
both multilateral trade agreements (including World Trade 
Organization agreements) and bilateral agreements as those 
agreements relate to services within the Committee's 
jurisdiction--including telecommunications, electronic 
commerce, food and drugs, and energy. The Committee also will 
examine non-tariff trade barriers, such as legal and regulatory 
barriers, to electronic commerce and other services within the 
Committee's jurisdiction.
    On April 28, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Dominican 
Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative, a representative from the U.S. business 
industry, a labor group, an advocate for free trade, American 
manufacturers, the American sugar industry, an economics 
professor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and an environmental 
group.
    On June 9, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on issues before 
the JCCT. Under Secretary Dudas was Chair of the Intellectual 
Property Rights Working Group of the JCCT and thus the focus of 
the hearing centered on IP infringement to U.S. businesses that 
are estimated to be $2.5 to 3.5 billion in lost sales in 2004. 
Specifically, China's obligation as a member of the WTO and its 
commitments to prevent piracy and protect IP were examined, 
including China's commitments made at the prior meeting of the 
JCCT. The Subcommittee received testimony from Mr. Jon W. 
Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, 
Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office.
    On Wednesday, June 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, 
Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on 
Product Counterfeiting: How Fakes are Undermining U.S. Jobs, 
Innovation, and Consumer Safety. The purpose of the hearing was 
to examine issues related to the effects of product 
counterfeiting on the U.S. economy and consumers. The 
Subcommittee received testimony demonstrating the global 
marketplace for counterfeit goods has increased to $600 billion 
annually, regardless of quality of the product. The witnesses 
also described the safety implications for consumers and 
businesses who unknowingly buy or sell fake goods that do not 
meet safety regulations, such as faulty brake pads and 
counterfeit pharmaceuticals. Witnesses included representatives 
from a range of businesses engaged in manufacturing consumer 
products and pharmaceuticals, trade associations, and coalition 
of businesses formed to combat counterfeiting.
    On September 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, 
and Consumer Protection held a joint oversight hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to examine 
issues related to ICANN. Specifically the Subcommittee examined 
the trade-related issues of the current structure for U.S. 
businesses and the consumer benefits of non multi national 
governmental entity supervising or regulating the Internet, as 
had been proposed by some countries. The Subcommittees received 
testimony from the Department of Commerce, the chief executive 
officer of ICANN, and representatives of the software and 
information industry as well as public policy organizations.
    In connection with its oversight of trade as it relates to 
U.S. commerce in general, on June 29, 2006, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce will hold an oversight hearing on Growth, 
Opportunity, Competition--America Goes to Work. The purpose of 
the hearing was to explore the Department of Commerce's mission 
to promote foreign and domestic commerce of the United States. 
The Department of Commerce has taken the responsibility to 
promote economic development and technological advancement in 
the U.S. through its various programs and bureaus. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from the Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce.

                           TRAVEL AND TOURISM

    In the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no direct 
oversight action, it continued to monitor issues affecting the 
travel and tourism industries, as well as how the industries, 
along with Federal and Federal governments, can encourage and 
promote the United States as a travel destination for 
international and domestic passengers.

                                 SPORTS

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined issues in the 
commerce of professional and amateur sports, including the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association (and the recruiting of 
athletes). The Committee will also examine the abuse of 
steroids by amateur and professional athletes.
    On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on Steroids in 
Sports: Cheating the System and Gambling Your Health. The 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection 
examined the effect of increased use and availability of 
steroids on the health of the individuals and integrity of the 
competitions. Additionally, the Subcommittee examined methods 
to combat the use of steroids. Witnesses included a current 
Congressman, a parent of a deceased high school athlete who 
used steroids, health experts and researchers, the U.S. anti-
doping agency, and representatives of professional, collegiate, 
and high school athletic leagues and associations. On December 
7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
Protection held an oversight hearing on Determining a Champion 
on the Field: A Comprehensive Review of the BCS and Postseason 
College Football. The purpose of the hearing was to examine the 
current system for determining a national champion for Division 
I college football. Included in the discussion of whether the 
system was fair was the financial impact the bowl system and 
BCS system have on BCS and non-BCS teams and conferences. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from witnesses representing 
bowl coalitions, athletic conferences, a university chancellor, 
and individual bowls including a BCS bowl and a non-BCS bowl.
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held three 
hearings related to the nation's thoroughbred horse racing 
industry. In particular, the purpose of the hearings was to 
focus on the state of ``on-track'' injury insurance and other 
health and welfare issues that are faced by jockeys, exerciser 
riders, and other workers in the thoroughbred horse racing 
industry. An October 18 hearing primarily focused on the 
Jockeys' Guild--an association of licensed professional jockeys 
that had historically taken care of its members' health 
insurance and welfare needs, and also provided assistance to 
permanently disabled riders. The hearing examined allegations 
that under the leadership and direction of the Guild's then-
Chief Executive Officer, the Guild's management had improperly 
canceled a catastrophic injury insurance policy, without 
notice; and that the then-CEO had mismanaged the Guild's 
finances, including several disability funds. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from three panels of witnesses. On the first 
panel, a former professional jockey who was permanently 
paralyzed during a horse race at Mountaineer Park, in West 
Virginia, and the jockey's wife, testified. The second panel 
consisted of nine current or former professional jockeys, 
including Hall of Fame riders, who were then or formerly 
involved with management of the Guild. Three witnesses 
testified during the third panel, including the Guild's then-
CEO, the Guild's Chief Operating Officer, and the Guild's 
General Counsel. A November 17 hearing focused on efforts by 
various stakeholders in the horse racing industry to improve 
the health and welfare of jockeys and other workers, including 
steps taken to establish better catastrophic insurance coverage 
or create workers' compensation programs. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first 
panel of seven witnesses consisted of representatives from five 
of the nation's major race track companies, as well as the 
Thoroughbred Racing Association and the National Thoroughbred 
Racing Association. The second panel of ten witnesses included 
representatives of: various trade associations for race horse 
trainers, breeders, and owners; the Kentucky Racing Health & 
Welfare Fund; the New York State Jockey Injury Compensation 
Fund; the California Horse Racing Board; the Delaware 
Thoroughbred Racing Commission; and the Jockeys' Guild. A May 9 
hearing focused on the status of the Jockeys' Guild following 
its November 15, 2005, decision by its Board of Directors to 
fire the then-CEO and his management team, and to receive 
further testimony from the head of racing at Mountaineer Park 
race track. The Subcommittee received testimony from two panels 
of witnesses. The first panel consisted of three witnesses--the 
Guild's interim National Manager, the Guild's Chairman of the 
Board, and the Guild's interim General Counsel. On the second 
panel one witness testified; the Director of Racing at 
Mountaineer Race Track & Gaming Resort, in Chester, West 
Virginia.

                     ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES

                         NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee examined issues 
relating to national energy policy, including U.S. policies 
that relate to production, supply, and consumption of 
electricity, oil and natural gas, coal, hydroelectric power, 
nuclear power, and renewable energy. The Committee examined the 
impact of government policies and programs on the exploration, 
production, and development of domestic energy resources. The 
Committee also examined global crude oil supplies in light of 
potential supply interruptions and increasing competition from 
other countries for swing supply. The Committee examined other 
issues relating to the nation's current energy infrastructure 
with a view towards its expansion.
    As part of this oversight, on September 7, 2005, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing on 
the impact and recovery efforts in States affected by Hurricane 
Katrina. The hearing focused specifically on issues related to 
energy and communications infrastructure. The committee 
received testimony from the Department of Energy, the Energy 
Information Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and 
the Federal Communications Commission, the Governor of the 
State of Mississippi, the State of Louisiana, consumer and 
environmental advocates, and representatives involved in the 
pricing of gasoline along the gasoline supply chain: 
production, refining, pipeline, marketing, and futures trading.
    On October 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss the EIA's 
projections for the supply and price of crude oil, gasoline, 
heating oil, diesel, natural gas, propane, coal and electricity 
for this winter. The subcommittee received testimony from a 
representative of the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
    On November 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to investigate the supply and 
cost of heating oil and natural gas for the winter season. 
These two fuels are primarily used in heating American 
households during the winter months. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Energy, 
the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, 
representatives of the home heating industry, and advocates of 
energy efficiency.
    On December 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to address the challenges of 
``peak oil,'' where the rate of world oil production will not 
be able to increase. Experts believe the peak will occur as 
early as the year 2025. The subcommittee received testimony 
from Members of Congress, representatives of the Association 
for the Study of Peak Oil, the Science Applications 
International Cooperation, the Cambridge Energy Research 
Associates and the Canadian Embassy.
    On May 4, 2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 
an oversight hearing on World Crude Oil Pricing. The hearing 
examined the role of supply and demand fundamentals on world 
oil pricing, as well as geopolitical concerns that also affect 
price. The Committee received testimony from the Energy 
Information Administration, Cambridge Energy Research 
Associates, New York Mercantile Exchange, and the Government 
Accountability Office.
    On May 10 and 11, 2006, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce held an oversight hearing on gasoline supply, price, 
and specifications in the wake of rising domestic gasoline 
prices. The hearing focused on fuel specification transitions, 
logistics, infrastructure, and transportation, and how boutique 
fuels affect gasoline prices. The Committee received testimony 
from representatives from Federal government and State and 
local air quality officials. The Committee also received 
testimony from the motor fuels industry, focusing on 
production, refining, transportation, and retail sales.
    On May 18, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 
held an oversight hearing to describe and explore current 
research into technologies developed for generating electricity 
for the future. The hearing was an update for the members of 
the subcommittee on renewable electric generation technologies 
and the costs associated with such technology as well as 
forecast the direction such research is heading. The 
subcommittee received testimony from various government and 
private representatives of the energy industry.
    On May 24, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality 
held an oversight hearing to examine developments in next 
generation vehicle and fuel technology. This included an 
evaluation of hybrid and flexible fuel vehicles as well as the 
use of diesel fuel, fuel cells, ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas 
and coal-to-liquids. The subcommittee received testimony from 
representatives of the Department of Energy, motor car 
manufacturers, and representatives of the fuel industry.
    In addition, on May 3, 2006, the Chairman of the Full 
Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations wrote the five largest integrated oil companies 
to gather information about each company's plans and priorities 
for ensuring ample domestic oil refinery capacity and gasoline 
supply. A shortage of domestic refining capacity was one of the 
primary factors contributing to gasoline price spikes in the 
Spring of 2006. The letters requested information concerning 
historical capacity levels of each company's domestic 
refineries, as affected by maintenance and other factors that 
can temporarily restrict refinery supply, and information 
concerning long-term priorities for expanding refinery capacity 
and for providing a reliable and abundant supply of fuel in the 
future.
    In connection to the Committee's oversight of energy 
infrastructure, on April 27, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Air Quality held an oversight hearing to oversee 
implications of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 by 
the Pipelines and Hazardous Material Safety Administration as 
well as Federal and industry regulators in order to consider 
reauthorizing the Act. The subcommittee received testimony from 
the Department of Transportation, the National Transportation 
Safety Board, the Government Accountability Office, the 
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and 
the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, 
and from various advocates of the pipeline industry.
    On September 7, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing regarding the crude oil 
production pipelines on the North Slope of Alaska that are 
operated and maintained by BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BP). 
The hearing focused on the issues surrounding the March 2, 
2006, and August 6, 2006, oil spills from corroded crude oil 
transmission pipelines for the Greater Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, 
including issues related to the adequacy of BP's corrosion 
control and monitoring program and BP's failure to inspect and 
maintain the pipelines properly. The Subcommittee received 
testimony from two panels of witnesses. The first panel's three 
witnesses included the Chairman and President of BP America, 
Inc., the President of BP Exploration Alaska, Inc., and the 
former manager of the Corrosion, Inspection, and Chemicals 
Group for BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. The second panel's two 
witnesses were the head of U.S. Department of Transportation's 
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and the 
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation. The Subcommittee continued to examine issues 
related to pipeline sludge, sediment, and corrosion. On October 
6, 2006 the leadership of the Full Committee and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations sent a letter to 
BP requesting further information about BP's prior knowledge of 
sediment buildup in the transmission pipelines and the need to 
conduct pigging operations in those lines.

                          ELECTRICITY MARKETS

    In the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no direct 
oversight action, it continued to review electricity 
transmission policies of the Federal government to promote 
competitive wholesale power markets, transmission, and 
generation infrastructure upgrades, and compliance with 
relevant statutes. It also continued to examine the activities 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relating to 
electric industry restructuring, protection of consumers, and 
the development of efficient and vigorous wholesale markets for 
electricity.

  MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ITS NATIONAL LABORATORIES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to oversee 
management and operations issues at the Department of Energy 
(DOE), including management and operations of the National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the national 
laboratories. The Committee also reviewed DOE management of the 
contractors that operate the national laboratories. The 
Committee's oversight work included a review of the 
implementation of new nuclear security requirements at NNSA and 
DOE facilities, ongoing safety and security problems at the Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, the Office of Environmental 
Management's accelerated cleanup program and high-level waste 
management efforts, and DOE's progress toward submitting a 
license application for Yucca Mountain.
    As part of its oversight efforts, on February 9, 2005, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing on 
the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Proposal and 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The hearing focused on the 
Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006, and also 
on the Department of Energy's comments on the Energy Policy Act 
of 2005. The Committee received testimony from the Secretary of 
U.S. Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and representatives 
of consumers, industry, and other stakeholders. On March 9, 
2006, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held another 
oversight hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 
2007 Budget Proposal and received testimony from the Secretary 
of the U.S. Department of Energy.
    On May 5, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review management concerns at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The hearing reviewed a 
wide range of ongoing management problems identified by the DOE 
Inspector General (DOE IG) and the Defense Nuclear Facility 
Safety Board (DNFSB), as well as more recent security and 
safety problems that led to the shutdown of operations at LANL. 
The laboratory was shut down due to the mishandling of 
classified material and a major safety incident that resulted 
in the partial blinding of an employee at LANL. In addition to 
these problems, the DOE IG described ongoing weaknesses at LANL 
including problems with project management, security, and 
contract administration. The Chairman of the DNFSB described 
significant and complex safety issues at the lab, and 
identified several corrective actions needed to improve safety 
at the laboratory.
    On October 7, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to review GAO findings regarding 
DOE's efforts to consolidate surplus plutonium inventories. 
Consolidation of plutonium inventories to one site would reduce 
significant health and safety issues and reduce large security 
costs associated with storing this material in multiple 
locations. For example, moving plutonium out of the Hanford 
site would save the Department more than $85 million annually 
in security costs at Hanford. GAO testified that DOE cannot 
move forward with plans to consolidate plutonium inventories at 
the Savannah River Site in South Carolina due to legal 
impediments and insufficient storage areas at the site. GAO 
recommended DOE develop a comprehensive plan to stabilize, 
store, and dispose of plutonium inventories across the complex. 
At the hearing, DOE testified that it would move forward and 
develop a plan for plutonium consolidation within two years. On 
May 1, 2006, the Committee sent a follow-up letter requesting 
that GAO review the extent to which NNSA has sufficient storage 
space to store and monitor plutonium pit storage containers at 
Pantex safely and cost-effectively, and the effect of the 
delays that NNSA is experiencing constructing the Pit 
Disassembly and Conversion Facility, and the MOX Fuel 
Fabrication Facility in its ability to dispose of surplus 
weapons-grade plutonium permanently.
    On January 19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a field hearing in Paducah, Kentucky, to 
review DOE operations at the Paducah site. The DOE Assistant 
Secretary for Environmental Management provided testimony on a 
range of issues including environmental cleanup challenges at 
the site, the conversion of approximately 490,000 tons of 
depleted uranium hexafluoride, and DOE's plans to recycle 9,700 
tons of scrap nickel at the site. The second panel consisted of 
the President of Bechtel Jacobs, an environmental cleanup 
contractor at Paducah, as well as representatives from the 
Paducah community including the Mayor of Paducah and a local 
labor union representing workers at Paducah. The hearing also 
focused on DOE's implementation of Section 633 of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005, concerning the employee benefits of 
contractor employees working at the Paducah and Portsmouth 
sites. Section 633 provides that, when DOE changes its 
contractors at Paducah or Portsmouth, the contractor employees 
do not lose their accrued benefits. Subcommittee Members 
expressed concern that DOE had not fully implemented this 
section. Following the hearing, DOE clarified that it would 
fully implement Section 633 for all affected employees.
    On March 10, 2005, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air 
Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss and review funding 
options for the Yucca Mountain repository program including 
guaranteeing that annual Nuclear Waste Fund payments are made 
accessible to the program for funding purposes. The Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 and its amendments of 1987 
established Yucca Mountain as the primary site of long-term 
nuclear waste disposal. In February of 2002, the President 
recommended to Congress that Yucca Mountain undergo development 
into a repository and instructed the Department of Energy to 
proceed with construction licensing. On April 8, 2002, however, 
the Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the House a 
statement of disapproval regarding the proposed construction on 
Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy was cleared to proceed 
with construction when on May 8, 2002 the House passed H.J. 
Res. 87, which overrode the objections voiced by the State of 
Nevada. The subcommittee received testimony from the State of 
Nevada as well as from both Federal and State government 
organizations. Several other impediments may prevent the 
completion of the site by the 2010 deadline. These include 
establishment of a transportation program, acquiring Federal 
land to surround the Yucca Mountain site, and construction 
activities. The first goal of this hearing was to discuss and 
establish funding options so the 2010 deadline is met. 
Relatedly, on March 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Air Quality held another oversight hearing to discuss the 
status of funding for the development of Yucca Mountain into a 
repository site for nuclear waste disposal. The subcommittee 
received testimony from the Department of Energy. And on July 
19, 2006, the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality held an 
oversight hearing to examine the Department of Energy's revised 
schedule for the development of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear 
waste repository. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Energy.
    Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
has continued its review of DOE's efforts to submit a license 
application for Yucca Mountain to the NRC. DOE missed its 
December 2005 deadline for submitting the license application, 
and had subsequently announced plans to submit the license 
application by June 30, 2008, and open the repository by 2017. 
On March 24, 2005, the Committee sent a letter to Energy 
Secretary Bodman to obtain documents relating to falsification 
of documentation by employees of the United States Geological 
Survey at the Yucca Mountain project. The documentation in 
question related to computer modeling involving water 
infiltration and climate. The Department has taken several 
steps to review and analyze the data in question to ensure that 
the technical aspects of the repository license application are 
not impacted.
    Los Alamos National Laboratory is not alone in standing 
down its facilities. In October 2004, the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Center had a stand-down of operations for nearly 5 
months following a serious electrical accident. Lawrence 
Livermore Laboratory's Plutonium Facility, also operated by the 
University of California, had a stand-down in January 2005 
because of safety concerns, and resumed reduced activities only 
in October 2005. On May 1, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman 
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent 
a letter to GAO requesting a review of the safety performance 
of the DOE's major laboratories. Specifically, we requested (1) 
the safety records of these laboratories; (2) nuclear safety 
violations and resulting penalties paid by the laboratories 
under the Price Anderson Act; (3) the circumstances of recent 
stand-downs, including the reasons for and duration of each 
stand-down and the process for resuming activities; and (4) 
actions taken by DOE to improve the safety performance of its 
management and operating contractors.
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued 
its review of DOE's efforts to clean up 177 underground storage 
tanks containing radioactive wastes at the Hanford site in 
Richland, Washington. On July 12, 2005, the Full Committee 
Chairman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
Chairman sent a letter to Energy Secretary Bodman requesting 
information on the cost and status of the construction of 
vitrification plants for the immobilization of the high and 
low-level radioactive wastes. DOE has failed to develop a 
reliable cost and schedule baseline for the project. As a 
result, the initial December 2000 cost estimate for the project 
of $4.32 billion has grown to a recent cost estimate of $12.2 
billion. DOE has asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to 
validate these costs, and the Department is working towards 
finalizing a baseline for the project by the Spring of 2007.

                   THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    The Committee reviewed the activities of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Committee examined NRC's 
budget requests, conducted oversight of how the Commission 
discharges its various responsibilities, and reviewed whether 
the Commission is an effective regulator of nuclear facilities. 
In particular, the Committee monitored closely the efforts of 
NRC to fully implement new security requirements at commercial 
nuclear power plants. On June 16, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review NRC's 
reactor oversight process (ROP). NRC developed the ROP to 
regulate the nuclear industry more effectively and efficiently, 
by applying more objective, timely, and risk-informed criteria 
when assessing nuclear plant performance. Under the ROP, few 
nuclear plants have experienced significant safety performance 
issues overall, and even fewer plants have experienced multiple 
or repetitive degraded conditions. According to testimony from 
GAO, of the 4,000 inspection findings between 2001 and 2005, 97 
percent of these findings were of ``very low'' safety 
significance. GAO also determined that NRC continues to make 
improvements to its reactor oversight process in key areas. NRC 
testified that it would continue to improve the ROP by 
increasing its transparency and incorporate additional risk 
informed measures.

                             CLEAN AIR ACT

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review 
significant activities regarding the Clean Air Act and the 
success of various efforts in achieving improved air quality in 
a manner that allows both administrative flexibility and 
improved cost-effectiveness. The Committee's review included 
oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
strategies and actions to attain Clean Air Act standards. In 
connection with this, on May 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Air Quality held an oversight hearing to discuss and 
evaluate the structure of the Administration's Clear Skies 
Initiative. The goal of the hearing was to illustrate the 
relationship of the Clear Skies Initiative and the Current 
Clean Air Act and state the policy goals and principles of the 
CSI. The subcommittee received testimony from the Council on 
Environmental Quality and the EPA.

               ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ISSUES


                     EPA MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

    During the 109th Congress, while the Committee took no 
direct oversight action, it continued to conduct its general 
oversight of the EPA, including review of the agency's funding 
decisions, resource allocation, grants, research activities, 
enforcement actions, relations with State and local 
governments, and program management and implementation.

                       HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee reviewed the 
efficiency, effectiveness, funding, and pace of progress of the 
Superfund program. The Committee also reviewed the EPA's 
relationship to the States' toxic waste cleanup programs, and 
whether Federal program reforms, additional funding, or 
stronger enforcement under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act are necessary to expedite cleanups at toxic waste 
sites. In connection with this, the Subcommittee on Environment 
and Hazardous Materials conducted a two-part oversight hearing 
to evaluate the proper definition of electronic waste and 
investigate appropriate methods of regulation. On July 20, 
2005, the Subcommittee discussed the status of both public and 
private electronic waste programs in the United States as well 
as the differences between three Federal enacted programs. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from officials representing the 
Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
and the States of Maryland, Maine, and California. On September 
8, 2005, the Subcommittee resumed consideration of matters 
related to interstate commerce issues raised by regulation of 
electronic regulation of electronic waste, the role of the 
private sector and non-profits in managing electronic waste, 
and environmental concerns with the status quo. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from representatives of 
electronics retailers, electronic product manufacturers, 
recycling businesses, and environmental groups, and charitable 
organizations.
    On November 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Environment and 
Hazardous Materials held an oversight hearing to discuss the 
consolidation of livestock and agriculture and evaluate the 
risk agricultural inputs, products and byproducts put on the 
environment. The subcommittee received testimony from officials 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and other various 
environmental and agricultural organizations.

        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

    While it took now direct oversight action, the Committee 
continued to review DOD's environmental activities and 
ascertain its record of clean-up effectiveness, ongoing 
monitoring, and compliance with Federal and Federal 
environmental laws and regulations.

                      HEALTH AND HEALTHCARE ISSUES


                      FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review 
the management, operations, and activities of the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA), including its implementation of relevant 
statutes and regulations connected to its mission to ensure the 
safety of drugs and the food supply. This included review of 
issues connected to the approval process and post-market 
surveillance of drugs and medical devices, as well as issues 
surrounding the innovation and development of vaccines, drugs, 
and devices.
    On December 13, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing about strengthening efforts to 
combat the sales of controlled substances over the Internet. 
This issue involved the access to highly addictive controlled 
substances, which can be imported by consumers of any age, 
sometimes without a prescription or consultation with a 
physician. Testimony primarily focused on current assessments 
concerning the nature and extent of access to controlled 
substances over the Internet, current actions being taken to 
curtail such access, current restraints on further actions that 
could be taken, and identification of possible actions that 
would require Federal legislation, administrative action, or 
private sector initiatives. The hearing featured two panels of 
witnesses. The first panel included witnesses from the Federal 
government: the GAO, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, and Deputy Chief, Office of Enforcement 
Operations, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Assistant 
Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, Bureau of Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP); Director, Office of Drug Evaluation 
II, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research, FDA. The second panel included a witness from 
IntegriChain, Inc.; a former official with FDA's Office of 
Criminal Investigations; the Senior Vice President, Public 
Policy, Visa, U.S.A., Inc.; an outside counsel on behalf of 
Mastercard International; the Vice President, Corporate 
Security, FedEx Corporation; the Corporate Security Manager, 
UPS; the Senior Policy Counsel, Google; and Vice 
President,Yahoo! Inc.
    On May 18, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing on the issue of generic drugs and their role 
in decreasing health care costs for patients. The hearing 
featured one panel of witnesses from advocacy groups and also 
private industry.
    As part of the Committee's ongoing oversight of drug safety 
issues, in the previous Congress on June 10, 2004, the Full 
Committee Chairman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations Chairman asked the GAO to conduct a review of 
FDA's current organizational structure and decision-making 
process for postmarket drug safety. In March 2006, the GAO 
issued its report and concluded that the FDA ``lacks clear and 
effective processes for making decisions about'' the safety of 
medicines that millions of Americans rely on. Among the GAO's 
findings: FDA's postmarket safety decision-making process is 
``complex and iterative''; The agency ``lacks clear and 
effective processes for making decisions about, and providing 
management oversight of, postmarket safety issues''; GAO noted 
a ``lack of criteria for determining what safety actions to 
take and when to take them''; while recent initiatives, such as 
the establishment of a Drug Safety Oversight Board, offer 
promise, they do not address the ``lack of systemic tracking of 
ongoing safety issues.''
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued 
to investigate issues surrounding the withdrawal of a non-
steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) Cox-2 inhibitor called 
rofecoxib, known commercially as Vioxx, by its manufacturer 
Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck). On September 30, 2004, Merck 
publicly announced a voluntary worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx, a 
medicine approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in treating 
osteoarthritis and the management of acute pain in adults, and 
later, for rheumatoid arthritis. The publicly reported reason 
for this withdrawal was new data from a three-year clinical 
trial that showed a two-fold increase in cardiovascular adverse 
events in patients taking Vioxx. On November 23, 2004, 
Committee Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell wrote 
Merck and the FDA to request more information and documentation 
relating to: (1) FDA knowledge about these cardiovascular 
adverse events associated with Vioxx, (2) when FDA learned 
about this information, and (3) the action FDA took in response 
to cardiovascular safety concerns associated with Vioxx. In 
December 2004, Pfizer Inc., announced it was suspending sales 
of Celebrex, also a Cox-2 inhibitor drug, based on some recent 
data on cardiovascular events in an on-going study. Shortly 
thereafter, the Committee wrote Pfizer requesting information 
on adverse cardiovascular events occurring in patients that 
took Celebrex and Pfizer's other marketed Cox-2 inhibitor, 
Bextra. In spring 2005, the FDA advisory committee concluded 
that Bextra should be removed permanently from the market, 
based primarily on adverse skin reactions occurring with the 
drug. Pfizer voluntarily agreed to remove Bextra from the U.S. 
market. The FDA advisory committee agreed that Celebrex should 
remain on the market with a black box warning concerning 
cardiovascular events. Celebrex continues to be on the U.S. 
market. The FDA committee was split on the recommendation 
concerning Vioxx. However, Merck did not seek to reinstate 
Vioxx to the worldwide market.
    In addition, on August 16, 2005, the Full Committee 
Chairman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
Chairman wrote to FDA about a drug-safety issue arising from 
the Committee's oversight of the FDA's regulatory decisions 
concerning Palladone, described by FDA as ``a once-a-day pain 
management drug containing a very potent narcotic.'' On July 
13, 2005, the FDA requested Purdue Pharma, L.P. (``Purdue'') to 
withdraw the painkiller prescription drug, Palladone, from the 
market because of concerns that patients could die from taking 
the drug together with alcohol. In reviewing how and why the 
FDA approved and later requested the withdrawal of Palladone, 
the Committee staff learned that while Palladone was still 
marketed, FDA posted on its website only safety information 
about the risks of alcohol interaction with Palladone as 
reflected in the language of the labeling and medication 
formally approved by the FDA. However, after approving 
Palladone in September 2004 but prior to the product's launch 
in November 2004, the FDA permitted Purdue under a special 
process called a CBE (Changes Being Effected) supplement, to 
use stronger labeling and medication guide language about the 
alcohol risks shown in early results of studies conducted by 
Purdue that began in early September 2004. That safety 
language, which was in fact the actual labeling and medication 
guide used in the marketing of Palladone, was reflected on 
Purdue's website but not on the FDA's website. While there was 
no final FDA approval for the Purdue label with the alcohol 
warning language, the Committee requestors were concerned that 
patients and practitioners who accessed the FDA website were 
not informed of the most current safety risks of Palladone and 
alcohol interaction. Updating such information even without 
final FDA approval is vital to ensuring the safety of American 
consumers taking prescription drugs. In furtherance of helping 
the American public get the most current and accurate drug-
safety information from the FDA, the Chairmen's letter 
requested the FDA to respond with (1) a list, as of July 1, 
2005, of any other drugs besides Palladone for which the 
labeling and medication guide information on the FDA website 
has been superceded by new labeling and medication guide 
information permitted under a CBE supplement but not finally 
approved and (2) the specific actions taken by FDA to ensure 
that the agency's website reflects the most current safety 
information about approved drugs (or other FDA-approved 
products generally). On October 20, 2005 the FDA sent a written 
response, acknowledging that FDA's policy has been to post only 
approved labeling on its website and that there may be a period 
of time during which there may be a discrepancy between the 
company's labeling and the FDA's posted labeling. The FDA noted 
that the agency was considering a change to this policy to 
address this issue. In September 2006, the FDA published a 
draft guidance document for comment announcing to holders of 
new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications, or 
biologics license applications who intend to submit a ``Changes 
Being Effected'' supplement (CBE supplement) to make a post-
approval labeling change, that the FDA will make labeling 
revisions identified in the CBE supplement publicly available 
upon receipt of the supplement by FDA.
    On August 7, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
the Attorney General of the United States, requesting that the 
Department of Justice provide its updated views concerning the 
application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) 
to individuals operating outside the United States who sell 
counterfeit, misbranded, and adulterated drugs to consumers in 
the United States, and who cannot be prosecuted on other 
statutory grounds.
    On October 24, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations wrote to the 
Acting Commissioner of the FDA about the adequacy of FDA's food 
safety and food security efforts. In particular, the request 
letter asked for certain information gained from the FDA's 
Security and Surveillance Assignment conducted in 2004 and how 
some of this information was leveraged to prevent and/or detect 
outbreaks such as E. coli in spinach.

               CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee reviewed the 
management, operations, and activity of the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), including its management 
and oversight of the programs it administers. The Committee 
examined and reviewed Medicare and Medicaid management and 
activity as it relates to ongoing Committee efforts to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal health care programs.
    In connection with Medicaid, on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight hearing 
to examine the National Governors Association's (NGA) interim 
Medicaid reform policy and continuing efforts to refine policy 
proposals. There was one panel consisting of NGA Chairman and 
Governor of the State of Virginia and NGA Vice Chairman and 
Governor of the State of Arkansas.
    On September 8, 2005 the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
held an oversight hearing to examine Medicaid reform proposals 
and explore how these proposals can improve beneficiary access 
to health care services, create incentives for the better 
utilization of existing services, improve health outcomes and 
reduce instances of beneficiaries improperly transferring 
assets in order to gain Medicaid coverage for institutional 
care. The Committee heard testimony from several advocacy 
groups and professional health service providers.
    The Committee on Energy and Commerce also held a two-day 
field hearing to provide Members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee with a forum within which to examine the impact of 
illegal immigration on the health delivery systems of the areas 
surrounding Brentwood, Tennessee, and Dalton, Georgia, and how 
recent legislative efforts may impact this growing problem. 
Specifically, witnesses at the field hearing provided testimony 
on how Sec. 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Improved 
Enforcement of Documentation Requirements) is being implemented 
in Tennessee and Georgia, and any State plans to potentially 
implement Sec. 6043 of the DRA (Emergency Room Co-payments for 
Non-emergency Room Care). The first day of the field hearing 
took place on August 10, 2006, in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the 
Committee received testimony from Tennessee State 
Representatives and Senators, CMS, Tenncare, and several local 
hospitals. The second day of the hearing took place on August 
15, 2006 in Dalton, Georgia. The Committee received testimony 
from Georgia State Representatives and Senators, Georgia 
Department of Human Resources (DHR), CMS, and several local 
hospitals.
    On April 27, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing that examined long-term care within the 
context of Medicaid and entitlement spending generally and 
explored ideas to promote private long-term care financing 
options. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research 
Service, and several other expert witnesses from the industry.
    On May 12, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on specialty hospitals, particularly 
the expiration of the moratorium on physician referrals to 
specialty hospitals. The subcommittee received testimony from 
the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
Services, the Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission, and several doctors in the specialty hospital 
profession.
    On June 22, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing that examined the Medicaid payments for 
prescription drugs. Witnesses at this hearing provided 
information about options that the States and Federal 
government have to ensure that there is more accuracy and 
transparency in prescription drug payments in the Medicaid 
program. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability 
Office, and other Medicaid prescription drug experts.
    On May 17, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing examining the growing number of options for 
Americans to plan ahead for potential LTC costs thereby 
delaying or avoiding Medicaid dependency. The hearing also 
examined issues related to donated and paid care giving and 
caregiver training. The subcommittee received testimony from 
the National Council on Aging, American Health Insurance Plans, 
American Council of Life Insurers, RTI International, AARP, 
American Red Cross, Schmieding Center for Senior Health and 
Education, and a union.
    Under the 340B Drug Discount Program (340B Program), drug 
manufacturers that participate in the Medicaid Program are 
required to provide outpatient drugs to certain covered 
entities at or below a specified ceiling price. These covered 
entities include community health centers, public hospitals, 
and various Federal grantees. Participating 340B entities spent 
approximately $3.4 billion on outpatient drugs in calendar year 
2003, roughly 1.7 percent of the U.S. drug market. The 340B 
Program is administered by the Health Resources and Services 
Administration (HRSA), a division of the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS). On December 15, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to 
examine problems with the oversight and administration of the 
340B Program, as well as possible solutions to improve 
efficiency and transparency. Many of the structural and 
logistical problems with the 340B Program were detailed in an 
October 2005 report prepared by HHS's Office of Inspector 
General (OIG), including: (1) systemic problems with the 
accuracy and reliability of the government's record of 340B 
ceiling prices; (2) lack of detailed, written procedures for 
calculating the 340B ceiling price; (3) lack of a system for 
ensuring that participating entities receive the statutory 
discount; (4) failure to compare the government's 340B ceiling 
prices to those of the drug manufacturers; (5) lack of 
necessary legislative, regulatory, or contractual authority to 
enforce compliance; and (6) the inability of participating 
entities to verify independently that they were paying at or 
below the ceiling price due to confidentiality provisions. 
Witnesses at this hearing included representatives of: (1) OIG; 
(2) HRSA; (3) the Public Hospital Pharmacy Coalition; (4) the 
340B prime vendor; and (5) GlaxoSmithKline, the only 
pharmaceutical manufacturer which had agreed to provide ceiling 
price calculations to the prime vendor.
    As part of its continuing oversight of Medicaid 
prescription drug reimbursement, the Full Committee Chairman 
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman sent 
a letter to the Medicaid directors of all 50 states on February 
10, 2005, requested information to help understand what steps 
each Federal was taking to control rising drug expenditures. 
This letter asked the states to provide ingredient 
reimbursement and dispensing fee information for 20 popular 
brand and generic drugs, as well as a description of the steps 
taken to control drug spending.
    In the 109th Congress, the Committee also opened an 
oversight inquiry into the practice of Medicaid estate 
planning. This practice involves potential Medicaid recipients 
using a variety of wealth transfers and methods to alter assets 
and income streams to obtain eligibility for Medicaid nursing 
home coverage. On April 27, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman 
and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote 
the Medicaid officials of the 50 states to learn the extent and 
nature of actions the states have been taking with regard to 
Medicaid estate planning.
    With regard to Medicare, on November 17, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing on Medicare 
physician payment. The hearing focused on Medicare fee-for-
service payments for physicians in 2006 and beyond and assessed 
their impact on beneficiary access to health care. In addition, 
the hearing provided a forum for discussing how to design a 
more stable reimbursement system that controls over utilization 
of services while ensuring patients receive efficient and 
effective quality health care. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory 
Commission (MedPAC), and several specialty surgeons and 
researchers.
    On March 1, 2005, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on the implementation of the new 
Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. The subcommittee 
received testimony from the Administrator of the Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), experts, a beneficiary, and 
a representative from a State Governor's office.
    On May 23, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an 
oversight hearing focusing on the concerns raised by 
pharmacists in recent months. The pharmacists expressed 
concerns regarding services rendered under the new Medicare 
Part D prescription drug benefit. Specifically, pharmacists 
assert that prescription drug plans (PDPs) are not promptly 
reimbursing pharmacists for dispensing prescriptions. In 
addition, pharmacists allege that the Medication Therapy 
Management (MTM) program as prescribed by the Medicare 
Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) is not being effectively 
administered and could be improved. Pharmacists also voiced 
concerns with regard to the listing of pharmacies on the 
beneficiary Part D card (referred to as ``co-branding''). Long-
term care pharmacists raised implementation concerns specific 
to the long-term care population including: network access 
issues, compliance with CMS marketing guidelines, and delays in 
payment due to glitches in Part D dual eligible enrollment. The 
subcommittee received testimony from the Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services and several industry leaders in the 
pharmacist's community.
    On May 25, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the community health center program, which operates under 
Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, in reaching the 
medically underserved. Community health centers play a critical 
role in the nation's healthcare safety net. At the time of the 
hearing, more than 900 community health centers provided a 
spectrum of primary health care services through 3,600 urban 
and rural sites located in every Federal and territory. 
According to the Bureau of Primary Healthcare, community health 
centers in 2003 treated more than 12 million people in 
medically underserved areas, including 4.8 million uninsured 
people. The hearing sought to examine various aspects of the 
program, including the Federal grant process, the role of 
Medicaid and Medicare, and ways to improve the delivery of care 
to the medically underserved. The Subcommittee took testimony 
from two panels of witnesses, consisting of the Administrator 
of the Health Resources and Services Administration, the 
Director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations, 
representatives of community health centers, a Federal primary 
care association, and a primary care policy analyst. In 
connection with the Subcommittee's oversight of the community 
health center program, on March 21, 2005, the Subcommittee 
Chairman requested the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) to study how community health centers improve public 
health and help reduce health care costs overall. The study is 
expected in the 110th Congress.

               CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review 
the management, operations, and activity of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, with particular focus on its 
work relating to surveillance and prevention of disease 
outbreaks.
    As part of this oversight, on May 4, 2005, the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to determine the 
state of readiness of the United States for the 2005-2006 flu 
season. The hearing served to build upon a related 
investigation and hearing six months earlier, conducted in the 
108th Congress. That hearing related to news in October 2004 
that Chiron, one of the country's two largest producers of 
influenza vaccine, would not provide any of its planned 46-48 
million doses of flu vaccine to the United States. These events 
prompted Committee review of preparations for the upcoming flu 
season and beyond. The Subcommittee heard from a single panel, 
comprised of the Directors of the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), the National Vaccine Program Office, and 
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research of the Food 
and Drug Administration (FDA). Relatedly, on May 26, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing in regard to 
pandemic flu. The hearing stressed that States have a major 
role in the event of a pandemic and are preparing for it by 
developing pandemic influenza plans or revising existing plans 
to be stronger and more effective. The key elements of these 
plans include surveillance, vaccination, antiviral drug use, 
community containment measures, communications, response of the 
health care system, and ability to maintain essential public 
services. The subcommittee received testimony from the 
Department of Health and Human Services, the National 
Institutes of Health, the Government Accountability Office, and 
expert witnesses in the pandemic flu community.
    Hospital-aquired infections (HAIs) are a major health 
problem in the United States, resulting in 90,000 deaths and 
$4.5 billion in excess healthcare costs annually. In an effort 
to reduce these figures, six states have recently passed 
legislation requiring mandatory public reporting of hospital-
acquired infection rates, and more than 20 other states have 
been studying this issue or have legislation pending. The CDC 
currently tracks HAI data, but participation in this program is 
voluntary, and the CDC does not make public data for individual 
hospitals. On March 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing to examine whether public 
reporting is an effective mechanism for reducing HAIs, and 
whether it is necessary and appropriate to develop and 
implement uniform national standards that will provide 
consumers with meaningful, scientifically sound data. Witnesses 
at this hearing included: an individual who helped drive 
passage of the Missouri public reporting law after his son 
contracted a serious HAI; the Director of the CDC's National 
Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Healthcare Quality 
Promotion; the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Health 
Care Cost Containment Council; the Executive Director of the 
Michigan Hospital Association's Keystone Center for Patient 
Safety and Quality; and representatives of several major 
hospitals from whom the Subcommittee had requested HAI data.
    On October 23, 2006, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote to 
the Director of the CDC to request a briefing on the 
reorganization of the CDC. In addition, the request letter 
asked for a draft internal assessment of CDC's financial 
management office, information about CDC's systems for tracking 
human tissue samples, and information about CDC's systems for 
tracking certain property.

                     NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined the National 
Institutes of Health's (NIH) organizational structure, priority 
setting, and research activities. This effort included 
continued oversight of management and operations of internal 
NIH programs as well as NIH-funded extramural research.
    On July 19, 2005, the Committee on Energy and Commerce held 
an oversight hearing on legislation to reauthorize the NIH. The 
National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the Federal government's 
principal medical research agency, armed with a mission to 
advance research in pursuit of fundamental knowledge that will 
lead to better health outcomes for all. Funding for the NIH 
represents nearly half of the discretionary budget of the 
Department of Health and Human Services. The Director of NIH 
was the only witness. On March 17, 2005, the Subcommittee on 
Health held an oversight hearing to examine how the Office of 
the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) manages 
the research portfolio of the 27 distinct research Institutes 
and Centers that form the NIH. Because the organizational 
structure of NIH largely determines how NIH research priorities 
are set and budgets determined, this hearing highlighted how 
the authority of the NIH Director impacts the management of the 
agency and the allocation of resources. The subcommittee 
received testimony from the Director of NIH. On September 19, 
2006 the Committee on Energy and Commerce held an oversight 
hearing to encourage legislation on NIH reauthorization. The 
Committee received testimony from Johns Hopkins Medicine, the 
American Heart Association, the American Societies for 
Experimental Biology (FASEB), and the Association of American 
Medical Colleges (AAMC), and the Director of the NIH.
    With regard to research activities, on December 8, 2005, 
the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing examining 
Federal research efforts for pulmonary hypertension and chronic 
pain. The purpose of this hearing was to raise awareness about 
chronic pain and pulmonary hypertension and examine what the 
National Institutes of Health and others are doing to study 
these conditions and improve patient outcomes. The subcommittee 
received testimony from experts in these areas and also 
witnesses suffering from hypertension and chronic pain. On June 
28, 2006, the Subcommittee on Health held an oversight hearing 
on mental health and brain disease. This hearing focused on 
treatment for and recovery from severe mental illness (also 
called brain disease). The hearing helped to raise public 
awareness about the biological nature of mental illnesses; to 
reduce the stigma associated with severe mental illnesses such 
as depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia; to inform 
the public of effective treatment and prevention measures for 
mental illnesses; to emphasize the hope of recovery for those 
struggling with severe mental illness; and to highlight current 
research initiatives in the mental health field. The 
subcommittee received testimony from the National Institute of 
Mental Health, university professors, and three witnesses, all 
of whom have been affected by severe mental illness.
    With regard to management and operations oversight, on June 
13, 2006, and on June 14, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations held hearings about how the National 
Institutes of Health (NIH) deals with human tissue samples in 
its intramural research programs. The focus of the hearings 
concerned a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 
scientist who had personally received $285,000 in compensation 
from a drug company for activities that were derived directly 
from his official acts in providing the company access to 
spinal fluid samples and plasma samples (over 3000 tubes of NIH 
property and linked clinical data) and who had also used NIH 
employees and resources to provide such access. The hearing on 
June 13th featured a witness from the National Institute on 
Aging who had raised with Committee staff the issue about the 
adequacy of NIH policies on human tissue samples, and about the 
NIMH scientist's handling of samples. The hearing on June 14th 
featured three panels of witnesses. The first panel included 
the Director of the NIMH, accompanied by the NIMH Clinical 
Director, the NIMH Executive Officer, and the NIMH Technology 
Transfer Officer; and an Alzheimer's disease researcher 
formerly with Pfizer, Inc. The second panel included the NIMH 
scientist and his database manager formerly with NIMH. The 
witnesses on this panel appeared pursuant to a subpoena to 
testify and exercised their constitutional rights against self-
incrimination. The third panel featured the Deputy Director for 
Intramural Research, NIH. On September 13, 2006, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings 
about continuing ethics and management concerns at the NIH and 
the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (``Commissioned 
Corps''). The hearing featured one panel of witnesses: the 
Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS, who testified on issues 
involving the Commissioned Corps; the Deputy Director of the 
NIH; the Director of the NIMH; the Executive Officer and Deputy 
Ethics Counselor at NIMH; and the Director of the National 
Cancer Institute (NCI).
    Relatedly, the Committee pursued several oversight 
investigations connected to NIH management and operations in 
the 109th Congress. On August 8, 2005, the Full Committee 
Chairman and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
Chairman requested a GAO study of internal control procedures 
over conflicts of interest, involving employees of the NIH, NIH 
contractors, and outside experts. The GAO is undertaking the 
request, with a focus on the rules of recusal at the NIH for 
employees, contractors, and outside experts, and a description 
of the structures that are in place for the application, 
monitoring, and enforcement of the rules of recusal among NIH 
institutes and centers.
    On October 14, 2004, the Full Committee Chairman wrote to 
the GAO, requesting that the GAO examine certain parts of NIH's 
procedures for obtaining leases for real property. The GAO 
issued its report in September 2006. It found that the NIH 
implemented a formal leasing process that, if carried out 
effectively, should comply with budget scorekeeping guidelines 
and OMB's requirements for classifying operating and capital 
leases. This process should ensure that no Antideficiency Act 
violations occur due to leasing. However, NIH had taken no 
action to address five prospectus-level leases that were not 
submitted to the appropriate congressional committees in past 
years. On September 20, 2005, the Full Committee Chairman and 
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman wrote 
to the HHS Inspector General to request that the OIG determine 
if Federal taxpayer dollars have been used by Federal 
universities to compensate graduate research assistants for 
tuition remission rather than for their actual work on programs 
funded by the NIH. In addition, it was requested that, to the 
extent such use of funds is substantiated, the OIG determine if 
such compensation practices violate any Federal law, 
regulation, or policy, or an inappropriate use of taxpayer 
dollars. The OIG agreed to conduct a nationwide, randomized 
audit of graduate student compensation as a first step to 
examine this issue.
    In addition, in an August 16, 2005 article, The Wall Street 
Journal examined allegations that universities misuse Federal 
grant money received from the NIH. Some of these allegations 
have resulted in recent multi-million dollar settlements 
between NIH university grantees and the U.S. Department of 
Justice. For example, in a complaint-in-intervention filed June 
15, 2005, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District 
of New York (U.S. Attorney's office) alleged that a university 
grantee failed to comply with NIH guidelines for clinical 
research programs and made false statements in applications to 
NIH for renewal of its General Clinical Research Center grant. 
In particular, the U.S. Attorney's office highlighted the 
disparities between the number of research activities projected 
by the grantee in its grant applications or grant continuation 
applications to NIH, and the actual number of research 
activities performed by the grantee after receiving the NIH 
grant money, as reflected in the grantee's internal data, and 
to some extent, the grantee's annual progress reports submitted 
to NIH. In light of concerns such as those alleged by the U.S. 
Attorney's office, the Full Committee Chairman and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman requested 
on September 20, 2005 that the HHS OIG examine whether there 
are widespread disparities between the numbers of research 
activities grantees projected to obtain taxpayer funds from the 
NIH and the numbers of research activities actually performed 
with these funds. To that end, it was further requested that 
the OIG conduct an audit of some of the largest NIH clinical 
research center grants to review the number of research 
activities each respective institution projected to the NIH and 
what research activities these institutions actually performed. 
Given that the General Clinical Research Grant program is being 
phased out, the OIG told the Committee staff that the issues 
raised in the request letter were being pursued in ongoing work 
and that the OIG would consider an audit of this kind with 
respect to the Clinical Translational Science Awards program.
    On April 29, 2004, the bipartisan leadership of the Full 
Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
sent the NIH a request concerning questions raised about the 
findings of the HIVNET 012 study. In 1997, the Division of 
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, National Institute for 
Allergies and Infectious Diseases, sponsored HIVNET 012, a 
trial comparing two drugs, nevirapine and zidovudine (AZT), and 
their efficacy in the prevention of transmission of Human 
Immunodeficiency Virus from mother to child. The findings of 
this landmark study were relied upon in the establishment of 
global strategies for addressing the AIDS crisis. The Committee 
asked the NIH to answer the following question: After a 
comprehensive review of all records and information relating to 
HIVNET 012, does NIH stand behind the findings of HIVNET 012? 
In response to the Committee's request, the NIH Director asked 
NIH staff to review the records and information relating to the 
HIVNET 012 study and other related studies. On July 12, 2004, 
the NIH Director informed the Committee that he had decided to 
ask the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a more detailed 
independent review of the HIVNET 012 study process. The IOM 
released its report on the HIVNET 012 study on April 7, 2005. 
The Committee staff also received a briefing by members and 
staff of the IOM on the IOM's review of the HIVNET 012 study. 
Based on that briefing and on that IOM committee report, the 
Committee staff were satisfied that the data and findings 
presented in the published papers can, as the report said, ``be 
relied upon for scientific and policy-making purposes.''

                       TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES


                   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee conducted 
oversight of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) management 
and operations, including the impact of FCC's decisions and 
actions on the U.S. economy and economic growth.
    As part of this oversight, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held a series of hearings 
to explore the changing telecommunications marketplace and the 
regulatory treatment of broadband services. On February 9, 
2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held an oversight hearing on the impact of Internet Protocol-
Enabled Services on the communications industry. The witnesses 
provided a broad overview of their IP products and how IP 
technology has enabled them to seamlessly offer voice, video, 
and data services on a converged platform. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from executives of telecommunications 
equipment manufacturers. On March 2, 2005, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on competition in the communications marketplace. This hearing 
focused on how Internet Protocol (IP) and broadband 
technologies have changed the dynamics of the communications 
industry by (1) enabling the same suite of voice, video, and 
data services to be offered over different network platforms 
and (2) permitting entry into these markets by ``virtual'' 
operators that use IP to provide applications such as Voice 
over IP (VoIP) to consumers who subscribe to broadband 
services. These trends have resulted in a ``hollowing out'' of 
some traditional telephone market segments such as residential 
and enterprise long-distance telephone service as well as 
residential local exchange service. These industry trends have 
also led service providers with complementary IP and broadband 
assets to merge. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
industry executives, industry analysts, public policy, and 
research organizations. On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on the impact of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services 
on the communications industry. This hearing examined the 
public policy issues related to the provision of VoIP services. 
The Subcommittee received testimony from executives of 
communications providers, and, and the Greater Harris County 
911 Emergency Network. In addition, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on April 20, 2005, regarding the impact of Internet Protocol 
(IP) on video and data services. This hearing examined the 
public policy issues surrounding the delivery of video and data 
over broadband networks. The Subcommittee received testimony 
from executives of the communications industry. On April 27, 
2005, the Subcommittee held a hearing on government officials' 
perspectives on the impact of IP technology on the 
communications sector. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
government officials representing State and local regulatory 
bodies and a consumer group representative.
    On April 14, 2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing to examine the ORBIT 
Act and the progress made in privatizing the satellite 
communications marketplace. The hearing examined how the 
satellite marketplace has changed since the implementation of 
the ORBIT Act, and whether Intelsat and Inmarsat should be 
permanently certified to be privatized. The Subcommittee 
received testimony from officials of the Federal Communications 
Commission and the Government Accountability Office, as well as 
executives of the satellite industry.
    On January 23, 2006, Full Committee Chairman Barton, 
Ranking Member Dingell, Telecommunications and the Internet 
Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Member 
Markey sent a letter to FCC Chairman Martin to ask when the 
review of the Electronic Privacy Information Center petition 
will be complete, and to determine what actions should be taken 
in response to the petition. The Members also requested the 
Commission to forward the last annual certifications from the 5 
largest wireline and wireless carriers regarding their privacy 
policies, and their accompanying statements explaining how 
their internal procedures protect the confidentiality of 
consumer information.
    On February 1, 2006, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications 
and the Internet held an oversight hearing on the fraudulent 
sale of telephone records. The Committee received testimony 
from government officials from the Federal Communications 
Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Attorney General 
of Illinois, and representatives of telecommunications 
providers and privacy groups.
    On April 4, 2006, House Speaker Hastert, House Majority 
Leader Boehner, and Full Committee Chairman Barton, sent a 
letter to FCC Chairman Martin requesting the Commission respond 
to questions regarding what the FCC is doing to prohibit Caller 
ID spoofing and whether the FCC has the statutory authority to 
enact regulations banning this type of fraud. The Members asked 
the Commission to make recommendations for Congress concerning 
the authority the FCC would need to combat this type of fraud.

                 AVAILABILITY OF BROADBAND TECHNOLOGIES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to examine 
the availability of broadband technologies and the deployment 
of broadband services and facilities. The Committee also 
evaluated the impact of the Communications Act and FCC 
regulations on the deployment of new technologies, services, 
and facilities, and whether the law and the regulations are 
maximizing the incentives that all entities have to make 
investments in broadband networks.
    As part of this oversight, on June 7, 2006, Chairman Barton 
and Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee Chairman 
Upton wrote a letter to Federal Communications Commission 
Chairman Martin opposing any FCC order imposing multicast must-
carry requirements on cable operators or other multichannel 
video programming distributors. The letter pointed out that 
allowing each broadcaster to force video distributors to carry 
multiple streams of a broadcaster's programming would be 
inconsistent with language in the Communications Act limiting 
the must-carry right to each broadcaster's primary video 
transmission. Congress would need to amend the statute before 
the FCC could require otherwise. The letter also stated that 
the balance between the carriage of broadcast and non-broadcast 
programming should be left to consumer preferences and market 
forces.
    On July 19, 2006, Chairman Barton, Telecommunications and 
the Internet Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Reps. Deal and 
Bass hosted a roundtable discussion on retransmission consent. 
Under the retransmission consent rules, a television 
broadcaster may seek monetary or non-monetary compensation in 
exchange for allowing a cable or satellite operator to transmit 
the broadcaster's signal to subscribers. Some cable operators, 
satellite providers, and independent programmers criticize 
certain broadcasters' practices of conditioning carriage of one 
channel on carriage of another. The critics argue that such 
practices make it harder for video programming distributors to 
tailor their program offerings, and for independent programmers 
to gain carriage on the systems of such distributors. Broadcast 
networks and affiliates counter that retransmission consent is 
simply a negotiation based on the value of the programming, and 
that regulating the prices, terms or conditions of that 
negotiation would be an unwarranted interference with market 
forces and the right to contract. They also point out that they 
often make an offer of stand-alone carriage in exchange for 
cash, but that the cable and satellite operators usually prefer 
not to pay money. Moreover, they contend that the bundling of 
programming can help launch new programming. Representatives of 
cable programmers, broadcast networks, broadcast affiliates, 
cable operators, and satellite providers participated in the 
roundtable.

                        UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined the FCC's 
universal service support policies and evaluate how these 
policies can be modernized to reflect the redistribution of 
communications traffic among new communications mediums, as 
well as the efficacy of utilizing fixed and mobile wireless 
technologies to reduce the costs of ensuring that high cost and 
low income consumers have reasonable access to 
telecommunications services. The Committee also reviewed 
whether the program's structure and internal processes need to 
be changed to control waste, fraud and abuse of Universal 
Service funds.
    On March 16, 2005, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations held a hearing on Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) management and oversight of the E-rate 
program. The E-rate program is the portion of the Universal 
Service Fund set up to subsidize telecommunications and 
Internet service and infrastructure in qualified schools and 
libraries. The hearing examined findings and recommendations by 
a GAO review of FCC's management of the program. This review 
was initiated at the request of the Full Committee and 
Subcommittee Chairmen in the previous Congress during the 
Subcommittee's investigation into waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the program. The Subcommittee took testimony from one panel of 
witness, representing the GAO, the FCC, and the Office of 
Inspector General (OIG) of the FCC. On October 6, 2005, the 
Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the FCC's plans for E-
rate program relief to Gulf Coast communities recovering from 
the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. The Subcommittee took 
testimony from the FCC Inspector General, the Chief of the 
FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau, the CEO of the Universal 
Service Administrative Company (USAC), which administers the E-
rate program, and the State E-rate Coordinator for the 
Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services.
    Relatedly, and in culmination of the Subcommittee of 
Oversight and Investigations' two-year investigation into the 
E-rate program, the Subcommittee held a business meeting on 
October 18, 2005, at which it unanimously adopted the bi-
partisan staff report, ``Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns in 
the E-rate Program,'' which detailed findings and 
recommendations from the investigation to help guide reform of 
the E-rate program.
    More broadly, on June 21, 2006, the Subcommittee on 
Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing 
on the Federal high-cost portion of the universal service 
support mechanisms. Competition and technology have begun to 
erode the existing universal service system, and, in the long 
term, current universal service policies do not seem 
sustainable. The hearing focused on current and future funding 
mechanisms used to support consumers in all regions of the 
Nation to ensure that access to and rates for 
telecommunications services are reasonably comparable to those 
in urban areas. The Subcommittee received testimony from 
Federal and State regulatory bodies as well as large and small 
telecommunications companies.

                           DIGITAL TELEVISION

    Congress gave each broadcaster an additional 6 MHz 
allocation of spectrum in 1997 to transmit television in 
digital format while they continue to provide analog broadcasts 
on their original 6 MHz channels. Each television broadcast 
licensee is supposed to return a 6 MHz channel and transmit 
exclusively in digital by Dec. 31, 2006, or once 85 percent of 
television households in the market can receive digital 
channels, whichever is later. Some of that spectrum has been 
earmarked for public-safety use upon return and some for 
auction for advanced commercial services, such as wireless 
broadband. In the 109th Congress, the Committee examined the 
Commission's progress in completing the DTV transition. On 
February 17, 2005, The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and 
the Internet held an oversight hearing regarding the expected 
costs of digital-to-analog converter boxes and various 
potential digital-to-analog converter-box programs from 
representatives of the electronics and broadcasting industries, 
and the Government Accountability Office. On March 10, 2005, 
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an 
oversight hearing regarding consumer education efforts for the 
DTV transition. The Committee received testimony from 
representatives of the retailers and consumer groups.

              ENFORCEMENT OF THE FCC'S DECENCY REGULATIONS

    During the 109th Congress, while it took no direct 
oversight action, the Committee monitored FCC's enforcement of 
broadcast decency laws and regulations, including examining how 
Congress and the FCC can help broadcasters to reduce the level 
of indecent material on television and radio.

                          SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT

    During the 109th Congress, while it took no direct 
oversight action, the Committee monitored the FCC's management 
of the nation's spectrum. An increasing portion of 
communications services utilize spectrum to provide voice, 
video, and data services to consumers. The Committee continued 
to evaluate FCC's spectrum-management policies to ensure that 
such policies are maximizing the use of the public airwaves for 
innovative communications services.

                        HOMELAND SECURITY ISSUES


              CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to review 
infrastructure assurance efforts that affect areas within the 
Committee's jurisdiction. On March 18, 2005, the Subcommittee 
on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to review 
security initiatives at DOE nuclear facilities. In the 
aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, physical security 
requirements at DOE and NNSA sites were dramatically increased 
to reflect the possibility of large attacks with terrorist that 
are willing to die to inflict massive damage. The hearing 
reviewed the implementation of several ongoing security 
initiatives at NNSA sites, and specifically reviewed security 
problems that led to the shutdown of operations at the LANL. 
The shutdown at LANL was also the subject of a subsequent 
hearing on May 5, 2005. The Administrator of NNSA provided 
testimony on NNSA's progress on improving physical security and 
the security of classified material. The Director of the Office 
of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, DOE, outlined 
several security issues that needed greater attention, 
including cyber security, technology deployment, and the 
consolidation of nuclear materials. The Director of LANL 
provided testimony regarding major incidents that led to the 
shutdown of the laboratory, including the mishandling of 
classified removable electronic media.
    On January 31, 2005, the Full Committee leadership along 
with the leadership of the Committee on Homeland Security sent 
a letter to GAO to conduct a review of the vulnerabilities of 
foreign and domestic maritime energy transport infrastructure 
to terrorist attack, and efforts by governmental and private 
sector entities to reduce these vulnerabilities through 
enhanced security, planning, and other prevention, 
preparedness, and response activities. Although there is no 
known terrorist threat to domestic energy transportation 
infrastructure, there have been several attacks in Iraq and the 
Middle-East. A successful attack could have significant public 
health and economic consequences.

                           NUCLEAR SMUGGLING

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to monitor 
Federal government and private sector efforts at border 
crossings, seaports, and mail facilities. On May 24, 2005, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing to 
review the DOE's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI), a 
program to secure high-risk nuclear and radiological materials 
around the world that could pose a threat when used in a 
radiological dispersion device (RDD or ``dirty bomb'') or in an 
improvised nuclear device. Witnesses from DOE and the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) described efforts to recover 
vulnerable, high-risk nuclear material worldwide. Domestically, 
GTRI has targeted 25 research reactors for conversion from 
high-risk HEU fuel to lower-risk LEU fuel. DOE and NRC also 
discussed their working relationship to identify and secure 
radiological sources located in the United States, including 
new security requirements for medical and research facilities, 
and manufacturers of sealed radioactive sources.

                 BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

    In the 109th Congress, while it took no direct oversight 
action, the Committee reviewed implementation of the Public 
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act 
of 2002 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 
and the coordination between HHS and the Department of Homeland 
Security with respect to setting priorities and goals for 
bioterrorism-related research and preparedness activities.
    In addition, and in connection with oversight of 
bioterrorism preparedness and response, on April 6, 2006, the 
Subcommittee on Health had an oversight hearing to lay out 
where the current Project Bioshield Act of 2004 stands in 
relation to other Federal program activities to research, 
develop, and acquire countermeasures for chemical, biological, 
radiological and nuclear threats. The subcommittee received 
testimony from the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, the U.S. Department of Defense, and professionals in 
the biosecurity and biotechnology industries.

                PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee continued to 
examine whether the communications needs of first responders 
are being met. As part of this oversight, on September 29, 
2005, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet 
held an oversight hearing on the U.S. public safety 
communications infrastructure and how much progress has been 
made since September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina in making 
that infrastructure more robust and interoperable. The hearing 
examined the major gaps in communications among Federal, State, 
and local officials, the spectrum needs of our Nation's first 
responders, interoperable emergency communications networks, 
and the vulnerability of these networks during emergencies. The 
Subcommittee received testimony from Federal government 
officials, State and local officials, commercial mobile service 
providers, and equipment manufacturers.

        IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENTWIDE CYBER SECURITY PROGRAM

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 included a separate 
legislative provision entitled the Federal Information Security 
Management Act, which reauthorized and enhanced a 
governmentwide cyber security program under the direction of 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). During the 109th 
Congress, the Committee reviewed efforts to ensure that Federal 
agencies are complying with the cyber security provisions of 
the new Homeland Security Act. On September 13, 2006, the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an 
oversight hearing on cybersecurity and what can be done to 
protect America's critical infrastructure, economy, and 
consumers. The hearing focused on whether the U.S., public and 
private sectors are prepared to respond to and recover from a 
major Internet disruption, and the impact of such a disruption 
on U.S. business today. The hearing also examined the recent 
GAO report that expressed concerns regarding the Department of 
Homeland Security's capabilities to prevent and mitigate 
cyberattacks. The Subcommittee received testimony from Federal 
government officials and representatives of Internet security 
organizations.
    In addition, on June 9, 2006, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations held a hearing to review cyber security 
challenges at DOE. The first panel of witnesses included the 
DOE Inspector General, and the Director of DOE's Office of 
Security and Safety Performance Assurance, who described 
several internal and external reviews that identified 
significant weaknesses in both the management processes and the 
operational controls relied upon to protect the unclassified 
information systems vital to DOE operations. At the hearing, 
the Subcommittee revealed that a cyber attack at National 
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) site resulted in the 
removal of a file with personal information on over 1,500 NNSA 
contractor employees, including their social security numbers. 
The Administrator of NNSA, testified that although he had been 
aware of the stolen personnel information for several months, 
he only informed the Secretary of the breach two days before 
the Subcommittee hearing. After the hearing, NNSA took 
immediate steps to inform each employee whose personal 
information had been stolen. In response to overall weaknesses 
in the Department's cyber security program, the DOE's Chief 
Information Officer testified that he had developed a 12-month 
plan to revitalize the DOE cyber security posture. The NNSA 
Director and the DOE Under Secretary for Energy, Science, and 
Environment described their own efforts to improve cyber 
security. The DOE IG and the Director for the Office of 
Security and Safety Performance Assurance testified that they 
will continue to evaluate the status of DOE cyber security 
systems.

                          MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES


                  UNITED NATION'S OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM

    In the 109th Congress, the Committee will conduct its 
investigation of the United Nation's Oil for Food Program. The 
Committee's oversight of the United Nations' Oil-for-Food 
Program (the Program) began in the 106th Congress. As part of 
this oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations launched an in-depth investigation into abuses 
of the Program by the former Iraqi Regime of Saddam Hussein 
(the Regime) during the 108th and 109th Congresses. This 
investigation revealed that the Regime exploited lax oversight 
of the Program and political divisions within the United 
Nations to enrich itself at the expense of the Iraqi 
population. The Subcommittee's investigation of the Program 
culminated in two hearings during the 109th Congress. The first 
hearing, which took place on May 16, 2005, focused on the 
Regime's abuse of the oil allocation process. Documents 
disclosed at the hearing--many of which had been translated 
from Arabic for the Subcommittee--detailed how the Regime used 
lucrative oil allocations to bribe influential individuals and 
foreign governments in an effort to undermine sanctions. 
Witnesses at this hearing included: an Arabic linguist who was 
retained by the Committee to analyze and translate many of the 
documents, the author of a comprehensive report on the Program, 
a university professor knowledgeable about the Program and 
sanctions generally, and the Director of the Office of 
Peacekeeping, Sanctions & Counter-Terrorism in the State 
Department's International Organizations and Affairs Bureau. On 
June 21, 2005, the Subcommittee held a second hearing to 
examine how internal divisions within the United Nations' 
Security Council adversely impacted the effectiveness of the 
Program. Several representatives from the United States Mission 
to the United Nations testified about discussions within the 
``661 Sanctions Committee,'' which was responsible for general 
oversight of the Program. A portion of this hearing was 
conducted in executive session due to the classified status of 
some of the documents involved.

                       FEDERAL AGENCY MANAGEMENT

    As part of the Committee's oversight responsibilities 
generally the Committee continued to examine ethics policies 
and practices at Federal agencies and commissions within the 
Committee's jurisdiction and also examined agency procurement 
practices and contracts, as well as agency implementation of 
laws and regulations. As part of this oversight work, in the 
109th Congress, the Full Committee Chairman opened a review of 
agency implementation of the Data Quality Act. As part of this 
review, on January 13, 2005 the Chairman wrote 15 agencies and 
commissions within the Committee's jurisdiction, seeking 
documents and other information relating to each agency's 
implementation of the data-quality guidelines and procedures 
required by Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriates Act for Fiscal 2001, which is commonly known as 
the Data Quality Act. Under the Act, each agency is required to 
issue guidelines for ``ensuring and maximizing the quality, 
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information'' that 
agencies disseminate. The review seeks to assess agency 
implementation as well as the general effectiveness and impact 
of the Act's requirements.
    In addition, in the 109th Congress, the Full Committee 
Chairman and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
Chairman opened a review of efforts by Federal agencies to 
reduce unnecessarily burdensome regulations, particularly 
regulations on small businesses. As part of this review, on 
April 5, 2005 the Chairmen wrote ten Federal agencies within 
the Committee's jurisdiction, seeking documents and information 
relating to each agency's compliance with Section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980. Under Section 610, 
each Federal agency must plan for, and conduct, the periodic 
review of its rules that have or will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, i.e. 
small businesses, small government jurisdictions, and other 
small organizations. The letters sought information to help 
determine the general impact and effectiveness of this 
regulatory-review requirement for meeting the goals of RFA. On 
May 19, 2006, the Chairmen requested that the GAO examine the 
impact of Section 610, both to assess implementation of the 
provision specifically and to provide insights into the 
implementation of retrospective regulatory reviews in general. 
A GAO report is expected in the 110th Congress.
                               APPENDIX I

                         Legislative Activities

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                    Summary of Committee Activities

Total Bills and Resolutions Referred to Committee.............      1319
Public Laws...................................................        55
Bills and Resolutions Reported to the House...................        53
Hearings Held:
    Days of Hearings..........................................       170
        Full Committee........................................        20
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
          Protection..........................................        34
        Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................        15
        Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...         7
        Subcommittee on Health................................        29
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...        18
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..........        47
    Hours of Sitting..........................................    461:02
        Full Committee........................................     69:22
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
          Protection..........................................     58:22
        Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................     35:46
        Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...     18:37
        Subcommittee on Health................................     83:51
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...     50:20
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..........    145:00
Legislative Markups:
    Days of Markups...........................................        41
        Full Committee........................................        30
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
          Protection..........................................         3
        Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................         0
        Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...         2
        Subcommittee on Health................................         4
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...         2
    Hours of Sitting..........................................    141:18
        Full Committee........................................    122:55
        Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer 
          Protection..........................................      4:48
        Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality................         0
        Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials...      1:27
        Subcommittee on Health................................      4:55
        Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet...      7:13
Business Meetings:
    Days of Meetings..........................................         5
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..........         5
    Hours of Sitting..........................................      2:15
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..........      2:15
                              APPENDIX II

    This list includes: (1) legislation on which the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce acted directly; (2) legislation 
developed through Committee participation in House-Senate 
conferences; and (3) legislation which included provisions 
within the Committee's jurisdiction, including legislation 
enacted by reference as part of other legislation.

                             PUBLIC LAWS: 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Public Law        Date Approved           Bill             Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-4          March 25, 2005          H.R. 1160      Welfare Reform
                                                       Extension Act of
                                                       2005.
109-13         May 11, 2005            H.R. 1268      Emergency
                                                       Supplemental
                                                       Appropriations
                                                       Act for Defense,
                                                       the Global War on
                                                       Terror, and
                                                       Tsunami Relief,
                                                       2005.
109-18         June 29, 2005           H.R. 1812      Patient Navigator
                                                       Outreach and
                                                       Chronic Disease
                                                       Prevention Act of
                                                       2005.
109-19         July 12, 2005           H.R. 3021      TANF Extension Act
                                                       of 2005.
109-34         July 12, 2005           S. 1282        A bill to amend
                                                       the
                                                       Communications
                                                       Satellite Act of
                                                       1962 to strike
                                                       the privatization
                                                       criteria for
                                                       INTELSAT
                                                       separated
                                                       entities, remove
                                                       certain
                                                       restrictions on
                                                       separated and
                                                       successor
                                                       entities to
                                                       INTELSAT, and for
                                                       other purposes.
109-41         July 29, 2005           S. 544         Patient Safety and
                                                       Quality
                                                       Improvement Act
                                                       of 2005.
109-43         August 1, 2005          H.R. 3423      Medical Device
                                                       User Fee
                                                       Stabilization Act
                                                       of 2005.
109-56         August 2, 2005          S. 45          A bill to amend
                                                       the Controlled
                                                       Substances Act to
                                                       lift the patient
                                                       limitation on
                                                       prescribing drug
                                                       addiction
                                                       treatments by
                                                       medical
                                                       practitioners in
                                                       group practices,
                                                       and for other
                                                       purposes.
109-57         August 2, 2005          H.R. 184       Controlled
                                                       Substances Export
                                                       Reform Act of
                                                       2005.
109-58         August 8, 2005          H.R. 6         Energy Policy Act
                                                       of 2005.
109-59         August 10, 2005         H.R. 3         Safe, Accountable,
                                                       Flexible,
                                                       Efficient
                                                       Transportation
                                                       Equity Act: A
                                                       Legacy for Users.
109-76         July 9, 2005            S. 714         Junk Fax
                                                       Prevention Act of
                                                       2005.
109-91         October 20, 2005        H.R. 3971      QI, TMA, and
                                                       Abstinence
                                                       Programs
                                                       Extension and
                                                       Hurricane Katrina
                                                       Unemployment
                                                       Relief Act of
                                                       2005.
109-96         November 9, 2005        S. 172         A bill to amend
                                                       the Federal Food,
                                                       Drug, and
                                                       Cosmetic Act to
                                                       provide for the
                                                       regulation of all
                                                       contact lenses as
                                                       medical devices,
                                                       and for other
                                                       purposes.
109-100        November 11, 2005       S. 37          A bill to extend
                                                       the special
                                                       postage stamp for
                                                       breast cancer
                                                       research for 2
                                                       years.
109-129        December 20, 2005       H.R. 2520      Stem Cell
                                                       Therapeutic and
                                                       Research Act of
                                                       2005.
109-148        December 30, 2005       H.R. 2863      Department of
                                                       Defense,
                                                       Emergency
                                                       Supplemental
                                                       Appropriations to
                                                       Address
                                                       Hurricanes in the
                                                       Gulf of Mexico,
                                                       and Pandemic
                                                       Influenza Act,
                                                       2006.
109-151        December 30, 2005       H.R. 4579      Employee
                                                       Retirement
                                                       Preservation Act.
109-163        January 6, 2006         H.R. 1815      National Defense
                                                       Authorization Act
                                                       for Fiscal Year
                                                       2006.
109-164        January 10, 2006        H.R. 972       Trafficking
                                                       Victims
                                                       Protection
                                                       Reauthorization
                                                       Act of 2005.
109-165        January 10, 2006        H.R. 2017      Torture Victims
                                                       Relief
                                                       Reauthorization
                                                       Act of 2005.
109-168        January 10, 2006        H.R. 4637      To make certain
                                                       technical
                                                       corrections in
                                                       amendments made
                                                       by the Energy
                                                       Policy Act of
                                                       2005.
109-171        February 8, 2006        S. 1932        Deficit Reduction
                                                       Act of 2005.
109-172        February 10, 2006       H.R. 4519      State High Risk
                                                       Pool Funding
                                                       Extension Act of
                                                       2006.
109-177        March 9, 2006           H.R. 3199      USA PATRIOT
                                                       Improvement and
                                                       Reauthorization
                                                       Act of 2005.
109-191        August 11, 2005         H.R. 1132      National All
                                                       Schedules
                                                       Prescription
                                                       Electronic
                                                       Reporting Act of
                                                       2005.
109-204        March 20, 2006          S. 2320        A bill to make
                                                       available funds
                                                       included in the
                                                       Deficit Reduction
                                                       Act of 2005 for
                                                       the Low-Income
                                                       Home Energy
                                                       Assistance
                                                       Program for
                                                       fiscal year 2006,
                                                       and for other
                                                       purposes.
109-235        June 15, 2006           S. 193         Broadcast Decency
                                                       Enforcement Act
                                                       of 2005.
109-241        July 12, 2006           H.R. 889       Coast Guard and
                                                       Maritime
                                                       Transportation
                                                       Act of 2006.
109-245        July 26, 2006           S. 655         A bill to amend
                                                       the Public Health
                                                       Service Act with
                                                       respect to the
                                                       National
                                                       Foundation for
                                                       the Centers for
                                                       Disease Control
                                                       and Prevention.
109-295        October 4, 2006         H.R. 5441      Department of
                                                       Homeland Security
                                                       Appropriations
                                                       Act, 2007.
109-297        October 5, 2006         S. 176         A bill to extend
                                                       the deadline for
                                                       commencement of
                                                       construction of a
                                                       hydroelectric
                                                       project in the
                                                       State of Alaska.
109-298        October 5, 2006         S. 244         A bill to extend
                                                       the deadline for
                                                       commencement of
                                                       construction of a
                                                       hydroelectric
                                                       project in the
                                                       State of Wyoming.
109-307        October 6, 2006         H.R. 5574      Children's
                                                       Hospital GME
                                                       Support
                                                       Reauthorization
                                                       Act of 2006.
109-347        October 13, 2006        H.R. 4954      Port Security
                                                       Improvement Act
                                                       of 2006.
109-364        October 17, 2006        H.R. 5122      John Warner
                                                       National Defense
                                                       Authorization Act
                                                       for Fiscal Year
                                                       2007.
109-393        December 13, 2006       H.R. 4377      To extend the time
                                                       required for
                                                       construction of a
                                                       hydroelectric
                                                       project, and for
                                                       other purposes.
109-396        December 15, 2006       H.R. 3699      Federal and
                                                       District of
                                                       Columbia
                                                       Government Real
                                                       Property Act of
                                                       2006.
109-415        December 19, 2006       H.R. 6143      Ryan White HIV/
                                                       AIDS Treatment
                                                       Modernization Act
                                                       of 2006.
109-416        December 19, 2006       S. 843         Combating Autism
                                                       Act of 2006.
109-417        December 19, 2006       S. 3678        Pandemic and All-
                                                       Hazards
                                                       Preparedness Act.
109-422        December 20, 2006       H.R. 864       Sober Truth on
                                                       Preventing
                                                       Underage Drinking
                                                       Act.
109-428        December 20, 2006       H.R. 4583      Wool Suit Fabric
                                                       Labeling Fairness
                                                       and International
                                                       Standards
                                                       Conforming Act.
109-431        December 20, 2006       H.R. 5646      To study and
                                                       promote the use
                                                       of energy
                                                       efficient
                                                       computer servers
                                                       in the United
                                                       States.
109-432        December 20, 2006       H.R. 6111      An act to amend
                                                       the Internal
                                                       Revenue Code of
                                                       1986 to extend
                                                       expiring
                                                       provisions, and
                                                       for other
                                                       purposes.
109-442        December 21, 2006       H.R. 3248      Lifespan Respite
                                                       Care Act of 2006.
109-450        December 22, 2006       S. 707         PREEMIE Act.
109-455        December 22, 2006       S. 1608        Undertaking Spam,
                                                       Spyware, And
                                                       Fraud Enforcement
                                                       With Enforcers
                                                       beyond Borders
                                                       Act of 2005.
109-459        December 22, 2006       S. 2653        Call Home Act of
                                                       2006.
109-462        December 22, 2006       S. 3546        Dietary Supplement
                                                       and
                                                       Nonprescription
                                                       Drug Consumer
                                                       Protection Act.
109-466        December 22, 2006       S. 4092        A bill to clarify
                                                       certain land use
                                                       in Jefferson
                                                       County, Colorado.
109-468        December 29, 2006       H.R. 5782      Pipeline Safety
                                                       Improvement Act
                                                       of 2006.
109-469        December 29, 2006       H.R. 6344      Office of National
                                                       Drug Control
                                                       Policy
                                                       Reauthorization
                                                       Act of 2006.
109-475        January 12, 2007        H.R. 1245      Gynecologic Cancer
                                                       Education and
                                                       Awareness Act of
                                                       2005.
109-482        January 15, 2007        H.R. 6164      National
                                                       Institutes of
                                                       Health Reform Act
                                                       of 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              APPENDIX III

                                 PART A

        PRINTED HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Serial No.           Hearing title             Hearing date(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-1               The Energy Policy Act    February 10, 2005 and
                     of 2005 (Subcommittee    February 16, 2005
                     on Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-2               The Implementation of    March 9, 2005
                     GEOSS: A Review of the
                     All-Hazards Warning
                     System and its
                     Benefits to Public
                     Health, Energy, and
                     the Environment
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-3               Department of Energy's   February 9, 2005
                     Fiscal Year 2006
                     Budget Proposal and
                     the Energy Policy Act
                     of 2005: Ensuring Jobs
                     for Our Future with
                     Secure and Reliable
                     Energy (Full
                     Committee).
109-4               How Internet Protocol-   April 27, 2005
                     Enabled Services are
                     Changing the Face of
                     Communications: A View
                     from Government
                     Officials
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-5               Preparing Consumers for  March 10, 2005
                     the End of the Digital
                     Television Transition
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-6               United States Boxing     March 3, 2005
                     Commission Act
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-7               Problems with the E-     March 16, 2005
                     Rate Program: GAO
                     Review of FCC
                     Management and
                     Oversight
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-8               The Orbit Act: An        April 14, 2005
                     Examination of
                     Progress Made in
                     Privatizing the
                     Satellite
                     Communications
                     Marketplace
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-9               The Role of Technology   February 17, 2005
                     in Achieving a Hard
                     Deadline for the DTV
                     Transition
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-10              Combating Spyware: H.R.  January 26, 2005
                     29, the Spy Act (Full
                     Committee).
109-11              Clean Air Act            March 2, 2005
                     Transportation
                     Conformity Provisions
                     Contained in H.R. 3,
                     ``The Transportation
                     Equity Act: A Legacy
                     for Users''
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-12              How Internet Protocol-   February 9, 2005
                     Enabled Services Are
                     Changing the Face of
                     Communications: A View
                     from Technology
                     Companies
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-13              Competition in the       March 2, 2005
                     Communications
                     Marketplace: How
                     Technology is Changing
                     the Structure of the
                     Industry (Full
                     Committee).
109-14              Securing Consumers'      May 11, 2005
                     Data: Options
                     Following Security
                     Breaches (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-15              The Drug Free Sports     May 18, 2005 and May 19,
                     Act of 2005              2005
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-16              Increasing Generic Drug  May 18, 2005
                     Utilization: Saving
                     Money for Patients
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-17              Patient Safety and       June 9, 2005
                     Quality Initiatives
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-18              Dominican Republic-      April 28, 2005
                     Central America Free
                     Trade Agreement
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-19              How Internet Protocol-   April 20, 2005
                     Enabled Services Are
                     Changing the Face of
                     Communications: A Look
                     at Video and Data
                     Services (Subcommittee
                     on Telecommunications
                     and the Internet).
109-20              Setting the Path for     March 17, 2005
                     Reauthorization:
                     Improving Portfolio
                     Management at the NIH
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-21              The Threat of and        May 26, 2005
                     Planning for Pandemic
                     Flu (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-22              Medicaid Reform: The     June 15, 2005
                     National Governors
                     Association's
                     Bipartisan Roadmap
                     (Full Committee).
109-23              The Health Care Choice   June 28, 2005
                     Act (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-24              Long-Term Care and       April 27, 2005
                     Medicaid: Spiraling
                     Costs and the Need for
                     Reform (Subcommittee
                     on Health).
109-25              Medicaid Prescription    June 22, 2005
                     Drugs: Examining
                     Options for Payment
                     Reform (Subcommittee
                     on Health).
109-26              Product Counterfeiting:  June 15, 2005
                     How Fakes are
                     Undermining U.S. Jobs,
                     Innovation, and
                     Consumer Safety
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-27              Reauthorization of the   June 23, 2005
                     National Highway
                     Traffic Safety
                     Administration
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-28              DTV Staff Discussion     May 26, 2005
                     Draft of the DTV
                     Transition Act of 2005
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-29              The United Nations Oil-  May 16, 2005
                     For-Food Program:
                     Saddam Hussein's Use
                     of Oil Allocations to
                     Undermine Sanctions
                     and the United Nations
                     Security Council
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-30              The United Nations Oil-  June 21, 2005
                     For-Food Program: A
                     Review of the 661
                     Sanctions Committee
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-31              A Review of Community    May 25, 2005
                     Health Centers: Issues
                     and Opportunities
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-32              Hurricane Katrina's      September 7, 2005
                     Effect on Gasoline
                     Supply and Prices
                     (Full Committee).
109-33              Electronic Waste: An     July 20, 2005 and
                     Examination of Current  September 8, 2005
                     Activity, Implications
                     for Environmental
                     Stewardship, and the
                     Proper Federal Role
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Environment and
                     Hazardous Materials).
109-34              Thoroughbred Horse       October 18, 2005
                     Racing Jockeys and
                     Workers: Examining On-
                     Track Injury Insurance
                     and Other Health and
                     Welfare Issues
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-35              A Review of the          February 17, 2005
                     Administration's
                     Fiscal Year 2006
                     Health Care Priorities
                     (Full Committee).
109-36              Current Issues Related   February 10, 2005
                     to Medical Liability
                     Reform (Subcommittee
                     on Health).
109-37              Funding Options for the  March 10, 2005
                     Yucca Mountain
                     Repository Program
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-38              Specialty Hospitals:     May 12, 2005
                     Assessing Their Role
                     in the Delivery of
                     Quality Health Care
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-39              The Administration's     May 26, 2005
                     Clear Skies Initiative
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-40              Legislation to           July 19, 2005
                     Reauthorize the
                     National Institutes of
                     Health (Full
                     Committee).
109-41              Understanding the Peak   December 7, 2005
                     Oil Theory
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-42              Determining a Champion   December 7, 2005
                     on the Field: A
                     Comprehensive Review
                     of the BCS and
                     Postseason College
                     Football (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-43              Improving America's      December 8, 2005
                     Health: Examining
                     Federal Research
                     Efforts for Pulmonary
                     Hypertension and
                     Chronic Pain
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-44              How Internet Protocol-   March 16, 2005
                     Enabled Services Are
                     Changing the Face of
                     Communications: A Look
                     at the Voice
                     Marketplace
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-45              A Review of Ongoing      May 5, 2005
                     Management Concerns at
                     Los Alamos National
                     Laboratory
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-46              Safety of Imported       December 13, 2005
                     Pharmaceuticals:
                     Strengthening Efforts
                     to Combat the Sales of
                     Controlled Substances
                     Over the Internet
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-47              Subversion of Drug       May 17, 2005
                     Testing Programs
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-48              Data Security: The       July 28, 2005
                     Discussion Draft of
                     Data Protection
                     Legislation
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-49              Medicaid: Empowering     September 8, 2005
                     Beneficiaries on the
                     Road to Reform (Full
                     Committee).
109-50              Assessing Public Health  September 22, 2005
                     and the Delivery of
                     Care in the Wake of
                     Katrina (Joint hearing
                     with the Subcommittee
                     on Health and the
                     Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-51              Guarding Against Waste,  September 28, 2005
                     Fraud, and Abuse in
                     Post-Katrina Relief
                     and Recovery: The
                     Plans of Inspectors
                     General (Subcommittee
                     on Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-52              Public Safety            September 29, 2005
                     Communications from 9/
                     11 to Katrina:
                     Critical Public Policy
                     Lessons (Subcommittee
                     on Telecommunications
                     and the Internet).
109-53              Phone Records For Sale:  February 1, 2006
                     Why Aren't Phone
                     Records Safe From
                     Pretexting? (Full
                     Committee).
109-54              FCC's E-Rate Plans to    October 6, 2005
                     Assist Gulf Coast
                     Recovery: Ensuring
                     Effective
                     Implementation
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-55              Protecting Property      October 19, 2005
                     Rights After Kelo
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-56              A Review of GAO's        October 7, 2005
                     Findings and
                     Recommendations
                     Regarding the
                     Department of Energy's
                     Efforts to Consolidate
                     Surplus Plutonium
                     Inventories
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-57              Comprehensively          October 20, 2005
                     Combating Methampheta.
                    mines: Impacts on
                     Health and the
                     Environment (Joint
                     hearing with the
                     Subcommittee on Health
                     and the Subcommittee
                     on Environment and
                     Hazardous Materials).
109-58              Natural Gas and Heating  November 2, 2005
                     Oil for American Homes
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-59              Assessing the National   November 8, 2005
                     Pandemic Flu
                     Preparedness Plan
                     (Full Committee).
109-60              A Review of DOE Paducah  January 19, 2006
                     Site Operations
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-61              The Law and Economics    February 15, 2006
                     of Interchange Fees
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-62              Thoroughbred Horse       November 17, 2005
                     Racing Jockeys and
                     Workers: Examining On-
                     Track Injury Insurance
                     and Other Health and
                     Welfare Issues
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-63              Legislation to           March 2, 2006
                     Implement the POPs,
                     PIC, and LRTAP POPs
                     Agreements
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Environment and
                     Hazardous Materials).
109-64              Car Title Fraud: Issues  March 1, 2006
                     and Approaches for
                     Keeping Consumers Safe
                     on the Road
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-65              Steroids in Sports:      March 10, 2005
                     Cheating the System
                     and Gambling Your
                     Health (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-66              A Review of Security     March 18, 2005
                     Initiatives at DOE
                     Nuclear Facilities
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-67              Reducing the Threat of   May 24, 2005
                     Nuclear Terrorism: A
                     Review of the
                     Department of Energy's
                     Global Threat
                     Reduction Initiative
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-68              Hearing on a Staff       November 9, 2005
                     Discussion Draft of
                     the Internet Protocol
                     and Broadband Services
                     Legislation
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-70              What's the Cost?:        March 15, 2006
                     Proposals to Provide
                     Consumers with Better
                     Information about
                     Healthcare Service
                     Costs (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-71              Status of the Yucca      March 15, 2006
                     Mountain Project
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-72              Superfund Laws and       November 16, 2005
                     Animal Agriculture
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Environment and
                     Hazardous Materials).
109-73              Issues Before the U.S.-  June 9, 2005
                     China Joint Commission
                     on Commerce and Trade
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-74              The Commerce and         September 22, 2005
                     Consumer Protection
                     Implications of
                     Hurricane Katrina
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-75              Medicare Physician       November 17, 2005
                     Payment: How to Build
                     a More Efficient
                     Payment System
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-76              Protecting Consumer's    March 15, 2005
                     Data: Policy Issues
                     Raised by ChoicePoint
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-77              Hurricane Katrina:       September 29, 2005
                     Assessing the Present
                     Environmental Status
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Environment and
                     Hazardous Materials).
109-78              Fair Use: Its Effects    November 16, 2005
                     on Consumers and
                     Industry (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-79              The State of Readiness   May 4, 2005
                     for the 2005-2006 Flu
                     Season (Subcommittee
                     on Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-80              EIA's Report on Short-   October 19, 2005
                     term Energy Outlook
                     and Winter Fuels
                     Outlook (Subcommittee
                     on Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-81              Right to Repair:         November 10, 2005
                     Industry Discussions
                     and Legislative
                     Options (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-82              Department of Energy's   March 9, 2006
                     Fiscal Year 2007
                     Budget Proposal (Full
                     Committee).
109-83              Communications           March 30, 2006
                     Opportunity,
                     Promotion, and
                     Enhancement Act of
                     2006 (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-84              Pipeline Safety: A       April 27, 2006
                     Progress Report Since
                     the Enactment of The
                     Pipeline Safety
                     Improvement Act of
                     2002 (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-85              Public Reporting of      March 29, 2006
                     Hospital-Acquired
                     Infection Rates:
                     Empowering Consumers,
                     Saving Lives
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-86              The Critical Role of     May 4, 2006
                     Community Health
                     Centers in Ensuring
                     Access to Care
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-87              Examining the            May 9, 2006
                     Children's Hospital
                     Graduate Medical
                     Education Program
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-88              Reauthorizing the Ryan   April 27, 2006
                     White CARE Act: How to
                     Improve the Program to
                     Ensure Access to Care
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-89              H.R. 2567, the           May 23, 2006
                     Antifreeze Bittering
                     Act of 2005
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Environment and
                     Hazardous Materials).
109-90              Digital Content and      March 29, 2006 and May 3,
                     Enabling Technology:     2006
                     Satisfying the 21st
                     Century Consumer
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-91              Social Security Numbers  May 11, 2006
                     in Commerce:
                     Reconciling Beneficial
                     Uses with Threats to
                     Privacy (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-92              H.R. 5126, the Truth in  May 18, 2006
                     Caller ID Act of 2006
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-93              H.R. 2048, The Motor     May 17, 2006
                     Vehicle Owners' Right
                     to Repair Act of 2005
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-94              Gasoline: Supply,        May 10, 2006 and May 11,
                     Price, and               2006
                     Specifications (Full
                     Committee).
109-95              H.R.__ , a bill to       May 3, 2006
                     authorize the National
                     Highway Traffic Safety
                     Administration (NHTSA)
                     to set passenger car
                     fuel economy standards
                     (Full Committee).
109-96              World Crude-Oil Pricing  May 4, 2006
                     (Full Committee).
109-97              Project Bioshield        April 6, 2006
                     Reauthorization Issues
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-98              Thoroughbred Horse       May 9, 2006
                     Racing Jockeys and
                     Workers: Examining On-
                     Track Injury Insurance
                     and Other Health and
                     Welfare Issues
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-99              Privacy in the           June 20, 2006
                     Commercial World II
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-100             Planning for Long-Term   May 17, 2006
                     Care (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-101             Unlocking America's      May 18, 2006
                     Energy Resources Next
                     Generation
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-102             Examining the Federal    May 23, 2006
                     Government's
                     Partnership with
                     America's Pharmacists
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-103             Vehicle and Fuels        May 24, 2006
                     Technology: Next
                     Generation
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-104             A Review of NRC's        June 19, 2006
                     Reactor Oversight
                     Process (Subcommittee
                     on Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-105             Violent and Explicit     June 14, 2006
                     Video Games: Informing
                     Parents and Protecting
                     Children (Subcommittee
                     on Commerce, Trade,
                     and Consumer
                     Protection).
109-106             Discussion draft         June 7, 2006
                     providing for a
                     reduction in the
                     number of boutique
                     fuels (Full Committee).
109-107             Cyber Security           June 9, 2006
                     Challenges at the
                     Department of Energy
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-108             Oversight and            December 15, 2005
                     Administration of the
                     340B Drug Discount
                     Program: Improving
                     Efficiency and
                     Transparency
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-109             Universal Service: What  June 21, 2006
                     Are We Subsidizing and
                     Why? Part 1: The High-
                     Cost Fund
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-110             CFIUS Reform: H.R.       July 11, 2006
                     5337, the Reform of
                     National Security
                     Reviews of Foreign
                     Direct Investments Act
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-111             Motor Vehicle            July 18, 2006
                     Technology and the
                     Consumer: Views from
                     the National Highway
                     Traffic Safety
                     Administration
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-112             The Audio and Video      June 27, 2006
                     Flags: Can Content
                     Protection and
                     Technological
                     Innovation Coexist?
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-113             The Administration's FY  February 15, 2006
                     '07 Health Care
                     Priorities (Full
                     Committee).
109-114             Legislative Proposals    March 16, 2006
                     to Promote Electronic
                     Health Records and a
                     Smarter Health
                     Information System
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-115             Hospital Disaster        January 26, 2006
                     Preparedness: Past,
                     Present, and Future
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-116             Growth, Opportunity,     June 29, 2006
                     Competition--America
                     Goes to Work. (Full
                     Committee).
109-117             Innovative Solutions to  July 13, 2006
                     Medical Liability
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-118             DOE's Revised Schedule   July 19, 2006
                     for Yucca Mountain
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-119             Human Tissue Samples:    June 13, 2006 and June 14,
                     NIH Research Policies    2006
                     and Practices
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-120             Mental Illness and       June 28, 2006
                     Brain Disease:
                     Dispelling Myths and
                     Promoting Recovery
                     Through Awareness and
                     Treatment
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-121             H.R. 5319, the Deleting  July 11, 2006
                     Online Predators Act
                     of 2006 (Subcommittee
                     on Telecommunications
                     and the Internet).
109-122             Sexual Exploitation of   July 10, 2006
                     Children over the
                     Internet: How the
                     State of New Jersey is
                     Combating Child
                     Predators on the
                     Internet (Subcommittee
                     on Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-123             Making the Internet      June 27, 2006 and June 28,
                     Safe for Kids: The       2006
                     Role of ISP's and
                     Social Networking
                     Sites (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-124             The Silicosis Story:     March 28, 2006, March 31,
                     Mass Tort Screening      2006, June 6, 2006, and
                     and the Public Health    July 26, 2006
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-125             H.R. 5785, the Warning,  July 20, 2006
                     Alert, and Response
                     Network Act of 2006
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-126             Sexual Exploitation of   April 4, 2006, April 6,
                     Children Over the        2006, and May 3, 2006
                     Internet: What
                     Parents, Kids and
                     Congress Need to Know
                     About Child Predators
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-127             H.R. 503, a bill to      July 25, 2006
                     amend the Horse
                     Protection Act
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-128             Questions Surrounding    July 19, 2006 and July 27,
                     the `Hockey Stick'       2006
                     Temperature Studies:
                     Implications for
                     Climate Change
                     Assessments
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-129             Medicare Part D:         March 1, 2006
                     Implementation of the
                     New Drug Benefit
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-130             Medicare Physician       July 25, 2006 and July 27,
                     Payment: How to Build    2006
                     a Payment System that
                     Provides Quality,
                     Efficient Care for
                     Medicare Beneficiaries
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-131             Internet Data Brokers    June 21, 2006, June 22,
                     and Pretexting: Who      2006, and
                     has Access to Your      September 29, 2006
                     Private Records?
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-132             Use of Imaging           July 18, 2006
                     Services: Providing
                     Appropriate Care for
                     Medicare Beneficiaries
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Health).
109-133             Discussion Draft on the  July 27, 2006
                     Pipeline Safety
                     Improvement Act
                     Reauthorization and
                     H.R. 5782, the
                     Pipeline Safety
                     Improvement Act of
                     2006 (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-134             Examining the Impact of  August 10, 2006 and August
                     Illegal Immigration on   15, 2006
                     the Medicaid Program
                     and Our Healthcare
                     Delivery System (Full
                     Committee).
109-135             BP's Pipeline Spills at  September 7, 2006
                     Prudhoe Bay: What Went
                     Wrong? (Subcommittee
                     on Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-136             Continuing Ethics and    September 13, 2006
                     Management Concerns at
                     NIH and the Public
                     Health Service
                     Commissioned Corps
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-137             CyberSecurity:           September 13, 2006
                     Protecting America's
                     Critical
                     Infrastructure,
                     Economy, and Consumers
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet).
109-138             Nuclear waste storage    September 13, 2006
                     and disposal policy,
                     and hydroelectric
                     license extension and
                     energy efficiency
                     legislation
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Energy and Air
                     Quality).
109-139             Contact Lens Sales: Is   September 15, 2006
                     Market Regulation the
                     Prescription?
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-140             Improving NIH            September 19, 2006
                     Management and
                     Operation: A
                     Legislative Hearing on
                     the NIH Reform Act of
                     2006 (Full Committee).
109-141             Deleting Commercial      September 21, 2006
                     Child Pornography
                     Sites From the
                     Internet: The U.S.
                     Financial Industry's
                     Efforts to Combat This
                     Problem (Subcommittee
                     on Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-142             ICANN Internet           September 21, 2006
                     Governance: Is It
                     Working? (Joint
                     hearing with the
                     Subcommittee on
                     Telecommunications and
                     the Internet and the
                     Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-143             Sexual Exploitation of   September 26, 2006
                     Children Over the
                     Internet: The Face of
                     a Child Predator and
                     Other Issues
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-144             Editing Hollywood's      September 26, 2006
                     Editors: Cleaning
                     Flicks for Families
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Commerce, Trade, and
                     Consumer Protection).
109-145             Sexual Exploitation of   September 27, 2006
                     Children Over the
                     Internet: Follow-up
                     Issues to the Masha
                     Allen Adoption
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-146             Hewlett-Packard's        September 28, 2006
                     Pretexting Scandal
                     (Subcommittee on
                     Oversight and
                     Investigations).
109-147             Medicare Physician       September 28, 2006
                     Payments: 2007 and
                     Beyond (Subcommittee
                     on Health).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 PART B

                            COMMITTEE PRINTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Serial No.                             Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-A                              Compilation of Selected Acts Within
                                    the Jurisdiction of the Committee on
                                    Energy and Commerce--Food, Drug, and
                                    Related Law.
109-B                              Compilation of Selected Acts Within
                                    the Jurisdiction of the Committee on
                                    Energy and Commerce--Health Law.
109-C                              Compilation of Selected Acts Within
                                    the Jurisdiction of the Committee on
                                    Energy and Commerce--Communications
                                    Law.
109-D                              Committee Rules.
109-E                              Waste, Fraud, Abuse Concerns with the
                                    E-rate Program.
109-F                              Sexual Exploitation of Children Over
                                    the Internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------