House Report 106-512 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

[House Report 106-512]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress Rept. 106-512
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

_______

March 6, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on Science, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 1742]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
1742) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and
2001 for the environmental and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs, projects, and
activities of the Office of Research and Development and
Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
I. Amendment.................................................. 2
II. Purpose of the Bill........................................ 6
III. Background and Need for Legislation........................ 6
IV. Summary of Hearings........................................ 9
V. Committee Actions.......................................... 11
VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.................... 13
VII. Section-By-Section Analysis and Committee Views............ 16
VIII. Cost Estimate.............................................. 22
IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.................. 23
X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4........................... 25
XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations........... 25
XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform.......................................... 25
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement......................... 25
XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement....................... 25
XV. Congressional Accountability Act........................... 25
XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...... 26
XVII. Committee Recommendations.................................. 26
XVIII.Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup................. 26

I. Amendment

The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Research and Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act--
(1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of the
Agency;
(2) the term ``Agency'' means the Environmental Protection
Agency; and
(3) the term ``Assistant Administrator'' means the Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development of the Agency.

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development for
environmental research and development and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs for which specific sums are not
authorized under other authority of law $504,022,100 for fiscal year
2000 and $519,940,600 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until
expended, of which $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics
Research Center, and of which $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Gulf Coast Hazardous
Substance Research Center.
(b) Limitation.--None of the amounts authorized under subsection (a)
may be obligated until 30 days after the Administrator submits to the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report detailing,
for fiscal year 2000 and each of the 2 previous fiscal years, for all
Office of Research and Development environmental research and
development and scientific research, development, and demonstration
programs, projects and activities, by appropriation goal and
objectives--
(1) a description of, and funding requested or allocated for,
each such program, project and activity;
(2) an identification of all recipients of funds to conduct
such programs, projects and activities; and
(3) an estimate of the amounts to be expended by each
recipient of funds identified under paragraph (2).
(c) Exclusion.--In the computation of the 30-day period described in
subsection (b), there shall be excluded any day on which either House
of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3
days to a day certain.

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall assign to the Assistant
Administrator the duties of--
(1) developing a strategic plan for environmental research
and development and scientific research, development, and
demonstration programs throughout the Agency;
(2) integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency
environmental research and development and scientific research,
development, and demonstration planning activities; and
(3) reviewing all Agency environmental research and
development and scientific research, development, and
demonstration programs to ensure the research, development, and
demonstration--
(A) is of high quality; and
(B) does not duplicate any other environmental
research and development and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs being conducted
by the Agency.
(b) Report.--The Assistant Administrator shall transmit annually to
the Administrator and to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, a report detailing----
(1) all Agency environmental research and development and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs
the Assistant Administrator finds is not of sufficiently high
quality; and
(2) all Agency environmental research and development and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs
the Assistant Administrator finds duplicate other Agency
environmental research and development and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs.

SEC. 5. SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS (STAR) GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIP
PROGRAM.

In carrying out the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate
Student Fellowship Program, the Administrator shall ensure that any
fellowship award to a student selected after the date of the enactment
of this Act is used only to support scientific research that would
further missions of the Office of Research and Development.

SEC. 6. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Annual Report.--The Science Advisory Board shall submit to
Congress and to the Administrator an annual report that contains the
views of the Science Advisory Board on proposed environmental research
and development and scientific research, development, and demonstration
programs as described in the Agency's budget. Such report shall be
submitted to Congress as soon as practicable after the submission of
the Agency's budget to Congress. The Administrator shall cooperate with
the Chairperson of the Science Advisory Board, particularly with
respect to the timely provision of budget information to the Science
Advisory Board, to allow the Science Advisory Board to carry out its
duties under this subsection.
(b) Evaluation.--The Science Advisory Board shall conduct periodic
evaluations of selected areas of the current and planned environmental
research and development and scientific research, development, and
demonstration programs of the Agency. The areas of evaluation shall be
selected by the Administrator, in consultation with the Science
Advisory Board, the Office of Research and Development, and other
Agency programs, or by the appropriate committees of the Congress in
consultation with the Science Advisory Board. Reports containing the
Science Advisory Board's evaluations and recommendations shall be filed
with such committees and the Administrator. The Administrator shall
provide to such committees a written response to the Science Advisory
Board's evaluation and recommendations within 60 days after the Science
Advisory Board's report has been submitted.
(c) Submission to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit to the
Congress any report required by law to be submitted to the
Administrator by the Science Advisory Board. The Administrator shall
make any such submission not later than 60 days after the Administrator
receives the report from the Science Advisory Board.
(d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator $2,636,200 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,768,000 for fiscal
year 2001 for activities of the Science Advisory Board.

SEC. 7. NOTICE.

(a) Reprogramming.--The Administrator may use for any authorized
activities of the Office of Research and Development or the Science
Advisory Board under this Act--
(1) up to the lesser of $250,000 or 5 percent of the total
funding for a fiscal year of an environmental research or
development or scientific research, development, or
demonstration program, project or activity of the Office of
Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board; or
(2) after the expiration of 60 days after transmitting to the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, a report described in subsection (b), up to 25 percent
of the total funding for a fiscal year of an environmental
research or development or scientific research, development, or
demonstration program, project or activity of the Office of
Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)(2) is a
report containing a full and complete statement of the action proposed
to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of
such proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 60-day period under subsection (a)(2),
there shall be excluded any day on which either House of Congress is
not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain.
(c) Limitations.--In no event may funds be used pursuant to
subsection (a) for an environmental research or development or
scientific research, development, or demonstration program, project or
activity for which funding has been requested to the Congress but which
has not been funded by the Congress.
(d) Annual Operating Plan.--The Administrator shall provide
simultaneously to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, any annual operating plan or other operational funding
document, including any additions or amendments thereto, provided to
any committee of Congress.
(e) Copy of Reports.--In addition to the documents required under
subsection (d), the Administrator shall provide copies simultaneously
to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, of any
report relating to the environmental research or development or
scientific research, development, or demonstration programs, projects
or activities of the Office of Research and Development or the Science
Advisory Board prepared at the direction of any committee of Congress.
(f) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall provide notice
to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, not
later than 15 days before any major reorganization of any environmental
research or development or scientific research, development, or
demonstration programs, projectsor activity of the Office of Research
and Development or the Science Advisory Board.

SEC. 8. BUDGET REQUEST FORMAT.

The Administrator shall provide to the Congress, to be transmitted at
the same time as the Agency's annual budget request submission, a
detailed justification for budget authorization for the programs,
projects and activities for which funds are authorized by this Act.
Each such document shall include, for the fiscal year for which funding
is being requested and for the 2 previous fiscal years--
(1) a description of, and funding requested or allocated for,
each such program, project and activity;
(2) an identification of all recipients of funds to conduct
such programs, projects and activities; and
(3) an estimate of the amounts to be expended by each
recipient of funds identified under paragraph (2).
The document required by this section shall be presented in the format
employed by, and with the level of detail included in, the document
entitled ``Department of Energy FY 2000 Congressional Budget Request,
DOE/CR-0062, Volume 3'', dated February 1999.

SEC. 9. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

(a) Travel.--Not more than 1 percent of the funds authorized by this
Act may be used either directly or indirectly to fund travel costs of
the Agency or travel costs for persons awarded contracts or
subcontracts by the Agency. As part of the Agency's annual budget
request submission to the Congress, the Administrator shall submit a
report to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate,
that identifies--
(1) the estimated amount of travel costs by the Agency and
for persons awarded contracts or subcontracts by the Agency for
the fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as for the 2
previous fiscal years;
(2) the major purposes for such travel; and
(3) the sources of funds for such travel.
(b) Trade Associations.--No funds authorized by this Act may be used
either directly or indirectly to fund a grant, contract, subcontract,
or any other form of financial assistance awarded by the Agency to a
trade association on a noncompetitive basis. As part of the Agency's
annual budget request submission to the Congress, the Administrator
shall submit a report to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, that identifies----
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the Agency to
trade associations, by trade association, for the fiscal year
of such budget submission, as well as for the 2 previous fiscal
years;
(2) the services either provided or to be provided by each
such trade association; and
(3) the sources of funds for services provided by each such
trade association.
(c) Kyoto Protocol.--None of the funds authorized by this Act may be
used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the
purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the
Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan,
at the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the
Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article II,
section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and which has
not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol.
(d) Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Project.--
Of the amounts authorized under section 3(a), $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000 shall be for a field-scale environmental research and
development project at an existing site for remediation of soils
contaminated by recalcitrant hydrocarbon and lead contaminants using
technologies and processes capable of homogenizing soil while injecting
both oxidizers and catalysts to the degree necessary for chemical
oxidation to occur and that renders lead contaminants essentially
inert.

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

SEC. 11. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.

(a) Requirement.--None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by
this Act may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of the
Office of Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board in a
manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless
the Administrator grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow
for such a deviation. The Administrator may not delegate the authority
to grant such a waiver.
(b) Congressional Notice.--At least 60 days before a contract award,
amendment, or modification for which the Administrator intends to grant
such a waiver, the Administrator shall submit to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report notifying
the committees of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the
waiver.

SEC. 12. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Agency to prepare or initiate Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
for a program, project or activity if the program, project or activity
has not been specifically authorized by Congress.

SEC. 13. PRODUCTION OR PROVISION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
used by any program, project or activity of the Office of Research and
Development or the Science Advisory Board to produce or provide
articles or services for the purpose of selling the articles or
services to a person outside the Federal Government, unless the
Administrator determines that comparable articles or services are not
available from a commercial source in the United States.

SEC. 14. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration
for grant agreements made after fiscal year 1999 by the Office of
Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board, under the
programs, projects and activities for which funds are authorized under
this Act, any person who received funds, other than those described in
subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1999,
under a grant agreement from any Federal funding source for a project
that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process,
except as specifically authorized by this Act. Any exclusion from
consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a period
of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of
Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that person in a
class specified by law for which assistance is awarded to members of
the class according to a formula provided by law or under circumstances
permitting other than full and open competition under the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``grant
agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to
transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or
barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the
United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative
agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United
States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as
such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 15. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home page
of the Environmental Protection Agency the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by this Act.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or permit the
release of any information prohibited by law or regulation from being
released to the public.

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for the environmental research and development and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs of
the Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory
Board of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other
purposes.

II. Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of H.R. 1742 is to authorize appropriations for
fiscal years (FYs) 2000 and 2001 for environmental research and
development (R&D) and scientific research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) programs of the Office of Research and
Development and the Science Advisory Board (SAB) of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

III. Background and Need for the Legislation

EPA was established in the Executive Branch on December 2,
1970, as an independent agency pursuant to President Nixon's
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of July 9, 1970 (5 U.S.C. app.) to
``integrate environmental management activities involving
pollution control into a coordinated and comprehensive
program.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Environmental Protection: An Historical Review of Legislation and
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency, Report No. 83-34 ENR,
March 3, 1983, p. 1 (hereafter referred to as CRS 84-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's statutory mandate for R&D has grown piecemeal from
provisions of many environmental protection laws as enacted or
amended over the years. Congress has conferred EPA the
authority to conduct basic and applied research, to develop and
demonstrate new technologies, to monitor the ambient
environment, and to conduct diverse special studies in two
ways: (1) in the context of at least 12 different environmental
protection laws; \2\ and (2) in the Environmental Research,
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service.
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency, RL30022, January 12, 1999 (hereafter
referred to as CRS RL30022), p. 107. These 12 statutes include: (1) the
Clean Air Act, especially sections 103, 104, 153, and 319; (2) the
Clean Water Act, especially title I, sections 104-11; (3) the Safe
Drinking Water Act, especially sections 1442 and 1444; (4) the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (Ocean Dumping Act),
especially Title II and Title IV; (5) the Solid Waste Disposal Act/
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle H, sections 8001-8007;
(6) the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, section
20; (7) the Pesticide Research Act; (8) the Toxic Substances Control
Act, especially section 10; (9) the Noise Control Act, section 14; (10)
the National Environmental Policy Act, section 204(5); (11) the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980 (Superfund), section 311 as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 section 209; and (12) the Acid
Precipitation Act of 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the diverse R&D program activities mandated by the
various statutes, the establishment of a coherent and
coordinated EPA-wide environmental R&D program proved to be no
easy task in the early years of the EPA's existence. One of the
principal reasons that has been cited as causing the early
difficulties was that ``Congressional oversight was fragmented
because of the diverse committee jurisdictions over the
authorizing statutes.'' \3\ This lack of Congressional focus
changed, however, when the House of Representatives centralized
jurisdiction for environmental R&D in the Committee on Science
and Technology (now the Committee on Science, hereafter
referred to as the Committee) in the 94th Congress.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ CRS 84-34, p. 132.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee first sponsored legislation to authorize
EPA's environmental RD&D programs in 1975, and the first ERDDA
was enacted in 1976.\5\ The ERDDA was reauthorized four times--
in 1977,\6\ in 1978,\7\ in 1979,\8\ and in 1980.\9\ All of
these statutes, which were originated by legislation introduced
by a member of the Committee and which were solely referred in
the House to the Committee, authorized specific sums for
environmental RD&D activities under specific statutes, such as
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water
Act, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ P.L. 94-475, the Environmental Research, Development, and
Demonstration Act (ERDDA) of 1976.
\6\ P.L. 95-155, the ERDDA of 1978, which also created the EPA SAB.
\7\ P.L. 95-477, the ERDDA of 1979.
\8\ P.L. 96-229, the ERDDA of 1980.
\9\ P. L. 96-569, the ERDDA of 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent attempts to reauthorize the ERDDA after 1980
failed for various reasons,\10\ but the Committee's
jurisdiction over the original ERDDA and all subsequent ERDDA
reauthorization legislation was never in question. This changed
in 1997 when the Committee reported H.R. 1276, the ERDDA of
1997. H.R. 1276 was referred sequentially to the House
Committee on Commerce and was never acted on by the House
because the two Committees could not resolve their
jurisdictional differences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In 1982, Congress passed S. 2577, which would have
reauthorized the ERDDA for FYs 1983 and 1984, but the measure was
vetoed by President Reagan, primarily because it required certain
groups to be represented on the EPA Science Advisory Board. In 1984,
the House passed H.R. 2899, which would have reauthorized the ERDDA for
FYs 1984 and 1985, but the Senate did not act on the measure. In 1986,
the Committee reported H.R. 2319, which would have reauthorized the
ERDDA for FY 1986, but the House did not act on the measure. In 1984,
the House passed H.R. 2355, which would have reauthorized the ERDDA for
FYs 1988 and 1989, but the Senate did not act on the measure. In 1990,
the Committee reported H.R. 2319, which would have reauthorized the
ERDDA for FYs 1991, 1992, and 1993, but the House did not act on the
measure. In 1991, the Committee reported H.R. 2404, which would have
reauthorized the ERDDA for FYs 1992, 1993, and 1994, but the House did
not act on the measure. In 1993, the House passed H.R. 1994, which
would have reauthorized the ERDDA for FY 1994, but the Senate did not
act on the measure. In 1995, the Committee reported H.R. 1814, which
would have reauthorized the ERDDA for FY 1996; the text of this measure
was incorporated as Title V of H.R. 2405, which passed the House in
1995, but the Senate did not act on the measure. And in 1996, the House
passed H.R. 3322, which included as Title V, the ERDDA of 1996, which
would have reauthorized the ERDDA for FY 1997, but the Senate did not
act on the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commerce Committee expressed three principal concerns
about H.R. 1276: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ H. Rept 105-99, Part 2, pp. 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) H.R. 1276 contained ``a significantly broader
scope of programs than in previous Science Committee
EPA R&D bills'';
(2) many of the provisions were ``unnecessary due to
other statutory authorities''; that ``[a] number of the
separate statutory provisions authorizing EPA research
and development activities fall within the jurisdiction
of the Commerce Committee,'' such as the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1999 and the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996; and
(3) the bill contained ``a number of other provisions
which are redundant of, and potentially inconsistent
with, existing authorizations provided by the Commerce
Committee,'' such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, etc.
The Commerce Committee made a valid point that H.R. 1276
contained a broader scope of programs than did previous Science
Committee EPA RD&D bills. Previous ERDDA legislation had been
limited to the R&D activities of EPA's ORD, which is
responsible for the R&D needs of the Agency's operating
programs and the conduct of an integrated R&D program from the
Agency. However, Congress recognized that the EPA Office of Air
and Radiation (OAR) and other EPA Offices also perform
significant R&D when it created the Science and Technology
(S&T)appropriation account in 1996 to fund the operating
programs of the ORD, the OAR Office of Mobile Sources, and the Program
Office laboratories.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ P.L. 104-204, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing
and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's OAR conducts not environmental R&D, but also
scientific and energy RD&D and commercial application of energy
technology programs. In particular, OAR Climate Change
Technology Initiative (CCTI) programs are energy RD&D and
commercial application of energy technology programs. Under
Rule X, clause (n)(1) of the Rules of the House, the Committee
on Science has jurisdiction over ``all bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to * * * [all] energy research,
development, and demonstration, and projects therefor, * * *''
[emphases added]. Similarly, under Rule X, clause 1(n)(4), the
Committee has jurisdiction over environmental R&D; under Rule
X, clause 1(n)(6), the Committee has jurisdiction over the
commercial application of energy technology; and under Rule X,
clause 1(n)(14), the Committee has jurisdiction over scientific
RD&D.
In the spirit of cooperation to address the Commerce
Committee's first concern, the Science Committee has divided
the programs contained in H.R. 1276 into two bills: (1) this
bill, H.R. 1742, which authorizes the environmental R&D and
scientific RD&D programs of the ORD and the EPA SAB; and (2)
H.R. 1743, which authorizes the environmental R&D and
scientific and energy RD&D and commercial application of energy
technology programs for the OAR, including the energy RD&D and
commercial application of energy technology OAR CCTI programs.
To address the Commerce Committee's second concern, this bill
limits the authorized appropriations to such environmental R&D
and scientific RD&D programs ``for which specific sums are not
authorized under other authority of law.''
And finally, in order to address the Commerce Committee's
third concern, references to specific environmental statutes
have been deleted.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Committee on Science still believes that reference to the
authorization of appropriations for environmental R&D under specific
statutes, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, etc., is both
consistent with its jurisdiction under the Rules of the House and with
the precedential patterns of referral of identical legislation dating
back to the 94th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that the fact that most of EPA's
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs have not been
authorized for specific sums since 1981 demonstrates the need
for such legislation. Further evidence of the need for such
legislation is the large number of unauthorized Congressional
directives contained in annual appropriation legislation, as
well as EPA's continuing inability--whether by design or
ineptitude--to provide the Congress and the American people
with the basic and fundamental budget information required to
analyze its budget.

IV. Summary of Hearings

The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee
on Science held hearings on March 18, 1999 to hear testimony on
the Administration's FY 2000 budget request for the
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs of the EPA's ORD
and SAB.
Appearing as witnesses before the Subcommmittee hearing on
March 18, 1999, titled ``The FY 2000 EPA R&D Budget
Authorization,'' were Dr. Norine E. Noonan, Assistant
Administrator for Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); Dr. William Randall Seeker, Chair,
Research Strategies Advisory Committee, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Mr. David
G. Wood, Associate Director, Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economics Development Division, U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO).
Dr. Noonan testified that EPA's total FY 2000 request in
the S&T appropriation account--which was created in 1996 and
funds the operating programs of the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the Office of Air and Radiation's (OAR's)
Office of Mobile Sources, and the Program Office laboratories--
is $642.5 million and 2,456 total work years--a decrease of
$17.5 million and 97 work years from FY 1999. ORD's total FY
2000 request is $534.8 million and 2,004 work years. Of this
total, ORD's FY 2000 request in the S&T appropriation account
is $495.9 million and 1,876 work years; the remaining $38.9
million and 128 work years are in accounts other than the S&T
account to support the Superfund, Leaking Underground Storage
Tank, and Oil Spills research programs.
Dr. Seeker noted that the SAB's RSAC had conducted a formal
review of the entire FY 2000 EPA S&T budget request for the
first time, and as part of the review process, has responded to
six charge questions:
1. Can the objectives of the research and development
program in ORD and the broader science and technology programs
in EPA be achieved at the resource levels requested?--RSAC
found the funding request priorities to be appropriate based on
the environmental goals established in the Agency Strategic
Plan, but continues to have reservations about the adequacy of
the funding level given the increasing complexity and cost of
environmental problems.
2. Does the budget request reflect priorities identified in
the EPA and ORD Strategic Plan?--RSAC found that the ORD and
Program Office Science and Technology budgets do set priorities
aligned with the Agency with ORD strategic plans and Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals, but had some
reservations about the decreases and some omissions in the
overall priorities. It concluded that the budgets proposed in
several areas were not likely to be sufficient to meet the
goals established by the Agency and ORD in their Strategic
Plans.
3. Does the budget request reflect coordination between ORD
and the Program Offices?--RSAC commended the Agency for
significant improvements in the coordination between ORD
projects and the needs of the program offices and found that
the Agency needs to continue to build on its strategic planning
process for science across the Agency and across environmental
goals.
4. Does the budget request support a reasonable balance in
terms of attention to core research on multimedia capabilities
and issues and to media-specific problem-driven topics?--RSAC
found that the ORD budget request does appear to provide a
balance between core research and media-specific, problem-
driven science needs, but noted that the overall S&T budget
request is more weighted to media-specific, problem-driven
activities.
5. Does the budget request balance attention to near-term
and to long-term research and science and technology issues?--
RSAC found that, in general, the Agency has given serious
consideration to both long-term and short-term research and
science and technology issues, but that there is still no
overall explicit approach to incorporate the requirements of
longer-term research programs within the short-term budgetary
process.
6. How can EPA use or improve upon the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) structure to communicate
research plans, priorities, research requirements, and planned
outcome?--RSAC found that the EPA had used the GPRA goals
structure to organize its FY 2000 budget request, and welcomed
such a structure as an organizing principle. However, RSAC also
found that most of the science milestones were process (or
``output'') oriented rather than results (or ``outcome'')
oriented; and that the ORD and Agency process for prioritizing
potential research programs is not completely transparent.
Mr. Wood discussed the findings from GAO's recent on EPA's
S&T appropriation account funds requested for FY 1999 \14\ and
on its limited review of EPA's FY 2000 budget justification,
including: (1) difficulties experienced in comparing EPA's S&T
appropriation account budget justification for FY 1999 with
those of previous years; and (2) actions that EPA planned and
implemented to improve the clarity and comparability of the FY
2000 justification and items that need further clarification.
In summary, GAO found the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Enviornmental Protection: EPA's Science and Technology Funds
(GAO/RCED-99-12, Oct. 30, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's budget justification for FY 1999 could not
be readily compared to amounts requested or enacted for FY 1998
and prior years because the justification did not show how the
budget would be distributed among program offices or program
components--information needed to link to the prior years'
justifications.
EPA implemented several changes to its FY 2000
justification to solve problems experienced in comparing the
1998 and 1999 budget justifications. While the budget
justification followed the basic format reflecting the agency's
strategic goals and objectives, EPA made changes to the
objectives without explanations or documentation to link the
changes to the FY 1999 budget justification. As a result, the
FY 2000 budget justification cannot be completely compared with
the FY 1999 justification without supplemental information.

V. Committee Actions

As summarized above, the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment of the Committee on Science heard testimony
relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 1742 at a hearing
held on March 18, 1999.
On May 10, 1999, Mr. Ken Calvert, Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, introduced H.R. 1742,
the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air and Radiation
Authorization Act of 1999, a bill to authorize appropriations
for FY 2000 and FY 2001 for the environmental R&D and
scientific RD&D programs, projects, activities of the EPA ORD
and the SAB.
The Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 1742 on
Tuesday, May 25, 1999, and Wednesday, May 26, 1999, and
entertained the following amendments and report language.
Amendments 1 and 8.--Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the Science
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, asked and
received unanimous consent to offer a manager's amendment
(Amendment 1) and a title change amendment (Amendment 8)
simultaneously on behalf of himself and Mr. Costello, Ranking
Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
The manager's amendment made: (1) technical and conforming
changes to H.R. 1742, as introduced; (2) clarifications of the
``Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Student Fellowship
Program,'' ``Limitations on Demonstrations,'' and ``Eligibility
of Awards'' provisions; and (3) changes in language--including
the deletion of references to specific environmental statutes--
resulting from bipartisan consultation with the Committee on
Commerce that strengthen the Committee on Science's
jurisdictional claims for the bill's provisions. The manager's
amendment also streamlined the section on the SAB, and struck
the prohibition on the use of funds for EPA's High Performance
Computing and Communications (HPCC) program, with the
understanding that it would be addressed in report language and
subsequent legislation.
Amendment 2.--On behalf of Ms. Jackson-Lee, Mr. Lampson
offered an amendment making available, within funds authorized
for ORD, $2.0 million for FY 2000 and 2.0 million for FY 2001
for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research Center. The
amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Amendment 3.--Mr. Lampson offered an amendment making
available, within funds authorized ORD, $5.0 million for FY
2000 and $5.0 million for FY 2001 for the Gulf States Hazardous
Substance Research Center. The amendment was adopted by voice
vote.
Amendment 4.--Mr. Lofgren's amendment, which was withdrawn,
would have stricken subsection 9(c) of the bill, which
prohibited any of the funds authorized by the Act to be used
either directly or indirectly for the purpose of implementation
of, or in preparation for implementation of, the Kyoto
Protocol, unless it has been ratified by the Senate and has
entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol.
Amendment 5.--Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment providing
that none of the funds authorized by this Act may be used to
propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the
purpose of implementation of, or in preparation for
implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on
December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference of
the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate for
advise and consent to ratification pursuant to article II,
section 2, clause 2 of the United Constitution and which has
not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol.
The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Amendment 6.--Mr. Etheridge's amendment, which was
withdrawn, would have stricken subsection 9(d) of the bill,
which prohibited any of the funds authorized by the Act to be
used for EPA's HPCC program.
Amendment 7.--On behalf of Ms. Biggert, Mr. Sensenbrenner
offered an amendment requiring the EPA Administrator to make
available thorough EPA's Internet home page abstracts relating
to all research grants and awards made with funds authorized by
this Act, with the proviso that nothing in the amendment shall
be construed to require or permit the release of any
information prohibited by law or regulation from being released
to the public. The amendment was adopted by voice vote.
Report Language 1.--Mr. Lampson offered report language
regarding the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center.
The report language was adopted by voice vote.
Report Language 2.--Mr. Etheridge offered report language
concerning EPA's HPCC program. The report language was adopted
by voice vote.
Report Language 3.--Mr. Calvert asked and received
unanimous consent that: (1) the budget table for H.R. 1742 be
included in the bill's report language; (2) staff be permitted
to make technical corrections to the table; (3) the minority be
given the opportunity to examine the table in detail and
negotiate over its content; and (4) upon completion of
negotiation a final version besigned by a majority of the
Committee, and thereafter the minority have two subsequent days to file
any minority supplemental or additional views.
With a quorum present, Mr. Costello moved that the
Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 1742, as amended, to
the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do
pass; that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative
report and make necessary technical and conforming changes; and
that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill
before the House for consideration. The motion was approved by
voice vote.
Mr. Sensenbrenner asked and received unanimous consent
that: (1) Members have two subsequent calendar days in which to
submit supplemental, minority or additional views on the
measure; (2) pursuant to clause 1 of Rule XXII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Chairman may offer such
motions as may be necessary in the House to go to conference
with the Senate on H.R. 1742 or a similar Senate bill; (3)
staff be given authority to make technical and conforming
changes; and (4) the bill be reported in the form of a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute reflecting amendments
adopted.

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

As shown in the Table below, H.R. 1742 authorizes to be
appropriated to the EPA Administrator for ORD environmental R&D
and scientific RD&D programs $504,022,100 for FY 2000 and
$519,940,600 for FY 2001, to remain available until expended,
of which--(1) $2,000,000 for FY 2000 and $2,000,000 for FY 2001
shall be for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research
Center; (2) $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $5,000,000 for FY 2001
shall be for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center, and (3) $1,000,000 for FY 2000 shall be for a field-
scale environmental R&D project at an existing site for
remediation of soils contaminated by recalcitrant hydrocarbon
and lead contaminants. In addition, the bill also authorizes to
be appropriated to the EPA Administrator for SAB activities
$2,636,200 for FY 2000 and $2,768,000 for FY 2001, to remain
available until expended.
The bill also:
Establishes the EPA Assistant Administrator for
ORD as EPA's chief scientific official in charge of the
Agency's environmental R&D and scientific RD&D strategic
planning.
Requires the EPA Assistant Administrator for ORD
to review all EPA environmental R&D and scientific RD&D
programs to ensure that the RD&D is of high quality and does
not duplicate other Agency programs, and to report annually to
Congress on such programs that are not of high quality or that
duplicate other programs.
Ensures that fellowship awards to students
selected under the STAR Graduate Student Fellowship Program are
used to support only scientific research that furthers the
mission of the ORD.
Strengthens and institutionalizes the role of the
SAB in analyzing and evaluating EPA's current and planned
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs and associated
budgets.
Limits the amounts of funds that may be
reprogrammed.
Prohibits EPA from using of any funds authorized
by the bill for the purpose of proposing or issuing rules,
regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of
implementing, or in preparation for implementing, the Kyoto
Protocol which has not been submitted to the Senate for advise
and consent to ratification and which has not entered into
force.
Limits EPA funding for scientific demonstration
projects of the ORD or SAB to technologies and processes that
can reasonably be expected to yield new, measurable benefits to
the cost, efficiency, or performance of the technology or
process.
Prohibits EPA from using of any funds authorized by the
bill to: (1) Award, amend, or modify a contract of the ORD or
SAB in a manner that deviates from the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, unless the EPA Administrator grants a case-by-case
waiver and reports to Congress; (2) prepare to initiate
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for unauthorized programs,
projects or activities; or (3) produce or provide articles or
services for the purpose of selling them to a person outside
the Federal Government, unless the EPA Administrator determines
that comparable articles or services are not available from a
commercial source in the U.S.
Excludes from consideration for grant agreements
made after 1999 by the ORD or the SAB for a period of five
years--under the programs, projects and activities for which
funds are authorized under the bill--any person who received
funding for a project not subject to a competitive, merit-based
award process, except as specifically authorized by the bill.
Requires the EPA Administrator to make available
through EPA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by the
bill.

TABLE. H.R. 1742--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999: SUMMARY
[In Dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 FY 2001
recommendation recommendation
Office/program/activity FY 1999 FY 2000 request FY 2000 compared with (+ FY 2001 compared with (+
appropriation recommendation or -) FY 1999 recommendation or -) FY 2000
appropriation appropriation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Research and Development:
Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,000,000 +2,500,000 5,000,000 0
Research Center..................
Mickey LeLand Urban Air Toxics 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 0
Research Center..................
Field-State Environmental Research 0 0 1,000,000 +1,000,000 0 -1,000,000
and Development Soil Remediation
Project..........................
High Performance Computing and 4,200,000 4,200,000 0 -4,200,000 0 0
Communication (HPCC) Program.....
Congressional Directives (P.L. 105- 66,600,000 0 0 -66,600,000 0 0
276).............................
Other Office of Research and 484,851,000 528,115,100 522,615,000 +37,764,000 539,533,600 +16,918,600
Development Environmental and
Scientific Research, Development
and Demonstration Programs,
Projects and Activities..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Office of Research and 560,151,000 534,815,100 530,615,000 -29,536,000 546,533,600 +15,918,600
Development Budget Authority...
Less Existing Safe Drinking -47,728,100 -26,593,000 -26,593,000 +21,135,100 -26,593,000 0
Research Authority/Authorization
(P.L. 104-182 and P.L. 105-276)..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of Research and 512,422,900 508,222,100 504,022,000 -8,400,900 519,940,600 +15,918,600
Development Budget
Authorization..................
Science Advisory Board Budget 2,486,700 2,636,200 2,636,200 +149,500 2,768,000 +131,800
Authority/Authorization..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, H.R. 1742 Budget 514,909,600 510,858,300 506,658,200 -8,251,400 522,708,600 +16,050,400
Authorization..................
Safe Drinking Research Authority/ 47,728,100 26,593,000 26,593,000 -21,135,100 26,593,000 0
Authorization (P.L. 104-182 and P.L.
105-276).............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, H.R. 1742 Budget 562,637,700 537,451,300 533,251,200 -29,386,500 549,301,600 +16,050,600
Authority......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excluded from this authorization legislation is EPA's High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program, which will be authorized under
separate legislation. This lack of authorization for EPA's HPCC program in H.R. 1742 should not be construed as a lack of endorsement for the program.
It is the Chairman's intention for the Committee to act on separate legislation that will authorize appropriations for the HPCC Program--including
EPA's portion--as well as the proposed Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT2) Initiative and further Next Generation Internet (NGI)
activities for those agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction.

VII. Section-by-Section analysis and Committee Views

Section 1. Short title

Section 1 cities the Act as the ``Environmental protection
Agency Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory
Board Authorization Act of 1999.''

Section 2. Definitions

Section 2 defines: (1) the ``Agency'' as the Environmental
Protection Agency; (2) the ``Administrator'' as the
Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency' and (3)
``Assistant Administrator'' as the Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development.

Section 3. Office of Research and Development

Subseciton 3(a) authorizes to be appropriated to the EPA
Administrator for the ORD for environmental R&D and scientific
RD&D program $504, 022,100 for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and
$519,940,600 for FY 2001, to remain available until expended,
of which--(1) $2,000,000 for FY 2000 and $2,000,000 for FY 2001
shall be for the Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxics Research
Center; and (2) $5,000,000 for FY 2000 and $5,000,00 for FY
2001 shall be for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center.
Subsection 3(b) prohibits the obligation of any amounts
authorized under subsection 3(a) until 30 days after the
Administrator submits to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, a report detailing for all ORD
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs, projects and
activities, by appropriation goal and objectives, for FY 2000
and each of the previous two FYs--(1) a description of, and
funding requested or allocated for, each such program, project
and activity; (2) an identification of all recipients of funds
to conduct such programs, projects and activities; and (3) an
estimate of the amounts to be expended by each recipient of
funds identified in (2).
Subsection 3(c) provides that the 30 days described in
subsection 3(b) will not include any day on which either House
of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than three days to a day certain.
Committee views
With the few exceptions identified in bill language and the
EPA's HPCC program, the Committee's recommendations for FY 2000
are consistent with the Administration' request; and for FY
2001--again with the few exceptions identified in bill language
and the EPA's HPCC program--the Committee's recommendations
provide a 3-percent increase above the FY 2000 recommended
levels. These levels are recommended to provide a stable and
predictable funding pattern in which to conduct this important
research.
As noted in the footnote to the budget table provided
above, the EPA's HPCC has been excluded from this authorization
legislation and will be authorized under separate legislation.
This lack of endorsement for EPA's HPCC program in H.R. 1742
should not be construed as a lack of endorsement for the
program. It is the Chairman's intention for the Committee to
act on separate legislation that will authorize appropriations
for the HPCC Program--including EPA's portion--as well as the
proposed Information Technology for the 21st Century (IT2)
Initiative and further Next Generation Internet (NGI)
activities for those agencies under the Committee's
jurisdiction.
The Committee has included an authorization of $5.0 million
in each of FYs 2000 and 2001 for environmental R&D and
scientific RD&D at the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center (GCHSRC). The Committee recognizes the expertise of the
GCHSRC can also be used to support other related environmental
R&D and scientific RD&D to address problems of concern to the
Gulf region. The authorization included in this Act is
sufficient to support ongoing work at the GCHSRC and to expand
its work to develop a cooperative environmental R&D and
scientific RD&D program on air quality, which will be a new
cooperative effort between the GCHSRC and its member
universities--Louisiana State University, the University of
Alabama, Mississippi State University, Texas AM University, the
University of Central Florida, the University of Houston, the
University of Texas, Rice University, and Lamar University.
In spite of repeated discussions and meetings with the EPA
over a period of years about the inadequacy of its budget
information, the Agency has proved unwilling or unable to
provide the Congress and the American people with the basic and
fundamental information required to analyze its budget. In
fact, the situation has worsened since the Agency reformulated
its budget in a format it claims is consistent with both the
letter and spirit of the Government performance and Results Act
of 1993.\15\ The Committee respectfully disagrees with the EPA
and has included a provision that prohibits the obligation of
any amounts authorized in the bill until 30 days after the
Administrator submits to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House and the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, a detailed report for FY 2000 and
each of the previous two FYs, for all ORD environmental R&D and
scientific RD&D programs, projects and activities, by
appropriation goal and objectives authorized under this Act,
which shall include (1) a description of, and funding requested
or allocated for, each such program, project and activity; (2)
an identification of all recipients of funds to conduct such
programs, projects and activities; and (3) an estimate of the
amounts to be expended by each recipient of funds identified in
(2). The Committee must take this action because the Agency's
long-standing and continuing refusal to comply with Committee
requests for budget information leaves no alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ P.L. 103-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 4. Scientific research review

Subsection 4(a) requires the Administrator to assign to the
Assistant Administrator the duties of--(1) developing a
strategic plan for environmental R&D and scientific RD&D
programs, projects and activities throughout the agency; (2)
integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency planning
activities; and (3) reviewing all Agency environmental R&D and
scientific RD&D programs, projects and activities to ensure the
RD&D--(A) is of high quality; and (B) does not duplicate any
other environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs, projects
and activities being conducted by the Agency.
Subsecton 4(b) requires the Assistant Administrator to
transit an annual report to the Administrator and to the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of
theHouse and the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the
Committee on Appropriations of the Senate detailing--(1) all Agency
environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs, projects and
activities, and (2) all Agency environmental R&D and scientific RD&D
programs, projects and activities the Assistant Administrator finds
duplicates other Agency environmental R&D and scientific RD&D programs,
projects and activities.

Section 5. Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Student
Fellowship Program

Section 5 requires the Administrator to ensure that any
fellowship award to a student selected under the STAR Graduate
Student Fellowship Program after the date of enactment of this
Act is used only to support scientific research that furthers
the mission of the ORD.

Section 6. Science Advisory Board

Subsection 6(a) requires the SAB to submit to Congress and
to the Administrator an annual report containing the views of
the SAB on proposed environmental R&D and scientific RD&D
programs as described in the Agency's budget as soon as
practicable after submission of the budget to Congress.
Subsection 6(b) requires the SAB to conduct periodic
evaluations of selected areas of the Agency's current and
planned environmental and scientific R&D programs. The areas of
evaluation are to be selected by the Administrator in
consultation with the SAB, the ORD, and other Agency programs,
or by the appropriate committees of Congress in consultation
with the SAB. Reports containing SAB evaluations and
recommendations shall be filed with such committees and the
Administrator. The Administrator shall respond to the findings
in writing within 60 days and provide a copy of that response
to the Administrator and to such committees.
Subsection 6(c) requires the Administrator to submit to the
Congress any report required by law to be submitted to the
Administrator by the SAB not later than 60 days after such
submission to the Administrator.
Subsection 6(D) authorizes to be appropriated to the
Administrator $2,636,200 for FY 2000 and $2,768,000 for FY 2001
for SAB activities.

Section 7. Notice

Subsections 7 (a) and (b) would allow the Administrator to
reprogram funds for any authorized activities of the ORD or the
SAB--(1) up to the lesser of $250,000 or 5 percent of the total
funding for a fiscal year of an environmental research or
development or scientific research, development, or
demonstration program, project or activity of the ORD or the
SAB; or (2) up to 25 percent of the total funding for a fiscal
year for such program, project or activity of the ORD or the
SAB after the Administrator has transmitted a report containing
a full and complete statement of the action proposed to be
taken and the facts and circumstances that support such
proposed action to the Committee on Science and the Committee
on Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and a period of 60 days has
elapsed after the date on which the report is received
(excluding any day on which either House of Congress is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain).
Subsection 7(c) prohibits the use of reprogrammed funds for
an environmental research or development or scientific
research, development, or demonstration program, project or
activity for which funding has been requested to the Congress
but which has not been funded by the Congress.
Subsection 7(d) requires the Administrator to provide
simultaneously to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, any annual operating plan or
other operational funding document, including any additions or
amendments thereto, provided to any committee of Congress.
Subsection 7(e) also requires the Administrator to provide
copies simultaneously to the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, of any report relating to the
environmental R&D or scientific RD&D programs, projects or
activities of the ORD or SAB prepared at the direction of any
committee of Congress.
Subsection 7(f) requires the Administrator to provide
notice to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days before any
major reorganization of an environmental R&D or scientific RD&D
program, project or activity of the ORD or SAB.

Section 8. Budget request format

Section 8 requires the Administrator to provide to the
Congress at the same time as the budget request submission a
detailed budget justification for programs, projects and
activities authorized by this Act. Each such document shall
include, for the FY requested and for two previous FYs--(1) a
description and funding requested levels for each program,
project and activity; (2) identification of all recipients of
these funds; and (3) an estimate of the amount to be expended
by each recipient in paragraph (2). In addition, Section 5
stipulates that the document required by this section shall be
presented in the format employed by, and with the level of
detail included in, the document entitled ``Department of
Energy FY 2000 Congressional Budget Request, DOE/CR-0062,
Volume 3'', dated February 1999.
Committee views
As noted above, the Committee must take this action because
the Agency's long-standing and continuing refusal to comply
with Committee requests for budget information leaves no
alternative.

Section 9. Limits on use of funds

Subsection 9(a) provides that not more than 1 percent of
the funds authorized by this Act may be used either directly or
indirectly to fund travel costs of the Agency or travel costs
for persons awarded grants, contracts, subcontracts, or any
other form of financial assistance by the Agency. As part of
the Agency's annual budget request submission to the Congress,
the Administrator must submit a report to the Committee on
Science and Committee on Appropriations of theHouse, and to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works and Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate that identifies--(1) the estimated amount
of travel costs by the Agency and for persons awarded grants,
contracts, subcontracts, or any other form of financial assistance by
the Agency for the fiscal year of such budget submission, as well as
for the two previous first years; (2) the major purposes for such
travel; and (3) the sources of funds for such travel.
Subsection 9(b) provides that no funds authorized by the
Act may be used either directly or indirectly to fund a grant,
contract, subcontract or any other form of financial assistance
awarded by the Agency to a trade association on a
noncompetitive basis. As part of the Agency's annual budget
request submission to the Congress, the Administrator shall
also submit a report to the Committee on Science and Committee
on Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and Committee on Appropriations of
the Senate that shall identify--(1) the estimated amount of
funds provided by the Agency to trade associations, by trade
association, for the fiscal year of such budget submission, as
well as for the two previous fiscal years; (2) the services
either provided or to be provided by each such trade
association; and (3) the sources of funds for services provided
by each such trade association.
Submission 9(c) provides that none of the funds authorized
by this Act may be used to propose or issue rules, regulations,
decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation of, or in
preparation for implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol which was
adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third
Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to
the Senate for advise and consent to ratification pursuant to
article II, section 2, clause 2 of the United States
Constitution and which has not entered into force pursuant to
article 25 of the Protocol.
Subsection 9(b) provides that of the amounts authorized
under section 3(a)(1), $1,000,000 for FY 2000 shall be for a
field-scale environmental RD&D project at an existing site for
remediation of soils contaminated by recalcitrant hydrocarbon
and lead contaminants using technologies and processes capable
of homogenizing soil while injecting both oxidizers and
catalysts to the degree necessary for chemical oxidation to
occur and that would render lead contaminants essentially
inert.
Committee views
The subsection 9(c) prohibition on the use of funds
authorized by this Act to propose or issue rules, decrees, or
orders for the purpose of implementation of, or in preparation
for implementation of, the Kyoto Protocol, is virtually
identical to that contained in Public Law 105-276, the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
It is the Committee's view that Kyoto Protocol should not be
implemented prematurely.

Section 10. Limitation on demonstrations

Subsection 10 requires that the Agency only provide funding
for scientific demonstration projects for the ORD or the SAB
for technologies or processes that can be reasonably expected
to yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, efficiency, or
performance of the technology or process.

Section 11. Federal acquisition regulation

Subsection 11(a) prohibits the use of funds authorized by
this Act may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract of
ORD or SAB in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation unless the Administrator grants, on a
case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a deviation. The
Administrator may not delegate the authority to grant such a
waiver.
Subsection 11(b) requires that at least 60 days before a
contract award, amendment, or modification for which the
Administrator intends to grant such a waiver, the Administrator
shall submit to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, a report notifying the committees
of the waiver and setting forth the reasons for the waiver.

Section 12. Requests for proposals

Subsection 12 prohibits the Agency from using funds
authorized by this Act to prepare or initiate RFPs for a
program, project or activity if the program, project or
activity has not been specifically authorized by Congress.

Section 13. Production of provision of articles or services

Section 13 prohibits the use of funds authorized under this
Act by any program, project or activity of ORD or SAB to
produce or provide articles or services for the purpose of
selling to a person outside the Federal Government, unless the
Administrator determines that comparable articles or services
are not available from a commercial source in the U.S.

Section 14. Eligibility for awards

Subsection 14(a) requires the Administrator to exclude from
consideration for grant agreements made after FY 1999 by the
ORD or the SAB, under the programs, projects and activities for
which funds are authorized under this Act, any person who
received funds, other than those described in subsection 14(b),
appropriated for a fiscal year after FY 1999, under a grant
agreement from any Federal funding source for a project that
was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process,
except as specifically authorized by this Act. Any exclusion
from consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective
for a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal
funds.
Subsection 14(b) provides that subsection 14(a) shall not
apply to the receipt of Federal funds by a person due to the
membership of that person in a class specified by law for which
assistance is awarded to members of the class according to a
formula provided by law.
Subsection 14(c) defines the term ``grant agreement'' to
mean a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to transfer
a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose
of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase,
lease, or barter) of property or services for the direct
benefit or use of the United States Government. Such term also
does not include a cooperative agreement (as such term is used
in section 6305 of title 31, United States Code) or a
cooperative research anddevelopment agreement (as such term is
defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).
Committee views
The Committee has a long-standing position that awards
should be based on a competitive, merit-based process. Merit
review allows taxpayers' dollars to be spent in the most cost-
effective manner.

Section 15. Internet availability of information

Section 15 requires the Administrator to make available
through EPA's Internet home page the abstracts relating to all
research grants and awards made with funds authorized by this
Act. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or
permit the release of any information prohibition by law or
regulation from being released to the public.
Committee views
The Committee believes that by giving public access to
information about how tax dollars are spent, it is acting as a
responsible steward of taxpayer resources. Such information can
also stimualte additional public and private sector research by
informing the research community.

VIII. Cost Estimate

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that each report of a committee on a
public bill or public joint resolution contain: (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 such 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. However, House Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(3)(B) provides that
this requirement 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 pursuant to House Rule
XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 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
timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the
filing of this report and is included in Section IX of this
report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a
measure that has been approved by the committee providing new
budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new
spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in
revenues or tax expenditures include 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. H.R. 1742 does not contain any new budget
authority, new spending authority, or new credit authority, or
changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums
authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1742 does
authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in
the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is
contained in Section IX of this report.

IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a
measure that has been approved by the committee include 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. The Committee on
Science has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 1742
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 8, 1999.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1742, the
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of
1999.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley
(for federal costs) and Lisa Cash Driskill (for the state and
local impact).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

H.R. 1742--Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of
1999

Summary: H.R. 1742 would authorize the appropriation of
$504 million in fiscal year 2000 and $520 million in fiscal
year 2001 for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Research and Development to conduct environmental and
scientific research, development, and demonstration activities.
In addition, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $3
million for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the
activities of EPA's Science Advisory Board.
CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts
would result in additional discretionary spending of $1,030
million over the 2000-2003 period. The bill would not affect
direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply. H.R. 1742 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 1742 is shown in the following table.
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts
authorized will be appropriated by the beginning of each fiscal
year and that outlays will occur at rates similar to those of
past appropriations for EPA research and development (R&D)
activities. The costs of this legislation fall within budget
function 300 (natural resources and environment).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

EPA R&D spending under current law:
Budget authority \1\........................................ 702 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays........................................... 650 311 107 4 2 0
Proposed changes:
Authorization level......................................... 0 507 523 0 0 0
Estimated outlays........................................... 0 205 438 310 78 0
EPA R&D spending under current H.R. 1742:
Authorization level \1\..................................... 702 507 523 0 0 0
Estimated outlays........................................... 650 516 545 314 80 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the total amount appropriated for EPA's Science and Technology account, including
transfers from other accounts, and funds provided for EPA's Science Advisory Board.

Pay-as-you-go consideration: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1742
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments. Some of the funds authorized in the bill
would be used for research at academic institutions, including
public universities.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs--Kim Cawley; impact on
State, local, and tribal governments--Lisa Cash Driskill.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

H.R. 1742 contains no unfunded mandates.

XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a
measure that has been approved by the committee include
oversight findings and recommendations under clause 2(b)(1) of
rule X. The Committee on Science's oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on
Government Reform

Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a
measure that has been approved by the committee include a
summary of oversight findings and recommendations made by the
Committee on Government Reform under clause 4(c)(2) of rule X
if such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the
reporting committee in time to allow it to consider such
findings and recommendations during its deliberations on the
measure. The Committee on Science has received no such findings
or recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform.

XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires that each report of a committee on a
public bill or public joint resolution contain a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the
United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1742.

XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

H.R. 1742 does not establish or authorize the establishment
of any advisory committee.

XV. Congressional Accountability Act

The Committee finds that H.R. 1742 does not relate to the
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

XVI. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported

This legislation does not amend any existing Federal
statute.

XVII. Committee Recommendations

On May 26, 1999, a quorum being present, the Committee
favorably reported H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory
Board Authorization Act of 1999, as amended, by a voice vote,
and recommended its enactment.

XVIII. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup

proceedings of the committee on science full committee markup on h.r.
1742, environmental protection agency office of research and
development and science advisory board authorization act of 1999, may
25-26, 1999

may 25, 1999

Chairman Sensenbrenner. So, pursuant to notice, I call up
H.R. 1742. Without objection, the bill is read a third time and
will be open for amendment at any point. I recognize myself for
five minutes.
[The information follows:]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Research and Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization
Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development for
environmental and scientific research, development, and demonstration
programs, projects, and activities for which specific sums are not
authorized under other authority of law $504,022,100 for fiscal year
2000 and $519,940,600 for fiscal year 2001, to remain available until
expended, of which--
(1) $37,300,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $38,419,000 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for environmental and scientific
research, development, and demonstration programs, projects,
and activities related to the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, subject to
section 9(e) of this Act;
(2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $1,030,000 for fiscal
year 2001 shall be for environmental and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs, projects, and
activities related to oil spills;
(3) $600,000 for fiscal year 2000 and $618,000 for fiscal
year 2001 shall be for environmental and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs, projects, and
activities related to leaking underground storage tanks; and
(4) $491,715,100 for fiscal year 2000 and $506,466,600 for
fiscal year 2001 shall be for other environmental and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs,
projects, and activities of the Office of Research and
Development.
(b) Limitation.--None of the amounts authorized under subsection (a)
may be obligated until 30 days after the Administrator submits to the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, a report detailing,
for fiscal year 2000 and each of the 2 previous fiscal years, for all
Office of Research and Development environmental and scientific
research, development, and demonstration programs, projects, and
activities, by appropriation goal and objectives--
(1) a description of, and funding requested or allocated for,
each such program, project, and activity;
(2) an identification of all recipients of funds to conduct
such programs, projects, and activities; and
(3) an estimate of the amounts to be expended by each
recipient of funds identified under paragraph (2).
(c) Exclusion.--In the computation of the 30-day period described in
subsection (b), there shall be excluded any day on which either House
of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3
days to a day certain.

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall assign to the Assistant
Administrator the duties of--
(1) developing a strategic plan for environmental and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs,
projects, and activities throughout the Agency;
(2) integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency
planning activities; and
(3) reviewing all Agency environmental and scientific
research, development, and demonstration programs, projects,
and activities to ensure the research, development, and
demonstration--
(A) is of high quality; and
(B) does not duplicate any other environmental and
scientific research, development, and demonstration
programs, projects, and activities being conducted by
the Agency.
(b) Report.--The Assistant Administrator shall transmit annually to
the Administrator and to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, a report detailing--
(1) all Agency environmental and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs, projects, and
activities the Assistant Administrator finds is not of
sufficiently high quality; and
(2) all Agency environmental and scientific research,
development, and demonstration programs, projects, and
activities the Assistant Administrator finds duplicate other
Agency environmental and scientific research, development, and
demonstration programs, projects, and activities.

SEC. 5. SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS (STAR) GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIP
PROGRAM.

SEC. 6. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Annual Report.--The Science Advisory Board shall submit to
Congress and to the Administrator an annual report that contains the
views of the Science Advisory Board on proposed environmental and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs, projects,
and activities as described in the Agency's budget. Such report shall
be submitted to Congress as soon as practicable after the submission of
the Agency's budget to Congress. The Administrator shall cooperate with
the Chairperson of the Science Advisory Board, particularly with
respect to the timely provision of budget information to the Science
Advisory Board, to allow the Science Advisory Board to carry out its
duties under this subsection.
(b) Evaluation.--The Science Advisory Board shall conduct periodic
evaluations of selected areas of the current and planned environmental
and scientific research, development, and demonstration programs,
projects, and activities of the Agency. The areas of evaluation shall
be selected by the Science Advisory Board in consultation with the
Administrator, the Office of Research and Development, other Agency
programs, and appropriate committees of the Congress. Reports
containing the Science Advisory Board's evaluations and recommendations
shall be filed with such committees and the Administrator. The
Administrator shall provide to such committees a written response to
the Science Advisory Board's evaluation and recommendations within 60
days after the Science Advisory Board's report has been submitted.
(c) Review of Certain Programs, Projects, and Activities.--The
Science Advisory Board shall annually review the environmental and
scientific research, development, and demonstration programs, projects,
and activities of the Agency and shall include the results of such
review in the annual report required by subsection (a).
(d) Submission to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit to the
Congress any report required by law to be submitted to the
Administrator by the Science Advisory Board. The Administrator shall
make any such submission not later than 60 days after the Administrator
receives the report from the Science Advisory Board.
(e) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator $2,636,200 for fiscal year 2000 and $2,768,000 for fiscal
year 2001 for activities of the Science Advisory Board.

SEC. 7. NOTICE.

(a) Reprogramming.--The Administrator may use for any authorized
activities of the Office of Research and Development or the Science
Advisory Board under this Act--
(1) up to the lesser of $250,000 or 5 percent of the total
funding for a fiscal year of an environmental or scientific
research, development, or demonstration program, project, or
activity of the Office of Research and Development or the
Science Advisory Board; or
(2) after the expiration of 60 days after transmitting to the
Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, a report described in subsection (b), up to 25 percent
of the total funding for a fiscal year of an environmental or
scientific research, development, or demonstration program,
project, or activity of the Office of Research and Development
or the Science Advisory Board.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)(2) is a
report containing a full and complete statement of the action proposed
to be taken and the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of
such proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 60-day period under subsection (a)(2),
there shall be excluded any day on which either House of Congress is
not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain.
(c) Limitations.--In no event may funds be used pursuant to
subsection (a) for an environmental or scientific research,
development, or demonstration program, project, or activity for which
funding has been requested to the Congress but which has not been
funded by the Congress.
(d) Annual Operating Plan.--The Administrator shall provide
simultaneously to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, any annual operating plan or other operational funding
document, including any additions oramendments thereto, provided to any
committee of Congress.
(e) Copy of Reports.--In addition to the documents required under
subsection (d), the Administrator shall provide copies simultaneously
to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, of any
report relating to the environmental or scientific research,
development, or demonstration programs, projects, or activities of the
Office of Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board
prepared at the direction of any committee of Congress.
(f) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall provide notice
to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, not
later than 15 days before any major reorganization of any environmental
or scientific research, development, or demonstration program, project,
or activity of the Office of Research and Development or the Science
Advisory Board.

SEC. 8. BUDGET REQUEST FORMAT.

The Administrator shall provide to the Congress, to be transmitted at
the same time as the Agency's annual budget request submission, a
detailed justification for budget authorization for the programs,
projects, and activities for which funds are authorized by this Act.
Each such document shall include, for the fiscal year for which funding
is being requested and for the 2 previous fiscal years--
(1) a description of, and funding requested or allocated for,
each such program, project, and activity;
(2) an identification of all recipients of funds to conduct
such programs, projects, and activities; and
(3) an estimate of the amounts to be expended by each
recipient of funds identified under paragraph (2).
The document required by this section shall be presented in the format
employed by, and with the level of detail included in, the document
entitled ``Department of Energy FY 2000 Congressional Budget Request,
DOE/CR-0062, Volume 3'', dated February 1999.

SEC. 9. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

(a) Travel.--Not more than 1 percent of the funds authorized by this
Act may be used either directly or indirectly to fund travel costs of
the Agency or travel costs for persons awarded grants, contracts,
subcontracts, or any other form of financial assistance by the Agency.
As part of the Agency's annual budget request submission to the
Congress, the Administrator shall submit a report to the Committee on
Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, and to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, that identifies--
(1) the estimated amount of travel costs by the Agency and
for persons awarded grants, contracts, subcontracts, or any
other form of financial assistance by the Agency for the fiscal
year of such budget submission, as well as for the 2 previous
fiscal years;
(2) the major purposes for such travel; and
(3) the sources of funds for such travel.
(b) Trade Associations.--No funds authorized by this Act may be used
either directly or indirectly to fund a grant, contract, subcontract,
or any other form of financial assistance awarded by the Agency to a
trade association on a noncompetitive basis. As part of the Agency's
annual budget request submission to the Congress, the Administrator
shall submit a report to the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate, that identifies--
(1) the estimated amount of funds provided by the Agency to
trade associations, by trade association, for the fiscal year
of such budget submission, as well as for the 2 previous fiscal
years;
(2) the services either provided or to be provided by each
such trade association; and
(3) the sources of funds for services provided by each such
trade association.
(c) Kyoto Protocol.--None of the funds authorized by this Act may be
used either directly or indirectly for the purpose of implementation,
or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was
adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Conference
of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, unless it has been ratified by the Senate and has entered into
force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol.
(d) High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program.--
None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for the Agency's
High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program.
(e) Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Project.--
Of the amounts authorized under section 3(a)(1), $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000 shall be for a field-scale environmental research,
development, and demonstration project at an existing site for
remediation of soils contaminated by recalcitrant hydrocarbon and lead
contaminants using technologies and processes capable of homogenizing
soil while injecting both oxidizers and catalysts to the degree
necessary for chemical oxidation to occur and that renders lead
contaminants essentially inert.

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

The Agency shall provide funding for environmental or scientific
demonstration programs, projects, or activities of the Office of
Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board only for
technologies or processes that are substantially new, and not for
incremental improvements to technologies that exist in the marketplace,
except as specifically authorized by this Act.

SEC. 11. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.

SEC. 12. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Agency to prepare or initiate Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
for a program, project, or activity if the program, project, or
activity has not been specifically authorized by Congress.

SEC. 13. PRODUCTION OR PROVISION OF ARTICLES OR SERVICES.

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act may be
used by any program, project, or activity of the Office of Research and
Development or the Science Advisory Board to produce or provide
articles or services for the purpose of selling the articles or
services to a person outside the Federal Government, unless the
Administrator determines that comparable articles or services are not
available from a commercial source in the United States.

SEC. 14. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

(a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration
for grant agreements made after fiscal year 1999 by the Office of
Research and Development or the Science Advisory Board, under the
programs, projects, and activities for which funds are authorized under
this Act, any person who received funds, other than those described in
subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1999,
under a grant agreement from any Federal funding source for a project
that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process,
except as specifically authorized by this Act. Any exclusion from
consideration pursuant to this section shall be effective for a period
of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of
Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that person in a
class specified by law for which assistance is awarded to members of
the class according to a formula provided by law.
(c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term ``grant
agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal purpose is to
transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public
purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United
States, and does not include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or
barter) of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the
United States Government. Such term does not include a cooperative
agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United
States Code) or a cooperative research and development agreement (as
such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

Chairman Sensenbrenner. This bill authorizes $506.7 million
for Fiscal Year 2000 and $522.7 million for Fiscal Year 2001
for the EPA's Office of Research and Development and the
Science Advisory Board.
For Research and Development Office, the bill supports the
administration's request for EPA's or the programs, projects,
and activities, It is an increase of $15.9 million above the
current appropriated level.
For the Science Advisory Board, the administration's
request is also supported. There is a 3 percent increase there.
There are some other provisions in the bill, and I would ask
unanimous consent that my opening statement be placed in the
record at this point.
[The information follows:]

Opening Statement of Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Committee on
Science

H.R. 1742 authorizes $506.7 million for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and
$522.7 million for FY 2001 for Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory Board
(SAB). Highlights of the bill's authorizations for fiscal years 2000
and 2001 include:
Office of Research and Development--H.R. 1742 supports the
Administration's request for EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) programs, projects and activities. The bill recommends $504.0
million in FY 2000 and $519.9 million in FY 2001, an increase of $15.9
million, or 3.0 percent above the amount recommended for FY 2000.
Science Advisory Board--H.R. 1742 also supports the
Administration's request for EPA's Science Advisory Board. The bill
recommends $2.64 million in FY 2000--the Administration's request--and
$2.72 million for FY 2001, an increase of $0.1 million, or 3.0 percent
above the amount recommended for FY 2000.
Other provisions of the bill include the following:
Establishes the EPA Assistant Administrator for ORD as
EPA's chief scientific official in charge of the Agency's environmental
and scientific RD&D strategic planning;
Ensures that fellowship awards to students selected under
the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Student Fellowship
Program are used only to support scientific research that furthers the
mission of the ORD in fields in which there exists or will exist a
shortage of scientists;
Strengthens and institutionalizes the role of the Science
Advisory Board in analyzing, evaluating, and reviewing EPA's current
and planned environmental and scientific RD&D programs, projects, and
activities and associated budgets;
Requires EPA to submit its budget requests in a format
that is transparent and in sufficient detail so that it is
understandable;
Prohibits the use of any funds in the bill for EPA's High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program, which will be
authorized in separate legislation, or for the purpose of implementing
or in preparation of implementing the Kyoto Protocol until the Protocol
has been ratified by the Senate and entered into force;
Limits wasteful travel by EPA and its contractors;
Prohibits noncompetitive awards of grants, contracts,
subcontracts, or any other forms of financial assistance to trade
associations;
Sets limits on amounts of funds that may be reprogrammed;
Limits demonstrations to technologies and processes that
are substantially new, and not for incremental improvements for
technologies or processes that exist in the marketplace; and
Prohibits EPA and its contractors from competing with the
private section.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. And who would like to give the
opening statement on the Democratic side?
The gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to thank you
for working with us to incorporate the changes included in the
manager's amendment. The numbers contained in this
authorization are generally consistent with the President's
request for these accounts for Fiscal Year 2001. And the
inclusion of 3 percent increase in funds for Fiscal Year 2001,
provides a reasonable level of increase for these programs next
year.
I would have preferred to see more specific allocations of
funding to program areas in the bill. I hope we will include
some guidance on funding priorities for EPA's research programs
in the report accompanying this bill. We cannot develop cost-
effective environmental protection strategies without good
scientific information. It is essential that the research
programs at EPA be focused on generating the information
necessary for us to make wise decisions that balance our need
for a healthy environment with our need for a healthy economy.
I believe we share a desire to see the Agency's budget
request presented in a more detailed format than they have yet
accomplished since switching to the goal-based format directed
by the Government Performance and Results Act.
I hope that we can work together with the Agency and come
to some agreement on the future format that will be coming to
accommodate all of our needs. In general, this seems to be a
reasonable bill. We do have a few outstanding issues that will
require further discussion.
I hope that we can continue to perfect the bill today
before proceeding to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all members'
opening statements will be placed in the record at this point.
[The information follows:]

Statement of Chairman Ken Calvert, Energy and Environment Subcommittee

Today we mark up H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation Authorization Act of 1999.
Over the last three months, my subcommittee has held oversight
hearings on EPA's science and technology and Climate Change Technology
Initiative accounts (CCTI). Today we are discussing the budget
authority for large portion of the S&T account, the Office of Research
and Development.
I have some serious questions about the Agency's R&D priorities,
but first I would like to comment on what I see as a real problem in
this year's budget: insufficient detail. It is impossible to determine
where EPA intends to use their funding down to specific programs,
projects and activities. The Agency explains that they are complying
with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) which calls for
the budget to be aligned with broad strategic goals and objectives.
This, they claim, means that they no longer need to provide a budget
justification by program. Yet other budget requests, including the
Department of Energy's--which is on the agenda today--contain detail
down to the program and activity level. If DOE provides these numbers
within a Results Act structure, I don't see why EPA cannot.
I continue to be a strong proponent of sound science at the EPA,
and, therefore am very concerned about EPA's fogginess in their R&D
budget priorities. The committee cannot determine with any great
certainty who is doing what, where, and why. We are requesting that EPA
perform a survey of Agency science in all of its program offices as
part of this authorization bill.
Because of these difficulties, we are doing something a little
unusual this year. We will authorize the EPA R&D account, but make the
authorization contingent upon the presentation of credible and detailed
budget figures to the committee. The authorization bill also requires
the Agency to do a more precise job in preparing their budget
submission for next year.
I hope that the provisions and funding levels contained in this
authorization indicate the seriousness we place on science at the EPA,
and how important it is for this committee to receive adequate budget
information from the Agency. I would like to conclude my statement by
noting that if this authorization bill is signed by the president, it
will be the first time since 1981 that we have authorized the R&D
budget at EPA. With that, I ask for your support on this important
authorization bill.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The first amendment on the roster
is an en bloc amendment by the gentleman from California, Mr.
Calvert, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek
recognition?
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
and I would ask unanimous consent that amendment number one and
amendment number 8 be considered en bloc.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
Without objection, amendment number one is an en bloc amendment
and will be considered en bloc. And the gentleman is recognized
for five minutes.
[The information follows:]

Amendment to H.R. 1742 Offered by Mr. Calvert and Mr. Costello

Strike ``environmental and scientific'' each place it appears in the
bill and insert ``environmental research and development and
scientific''.
Strike ``environmental or scientific'' each place it appears in the
bill and insert ``environmental research or development or
scientific''.
Page 2, lines 18 and 19, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 2, line 22, through page 3, line 18, strike ``, of which'' and
all that follows through ``Research and Development''.
Page 4, line 23, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 5, line 2, insert ``environmental research and development and
scientific research, development, and demonstration'' after ``ongoing
Agency''.
Page 5, line 5, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 5, lines 10 and 11, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 5, lines 19 and 20, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 5, lines 23 and 24, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 6, line 2, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 6, lines 11 and 12, strike ``in fields in which'' and all that
follows through ``number of scientists''.
Page 6, lines 18 and 19, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Page 7, lines 6 and 7, strike ``, projects, and activities''.
Strike ``programs, projects, and activities'' each place it appears
in the bill and insert ``programs, projects and activities''.
Strike ``programs, projects, or activities'' each place it appears in
the bill and insert ``programs, projects or activities''.
Strike ``program, project, and activity'' each place it appears in
the bill and insert ``program, project and activity''.
Strike ``program, project, or activity'' each place it appears in the
bill and insert ``program, project or activity''.
Page 7, lines 7 through 11, strike ``The areas of evaluation'' and
all that follows through ``committees of the Congress.'' and insert
``The areas of evaluation shall be selected by the Administrator, in
consultation with the Science Advisory Board, the Office of Research
and Development, and other Agency programs, or by the appropriate
committees of the Congress in consultation with the Science Advisory
Board.''.
Page 7, lines 18 through 23, strike subsection (c).
Page 7, line 24, and page 8, line 5, redesignate subsections (d) and
(e) as subsections (c) and (d), respectively.
Page 12, lines 5 and 6, strike ``grants, contracts, subcontracts, or
any other form of financial assistance'' and insert ``contracts or
subcontracts''.
Page 12, lines 15 through 17, strike ``grants, contracts,
subcontracts, or any other form of financial assistance'' and insert
``contracts or subcontracts''.
Page 13, line 24, through page 14, line 3, strike subsection (d).
Page 14, line 4, redesignate subsection (e) as subsection (d).
Page 14, line 6, strike ``(1)''.
Page 14, lines 7 and 8, strike ``research, development, and
demonstration'' and insert ``research and development''.
Page 14, lines 15 through 22, amend section 10 to read as follows:

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

The Agency shall provide funding for scientific demonstration
projects of the Office of Research and Development or the Science
Advisory Board only for technologies or processes that can be
reasonably expected to yield new, measurable benefits to the cost,
efficiency, or performance of the technology or process.
Page 17, line 2, insert ``or under circumstances permitting other
than full and open competition under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation'' after ``provided by law''.
______

Title Amendment to H.R. 1742 Offered by Mr. Calvert and Mr. Costello

Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the environmental
research and development and scientific research, development, and
demonstration programs of the Office of Research and Development and
Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for
other purposes.''.

Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this
management amendment on behalf of myself and my friend, the
Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
The bipartisan management amendment makes technical and
conforming changes to H.R. 1742 as introduced, better clarifies
the intent of the Science To Achieve Results, STAR, graduate
student fellowship program section, streamlines the section on
the Science Advisory Board, and also better clarifies the
intent of the limitations on demonstrations and eligibility of
awards provisions.
Finally, after bipartisan consultations with the Commerce
Committee, this amendment makes clarifications in language and
provisions that strengthen the Committee's jurisdictional
claims for the bill's provisions.
I want to thank my good friend for his cooperation in
crafting this bipartisan management amendment and ask my
colleagues for their support.
For that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to
my friend, Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Calvert for
working with the Minority to craft this amendment and urge my
colleagues to support it.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back his
time?
Further discussion on the amendment?
[No response.]
Hearing none, all those in favor will signify----
Ms. Rivers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlelady from Michigan.
Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take
this opportunity to thank both the Chairman and the Chairman of
the Subcommittee for the new language in the en bloc amendment
that clarifies the intent of the language relative to research
demonstrations. I was concerned initially that the language in
the bill would have limited research demonstration only to
technologies and processes that are substantially new.
I feel that that concern was listened to, that the new
language was negotiated, and that the new language addresses my
concerns. And I am grateful to all of the people who were
involved with it.
Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Question is on the adoption of the
amendment. Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And
amendments number one and number none are agreed to.
The next amendment is by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson-Lee. Is she here?
Mr. Lampson. No, Mr. Chairman. May Lampson speak in her
behalf?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. That's a tall order, but the
gentleman is--for what purpose do you arise? [Laughter.]
Mr. Lampson. There is an amendment at the desk, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1742, offered by Ms. Jackson-
Lee of Texas.
Mr. Lampson. May we consider it read, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Lampson, is recognized for five months.
[The information follows:]

Amendment to H.R. 1742 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Page 2, line 22, insert ``, of which $2,000,000 for fiscal year
2000 and $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Mickey Leland
Urban Air Toxics Research Center'' after ``available until expended''.

Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to offer
this amendment in behalf of Ms. Jackson-Lee to this bill to get
funds authorized for a center named for the late and well-
respected Member of Congress, Mickey Leland.
The Mickey Leland Urban Air Toxic Research Center was
established under the 1996 amendments to the Clean Air Act with
the mandate that it research in environmental health research
programs that would look at the risks posed by air toxins in
urban atmospheres.
In this research, the Center takes a multi-disciplinary
approach to public health. The staff utilizes oncology,
epidemiology, toxicology, pulmonary science, pathology, and
bio-statistics to further their goals to--of helping all of us
who come from urban districts breathe easier and live longer.
Specifically, the Center's research program is focused on
measuring the actual quantities of exposures that people have
every day with air toxins, using bio-markers to protect
susceptible populations, like those that my own wife, Susan,
suffers from, asthma, from poor air quality, and from
researching the chemical effects of exposure to toxins.
So this is important research for urban areas all over the
country. Just this week we learned that if we were able to meet
the national air standards for just two key air pollutants that
we would avert over 435 early deaths and prevent emission-
related illnesses and symptoms in the Houston area alone.
We would save 1.1 million children from asthmatic symptoms,
even though many of them do not suffer from asthma. Imagine how
each of those numbers would translate into each of your
districts.
This research is vital for public health, and I urge each
of you to support this authorization so that this part of the
research can continue----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lampson. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I am happy to support the
amendment. I hope nobody else wants to debate it so we can get
it adopted before we have to go and vote.
Mr. Lampson. I yield back, and thank you, sir.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Any further discussion on the
Jackson-Lee by proxy amendment?
[No response.]
Hearing none. All those in favor will signify by saying
aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment
is agreed to.
The Committee will stand in recess. There are two votes
scheduled. Please be back promptly so we can continue working
because we are going to get all these bills done today.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order.
The next amendment--excuse me. When the Committee recessed,
the Committee was considering the bill H.R. 1742, the
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development and Science Advisory Board Authorization Act of
1999. The bill has been read a first time. Open for amendment
at any point. The first three amendments and the ninth
amendment on the amendment roster had been disposed of. The
next amendments are by the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
Lofgren.
For what purpose does she seek recognition?
Mr. Lampson. Mr. Chairman? Can we take amendment number
three?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. We did.
Mr. Lampson. Number two. I spoke for someone else. I would
like to speak for me.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I stand corrected. The gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Lampson would like to speak for himself. For
what purpose does he arise?
Mr. Lampson. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1742 offered by Mr. Lampson.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The information follows:]

Amendment to H.R. 1742 Offered by Mr. Lampson

Page 2, line 22, insert ``, of which $5,000,000 for fiscal year
2000 and $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 shall be for the Gulf Coast
Hazardous Substance Research Center'' after ``available until
expended''.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would
authorize $5 million in both Fiscal Year 2000 and Fiscal Year
2001 for the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center.
The Center was authorized in 1986, has been appropriated funds
each year since, but this amount of money would be set aside
out of the EPA's Office of Research and Development budget.
The Gulf Coast region of the United States faces some of
the most challenging air quality problems in the Nation. Its
meteorology and climatology is dominated by the Western Gulf
with the extremes in humidity, precipitation, and coastal air
mass movements, in addition to an unusual mix of large
industrial emission sources, extensive transportation sources,
significant biogenic emissions, and a complex coastal
meteorology.
These sources and the meteorology interact to produce
ozone, hazardous air pollutants and fine particulate matter.
Emission sources in the Gulf Coast region and the chemistry of
hazardous air pollutants and fine particulate matter emitted by
these sources are poorly understood. The influence of the high
humidities commonly encountered along the Gulf Coast is unknown
and a transport of pollutants driven by the coastal meteorology
is not well characterized. Emission rates must be related to
air quality, which requires good science, engineering,
modeling, information management, and decision making.
As the air problem is mainly a local to regional problem
that is related to the local and regional sources and
atmospheric conditions, the solution lies in studies conducted
by local and regional research cooperatives. The Gulf Coast
Hazardous Substance Research Center authorized by Congress in
1986, and made up of the Texas A&M University system, the
University of Texas, Rice University, the University of
Houston, Lamar University, Louisiana State University,
Mississippi State University, the University of Alabama, and
the University of Central Florida, has had over a decade of
experience in studying Gulf Coast environmental problems. It is
expedient that the Center take the lead in mounting a
coordinated and integrated air research effort.
The Gulf Coast Center has formed a Gulf Coast Air Research
Cooperative, whose main objective is to focus on three major
concerns, critical data gaps, unique Gulf Coast air chemistry
and characterization, and control of emissions that contributed
to Gulf Coast air quality problems. Pollution prevention which
is a recognized strength of the Center, will be emphasized
throughout the effort. The research will involve diagnostic,
prognostic, and control studies in cooperation with
laboratories within the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research
Center, and among its member university researchers.
The benefits which will flow from the improved
understanding will be numerous, improved air quality, better
environmental and regulatory decision making, better and more
focused monitoring, better applications of resources, improved
regional economics, increased competitiveness, and reduced
health risks, with the bottom line being the improvement of the
quality of life in the region and its continued economic
health.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield? This is a
constructive amendment. It is a set-aside, and I am pleased to
support it.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher. For what purpose do you seek recognition?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I strike the requisite number of words.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I support this amendment and would like to
commend my colleague. What we are talking about here is
research that's coming out of research money. I mean what you
are doing is trying to designate the research money for exactly
what it was intended. Plus, how you are directing it, I might
also compliment you. The fact that you are directing it at air
quality rather than on some other--trying to disprove or prove
some theory, scientific theory, you are actually trying to
direct this money towards air quality in your region. As I say,
this is not adding on extra money. This is trying to direct the
money the way it was intended, and I support the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the Lampson
amendment?
[No response.]
If not, all those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment
is agreed to.
Before recessing the Committee, the Chair is going to
attempt to find out if we are going to be rudely interrupted
every 10 minutes from now on in. If that's the case, I am about
ready to wave the flag of surrender.
The Committee rules require us to recess while the vote is
going on. Members will please come back promptly after this
vote. I will make inquiry if we are going to be voting on a
Coburn amendment every 10 minutes. But please come back. We
will try to finish this bill under the most difficult of
circumstances. The Committee is recessed.
[Recess.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. There are in excess of 100 Coburn
amendments, and we are going to be voting every 10 minutes. So
rather than try and finish today, the Committee is now
adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, to
reconvene Wednesday, May 26, 1999, at 2:00 p.m.]
------

wednesday, May 26, 1999

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:05 p.m., in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner [presiding]. The Committee on
Science will be in order.
When the Committee recessed yesterday, the Committee was
considering the bill H.R. 1742, the Environmental Protection
Agency Office of Research and Development and Science Advisory
Board Authorization Act of 1999. The bill had been read a first
time and was open for amendment at any point.
Amendments number 1, 2, 3, and 8 on the roster were
adopted. The next amendments up are 4 and 5 by the gentlewoman
from California, Ms. Lofgren.
For what purpose does she seek recognition?
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer number
4, but I would like to offer number 5.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report amendment
number 5.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1742 offered by Ms. Lofgren.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The information follows:]

Amendment to H.R. 1742 Offered by Ms. Lofgren

Page 13, lines 15 through 23, amend subsection (c) to read as
follows:
(c) Kyoto Protocol.--None of the funds authorized by this Act may
be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for
the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of
the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto,
Japan, at the Third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has not been submitted to
the Senate for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article
II, section 2, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and which
has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 of the Protocol.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
replaces the language in section 9(c) of the act with language
identical to that which was included in the EPA section of P.L.
105-276, the law making appropriations for the Veterans
Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies for 1999.
Implementation refers to the issuance of rules,
regulations, orders of decrees. There is no other way to
implement a law or a treaty. My amendment specifically
reiterates the ban contained in the appropriations law and
makes clear that no funds may be used for those specific
activities which implement the Kyoto Treaty. The issuance of
proposed rules, regulations, decrees, or orders by the Agency.
Since our bill is restricted to the authorization of EPA's
research and development programs, neither the language in the
bill nor the language of my amendment should be necessary.
Research and development programs are not tools of
implementation. I assume the language was included because we
wish to be very clear about Congress' view that the Kyoto
Protocol not be implemented prematurely.
If clarity is our goal, it would be best to adhere to the
language that has been agreed to by both the House and the
Senate, and that already exists in law, the language in my
amendment.
The language in section 9 of the bill is unclear. The
phrase which pertains to the use of funds authorized by this
act----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Lofgren. I certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. I believe that this amendment is a
constructive addition to the bill. I am pleased to accept it
with one proviso. That is, is that the language henceforth will
be referred to as the Knollenberg Lofgren language. Each of you
can explain to the other how this marriage got together.
Ms. Lofgren. That would be certainly acceptable if it is
with Mr. Knollenberg, and I am sure it would be.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on amendment
number 5 by the gentlewoman from California? Hearing none, all
those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment
is agreed to.
Ms. Lofgren. Point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California.
Ms. Lofgren. I have the identical language in an amendment
to be offered in the next EPA measure. Since this is now
theKnollenberg-Lofgren language, and I have an Ethics Committee meeting
that began 10 minutes ago, I would ask that Mr. Knollenberg offer this
measure.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well unfortunately, he is not a
member of the Committee. But the Chair will take you up on
that, and he will offer it himself.
Ms. Lofgren. All right. Thank you very much, sir.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The next amendment up is the
amendment number 6, by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Etheridge.
For what purpose do you seek recognition?
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
believe--I have an amendment at the desk, but I believe this
language was taken care of in a manager's amendment, if I'm not
incorrect on that.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The answer to your question is yes,
it was taken care of. So you are not going to offer it?
Mr. Etheridge. I will withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. But Mr.
Chairman, I do have report language. If appropriate, I would
offer it now or wait until the end of the bill. Which would
be----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For the report language, wait until
the end of the bill.
Mr. Etheridge. Okay.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Next amendment is amendment number
7 by the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert. The Chair on
behalf of Mrs. Biggert offers the amendment.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1742 offered by Mrs. Biggert.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The information follows:]

Amendment to H.R. 1742 Offered by Mrs. Biggert

Page 17, after line 15, insert the following new section:

SEC. 15. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

The Administrator shall make available through the Internet home
page of the Environmental Protection Agency the abstracts relating to
all research grants and awards made with funds authorized by this Act.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or permit the
release of any information prohibited by law or regulation from being
released to the public.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is recognized for five
minutes. This is the same language on the Internet availability
of information that Mrs. Biggert has offered to other
authorization bills. It has been non-controversial, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. Costello. We have no objection to the amendment.
Support it, and would move its adoption.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further discussion on the
Sensenbrenner-Biggert amendment? Hearing none, all those in
favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the
amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments to this bill? If not, it is
time for report language. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Lampson, has report language.
For what purpose does he seek recognition?
Mr. Lampson. Report language at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the report
language.
The Clerk. Report language offered by Congressman Nick
Lampson to H.R. 1742.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the
reportlanguage is considered as read.
[The information follows:]

Report Language Offered by Congressman Nick Lampson

The Committee has included an authorization of $5 million dollars
for research at the Gulf Coast Hazardous Substance Research Center
(GCHSRC). The GCHSRC was originally authorized in the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 to carry out a program of
research, evaluation, testing, development, and demonstration of
technologies to aid in more effective hazardous substance response and
waste management throughout the Gulf Coast region. The consortium,
which includes Louisiana State University, the University of Alabama,
Mississippi State University, Texas A&M University, the University of
Central Florida, University of Houston, University of Texas, Rice
University, and Lamar University continues to work in areas related to
hazardous water management.
The Committee recognizes the expertise of the Center can also be
used to support other related environmental research and development to
address problems of concern to the Gulf region including those related
to hazardous air pollutants, ozone, and fine particulate matter. The
authorization included in this Act is sufficient to support on-going
work at the Center and to expand the Center's work to develop a
cooperative program on air quality research. The Air Research
Cooperative would focus on studies to better understand: the physical
dynamics of the atmosphere that influence regional meteorology and
climatology, characterization of the constituents and dynamics of Gulf
Coast atmospheric chemistry, the characterization of emissions that
contribute to Gulf Coast air quality problems, and the development and
testing of emission control strategies to improve regional air quality.
Pollution prevention, which is a recognized strength of the Center,
will be emphasized throughout the effort. The new air research program
will be a cooperative effort between the laboratories of the GCHSRC and
its member Universities.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Texas is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Lampson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make
that available. I look forward to trying to resolve any
questions that the Chairman might have, and look forward to
working with the Committee to resolve them. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent that the budget tables----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Let's dispose of Mr. Lampson's
report language and Mr. Etheridge has some. Then we will get to
the tables.
Further discussion on the Lampson report language? If not,
all those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The report
language is agreed to.
Report language by the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Etheridge. For what purpose do you seek recognition?
Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Chairman, I have report language at the
desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the report
language.
The Clerk. Offered by Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina,
suggested report language for EPA HPCC. Language for EPA HPCC--
--
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the report
language is considered as read.
[The information follows:]

Offered by Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina

suggested report language for epa hpcc
Excluded from this authorization legislation is EPS's High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program which will be
authorized under separate authorization legislation. The lack of
authorization for EPA's HPCC program in H.R. 1742 should not be
construed as a lack of endorsement of the program. It is the Chairman's
intention for the Committee to act on separate legislation that will
authorize appropriations for the HPCC Program--including EPA's
portion--as well as the proposed Information Technology for the 21st
Century (IT2) Initiative and further Next Generation Internet (NGI)
activities for those agencies under the Committee's jurisdiction.

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Etheridge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this
is identical to the language that we adopted on the energy
bill, just saying that the competing material that will come in
a later bill, it was not intending the Committee to exclude
that from it, and it would be included as a part of it.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is prepared to accept
this as constructive. Any further discussion on the Etheridge
report language? If not, all those in favor will signify by
saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The report
language is agreed to.
Now tables by the Subcommittee Chair, the gentleman from
California, Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous
consent that the budget tables for H.R. 1742 be included in the
bill's report language, and the staff be permitted to make
technical corrections. This is consistent with Mr. Hall's
unanimous consent offered yesterday on H.R. 1655. I ask my
colleagues to support its adoption. I thank the Chair.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is there any objection to the
unanimous consent request of the gentleman?
Mr. Calvert. And I would be happy to yield to my friend
from Illinois.
Mr. Costello. We have no objection, and support the
amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Without objection, the tables
referred to by the gentleman from California are agreed to.
Is there further report language?
[No response.]
If not, it is time for a motion to report the bill
favorably. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Costello.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
favorably report H.R. 1742 as amended to the House with
recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. Furthermore, I
move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative
report and make necessary technical and conforming amendments,
and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the
bill before the House for consideration.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the motion to
report favorably by Mr. Costello. The Chair notes the presence
of a reporting quorum, barely, but it's still there.
Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye.
Opposed no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the bill
is favorably reported. Members will have two subsequent
calendar days in which to submit supplemental Minority
additional or dissenting views on the measure. Pursuant to
clause 1 of rule 22 of the rules of the House, with unanimous
consent, the Committee authorizes the Chairman to offer such
motions as may be necessary to go to conference with the Senate
on the bill. Without objection, also the staff is given
authority to make technical and conforming changes.
That concludes our consideration of this legislation.