39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 109–82

GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 

OF 2005

MAY 16, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 1215] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

1215) to provide for the implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program, and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 2

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 5

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 5

IV. Summary of Hearings ................................................................................. 8

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 10

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 12

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis ....................................................................... 13

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 15

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 17

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 17

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 18

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 18

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 18

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 19

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 19

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 19

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 19

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 19

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 20

XX. Minority View .............................................................................................. 21

XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup ............................................. 22

2

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act 

of 2005’’. 

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act—

(1) the term ‘‘green chemistry’’ means chemistry and chemical engineering to 

design chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances while producing high quality products through 

safe and efficient manufacturing processes; 

(2) the term ‘‘Interagency Working Group’’ means the interagency working 

group established under section 3(c); and 

(3) the term ‘‘Program’’ means the Green Chemistry Research and Development Program described in section 3. 

SEC. 3. GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall establish a Green Chemistry Research and 

Development Program to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry research, 

development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. 

(b) PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.—The activities of the Program shall be designed to—

(1) provide sustained support for green chemistry research, development, 

demonstration, education, and technology transfer through—

(A) merit-reviewed competitive grants to individual investigators and 

teams of investigators, including, to the extent practicable, young investigators, for research and development; 

(B) grants to fund collaborative research and development partnerships 

among universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations; 

(C) green chemistry research, development, demonstration, and technology transfer conducted at Federal laboratories; and 

(D) to the extent practicable, encouragement of consideration of green 

chemistry in—

(i) the conduct of Federal chemical science and engineering research 

and development; and 

(ii) the solicitation and evaluation of all proposals for chemical 

science and engineering research and development; 

(2) examine methods by which the Federal Government can create incentives 

for consideration and use of green chemistry processes and products; 

(3) facilitate the adoption of green chemistry innovations; 

(4) expand education and training of undergraduate and graduate students, 

and professional chemists and chemical engineers, including through partnerships with industry, in green chemistry science and engineering; 

(5) collect and disseminate information on green chemistry research, development, and technology transfer, including information on—

(A) incentives and impediments to development and commercialization; 

(B) accomplishments; 

(C) best practices; and 

(D) costs and benefits; 

(6) provide venues for outreach and dissemination of green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written materials in collaboration with, as appropriate, industry, academia, scientific and professional societies, and other relevant groups; 

(7) support economic, legal, and other appropriate social science research to 

identify barriers to commercialization and methods to advance commercialization of green chemistry; and 

(8) provide for public input and outreach to be integrated into the Program 

by the convening of public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizen panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate. 

(c) INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.—The President shall establish an Interagency 

Working Group, which shall include representatives from the National Science 

Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of 

Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that the President may designate. The Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency shall serve as co-chairs of the Interagency Working Group. The InterVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
3

agency Working Group shall oversee the planning, management, and coordination 

of the Program. The Interagency Working Group shall—

(1) establish goals and priorities for the Program, to the extent practicable in 

consultation with green chemistry researchers and potential end-users of green 

chemistry products and processes; and 

(2) provide for interagency coordination, including budget coordination, of activities under the Program. 

(d) AGENCY BUDGET REQUESTS.—Each Federal agency and department participating in the Program shall, as part of its annual request for appropriations to the 

Office of Management and Budget, submit a report to the Office of Management and 

Budget which identifies its activities that contribute directly to the Program and 

states the portion of its request for appropriations that is allocated to those activities. The President shall include in his annual budget request to Congress a statement of the portion of each agency’s or department’s annual budget request allocated to its activities undertaken pursuant to the Program. 

(e) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Interagency Working Group shall transmit a report to the Committee 

on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate. This report shall include—

(1) a summary of federally funded green chemistry research, development, 

demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities, including the 

green chemistry budget for each of these activities; and 

(2) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the goals and priorities 

for the Program, and recommendations for future program activities. 

SEC. 4. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION CENTER GREEN SUPPLIERS NETWORK GRANT PROGRAM. 

Section 25(a) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 

278k(a)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(6) the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to continuously improve products and processes, increase energy efficiency, identify cost-saving opportunities, 

and optimize resources and technologies with the aim of reducing or eliminating 

the use or generation of hazardous substances.’’. 

SEC. 5. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING. 

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—(1) As part of the Program activities under section 

3(b)(4), the Director of the National Science Foundation shall carry out a program 

to award grants to institutions of higher education to support efforts by such institutions to revise their undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies. 

(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, merit-reviewed 

basis and shall require cost sharing in cash from non-Federal sources, to match the 

Federal funding. 

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding 

under this section shall submit an application to the Director at such time, in such 

manner, and containing such information as the Director may require. The application shall include at a minimum—

(A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption of the proposed curricular revisions to the courses of study offered by the applicant in chemistry 

and chemical engineering; and 

(B) a description of the source and amount of cost sharing to be provided. 

(2) In evaluating the applications submitted under paragraph (1), the Director 

shall consider, at a minimum—

(A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant in carrying out 

and sustaining lasting curriculum changes in accordance with subsection (a)(1); 

and 

(B) the amount of cost sharing to be provided. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to amounts authorized under 

section 8, from sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated by the National 

Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, there are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying out this section $7,000,000 

for fiscal year 2006, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 

2008. 

4

SEC. 6. STUDY ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF GREEN CHEMISTRY. 

(a) STUDY.—The Director of the National Science Foundation shall enter into an 

arrangement with the National Research Council to conduct a study of the factors 

that constitute barriers to the successful commercial application of promising results 

from green chemistry research and development. 

(b) CONTENTS.—The study shall— (1) examine successful and unsuccessful attempts at commercialization of 

green chemistry in the United States and abroad; and 

(2) recommend research areas and priorities and public policy options that 

would help to overcome identified barriers to commercialization. 

(c) REPORT.—The Director shall submit a report to the Committee on Science of 

the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the findings and recommendations of the study within 

18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 7. PARTNERSHIPS IN GREEN CHEMISTRY. 

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—(1) The agencies participating in the Program shall 

carry out a joint, coordinated program to award grants to institutions of higher education to establish partnerships with companies in the chemical industry to retrain 

chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and strategies. 

(2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, merit-reviewed 

basis and shall require cost sharing from non-Federal sources by members of the 

partnerships. 

(3) In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an institution of 

higher education shall enter into a partnership with two or more companies in the 

chemical industry. Such partnerships may also include other institutions of higher 

education and professional associations. 

(4) Grants awarded under this section shall be used for activities to provide retraining for chemists or chemical engineers in green chemistry, including— (A) the development of curricular materials and the designing of undergraduate and graduate level courses; and 

(B) publicizing the availability of professional development courses of study 

in green chemistry and recruiting graduate scientists and engineers to pursue 

such courses. 

Grants may provide stipends for individuals enrolled in courses developed by the 

partnership. 

(b) SELECTION PROCESS.—(1) An institution of higher education seeking funding 

under this section shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and 

containing such information as shall be specified by the Interagency Working Group 

and published in a proposal solicitation for the Program. The application shall include at a minimum—

(A) a description of the partnership and the role each member will play in 

implementing the proposal; 

(B) a description of the courses of study that will be provided; 

(C) a description of the number and size of stipends, if offered; 

(D) a description of the source and amount of cost sharing to be provided; and 

(E) a description of the manner in which the partnership will be continued 

after assistance under this section ends. 

(2) The evaluation of the applications submitted under paragraph (1) shall be carried out in accordance with procedures developed by the Interagency Working Group 

and shall consider, at a minimum—

(A) the ability of the partnership to carry out effectively the proposed activities; 

(B) the degree to which such activities are likely to prepare chemists and 

chemical engineers sufficiently to be competent to apply green chemistry concepts and strategies in their work; and 

(C) the amount of cost sharing to be provided. 

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION.—(1) From sums otherwise authorized to be 

appropriated by the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, there 

are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for carrying 

out this Act—

(A) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(B) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(2) The sums authorized by paragraph (1) are in addition to any funds the National Science Foundation is spending on green chemistry through its ongoing chemistry and chemical engineering programs. 

5

(b) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.—From sums otherwise 

authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for carrying out this Act—

(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(c) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.—From sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy for 

carrying out this Act—

(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008. 

(d) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.—From sums otherwise authorized to be 

appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection Agency for carrying out this Act—

(1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; 

(2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and 

(3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and 

Development Act of 2005, is to establish an interagency research 

and development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate green 

chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and 

technology transfer activities. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

GREEN CHEMISTRY

Green chemistry is most commonly defined as chemistry that involves the design of chemical products and processes that reduce 

or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous substances. It is 

sometimes characterized as ‘‘benign by design.’’ Also known as sustainable chemistry or benign chemistry, green chemistry seeks to 

prevent the creation of hazards, instead of focusing on cleaning up 

waste after the fact. 

Examples of green chemistry include the development of pesticide alternatives that are effective at killing target organisms, but 

are benign to non-target organisms and do not persist in the environment. Another example is the use of the benign solvent, supercritical carbon dioxide, in dry cleaning processes instead of toxic 

perchloroethylene. 

BENEFITS

In addition to the inherent advantages to human health and the 

environment, green chemistry can offer economic advantages and 

improvements to worker safety, public safety, and national security. 

Many in the private sector have recognized the potential savings 

that green chemistry offers. For example, by using benign chemical 

processes, businesses can avoid the costs associated with treating 

or cleaning up pollutants. Other savings can come from simply 

making more efficient use of raw materials (sometimes referred to 

as ‘‘atom economy’’) and energy. Dow Chemical Company’s Midland, Michigan facility is an example of the level of savings a company can achieve. In 1996 Dow partnered with the Natural Resources Defense Council to conduct a thorough review of the facility’s processes to identify ways to implement more recycling and 

6

1 Amato, Invan, Fortune, New York: July 24, 2000, vol. 142, issue 3, pg. 270U 

substitute benign materials for hazardous ones. By April 1999, 

after a one-time investment of $3.1 million, the facility had reduced 

emissions of targeted substances by 43 percent and the amount of 

targeted wastes by 37 percent primarily through green chemistry 

innovations. The improvements are saving Dow $5.4 million per 

year, a 174 percent annual return on investment.1

Many other inherent advantages come from green chemistry in 

the areas of worker safety, public safety, and national security. For 

example, many chemical processes are conducted at extreme temperature and/or pressure, two conditions that present a potential 

hazard for workers. Also, many processes involve toxic substances. 

Green chemistry seeks to design processes that can be conducted 

at or near room temperature and pressure, and that use benign 

substances. Both of these steps can improve working conditions for 

employees, and reduce the costs of liability protections for employers. 

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

The federal government supports activities related to green 

chemistry through agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). Some agencies—EPA, for example—run 

programs that are focused directly on green chemistry. Other agencies, such as DOE, fund green chemistry as byproducts of efforts 

to achieve other goals, such as improving energy efficiency. Because some green chemistry investments are direct and some are 

indirect, and because green chemistry is not broken out in agency 

budgets, it is difficult to determine the precise level of Federal investment in green chemistry. 

It is clear, however, that the investment in green chemistry and 

chemical engineering is small compared to the investment in chemistry and chemical engineering as a whole. In 2000, the four agencies mentioned above spent approximately $540 million on chemistry and chemical engineering research and development (R&D); 

investment in green chemistry R&D was probably close to $40 million. In addition, green chemistry activities are not fully coordinated among the agencies. 

The following table (Table 1) indicates what each agency believes 

it is spending on green chemistry and chemical engineering activities. The table is followed by descriptions of how this money is 

spent.

TABLE 1 

(In millions) 

EPA NSF NIST DOE 

FY04 funding .................................................................................................................. $7 $24 $4 N/A 

FY05 funding .................................................................................................................. 3 25 4 N/A 

FY06 proposal ................................................................................................................ 4 23 4 N/A 

Total Chemistry and Chemical Engineering (2000) ...................................................... 23 186 39 $292 

EPA supports both green chemistry R&D and outreach efforts to 

promote green chemistry. The R&D is funded through the Office of 

7

Research and Development; the outreach and promotion through 

the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). 

In fiscal year 2004 (FY04), EPA spent approximately $5 million 

directly on green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D and approximately $2 million on other green chemistry activities. The 

R&D funding was split between internal R&D, conducted at EPA’s 

lab in Cincinnati and external R&D through the Science to Achieve 

Results (STAR) program. As part of the STAR program, EPA and 

NSF developed a partnership, the Technologies for a Sustainable 

Environment (TSE) program, which primarily funded green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D. The other $2 million in funding for green chemistry activities supported green chemistry outreach programs such as the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Program. 

The TSE program was the external R&D program most focused 

on green chemistry in the Federal government. EPA and NSF put 

out a joint request for proposals, and then each agency awarded 

grants based on its own mission. NSF funded more basic green 

chemistry R&D, while EPA funded more applied R&D. TSE was 

initiated in 1995 and awarded 204 grants totaling just over $56 

million between 1995 and 2004. 

However, in FY05, the Administration successfully proposed to 

eliminate EPA’s funding for TSE, and in FY06 it has not requested 

any funding for this program. The result has been a large decrease 

in the amount of funding EPA spends on green chemistry activities. 

In FY05, EPA’s green chemistry activities are funded at approxi- mately $1 million for internal R&D and $2 million for outreach 

programs. The President’s FY06 proposal would likely fund R&D at $1 million and outreach programs at $3 million. 

Because EPA discontinued funding for the TSE program, NSF 

has also virtually eliminated specific funding under the TSE program which was NSF’s only explicit green chemistry funding opportunity. While NSF does not put out specific solicitations for green 

chemistry R&D, NSF funds a wide range of investigator-driven 

green chemistry R&D. While NSF does not have a specific line item 

in the budget for green chemistry activities, NSF estimates that in 

FY04 it spent approximately $10.8 million on green chemistry activities in the Division of Chemistry and $13 million on green 

chemistry activities in the Division of Chemical Transport Systems. 

In FY05 and FY06, NSF estimates that this funding will not 

change dramatically, but may be lower due to the discontinuation 

of the TSE program. It is difficult to determine the precise level of 

investment because much of this funding may be used for ‘‘multipurpose’’ fundamental research that has implications for green 

chemistry and other research areas. 

DOE does not track spending on green chemistry activities, and 

does not conduct activities that it specifically identifies as green 

chemistry. However, DOE conducts R&D that has many green 

chemistry applications. DOE’s fundamental research efforts in 

chemistry are focused on attaining an atomic and molecular level 

understanding of processes involved in the generation, storage, and 

use of energy. 

NIST has no programs specifically focused on green chemistry 

but conducts R&D with implications for, and application to, green 

chemistry. For example, the Chemical Science and Technology LabVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
8

oratory produces more accurate measurement methods and standards to enable the development and implementation of green technologies and assess their impact. 

H.R. 1215

H.R. 1215 is designed to focus and integrate the federal government’s green chemistry R&D activities, and to make them a higher 

priority. H.R. 1215 is also designed to increase education and training in green chemistry. 

One impediment to the application of green chemistry is the lack 

of a chemistry workforce that is skilled in green chemistry techniques. The Act would support undergraduate and graduate education in green chemistry. This should help create a new generation of chemists and chemical engineers who are familiar with 

green chemistry and its advantages, and can bring those skills to 

bear in the workplace. The Act would also support continuing education for professional chemists and chemical engineers so that the 

large existing workforce can be trained in green chemistry techniques. 

The coordinated R&D program would also support R&D and 

demonstration projects at universities, industry and federal labs. 

This includes industry-university partnerships to facilitate the 

transfer of new ideas to industry. 

In addition, the Act makes information about green chemistry activities readily available through a green chemistry database of accomplishments and best practices. This should aid interested companies in learning about, overcoming barriers to, and implementing 

green chemistry alternatives. 

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARINGS

March 17, 2004—Hearing on the Green Chemistry Research and 

Development Act of 2004 

On March 17, 2004, the Committee on Science held a hearing to 

receive testimony on federal and private sector green chemistry 

R&D activities, and on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research 

and Development Act of 2004. 

The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Arden Bement, Acting Director, National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Paul Gilman, Assistant 

Administrator for Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency; (3) Dr. Berkeley Cue, Vice President for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Global Research and Development; (4) Mr. 

Steven Bradfield, Vice President of Environmental Development, 

Shaw Industries, Inc.; and (5) Dr. Edward Woodhouse, Associate 

Professor of Political Science, Department of Science & Technology 

Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Dr. Cue, Mr. Bradfield, and Dr. Woodhouse all expressed their 

support for the legislation. Dr. Cue stated that Pfizer has difficulty 

finding chemists and chemical engineers who are already trained 

in green chemistry. He said that this legislation would help alleviate that problem. Mr. Bradfield stated that the Carpet and Rug Institute supports the legislation. He also said he believed that green 

chemistry could keep U.S. chemical jobs from moving overseas. Dr. 

Woodhouse congratulated the Committee for its farsightedness in 

taking up the legislation. 

9

Both Administration witnesses said they supported the intent of 

the legislation, and looked forward to working with the Committee 

on this issue, but argued that the bill was unnecessary. 

Dr. Bement testified that NSF already funds a great deal of green chemistry R&D. He stated that NSF currently spends $13 

million through the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems 

and $11 million through the Division of Chemistry on green chemistry activities. These monies support individual investigators, 

teams of investigators, and research centers, he said. Bement said 

that NSF currently partners with EPA, DOE and NIST to leverage 

its green chemistry investments. NSF supports green chemistry research in chemical synthesis, catalysis, separations research, and 

environmental research, he said. 

Dr. Gilman testified that ‘‘green chemistry and engineering represent the kind of science on which EPA is focusing to move to the 

next level of environmental and human health protection.’’ He 

added that EPA is building interest in green chemistry and engineering in future generations through programs like the P3 Award 

competition, and is launching a new web portal to organize its programs. In addition, the joint NSF/EPA TSE program has resulted 

in 347 articles, 25 book chapters, six patents, and one Nobel Prize 

for Chemistry from the first 64 TSE grants alone, he said. Finally, 

Dr. Gilman testified that EPA is implementing a new research 

framework that includes green chemistry and engineering. EPA is 

releasing solicitations in the area of ‘‘Collaborative Science and 

Technology Network for Sustainability,’’ and will be partnering 

with states, local governments, and industry to address high-priority challenges. 

Dr. Cue described green chemistry as a win-win for Pfizer’s goal 

of achieving economic, environmental, and social sustainability. He 

stated that Pfizer has achieved tremendous gains in efficiency 

through application of green chemistry in the production of pharmaceuticals. Pfizer has seen a five- to 10-fold decrease in the 

amount of waste produced per kilogram of pharmaceutical product 

(from 25 to 100 kg to 5 to10 kg). He underscored that few students 

graduating with chemistry majors are trained in, or even exposed 

to green chemistry. Thus, Pfizer must invest a huge amount of energy to educate its scientists about the green chemistry principles 

and how they apply to daily R&D efforts, he said. Dr. Cue testified 

that H.R. 3970 would help overcome this lack of familiarity with 

green chemistry. 

Mr. Bradfield testified that customer demand and profitability 

are the ultimate drivers of green chemistry adoption in industry, 

and that applying green chemistry processes in the carpet industry 

will keep U.S. jobs from going overseas. He also made recommendations for improving the federal green chemistry effort, including rewarding those that use green chemistry products and 

processes with tax credits. He also stated that the proposed Interagency Working Group should work closely with industry to establish R&D priorities. 

Dr. Woodhouse stated that economic and professional inertia are 

the main barriers to adoption of green chemistry. For example, he 

said small price increases prevent industry from selling green 

chemistry products, and universities are not updating their chemistry curricula to reflect green chemistry. Dr. Woodhouse also 

10

agreed with Dr. Cue that much more needs to be done to train future generations of chemists and chemical engineers in green 

chemistry. 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

109TH CONGRESS

On March 10, 2005, Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 1215, the 

Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005, along 

with Mr. Marshall, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Filner, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Simmons. H.R. 1215, 

as introduced, was substantively the same as H.R. 3970, the Green 

Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, as it was approved by the House of Representatives in the 108th Congress. As 

is Committee practice with bills that cut across the jurisdiction of 

most of the Subcommittees, the bill was held at full Committee. 

On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Science met to consider 

H.R. 1215. The Committee considered the following amendments to 

the bill: 

1. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to require a report on federal procurement preference for environmentally preferable products. The amendment was withdrawn. 

2. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to require a report on the 

current rates of oil consumption. The amendment was withdrawn. 

3. Mr. Wu offered an amendment to establish academic-industry 

partnerships to retrain chemists and chemical engineers in green 

chemistry. The amendment was approved by voice vote. 

4. Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to establish a voluntary labeling program for environmentally preferable products. The 

amendment was withdrawn. 

5. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered two amendments en-bloc. The first 

would have established priorities for green chemistry research to 

reduce vulnerabilities to terrorism. The second would have established a grant program to provide communities with technical assistance on green chemistry. The en-bloc amendments were withdrawn.

The legislation was agreed to by a voice vote. Mr. Gordon moved 

that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 1215, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and 

conforming changes to the bill, as amended, and prepare the legislative report, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to 

bring the bill before the House for consideration. With a quorum 

present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote. 

108TH CONGRESS

During the 108th Congress, Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 3970, 

the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 on 

March 16, 2004 along with Ms. Johnson (TX) and Mr. Ehlers. The 

introduction was the culmination of almost five months of bipartisan staff briefings on the issue from agencies, industry, and other 

relevant groups. The Committee convened to receive testimony on 

the bill at a hearing on March 17, 2004. 

On March 31, 2004, the Committee on Science met to consider 

H.R. 3970. After consideration of several amendments, the ComVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
11

mittee recessed and resumed consideration on April 1, 2004. The 

Committee considered the following amendments to the bill: 

1. Mr. Boehlert offered a technical amendment to stagger the 

date on which two biennial NSF reports are due. This amendment 

was adopted by a voice vote. 

2. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment that would have established a program on green chemistry within NIST’s Manufacturing 

Extension Program. Mr. Gingrey offered a substitute amendment 

that would instead explicitly list green chemistry activities as allowable activities for Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers. Mr. Gingrey’s substitute was adopted by a voice vote. 

3. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to require NSF to award 

grants to develop green chemistry curricula. Mr. Gingrey offered a 

substitute amendment. Both amendments were withdrawn. 

4. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to make clear that nonprofits with experience in green chemistry were eligible to participate in activities under the Act. Mr. Gingrey offered a substitute 

amendment that removed the requirement that non-profits already 

have experience in green chemistry. Mr. Gingrey’s substitute 

amendment was adopted by a voice vote. 

5. Mr. Wu offered an amendment that would have established 

partnerships to retrain chemists and chemical engineers in green 

chemistry. Mr. Gingrey offered a substitute amendment that made 

such partnerships a program activity. Mr. Gingrey’s substitute, as 

amended by unanimous consent, was adopted by a voice vote. 

6. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment that would have mandated 

federal procurement of green chemistry products. The amendment 

was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y–14; N–19). 

7. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment that would have required 

a National Research Council study on barriers to the successful 

commercialization of green chemistry. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote. 

8. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment that would have increased 

the NSF authorization amounts. The amendment was defeated by 

a rollcall vote (Y–15; N–18). 

9. Mr. Honda offered an amendment that would have provided 

for research on ethical, legal, environmental, and other appropriate 

societal concerns. The amendment was withdrawn. 

10. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have established a community green chemistry grant program. The 

amendment was defeated by a voice vote. 

11. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have deleted references to ‘‘sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated.’’

The amendment was defeated by a voice vote. 

12. Mr. Baird offered an amendment that would have added supporting efforts to fight invasive species to the list of program activities. The amendment was withdrawn. 

13. Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment that would have required 

the development of a report listing substances of concern as high 

priority categories for replacement with green chemistry alternatives for homeland security purposes. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y–15; N–15). 

14. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered another amendment that would have 

deleted references to ‘‘sums otherwise authorized to be approVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
12

priated.’’ The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y–16; N–

19). 

The legislation was agreed to by a voice vote. Mr. Gordon moved 

that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 3970, as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass, and that the staff be instructed to make technical and 

conforming changes to the bill, as amended, and prepare the legislative report, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to 

bring the bill before the House for consideration. With a quorum 

present, the motion was agreed to by a voice vote. 

After the bill was reported, Mr. Gingrey amended the bill to address amendments offered in Committee before bringing the bill to 

the House Floor. These amendments included: (1) a new section authorizing a program to award grants to institutions of higher education to update their curricula to include green chemistry funded 

at $22.5 million over three years, (2) a new section requiring the 

National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the barriers to 

commercial application of green chemistry R&D, (3) a new program 

activity authorizing economic, legal and other social science research to identify barriers to commercialization of green chemistry, 

(4) a provision requiring each federal agency and department participating in the Program and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to include in budget requests the specific amount being 

requested for activities under this program, and (5) language to 

make explicit that the authorization for NSF is intended to be 

above what NSF already spends on green chemistry and chemical 

engineering R&D through its ongoing chemical and chemical engineering programs. 

On April 21, 2004, H.R. 3970 was considered under suspension 

by the House of Representatives, and the bill, as amended was 

agreed to by a vote of 402–14, and the motion to reconsider was 

laid on the table and agreed to without objection. 

On October 8, 2004, S. 2967, the Green Chemistry Research and 

Development Act of 2004, a companion to H.R. 3970, was introduced in the Senate by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The major provisions of the legislation are: 

• Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) 

program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology 

transfer activities. 

• Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), and any other agency that the President may designate, to 

oversee the planning, management, and coordination of all federal 

green chemistry R&D activities. Designates the Director of NSF 

and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development at 

EPA as co-chairs. 

• Requires the interagency working group to report to Congress 

within two years of enactment, summarizing federally-funded 

green chemistry research and development activities and progress 

13

made toward the goals and priorities of the program, as established 

by the working group. 

• Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Act to make eligible as a Manufacturing Extension Program activity the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to conduct activities 

with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use or generation of 

hazardous substances. 

• Authorizes a program at NSF to award grants to institutions 

of higher education to support efforts to revise their undergraduate 

curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate 

green chemistry concepts and strategies. This program is authorized at $22.5 million total over three years, FY06 through FY08. 

• Requires the Director of NSF to enter into a contract with the 

National Research Council to conduct a study of the factors that 

constitute barriers to the successful commercial application of 

green chemistry R&D. 

• Authorizes a program to award grants to institutions of higher 

education to establish partnerships with companies in the chemical 

industry to retrain chemists and chemical engineers in the use of 

green chemistry concepts and strategies. 

• Authorizes appropriations from sums otherwise authorized to 

be appropriated for NSF, NIST, DOE and EPA. Total authorizations are $26 million in FY06, $28 million in FY07 and $30 million 

in FY08. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Sec. 1. Short title 

‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005’’

Sec. 2. Definitions 

Defines terms used in the text. 

Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program 

Establishes an interagency R&D program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. The program 

will provide sustained support for green chemistry R&D through 

merit-reviewed competitive grants to researchers, teams of researchers, and R&D partnerships of universities, industry, and 

nonprofit organizations, and through R&D conducted at federal laboratories. 

The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the 

application of green chemistry through encouragement of consideration of green chemistry in all federally-funded chemical science 

and engineering R&D; examination of methods to create incentives 

for the use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and 

training of undergraduate and graduate students and professional 

chemists and chemical engineers in green chemistry; collection and 

dissemination of information on green chemistry R&D and technology transfer; provision of venues for outreach and dissemination 

of green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, 

and written materials; support for social science research to identify barriers to adoption of green chemistry; and provision for public input. 

14

Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that the 

President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, 

and coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. 

Names the Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection 

Agency as co-chairs and requires the group to establish goals and 

priorities for the program and provide for interagency coordination, 

including budget coordination. 

Requires that each participating agency submit to the Office of 

Management and Budget, as part of its annual request for appropriations, a report that identifies all activities that directly relate 

to the program. Also requires that, as part of the President’s budget request, each agency list the portion of their budget that is dedicated to activities carried out under the program. 

Requires the group to submit a report to the Committee on 

Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate within two 

years that includes a summary of federally-funded green chemistry 

activities and an analysis of the progress made towards the goals 

and priorities established for the program, including recommendations for future program activities. 

Sec. 4. Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network 

Grant Program 

Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 

to include as an authorized activity in the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to reduce the use or generation of hazardous substances. 

Sec. 5. Undergraduate education in chemistry and chemical engineering 

Creates a grant program at the National Science Foundation to 

award competitive grants to institutions of higher education for the 

purpose of revising their undergraduate chemistry and chemical 

engineering curricula to incorporate green chemistry. Cost sharing 

in cash is required of all participating institutions of higher education. In addition to the sums authorized in Section 7, the National Science Foundation is authorized from sums already authorized to be appropriated $7 million, $7.5 million, and $8 million in 

FY06–FY08, respectively. 

Sec. 6. Study on commercialization of green chemistry 

Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to 

enter into an agreement with the National Research Council to 

conduct a study of the barriers to commercialization of green chemistry products and processes. 

Sec. 7. Partnerships in green chemistry 

Authorizes a program to award grants to institutions of higher 

education to establish partnerships with companies in the chemical 

industry to retrain chemists and chemical engineers in the use of 

green chemistry concepts and strategies. 

15

Sec. 8. Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs, 

from sums already authorized to be appropriated, at the National 

Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Agency FY06

(millions $) 

FY07

(millions $) 

FY08

(millions $) 

NSF ............................................................................................ 7 7.5 8 

NIST ........................................................................................... 5 5.5 6 

DOE ........................................................................................... 7 7.5 8 

EPA ............................................................................................ 7 7.5 8

Total ................................................................................. 26 28 30 

Note.—From sums already authorized to be appropriated for each of the agencies. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Federal green chemistry efforts 

The Committee expects NSF, EPA, DOE and NIST to give more 

focused attention to green chemistry. That means running programs that are specifically targeted at funding green chemistry 

R&D, education, and technology transfer, not just funding such 

work as an afterthought or as a byproduct of other efforts, or if proposals related to green chemistry happen to be submitted by researchers. The Committee is disappointed that the EPA–NSF Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program, the government’s only explicit green chemistry R&D program, was not funded 

in FY05 and was not proposed for funding in FY06. The Committee 

believes that this program is critical to the promotion of green 

chemistry and should be continued. 

The Committee also expects the agencies to do a better job of coordinating their efforts in green chemistry so that the Federal government has a comprehensive effort in green chemistry that can 

meet industry’s needs while drawing on the unique strengths and 

expertise of each agency. 

The Committee expects the Interagency Working Group to track 

Federal expenditures on green chemistry. The legislation requires 

agencies and OMB to explicitly state the portion of their request 

that will contribute to the activities authorized by this legislation. 

The Committee expects this report to reflect an effort to think 

through what is specifically needed for green chemistry; it should 

not be a mere cobbling together of disparate budgets submitted by 

each agency. 

The Committee expects that, as part of its coordination efforts, 

the Interagency Working Group will identify areas in which green 

chemistry could help achieve Federal, as well as industry needs. 

Obvious areas include improving homeland security and the development of non-toxic chemicals to combat invasive species. Clear industry needs include the development of benign solvents or 

solventless processes for a range of chemical processes, and new 

materials for buildings, such as paints and carpets that have lower 

toxicity. 

One way green chemistry R&D programs can help assure both 

relevance to, and adoption by, industry is to fund university-indusVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
16

try partnerships, which may also include national laboratories and 

other non-profit institutions. Not all green chemistry R&D should 

be funded this way, but it should be an emphasis in the R&D programs. The Committee intends that all R&D grants awarded under 

this legislation be competitively awarded and merit reviewed. 

Beyond operating more specific programs to fund green chemistry activities, the federal agencies should integrate green chemistry techniques in all of their chemistry and chemical engineering 

R&D activities. The Committee believes that, when soliciting and 

evaluating all chemistry and chemical engineering R&D grant proposals, the agencies should consider whether the application addresses the toxicity of the proposed chemical process and product. 

The Committee considers education and outreach activities as essential parts of a comprehensive green chemistry effort. For this 

reason, the legislation authorizes two specific education programs—one to update undergraduate chemistry curricula to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies and a second to authorize grants for universities that partner with chemical companies to retrain professional chemists and chemical engineers in the 

use of green chemistry concepts and strategies. The Interagency 

Working Group should make sure that participating agencies are 

engaging in these activities, consistent with their overall missions. 

Outreach activities should include the creation of an easily accessible one-stop-shop for green chemistry information. Specifically, 

the Interagency Working Group may want to consider whether it 

would be useful to maintain a list of chemical products and processes that are benign so that a company looking for a green chemistry solution could have easy access to available green chemistry 

alternatives. 

The Committee believes that there are many barriers to the successful commercialization of green chemistry. For this reason, the 

Committee believes that the Interagency Working Group should 

fund research to determine economic, legal and other barriers. This 

is also why the Committee authorizes a National Research Council 

study into the barriers to successful commercialization of green 

chemistry. 

In carrying out its responsibilities, the Interagency Working 

Group should consult regularly with a wide range of researchers 

and end-users, especially private companies. 

The Committee also expects the Interagency Working Group to 

be able to provide Congress with a clear explanation of the goals 

and priorities of the green chemistry program, how each agency’s 

activities are contributing to those goals, and how achievement of 

those goals is being evaluated. An important metric for the program should be whether new green chemistry products and processes are being developed and whether they are being adopted by 

industry. 

Section 8. Authorization of appropriations 

It is the Committee’s intent that the funds authorized in this Act 

be used for focused, explicit activities in green chemistry. Any other 

agency programs—current or future—that may advance green 

chemistry should be viewed as money over and above the amounts 

authorized in this Act. 

17

For example, NSF reports that it is currently spending almost 

$24 million per year on R&D related to green chemistry and chemical engineering. However, little of this is for efforts actually targeted toward green chemistry in specific requests for proposals. It 

is the Committee’s intent that NSF expend the funds authorized in 

this Act on explicit green chemistry activities. The Committee expects that doing so would have no adverse effect on existing chemistry programs that happen to have funded about $24 million on 

projects related to green chemistry. Those programs should continue. The Committee in no way intends this Act to reduce the 

total amount of money NSF spends on green chemistry. 

Moreover, the Committee believes that all federal chemistry and 

chemical engineering R&D programs should consciously strive to 

promote R&D that will result in an improved environment. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

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 

X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 29, 2005. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, 

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. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters. 

Sincerely, 

ELIZABETH M. ROBINSON

(For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1215—Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 

2005

Summary: H.R. 1215 would authorize appropriations for fiscal 

years 2006 through 2008 for chemistry and chemical engineering 

research aimed at reducing or eliminating the use and production 

of hazardous substances (known as ‘‘green chemistry’’). It would authorize funding for such green chemistry programs at four agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of 

Energy (DOE), the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under 

this bill, the amounts authorized would be derived from sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated. 

Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO estimates 

that implementing H.R. 1215 would cost $102 million over the 

18

2006–2010 period. CBO estimates that enacting this bill would 

have no effect on direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1215 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 either as regulators or as owners and operators of chemical facilities. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1215 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 (general science, 

space, and technology), 300 (natural resources and environment), 

and 370 (commerce and housing credit).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Spending on Green Chemistry Research Under Current Law: 

Budget Authority 1 ............................................................... 32 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 31 21 7 2 1 0 

Proposed Changes: 

Authorization Level .............................................................. 0 33 36 38 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 13 27 34 22 7 

Spending on Green Chemistry Research Under H.R. 1215: 

Authorization Level 1 ............................................................ 32 33 36 38 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 31 33 34 36 23 7 

1 The 2005 level reflects agencies’ estimates of the amounts appropriated for that year for activities similar to those that would be authorized by H.R. 1215. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 

amounts authorized will be appropriated each year and that outlays will occur at rates similar to those of existing research and development programs. NSF expects to spend around $25 million in 

2005 for green chemistry research. EPA and NIST estimate those 

agencies will spend $2 million and $4 million, respectively, in 2005 

on green chemistry research. DOE currently does not conduct research specifically targeted to green chemistry technologies. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1215 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments either as regulators or as owners and operators of chemical 

facilities. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Mike Waters. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Teri Gullo. Impact on the 

Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

Estimate approved by: Peter Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 (UNFUNDED MANDATES) 

H.R. 1215 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND

OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of Representatives the general performance goals and objectives of H.R. 1215 are 

19

to establish an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, 

development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. 

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1215. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

H.R. 1215 does not establish or authorize the establishment of 

any advisory committee. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 1215 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 (Pub. L. 104–1). 

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL

LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or tribal 

law. 

XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS

REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

SECTION 25 OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT 

REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING

TECHNOLOGY

SEC. 25. (a) The Secretary, through the Director and, if appropriate, through other officials, shall provide assistance for the creation and support of Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Centers’’). Such centers shall be affiliated with any United Statesbased nonprofit institution or organization, or group thereof, that 

applies for and is awarded financial assistance under this section 

in accordance with the description published by the Secretary in 

the Federal Register under subsection (c)(2). Individual awards 

shall be decided on the basis of merit review. The objective of the 

Centers is to enhance productivity and technological performance 

in United States manufacturing through— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) the active dissemination of scientific, engineering, technical, and management information about manufacturing to inVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
20

dustrial firms, including small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies; øand¿

(5) the utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise and capability that exists in Federal laboratories other than the 

Instituteø.¿; and

(6) the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to continuously improve products and processes, increase energy efficiency, identify cost-saving opportunities, and optimize resources and technologies with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances.

* * * * * * *

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On April 13, 2005 a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research 

and Development Act of 2005 as amended, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment. 

(21)

XX. MINORITY VIEW

H.R. 1215’s main goal is to help promote and coordinate Federal 

research, development, demonstration, education, and technology 

transfer activities related to green chemistry. Along with my 

amendment to further encourage research institutions and private 

sector participation, I strongly support the work that is being done 

by Portland State University, Oregon’s urban university in areas 

related to green chemistry, including but not limited to biocompatible nanomaterials and nanostructured materials for solar energy 

conversion, atmospheric gasses, and global atmospheric change. 

Portland State University’s mission to address real community 

needs through research, education, and outreach programs make it 

an ideal laboratory and educational model where the innovations 

and discoveries resulting from work in green chemistry can be developed, disseminated, and incorporated into business and government operations. Additionally, PSU is in a unique position to help 

prepare the next generation of chemists, scientists, and environmental engineers, as well as provide new educational opportunities 

to those in need of upgrading their skills in order to make contributions in the workplace in this area. Industries and businesses that 

are developed in response to initiatives related to green chemistry 

are a key component of the Portland metropolitan region’s and Oregon’s economic recovery strategies and PSU is integral to recruiting, retaining, and expanding these business opportunities. These 

developments will be especially important to a state that has been 

hit hard by high levels of unemployment and changes in its economic base. 

DAVID WU. 

(22)

XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 

1215, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF

2005

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Good morning. The Committee on Science 

will come to order. 

Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to consider 

the following measure: H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research and 

Development Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during consideration of 

these matters. And without objection, it is so ordered. 

We will now proceed with the opening statements, and I will 

begin. 

I want to welcome everyone here today as we belatedly complete 

our March 17 markup. We have just one bill before us today, and 

an important one, to create a focused and intensified research program in green chemistry. While we liked the idea of moving green 

chemistry on St. Patrick’s Day, there is no need to have a special 

day to move forward with this bill. Indeed, the whole point is to 

make environmentally benign chemistry a part of everyday life. 

So let me just say a few words about the bill. 

This bill was introduced in the last Congress and in this one by 

Mr. Gingrey, who is no longer on our committee, but is still deeply 

interested in this subject. The bill is just common sense. We need 

to put our scientific expertise to work to solve problems. 

Certainly one reason the government funds science is for societal 

improvement, so we ought to be encouraging the funding of green 

chemistry, which can result in new products and processes that are 

better for our environment. This bill has broad support, including 

the support of leading chemical companies and organizations. We 

got this bill through the House handily in the last Congress and 

working with Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, we will get it signed 

into law this Congress. 

Those with long memories may remember that last year we had 

a contentious markup on this bill. Perhaps it had something to do 

with the season, on the eve of a presidential election, but that is 

just a parenthetical thought. But between markup and the Floor, 

we reached a bipartisan agreement, and that agreement is reflected 

23

in the language before us today. Thus, we have very few amendments this time around. 

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And let me say that it 

is just as appropriate to pass the bill as we approach income tax 

day as it was on St. Patrick’s Day. Not only are both days associated with green, but this is a bill that will put taxpayers’ money 

to work to solve real and critical problems in an efficient and effective way. I hope to move it swiftly through the House, and I appreciate that there were no groans in that last reference. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gordon. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT

I want to welcome everyone here today as we belatedly complete our March 17 

markup. We have just one bill before us today, and an important one, to create a 

focused and intensified research program in green chemistry. 

While we liked the idea of moving green chemistry on St. Patrick’s Day, there’s 

no need to have a special day to move forward with this bill. Indeed, the whole point 

is to make environmentally benign chemistry a part of everyday life. So let me just 

say a few words about the bill. 

This bill was introduced in the last Congress and in this one by Mr. Gingrey, who 

is no longer on our committee, but who is still deeply interested in this subject. 

This bill is just common sense. We need to put our scientific expertise to work 

to solve societal problems. Certainly one reason the government funds science is for 

societal improvement. So we ought to be encouraging the funding of green chemistry, which can result in new products and processes that are better for our environment. 

This bill has broad support, including the support of leading chemical companies 

and organizations. We got this bill through the House handily in the last Congress, 

and working with Senators Snowe and Rockefeller, we will get it signed into law 

this Congress. 

Those with long memories may remember that last year we had a contentious 

markup on this bill. But between markup and the Floor we reached a bipartisan 

agreement and that agreement is reflected in the language before us today. Thus 

we have very few amendments this time around. 

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. And let me say that it is just 

as appropriate to pass this bill as we approach Income Tax Day as it was on St. 

Patrick’s Day. Not only are both days associated with green, but this is a bill that 

will put taxpayers’ money to work to solve real and critical problems in an efficient 

and effective way. I hope to move it swiftly through the House.

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t be as poetic, but 

hopefully I will make that up with brevity. 

We are pleased to have the opportunity to reconsider the Green 

Chemistry Research and Development Act this morning. We all 

support the goal of encouraging more efficient manufacturing of 

safer products. It makes good economic and environmental sense to 

avoid past mistakes and costs associated with unnecessary use and 

misuse of toxic materials. Industry and government have formed 

effective partnerships, not only in research and development, but 

also to develop the adoption of new processes that reduce the use 

and the admission of toxic chemicals in the manufacture of products that are more easily recycled. 

H.R. 1215 continues this effort, but despite the improvements to 

the bill, it still does not go far enough to promote the adoption of 

green chemistry. Once again, Democratic Members of the Committee will offer amendments today in an effort to expand the impact and importance of this underlying legislation. We hope the 

Chairman will be able to support these amendments, which will be 

offered in a constructive spirit. 

24

And I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BART GORDON

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to have the opportunity to reconsider the Green 

Chemistry Research and Development Act this morning. 

We all support the goal of encouraging more efficient manufacturing of safer products. 

It makes good economic and environmental sense to avoid past mistakes and costs 

associated with unnecessary use and misuse of toxic materials. 

Industry and government have formed effective partnerships, not only in research 

and development, but also to encourage the adoption of new processes that reduce 

the use and the emission of toxic chemicals and the manufacture of products that 

are more easily recycled. 

H.R. 1215 continues this effort, but despite the improvements to the bill, it still 

does not go far enough to promote the adoption of green chemistry. 

Once again, Democratic Members of the Committee will offer amendments today 

in an effort to expand the impact and importance of the underlying legislation. 

We hope that the Chairman will be able to support these amendments, which will 

be offered in a constructive spirit.

Chairman BOEHLERT. I thank Mr. Gordon for yielding back his 

time, and reminding me of the constructive spirit that prevails in 

this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I am pleased the Science Committee is meeting today to mark up 

the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005.

Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or 

eliminate the use and generation of hazardous substances. 

I am pleased the bill will provide support for, and encourages the application of 

green chemistry by supporting green chemistry in all federally-funded chemical 

science and engineering research and development, examines methods to create incentives for the use of green chemistry, promotes education and training of undergraduate and graduate students and professional chemists and chemical engineers 

in green chemistry, supports social science research to identify barriers to adoption 

of green chemistry, and encourages public input. 

However, this bill authorizes green chemistry programs to be funded from ‘‘such 

sums as already authorized.’’ Therefore, for NIST, NOAA and the Department of 

Energy, it is my understanding that this bill authorizes expenditures for these agencies which are consistent with its current funding level. But, who in Congress has 

been setting those expenditure levels? If appropriation bills that fund NIST, NOAA, 

and DOE are the only ‘‘authorization’’ that exists, I would like to point out that this 

is another example of appropriators doing the job of this authorizing committee. 

It happened last year when the Manufacturing bill came before the House and 

I had an amendment to study the affects of off-shoring in eight key areas. As you 

remember, the Science Committee allowed the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations committee to fund a $2 million study without an authorization from this committee. From preliminary discussions on the progress of this report, duplicative information is being gathered and no new information is being examined. 

I am hopeful this year the Science Committee will assert its authorizing authority 

so we can continue aggressive oversight of programs and policies in our jurisdiction, 

including programs like the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for bringing this bill up for 

consideration today, and I wish to acknowledge Mr. Gingrey for doing the hard work 

of drafting the legislation.

I am pleased to consider the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act, 

which will allow us to focus chemical research efforts on environmentally sound 

25

methods, including waste minimization, substitution of less toxic for more toxic ingredients and processing agents, and development of less toxic products. 

The Committee is certainly aware that the Department of Defense, the National 

Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology already conduct research projects that are classified as green chemistry. This bill would formally encourage federal agencies to continue green chemistry efforts. 

Finally, I believe the bill could be significantly improved by amendment. I also 

urge my colleagues to support the amendments under consideration, and thus, 

strengthen the legislation. 

I look forward to the long awaited consideration of this bill.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

I rise in support of this bill that will again encourage ‘‘green chemistry’’ and define the federal investment in that important subject. I commend my colleague from 

Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for again authoring this legislation that may help focus some 

of our attention on the need to encourage our schools, and labs, and industries to 

work toward protecting and preserving our environment. 

I assume that everyone in this chamber is ‘‘for’’ green chemistry. It only makes 

sense that if there are two ways to do something—a harmful way and a non-harmful way—we would all want to choose the non-harmful way. And assuming we agree 

that it is a responsibility of the Federal Government to stimulate research and investment in areas that could have a beneficial impact on our nation, I believe we 

would all agree that we should focus some of the Nation’s research energies on 

green chemistry. 

The main question is: how much of our resources should be allocated to program? 

This is an especially tough question in a budget environment like the one we have 

today. Massive tax cuts for the rich and an expensive foreign policy have left us 

with little money left to fund critical programs such as those for green chemistry. 

The President’s latest budget has slashed dozens of research and education programs. I have been very pleased with the bold leadership of the Chairman and 

Ranking Member of this Science Committee, pointing out that under-investing in 

science and technology is a grave error. It could jeopardize our position at the front 

of the world economy, and cost us jobs galore. I feel we need to find money to make 

investments in growth industries, and green chemistry certainly qualifies. 

I am concerned, however, that the bill we are discussing, although well-intentioned, may not make the necessary improvement of investment in the field. Because the bill only draws from funds that have been previously authorized, existing 

programs will have to be cannibalized, or simply renamed to fit the ‘‘green chemistry’’ label. As important as green chemistry is, I would hate to see it come at the 

expense of programs at NIST or DOE that we have been fighting for for years. Some 

of the programs that are to be incorporated into the green chemistry initiative have 

not even been re-authorized in years, further confusing the matter of funding. 

Again, I am a firm supporter of green chemistry. It holds great promise for allowing our economy and standard of living to grow, while protecting our environment. 

However, I hope that we can work together to ensure that it is funded appropriately. 

Also, I have offered an amendment to this legislation that will encourage volunteer industry-community partnerships that can lead to reduced use and emission of 

toxic chemicals in the community, better relations between communities and their 

local industrial facilities, and cost savings for the facility. The amendment is modeled after programs that have proven successful in Michigan and Texas. 

I will support this bill because it takes a step in the right direction; however, I 

feel it does not do enough to address the barriers to adoption of green chemistry 

practices.

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 1215, Green 

Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005. I ask unanimous 

consent that the bill is considered as read and open to amendment 

at any point and that Members proceed with the amendments in 

the order of the roster. Without objection, so ordered. 

The first amendment on the roster is offered by Mr. Gordon. 

Are you ready to proceed? 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. 

26

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Mr. Gordon of 

Tennessee. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I guess it was back in the Clinton 

days, there was an Executive Order 13101 that later was reinstated by President Bush that encourages the various government 

agencies to purchase recycled products, to buy greener products, 

and to practice waste prevention measures. The problem is we 

don’t know what they are doing. There has been no reporting. 

There has been no way to monitor this. So we have already on the 

books really good—I mean, a good vehicle to try to have the Federal Government be a leader in recycling as well as purchasing 

green products. 

I recognize that you have a concern that to try to have a reporting procedure with these various federal agencies would bring 

about a joint jurisdiction somewhere, and I will have to say that 

in major joint jurisdiction matters, I can understand not wanting 

to slow down a bill. But in these types of matters, I think we are 

really dumbing down good bills with small issues that have joint 

jurisdiction that really could be worked out with letters of exchange, which we have done many times before. But again, I say 

that as a general principle, and hopefully that as we continue the 

legislative process, that we can maybe see that as a principle later 

on. 

But I understand your situation here. For that reason, I am 

going to withdraw this amendment. I know that our staffs have 

talked, and I think that you agree that it makes sense that we 

have some kind of reporting from these agencies that hopefully the 

Senate, with wider jurisdictional concerns, can deal with this. And 

if it comes to conference, then we will have a chance to accept it. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. 

I agree wholeheartedly with the purpose of the amendment, as 

you well know. In fact, as part of the farm bill a few years back, 

we fought vehemently and successfully to create a preference for 

the purchase of byproducts. I would note that our antagonists on 

the issues sneaked a repeal of that provision at last year’s energy 

bill. 

My problem with this amendment, as you have made reference 

to, is that it would refer this bill to another committee and probably sink the bill. But I certainly support the language, and if it 

were added later in the process in a way that would not kill the 

bill, you have my pledge of support. Again, I am not willing to lose 

this important bill over this issue. But if adding the language at 

a later point would not hurt this bill, then I am all for it. And as 

I have said before, I would also be willing to work with you on language as a free-standing bill. We have got a good relationship, and 

I want to maintain it. 

Are there any others who seek comments? Without objection, the 

gentleman’s request to withdraw the amendment. 

The next amendment on the roster is amendment number two, 

and that is offered by Mr. Bartlett. 

Are you ready, Mr. Bartlett? 

27

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Mr. Bartlett 

of Maryland. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. The Clerk will dispense with the 

reading. Without objection, so ordered. 

The gentleman is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In the ’40s and ’50s, a geologist scientist worked for Shell Oil 

Company by the name of M. King Hubbard. He watched the discovery, the pumping, and the exhaustion of oil fields in this country. And he noted that they pretty much always followed a bell 

curve: slow at first and then increasing production and finally 

reaching a peak, after which production fell off. He noted that 

when that peak was reached that approximately half of the oil had 

been pumped from the field. He theorized correctly that if he knew 

how many oil fields there were in the United States and if they all 

behaved the way those that he had observed behaved, then he 

could then predict when the United States would reach its peak 

ability to produce oil. He made that prediction in 1956, and he predicted it would be about 1970. As a matter of fact, it was 1970. And 

the actual production points fall remarkably close to the bell curve 

that M. King Hubbard predicted in 1956. 

In 1973, using these analysis techniques, he predicted that world 

oil production would peak at about 2000. Now it didn’t peak in 

2000, because he couldn’t have known that there would be an Arab 

oil embargo, that there would be the oil price spikes, that there 

would be a world-wide recession as a result of that, which delayed 

the peak oil production. Up until the Carter years, every 10 years 

we used as much oil as had been used in all of previous history. 

When you understand the exponential growth curve that is not so 

hard to understand, because that only takes seven percent growth, 

and in the heyday of our industrial revolution when we were using 

oil, we really grew, at least the oil use grew, at seven percent a 

year, and that means you double your use every 10 years, which 

means that when half of the oil was gone, there would only be 10 

years of oil left in the world. Now we have slowed down since then 

because of efficiency and so forth. 

There are a number of people who believe that M. King Hubbard 

was right, that we are now on the verge and may be there at peak 

oil production. Oil prices are now over $50 a barrel. Goldman-Sachs 

says that they will go to at least $105 a barrel, that Americans 

won’t change their driving habits until gas reaches $4 a gallon. 

Now if this is true, the United States, which has only two percent of the known reserves of oil in the world and uses 25 percent 

of the world’s oil and imports about 2⁄3 of what we use, faces particularly great challenges. And yet there are entities in our government who believe, apparently, that oil is forever, because the Energy Information Agency has straight line curves that just predict 

the consumption of oil and the production of oil going up and up 

and up. 

And what our amendment to your bill would do, sir, is to ask the 

GAO to initiate a study of oil production and consumption in this 

country. A couple of Congresses ago, I chaired the Energy SubVerDate jul 14 2003 17:12 May 21, 2005 Jkt 039002 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR082.XXX HR082
28

committee on this committee, and one of the first things we tried 

to do was to determine the magnitude of the problem, the dimensions of the problem. So we had experts from all over the world 

here. And there was pretty consistent agreement among them that 

we had about 1,000 gigabarrels of known reserves that we had not 

yet pumped. That sounds like a lot of oil, but when you divide the 

80-some million barrels a day that the world uses, we use 20-some 

million of that, by the way, one person out of 22 used 1⁄4 of all of 

the oil in the world, that lasts only 40 years. That is not a straight 

line, 40 years, because if it follows M. King Hubbard’s curve, we 

will plateau for a while and then start down the slope and then 

slide very abruptly down that slope. 

Sir, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment, 

because you have promised that you will write a letter to GAO, 

which would accomplish exactly what this amendment would have 

accomplished, and that is to require them to do a study of the reserves in this country and in the world, the consumption in this 

country and in the world, and what the future looks like. And I 

thank you very much for your cooperation. 

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes. Who seeks recognition? 

Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to sign on to that letter, if you would 

allow that. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. By all means, and others will be given the 

opportunity to sign on. 

And Dr. Ehlers wishes to address this amendment before we accept your unanimous consent to withdraw it. 

Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Just very briefly before we allow it to withdraw. 

I support everything that my colleague from Maryland has said. 

I first encountered the Hubbard curve many years ago, and the coauthor of a book that used that curve and other issues regarding 

energy. This book was published in 1978. And his predictions are 

pretty much in line with what M. King Hubbard predicted. You 

can’t argue with facts, even though people continue to try to do it. 

If you do a simple scientific and mathematical analysis, the point 

is energy is a finite resource. In addition, you have to remember 

two special things about energy compared to all of the other resources. First of all, it is most important, because without energy, 

we can not use our other natural resources. So that makes it the 

most important. Secondly, energy is the only non-recyclable resource. You use it, it is gone. It eventually becomes heat, which radiates into space. And those two factors mean energy has to be 

treated totally differently from all of the other resources, and I appreciate the gentleman offering this amendment and bringing that 

to our attention. 

And if you are taking co-signers on the letter to GAO, I would 

be happy to join in, also. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, for agreeing with 

Dr. Bartlett. That is the scientific corner of the Committee. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

29

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would just like to point out that we are 

lucky to have two Ph.D.s to tell us all about these things. And Mr. 

Ehlers and Mr. Bartlett contribute a great deal to this committee. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I couldn’t agree more with that observation. But let me point out, they are not the only Ph.D.s on this 

committee. We have a number of Ph.D.s. Even on the staff, we 

have a number of Ph.D.s who are scholars in their various disciplines who add immeasurably to the quality of the work product 

of this committee. And Mr. Gordon and I rely very heavily on their 

judgment. We don’t always agree with it, but we rely very heavily 

on their judgment. 

The gentleman has a unanimous consent request that he be permitted to withdraw the amendment. Without objection, so ordered. 

The next amendment is amendment number three offered by Mr. 

Wu. 

Mr. Wu, are you prepared to proceed? 

Mr. WU. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 

desk, but first I want to agree with you. It is my observation in 

my first term here in Congress that you don’t have to be a rocket 

scientist to be on this committee, but you do have to be a rocket 

scientist to staff this committee. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. And thank you very much for that intervention. 

The Clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Mr. Wu of Oregon. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. WU. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. WU. My amendment establishes a program to create partnerships between private companies in the chemical industry and colleges and universities to provide professional development training 

to practicing chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green 

chemistry concepts and strategies. 

Now we all agree on this bill that green chemistry is very, very 

important, but if you are like my age or older, when you were 

trained in undergraduate or even graduate chemistry, you know, 

some of us were taught to just dump the reactants down the drain 

after we were through with it, and some retraining is in order for 

middle-aged chemists or above. 

The motivation for this amendment is to address this problem, 

which is discussed by witnesses on the Committee’s recent hearing 

on the bill that too few professionals in these fields are exposed to 

green chemistry in their undergraduate and graduate courses. This 

lack of training becomes an important barrier to the adoption and 

use of green chemistry in industrial products and processes. Specifically, the amendment tasks the agencies that carry out the coordinated Green Chemistry Research and Development Program 

authorized by this bill to establish a program to award grants to 

institutions of higher education to develop curricular materials and 

to design courses to provide appropriate retraining for chemists 

and chemical engineers. 

30

To be eligible for a merit-based, competitive grant under the new 

program, a college or university must first enter into a partnership 

with at least two companies in the chemical industry. The program 

allows for multiple colleges and universities to participate in the 

partnerships along with professional societies in the chemical or 

chemical engineering fields. The idea of the partnerships is to forge 

a close relationship between the academic and industrial partners 

to this process to ensure that courses of study are available to put 

in place practices that are immediately relevant to industry and 

that are designed to provide practicing chemists and chemical engineers with the skills and knowledge that they will need to employ 

green chemistry concepts in their current work. The requirement 

for cost sharing helps to reinforce the engagement and commitment 

of private companies to this program. 

I urge adoption of the amendment by all Members. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you, Mr. Wu. 

Mr. WU. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Since most of us on the Committee are 

your age or older, we can identify with your observations. I think 

it is a wonderful amendment, and I am pleased to embrace it. I 

wish I thought of it. 

Anyone else seek recognition? The vote is on the Wu amendment. 

All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 

amendment is passed. 

The fourth amendment on the roster is offered by Ms. Woolsey. 

Ms. Woolsey, are you ready to proceed? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I am, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will read the amendment. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my amendment be—

unanimous consent that we consider my amendment as read. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. This amendment——

Chairman BOEHLERT. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Sorry. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I am told by counsel the Clerk has to report the amendment. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Ms. Woolsey 

of California. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Now we can dispense with the reading, 

and now the gentlelady is recognized. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment would establish a voluntary labeling program for 

chemical products that are created in an environmentally-friendly 

manner and result in an environmentally-preferred product. This 

program would simply require that the EPA Administrator establish criteria for determining which products would be eligible to 

utilize a green label. This label would inform consumers that a 

chemical product was developed in an environmentally-friendly 

way and results in an environmentally-preferred product. 

As it stands, because there are few defined criteria for green 

products, much of the information on product labels can be very 

confusing to consumers. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, consumers would greatly benefit from the creation of a voluntary labeling program for chemical products and at very little expense to 

31

the Federal Government. And such a program would be voluntary, 

not mandatory. Only those companies that wish to participate 

would do so. But if you ask me, there is very little reason why a 

given company wouldn’t participate. There is a growing demand for 

all things green, and consumers would be glad to purchase this 

kind of product if they could count on the labeling. 

Some Members believe that the creation of a green label program 

is not within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee, but I think 

that this is the very place to discuss such a program. We would be 

remiss in marking up a green chemistry bill if we didn’t try to promote green chemical products in the process. 

What we need to do is get support from Congress, but I understand we don’t have that support, not really from Congress alone, 

that in a stand-alone bill it would not come—have the jurisdiction 

of the Science Committee, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 

my amendment, but with the idea that we would support it if it 

ever comes along. 

Mr. GORDON. Ms. Woolsey, would you yield before you ask——

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, I will. 

Mr. GORDON. Let me just suggest that I think there are a number of good amendments, and yours is certainly one of those. We 

will be trying to get those together and contact the Senate sponsors, give them the background, and I think that we will have good 

cooperation from the majority, also, if they come forward with 

these types of good additions to their bill in conference. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I appreciate that very much. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think that Ms. Woolsey has a good idea, 

and if I could just recommend to her a course of action that might 

really bring this about, because I think it is fundamentally a good 

idea to label things and give the public choices. We need some 

R&D, I think, on establishing what standards to use on those labels. And that would go through this committee. And it seems to 

me that we should maybe focus on that and try to come up with 

an idea of what type of research is necessary to establish the 

standards of what would be green technology and what would not. 

And that is just a thought. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank you. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. A valuable intervention, thank you very 

much. 

And I like the concept, so we will continue to work together, as 

Mr. Gordon had indicated, which is the habit of this committee. On 

occasion, we break the rule, but it is a habit. 

The gentlelady asked unanimous consent that she be permitted 

to withdraw her amendment. Without objection, so ordered. 

The fifth amendment on the roster is offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Are you ready to proceed? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am. I would like to offer both of my amendments en bloc, please. I have amendments pending in the Judiciary 

Committee, and I need to move this as quickly as I can. 

32

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yes. The gentlelady shall be permitted to 

do so. And without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Clerk will report the amendments. Excuse me, Ms. Jackson Lee. Both amendments. 

Ms. TESSIERI. Amendments to H.R. 1215 offered by Ms. Jackson 

Lee of Texas. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Okay. Those two are combined into one, 

but we are not going to give you double the time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered as read. 

Let me, first of all, suggest to the Ranking Member that I hope 

maybe my amendments likewise can be considered, because I think 

that they—we have given this considerable thought, and I would 

hope that there is room for a thoughtful amendment that is, I 

think, in addition to this particular legislation. 

I just want to refer my colleagues very briefly to a large news 

item that occurred just about two weeks ago in my Congressional 

area of a large chemical plant that had an enormous explosion and 

caused the loss of life of 15 individuals. 

My first amendment directs federal resources for green chemistry 

research and development to the vital task of reducing security 

risks to our country as well. I hope my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle can support this amendment. My amendment calls on 

EPA, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security, 

to produce a list of the most hazardous chemicals from the perspective of homeland security. Within a year of passage of this act, EPA 

is to report to Congress and the Interagency Working Group on 

which dangerous substances do not have a green chemistry option. 

That information can then be used as a factor by the Interagency 

Working Group as a producer plan for green chemistry research. 

That plan is due two years after passage. So the EPA report can 

effectively be integrated into the plan. 

Just as an example, the GAO’s January 2005 report on the implementation of the national strategy for homeland security stated 

although the chemical industry has undertaken a number of voluntary initiatives to address security concerns at chemical facilities, the extent of participation in the voluntary initiatives is unclear. The chemical industry faces significant challenges in preparing its facilities against a terrorist act. That list can go a long 

way in contributing to that knowledge. 

And that is the first amendment. 

The second amendment is a community assistance grant amendment to H.R. 1215. This amendment authorizes the EPA to establish a grant program to support voluntary partnerships between 

community groups and industrial facilities to encourage green 

chemistry and pollution prevention measures, a wonderful partnership that could exist between your local community and refineries. 

Evidenced by the tragedy that occurred in my community, I would 

think that perspectively that amendment would be very useful as 

this community tries to heal itself and go forward, living with the 

chemical facility along with the close-by neighborhood. Successful 

partnerships will lead to reduced use and emission of toxic chemicals in the community, better relations between communities and 

33

their local industrial facilities, and cost savings for the facility. The 

amendment is modeled after programs that are proving successful 

in Michigan and Texas. 

With that, I ask my colleagues to support both amendments, 

amendments now I believe 5 and 6. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Mr. Chairman,

We are in agreement on both sides of the aisle that green chemistry can reduce 

the environmental costs and improve the safety of products and the methods used 

to manufacture them. 

My amendment directs federal resources for green chemistry research and development to the vital task of reducing security risks to our country as well. I hope 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can support my amendment. 

My amendment calls on EPA, in consultation with the Department of Homeland 

Security, to produce a list of the most hazardous chemicals from the perspective of 

homeland security. 

Then, within a year of passage of this act, EPA is to report to Congress and the 

Interagency Working Group on which dangerous substances do not have a green 

chemistry option. 

That information can then be used as a factor by the Interagency Working Group 

as they produce their plan for a green chemistry research program—that plan is due 

two years after passage, so the EPA report can effectively be integrated into that 

plan. 

Within the last few months, we have heard from GAO, the President’s former 

Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, and a union representing workers in the chemical industry on our progress addressing the risks associated with chemical facilities. The news is not encouraging. 

GAO’s January 2005 report on the implementation of the National Strategy for 

Homeland Security stated:

‘‘Although the chemical industry has undertaken a number of voluntary initiatives to address security concerns at chemical facilities, the extent of participation in voluntary initiatives is unclear. The chemical industry faces significant 

challenges in preparing its facilities against terrorist attack, . . .’’

In his January testimony before the Senate, Richard Falkenrath, former advisor 

to the President on Homeland Security included ‘‘Hazardous Chemical Security and 

Protection’’ among the five highest priority items that remain to be addressed. 

The report released by the Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers 

International Union last October found that:

‘‘. . . preventative actions, that could directly reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic event, were reportedly taken with the least frequency, . . .’’

One of the preventative actions identified was reducing the volumes of hazardous 

substances at these facilities. 

Green chemistry—the development of less toxic alternatives—could certainly help 

to us to make chemical facilities safer places to live near and to work in. 

This bill authorizes no new funding for green chemistry research. Therefore, it is 

crucial that we focus the existing federal resources to address the most pressing 

issues. Clearly, reducing vulnerabilities and risk at chemical facilities across the 

country is something we must address as soon as possible. 

Surely, we can all agree that this modest, non-regulatory approach to addressing 

risks at chemical facilities is the least we should do to ensure that federal research 

and development efforts in green chemistry are invested wisely and where they can 

deliver the greatest benefits to all our citizens. 

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Mr. Gordon, do you wish—

Mr. GORDON. Yes. Ms. Jackson Lee, you have been a leader in 

safety both on the Earth and in space, and I think this is just one 

more example of that. I want to assure you that we will include 

these amendments when we make a presentation to the Senate 

34

sponsors of the bill and we are hopeful that they will accept them 

and that we can get this into a conference. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Reluctantly—both deal with good ideas, 

but reluctantly, the Chair will oppose the en bloc amendment. So 

let me take them one at a time. 

I think what they do is shift focus away from green chemistry 

R&D, which I think this legislation needs to remain focused on. 

The first part of the amendment would require Homeland Security 

and EPA to develop a report identifying the chemicals that pose 

the greatest threat to national security and green chemistry alternatives. And that is something that we should probably do in a 

separate measure or a letter requesting that action. But this would 

automatically trigger reference to another Committee, and we get 

away from the basic focus we are trying to maintain on green 

chemistry R&D. 

And the second part of the amendment would require the Administrator of EPA to establish a grant program for communities entering into cooperative agreements with local chemical facilities to 

determine ways to reduce the use of—the release of toxic chemicals, and boy, I like the idea of those communities entering into cooperative agreements. But once again, here is something else that 

would establish a new grant program, and it would automatically 

trigger a referral to another committee, which would, I think, damage progress on this bill. 

So for both of those reasons, I am opposing the en bloc amendment, part A and part B, with the acknowledgment that you have, 

as you usually do, very good ideas. It is something that we should 

address, and I like the idea of Mr. Gordon talking to some of his 

friends, some people have friends, on the other side of the Capital. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If the Chairman would yield for a moment, 

please. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I would be glad to yield to the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate the Chairman’s rebuttal of the 

amendments. I happen to think in this very collegiate Congress 

that cross jurisdiction is not a problem. And I think if you read the 

Houston Chronicle on, I believe, yesterday, you will see that there 

is a maze of confusion dealing with reporting entities with the 

chemical industry. So there needs to be some consistency. 

I would ask unanimous consent to allow my amendments to be 

withdrawn. I would like to work with the Ranking Member, because I believe these have a very important basis to them, and I 

would like to see them move forward. And I see a colleague on the 

other side of the aisle. I would like to share them with him and 

see how he views them as having merit. And let us see if we can 

work together. I know that it triggers, maybe, Homeland Security, 

but in fact, I think that that is a committee that is very collegiate 

as well, and we could work together with the Science Committee. 

So I ask unanimous consent to allow me to withdraw these 

amendments, and I look forward to working with the Committee. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. What was the unanimous consent request? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. To withdraw the amendments at this time 

and look forward to working with the Committee, working with the 

Ranking Member, and working with the Chairman on what I think 

are important amendments. 

35

Chairman BOEHLERT. Without objection, so ordered. 

But just let me—I am just wondering if we are serving in the 

same Congress. You are talking about the very collegiate Congress. 

Boy——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Committee. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Oh, Committee. Good. Good, good, because 

the Committee is very collegiate, but boy, oh boy, I am still looking 

for any hint of it in the full Congress. 

All right. Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, the 

vote is on the bill H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005. All of those in favor will say aye. Opposed, no. 

In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

Mr. Gordon, for a motion. 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably report H.R. 1215, as amended, to the House with the 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 changes, and that 

the Chair take the necessary steps to bring the bill before the 

House for consideration. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The question is on the bill to report the bill 

favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. 

Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the bill is favorably reported. 

Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. 

I move that Members have two subsequent calendar days in 

which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional views on the 

measure. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives that the Committee authorizes the 

Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House 

to adopt and pass H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005. Without objection, so ordered. 

I want to thank the Members for their attendance at this collegial session. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

H.R. 1215, SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS, AMENDMENT ROSTER

38


1215a.eps
39


1215b.eps
40


1215c.eps
41


1215d.eps
42


1215e.eps
43


1215f.eps
44


1215g.eps
45


1215h.eps
46


1215i.eps
47


1215j.eps
48


1215k.eps
49

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF H.R. 1215,

GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

Sec. 1. Short Title 

‘‘Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005’’

Sec. 2. Definitions 

Defines terms used in the text. 

Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program 

Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program to promote 

and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education. and technology transfer activities. The program will provide sustained support for green chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive grants to researchers, teams of researchers, and R&D partnerships of universities, industry, 

and nonprofit organizations, and through R&D conducted at federal laboratories. 

The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the application of 

green chemistry through encouragement of consideration of green chemistry in all 

federally-funded chemical science and engineering R&D; examination of methods to 

create incentives for the use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and 

training of undergraduate and graduate students and professional chemists and 

chemical engineers in green chemistry; collection and dissemination of information 

on green chemistry R&D and technology transfer; provision of venues for outreach 

and dissemination of green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written materials; support for social science research to identify barriers to adoption of green chemistry; and provision for public input. 

Establishes an interagency working group composed of representatives from the 

National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, 

the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other 

agency that the President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, and 

coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. Names the Director of 

the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for R&D at the 

Environmental Protection Agency as co-chairs and requires the group to establish 

goals and priorities for the program and provide for interagency coordination. including budget coordination. 

Requires that each participating agency submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget, as part of its annual request for appropriations, a report that identifies all 

activities that directly relate to the program. Also requires that, as part of the President’s budget request, each agency list the portion of their budget that is dedicated 

to activities carried out under the program. 

Requires the group to submit a report to the Committee on Science of the House 

of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of 

the Senate within two years that includes a summary of federally-funded green 

chemistry activities and an analysis of the progress made towards the goals and priorities established for the program, including recommendations for future program 

activities. 

Sec. 4. Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network Grant 

Program 

Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to include as an 

authorized activity in the manufacturing extension program the enabling of supply 

chain manufacturers to reduce the use or generation of hazardous substances. 

Sec. 5. Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering 

Creates a grant program at the National Science Foundation to award competitive 

grants to institutions of higher education for the purpose of revising their undergraduate chemistry and chemical engineering curricula to incorporate green chemistry. Cost sharing in cash is required of all participating institutions of higher education. In addition to the sums authorized in Section 7, the National Science Foundation is authorized from sums already authorized to be appropriated 87,000,000, 

57,500,000, and $8,000,000 in FY06–FY08, respectively. 

Sec. 6. Study on Commercialization of Green Chemistry 

Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to enter into an agreement with the National Research Council to conduct a study of the barriers to commercialization of green chemistry products and processes. 

50

Sec. 7. Authorization of Appropriations 

Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs, from sums already 

authorized to be appropriated, at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.


1215l.eps
51


1215m.eps
52


1215n.eps
53


1215o.eps
54


1215p.eps
55


1215q.eps
56


1215r.eps
57


1215s.eps
58


1215t.eps
59


1215u.eps
60


1215v.eps
61


1215w.eps
62


1215x.eps
63


1215y.eps
64


1215z.eps
65


1215aa.eps