```

[House Report 105-99]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

105th Congress                                             Rept. 105-99
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________

 
 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 1997

                                _______
                                

 June 26, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

  Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1276]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1276) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 
and 1999 for the research, development, and demonstration 
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, 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
Amendment........................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     4
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     5
Hearings.........................................................     8
Committee Consideration..........................................     8
Rollcall Votes...................................................     9
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................    12
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.....................    12
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................    12
Committee Cost Estimate..........................................    10
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................    10
Federal Mandates Statement.......................................    11
Advisory Committee Statement.....................................    11
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    11
Applicability to Legislative Branch..............................    12
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation...................    12
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    14

                               Amendment

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Administrator for the Office of Research and Development in the 
Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research and 
development activities not authorized under other authority of law, 
$401,278,500 for fiscal year 1998 and $412,626,600 for fiscal year 
1999, of which--
          (1) $105,457,900 for fiscal year 1998 and $108,621,600 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for ecosystem protection 
        research;
          (2) $14,138,600 for fiscal year 1998 and $14,562,800 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for global change research;
          (3) $19,871,100 for fiscal year 1998 and $20,467,200 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for air toxics research;
          (4) $3,344,800 for fiscal year 1998 and $3,445,100 for fiscal 
        year 1999 shall be available for waste, site, and risk 
        characterization research;
          (5) $5,448,900 for fiscal year 1998 and $5,612,400 for fiscal 
        year 1999 shall be available for waste management and site 
        remediation research;
          (6) $53,626,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $55,234,800 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for human health protection 
        research;
          (7) $15,872,900 for fiscal year 1998 and $16,349,100 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for special environmental 
        hazards research;
          (8) $42,036,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $43,297,100 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for new technology and 
        pollution prevention research; and
          (9) $141,482,300 for fiscal year 1998 and $145,036,500 for 
        fiscal year 1999 shall be available for science quality and 
        infrastructure research.
    (b) Pesticides.--For pesticide registration activities, $1,546,299 
for fiscal year 1998 and $1,592,600 for fiscal year 1999, and for 
pesticide reregistration activities, $1,889,800 for fiscal year 1998 
and $1,946,500 for fiscal year 1999.
    (c) Limitations.--Other than amounts awarded through a competitive 
process, or as specifically authorized by an Act other than a general 
appropriations Act, no funds are authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act for any of the following:
          (1) Oil Spill Restoration at the Louisiana Environmental 
        Research Center.
          (2) The Mine Waste Technology Program.
          (3) Livestock and Agriculture Pollution Abatement.
          (4) Resource and Agriculture Policy Development.
          (5) The National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity 
        Project.
    (d) Additional Authorizations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Administrator for environmental research and 
development activities not authorized under other authority of law--
          (1) for oil pollution related research, $1,017,200 for fiscal 
        year 1998 and $1,047,700 for fiscal year 1999; and
          (2) for research related to the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, $39,755,900 
        for fiscal year 1998 and $40,948,600 for fiscal year 1999.
    (e) Transboundary Pollution Research.--From funds appropriated 
pursuant to this Act, $1,000,000 are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Administrator for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to support 
the United States-Mexico Foundation for Science for research related to 
environmental issues in the United States-Mexico transboundary region, 
including the Salton Sea.

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

    The Administrator shall assign to the Assistant Administrator the 
duties of--
          (1) developing a strategic plan for scientific and technical 
        research activities throughout the Agency;
          (2) integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency 
        research and development planning activities; and
          (3) reviewing all Agency research to determine whether the 
        research--
                  (A) is of high quality; and
                  (B) does not duplicate any other research being 
                conducted by the Agency.

SEC. 5. GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIPS.

    In carrying out the graduate student fellowship program for which 
funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act, the Administrator 
shall ensure that any fellowship award to a student selected after the 
date of the enactment of this Act is used only to support scientific 
research activities of the Environmental Protection Agency.

SEC. 6. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

    (a) Annual Report.--The Science Advisory Board shall submit to 
Congress and to the Administrator an annual report that contains the 
views of the Science Advisory Board on proposed research programs as 
described in the President's budget for research, development, and 
demonstration activities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Such 
report shall be submitted to Congress as soon as practicable after the 
submission of the President's budget to Congress. The Administrator 
shall cooperate with the Director of the Science Advisory Board, 
particularly with respect to the timely provision of budget information 
to the Science Advisory Board, to allow the Science Advisory Board to 
carry out its duties under this subsection.
  (b) Evaluation.--The Science Advisory Board shall conduct periodic 
evaluations of selected areas of the current and planned research, 
development, and demonstration activities of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The areas of evaluation shall be selected by the 
Science Advisory Board in consultation with the Administrator, the 
Office of Research and Development, other Agency programs, and 
appropriate committees of the Congress. Reports containing the Science 
Advisory Board's evaluations and recommendations shall be filed with 
such committees and the Administrator. The Administrator shall provide 
to such committees a written response to the Science Advisory Board's 
evaluation and recommendations within 60 days after the Science 
Advisory Board's report has been submitted.
  (c) Submission to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit to the 
Congress any report required by law to be submitted to the 
Administrator by the Science Advisory Board. The Administrator shall 
make any such submission not later than 60 days after the Administrator 
receives the report from the Science Advisory Board.
  (d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Administrator $2,418,300 for fiscal year 1998 and $2,490,800 for fiscal 
year 1999 for activities of the Science Advisory Board.

SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS.

  (a) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities.--None of the funds authorized 
by this Act shall be available for any activity whose purpose is to 
influence legislation pending before the Congress, except that this 
subsection shall not prevent officers or employees of the United States 
or of its departments or agencies from communicating to Members of 
Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the 
proper channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they 
deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.
  (b) Eligibility for Awards.--
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall exclude from 
        consideration for grant agreements made by the Agency after 
        fiscal year 1997 any person who received funds, other than 
        those described in paragraph (2), appropriated for a fiscal 
        year after fiscal year 1997, under a grant agreement from any 
        Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to 
        a competitive, merit-based award process. Any exclusion from 
        consideration pursuant to this subsection shall be effective 
        for a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal 
        funds.
          (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the receipt 
        of Federal funds by a person due to the membership of that 
        person in a class specified by law for which assistance is 
        awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided 
        by law.
          (3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``grant agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal 
        purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to 
        carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized 
        by a law of the United States, and does not include the 
        acquisition (by purchase, lease, or barter) of property or 
        services for the direct benefit or use of the United States 
        Government. Such term does not include a cooperative agreement 
        (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
        States Code) or a cooperative research and development 
        agreement (as such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the 
        Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
        3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 8. NOTICE.

  (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by this Act are 
subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided 
to the Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives and 
the Senate, notice of such action shall concurrently be provided to the 
Committees on Science, Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure 
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works of the Senate.
  (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall provide notice 
to the Committees on Science, Commerce, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and 
the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of 
the Senate, not later than 15 days before any major reorganization of 
any program, project, or activity of the Agency.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

  With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of Congress that 
the Environmental Protection Agency should--
          (1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-related 
        problems in its computer systems to ensure that those systems 
        continue to operate effectively in the year 2000 and beyond;
          (2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the 
        operations of the Environmental Protection Agency posed by the 
        problems referred to in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for 
        achieving Year 2000 compliance for all of its mission-critical 
        systems; and
          (3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the 
        Environmental Protection Agency is unable to correct in time.

SEC. 10. BUY AMERICAN.

    (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds appropriated 
pursuant to this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity 
agrees that in expending the assistance the entity will comply with 
sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
    (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment or products 
that may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
provided under this Act, it is the sense of Congress that entities 
receiving such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
only American-made equipment and products.
    (c) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing financial 
assistance under this Act, the Administrator shall provide to each 
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
subsection (a) by the Congress.

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 1276, the Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997, is to 
authorize appropriations for environmental research and 
development programs within the Office of Research and 
Development of the Environmental Protection Agency and to make 
certain other additional authorizations for environmental 
research and development programs within the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
    In addition, H.R. 1276 provides authorization for pesticide 
registration and reregistration activities, places limitations 
on certain environmental research and development projects, 
authorizes funds for transboundary pollution research, requires 
a strategic plan for environmental research activities, 
contains provisions respecting graduate student fellowships, 
provides reporting requirements for the Science Advisory Board, 
places limitations on lobbying activities, provides for notice 
of reprogramming and restructuring activities by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contains a Sense of the 
Congress on the year 2000 problem, and contains a Sense of the 
Congress on certain ``Buy American'' provisions.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    The Committee on Science's report on H.R. 1276 states that 
the rationale for this legislation is that ``Congress has 
funded most of EPA R&D programs through direct appropriation 
without annual legislative authorization.''\1\ The Science 
Committee's report notes that the last comprehensive EPA 
research and development bill expired on September 30, 1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ H. Rpt. 105-99, Part 1, pg. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Commerce Committee respectfully disagrees with the 
Science Committee's assertion that H.R. 1276 is necessary to 
provide authorizations for ``most'' programs that are otherwise 
unauthorized. First, the Committee notes that H.R. 1276 
contains a significantly broader scope of programs than in 
previous Science Committee EPA R&D bills.
    Second, the Committee notes that H.R. 1276 is conterminous 
with the President's budget request for Science and Technology 
activities, established in 1996.\2\ Thus, the bill contains a 
number of provisions which have not been authorized previously 
by the Science Committee and which do not appear to be matters 
within the Science Committee's jurisdiction. For example, H.R. 
1276 as reported by the Science Committee would authorize 
funding for pesticide registration and reregistration, and for 
the National Enforcement Investigation Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The Science Committee report (H. Rpt. 105-99, Part 1) contains 
a Table 1 providing a summary of the President's Fiscal Year 1998 
request and comparable amounts provided under H.R. 1276. The report 
further notes on page 10 that, ``The funding authorized in H.R. 1276 is 
generally consistent with the funding levels requested by EPA for 
Fiscal Year 1998 and supports a 3-percent increase for most programs 
for Fiscal Year 1999.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the Commerce Committee considers many provisions 
within H.R. 1276 to be unnecessary due to other statutory 
authorities. In this regard, a recent report by the 
Congressional Research Service noted that EPA's authority to 
conduct scientific activities derives from a number of 
authorities:

    EPA's statutory mandate for research and development (R&D) 
grew piecemeal from provisions of many environmental protection 
laws as enacted or amended over the years. The authority to 
conduct basic and applied research, to develop and demonstrate 
new technologies, to monitor the ambient environment--air, 
water, land, plants, and animals--and to conduct diverse 
special studies was conferred by Congress in two ways: in the 
context of at least 12 different environmental protection laws 
and in the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDA) [. . .] Although the 
annual ERDDA authorizations, when enacted, provide the overall 
statutory authority for environmental R&D, the provisions of 
the various environmental protection statutes have remained in 
effect, and as previously noted, amendments to other 
environmental statutes often include new R&D provisions. Thus, 
EPA's current and continuing authority for R&D activities 
derives from the combination of authorization provisions in 
basic environmental protection statutes, requirements and 
precedents established by the laws that authorized 
appropriations for EPA's overall R&D program annually (though 
the funding authorization has expired), and annual 
(unauthorized) appropriations for EPA.\3\

    \3\ Summaries of Environmental Laws Administered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency; Congressional Research Service, 
January 2, 1997, pg. 103 and pg. 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A number of the separate statutory provisions authorizing 
EPA research and development activities fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. For example,\4\ H.R. 
1276 contains authorizations for scientific activities to be 
conducted under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 
and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.\5\ However, both 
of these statutory provisions were adopted by the Commerce 
Committee in the 104th Congress and are authorized for multi-
year periods. Thus, no further authorizations are required. The 
Commerce Committee is also concerned that a separate 
authorization for such activities in H.R. 1276 is redundant of, 
and potentially inconsistent with,\6\ the direction provided by 
the authorizing committee. Thus, the Commerce Committee is 
recommending that these provisions be deleted from the bill (in 
the instance of section 3(c)(2) of the Science Committee bill) 
or that authorizations be confined to activity involving 
environmental research and development and not authorized under 
other authority of law (in the case of the general 
authorization for the Office of Research and Development under 
section 3(a) of H.R. 1276, as reported by the Commerce 
Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ The following discussion of examples of provisions in H.R. 1276 
is not intended as an exhaustive list of the jurisdictional concerns of 
the Commerce Committee. Instead, they are provided as examples of 
provisions in H.R. 1276, as reported by the Science Committee, that 
would create duplicative, and potentially inconsistent, authorizations 
for EPA scientific activities.
    \5\ The President's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 1998 indicates 
that the request for the Science and Technology Account includes money 
``to fund research and development necessary to support implementation 
of two recently passed pieces of environmental legislation--The Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (SDWA) and the Food Quality 
Production [sic] Act (FQPA)'' Justification of Appropriation Estimates 
For the Committee on Appropriations, USEPA, February 1997, page 3-40. 
The budget proposal includes this activity within funds requested for 
the Office of Research and Development. H.R. 1276 as reported by the 
Science Committee contains such authorizations within section 3(b)(5) 
and section 3(c).
    \6\ A further reading of the Science Committee bill could indicate 
that H.R. 1276 was actually designed to replace current statutory 
authorizations with new authorizations contained in H.R. 1276. Section 
7(b) of the Science Committee bill attempted to provide that ``no sums 
are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for Fiscal Years 
1998 and 1999 for the activities for which sums are authorized by this 
Act, unless such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act.'' The Science Committee report is not particularly helpful in 
clarifying the intent of this provision other than noting that ``It is 
the Committee's position that annual authorizations designating 
specific sums are required for appropriations of such sums to be 
authorized.'' (H. Rpt. 105-99, Part 1, page 19). The Commerce Committee 
does not believe that existing statutory authority under several 
environmental statutes under the committee's jurisdiction can or should 
be replaced by enactment of H.R. 1276. For this reason, the Commerce 
Committee deleted section 7(b) of the Science Committee bill through 
adoption of the Oxley Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 1276 as reported by the Science Committee contains a 
number of other provisions which are redundant of, and 
potentially inconsistent with, existing authorizations provided 
by the Commerce Committee. For example, the bill contains 
extensive authorizations for scientific activities under the 
Clean Air Act. The Commerce Committee notes that these 
activities are directly related to EPA's obligations under the 
Clean Air Act and are authorized by the Clean Air Act. This 
conclusion is supported by the Administration's budget request 
for air toxics research which notes explicitly that the program 
``provides the scientific information needed to carry out the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments and Title IV 
of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act.'' \7\ 
Moreover, the Administration's budget request also notes that 
``the program includes activities that will directly support 
the development of the national urban air toxics strategy 
mandated under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments . 
. .'' \8\ Thus, the Commerce Committee concludes that the 
authorization contained in section 3(b)(2)(C) of H.R. 1276 as 
reported by the Science Committee is redundant of an existing 
authorization provided by the Clean Air Act and thus the 
authorization should be confined to environmental research and 
development activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Justification of Appropriation Estimates For the Committees On 
Appropriations, USEPA, February 1997, page 3-100.
    \8\ Id, at page 3-101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 3(b)(5)(F) of H.R. 1276 as reported by the Science 
Committee is another example of a redundant, and potentially 
inconsistent, authorization. Section 3(b)(5)(F) would provide 
funding in both FY 1998 and FY 1999 for ``human health 
protection research.'' The Science Committee report is silent 
on the committee's views regarding this specific authorization. 
However, the Administration's budget request indicates that 
this funding is required under Title III of the FQPA and that 
information on human health risks ``is particularly critical to 
the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances 
(OPPTS) in the implementation of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TOSCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and other legislation.'' \9\ 
Authorizations exist for all of these statutes; therefore, most 
if not all of the authorization in section 3(b)(5)(F) is 
outside the jurisdiction of the Science Committee and redundant 
of existing authorizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Id, at page 3-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Commerce Committee adopted an Amendment in the Nature 
of a Substitute which deletes those provisions of H.R. 1276 for 
which there are existing authorizations within the sole 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee. In some areas of H.R. 
1276, however, the Committee was unable to determine from the 
available information precisely what level of funding requested 
by EPA for Fiscal Year 1998 falls within the jurisdictional 
lines of the Commerce Committee for either the general 
appropriation authorization for the Office of Research and 
Development or for any authorization contained within section 
3(a)(1) through section 3(a)(8) of H.R. 1276 (as reported by 
the Science Committee). As also noted by the Science Committee 
in its report, the EPA's budget justification document 
``provides little of the information the Committee requires to 
analyze the EPA research budget.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ H. Rpt. 105-99, Part 1, page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For this reason, the Commerce Committee in adopting the 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Mr. Oxley 
specifically limited the authorized appropriations for the 
Office of Research and Development and additional 
authorizations to ``environmental research and development 
activities not authorized under other authority of law.'' It is 
the intent of the Commerce Committee, in adopting this 
legislative language, to provide EPA with authorization for 
only those research activities which fall within the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee as expressed in Rule X of 
the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives and to recognize 
that in areas of shared jurisdiction between the House Commerce 
Committee and the House Science Committee it may not be 
possible, from currently available information, to draw firm 
conclusions regarding a specific dollar amount which demarks 
the lines of jurisdiction between the two committees.
    Similarly, the Commerce Committee added legislative 
language to Section 4 of the Science Committee's reported 
version of H.R. 1276. In Section 4, duties of the Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development to integrate a 
strategic plan for ongoing Agency planning activities was 
confined specifically to ``research and development'' planning 
activities. The Commerce Committee would also note that 
authorizations contained within Section 3(e) concerning 
transboundary pollution research are also understood by the 
committee to be limited to environmental research activities.
    The elimination of provisions within the jurisdiction of 
the Commerce Committee is not intended to be construed as a 
lack of endorsement of those programs. As noted variously 
above, in many instances, the Commerce Committee considers that 
programs contained within the Science Committee reported 
version of H.R. 1276 already contain sufficient authorization 
and in the case of safe drinking water and food quality 
protection programs, very recent authorizations. Similarly, 
since the Committee on Commerce had no referral of the 
provisions solely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Science, the Commerce Committee's actions in adopting the Oxley 
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute cannot be construed as 
an endorsement of those provisions. As previously noted, in 
areas where the Commerce Committee and the Committee on Science 
share jurisdiction and where available information does not 
allow authorizations to be divided between the jurisdiction of 
the two committees, the Commerce Committee added language to 
ensure that such authorized activities only involved those 
activities within the jurisdiction of the Science Committee and 
not authorized under any other authority of law.

                                Hearings

    The Committee on Commerce has not held hearings on the 
legislation. However, the Committee did conduct three separate 
briefings which addressed the EPA's budget for Fiscal Year 1998 
and the issues and programs addressed in H.R. 1276. On February 
10, 1997, the Committee on Commerce conducted a briefing at 
which representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency 
presented information on the EPA's Proposed Budget Request for 
Fiscal Year 1998. On May 16, 1997, representatives of the 
Environmental Protection Agency briefed majority and minority 
Committee staff on the impact of H.R. 1276. On June 18, 1997, 
the Committee on Commerce conducted a briefing specifically on 
H.R. 1276, as reported by the Committee on Science, at which 
representatives of EPA were present and responded to questions 
about the legislation.

                        Committee Consideration

    On May 16, 1997, the Committee on Science reported H.R. 
1276 to the House (H. Rpt. 105-99, Part 1). On May 16, 1997, 
H.R. 1276 was referred sequentially to the Committee on 
Commerce for a period ending not later than June 20, 1997. On 
June 20, 1997, the referral of the bill to the Committee on 
Commerce was extended for a period ending not later than June 
26, 1997.
    On June 25, 1997, the Full Committee on Commerce met in 
open markup session to consider H.R. 1276. A unanimous consent 
request by Mr. Bliley to proceed to the immediate consideration 
of H.R. 1276, as reported by the Committee on Science, was 
agreed to without objection. The Full Committee then ordered 
H.R. 1276 reported to the House, amended, by a voice vote, a 
quorum being present.

                             Rollcall Votes

    Clause 2(l)(2)(B) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House 
requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion 
to report legislation and amendments thereto. There were no 
recorded votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 1276 
reported or in adopting the amendment. The following are the 
voice votes that were taken in Committee:

              Committee on Commerce--Voice Votes, 6/25/97

    Bill: H.R. 1276, Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997.
    Unanimous consent request: A unanimous consent request by 
Mr. Bliley to proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 
1276, as reported to the House by the Committee on Science.
    Disposition: Agreed to, without objection.
    Amendment: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute by Mr. 
Oxley, re: delete certain authorizations within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote.
    Motion: Motion by Mr. Bliley to order H.R. 1276 reported to 
the House, amended.
    Disposition: Agreed to, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee did not hold 
oversight or legislative hearings on this legislation.

              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been 
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(B) of Rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds that 
H.R. 1276, the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act of 1997, would result in no new or increased 
budget authority or tax expenditures or revenues.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                  Congressional Budget Office Estimate

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of Rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following is the cost 
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant 
to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 26, 1997.
Hon. Tom Bliley,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1276, the 
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Authorization Act of 1997.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Kim Cawley 
(for federal costs), and Pepper Santalucia (for the state and 
local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                              James L. Blum
                                  (For June E. O'Neill, Director.).

H.R. 1276--Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
        Authorization Act of 1997

    Summary--H.R. 1276 would authorize the appropriation of 
$449 million in fiscal year 1998 and $462 million in fiscal 
year 1999 for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 
Office of Research and Development to conduct environmental 
research, development, and demonstration activities and for the 
activities of EPA's Science Advisory Board. The bill would not 
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply. The bill contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), and would not 
impose any costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government--For purposes of 
this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized will be 
appropriated by the beginning of each fiscal year and that 
outlays will occur at rates similar to those of past 
appropriations for EPA research and development activities. The 
estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1276 is shown in the 
following table.

                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   By fiscal year, in millions of dollars       
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION                                                                  
EPA R&D Spending Under Current Law:                                                                             
    Budget Authority a....................................      587        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................      535      339       88        0        0        0
Proposed Changes:                                                                                               
    Authorization Level...................................        0      449      462        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        0      180      387      275       69        0
EPA R&D Spending Under H.R. 1276:                                                                               
    Authorization Level a.................................      587      449      462        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................      535      519      475      275       69       0 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for that year.                                                      

    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 
300 (natural resources and environment).
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: The bill 
contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA, and 
would not impose any costs on state, local or tribal 
government. Two provisions in the bill would affect eligibility 
for federal grants. The first would require compliance with the 
Buy American Act. The second would exclude grantees from 
consideration for awards if they had received funds under any 
other federal grant program that was not subject to a 
competitive, merit-based award process. The latter provision 
could change the allocation of funds among grant recipients, 
including state universities and colleges. CBO cannot predict 
how the share of research funding awarded to public 
universities and colleges would change because of this 
provision.
    Impact on the private sector: H.R. 1276 contains no new 
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On April 21, 1997, CBO prepared an 
estimate for a version of H.R. 1276 that was approved by the 
House Committee on Science. This estimate reflects the 
different authorization levels approved by the Committee on 
Commerce.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kim Cawley, Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Pepper Santalucia.
    Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this 
legislation.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the 
Constitutional authority for this legislation is provided in 
Article I, section 8, clause 3, which grants Congress the power 
to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several 
States, and with the Indian tribes.

                  Applicability to Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation 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.

             Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation

Section 1. Short Title

    This section designates the short title of the Act as the 
``Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Authorization of 1997''.

Section 2. Definitions

    The section provides definitions for certain terms within 
the Act.

Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations

    Section 3(a) provides $401,278,500 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
$412,626,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 for environmental research 
and development activities within the Office of Research and 
Development in the Environmental Protection Agency which are 
not authorized under any other authority of law.
    Section 3(a) further provides authorized levels for 
environmental research and development activities, subject to 
the general authorization level of appropriations contained in 
section 3(a), as follows:
          (1) $105,457,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
        $108,621,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 for ecosystem 
        protection research;
          (2) $14,138,600 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $14,562,800 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for global change research;
          (3) $19,871,100 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $20,467,200 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for air toxics research;
          (4) $3,344,800 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $3,445,100 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for waste, site, and risk 
        characterization research;
          (5) $5,448,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $5,612,400 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for waste management and site 
        remediation research;
          (6) $53,626,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $55,234,800 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for human health protection 
        research;
          (7) $15,872,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $16,349,100 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for special environmental hazards 
        research;
          (8) $42,036,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $43,297,100 
        for Fiscal Year 1999 for new technology and pollution 
        prevention research; and
          (9) $141,482,300 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
        $145,036,500 for Fiscal Year 1999 for science quality 
        and infrastructure research.
    Section 3(b) provides $1,546,299 in Fiscal Year 1998 and 
$1,592,600 in Fiscal Year 1999 for pesticide registration and 
$1,889,800 in Fiscal Year 1998 and $1,946,500 in Fiscal Year 
1999 for pesticide reregistration activities.
    Section 3(c) contains limitations on funds for certain 
enumerated projects.
    Section 3(d) contains additional authorizations for 
environmental research and development activities not 
authorized under other authority of law for oil pollution 
related research and for research related to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 
(CERCLA). $1,017,200 in Fiscal Year 1998 and $1,047,700 in 
Fiscal Year 1999 is provided for such oil pollution related 
research, and $39,755,900 in Fiscal Year 1998 and $40,948,600 
in Fiscal Year 1999 is provided for such CERCLA research.
    Section 3(e) authorizes $1,000,000 for each of Fiscal Years 
1998 and 1999 for environmental research activities related to 
the United States-Mexico Foundation for Science. It is the 
understanding of the Commerce Committee that these funds are 
authorized to support environmental research and development 
activities.

Section 4. Scientific Research Review

    This section provides that the Assistant Administrator for 
Research and Development shall be assigned duties to develop a 
strategic plan for research within EPA and that this plan shall 
be integrated into EPA's environmental research and development 
planning activities. The section also requires the Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development to determine the 
quality of research and whether any research is duplicative.

Section 5. Graduate Student Fellowships

    This section provides that graduate student fellowships 
will support only the scientific research activities of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.

Section 6. Science Advisory Board

    This section requires the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to 
submit an annual report to Congress regarding research programs 
which are proposed in EPA's annual budget request and requires 
the EPA Administrator to cooperate with the Director of the 
Science Advisory Board in this effort. This section also 
requires the Science Advisory Board to conduct periodic 
evaluations of selected areas of research, development, and 
demonstration. Such areas are to be selected in consultation 
with the EPA Administrator, the Office of Research and 
Development, and appropriate committees of Congress. The EPA 
Administrator must further provide the appropriate committees 
of Congress with a written response to the SAB's evaluation of 
these selected areas and recommendations regarding these areas. 
The section further requires the EPA Administrator to submit to 
Congress any report required by law to be submitted to the EPA 
Administrator by the SAB.

Section 7. Limitations

    This section provides that no funds authorized by the Act 
are available, with certain exceptions, for any activity whose 
purpose is to influence legislation. The section further 
requires that the EPA Administrator exclude, with certain 
exceptions, any person from consideration for grant agreements 
if that person received funds after Fiscal Year 1997 under a 
non-competitive grant agreement.

Section 8. Notice

    This section requires that currently required notices of 
reprogramming actions be provided to the House Committee on 
Science, the House Committee on Commerce, and the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and to the 
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The section 
also requires notice to these same committees of any major 
reorganization of any program.

Section 9. Sense of Congress on the Year 2000 Problem

    This section expresses the Sense of Congress that the EPA 
give high priority to all 2-digit date-related problems in its 
computer system, asses the extent of risk, and plan and budget 
for activities for achieving Year 2000 compliance for all of 
its mission-critical activities. The Sense of Congress also 
indicates that EPA should develop contingency plans for those 
systems that EPA is unable to correct in time.

Section 10. Buy American

    This section requires that no funds appropriated pursuant 
to the Act may be expended by an entity unless such entity 
agrees that it will comply with the ``Buy American Act'' (41 
U.S.C. 10a-10c). The section further contains a Sense of 
Congress expressing that any equipment or products purchased 
with funds provided by the Act be American-made. The section 
further requires that any recipient of financial assistance 
under the Act be given notice of the Buy American provisions.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                                

```