```

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

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

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

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

                                _______
                                

                 March 6, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1742]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

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

                                CONTENTS

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

                              I. Amendment

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

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

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

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

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

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

SEC. 6. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

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

SEC. 7. NOTICE.

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

SEC. 8. BUDGET REQUEST FORMAT.

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

SEC. 9. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

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

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

  The Agency shall provide funding for scientific demonstration 
projects of the Office of Research and Development or the Science 
Advisory Board only for technologies or processes that can be 
reasonably expected to yield new, measurable benefits to the cost, 
efficiency, or performance of the technology or process.

SEC. 11. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.

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

SEC. 12. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.

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

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

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

SEC. 14. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

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

SEC. 15. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

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

  Amend the title so as to read:

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

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

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

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

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

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

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

                          V. Committee Actions

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

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

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

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

          VII. Section-by-Section analysis and Committee Views

Section 1. Short title

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

Section 2. Definitions

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

Section 3. Office of Research and Development

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

Section 4. Scientific research review

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

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

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

Section 6. Science Advisory Board

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

Section 7. Notice

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

Section 8. Budget request format

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

Section 9. Limits on use of funds

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

Section 10. Limitation on demonstrations

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

Section 11. Federal acquisition regulation

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

Section 12. Requests for proposals

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

Section 13. Production of provision of articles or services

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

Section 14. Eligibility for awards

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

Section 15. Internet availability of information

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

                          VIII. Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that each report of a committee on a 
public bill or public joint resolution contain: (A) An estimate 
by the committee of the costs that would be incurred in 
carrying out the bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in 
which it is reported, and in each of the five fiscal years 
following that fiscal year (or for the authorized duration of 
any program authorized by such bill or joint resolution, if 
less than five years); (B) a comparison of the estimate of 
costs described in subdivision (A) made by the committee with 
any estimate of such costs made by a Government agency and 
submitted to such committee; and (C) when practicable, a 
comparison of the total estimated funding level for the 
relevant programs with the appropriate levels under current 
law. However, House Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(3)(B) provides that 
this requirement does not apply when a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been included in the report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3). A cost estimate and comparison prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been 
timely submitted to the Committee on Science prior to the 
filing of this report and is included in Section IX of this 
report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee providing new 
budget authority (other than continuing appropriations), new 
spending authority, or new credit authority, or changes in 
revenues or tax expenditures include the statement required by 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, except 
that an estimate of new budget authority shall include, when 
practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level 
for the relevant programs to the appropriate levels under 
current law. H.R. 1742 does not contain any new budget 
authority, new spending authority, or new credit authority, or 
changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums 
authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 1742 does 
authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in 
the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is 
contained in Section IX of this report.

             IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires that the report of a committee on a 
measure that has been approved by the committee include an 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if timely submitted to the 
committee before the filing of the report. The Committee on 
Science has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 1742 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1742 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

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

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

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

                XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

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

               XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

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

                  XV. Congressional Accountability Act

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

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

    This legislation does not amend any existing Federal 
statute.

                    XVII. Committee Recommendations

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

           XVIII. Proceedings of Committee on Science Markup

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

                              may 25, 1999

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

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

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

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

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

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

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

SEC. 6. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

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

SEC. 7. NOTICE.

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

SEC. 8. BUDGET REQUEST FORMAT.

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

SEC. 9. LIMITS ON USE OF FUNDS.

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

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

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

SEC. 11. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION.

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

SEC. 12. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS.

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

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

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

SEC. 14. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

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

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

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

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

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

 Statement of Chairman Ken Calvert, Energy and Environment Subcommittee

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

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

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

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

SEC. 10. LIMITATION ON DEMONSTRATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        wednesday, May 26, 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEC. 15. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

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

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

          Report Language Offered by Congressman Nick Lampson

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

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

               Offered by Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina

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

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

                                


```