[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 54 (Friday, May 6, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 6, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
             NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY ACT OF 1993

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The offering of amendments to S. 1935 has 
concluded for this day. Therefore, under the previous order, the Senate 
will now proceed to the consideration of S. 978, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 978) to establish programs to promote 
     environmental technology, and for other purposes, which had 
     been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works with an amendment to strike out all after the enacting 
     clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Environmental Technology Act of 1993''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

            TITLE I--NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY PANEL

Sec. 101. Establishment.
Sec. 102. Membership.
Sec. 103. National Environmental Technology Strategy.
Sec. 104. Coordination of budget requests for environmental technology.
Sec. 105. Report to Congress.
Sec. 106. Termination.

     TITLE II--BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES; CLEARINGHOUSE

            Subtitle A--Bureau of Environmental Technologies

Sec. 201. Establishment.
Sec. 202. Reports.
Sec. 203. Environmental technology export promotion.

           Subtitle B--Environmental Technology Clearinghouse

Sec. 211. Establishment.

   TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM; TECHNOLOGY 
                                TESTING

         Subtitle A--Environmental Innovation Research Program

Sec. 301. Environmental innovation research program.
Sec. 302. Guidelines and regulations of the environmental innovation 
              research program.

               Subtitle B--Innovative Technology Testing

Sec. 311. Program.

                     TITLE IV--ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS

         Subtitle A--Verification of Environmental Technologies

Sec. 401. Program.

         Subtitle B--Environmental Technology Advisory Council

Sec. 411. Establishment.
Sec. 412. Report by the Comptroller General.

   Subtitle C--Coordination With National Institute of Standards and 
                               Technology

Sec. 421. Coordination with National Institute of Standards and 
              Technology.
Sec. 422. Coordination with other federally supported extension 
              programs.
Sec. 423. Statutory construction.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) environmental problems facing the world pose a threat 
     to the environmental and economic security of the United 
     States and other nations;
       (2) promoting a sound economy while maintaining a healthy 
     environment is among the urgent public policy challenges of 
     the United States;
       (3) the development and utilization of environmental 
     technologies will enhance both global environmental security 
     and the economic standing of the United States in the world 
     marketplace;
       (4) the growing worldwide demand for environmentally sound 
     products and processes, and for cost-effective environmental 
     cleanup and pollution control technologies, presents 
     significant business opportunities;
       (5) innovative environmental technologies face barriers to 
     commercialization and utilization, and are often slow to be 
     adopted;
       (6) advances in source reduction, environmental cleanup, 
     and pollution control technologies could significantly reduce 
     Federal Government and private cleanup expenditures, improve 
     cleanup results, and help prevent future contamination;
       (7) the development and implementation of effective public 
     and private partnership arrangements will help promote 
     successful technology development programs;
       (8) a coordinated, interagency strategy for environmental 
     technology will greatly facilitate the development of 
     critical environmental technology that can respond to 
     environmental programs and create jobs and new sources of 
     income; and
       (9) successful Federal Government programs to foster the 
     development and utilization of environmental technology 
     depend on coordination and cooperation among agencies 
     involved in environmental protection and agencies involved in 
     technology development.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to further environmental protection, spur the creation 
     of jobs, and enhance the ability of domestic companies to 
     compete in the international marketplace by facilitating the 
     development and utilization of environmental technologies;
       (2) to encourage the development and utilization of 
     environmental technologies that prevent pollution;
       (3) to help overcome market barriers that hinder the 
     successful commercialization of environmental technologies; 
     and
       (4) to coordinate Federal Government policies, actions, and 
     budgets with respect to environmental technologies.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of 
     Environmental Technologies established under section 201.
       (3) Covered federal agency.--The term ``covered Federal 
     agency'' means a Federal agency for which, for a fiscal year, 
     an amount greater than $50,000,000 is made available for 
     environmental cleanup.
       (4) Critical environmental technology.--The term ``critical 
     environmental technology'' means environmental technology 
     that--
       (A) embodies a significant technical advance;
       (B) has the potential to bring about large, cost-effective 
     reductions in risk to human health or the environment;
       (C) is broadly applicable at the precommercial stage; and
       (D) if adopted, is reasonably expected to result in a 
     favorable ratio of social to private returns.
       (5) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
     the Bureau established under section 201.
       (6) Environmental innovation research.--The term 
     ``environmental innovation research'' means research related 
     to the development, application, or commercialization of 
     environmental technology.
       (7) Environmental technology.--The term ``environmental 
     technology'' means an advanced or improved technology, 
     product, process, or service that reduces environmental risks 
     by protecting or enhancing the environment through source 
     reduction, design or process changes, pollution control, or 
     environmental remediation.
       (8) Funding agreement.--The term ``funding agreement'' 
     means a contract, cooperative agreement, grant agreement, 
     patent agreement, royalty agreement, license agreement, 
     equity agreement, or other appropriate legal agreement 
     between the head of a covered Federal agency and a private 
     business concern, government, academic or nongovernment 
     entities to provide funding and support to carry out 
     environmental innovation research.
       (9) Small business concern.--The term ``small business 
     concern'' means a business concern that is recognized as a 
     small business concern under section 3(a) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (10) Source reduction.--The term ``source reduction'' has 
     the same meaning as is provided for the term in section 
     6603(5) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     13102(5)).
            TITLE I--NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY PANEL

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is authorized to be established, within the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy of the Executive Office of the 
     President, a National Environmental Technology Panel 
     (referred to in this title as the ``Panel''), to operate as a 
     panel of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, 
     Engineering, and Technology. The Panel shall be responsible 
     for coordinating environmental technology programs within the 
     Federal Government and the development of a National 
     Environmental Technology Strategy.

     SEC. 102. MEMBERSHIP.

       The Panel shall consist of the heads of agencies with 
     substantial investment or interest in the development and 
     utilization of environmental technology or the designees of 
     the heads (or a combination of heads of agencies and 
     designees). The Director of the Office of Science Technology 
     Policy, shall appoint the Chairperson of the Panel (referred 
     to in this title as the ``Chairperson'').

     SEC. 103. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY.

       (a) Development.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     establishment of the Panel, the President, with advice from 
     the Panel, shall develop a National Environmental Technology 
     Strategy (referred to in this section as a ``Strategy''). The 
     Strategy shall--
       (1) identify areas that would benefit from the development 
     of critical environmental technology;
       (2) prioritize the areas identified under paragraph (1) 
     based on trends in global and domestic environmental threats 
     and the potential for environmental and economic benefits;
       (3) recommend effective public and private partnership 
     arrangements for the development and utilization of 
     environmental technologies;
       (4) recommend approaches to encourage the commercialization 
     and utilization of environmental technologies, with special 
     attention to small business concerns; and
       (5) identify economic, regulatory, and other barriers to, 
     and incentives for, the development, utilization, and export 
     of environmental technologies, and recommend appropriate 
     actions in response to the identification.
       (b) Revision of Strategy.--The Panel shall review and, if 
     appropriate, recommend that the President revise the Strategy 
     not less frequently than once every 3 years.
       (c) Coordination With Other Groups.--
       (1) In general.--The Panel shall, to the extent 
     practicable, consult with public and private organizations 
     involved in technology development and commercialization, and 
     organizations involved in making recommendations for 
     converting research on military applications to civilian 
     uses.
       (2) Technical support.--The Chairperson may request 
     technical and policy assistance from members of the Panel and 
     other organizations, including the Academies of Science and 
     Engineering.

     SEC. 104. COORDINATION OF BUDGET REQUESTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) In General.--The head of each Federal department or 
     agency shall, as part of the annual request of the department 
     or agency for appropriations pursuant to section 1108 of 
     title 31, United States Code, submit a report to the Office 
     of Management and Budget and the Chairperson that--
       (1) identifies the activities of the department or agency 
     that promote, develop, or support environmental technology; 
     and
       (2) states that portion of the request of the department or 
     agency for appropriations that will be allocated to 
     activities that promote, develop, or support environmental 
     technology.
       (b) Review and Report.--Beginning with the first budget 
     cycle after the Strategy under section 103 is completed--
       (1) the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and 
     the Chairperson shall review the report of each department 
     and agency submitted under subsection (a), in light of the 
     goals, priorities, and responsibilities of the department or 
     agency as may be set forth in the Strategy; and
       (2) the annual budget submitted by the President pursuant 
     to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, shall 
     include a statement indicating those portions of the annual 
     budget of each department and agency that relate to 
     activities covered by the Strategy.

     SEC. 105. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of establishment of 
     the Panel, and every 3 years thereafter, the Chairperson 
     shall submit a report to Congress that includes a summary of 
     all Panel activities.

     SEC. 106. TERMINATION.

       The authority provided by this title shall terminate on the 
     date that is 7 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
     TITLE II--BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES; CLEARINGHOUSE
            Subtitle A--Bureau of Environmental Technologies

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--There is established, within the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau of Environmental 
     Technologies which shall be headed by a Director.
       (b) Functions.--The Director shall--
       (1) in cooperation with the heads of other agencies, 
     support and assist the development of process or products, 
     oriented research, development, and demonstration of 
     environmental technology at the precommercial stage by 
     industrial, academic, governmental, and nongovernmental 
     entities;
       (2) using information that is either in the public domain 
     or voluntarily submitted, track on a continuing basis the 
     research and development being conducted on environmental 
     technologies by private industry in the United States;
       (3) in cooperation with the heads of other agencies, 
     develop and promote the transfer of environmental 
     technologies and mechanisms to address international 
     environmental problems;
       (4) develop and maintain a clearinghouse, as established 
     under subtitle B, to provide information to private and 
     public concerns that develop, apply, or export environmental 
     technology;
       (5) advise other officials, as appropriate, within the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and within other Federal 
     departments and agencies, concerning programs, strategies, 
     and regulatory reforms for promoting the development and 
     utilization of environmental technology;
       (6) to the extent allowable by law, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator or the head of any other Federal agency that 
     the Director determines to be appropriate, facilitate the 
     availability of an initial market for environmental 
     technologies, including development of recommendations for 
     changes in Federal procurement guidelines;
       (7) in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, provide 
     advice and assistance to regional technology centers and 
     similar community-based alliances that are supporting a 
     transition from defense technology research, development and 
     production to environmental technology research, development 
     and production, including--
       (A) ensuring that the centers and alliances have ready 
     access to the technology clearinghouse established under 
     subtitle B; and
       (B) on a regular basis, informing the centers and alliances 
     of Federal Government environmental technology development 
     program needs and opportunities;
       (8) consult with the Panel authorized under title I; and
       (9) coordinate the activities of the Bureau with the 
     activities undertaken pursuant to title III.
       (c) Cooperative Agreements and Funding Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the functions of the 
     Bureau under this subtitle, the Director may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement or funding agreement with--
       (A) a department or agency of the United States;
       (B) a unit of State or local government;
       (C) an educational institution;
       (D) nonprofit research centers; or
       (E) a company that is incorporated in the United States or 
     has a parent company that is incorporated in the United 
     States or is incorporated in a country that the Secretary of 
     Commerce determines affords--
       (i) to all foreign and domestic companies opportunities 
     similar to the opportunities afforded under this subsection; 
     or
       (ii) adequate and effective protection for the intellectual 
     property rights of all foreign and domestic companies.
       (2) Limitation.--A grant, loan, or loan guarantee made 
     pursuant to this section shall be limited to no more than 5 
     years.
       (d) Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the Federal share of the cost of a project conducted 
     under this section may not exceed 50 percent.
       (2) Small business concerns.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), the Federal share of the cost of a project 
     conducted pursuant to a cooperative agreement or funding 
     agreement entered into with a small business concern under 
     this section may not exceed 75 percent.
       (3) Increased federal share.--The Federal share of the cost 
     of a project conducted under this section may exceed the 
     limitations under paragraphs (1) and (2) if the Director 
     finds that--
       (A) the project is for the development of critical 
     environmental technology that the Panel determines pursuant 
     to title I to be of high priority; and
       (B) the Director determines that the applicant would be 
     financially unable to meet the matching requirements of 
     paragraphs (1) or (2).
       (e) Program Requirements.--
       (1) Selection criteria.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     establishment of the Bureau, the Director shall publish in 
     the Federal Register proposed criteria, and not later than 1 
     year after the date of establishment of the Bureau, following 
     a public comment period, final criteria, for the selection of 
     recipients of funding agreements under this section.
       (B) Criteria.--The selection criteria under subparagraph 
     (A) shall--
       (i) include requirements outlining business plans;
       (ii) give special consideration to the needs of small 
     business concerns; and
       (iii) be consistent with the source-reduction hierarchy 
     established in section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101(b)).
       (C) Consideration.--In determining whether to enter into a 
     funding agreement with a joint venture, the Director may 
     consider whether the members of the joint venture have 
     provided for the appropriate participation of small business 
     concerns in the joint venture.
       (D) Set-aside for small business.--Not less than 25 percent 
     of the funds made available under this section shall be made 
     available to fund the Federal share of the cost of projects 
     conducted pursuant to cooperative agreements or funding 
     agreements entered into with small business concerns.
       (2) Administration of program funds.--In cooperation with 
     the heads of other agencies, the Director is authorized to--
       (A) determine categories of projects to be funded by the 
     Bureau;
       (B) issue solicitations for projects to be funded by the 
     Bureau;
       (C) receive and evaluate proposals resulting from 
     solicitations;
       (D) select participants for funding agreements of the 
     Bureau;
       (E) administer the funding agreements of the Bureau; and
       (F) make payments to recipients of funding agreements on 
     the basis of progress toward, or completion of, the funding 
     agreement requirements.
       (3) Consultation.--
       (A) In general.--The Director shall, as appropriate, 
     consult with experts in the Federal Government, the private 
     sector, academia, and nonprofit groups before making offers 
     for participation in funding agreements.
       (B) Confidentiality.--The Director shall ensure that the 
     confidentiality of all proposals submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) is protected at all times (including when consulting with 
     experts under this paragraph).
       (4) Financial reporting and auditing.--The Director, in 
     consultation with the chief financial officer of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish appropriate 
     financial reporting and auditing procedures for the Bureau.
       (5) Dissemination of research results.--The Director shall 
     provide for the dissemination of nonproprietary research 
     results of the projects supported by the Bureau including the 
     dissemination of results through the clearinghouse 
     established under subtitle B.
       (6) Confidential information.--
       (A) Intellectual property.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (B), trade secrets or confidential business 
     information or information classified for reasons of national 
     security may not be disclosed by an officer or employee of 
     the United States acting under any provision of this Act. The 
     information shall not be subject to disclosure under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code.
       (B) Exception.--Confidential business information may be 
     disclosed in accordance with a written agreement between the 
     owner or developer of the information and the Director.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out this section--
       (A) $36,000,000 for fiscal year 1994;
       (B) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and
       (C) $120,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.
       (2) Limitation on use.--Of amounts appropriated to carry 
     out this section, not more than 10 percent for fiscal year 
     1994, and 5 percent for each year thereafter, may be used to 
     pay for administrative expenses of the Bureau.
       (3) Federal cooperative agreements.--The Director may 
     allocate a significant percentage of the amounts made 
     available to the Bureau for the purpose of entering into 
     cooperative agreements for funding environmental technology 
     development projects with other departments or agencies of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 202. REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Director shall, not less frequently 
     than every 3 years, and at such other times as the Director 
     considers to be appropriate, submit a report to Congress 
     describing--
       (1) the activities of the Bureau, including descriptions 
     and funding levels of all projects developed with assistance 
     from the Bureau;
       (2) the implementation and operation of the environmental 
     innovation research programs under subtitle A of title III; 
     and
       (3) the manner and extent to which technologies developed 
     with assistance from the Bureau have been commercialized and 
     used.
       (b) Recommendations.--A report submitted under this section 
     may include recommendations for program improvements.

     SEC. 203. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY EXPORT PROMOTION.

       In cooperation and consultation with the Secretary of 
     Commerce and the heads of other agencies involved in export 
     promotion as appropriate, the Director may--
       (1) collect and disseminate through the clearinghouse 
     established under subtitle B, information useful for 
     promoting the export of environmental technology, including 
     information concerning--
       (A) sources of financial assistance;
       (B) sources of technical assistance; and
       (C) the environmental needs of foreign countries; and
       (2) consult with the heads of other Federal agencies to 
     facilitate the export of environmental technologies and 
     recommend appropriate administrative actions for promoting 
     the export of environmental technology.
           Subtitle B--Environmental Technology Clearinghouse

     SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director shall establish an 
     operational electronic database to serve as a clearinghouse 
     for the collection and dissemination of nonproprietary 
     information on environmental technology, including--
       (1) descriptions of environmental technologies developed, 
     tested, or verified under the programs established under this 
     Act; and
       (2) information compiled under section 203.
       (b) Access to Clearinghouse.--The clearinghouse shall be 
     made available through an electronic data system (such as a 
     computer bulletin board) and in paper report format, and 
     shall be publicly available at reasonable cost.
       (c) Compatibility.--The clearinghouse established under 
     this section shall be compatible with data systems used by 
     the Manufacturing Technology Centers administered by the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology of the 
     Department of Commerce and, to the extent practicable, shall 
     be integrated into the data systems.
       (d) Administration.--The data stored in the clearinghouse 
     shall be updated continuously as new information is made 
     available, but not less often than annually.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 
     through 1997.
   TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM; TECHNOLOGY 
                                TESTING
         Subtitle A--Environmental Innovation Research Program

     SEC. 301. ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The head of each covered Federal agency 
     shall establish an environmental innovation research program 
     for the development and commercialization of environmental 
     technology to promote the cleanup, abatement, and source 
     reduction activities of the agency.
       (b) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Set-aside.--For each fiscal year, the head of each 
     covered Federal agency shall, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       (i) set aside not less than 1.25 percent of the amount of 
     funds appropriated to the head of the covered agency for the 
     following purposes:

       (I) with respect to the Secretary of Energy, funds 
     appropriated for environmental restoration and waste 
     management;
       (II) with respect to the Secretary of Defense, funds made 
     available for environmental restoration;
       (III) with respect to the Secretary of the Interior, funds 
     appropriated for environmental cleanup; and
       (IV) with respect to the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, funds appropriated from the Superfund 
     pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq.); and

       (ii) reserve the amount set aside under clause (i) for 
     awards to private concerns or other entities, through a 
     uniform process (as described in subsection (d)) for the 
     development and commercialization of environmental technology 
     as set forth in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Use of set-aside funds.--The funds set aside under 
     subparagraph (A)(i) shall be used to fund the development of 
     environmental technology that contributes to the program 
     objectives for which the funds were initially made available.
       (C) Waiver.--
       (i) In general.--The head of a covered Federal agency may 
     waive the requirements of this paragraph in full or part if--

       (I) unforeseen emergency circumstances require the covered 
     Federal agency to redirect funds for technology development 
     to other purposes; and
       (II) the head of the covered Federal agency has redirected 
     all technology development funds (other than funds set aside 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A)) available to the covered 
     Federal agency from the amounts specified in subparagraph 
     (A)(i) to address the unforeseen emergency circumstances.

       (ii) Report.--If the head of a covered agency waives a 
     provision of this paragraph pursuant to clause (i), the head 
     of the covered Federal agency shall provide a report that 
     explains the reasons for the waiver to Congress.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed, 
     interpreted, or applied to limit the amount of funds that a 
     covered Federal agency may spend on the research, 
     development, or commercialization of environmental 
     technology.
       (c) Duties of Heads of Covered Federal Agencies.--In 
     carrying out an environmental innovation research program 
     established under this section, the head of each covered 
     Federal agency shall, in accordance with the requirements of 
     this section--
       (1) certify annually to the Director the amount of agency 
     funds set aside in accordance with subsection (b)(1);
       (2) in carrying out the program established under this 
     section, consider the needs of small business concerns for 
     the development and utilization of environmental technology; 
     and
       (3) submit an annual report on the environmental innovation 
     research program to the Bureau and the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy of the Executive Office of the President. 
     The report shall include an accounting of the number and 
     amount of awards made under the environmental innovation 
     research program, classified by categories of projects.
       (d) Phases of Environmental Innovation Research Programs.--
     The head of each covered Federal agency shall carry out an 
     environmental innovation research program consisting of the 
     following 3 phases:
       (1)(A) A first phase for determining, insofar as 
     practicable, the scientific and technical merit and 
     feasibility of proposals that are submitted pursuant to 
     environmental innovation research program solicitations and 
     appear to have commercial potential.
       (B) With respect to the first phase, the head of the 
     covered Federal agency may enter into funding agreements with 
     governmental, industrial, academic, and other nongovernmental 
     entities, each of which shall be in an amount not to exceed 
     $250,000 to support the initial development of proposed 
     environmental technologies.
       (2)(A) A second phase to fund the further development of 
     environmental technologies funded under subparagraph (B) that 
     meet particular program needs, and with respect to which 
     awards shall be made on the basis of the scientific and 
     technical merit and feasibility of each proposal, as 
     evidenced by the first phase (as described in paragraph (1)), 
     taking into consideration, among other considerations, the 
     commercial potential of each proposal, as evidenced by--
       (i) the record of the private concern or other entity of 
     successfully commercializing technologies, products or 
     processes developed as a result of environmental innovation 
     research or other research;
       (ii) the existence of funding commitments, from the private 
     sector or sources other than the environmental innovation 
     research programs, to fund the further development of the 
     environmental technology;
       (iii) the existence of funding commitments from the private 
     sector or sources other than the environmental innovation 
     research programs for the third phase of research to be 
     conducted pursuant to paragraph (3)(A); and
       (iv) the presence of other indicators of the commercial 
     potential of the environmental technology.
       (B) With respect to the second phase, the head of the 
     covered Federal agency may enter into funding agreements with 
     private concerns or other entities, each of which shall be in 
     an amount not to exceed $750,000, unless the head of the 
     covered Federal agency finds that additional funding is 
     necessary and appropriate.
       (3)(A) If appropriate, a third phase, in which--
       (i) environmental innovation research funding is used to 
     continue development activity that has demonstrated 
     outstanding commercial potential in the second phase of the 
     environmental innovation research program and merits further 
     environmental innovation research funding;
       (ii) awards from funding sources other than the 
     environmental innovation research programs are used for the 
     continuation of research or research and development that has 
     been competitively selected using peer review or scientific 
     review criteria; or
       (iii) commercial applications of research or research and 
     development funded by environmental innovation research 
     programs are funded by non-Federal sources of funds or, for 
     environmental technologies intended for use by the Federal 
     Government, by Federal funding sources other than 
     environmental innovation research programs.
       (B) With respect to a research and development project 
     funded under subparagraph (A)(i), the Federal share shall not 
     exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
       (C) With respect to the assistance provided under this 
     paragraph, the covered Federal agency may assist the private 
     concern or other entity in pursuing funding or procurement 
     from other Federal programs and in pursuing financial and 
     technical assistance for the export of technology developed 
     under the environmental innovation research program, 
     including providing the information gathered under section 
     203.
       (D) The head of the covered Federal agency may, in lieu of 
     the 3-phase process established under this subsection, fund 
     proposals for the development of certain technologies through 
     an alternative competitive process, on the basis of a written 
     finding that--
       (i) the proposed technology is at a stage in development 
     comparable to the stage in development of technologies that 
     would emerge from the second phase of the process established 
     under this section; and
       (ii) employing the first 2 phases of the process 
     established under this section would be inappropriate.
       (E) With respect to a development project funded under 
     subparagraph (D)--
       (i) awards shall be based on scientific and technical merit 
     and demonstrated outstanding commercial potential;
       (ii) the Federal share shall not exceed 50 percent; and
       (iii) the head of the covered Federal agency shall notify 
     the Congress in writing of the award and provide a copy of 
     the written finding made under subparagraph (D).
       (e) Testing Environmental Technology.--Funding agreements 
     authorized under paragraphs (2) and (3)(A)(i) of subsection 
     (d) may make available, if appropriate, funds to test 
     environmental technology in the program established under 
     section 311.

     SEC. 302. GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Guidelines.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     establishment of the Bureau under title II, the Director 
     shall issue guidelines for environmental innovation research 
     conducted by covered Federal agencies pursuant to this 
     subtitle.
       (b) Contents.--The guidelines issued by the Director shall, 
     at a minimum, provide for--
       (1) simplified, standardized, and timely solicitations of 
     project proposals; and
       (2) to the extent feasible, standardized application 
     procedures with the procedures established under title II, 
     including the submission of business plans.
       (c) Regulations.--The head of each covered Federal agency 
     may, on the basis of the guidelines issued under subsection 
     (a), issue such regulations as are necessary to ensure that 
     the environmental innovation research program of the covered 
     Federal agency meets the requirements of the guidelines.
               Subtitle B--Innovative Technology Testing

     SEC. 311. PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--In consultation with the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal departments and agencies, the 
     Administrator is authorized to establish a program for 
     testing environmental technology at federally owned 
     facilities and sites including listed sites--
       (1) on the National Priorities List established under 
     section 105(a)(8)(B) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9605(a)(8)(B)); and
       (2) in the inventory of Federal agency hazardous waste 
     facilities under section 3016 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6937),

     collectively referred to in this section as ``applicable 
     sites''.
       (b) Description.--As part of the program established under 
     this section, the Administrator may--
       (1) enter into cooperative agreements with other Federal 
     departments and agencies for the purpose of testing 
     environmental technology at applicable sites;
       (2) solicit and accept applications to test an 
     environmental technology suitable for prevention, control, or 
     remediation of contamination at applicable sites, subject to 
     the guidelines established under subsection (c);
       (3) in consultation and cooperation with representatives of 
     other Federal departments and agencies, State and local 
     governments, industry consortia, and other groups interested 
     in control, prevention, and remediation of contamination at 
     an applicable site, manage and oversee testing and evaluation 
     of environmental technology at the site, subject to the 
     guidelines established under subsection (c);
       (4) document the performance and cost characteristics of an 
     environmental technology tested at an applicable site;
       (5) list and disseminate, through the clearinghouse 
     established under section 211, nonproprietary information 
     regarding the performance and cost characteristics of 
     environmental technology that has been tested at 1 or more 
     applicable sites and has been determined to be effective by 
     the appropriate criteria in the guidelines established under 
     subsection (c); and
       (6) to the extent feasible, incorporate Environmental 
     Protection Agency programs in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act that facilitate testing of 
     environmental technology at applicable sites, including the 
     alternative or innovative treatment technology research and 
     demonstration program established under section 311(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9660(b)).
       (c) Guidelines.--The Administrator may, after notice and 
     opportunity for comment, issue guidelines for the operation 
     of the program established under this section. The guidelines 
     shall include--
       (1) an initial listing of applicable sites potentially 
     available for testing of environmental technology categorized 
     by site characteristics, including production processes and 
     technologies and, in the case of contaminated sites requiring 
     remediation, site geology and site contaminants;
       (2) criteria for designating the eligibility of applicants 
     to the program established under this section;
       (3) the application procedures for applicants designated 
     under paragraph (2) desiring to apply for testing of 
     environmental technology at an applicable site, including--
       (A) provisions for sharing the costs of testing with 
     applicants that limit the Federal share to not more than 50 
     percent of the total cost of testing; and
       (B) provisions that provide special consideration to the 
     needs of small business concerns;
       (4) criteria for verification of the efficacy of tested 
     environmental technologies;
       (5) specific procedures for the management and oversight of 
     testing at applicable sites, including procedures for 
     consultation or entering into cooperative agreements with 
     other Federal departments and agencies responsible for the 
     management or remediation of applicable sites and affected 
     entities; and
       (6) criteria for determining whether and to what extent 
     legal authorities should be used to indemnify successful 
     applicants to the program established under this section.
       (d) Listing of Tested Technology.--In the case of a 
     technology tested under the program established under this 
     section, the Administrator shall publish the test results, 
     cost information, and a general description of the tested 
     environmental technology, and disseminate the information 
     through the clearinghouse established under section 211.
       (e) Audit.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall audit the performance of the program established 
     under this section and report the results of the audit to 
     Congress, including--
       (A) the number of sites where environmental technologies 
     have been tested, classified by the type of problem remedied 
     and the technology tested;
       (B) the number of environmental technologies tested that 
     have subsequently become commercially viable;
       (C) the number of sites for which environmental 
     technologies tested have been selected for additional 
     applications;
       (D) the cost in terms of labor and contract funds expended 
     by the agency on the program; and
       (E) the estimated number of jobs and increased income 
     associated with the development and commercialization of the 
     environmental technologies tested.
       (2) Report.--The results of the audit conducted under this 
     subsection shall be included as part of the report required 
     under section 412.
       (f) Funding.--Testing conducted under this section shall be 
     eligible for funding under section 301 pursuant to the 
     guidelines established under subsection (c).
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 
     through 1997 to carry out this section.
                     TITLE IV--ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS
         Subtitle A--Verification of Environmental Technologies

     SEC. 401. PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Administrator is authorized to 
     establish a program to verify, evaluate, and disseminate 
     performance and cost information on environmental 
     technologies appropriate for meeting the performance criteria 
     of regulations issued as performance standards under laws 
     that the Administrator determines are appropriate, 
     collectively referred to in this section as ``applicable 
     regulations''.
       (b) Functions.--As part of the program established under 
     this section, the Administrator may--
       (1) accept applications from the public to verify and 
     evaluate cost and performance characteristics of 
     environmental technology;
       (2) develop appropriate protocols to verify the quality and 
     credibility of cost and performance data submitted by 
     applicants;
       (3) evaluate cost and performance data for environmental 
     technology relative to applicable regulations, subject to the 
     guidelines established under subsection (c); and
       (4) list and disseminate information regarding 
     environmental technology verified and evaluated under the 
     guidelines established under subsection (c) through the 
     clearinghouse established under section 211.
       (c) Guidelines.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may, after notice and 
     opportunity for comment, issue guidelines for the operation 
     of the program established under this section.
       (2) Description.--The guidelines may include--
       (A) the criteria for designating the eligibility of 
     applicants to the program established under this section;
       (B) application requirements and procedures for submitting 
     data for verification;
       (C) general criteria for the evaluation of environmental 
     technologies, including an evaluation, with respect to each 
     technology evaluated, of the ability of the technology to--
       (i) meet the performance criteria of any applicable 
     regulation under tested conditions with additional source 
     reduction, control, or remediation benefits as compared to 
     the technology evaluated to establish the applicable 
     regulation;
       (ii) meet the performance criteria of any applicable 
     regulation under tested conditions at a comparable or lower 
     cost than the estimated cost of the technology evaluated to 
     establish the applicable regulation; or
       (iii) constitute a significant advance in the development 
     of environmental technology with broad applicability;
       (D) a schedule of fees for applications to cover the costs 
     of the program, including--
       (i) lower fees for each applicant designated as a small 
     business concern, nonprofit group, institution of higher 
     education, or State or local government entity; and
       (ii) lower fees for applications to verify environmental 
     technology that provides source reduction; and
       (E) such other provisions as the Administrator may consider 
     appropriate.
       (d) Reporting of Technology.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of a technology that the 
     Administrator evaluates in accordance with the guidelines 
     established under subsection (c), the Administrator may 
     publish the results of the evaluation and a nonproprietary 
     description of the evaluated technology and disseminate the 
     information through the clearinghouse established under 
     section 211.
       (2) Significant advances.--The Administrator may establish 
     a list of technologies verified under the program established 
     by this section that represent significant advances as 
     compared to then current available technology.
       (e) Administration.--
       (1) Use of fees.--All fees collected by the Administrator 
     through the operation of the program established under this 
     section shall, subject to appropriations, be used to support 
     the operation of the program.
       (2) Evaluation deadline.--All evaluations conducted under 
     the program established under this section shall be 
     completed, and the applicant notified of the results, not 
     later than 180 days after the receipt of a complete 
     application.
       (f) No Revision of Regulations.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed, interpreted, or applied in any manner to revise 
     any regulation or release a person subject to any regulation 
     from the duty to comply with the regulation.
       (g) Judicial Review.--
       (1) Decisions to list or not list.--The verification or 
     evaluation of a technology under the program established 
     under this section shall not--
       (A) constitute a final action by the Administrator; and
       (B) be subject to judicial review.
       (2) Failure to comply.--If a technology verified, evaluated 
     and listed pursuant to the program established under this 
     section fails to result in compliance with any applicable 
     regulation, the verification, evaluation and listing shall 
     not constitute a defense in an enforcement action or citizen 
     suit and shall not create a cause of action against the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
     1994 through 1997 to carry out this section.
         Subtitle B--Environmental Technology Advisory Council

     SEC. 411. ESTABLISHMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Director may establish the 
     Environmental Technology Advisory Council (referred to in 
     this section as the ``Advisory Council'') as a subgroup 
     within an appropriate advisory committee in existence on the 
     date of enactment of this Act that has a charter approved 
     under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).
       (b) Membership.--The Director may appoint the members of 
     the Advisory Council. The individuals appointed as members of 
     the Advisory Council shall--
       (1) be eminent in the fields of business, research, new 
     product development, engineering, labor, education, 
     management consulting, environment, source reduction, or 
     international relations;
       (2) be selected solely on the basis of established records 
     of distinguished service; and
       (3) not be employees of the Federal Government.
       (c) Duties.--The Advisory Council may--
       (1) review and make recommendations regarding general 
     policy for the Bureau, and the organization, budget, and 
     programs of the Bureau within the framework of national 
     policies set forth by the President and Congress;
       (2) review guidelines and regulations of the environmental 
     innovation research program established under title III;
       (3) on the basis of the reviews conducted under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), make recommendations to the Administrator, the 
     Director, and the head of each covered Federal agency 
     regarding the organization and effectiveness of the Bureau 
     and environmental innovation research programs established 
     under title III;
       (4) consult with the Panel authorized under title I in the 
     development of the National Environmental Technology 
     Strategy;
       (5) make recommendations for administrative and legislative 
     actions to stimulate environmental technology innovation;
       (6) make recommendations to the Director to improve the 
     effective dissemination by the clearinghouse of research 
     information and results; and
       (7) make recommendations to the Director regarding 
     administrative actions to promote the export of environmental 
     technologies.

     SEC. 412. REPORT BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to Congress a report concerning the implementation of 
     the programs established under titles II and III and this 
     title. The report shall include a description of the research 
     conducted under the programs, the estimated environmental and 
     economic benefits resulting from the programs, and the cost 
     of the programs.
   Subtitle C--Coordination With National Institute of Standards and 
                               Technology

     SEC. 421. COORDINATION WITH NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS 
                   AND TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Agreements.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the Secretary of 
     Commerce shall enter into such agreements as are necessary to 
     permit the Environmental Protection Agency to provide 
     technical assistance and support to the Manufacturing 
     Technology Centers administered by the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology of the Department of Commerce.
       (b) Assistance.--The assistance shall include--
       (1) the preparation of environmental assistance packages 
     for small business concerns generally and, if appropriate, 
     for specific small business sectors, including information 
     on--
       (A) environmental compliance requirements and methods for 
     achieving compliance;
       (B) new environmental technologies;
       (C) alternatives for source reduction that are generally 
     applicable to the small business sectors; and
       (D) guidance for identifying and applying opportunities for 
     source reduction at individual facilities;
       (2) providing technical assistance to small business 
     concerns seeking to act on the information provided under 
     paragraph (1);
       (3) coordinating with the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology to identify those small business sectors that 
     need improvement in environmental compliance or in developing 
     methods for source reduction; and
       (4) developing and carrying out an action plan for 
     providing assistance to improve the environmental performance 
     of small business sectors in need of improvement.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 
     through 1997 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 422. COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERALLY SUPPORTED 
                   EXTENSION PROGRAMS.

       The Administrator may coordinate with--
       (1) small business development centers (established 
     pursuant to section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     648)); and
       (2) as appropriate, other small business and agricultural 
     extension programs and centers,

     to provide environmental assistance to small business 
     concerns.

     SEC. 423. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed, interpreted, or 
     applied in any manner to affect the obligation or duty of any 
     Federal agency to comply with all applicable environmental 
     laws and requirements.

  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1686

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Wofford, 
     Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
     Metzenbaum, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Pell, 
     Mr. Dodd, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1686.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we now have before us the National 
Environmental Technology Act.
  Mr. President, the National Environmental Technology Act is designed 
to protect the environment and create jobs.
  Let me say that again. It is designed to protect the environment and 
create jobs. It does not favor the environment at the expense of the 
economy, or vice versa.
  Instead, the bill embodies the concept that, as we head into the 21st 
century, environmental progress and economic progress are mutually 
reinforcing goals.
  We have not always thought this way. In fact, in the years that I 
have been in the Senate, I have heard more than my share of complaints 
that protecting the environment destroys jobs and inhibits economic 
growth.
  This does not have to be the case. It does not have to be a zero sum 
game. Economic progress and environmental progress do not have to be at 
odds. In fact, we cannot have one without the other.
  The National Commission on the Environment, chaired by Russell Train, 
recently put it this way:

       Economic and environmental well-being must be pursued 
     simultaneously if either is to be achieved. Economic growth 
     cannot be sustained if it continues to undermine the healthy 
     functioning of the Earth's natural systems or to exhaust 
     natural resources. By the same token, only healthy economies 
     can generate the resources necessary for investments in 
     environmental protection.

  That is Russell Train, former head of EPA several years ago.
  To put it another way, we must pursue a long-term strategy of 
sustainable development. This does not mean living in tents in the 
forest. It means achieving economic progress in a way that protects the 
environment and, by doing so, broadly improves the prospects for future 
generations.
  The linchpin is technology. By the year 2050, both population, and 
per capita output in the world are expected to more than double. As a 
result, the level of worldwide economic activity will be five times 
greater than it is today. That is just a little more than 50 years from 
now.
  That level is sustainable only if we make major improvements in the 
way that we produce goods and services.
  In his book, ``Preparing for the 21st Century,'' Prof. Paul Kennedy 
compares our situation to that of 18th century Europe. Malthus had 
predicted that escalating population growth would lead to perpetual 
famine. The prediction was wrong Kennedy says, because it did not 
account for ``humankind's capacity to develop new resources through 
technology.''
  Professor Kennedy also says, our own ability to avoid an 
environmental catastrophe will be determined, in large part, by our 
ability to develop environmental technology.
  Bruce Smart, who was a senior Commerce Department official in the 
Reagan administration, takes it one step further. He estimates that we 
eventually must reduce the environmental impact of each unit of 
industrial production by more than 80 percent. That is right: 80 
percent.
  This is where environmental technology comes in. Environmental 
technology does not just mean a new black box at the end of a pipe. 
Environmental technology means the broad application of science to the 
entire production process. It means new ways to make products that 
waste less; new products that run cleaner. It means pollution 
prevention. It means life-cycle planning. It means, in short, a new way 
of thinking.
  Environmental technology makes good economic sense. After all, 
pollution is waste; increasingly, we see evidence that thinking green 
helps keep a company in the black.
  But there is another dimension to it. An international dimension. 
There is a global trend towards stricter environmental protection. In 
Eastern Europe, Asia, all over the world.
  Companies that get ahead of the curve, and develop environmental 
technology will have the edge in an international market that already 
has reached $300 billion and is growing by 10 percent a year.
  A few years ago, I was in Rio for the Earth Summit. There, alongside 
the meetings of ministers and heads of state, was an environmental 
technology exposition. There was a huge arena filled with displays of 
pollution control and monitoring equipment from around the world. Yet, 
when I looked for the American companies, I could find only 20 or so. 
The Japanese were everywhere. So were the Germans. But the Americans, 
for all practical purposes, were invisible.
  This does not make any sense. America's market is the world's 
largest. We produce and use more environmental technology than any 
other country in the world.
  We simply cannot afford to give away another important manufacturing 
sector. We have to develop policies that help American companies become 
the unchallenged leaders in environmental technology.
  The National Environmental Technology Act is designed to take a major 
step in this direction.
  The bill, which I introduced with Senators Lieberman, Mikulski and 
others, has five key elements.
  First, the bill requires the Federal Government to get its own act 
together.
  The Federal Government spends about $4 billion a year on what we 
would consider to be environmental technology. But there is no coherent 
strategy for spending the money. Nobody looks at the big picture. 
Nobody considers whether we are spending the money in a coordinated 
way, so that it will pay the best long-term dividend for our 
environment and our economy.
  Mr. President, before we consider spending more on environmental 
technology, we need to be sure we are getting the best bang for our 
buck.
  The bill will do just that. It requires the Federal Government to 
develop a national strategy for environmental technology, and review 
agency budgets in light of the strategy.
  Second, the bill stimulates research and development.
  The Federal Government spends billions to clean up contaminated 
Federal facilities. We all know that. We have heard so much about 
Superfund. But little of this money is spent to develop new clean-up 
technologies. The bill changes that. A small portion of the money the 
Government now spends on cleanup will be earmarked for innovative new 
technologies that have the potential to make cleanup efforts faster and 
cheaper.
  Third, the bill establishes an office at the EPA to help develop 
cutting-edge technology that otherwise may not get off the ground. This 
office will work with other technology programs in the Defense, Energy, 
and Commerce Departments to form partnerships with private companies 
developing the most promising innovations in environmental 
technologies. I underline the word ``partnerships'' because this is a 
pattern of partnerships, public and private, that have worked well in 
the past.
  Fourth, the bill reduces market barriers. As it now stands, small 
companies that develop innovative environmental technologies may have a 
hard time penetrating the market. The environmental managers of large 
companies tend to be conservative. They are, appropriately, reluctant 
to try a new technology that may not meet the applicable environmental 
standards. So they stick with the same old black box.
  To address this problem, that is to shake things up a bit to 
encourage new innovative technologies the bill sets up a voluntary 
verification program. A company that develops an innovative new 
technology can ask EPA to verify that the technology meets the 
applicable environmental standards.
  This will give environmental managers more confidence in innovative 
technologies, and help small companies break into new markets.
  Fifth, the bill establishes a new outreach program to help small 
business find environmental technology that suits their needs.
  Mr. President, this bill is just a first step. We need to do a lot 
more. In particular we need to change the way we think about out 
environmental laws. In some cases, we need to move away from what is 
commonly known as ``command and control'' regulations and give 
companies more flexibility, and encourage them to be more innovative. 
The Clean Water Act, which the Senate will soon consider, does just 
that as does the Safe Drinking Water Act, which the Senate is about to 
consider.
  But the National Environmental Technology Act is an important first 
step. It will help us protect the environment. There is no doubt about 
that. It will help create jobs. There is no doubt about that either, 
and it will help us prepare for the challenges of the 21st century, 
something that we Americans must urgently prepare ourselves for.
  I urge all Americans as well as all Senators to support this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first to start with, I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment Committee, the senior Senator from Montana, 
Senator Baucus, and also Senator Lieberman for their leadership in 
bringing this bill, which is S. 978, which is called the National 
Environmental Technology Act, to the floor today.
  In the Environment Committee we held two hearings on this subject 
last year and actually reported this bill out of the committee last 
October. Since that time the Environment Committee staff has worked 
closely with the staffs of the Energy Committee and also the Armed 
Services Committee to address many of the jurisdictional problems that 
were raised when this bill first came onto the Senate calendar.
  The bill we have before us today, of which I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor, is a substitute for the original bill that we brought out of 
committee, as I say, last October. This bill reflects the changes that 
were made pursuant to the conversations with the Energy and with the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. President, the chairman has outlined what is in this bill and I 
will not belabor the point, but I would like to make a couple of 
remarks.
  What this bill does is to take an important step to encourage the 
coordination and the development of environmental technologies. That is 
the name of the bill and that is what it does. The focus, I might say, 
is not solely dealing with trying to clean up pollution. In a very real 
sense, it is to prevent pollution. And, obviously, if we can do that, 
we are many steps ahead. Furthermore, by pollution prevention, we have 
a great opportunity to save the Federal Government a good deal of money 
in the long run.
  This bill has four goals. I will just tick them off: coordination, 
funding, market barrier reduction, and technology transfer.
  Today--and the chairman mentioned this in his remarks--there are a 
number of Federal agencies that are literally spending billions of 
dollars on environmental technology. They do this every year. But the 
problem is there is no coordination or, if there is any coordination, 
very little of it. What this legislation would do is to change that.
  We direct the President to develop an interagency environmental 
technology strategy. If we are going to spend all this money, let us 
have some concept of what we are trying to do. The strategy would 
establish a research agenda and define the roles of the various Federal 
agencies. After all, the Department of Energy clearly has a role, EPA 
clearly has a role, the Defense Department has a role. And what this 
legislation would do is to recommend, and only recommend--this is not 
to dictate anything, it is to recommend--the actions that are necessary 
to promote environmental technology. That is what the strategy is 
designed for.
  This bill would also authorize an environmental technology initiative 
at EPA. As everyone knows, perhaps, the President last year called upon 
the EPA to develop a multiyear technology strategy or program. 
Currently, EPA is supporting some 73 different environmental technology 
projects at a cost of $36 million. But literally that is just money 
that is appropriated. There is no authorization for that. This 
legislation envisions an authorizing framework being set up so we will 
have a better idea of where EPA is going to go with the money that it 
spends in this technology innovation.
  The primary purpose of the initiative remains the formation of cost-
sharing partnerships with different Federal agencies and with the 
private sector. In the current market--that is in the private market--
there just is not anything there to foster technology innovation. Why 
has this come about? Well, it comes about because all too often there 
are specs listed as to what is sought for the environmental cleanup and 
it is such a risky area that those who are going into it are very, very 
leery of plunging off into a new technology that is an untested 
technology.
  So what we are trying to do here is to encourage the use of some of 
these technologies that are in but have not been tested. So what this 
legislation does is call for the establishment of a verification 
program, a way of marketing these different types of environmental 
technologies.
  One of the big areas that this legislation hopefully would deal with 
is in those Superfund sites, the hazardous waste sites that exist 
across our country. So what it does, it requires the EPA to allocate 
1.25 percent of the Superfund money--this would be subject to 
appropriations--for the development of environmental technology that 
contributes to the objectives of the Superfund program.
  We spend a lot of money on Superfund, but I think we all agree that 
it just plain is not working satisfactorily. And the techniques that we 
are using are the techniques that were there when we started this 
program some 7 years ago. We just have to develop different 
technologies than currently exist or we are going to be spinning our 
wheels and spending literally billions of dollars for rather modest 
achievements.
  So, again, these partnerships with those who have developed these 
technologies are on a 50-50 basis. It is not the Federal Government 
going in and paying 100 percent of these new technologies, it is a 50-
50 basis.
  This bill also strengthens and enhances an existing EPA program by 
authorizing the testing of these new technologies at Federal 
facilities. And we have plenty of those which are currently listed on 
the major Superfund list which is called the Superfund national 
priority list.
  Finally, the bill addresses an issue which is very important to our 
Nation and that is to help small business with the tools necessary to 
deal with environmental compliance.
  A typical case would be up in our State, where we have these electric 
jewelry platers, where they are plating jewelry and the wastes from 
that have presented a terrible problem for this industry to deal with. 
So that is a small industry. These are all very, very small 
independently owned businesses. Under this legislation, small business 
would be given a hand in addressing these pollution problems that the 
businesses deal with, not, again, with the Federal Government paying 
all the money.
  I held a small business and the environment workshop in Rhode Island 
last November. This was one of the problems that the small businesses 
raised. They wanted to deal with these environmental regulations, but 
just found they could not afford the technology that is necessary to 
develop to deal with these problems.
  That is addressed here in this legislation. It authorizes EPA to set 
aside 25 percent funding for small business concerns. And, in addition, 
the EPA is directed to provide environmental technical assistance and 
support to small business through the existing agency which is the 
National Institute of Standards which has manufacturing technology 
centers.
  So, Mr. President, the bill before us today addresses two major 
concerns to the American people. First, the need for a strong economy. 
We all want that and we think we can have a strong economy and still 
have a clean environment, as the chairman mentioned in his opening 
remarks. The second point echoes that and that is to have a healthy 
environment. We want to pass on this country of ours in better shape, 
and hopefully the world likewise, in better shape than we found it from 
an environmental point of view.
  Innovative environmental technologies we believe will save America 
millions in tax dollars. We believe it will increase exports, because 
the demand for these technologies across the world in the developed 
nations and, indeed, in the underdeveloped nations to help wrestle with 
these problems they have and how to solve them creates a tremendous 
opportunity for exports from this country when we have developed the 
technology here.
  We believe it will help create jobs and help ensure the protection of 
our limited natural resources. The question certainly is not whether we 
need an environmental strategy but how will it be structured and 
implemented. We believe that S. 978 provides the framework for going 
forward on this.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I first thank my very good friend, the 
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee]. He has worked very hard on this 
legislation. He supports it very strongly, obviously. He is a very good 
colleague to work with as ranking member of the committee. I just 
wanted to take the time to thank him for his very hard work.
  I also thank the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Lieberman]. A large 
part of this bill exists because of Senator Lieberman's efforts. He has 
been a very strong advocate of greater American competitiveness 
generally, particularly greater environmental technology 
competitiveness. The citizens of Connecticut should know they have a 
very good Senator in Senator Lieberman. He has done a great job.
  I must say the same for Senator Mikulski, the Senator from Maryland. 
She has talked to me on several occasions about the need for this bill. 
She, too, sees how we Americans must work more vigilantly to promote 
environmental technology.
  I have an anecdote to pass on here which I think somewhat illustrates 
the need for this legislation. Last summer I was in Japan, and I 
scheduled a meeting with one of the Vice Ministers of MITI. I was all 
armed to talk about trade differences between our two countries. A 
framework agreement was not yet agreed to, obviously, but there were a 
lot of trade tensions between our two countries.
  I sat down with the Vice Minister, and the first question he asked 
me--the only question he asked me--was: What are the provisions of the 
bill you introduced, the Environmental Technology Act? He was very 
interested in the provisions of a bill I introduced, this bill, early 
last summer. It was introduced about 2 months before I met him. He said 
to me, ``This is probably one of the most important efforts you can 
undertake.'' He wanted to know all the provisions of it, the details of 
it.
  I confess, Mr. President, I was not well prepared to discuss all the 
provisions of this bill because I assumed we were going to talk about 
trade. After all, he is the Vice Minister in charge of trade. It just 
became very apparent to me, if the vice minister of MITI is very 
interested in the National Environmental Technology Act, and that is 
really all he wanted to talk about, then maybe we are onto something 
here. In talking to other officials in other countries, one can glean 
that they, too, in their countries are pushing environmental 
technology.
  A little later, after visiting the Vice Minister of MITI, I was in 
China. I spent over an hour with the second daughter of Deng Xiaoping, 
Deng Nan. She for that hour talked to me about one subject and one 
subject only. She had a whole sheaf of papers on environmental problems 
in China. She would list the areas where China is slipping greater than 
in other areas, whether it is air, water, or waste. All she cared about 
were environmental problems in China.
  Another man I met with, one of the major Ministers in China, gave 
probably the most comprehensive, most articulate, most thoughtful 
presentation I have ever heard from anyone on any subject on 
environmental problems in China. He would list each of the areas where 
they are making progress and where they are slipping. He admitted to 
me--in fact, he volunteered to me--that China is, overall, experiencing 
a loss in addressing environmental problems. It is a tremendous problem 
they have. As China grows to deal with the problems of the late 20th 
century and the 21st century, grappling with rapid economic growth, 
especially in the south and western provinces, they were struggling to 
deal with the explosion in environmental problems let alone 
infrastructure problems. There is a major opportunity for the United 
States to market these environmental technologies not only in China but 
other countries of the world.
  I strongly urge us as a country, after we adopt this bill, to work 
very aggressively to maintain American preeminence in this area.
  Mr. President, I might say the President of the United States sent me 
a letter strongly supporting this bill. He has been a leader in pushing 
environmental technology as has, certainly, I must say, the Vice 
President. I know of no one who is a more ardent advocate and more 
perceptive advocate of the need to pursue this area than our Vice 
President. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter from the 
President printed in the Record along with many letters here from 
groups that support this legislation: Environmental Business Council, 
Environmental Defense Fund, the World Wildlife Fund, the Hazardous 
Waste Action Coalition, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp., 
the National Roundtable of State Pollution Prevention Programs--I have 
a long list here. I will not burden the Senate by reading all of the 
names. But there are many letters in support. I ask unanimous consent 
they, too, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                        Washington, March 4, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Over the past month's, the 
     Administration has worked with the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works on S. 978, the National Environmental 
     Technology Act of 1993, which you introduced to promote 
     development and use of ``green'' technologies. I am pleased 
     that we have been able to work together with you and your 
     colleagues to refine the legislation, and understand that you 
     hope to take this revised version of the bill to the Senate 
     floor soon. I support your proposed substitute as a 
     legislative framework for the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's contribution to the Administration's overall 
     strategy for promoting environmental technologies. I look 
     forward to working with you and other members of Congress 
     through the remainder of the legislative process to come to 
     agreement on environmental technologies legislation that can 
     be quickly enacted and implemented.
       The development and deployment of environmental 
     technologies are an essential part of the Administration's 
     commitment to creating jobs and strengthening the economy 
     while restoring and protecting the environment. I want to 
     thank you and the other co-sponsors of S. 978 for your 
     leadership in this area. Working together, I believe we can 
     achieve our common environmental and economic goals.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Clinton.
                                  ____

         Environmental Business Council of the United States, 
           Inc.,
                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 1994.
     Senator Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: I am pleased to endorse your bill S. 
     978, National Environmental Technology Act of 1994, on behalf 
     of the Environmental Business Council of the United States, 
     Inc. (EBC-US).
       This legislation, supported by the Clinton/Gore 
     Administration, will substantially assist in the development 
     of innovative environmental technology in the United States 
     and materially aid in the diffusion of this technology 
     globally.
       S. 978 is a vital piece of the effort to bolster the US 
     environmental industry domestically as a prelude to export. 
     Additionally, S. 978 provides the authority to the US 
     Environmental Protection Agency for its Environmental 
     Technology Initiative, a key program to form working 
     partnerships between government and the private sector for 
     innovative environmental technologies.
       On behalf of our member companies and institutions, I want 
     to thank you for your leadership on this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Donald L. Connors,
                                                        President.

                                   Environmental Defense Fund,

                                     New York, NY, March 11, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Baucus: I am writing in support of your 
     proposed substitute for S. 978, the National Environmental 
     Technology Act of 1993, which you introduced to promote 
     environmentally-superior technologies. I am particularly 
     pleased with the special attention the bill gives to 
     promoting source reduction technologies, which as you know, 
     hold the most promise for cost-effective protection of human 
     health and the environment.
       Thank you and the other co-sponsors of S.978 for your 
     leadership in this important area. We look forward to working 
     with you and other members of Congress as this bill moves 
     through the legislative process.
           Yours truly,
                                                       Fred Krupp.
                                  ____


                                          World Wildlife Fund,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Environment and Public Works Committee, Washington, 
         DC
       Dear Chairman Baucus: I am writing in support of the floor 
     substitute for the ``National Environmental Technology Act of 
     1994'' (S. 978). We at World Wildlife Fund feel that S. 978 
     does an excellent job of providing the fundamental structure 
     needed to promote environmental technologies.
       The Sec. 401 validation program is an excellent way to 
     encourage cleaner, more effective and less costly 
     technologies by allowing any vendor to apply for 
     verification, and then making information regarding all such 
     verified technologies readily available to industries, 
     consumers, and those who draft regulations and permits.
       We appreciate your understanding and acknowledgement of the 
     important role that pollution prevention planning can play in 
     building in a healthy and environmentally sustainable 
     economy. While many laws allow for changes in products and 
     processes as a means of meeting standards, historically these 
     laws have not made preventive measures a priority, nor have 
     they encouraged the use of preventive measures instead of 
     end-of-the-pipe solutions. If the United States is to remain 
     an international industrial leader, our country must develop 
     and deploy a wide array of new, efficient, and 
     environmentally sound technologies. We feel that S. 978 can 
     provide the economic and technical assistance necessary to 
     help U.S. companies map their way through seemingly rough and 
     previously uncharted waters.
       Thank you for introducing this extremely important piece of 
     legislation. We know that you and many of your colleagues 
     have long been proponents of pollution prevention measures, 
     and we are pleased to help you in your efforts.
           Sincerely,

                                             Frances H, Irwin,

                                                         Director,
                                    Pollution Prevention Programs.
                                  ____

                                                   Hazardous Waste


                                             Action Coalition,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 1994.
     Re: Senate Bill S. 978, The National Environmental Technology 
         Act of 1994 (NETA).

     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: The Hazardous Waste Action Coalition 
     (HWAC), an association of over 110 leading engineering and 
     science firms practicing in hazardous waste management, 
     strongly supports the proposed National Environmental 
     Technology Act of 1994, Senate Bill S. 978. This bill links 
     growth in environmental technology development to the 
     economic future of the United States and to the health of the 
     global environment. HWAC commends your leadership on this 
     critical environmental and economic issue.
       HWAC member firms employ over 75,000 trained and 
     experienced hazardous waste professionals in over 500 offices 
     nationwide and provide over 75% of the hazardous waste 
     consulting services in this country. Our member firms have 
     made significant commitments and investments into innovative 
     cleanup technology research and development, and they 
     continue to build expertise as environmental technology 
     ``developers,'' ``testers'' and ``implementers.''
       Since NETA was originally proposed on May 18, 1993, 
     President Clinton has voiced his support for and commitment 
     to increasing the export of U.S. environmental technologies. 
     Through your leadership, NETA crystallizes this vision into a 
     plan of action. HWAC is particularly pleased with the 
     emphasis placed on government-industry partnerships in the 
     revised bill. Additionally, Subtitle B of Title IV, Technical 
     Assistance to Small Business in Coordination with Existing 
     Programs, helps small businesses to comply with complex 
     environmental requirements and constructively addresses the 
     difficulties encountered by small businesses in applying new 
     environmental technologies to achieve their source reduction 
     and environmental compliance needs.
       Finally, HWAC believes that coordinating research, 
     development and testing (RD&T) efforts government-wide will 
     greatly enhance the effectiveness of tax dollars spent on 
     environmental technology RD&T. The EPA-lead approach outlined 
     in S. 978 offers the best opportunity to maximize investment 
     into environmental technology RD&T. Other nations encourage 
     RD&T to an extent that allows their industries to effectively 
     compete in the global marketplace. Under your aegis, NETA 
     establishes the framework for reducing the existing trade 
     imbalance with other countries.
           Sincerely,

                                              Frank S. Waller,

                                        President, HWAC, Chairman,
                                        Woodward-Clyde Group, Inc.
                                  ____

                                              Microelectronics and


                                     Computer Technology Corp.

                                  Washington, DC., March 11, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Dirksen 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my support for 
     your proposed substitute for S. 978, the National Environment 
     Technology Act of 1993.
       I am aware of many instances in which individual firms or 
     groups of companies are unable, for reasons of market risk, 
     cost, etc., to develop, test, commercialize, or implement 
     promising environmental technologies. This is true even 
     though industry is increasingly aware that consumer 
     preferences, domestic regulation, foreign environmental 
     legislation and other factors are demanding ``greener'' 
     products and processes, and creating new markets for 
     environmental technologies. Your bill provides a means 
     through which the private sector can join with the Government 
     to overcome existing barriers and seize promising 
     opportunities. By so doing, the proposed legislation can make 
     an important contribution to the development of environmental 
     technology in the U.S., to the benefit of both our 
     environment and our economy.
       It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff in 
     the development of S. 978, and I look forward to further 
     collaboration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Dr. Craig I Fields.
                                  ____

                                      National Roundtable of State


                                Pollution Prevention Programs,

                                                    March 9, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Board of Directors of the National 
     Roundtable of State Pollution Prevention Programs fully 
     supports S. 978's initiatives to develop cleaner technologies 
     and broader deployment of existing technologies which prevent 
     or reduce the generation of pollution. The Roundtable's Board 
     of Directors believes the bill will put in valuable programs 
     directed at making our Nation's technology base more 
     environmentally advanced through pollution prevention.
       The National Roundtable is the largest organization in the 
     United States dedicated solely to the purpose of eliminating 
     or reducing the generation of waste from industrial 
     operations. Our 80 member offices, representing nearly every 
     state, plus dozens of counties and cities, have successfully 
     assisted thousands of businesses in implementing source 
     reduction technologies.
       The Roundtable believes it can provide ``hands on'' 
     experience in implementing the development of a national 
     strategy, management of a national clearinghouse, 
     disseminating information, and providing technical assistance 
     directly to small businesses. Improvements in the use of 
     technology and raw materials can reduce waste generation and 
     the associated costs of waste treatment and disposal to small 
     businesses. We provide a service American businesses can take 
     to the bank--and the environment benefits in the process.
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 978. I would 
     be pleased to discuss how the National Roundtable can 
     participate in implementing this legislation, and to answer 
     any questions you might have.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James Lounsbury,
         Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, and 
           Executive Director of the National Roundtable.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                           of Metal Finishers,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 1994.
     Re: Senate Bill 978.

     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Baucus: In May of 1993, the National 
     Association of Metal Finishers testified before the 
     Environment and Public Works Committee regarding the 
     ``National Environmental Technology Act of 1993'', S. 978. At 
     that time the Association joined other business sector 
     witnesses in pointing out issues that might impede 
     opportunities for development of environmental technologies, 
     especially those related to or encouraging small business 
     participation.
       The Association has recently had the opportunity to review 
     the discussion draft amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     that we understand will be offered during floor debate of 
     this bill. This review along with conversations with 
     Environment and Public Works Committee staff has reinforced 
     our view that S. 978 could provide our industry and other 
     small business economic sectors with opportunities to both 
     increase environmental protection and business opportunities. 
     The Association is especially pleased to note that small 
     business provisions have been maintained and strengthened 
     throughout the bill.
       The National Association of Metal Finishers therefore 
     wishes to express its support for S. 978, especially those 
     portions designed to encourage participation of small 
     businesses in the development, and just as importantly, the 
     deployment of innovative, cost effective environmental 
     technologies. As we did in May, NAMF notes that the 
     provisions of this legislation should be implemented in a 
     fashion that augments the successful commercial relationships 
     in our industrial sector and others that have provided an 
     unmatched record of technical and industrial innovations over 
     the years.
       Second, while any certainty and objective ``verification'' 
     data on environmental technologies will potentially be 
     welcomed by technology users, we stress and strongly support 
     provisions in Title IV of the legislation that make it clear 
     that ``listing'' or verification will not imply or compel 
     standards or technology changes in existing regulatory 
     programs other than through normal statutory or regulatory 
     evaluation and standards review processes. The debate and the 
     provisions should make clear that ``listing'' will not create 
     de factor technological or regulatory benchmarks, that the 
     verification evaluations will inherently be limited in scope 
     not intended to demonstrate technologies for industrial 
     categories or regulatory standards.
       NAMF appreciates the fact that this legislation by the 
     Congress of the true future of environmental policy based on 
     alternatives to command and control regulation, including 
     innovation, clean technologies and incentives for business 
     and technology driven solutions to environmental problems. As 
     a related task, the Association suggests that the 
     ``Environmental Technology Strategy'' envisioned by the bill 
     should make a priority of its legislative charge to ``* * * 
     identify, * * * regulatory and other barriers to, and 
     incentives for, development, utilization * * * of 
     environmental technologies.''
       We hope that our comments have added constructive elements 
     to this initiative. This industry has taken and intends to 
     take many other steps to insure that our basic manufacturing 
     process utilizes and is a part of environmental technology 
     development and deployment.
       Please contact NAMF for any further information or 
     assistance that we may be able to provide. The Association 
     looks forward to further cooperation with the Congress on 
     this vital subject.
           Sincerely,
                                          William A. Sonntag, Jr.,
                                   Director, Government Relations.

                                  ____



                             Institute of Clean Air Companies,

                                   Washington, DC, March 18, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Institute of Clean Air Companies, 
     Inc., on behalf of the U.S. air pollution control industry, 
     is pleased to endorse your bill, the ``National Environmental 
     Technology Act of 1994,'' (S. 978).
       As you know, the Institute represents suppliers of the full 
     range of air pollution controls and emission monitoring 
     devices for all types of stationary sources and emissions. 
     These controls include technologies to prevent pollution in 
     the first place, and post-combustion controls ranging from 
     biofilters to selective catalytic reduction systems.
       Recent government reports co-sponsored by ICAC show that 
     implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 is 
     creating tens of thousands of well-paid, high-tech jobs in 
     the U.S. And our industry is currently generating a trade 
     surplus, albeit a small one, with great potential for export 
     growth.
       S. 978 recognizes the compatibility of clean air and a 
     healthy economy. It will spur development of innovate air 
     pollution clean-up and prevention technologies, thereby 
     helping to meet environmental goals as well as the needs of 
     regulated industry for cost-effective control options.
       The Institute is especially for the careful attention you 
     and your staff gave to our viewpoints in drafting your bill. 
     We look forward to continuing our good working relationship, 
     and applaud your leadership on this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jeffrey C. Smith,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                                 Safety-Kleen,

                                        Elgin, IL, April 18, 1994.
     Senator Max Baucus,
     U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Safety-Kleen, a Fortune 500 corporation, 
     is the world's largest recycler of contaminated industrial 
     and automotive fluids, as well as the largest re-refiner of 
     used oil. We are proud to have built a sales and service 
     system able to reach some 50,000 business facilities around 
     the world, the majority of which are small businesses. Our 
     goal is to continue to build and improve upon this system, 
     aggressively promoting technologies and services which offer 
     pollution prevention benefits.
       We have been following closely progress in Congress on S. 
     978, the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994 and endorse 
     rapid action by the Congress. We do not favor unnecessary 
     government intervention in the marketplace. There are several 
     reasons, however, why this legislation is constructive. The 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency programs have fostered 
     development of environmental enterprises which represent 
     products and services second to none in the world. At the 
     same time, the environmental industry is by its nature 
     heavily regulated and we face a complex array of permitting 
     and other government programs at the federal, state and 
     international level. Moreover, the industry is not adequately 
     recognized as an important commercial sector in its own right 
     so that it can be understood and evaluated as industries with 
     their own SIC codes are. Because of these realities, it is 
     important that Congress endorse focusing regulations, 
     technology research and trade promotion programs so that they 
     are likely to meet real market needs. It is clearly 
     appropriate for Congressional policy to maximize the prospect 
     that U.S. firms can continue to develop and to project their 
     comparative advantage in environmental technologies and 
     services into export markets.
       As we see the world environmental market grow in size of 
     $300 billion or more, the goal must be no less than securing 
     undisputed world pre-eminence for the United States in 
     environmental technology and services. This can be achieved 
     not through government direction, but through constructive 
     focusing of diverse activities in ways such as those set 
     forth in S. 978. The by-product will be growth in U.S. jobs 
     and exports as well as continued development of technologies 
     that provide an environment for U.S. corporate initiative and 
     leadership. The right kind of legislative focus can help 
     environmental industries and manufacturing companies who want 
     to improve their productivity and competitiveness through 
     cleaner manufacturing technologies and management systems. 
     Without creating new agencies or major programs, S.978 offers 
     a vehicle to help companies that deal in a heavily regulated 
     environment more effectively to develop and market new 
     technologies. The research and verification provisions can 
     provide a potentially valuable vehicle for ensuring that the 
     expertise in many key agencies is appropriately brought to 
     bear and strategically deployed to guide entrepreneurs and 
     investors in developing cleaner technologies.
       In short, this can be a particularly productive legislative 
     output at a time when the future success of environmental 
     protection and sustainable development programs depends on 
     U.S. corporate leadership. I would be pleased to discuss 
     specific issues or questions with you at your convenience. 
     Thank you for your continued leadership in this important 
     area.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Hank Habicht,
                                            Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                      3M Environmental Engineering


                                        and Pollution Control,

                                     St. Paul, MN, March 18, 1994.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on the Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of 3M, I would like to add our 
     support to your proposed substitute for the National 
     Environmental Technology Act, S. 978. Your proposal is a 
     critical step in the path that will lead America to a 
     sustainable future. No matter what actions are taken by 
     Congress or American industry, without a strong foundation of 
     environmentally responsible technology, we will never achieve 
     our goal of an environmentally sustainable future.
       We at 3M are proud of the environmental accomplishments 
     which our employees have achieved in the past and are 
     confident that their future actions will enable us to attain 
     our future goals of ``zero releases'' and sustainable growth. 
     The development and implementation of environmentally 
     responsible technologies has brought us to where we are today 
     and will carry us to an even higher level of environmental 
     performance in the future.
       The strong support and coordinated effort from the Federal 
     Government that is created through your legislation will 
     substantially enhance and augment the significant 
     environmental technology efforts that are currently being put 
     forth by American industry.
       There are a few minor enhancements that we believe would 
     strengthen this legislation and place it in more direct 
     alignment with the path that is being followed by American 
     industry. Our comments are attached.
       I and my staff stand ready to work with you and your 
     Committee in moving this critically needed legislation into 
     reality. If there is anything that we can do to support your 
     efforts or if you have questions or need additional 
     information, please contact me at your convenience.
           With warmest regards,
                                            Dr. Robert P. Bringer,
                                             Staff Vice President.
                                  ____



                                          Union Carbide Corp.,

                                                       Danbury, CT
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Baucus: On behalf of Union Carbide 
     Corporation, I am writing in support of the basic concepts 
     embodied in S. 978, The National Environmental Technology Act 
     of 1994. This bill would, for example, provide a funding 
     avenue to pursue innovative technology that could have 
     application to our remediation of waste sites. Also, the 
     ability to learn from the experiences of others has a great 
     deal of appeal.
       Union Carbide's key corporate values include Technology 
     Excellence, and Health, Safety and Environmental Excellence. 
     The fulfillment of these values often incorporates the 
     development of world-leading chemicals and plastics process 
     technologies which offer superior energy efficiency and 
     environmental performance when compared to other competing 
     processes. Our latest generations of process technology have 
     been designed for enhanced safety and environmental 
     performance. These attributes are of significant commercial 
     advantage in the global marketplace.
       A case in point is our UNIPOL process for making 
     polyethylene plastic resins. This technology has 
     revolutionized the entire plastics industry, and enabled the 
     United States to become the world leader in the $30 billion 
     worldwide polyethylene industry. UNIPOL also 
     represents a major improvement in environmental and safety 
     performance over conventional technology. Since its 
     introduction, it has resulted in energy, operating, and raw 
     material cost savings of nearly $7 billion. It uses less 
     energy, produces virtually no hazardous wastes, reduces 
     emissions to the environment, operates at lower, thus safer, 
     temperatures and pressures and produces a superior product. 
     Union Carbide's President and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. 
     William H. Joyce, recently received a National Medal of 
     Technology from President Clinton for his pioneering work in 
     developing and commercializing UNIPOL. It is, we 
     believe, a classic example of ``design for environment.''
       It is important that the definition of ``environmental 
     technology'' recognize the drive to integrate environmental 
     performance into the design of products and processes. Under 
     the definition in the proposed substitute amendment, we are 
     not sure that an example like UNIPOL could qualify 
     for development support. While enhanced safety and 
     environmental performance is integral to our advanced process 
     technology, it is not necessarily the ``primary purpose.'' 
     Performance for the intended use, product quality, and cost 
     are often the primary reasons why a process technology 
     exists. Yet it may yield significant added value by virtue of 
     its environmental characteristics. We believe that the 
     definition from the bill as originally reported by the 
     Committee is more helpful in spurring development of process 
     technology with inherently superior safety and environmental 
     performance.
       We applaud your interest in promoting further development 
     of environmental technology. Good ideas indeed do not reach 
     the market because of insufficient funding. We hope that the 
     Senate can approve a bill that truly accomplishes the vision 
     that we share with you.
           Sincerely,

                                                Ron Van Mynen,

                                                   Vice President,
                                  Health, Safety, and Environment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, over 2 years ago, I made a pledge to 
Maryland residents. My pledge was to continue the fight for jobs today 
and jobs tomorrow. Today I stand to support the passage of the National 
Environmental Technologies Act or NETA, of which I am an original 
cosponsor. I urge my colleagues to pass this important piece of 
legislation and take another step towards creating the jobs of 
tomorrow.
  With the passage of the National Environmental Technology Act, we 
will create an important catalyst for public-private partnerships to 
develop environmental technologies that will produce new products. 
Products that will mean jobs today and jobs tomorrow.
  The potential in environmental technologies is endless. New 
technologies to clean up Superfund sites. Products developed without 
the use of lead. New products made from recyclable goods. The list goes 
on and on.
  Almost every report in the environmental technology area says this 
market is ready to explode with growth. Right now it's estimated at 
$200 billion. It's expected that market will be over $300 billion by 
the year 2000. It's estimated there are 1.7 million jobs worldwide in 
the environmental industry right now. Imagine what that will mean for 
future jobs if the industry grows by $100 billion.
  But Mr. President, we are falling far behind our competitors. I don't 
want to see another country steal this opportunity. And you know that's 
what they are trying to do.
  The European Community has already set up agencies to study the 
technological future. Germany spends 23 percent of its R&D budget 
environmentally. And Japan is spending over $4 billion to develop its 
environmental research.
  It's time for the United States to take a leadership position. By 
passing this bill, we can get out in front. That's why I originally 
introduced this bill in the last Congress, and why I was so pleased to 
join with Senator Baucus, chairman of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee and Senator Lieberman, to reintroduce this legislation.
  I don't want this country to import ideas from abroad. I want this 
country to become the Jolly Green Giant of the 21st century. I want it 
to export American ideas, American technologies, and American products. 
We need to do this now.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 978, the 
National Environmental Technologies Act. The bill will assist and 
promote the further development of key environmental technologies. It 
is a crucial step forward both for the sake of our economy and for the 
environment. Environmentally sound business is an important growth 
sector in my State and throughout the country. The Federal Government 
can play a positive role in promoting this sector, especially by 
assisting the development of critical environmental technologies. I 
would like to commend Chairman Baucus for his leadership in brining 
this bill to the floor. I hope it will pass and can be signed into law 
by the President this year.
  I am especially pleased that we have been able to clarify the 
important role of small businesses in this bill. The minimum allocation 
now in the bill for small firms' participation in the research and 
development partnerships that are authorized in title II represents a 
necessary acknowledgement of the leading role that small businesses 
already are playing in the environmental technology sector. On behalf 
of myself and a number of other members of the Small Business 
Committee--Chairman Bumpers and Senators Lautenberg, Moseley-Braun, and 
Heflin--who joined me during the past week in urging this special 
emphasis on small business participation, I thank the chairman for his 
cooperation in working out the small-business language.
  There is no question that there is a dual role for the Federal 
Government in ensuring that continued economic growth occurs in a 
manner that is consistent with protection of the environment:
  Government must regulate prudently to prevent environmental 
degradation; and Government can also play an important role in guiding 
the development of clean technologies, clean ways of doing business.
  Experience shows us that markets by themselves do not promote 
sustainable development.
  This bill puts the United States on the right path toward promoting 
environmentally sound business in the following ways:
  First, it will seek to coordinate the Federal Government's budget, 
policies and activities related to environmental technologies; second, 
it will provide seed money to fund private sector research 
and development of innovative environmental technologies; third, it 
will reduce market barriers to the development and utilization of 
environmental technologies; and fourth, it will collect and disseminate 
information regarding environmental technologies.

  Mr. President, I believe the major role for small businesses that is 
now guaranteed in the bill is key both to the environmental and to the 
economic goals of the bill. We know that it is small firms that are 
generating the majority of new ideas and new jobs throughout the 
economy. But small firms also are clearly on the cutting edge of this 
particular field of environmental technology. The rate of innovation by 
small firms in the environmental technology sector far exceeds that of 
large firms.
  Robert Sussman, Deputy Administrator of EPA, testified during the 
Environment and Public Works Committee's hearing on this bill to the 
importance of assisting small businesses. he said:

       (T)his is a sector where innovation has been driven 
     historically by small companies that are not well financed 
     and need support from the investment community. 
     Unfortunately, the venture capitalists have been reluctant, 
     with some exceptions, to commit resources to the development 
     of new technologies. This is one of the reasons why 
     Government assistance at the R&D and pre-commercialization 
     stage could be useful in this area perhaps to a greater 
     extent than in some other sectors.

  My staff discussed this bill with Toby Dayton, who is development 
director for the Minnesota Environmental Initiative. The initiative is 
a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to bringing business, 
government and citizens groups together to help solve environmental 
problems, in part through the development of environmentally related 
products and services.
  The initiative is currently working with 106 companies to promote the 
energy-efficiency and renewable-energies industry. One hundred of those 
firms are small or medium-sized and have averaged more than 30 percent 
annual growth during the past 2 years. Mr. Dayton said the following:

       Small firms are key to the environmental technology 
     industry, and, in fact, that is where the majority of growth 
     is coming from. An allocation for small businesses in the 
     environmental technologies bill would be important to making 
     sure they get an opportunity to participate.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to include in 
the Record letters I have received from Ralph Nader's Government 
Purchasing Project, from Co-op America, from the Ozone-Safe Cooling 
Association, and from Minnesota Project Innovation, Inc. Each of these 
organizations testifies to the importance of a minimum allocation for 
small business participation in the projects funded by this bill.

  I would also like to quote from a letter I received from Donald Cook, 
who is president of Glass Aggregate manufacturing and Engineering Co. 
of Faribault, MN--a company that recycles rejected glass in my State. 
Mr. Cook was not writing to me with regard to this particular bill, but 
he urged Federal Government assistance to small businesses in the field 
of environmental technology. Here is what he wrote: ``We are finding 
that research and development costs are very expensive, but at the same 
time, if we do not do these tests, we cannot market our product. So we 
are struggling at finding agencies and other businesses to help assist 
us in development of our product.'' I think that not only the 
partnership created in title II of the bill, but also the technology 
transfer provisions that appear later in the bill, will help address 
the problem pointed out in Mr. Cook's appeal.
  Unfortunately, small firms very often are unaware of or face 
obstacles to participating in Federal technology programs, even when 
they are the most natural constituency for those programs. That is why 
my colleagues from the Small Business Committee and I felt it was vital 
to guarantee that small businesses, which are at the forefront of 
environmental technology, be guaranteed a major role in this new 
program through an explicit minimum allocation for small business 
participation in partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency 
[EPA] during the pre-commercialization research and development phase 
of environmental technology promotion.
  Finally, Mr. President, as chairman of the Small Business Committee's 
Subcommittee on Rural Economy and Family Farming, I want to make clear 
that I believe small rural enterprises seeking to add value to our 
renewable resources in ways that are consistent with environmental 
protection are key to the future of sustainable development in rural 
America. I hope that this bill can benefit many such firms, and I 
intend to closely monitor its implementation to see that it does.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Government Purchasing Project,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 1994.
     Re National Environmental Technologies Act, S. 978.
     Senator Paul Wellstone,
     Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: The Government Purchasing Project 
     studies the effect of government procurement on the 
     environment. We believe that environmentally responsible 
     procurement can reduce solid waste, conserve energy and 
     prevent pollution while saving taxpayers' dollars and 
     leveraging new technologies.
       We are repeatedly contacted by desperate small businesses 
     seeking help in obtaining funds or technical assistance for 
     launching their cutting edge, environmentally responsible 
     products and processes which are still in the precommercial 
     stage. There is an amazing lack of federal and private funds 
     available for these entities, considering that most 
     significant inventions come from small businesses. As a 
     result, society suffers because significant inventions and 
     improvements in existing products take many additional 
     decades to reach commercial markets or never do.
       With the current high costs of doing research and 
     introducing new products and the concentration of markets in 
     a few large companies, it is the rare invention that is ever 
     commercialized. A 25 percent small business set aside in S. 
     978 provides a little federal assistance to a sector that is 
     ignored in most federal legislation. Without a specific small 
     business set aside, the federal funds appropriated for S. 978 
     will go to large businesses.
       We appreciate your interest in helping small businesses 
     assume their rightful position in government programs 
     encouraging the development of environmental technologies.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Eleanor J. Lewis,
                                                         Director.
                                  ____



                                                Co-Op America,

                                                       May 3, 1994
     Re National Environmental Technologies Act, S. 978.
     Senator Paul Wellstone,
     Hart Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: Co-op America is a national 
     nonprofit network of over 1,200 small socially and 
     environmentally concerned businesses. These businesses 
     provide economic security and jobs for over 16,000 people and 
     produce $1.2 billion of revenue every year. Small business, 
     according to Dun and Bradstreet, will provide most of the 
     jobs in the future; 60% of the jobs will be provided by 
     businesses with fewer than 20 employees.
       As the largest network of small socially and 
     environmentally concerned businesses, Co-op America would 
     like to emphasize to you how important it is that the 
     National Environmental Technologies Act include at least a 
     25% set aside for small business (50% would be even better). 
     Innovation often springs from the very smallest businesses.
       A good example of environmental innovation by a small 
     business is Ecoprint. (Ecoprint's annual gross earnings are 
     $850,000.) With a small grant from the EPA, Ecoprint created 
     nontoxic printing inks. These same inks are now beginning to 
     be used industry-wide.
       Another example is the Aveda Corporation, which began as a 
     very small company. The idea behind Aveda was to manufacture 
     cosmetics without artificial preservatives and petrochemical 
     products. Everyone said that it couldn't be done. Now Aveda 
     has a very successful line of cosmetic products . . . and an 
     innovative technology which can be reproduced.
       As you can imagine, as the largest nonprofit network of 
     small socially and environmentally concerned businesses, Co-
     op America is constantly contacted by small businesses 
     seeking assistance. What these businesses are most often 
     seeking is funding--usually for an innovative environmental 
     product.
       Please don't forget that the telephone--one of the most 
     innovative technologies invented this century--came out of a 
     small business--it consisted of two people and a dog.
       Thank you for supporting a small business set aside in S. 
     978.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Alisa Gravitz,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               Ozone Safe Cooling Association,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: As Executive Director of the Ozone 
     Safe Cooling Association (OSCA), I'm writing in support of S. 
     978, the National Environmental Technology Act (NETA), I'm 
     pleased to learn that a minimum allocation for small business 
     has now been included in the managers amendment to be 
     considered by the Senate.
       As I previously expressed, a guaranteed role for small 
     business is essential to the economic and environmental goals 
     of NETA. Without a small business set-aside, NETA could 
     amount to little more than a vehicle for handouts to the 
     large corporations, that have caused many of today's 
     environmental problems.
       Stimulating development and commercialization of 
     environmental technology and products (ET&Ps) is a vital 
     ingredient to the economic and environmental goals of NETA. 
     Small businesses are already a driving force behind this 
     movement and need to be an integral part of NETA.
       Small businesses are more than inventors working out of a 
     garage; they include thousands of taxpaying companies and 
     even multimillion-dollar enterprises, with scores of 
     employees. They are also more innovative and cost-effective 
     at developing ET&Ps than the muscle-bound industry giants.
       The Ozone Safe Cooling Association represents firms like 
     these that face incredible, often senseless obstacles, 
     despite offering tangible and immediate environmental and 
     economic benefits.
       I'd like to thank you for your efforts on behalf of our 
     members and other small business that actively seek a 
     guaranteed opportunity to contribute to America's 
     environmental and economic advancement.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James F. Mattil,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                           Minnesota Project Innovation, Inc.,

                                     Minneapolis, MN, May 6, 1994.
     Senator Paul Wellstone,
     Marie Muller,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Muller: I am supportive of S. 978 Environmental 
     Technology Act and specifically the amendment to set aside 
     funds for small environmental technology businesses.
       As the executive director of Minnesota Project Innovation, 
     Inc. (MPI), I have encountered numerous clients in the 
     environmental technology area who have difficulty obtaining 
     the necessary financing to grow their companies. Typically 
     the companies are involved with high-risk technology, which 
     precludes them from either debt or equity financing 
     opportunities.
       The provisions of this bill enable our clients additional 
     opportunities to obtain critical funding and technical 
     assistance. At the same time, it will encourage a unique 
     business initiation that will foster the development of 
     additional environmental technologies.
       Please let me know if I can be of additional assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randall D. Olson,
                                               Executive Director.


                           amendment no. 1688

               (Purpose: To add a proposed new safeguard)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1688.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Annual report including specific benchmarks on the success 
     of the program:
       On page 13 on line 6 delete all through line 9 and replace 
     with the following:
       ``(A) description of the research, development and testing 
     conducted under programs authorized pursuant to Title II, 
     Title III, and Title IV of this Act;
       (B) resources and staff devoted to the programs listed 
     under paragraph (A); and
       (C) estimated environmental and economic benefits resulting 
     from the programs listed under paragraph (A) and the cost of 
     the programs.''

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment adds additional safeguards 
to this bill as well as additional benchmarks to evaluate performance 
of the program. I think it is a good amendment and will enhance both 
the spirit and effect of this bill. I compliment the Senator from 
Nebraska for his improvements.
  This amendment, as I understand it, has been cleared on the other 
side as well.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. I am generally supportive of this bill. But, I am 
concerned that someone should be minding the store here. I want to make 
sure that there are appropriate safeguards to ensure that the money 
authorized by this legislation is spent wisely and well.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I agree wholeheartedly that adequate safeguards are 
necessary to make certain that the monies spent on envirotech research 
and development produce results, and do not just disappear into a black 
hole. In fact, the bill contains many checks and balances so that the 
Government will be sure to get out as much as it puts into this 
program.
  First, private matching funds are required for partnerships with non-
Federal entities. In most cases, the private partner must match the 
Government 50-50. Private matching is a strong incentive for technology 
developers to have ideas with real promise.
  Second, the funding provisions of the bill are subject to a merit-
based competitive procedure for selection of all awards of Government 
funds.
  Third, the bill requires peer review so that EPA will consult with 
non-Federal experts in the course of its work. EPA will involve experts 
from the private sector and academia.
  Fourth, there is a limit on the duration of grants and loans by the 
Federal Government for any one technology--partnerships with single 
companies are limited to 3 years and with joint ventures are limited to 
5 years.
  Fifth, EPA must report to the Congress on its activities, and its 
financial and human resources on an annual basis.
  Thus, I believe that there are many safeguards in the bill to ensure 
that funds are spent and are not wasted.
  Mr. KERREY. I have an amendment that would provide further safeguards 
beyond those you outlined a moment ago. My amendment would require that 
in the annual report to Congress, EPA must discuss specific benchmarks 
of success of the program. EPA must tell us precisely what research and 
development projects they funded, how much financial and human 
resources were devoted to the various programs authorized in this bill, 
and most importantly, the estimated economic and environmental benefits 
and costs of the various programs authorized in this bill. I think this 
will be a very useful yardstick for future evaluation of this program.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I am familiar with the Senator's amendment. I believe it 
strengthens the bill in a very concrete way. The Senator knows that I 
believe strongly that there must be quantifiable measures of success 
for the Government. I understand that the Senator's amendment has been 
cleared by both sides. I am happy to include it in the bill. And I 
thank the Senator for his contribution to this legislation.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Senator for working with me to shore up the 
accountability of the Federal Government in this bill. I think this 
legislation is extremely important to the future of the U.S. economy 
and the environment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1688) was agreed to.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Montana yield for 
a question to clarify the definition of environmental technology in 
section 3?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Certainly.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I am concerned that the definition of environmental 
technology might be interpreted too broadly, specifically, that the 
definition might be used to encompass technologies developed by the 
Department of Energy. What is the Senator's understanding of the 
meaning of the term environmental technology?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would be happy to explain the meaning of the term 
environmental technology.
  The scope of the definition of environmental technology is limited by 
requiring that a technology have as its primary purpose the reduction 
of environmental risks by protecting or enhancing human health and the 
environment through one of three ways--pollution control, environmental 
remediation, or design and process changes that result in source 
reduction or recycling. Furthermore, the technology must be identified 
and listed in the multiagency strategy called for under title I.
  So, would nuclear fusion be considered an environmental technology 
because, compared to coal burning, it would protect and enhance the 
environment by reducing air pollution? No, because the primary purpose 
of fusion is to produce energy and not to reduce environmental risks. 
An important benefit, and perhaps a motivating force, is that fusion 
would result in a cleaner environment by reducing the amount of 
pollutants in the air. But for purposes of this legislation, fusion 
would not be covered by this definition because its primary purpose is 
not environmental protection.
  Some of the nonenergy technologies developed by the Department of 
Energy, however, would fit this definition of environmental technology. 
The waste cleanup efforts at Department of Energy weapons complex sites 
generate innovative technologies that would be considered environmental 
technologies. For example, the primary purpose of a technology to clean 
up hazardous chemicals is to reduce environmental risks by cleaning up, 
or using the words in the definition, enhancing, the environment 
through environmental remediation.
  To further clarify the types of environmental technologies 
contemplated by this legislation, the definition is linked to 
technologies identified in the environmental technology strategy called 
for by title I.
  The strategy is to identify technologies that otherwise satisfy the 
criteria of this definition but that will also address the 
environmental requirements of the Nation. All of the agencies involved 
in the development of environmental technologies, using an open 
consultative process, are to draft the strategy. In this way, the 
strategy will result in a list of technologies all the agencies 
consider to be environmental technologies.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the distinguished chairman for clarifying the 
meaning of the term environmental technology.
  Based on what the distinguished Senator from Montana said, I 
understand that energy technologies developed by the Department of 
Energy, such as energy efficiency or solar or renewable technologies, 
would not be considered environmental technologies for purposes of this 
legislation. The fact that a technology employing solar energy may have 
important environmental benefits would not, by itself, render the 
technology an environmental technology. This same analysis would apply 
to other energy technologies developed by the Department of Energy.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to note that the definition would not limit 
the research activities currently being carried out by other agencies.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I have one additional question as it relates to title 
IV.
  Title IV allows executive agencies and private sector entities to 
verify and evaluate the cost and performance of environmental 
technologies. Each group providing verification services is required to 
provide the Environmental Protection Agency with the results of those 
verifications and evaluations. What will the EPA do with that 
information?
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Administrator will publish that information along 
with similar information it receives from the private sector. In the 
case of information developed by the private sector, the EPA will 
review and certify the accuracy of the data prior to publication. In 
the case of information developed by an executive agency other than the 
EPA, the EPA will not make any such review unless requested to do so by 
the agency. The EPA will simply publish the information it receives. 
The EPA, however, will only certify the accuracy of date it has 
reviewed.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank the Senator, that was also my understanding. I 
appreciate the Senator's work with the committee I chair, the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources, on the careful crafting of this 
language and I look forward to continuing to work with him on the bill.
  Mr. NUNN. I would also like to thank both the distinguished chairman 
from Montana and the distinguished chairman from Louisiana for their 
hard work on this legislation and for working with me and the members 
of the committee I chair, the Committee on Armed Services, in 
addressing concerns we had in this bill.
  Mr. BAUCUS. As this bill creates programs that may involve the 
environmental research activities of both the Department of Energy and 
the Department of Defense, the participation of the Energy and Natural 
Resources and the Armed Services Committees was essential to the work 
of writing the legislation. I thank both the distinguished chairman 
from Louisiana and the distinguished chairman from Georgia for their 
help in fashioning this legislation.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The House of Representatives is currently considering 
the companion measure--H.R. 3870, the Environmental Technologies Act of 
1994--to this bill. The House Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology reported H.R. 3870 on April 13, 1994. I have several 
concerns with the bill as reported.
  H.R. 3870 would establish the definition of environmental technology 
so broadly that energy technologies such as those involving nuclear 
power, fusion, solar, or energy efficiency could be considered 
environmental technologies. The term is used throughout the bill in 
ways that are troubling. For example, the bill would direct the 
President to prioritize environmental technologies in a national 
environmental technology strategy. With such a broad definition of 
environmental technology, I fear, the strategy would turn into a 
national energy strategy.
  The bill would direct agencies such as the Department of Commerce, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration and the National Science Foundation to carry out energy 
research activities that are properly in the domain of the Department 
of Energy. It is not acceptable to me to create new energy research 
programs at other agencies, especially when funding for Department of 
Energy research programs are going down because of anxieties over the 
deficit.

  The House bill would add the Department of Energy Environmental 
Technology Development as a new title. This title would establish an 
environmental technology program within the Department of Energy. The 
Department of Energy, however, already has such a program--a program 
clearly not within the jurisdiction of the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee.
  To ensure that all of my concerns are addressed, I would like the 
assurance from the Senator from Montana that he will continue to work 
with me and the members of my committee in fashioning any environmental 
technology legislation with the House and that he will resist those 
portions of the House bill that are contrary to the position taken in 
the Senate bill.
  Mr. NUNN. I too have concerns with the House bill, H.R. 3870, as 
reported, and would likewise appreciate the assurance of the 
distinguished gentleman from Montana that he will work with me and the 
members of my committee in fashioning environmental technology 
legislation with the House.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I have found the participation of both the Senator from 
Georgia and the Senator from Louisiana not only helpful, but essential, 
in crafting S. 978. I not only give my assurance that I will inform and 
consult with both of the distinguished chairmen in working with the 
House on any environmental technology legislation, I welcome that help 
and input into that process. Our three committees have worked closely 
on this bill. The legislation we have crafted will lead to better 
coordinated Federal environmental programs and to the development of 
innovative environmental technologies. I am pleased with the 
legislation and intend to vigorously defend the bill in conference with 
the House. I will resist those provisions of the House bill that are 
contrary to the agreements we have reached.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Thank you. I ask the distinguished Senator from Montana 
his intentions toward the title of the House bill that would add the 
``Department of Energy Environmental Technology Development'' as a new 
title since there is not a position in the Senate bill on this issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is impossible to predict all of the circumstances that 
will affect the decisions made in conference, but with that caveat, I 
intend to defer to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana and his 
colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and to 
my distinguished colleague from Georgia and his colleagues on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee as to the wisdom and appropriateness of 
including such a program within the bill.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I thank my distinguished colleague from Montana for 
answering my questions and explaining his intentions toward the House 
bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, 
Senator Baucus, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, in support of S. 978, the National 
Environmental Technology Act of 1994. In my view, this legislation will 
greatly advance the capabilities of this nation to meet the growing 
demands for environmental technologies necessary to accomplish the 
goals of environmental protection here at home and throughout the 
world. This legislation will also have the positive result of helping 
spur economic development and jobs creation through the opportunities 
it will afford the business community through the Federal partnership 
strategies that are an integral part this bill.
  As chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I am very 
pleased that a provision has been included to highlight the role small 
businesses across this country will play in meeting the objectives of 
this legislation. I also want to take this opportunity to reinforce my 
support for language in this bill that directs the Administrator to 
give special consideration to the needs of small business concerns 
located in areas of pervasive poverty.
  During the 100th Congress, I introduced legislation along with 
Congressman, now Secretary, Mike Espy which established the Lower 
Mississippi River Delta Commission. That Commission was charged with 
the task of investigating and reporting to the President and to 
Congress on measures necessary to help improve the economy and quality 
of life in those portions of Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, 
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois which encompass that area 
we call the Delta.
  In May 1990, then-Governor Bill Clinton, Chairman of the Lower 
Mississippi Delta Commission, submitted the Delta Commission's final 
report to President Bush and to the Congress. That report, in part, 
describes the delta as that which ``by statistics constitutes the 
poorest region of the United States of America.'' The final report also 
took note that ``the Congressional mandate to the Delta Commission 
directed that a broad approach be taken toward the study of regional 
poverty and economic development needs'' and that ``ecological 
mindfulness and economic development are no longer seen as incompatible 
but as indivisible.'' I believe the concepts developed in S. 978 are 
fully compatible with the findings, objectives, and goals of the Delta 
Commission.
  The Delta Commission report included 68 specific goals and more than 
400 recommendations for action by the Federal, State, and local 
governments. It is extremely noteworthy that among those 
recommendations is a call for the creation of programs by Federal and 
State agencies to make loans, grants, and services to local 
communities, businesses and organizations for the purpose of developing 
environmental technologies. That is precisely what this bill does.
  In his May 14, 1990 letter to the President to accompany the final 
report of the Delta Commission, then-Governor Bill Clinton stated,

       Being in the vanguard of change need not be a distinction 
     limited to the freedom-hungry citizens of Eastern Europe or 
     Poland or the aggressive business people of Singapore or 
     Korea. The people of the delta belong in that vanguard. They 
     want to be there, and they can be if each of us will do our 
     part.

  Mr. Chairman, that was nearly 4 years ago, but I believe the 
legislation you bring to the floor today is a part of that 
responsibility Bill Clinton stated so eloquently. There are more than 8 
million people who live in the delta who have ingenuity and energies to 
offer, and the opportunities which are inherent in this legislation may 
well serve to allow them a meaningful role in the marketplace of ideas.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I commend the Senator from Arkansas for his tireless 
efforts to bring careful consideration to the challenges of the Lower 
Mississippi River Delta. He is correct that we must never forget that 
there are regions of this nation that deserve our special attention as 
he has done so thoughtfully with his work to establish the Delta 
Commission and as he continues to do in helping fulfill the objects of 
the Commission's report. I share his view that this bill is consistent 
with the objectives of that report.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the chairman for his comments.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I had intended to offer an amendment today that would 
establish a clear authorization of $47 million over 5 years to carry 
out accelerated research and development of a new generation of 
hydropower turbines. In addition to improving turbine efficiency, the 
research and development would incorporate changes also necessary to 
mitigate environmental concerns, particularly those related to fish 
survival. It has come to my attention that the Department of Energy may 
already have sufficient authority to carry out this kind of R&D. Could 
I ask the Senator from Wyoming for a clarification of the authority of 
the Department of Energy to undertake an accelerated R&D program to 
produce an efficient, fish-friendly advanced hydroturbine?
  Mr. WALLOP. The Department has generic authority under the Federal 
Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 to conduct 
hydropower research development and demonstration of advanced energy 
technologies. Supplementary authorities to foster the commercialization 
of such renewable energy technologies as hydropower are provided in the 
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Technology Competitiveness Act 
of 1989 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
  The Department thus has sufficient general and specific authorities 
to undertake with industry the type of cooperative turbine development 
activity that you propose. In fact, according to the Department's 
fiscal year 1995 budget, during the current fiscal year the Department 
intends to explore whether industry is interested in such a cost-shared 
program to develop an advanced, turbine design that will minimize 
impacts on aquatic ecosystems. It is DOE's current intention to 
initiate such turbine development activities in fiscal year 1995. These 
activities would be conducted by the National Engineering Laboratory 
and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory under already existing 
authorities. These authorities also are sufficient for the expanded 
project which the Senator is proposing, subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds. I am sure the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee can confirm my understanding of the law is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. The Senator from Wyoming is correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Senators for this clarification.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment now to again 
thank Senators Lieberman, Mikulski, Chafee, Johnston, Nunn, Bingaman, 
Wallop, and Domenici who have worked so tirelessly for this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for his kind 
comments and say what a pleasure it is to work with him not only on 
this measure but a host of other measures that come before us. He is a 
wonderful person to work with.
  Now, as I understand it, there is an amendment that will be 
considered at some other time. Is there a time specific set for that?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest to the Senator from Rhode Island 
we perhaps can resolve this issue by suggesting the absence of a quorum 
for a few minutes and possibly we can work out a resolution of this 
matter.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from 
Montana [Mr. Baucus] and his colleagues for their work on S. 978 and 
for working closely with the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  The Commerce Committee is interested in this bill for two reasons. 
First, the committee has long had jurisdiction over interagency 
research and development [R&D] programs, such as the National 
Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program and the High-Performance Computing 
and Communications Initiative. It also oversees the White House units 
which help the President coordinate such programs, particularly the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science and 
Technology Council.
  Title I of S. 978 calls for the President to create an interagency 
environmental technology strategy, a very appropriate way to ensure 
agency coordination and reduce unnecessary duplication. S. 978 refers 
specifically to existing legislation on interagency technology 
strategies, legislation that Senator Bingaman and I wrote in 1991 and 
included in the fiscal year 1992 Defense Authorization Act. I want to 
restate for the record that while the Defense Act was an acceptable 
vehicle for that legislation, subject matter regarding interagency 
research and technology activities remains under the jurisdiction of 
the Commerce Committee.
  Second, the Commerce Committee has a strong interest in industry-led, 
government-aided programs to develop new basic civilian technologies. 
Several proven civilian technology programs already exist, most notably 
the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program. In drafting S. 
978, the Senate faced a balancing act: the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] clearly needs to play an important role in the development 
of environmental technologies, and yet we should take advantage of 
existing technology programs when appropriate and not reinvent the 
wheel or engage in unnecessary duplication. I note that title II--the 
title concerning research partnerships--includes formal interagency 
coordination and directs the EPA Administrator to allocate a 
substantial percentage of environment technology appropriations for 
partnerships with other Federal agencies.
  I also note that the legislation requires the EPA Administrator to 
ensure that research partnerships be selected under a merit-based, 
competitive procedure--that is, through peer review. I strongly believe 
that Federal technology awards should be made only by peer review and 
not by politics. I have insisted on peer review in Commerce Department 
technology programs, including the Advanced Technology Program and the 
Manufacturing Technology Centers, and this approach has led to high 
quality awards and no pork. I am pleased to see this type of process 
included in S. 978.
  Mr. President, S. 978 is an important bill, and I once again want to 
thank the Environment Committee and its chairman for working closely 
with the Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. 
Monday, the Senate resume consideration of S. 978; that the only floor 
amendment remaining at that time be the Stevens amendment No. 1687, 
with no second-degree amendments in order thereto; that there be 30 
minutes for debate on the amendment, with the time equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form; that on Wednesday, May 11, upon 
disposition of S. 1935, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 978 
with 10 minutes remaining for debate on the Stevens amendment No. 1687 
and the time equally divided in the usual form; that when the time is 
used or yielded back, without intervening action, the Senate vote on or 
in relation to the Stevens amendment No. 1687; that upon disposition of 
the Stevens amendment, without intervening action, the committee 
substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill read a third time, and 
the Senate vote on passage of S. 978, without intervening action.
  I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday, May 9, upon the use 
or yielding back of time on the Stevens amendment No. 1687, the Senate 
then proceed to the consideration of S. 2019, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this has the 
approval of Senator Stevens.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is furthermore my understanding, Mr. President, that 
Senator McCain, who earlier had indicated that he had some amendments 
to S. 978, has decided he is not going to press with those amendments 
and, indeed, is not even going to present them.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, that is my understanding as well.
  Mr. CHAFEE. So that agreement has been accepted, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

                          ____________________