[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.
____________________