[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 26, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES ACT OF 1994

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 483 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 483

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3870) to promote the research and development 
     of environmental technologies. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 4799. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather 
     than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York [Ms. 
Slaughter] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes of 
debate time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 483 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 3870, the Environmental 
Technologies Act of 1994.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purposes of 
amendment a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 4799. The 
substitute shall be considered by title and each title shall be 
considered as read.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3870, the bill for which the Rules Committee has 
recommended this rule, moves past the polarizing rhetoric we have heard 
so often on environmental issues. Many people seem to believe that 
government policy cannot be environmentally sound and economically 
sound--that these goals are mutually exclusive. The Environmental 
Technologies Act, before us here today, demonstrates what a fallacy 
that is.
  To be sure, preserving the environment presents challenges to 
industry. But meeting these challenges provides a wealth of new 
opportunities--if we encourage creative entrepreneurship and 
technological development. These have always been the greatest 
strengths of American industry. The Environmental Technologies Act will 
allow us to harness these powers to help the environment and create 
high-technology jobs. It is especially important that the Government 
form partnerships with smaller firms, which may have innovative ideas 
but lack the resources to apply them so they are ready for the 
marketplace.
  H.R. 3870 represents more than just a marriage of environmental and 
economic policy. It is also a fusion of the best ideas from separate 
environmental technology bills, introduced by a host of 
representatives, which have been skillfully synthesized into a sensible 
and comprehensive bill by the members of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology, under the able leadership of their chairman, Mr. 
Brown of California.
  I am especially pleased that I had the opportunity to join in this 
collaborative drafting process. Last year, I introduced H.R. 1135, the 
Recycling Initiatives Grant Act. My legislation would provide grants 
for research and development to find new methods to separate, collect, 
reuse, market, or produce goods with recycled materials. I brought my 
bill to the committee's attention, and it was also incorporated into 
the Environmental Technologies Act.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans produce 135 million tons of garbage every 
year--that's more than 1,000 pounds for each man, woman, and child. At 
the same time, landfills are closing at an alarming rate. In many areas 
of the country, citizens are doing their part by conscientiously 
participating in curbside recycling programs. In my home county, Monroe 
of New York, we have a marvelous recycling program that is approaching 
the EPA's target goal of recycling 25 percent of our waste stream.

  Unfortunately, not all of the products we collect can be recycled 
cost-effectively. We need better technology to sort these items, to 
process them quickly and cheaply, and to find new uses for them. The 
lack of markets for post-consumer recycled materials often means that 
the bottles and newspapers collected by America's families sit in 
storage somewhere, waiting for someone to dream up a use for them.
  The Environmental Technologies Act will support the search for 
solutions to these problems. Once the technology is ready, the 
incentives of the marketplace will take over to encourage reducing, 
reusing, and recycling.

                              {time}  1420

  All it takes is a small investment to start the ball rolling. 
Recycling is just one example of an area where technological advances 
can yield enormous benefits to our environment and economy. H.R. 3870 
will spur such advantages in a broad range of fields, and it deserves 
our enthusiastic support. The administration endorses it strongly and 
the other Chamber has passed a companion bill by a vote of 85 to 14.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule, and I had to fight 
hard to find something to say about it, but I have been successful. It 
is an open rule that does not waive points of order, and I wanted to 
commend my very good friend standing down there near the well, Chairman 
Brown, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and 
the ranking Republican Member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker], sitting right next to me here, for making that request to the 
Committee on Rules.
  More important than this open rule, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that no 
proxy votes were used during the markup on H.R. 3870. In fact, rumor 
has it that Chairman Brown has used tremendous restraint in the use of 
proxy votes in his committee, and I commend him for that as well.
  Despite that, Mr. Speaker, opposition to the bill remains well-
deserved. It duplicates existing technology programs, it may be 
inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade, and it moves our private sector environmental 
technology programs another step toward the failed industrial policy 
programs of Japan and Europe. A number of amendments may be offered to 
address these issues, and I hope very much they will be adopted.
  Again, I commend Chairman Brown for working in a bipartisan manner on 
this and other measures before his committee. His actions will ensure 
that H.R. 3870 will receive adequate deliberation, and that is a 
refreshing departure from the norm of this institution.
  I also again commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for 
his efforts to ensure that we are able to work together in a bipartisan 
way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the 
gentleman from East Petersburg, PA [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the committee on this 
open rule. I think it is a tribute to my friend, George Brown, that he 
does bring requests to the Committee on Rules asking for open rules. We 
have come to this floor with a number of very important pieces of 
legislation during this Congress under open rules, and we thank the 
Committee on Rules for complying with that request.
  This is a particularly important bill I think to have an open rule 
on. There are a number of aspects of this bill that are troubling to 
me, because I do believe they move the country in the direction of 
industrial policy which I think would be a tragic way of trying to 
address the economic and environmental needs of this country for the 
future.
  On the other hand, there is some chance we can improve this bill with 
amendments on the House floor, and I look forward to the opportunity to 
improve the bill in a way that it might be supportable by a broad base 
of the Congress, rather than opposed by many of us who fear the 
consequences of the bill in its present form.
  So I thank the committee again for the open rule, and I hope that 
this open rule will be used as a way of improving this bill to make it 
far more acceptable to a broader base of the membership of the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we are very proud to have an open rule come 
forward. I again commend my friends, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] for their 
efforts here. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I am yielding back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 483 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3870.

                              {time}  1445


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3870) to promote the research and development of environmental 
technologies, with Mr. Montgomery in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today I am pleased to bring before the full House, H.R. 
3870, the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994. H.R. 3870 emphasizes 
a new approach to addressing two highly important goals of this Nation: 
maintaining a healthy environment and fostering a growing economy. The 
bill does this by having government partner with industry to develop 
new, environmentally beneficial processes and technologies that 
anticipate and avoid pollution problems. This bill seeks to help 
industry put a light green touch on its operations so that pollution is 
prevented and cleaned up in the course of daily commerce.
  Traditionally, the Government has turned to regulatory policies to 
fulfill its role in ensuring the health of the environment. Although 
these regulations are necessary, they often overlook the value of new 
innovations, and at times can inadvertently inhibit their development. 
H.R. 3870 recognizes that innovation is key to providing the Nation 
with more cost-effective and improved environmental protection.
  This bill calls for better coordination of Federal R&D aimed at 
developing environmental technologies. Using the newly formed National 
Science and Technology Council, H.R. 3870 calls for a meaningful 
interagency strategy to assure that we coordinate individual agency 
investments in environmental technologies. All agencies have something 
to contribute to the development of more environmentally sound 
technologies, and we should ensure that these agencies share 
information, coordinate their work, and avoid unnecessary duplication.
  The bill calls for R&D risk-sharing with the private sector. There 
are many industries, especially those composed of small and medium-
sized manufacturers, that have common environmental challenges but do 
not have sufficient resources to do the required research and 
development on their own. Here the Government can act as a catalyst and 
bring about benefit to industries as a whole.
  The National Metal Finishers Association and the National Tooling and 
Machining Association are among the many organizations that have noted 
this need to the committee. These associations each represent 2,000 to 
3,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers across the country. I would 
like to submit letters from these organizations for the Record.
  The emphasis here is on improving the processes and the use of 
materials before they become a pollution concern. When we think of 
environmental technologies, we often think of end-of-the-pipe 
technologies or clean-up technologies. Although these are valuable, we 
have neglected the part of the process with the greatest potential for 
improvement. Rather than spend a lot of money trying to control 
pollution, H.R. 3870 emphasizes a strategy that designs the pollution 
out at the beginning.
  Examples of what we are talking about include alternative cleaning 
solvents and technologies to reduce exposure to perchloroethylene in 
dry cleaners; alternative coatings to reduce exposure to volatile 
organic compounds in coating shops; alternative lubricants to reduce 
environmental concerns in tooling and machining operations; and 
alternative systems to reduce chemical exposure in metal finishing. 
There are just a few examples to illustrate the potential--and the 
potential is widespread.
  H.R. 3870 calls for increasing the availability of information about 
opportunities for more cost-effective environmental technology options. 
The Administrator of EPA is directed to use existing information data 
networks and existing manufacturing outreach programs to make 
information about new technologies readily accessible. The bill also 
establishes an award, modeled on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
Award, to raise awareness about how firms have successfully managed 
their operations in an environmentally sound and cost-effective manner.
  Finally, the bill calls for the faster verification of promising 
environmental technologies. Because firms are operating in a regulated 
arena, there is a bias among users against experimenting with the use 
of new technologies: buyers fear that new innovations may not ``meet 
regulation.'' If a company tries a new technology and it does not 
operate perfectly the first time out, they might be fined by regulatory 
agencies. Unfortunately, there are few avenues for demonstrating and 
verifying the performance of these technologies. This is bad for the 
U.S. economy, bad for the environment, and bad for our ability to 
export these technologies. Uncertainties about new technologies and 
delays in bringing new technologies to the marketplace are bad for both 
the environment and competitiveness.
  Currently there is no system available to speed the performance 
verification to new environmental technologies. Thus H.R. 3870 calls 
for the development of a faster verification system and for the use of 
Federal laboratories to facilitate the testing of new environmental 
technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has toiled 
long and hard on this legislation. We have been working for over a year 
and have received formal and informal comment and advice from industry, 
State governments, Federal agencies, and environmental groups. The 
Senate has also been working hard. The Senate passed a companion bill, 
S. 978, in May with strong bipartisan support. It is time to move ahead 
with this needed legislation.
  We are attempting to eliminate the false issue of having to choose 
between environmental protection or economic growth. By promoting 
innovation, this legislation encourages the Government to work with, 
not against, the private sector to better achieve both goals. Through 
innovation, we can have both a better environment and a better economy.
  I urge my colleagues' support for this legislation.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today to consider the Environmental 
Technologies Act of 1994, which is a bill that offers another solution 
looking for a problem. It is not as though we do not have a lot of 
problems in the country, but we have come up with this solution. And we 
decided that in order to have this solution, we better figure out the 
problem that it addresses. So we will be talking a lot about a problem 
here that really does not exist. But nevertheless, the House today will 
consider the solution.
  This bill purports to establish the government's role in supporting 
the development and deployment of environmental technologies. The 
proponents of this bill claim that the international market for 
environmental technologies is expected to grow very quickly between now 
and the year 2000 and that other governments have recognized this and 
are actively promoting the development of these technologies in their 
own countries through research support and subsidized loans.
  In response to that crisis that this country has to address, I offer 
the figures that were published in the 1994 U.S. Industrial Outlook, 
which states, and I quote:

       The United States is the world's largest producer and 
     consumer of environmental goods and services, accounting for 
     about 40 percent or $80 billion of the world market. The U.S. 
     environmental industry, one of the most competitive in the 
     world, has an excellent potential for expanding exports 
     despite strong competition from Germany and Japan. The United 
     States currently exports an estimated 10 percent of its 
     output in environmental technologies, equipment and services.
       Contrary to views that Germany leads this market, EPA data 
     shows that in 1990, the U.S. surpassed Germany in export of 
     air pollution control equipment by about $63 million. This 
     lead grew to $362 million by 1991, when the United States 
     supplanted Germany as the country with the largest trade 
     surplus in environmental protection equipment.

  That is our own analysis in our own U.S. industrial outlook policy, 
and I think goes very clearly to the question of whether or not we are 
competitive. Clearly, the market failure intimated by this bill does 
not exist, at least when it comes to the United States environmental 
industry.
  I do agree with the bill's finding that current government 
regulations do not allow for optimal development of this industry or 
for any other for that matter. But H.R. 3870 does nothing to address 
that particular issue.
  In March, during a speech at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation 
Forum, Treasury Secretary Bentsen said in part, and I quote:

       We need the private sector, not the government, to be the 
     engine for growth. And this needs to be a competitive private 
     sector where we cut government subsidies and trim unnecessary 
     regulations.

                              {time}  1440

  As Finance Minister Aspe of Mexico put it so well, ``The first thing 
we have to do is privatize the private sector.''
  Despite arguments to the contrary, there is no getting around the 
fact that this bill duplicates not only the Department of Commerce's 
Advanced Technology Program but also the Technology Reinvestment 
Program in the Department of Defense and the Technology Transfer 
Initiative in the Department of Energy. Environmental projects are not 
excluded from any of those existing programs. In fact, the President's 
Science Adviser testified that 10 percent to 20 percent of the ATP 
awards have gone to environmental programs. The stated goal of this 
bill is the development of advanced, precommercial environmental R&D. 
Although the evaluation of environmental criteria may need special 
attention, there is no reason that the administrators of the ATP 
program should not be able to call on experts in the field to assess 
environmentally related proposals.
  Section 216 of H.R. 3870 calls for a comprehensive study of the 
factors affecting innovation in government technologies, including 
taxes, regulatory influences and other barriers. Consideration of this 
bill should at the very least be deferred until that study is 
completed. This study is meant to be a comprehensive investigation of 
the overall environment in which the development of environmental 
technologies occurs with particular attention to the effect of taxes 
and regulations. H.R. 3870 attempts to cure a perceived problem by 
throwing government money at it instead of taking a comprehensive look 
at needed tax and regulatory reforms and then, after we have taken that 
comprehensive look, developing a workable solution.
  I have concerns about the ability of the Environmental Protection 
Agency to select projects for funding and still maintain its 
independence and integrity as a regulatory agency. Unlike NIST, which 
has no regulatory authority, the EPA is entrusted with the enforcement 
of this Nation's environmental laws. It seems to me that there is an 
inherent conflict of interest in, first, giving the EPA the authority 
to dispense tens of millions of dollars for precommercial technology 
whose selection will naturally be based on EPA's biases. Then, second, 
requiring the agency to evaluate the pollution prevention or 
remediation effectiveness of the technologies that have been selected. 
What happens if the technology not funded by this program is found to 
be more useful than the projects receiving EPA money? It seems to me 
that that is a question that involves an inherent conflict of interest 
and undercuts EPA's ability to be an effective environmental agency and 
instead makes it into an agency with internal conflicts of interest 
that could come back to haunt us in the future.
  I believe that the bill before us today still poses problems with 
regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which I will 
address later. But even if this legislation is GATT legal, we cannot 
win a subsidy war with out international competitors nor should we want 
to engage in such a tactic.
  Above all, H.R. 3870 is another example of Congress' love affair with 
government-driven industrial policy. I am beginning to think that its 
proponents will not be happy until every government department and 
every government agency and every sector of the economy has its own 
giveaway program of government subsidies. Is it not time to stop and 
think about whether that is what the taxpayers of this Nation need and 
want? I think the taxpayers of this Nation are making it very clear 
that they are tired of all these subsidy programs that end up being 
huge bureaucracies but do not produce very much for the economy. Middle 
class America wants jobs. They want to be working for the good of the 
country. They do not want government out there providing subsidies for 
everything in sight. That is what this bill does. It is one more area 
in which we have a solution looking for a problem and we decide to 
solve it with big new government spending that adds on to big new 
government debt.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee [Mrs. Lloyd], the subcommittee chairman for 
the energy programs and one who is deeply involved and interested in 
this particular legislation.
  (Mrs. LLOYD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3870, the 
Environmental Technologies Act of 1994. I want to commend Chairman 
Brown for bringing this important legislation before the House. The 
Environmental Technologies Act is designed to promote the development 
of new environmental technologies which will make remediation more 
efficient and more economical. Unfortunately, as regulators, the 
Environmental Protection Agency has been hesitant to embrace new 
technologies; this hinders private sector companies and Federal 
agencies alike in their cleanup efforts.
  This bill goes even further in that it promotes pollution prevention 
and closed cycle manufacturing, and it encourages technology 
development in those areas. The more we can prevent pollution, the less 
there will be to remediate.
  Included in this bill are provisions relating to the Department of 
Energy's Environmental Management Program. Title IV calls for the 
establishment of a civilian technology development program and directs 
the Department to provide education and training for environmental 
technicians, engineers, and scientists.
  Title IV also calls for a demonstration program to test the 
economical and technical feasibility of recycling and reusing scrap 
metals, equipment, and materials owned by the Department of Energy. 
Some of these inventoried metals, equipment, and materials are 
radioactively contaminated and the program is designed to decontaminate 
suitable items. We believe that the Department can make good use of 
these materials by using them to make waste storage containers which 
will aid in reducing the volume of materials to be disposed.
  The bill directs DOE to increase its technology development budget to 
10 percent of the total Environmental Management budget. The Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology has repeatedly received testimony 
from DOE stating that this is its goal, but somewhere between the goal 
and the budget request submission, it does not happen. Even the recent 
Congressional Budget Office report on the program criticizes DOE for 
shortchanging technology development. We desperately need technologies 
to address some of our most serious problems. This bill attempts to do 
that.
  And finally, these provisions require DOE to include the private 
sector in the Technology Development Program. We believe new businesses 
and new jobs will be created through this effort. We have already seen 
some examples of this, and these jobs are highly skilled, good paying 
jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3870.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Environmental Technologies Act 
of 1994. These technologies combine protecting the environment and 
making a profit. The international market for environmental 
technologies is expected to grow to $500 billion by the year 2000. 
Governments of other countries, particularly Germany and Japan, are 
actively promoting the development of environmental technologies. The 
European Community has placed a high priority on both environmental 
technologies and environmentally sound manufacturing. There is cross-
national support of research and development, and many European nations 
are developing strong recycling policies. The Japanese Government has 
established a research center for advanced environmental technology 
development. It is time for the United States to support the 
precommercial development and deployment of environmental technologies.
  One of the sections of H.R. 3870 deals with life-cycle assessment. 
This section coordinates the life-cycle assessment activities and 
resources of the Federal Government, relating to environmental 
technologies. This section encourages a shift in thinking for both 
policymakers and business leaders. Environmental policies previously 
have focused on cleanup and now we are turning to waste prevention and 
minimization, which will lead to greater environmental protection and 
long-term economic growth.
  At a field hearing in Rockville, MD, on Green Technology, Dr. Indira 
Nair from Carnegie Mellon University, chair of the Advisory Panel for 
the Office of Technology Assessment Report, ``Green Products By Design: 
Choices for a Cleaner Environment,'' commented on the report and 
recommended ways the Federal Government can encourage efforts to 
promote the concept of Green Design.
  This provision encourages the development and use of life-cycle 
assessment by directing the President, through OSTP or other 
appropriate entity, to coordinate Federal activities in LCA and to 
disseminate life-cycle data through existing electronic networks.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3870. It brings 
creative approaches to protecting the environment and promoting long-
term economic growth.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett].

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
the opportunity to speak out on H.R. 3870, the Environmental 
Technologies Act. I want to start by saying that the chairman has done 
a magnificent job in bringing forward legislation that I think is going 
to have a tremendous impact on the creation of, the fostering of, and 
ultimately the seeing through of the technology in the green technology 
arena that is going to be not only good for the environment, but 
ultimately very good for business in America too.
  The Environmental Technologies Act is about looking into the future 
and grasping its potential. The environmental technology business is 
big, and it's getting bigger. The global market is currently estimated 
to be $200 billion annually, and it is growing rapidly--with the 
potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the coming 
decade. The Environmental Technologies Act will help ensure that those 
new jobs will be created here in the United States, not overseas.
  The environmental technology industry presents us with a tremendous 
opportunity. If we are smart, environmental technology will help us 
clean up our environment, save money, improve our balance of trade and 
create new jobs--all at the same time. The alternative is to let this 
opportunity slip by, and 10 years from now we'll be talking about how, 
yet again, we've been beaten by our competitors.
  In Germany, Japan, and many other industrial nations, environmental 
protection has evolved into a strategy for enhancing competitiveness. 
This is the direction we need to move in this country.
  Fortunately, we now have an administration that understands the 
importance of environmental technology, and that understands that 
environmental protection and competitiveness must go hand in hand. The 
Environmental Technologies Act, which has been drafted in cooperation 
with the administration, will help improve cooperation between 
Government and the private sector in the development and deployment of 
environmental technologies.
  The Environmental Technologies Act is also part of a desperately 
needed long-term vision for the future that combines environmental 
quality with economic strength. If we are going to become a sustainable 
society, we must start to address the problem of maintaining economic 
growth while also preserving the global environment.
  The Earth systems which we all depend upon are fragile and complex, 
and our capacity to damage these systems, permanently and irreversibly, 
has become all too apparent. We need to reverse the forces of 
environmental degradation, and integrate environmental and industrial 
strategies.
  The Environmental Technologies Act helps to do exactly that. It helps 
move us toward the new technological era of the future, where every 
technology will be driven by its relationship to the environment, where 
every product--from design to construction to use to disposal--will 
need to be frugal in its use of energy and resources.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Environmental 
Technologies Act.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the 
distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my record on protecting the planet, and I 
take seriously the responsibility that all of us in Congress share for 
ensuring the health of the environment for the sake of future 
generations--our children and grandchildren and their children and 
grandchildren.
  At the same time, I fully understand the importance of structuring 
policies that sustain economic growth, create jobs, and keep the United 
States at the forefront of a highly competitive global marketplace.
  For both reasons, I rise in support of H.R. 3870.
  The Environmental Technologies Act of 1994 is a bill that can pay 
dividends by maintaining and enhancing the quality of the environment 
and in triggering a new kind of clean, high technology economic growth 
through innovative and intelligent use of limited resources.
  Over time, it has become clear that execution of our current 
environmental policies with their emphasis on strict regulatory 
compliance has not always produced the most cost effective solutions 
for accomplishing our goals. Today's approach to environmental 
protection has, unfortunately, had the inadvertent consequence of 
erecting barriers in the way of innovations that would benefit the 
economy as well as the environment.
  Our policies must move away from an overreliance on restrictive, end-
of-the-pipe regulations and toward encouragement of inventive and more 
environmentally compatible products and processes. This evolution can 
create new opportunities for existing industries as well as lead to the 
development of new industries. In fact, it already has.
  Let me give you a few examples from the agricultural industry, which 
is particularly important in my district:
  Advanced soil management tools that exploit telecommunications 
technologies can improve harvest yields in a cost effective manner, 
better preserve the soil and minimize the waste of water and soil 
treatments.
  New biotechnology processes can enable industry to convert basic 
commodities into a wide variety of environmentally compatible products. 
For instance, biodegradable plastics made from corn can be used to 
produce cups, utensils, packaging and, significantly, trashbags that 
would otherwise continue to amplify our landfill problems because of 
their indestructibility when made of other materials.
  Bordering my own district in central New York is a company--Lions 
Falls Pulp and Paper--that deserves special notice. The firm utilizes a 
creative manufacturing process that avoids commonly used chlorinated 
compounds that could otherwise do significant damage to the soil and 
water.
  But we can--and must--do more. Japan and nations in the European 
Community have recognized the promise of environmental technologies and 
are working with their industries to develop the dual benefits 
associated with this new approach. We have been slower to act. Now, 
H.R. 3870 presents us with the opportunity to combine the goals of 
environmental protection and economic growth by encouraging innovation 
and cooperation with industry.
  I urge you to join me in supporting this important initiative.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  (Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Environmental Technologies Act. I would like to thank the chairman of 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Mr. Brown, for bringing 
us this important legislation.
  I would also like to thank Mr. Valentine, chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Technology, Environment and Aviation who along with the 
committee staff has worked so hard to give this House an opportunity to 
act on meaningful legislation that has the support of a wide range of 
industries, professional associations, academics, and nonprofit 
organizations.
  I would also thank the committee for its work with me on amendments. 
I will join Mr. Manzullo in offering to the legislation which concern 
the challenges Wisconsin and many other States face in meeting the 
goals of the Clean Air Act.
  The Environmental Technologies Act of 1994, takes a step toward 
addressing the challenges facing our economy today--protecting the 
environment in a manner that builds the economy rather than restraining 
it. It adopts an innovative approach toward reaching the dual goals of 
maintaining a healthy environment and promoting economic growth. It 
does so through innovation rather than regulation.
  The purpose of the Environmental Technologies Act is to facilitate 
the development and use of environmental technologies that will bring 
about more cost-effective environmental protection as well as long-term 
economic growth. The legislation provides a framework for government to 
work with industry to develop and deploy environmental technologies.
  H.R. 3870 identifies five key areas in which Government and industry 
can work together to sustain a healthy environment and promote 
continued economic growth. This new policy approach calls for:
  Better coordination of Federal environmental research and development 
programs and the integration of private sector views;
  Enhanced risk and cost sharing for pre-commercial environmental 
technology R&D that can benefit a wide range of industries rather than 
single firms;
  Improving the ability of firms to verify the performance of new 
environmental technologies in a timely manner;
  Better measurements of technical performance for the environmental 
characteristics of products and processes; and
  Increased awareness of the benefits of new environmental technologies 
through information dissemination and awards.
  This legislation is important to maintaining a healthy environment. 
Protecting this public good through public policies is a role of 
governments of all nations.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a new sense of partnership 
between Government and business. I think all of us would agree that 
this type of arrangement is much more preferable than an adversarial 
one. This is a small investment in a policy that stands a good chance 
of advancing environmental protection and creating jobs. That is why I 
hope this bill receives strong bipartisan support.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Valentine], chairman 
of our Subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and Aviation, who has 
labored more than anyone else to bring this bill to the floor, and who 
then, in the type of response that I like in subcommittee chairmen, has 
allowed me to take the credit for it.
  Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee chairman for his 
very, very kind, very generous, and, in some respects, very false 
remarks.
  In what we do here we, indeed, stand on the shoulders of giants. Most 
of what we accomplish in this committee comes now or has in the past 
from the fertile imagination of our chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3870, the Environment 
Technologies Act of 1994.
  H.R. 3870 takes an important step toward more cost-effective 
environmental protection. Too often in the past, our environmental 
policies have focused on regulation, fees, taxes, and costly end-of-
the-pipe solutions to our environmental problems. Past policies have 
often pitted environmentalists against industrialists to the detriment 
of both of their views and against the ultimate interests of the 
general public.
  H.R. 3870 takes a different approach by placing the government in a 
proactive relationship with industry. H.R. 3870 focuses on innovation 
rather than regulation. It has the government bear some of the 
responsibility for solutions. H.R. 3870 encourages government and 
industry to work together to develop new, and more cost-effective means 
of achieving both environmental goals and industrial competitiveness.
  Let me give you an example from North Carolina. North Carolina is 
home to many of the Nation's furniture manufacturers. They have 
provided many of America's homes with some of the finest furnishings 
made. However, the process of producing this fine product is not 
without its environmental problems. The coatings used to produce high 
quality furniture often involve the emission of volatile organic 
compounds, or VOC's, which is a health hazard. This situation was, in 
fact, recently the subject of an EPA rulemaking. However, each 
individual furniture maker has little incentive to solve an 
industrywide problem alone by investing in the research and development 
needed to look for less hazardous coating alternatives. This is where 
the Government can act as a partner. By sharing the cost of developing 
these alternatives with industry, the Government can catalyze the 
development of technologies that are cost-effective, more 
environmentally sound, and which will benefit the industry as a whole.
  I have a letter here from the American Furniture Manufacturers 
Association that supports this approach and this legislation. Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to enter this letter into the Record. 
  On the other side of the Hill, Senator Chafee mentioned a similar 
role for the Government in the case of jewelry manufacturers in the 
Northeast when he spoke in favor of the Senate counterpart to this 
bill. I am confident that if we took the time to look, we would find 
comparable situations in every one of our districts.
  Let me note that this does not need to be a partisan issue. Our 
colleagues on the other side of the Hill recognized this when a 
majority of Republicans joined a majority of Democrats in passing the 
Senate counterpart to this bill, S. 978, by a vote of 85 yeas to 14 
nays.
  Let me close with a quote form one of the witnesses who testified 
before the Science Committee on this legislation. Mr. D. Ray Kennedy is 
president of the Bowden Machine Co. in Nashville, TN, a small tooling 
and machining firm, and he is chairman of the board of the National 
Tooling and Machining Association. Mr. Kennedy noted that the proactive 
approach taken in this bill will strengthen his industry's ``overall 
strategic position in world manufacturing,'' and will bring important 
societal benefits that include ``improvements to the environment, 
health benefits for the people and other living things, and a better 
world for our children.''
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.

                                                American Furniture


                                    Manufacturers Association,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 1994.
     Hon. Tim Valentine,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Valentine: The American Furniture 
     Manufacturers Association (AFMA) is writing in support of the 
     goals of H.R. 3870, the Environmental Technologies Act of 
     1994. AFMA is the largest furniture industry trade 
     association in the United States. Over 18 billion dollars in 
     sales are produced annually by the domestic furniture 
     manufacturing industry and production by AFMA member 
     companies exceeds 75% of that figure. AFMA members have home 
     offices or facilities in most of the 50 states and employ 
     more than 500,000 people.
       The wood furniture industry is highly competitive, faces 
     stiff foreign competition from imports and operates on narrow 
     profit margins. Additionally, it is very diverse and complex 
     and lacks the industry concentration to conduct large and 
     sophisticated research and development. In this environment, 
     burdensome governmental regulations, such as those required 
     under the Clean Air Act have a major impact on U.S. furniture 
     manufacturing and its employees. The industry is currently 
     working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the 
     promulgation of regulations to determine how volatile organic 
     compounds (VOC) and hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from the 
     finishing rooms of furniture manufacturing facilities will be 
     controlled.
       H.R. 3870 recognizes that the two goals of promoting a 
     sound economy and maintaining a healthy environment are 
     equally important public policy concerns for the United 
     States. It also acknowledges that the research, development 
     and demonstration of environmental technologies will enhance 
     the economic standing of the United States and global 
     environmental security. Coordinating and integrating 
     governmental research and development of solvents that would 
     release less VOCs and HAPs into the environment and help 
     industry comply with the Clean Air Act would serve the two 
     goals of promoting both environmental and economic public 
     policy concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph G. Gerard,
                             Vice President of Government Affairs.

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3870, the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994. This important piece 
of legislation promotes job creation and furthers the preservation and 
protection of our environment. Nowhere will these companion goals be 
more strongly felt than in California's 36th District.
  The South Bay area of Los Angeles County is the center of our 
Nation's aerospace and defense industry--perhaps the hardest hit of any 
area in the country by defense downsizing. The Environmental 
Technologies Act of 1994 will help defense and other high-technology 
companies explore new commercial markets for green technology products, 
which the President's Science Advisor estimates could represent a $200 
billion worldwide market, and will lead to the creation of thousands of 
high-skill, high-wage jobs.
  Last August, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a 
green technology field hearing in Torrance--the largest city in my 
district, and home to many aerospace firms. Over a dozen witnesses 
testified on the progress already being made by defense and other high-
technology businesses in the area of green technology development.
  Hughes Aircraft Co. told the committee about its efforts to reduce 
automobile emissions through electric vehicle development and through 
the use of an innovative remote sensing technology. Allied Signal 
discussed its ambitious fuel cell development program. Southern 
California Edison, Southern California Gas Co. and Aerovironment 
discussed their work in advanced transportation fields.
  Maxwell Laboratories spoke of its new, environmentally sensitive 
airplane painting procedure. Simple Green detailed its environmentally 
friendly industrial cleaner. Gridcore Systems discussed its exciting 
work in the transformation of trash into building materials. 
Omnithruster, another company present at the hearing, gave an overview 
of its environmentally sensitive ship propulsion device.
  While some argue that jobs and the environment always have to be at 
odds--the opposite is true with green technology development and 
manufacturing. Just as my district will feel the bill's job creation 
thrust, the development and use of green technologies will help improve 
our environment in southern California.
  One need only visit Los Angeles on a summer day to literally see our 
region's notorious smog problem. The development and use of green 
transportation technologies such as electric and natural gas vehicles 
and fuel cells will reduce the emission of harmful chemicals into our 
air, and will help southern California comply with Federal, State, and 
regional clean air mandates.
  In addition to making the air we breathe cleaner, green technology 
development will further other key environmental goals including 
cleaning up our Nation's waterways. The Santa Monica Bay stretches the 
length of my district from Venice to the Palos Verdes Peninsula. While 
the bay's pollution level has decreased in recent years, many users of 
our popular beaches still do not believe that it is safe to swim in the 
water.
  The Environmental Technologies Act of 1994 will stimulate the 
development of technologies which will help clean up Santa Monica Bay 
and other waterways around the country. The development of cleaner 
manufacturing technologies will allow industry to discharge fewer 
pollutants into our already overloaded sewer systems. Innovative sewage 
treatment and water recycling technologies will further reduce the 
amount of pollution which ultimately reaches our oceans and rivers.
  The Environmental Technologies Act of 1994 will allow the Federal 
Government to serve as a constructive partner with industry in the 
development of green technologies. Make no mistake--aerospace and high-
technology companies are already exploring green technology commercial 
markets. This legislation helps generate momentum in this important 
area.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in H.R. 4799 shall be considered by titles as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment and each title is considered as read.
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

                               H.R. 4799

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
     Representatives of the United States of America in 
     Congress assembled,
                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Environmental Technologies Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 102. Findings.
Sec. 103. Purposes.
Sec. 104. Definitions.

         TITLE II--POLICY COORDINATION AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS

          Subtitle A--Policy Coordination and Program Planning

Sec. 201. Coordination of environmental technology research and 
              development.
Sec. 202. Life-cycle assessments.
Sec. 203. Environmental technologies in ongoing programs.

       Subtitle B--Environmental Technology Innovation Initiative

Sec. 211. Establishment and administration of initiative.
Sec. 212. Innovative environmental technology program.
Sec. 213. President's total environmental quality award and the 
              national environmentally sound technology award.
Sec. 214. Incorporation of information on environmental technologies 
              into existing networks.
Sec. 215. Use of Federal facilities for environmental technology 
              demonstration.
Sec. 216. Study of factors affecting innovation in environmental 
              technologies.
Sec. 217. Disclaimer.

                 Subtitle C--Other Research Activities

Sec. 221. Environmentally advanced engineering research.

                  TITLE III--PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Sec. 301. Performance measurements.
Sec. 302. Verification of environmental technologies.
Sec. 303. Use of certain environmental technologies by the Federal 
              government.

  TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 401. Environmental restoration and waste management technology 
              development.
Sec. 402. Metals recycling demonstration program.
Sec. 403. Funding and authorization.
Sec. 404. Coordination.

                TITLE V--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 502. Limitation on appropriations.
Sec. 503. Competition requirement for awards of financial assistance.

     SEC. 102. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Promoting a sound economy and maintaining a healthy 
     environment are among the urgent public policy challenges of 
     the United States.
       (2) The research, development, and demonstration of 
     environmental technologies will enhance the economic standing 
     of the United States and global environmental security.
       (3) Although better designs for products and processes 
     offer new opportunities for substantially improved 
     environmental performance in growing domestic and 
     international markets, current government regulations and 
     market barriers do not allow these opportunities to be fully 
     exploited.
       (4) Although the Federal Government, research institutes, 
     universities, and industries are conducting substantial basic 
     environmental research and development, environmental 
     concerns must become a more pervasive and central dimension 
     of technology research and development.
       (5) The coordination of Federal, State, and local 
     activities for the research, development, and demonstration 
     of environmental technologies will greatly enhance the 
     effectiveness of environmental policies of the United States.

     SEC. 103. PURPOSES.

       It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to improve, consistent with applicable provisions of 
     law, coordination and integration of environmental technology 
     research and development performed by and across Federal 
     agencies;
       (2) to assist and catalyze efforts of private industry, 
     universities, nonprofit research centers, and Federal 
     laboratories in the research, development, and demonstration 
     of cost-effective, energy-efficient, and safe environmental 
     technologies and, in the process, to promote the 
     competitiveness of United States companies;
       (3) to facilitate the dissemination of information 
     regarding innovations in environmental technologies;
       (4) to promote the development of technical performance 
     measurements of environmentally sound products; and
       (5) to direct the study of policy changes that will provide 
     for the more efficient research, development, and 
     demonstration of environmental technologies.

     SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act:
       (1) The term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) The term ``design-for-environment'' means the process 
     of synthesis in which waste prevention and the efficient 
     management of materials during a product's life cycle are 
     treated as design objectives, in addition to conventional 
     attributes such as cost, performance, manufacturability, and 
     safety.
       (3) The term ``environmental technology'' means a cost-
     efficient technology that is primarily intended to improve 
     the quality of the environment through pollution prevention, 
     pollution monitoring, pollution control, pollution 
     remediation, reuse, recycling, or disposal, or that is 
     capable of cost-effectively offering significant 
     environmental benefits when compared with a technology it 
     replaces.
       (4) The term ``Federal laboratory'' has the meaning given 
     the term ``laboratory'' in section 12(d)(2) of the Stevenson-
     Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3710a(d)(2)).
       (5) The term ``life-cycle assessment'' means an inventory 
     of the resource use and waste generation involved in 
     developing a technology, including materials extraction, 
     materials conversion, transportation, energy use, end use, 
     recycling, and disposal, and their associated costs and 
     environmental impacts.
       (6) The term ``small business concern'' means a United 
     States company that is a small business concern within the 
     meaning given such term in the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 631 et seq.).
       (7) The term ``sustainable economic development'' means the 
     integration of environmental and economic development 
     concerns leading to continuous and long-term economic 
     development with reduced pollution and the more efficient use 
     of energy and materials.
       (8) The term ``technology'' means a product, a 
     manufacturing process, a system, a service, or any other 
     method by which individual or societal needs are met through 
     technical activities.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title I?


                    amendment offered by mr. walker

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 5, after line 12, 
     insert the following new paragraph 4:
       (4) The term ``advanced precommercial environmental 
     technologies'' means any environmental technology that 
     enables the commercial potential of a new product or process 
     but requires a further investment in addition to, and 
     comparable to, the assistance provided under this Act to 
     develop and market application-specific commercial 
     prototypes, products, and processes.
       Page 5, line 13, strike ``4'' and insert ``5''.
       Page 5, line 17, strike ``5'' and insert ``6''.
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``6'' and insert ``7''.
       Page 6, line 3, strike ``7'' and insert ``8''.
       Page 6, line 9, strike ``8'' and insert ``9''.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the bill itself states its intent is to 
develop and demonstrate advanced precommercial environmental 
technologies, but the bill does not define the item or explicitly limit 
the federally funded R&D moneys to this purpose. In fact, the proposed 
selection criteria sound very much like direct commercial product 
development, that is, contributions to new markets, reduced production 
costs, and so on.
  We should avoid marketing and commercialization grants which start 
subsidy wars that we cannot win with other more controlled economies.
  It also replaces the wisdom of consumer preference in the market for 
bureaucratic fiat if we proceed in this direction. Soon regulations 
will mandate the use of these politically correct products to the 
exclusion and destruction of other U.S. industries, companies, 
products, and jobs.
  What this amendment does is simply puts some teeth into the subsidy 
limitation by clarifying that when generic precompetitive R&D ends and 
commercialization begins; when you make that kind of delineation, it 
seems to me that it fits with the overall definitions within the bill. 
We assure that we are not going to end up in some kind of a subsidy war 
in the future in commercially viable technologies.

  I would hope that the amendment which is at the desk would be one 
that would be acceptable to the committee as a way of strengthening the 
bill.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the Chair has looked at the 
gentleman's amendment, and as always, he seeks to accommodate the 
gentleman as much as it is possible to do, always recognizing that the 
gentleman may take advantage of him on occasion. But in this situation, 
the Chair is willing to accept this amendment and commends the 
gentleman for a constructive addition to the bill.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman, and with that kind of an 
agreement, I think I should yield back the balance of my time, which I 
do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3870, the 
Environmental Technologies Act of 1994.
  H.R. 3870 authorizes $80 million in fiscal year 1995 and $120 million 
in fiscal year 1996 for joint industry-government partnerships to 
develop technologies which will clean up our environment.
  The development of green technologies: Increases the competitiveness 
of U.S. businesses who compete in this $300 billion per year market; 
and, improves our ability to clean up hazardous waste and provide new 
alternatives to poisonous chemicals and toxic materials.
  In addition to the technology development funds, H.R. 3870 authorizes 
the use of Federal facilities for testing environmental technologies, 
establishes verification centers, and develops standards for measuring 
the performance of these technologies.
  Finally, for the first time, the bill coordinates a 30-agency effort 
to develop environmental technologies and provides a strategic plan 
directing these agencies to anticipate changes to current environmental 
law and invest our Federal technology dollars to expedite the 
transition to sustainable environmental practices.
  Mr. Chairman, I join with the President, the Vice President, 
environmental groups, industry representatives, and others who assert 
green technology makes sense for our environment--and dollars and cents 
for our business community.
  I urge Members to support the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994.

                              {time}  1510

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Murphy). Are there further amendments 
to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
         TITLE II--POLICY COORDINATION AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
          Subtitle A--Policy Coordination and Program Planning

     SEC. 201. COORDINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Interagency Coordination.--The President, acting 
     through the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy or other entity designated by the President and in 
     coordination with the heads of other Federal agencies that 
     have substantial capabilities in the research, development, 
     and demonstration of environmental technologies, shall 
     develop an interagency strategy that is in accordance with 
     the policies, requirements, and objectives of the applicable 
     Federal statutes administered by those agencies and that--
       (1) ensures, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
     coordinated, interagency promotion of the research, 
     development, and demonstration of environmental technologies; 
     and
       (2) develops priorities for Federal environmental 
     technology research, development, and demonstration efforts, 
     by using scientifically objective information, data, and 
     assessments of risk.
       (b) Implementation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     President, acting through the Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy or other entity designated by 
     the President, shall--
       (1) review current Federally funded programs, including 
     Federal budget outlays for these programs, to determine their 
     role in the research, development, and demonstration of 
     environmental technologies;
       (2) recommend the specific responsibilities of each 
     appropriate Federal agency to achieve the priorities 
     developed under this section;
       (3) describe the recommended levels of Federal funding 
     required for each Federal agency to carry out the specific 
     responsibilities recommended in paragraph (2);
       (4) develop a means for ensuring, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, that the principles of sustainable economic 
     development are integrated into the research, development, 
     and technology programs of all Federal agencies;
       (5) ensure that programs and activities established under 
     this Act are fully coordinated with existing Federal 
     capabilities and an overall Federal strategy for the 
     research, development, and demonstration of environmental 
     technologies;
       (6) ensure that the efforts of the Federal Government are 
     coordinated with the efforts of State and local governments 
     and private and nonprofit organizations promoting the 
     research, development, and demonstration of environmental 
     technologies;
       (7) ensure that programs and activities established under 
     this Act develop technologies that could assist States and 
     regional associations of States to comply with existing 
     environmental regulations, including air pollution 
     regulations; and
       (8) submit to the Congress any recommendations regarding 
     legislative or administrative action, including 
     recommendations on the roles of Federal agencies, which may 
     be required to carry out this section.
       (c) Budget Coordination.--The Director of the Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy shall annually assess, in 
     conjunction with other entities designated by the President 
     and before the President submits to the Congress the budget 
     for a fiscal year, the budget estimate of each relevant 
     Federal agency for consistency with the plans, reviews, and 
     priorities developed under this section. The Director shall 
     make the results of the annual assessment available to the 
     appropriate elements of the Executive Office of the 
     President, particularly the Office of Management and Budget, 
     for use in the preparation of such budget.
       (d) Strategic Plan and Annual Review.--The Director of the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy or other entity 
     designated by the President shall submit to the Congress--
       (1) within one year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and periodically thereafter, a report on the strategy 
     referred to in subsection (a) and any revisions to the 
     strategy for executing interagency coordination of programs 
     and activities conducted under this section, including the 
     timely research, development, and demonstration of innovative 
     environmental control and remediation technologies; and
       (2) annually a report that describes the progress made in 
     implementing the strategy, including the programs and 
     activities conducted under this Act, and the amendments made 
     by this Act, in achieving the purposes of this Act.
       (e) Non-Federal Participation.--The Director of the Office 
     of Science and Technology Policy shall establish mechanisms 
     to ensure the participation of non-Federal entities, 
     including State and local governments, United States 
     companies, United States industrial associations and 
     consortia, United States institutions of higher education, 
     United States worker organizations, United States 
     professional associations, and United States nonprofit 
     organizations, in carrying out this section, including the 
     development of the plans, reviews, and recommendations 
     developed under this section.

     SEC. 202. LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Consideration of life-cycle consequences of the 
     development of a technology can greatly assist in the 
     achievement of more environmentally sound products, 
     processes, and services and enhanced industrial efficiency. 
     Life-cycle assessments and other design-for-environment 
     resources can facilitate this achievement by clarifying 
     materials flows and energy flows and by enhancing 
     capabilities to assess these flows in the design of such 
     products, processes, and services.
       (2) Methods of life-cycle assessment and other design-for-
     environment resources are underused in both the public and 
     private sectors, particularly as applied to sustainable 
     economic development.
       (3) The data necessary for meaningful life-cycle assessment 
     and other design-for-environment resources are often 
     difficult to acquire, and no system exists to make such data 
     readily available to public and private groups.
       (b) Life-Cycle Assessment Coordination.--
       (1) In general.--As part of, and consistent with, the 
     overall Federal environmental technology strategy established 
     in section 201, the Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy or other entity designated by the President 
     shall, in collaboration with the heads of other appropriate 
     Federal agencies (including the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Defense), 
     coordinate Federal activities and resources that are applied 
     to life-cycle assessment and other design-for-environment 
     resources in order to maximize the contribution of life-cycle 
     assessments and other design-for-environment resources to the 
     efficient design, development, and use of technologies, and 
     to sustainable economic development.
       (2) Implementation.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy or 
     other entity designated by the President shall--
       (A) ensure that the life-cycle assessment and other design-
     for-environment resources of each Federal agency are 
     developed and disseminated in a coordinated fashion, 
     partitioning agency responsibilities where appropriate;
       (B) coordinate with State and local governments developing 
     life-cycle assessment and other design-for-environment 
     resources; and
       (C) consult with industry, professional, nonprofit, and 
     other appropriate private-sector organizations to take into 
     account the life-cycle assessment and other design-for-
     environment capabilities of the private sector in carrying 
     out this section.
       (3) Other activities.--In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy or 
     other entity designated by the President shall also encourage 
     appropriate Federal agencies--
       (A) to collect and disseminate information regarding 
     analytic methods (and, as required, to develop such methods) 
     that will significantly enhance the ability of United States 
     companies and other organizations to evaluate materials 
     extraction, materials conversion, transportation, energy use, 
     end use, recycling, and disposal, and their associated costs 
     and environmental impacts;
       (B) to utilize, to the fullest extent practicable, existing 
     networks and supporting databases which provide access to 
     publicly available information that will facilitate the use 
     of life-cycle assessments and other design-for-environment 
     resources;
       (C) to sponsor demonstrations for public policy and 
     business decisionmakers of the effective use of life-cycle 
     assessment and other design-for-environment data and methods 
     described in this section; and
       (D) to ensure that private-sector life-cycle assessment and 
     other design-for-environment capabilities are, and continue 
     to be, fully integrated into activities under this section.
       (4) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     considered to require the use of life-cycle assessment or 
     other design-for-environment data or methods by any Federal 
     agency.
       (c) Annual Review.--The Director of the Office of Science 
     and Technology Policy or other entity designated by the 
     President shall annually submit to the Congress a report 
     containing an evaluation of the life-cycle assessment or 
     other design-for-environment activities of the Federal 
     Government.

     SEC. 203. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES IN ONGOING PROGRAMS.

       (a) Stevenson-Wydler Amendments.--The Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701) is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 2(2), by inserting ``greater environmental 
     sustainability,'' after ``employment opportunities,'';
       (2) in section 3(1), by inserting ``for sustainable 
     economic development'' after ``stimulate technology'';
       (3) in section 4, by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(14) `Sustainable economic development' means the 
     integration of environmental and economic development 
     concerns leading to continuous and long-term economic 
     development with reduced pollution and the more efficient use 
     of energy and materials.'';
       (4) in section 6(a), by inserting ``and sustainable 
     economic development in their regions'' after ``enhance the 
     competitiveness of American business'';
       (5) in section 6(d), by inserting ``and sustainable 
     economic development in their regions'' after ``enhance the 
     competitiveness of American businesses'';
       (6) in section 7(a), by inserting ``and sustainable 
     economic development'' after ``enhance technological 
     innovation'';
       (7) in section 7(c)(1), by inserting ``sustainable economic 
     development,'' after ``employment,'';
       (8) in section 9(a), by inserting ``and sustainable 
     economic development'' after ``enhance technological 
     innovation''; and
       (9) in section 11(c)(1), by inserting ``and would enhance 
     sustainable economic development'' after ``commercial 
     applications''.
       (b) NIST Amendments.--The National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 271) is amended--
       (1) in section 1(b)(1), by inserting ``sustainable economic 
     development,'' after ``improved product reliability and 
     manufacturing processes,'';
       (2) in section 1, by adding after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) For purposes of this section, the term `sustainable 
     economic development' means the integration of environmental 
     and economic development concerns leading to continuous and 
     long-term economic development with reduced pollution and the 
     more efficient use of energy and materials.''; and
       (3) in section 2(b)(1), by inserting ``to enhance 
     sustainable economic development (as that term is defined in 
     section 1(c)),'' after ``to improve quality,''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--Section 214 of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Year 1989 (42 U.S.C. 2451 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``102(c)'' and inserting ``102(d)''; and
       (2) by striking ``2451(c)'' and inserting ``2451(d)''.
       (d) NASA Amendments.--The National Aeronautics and Space 
     Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 note) is amended--
       (1) in section 102(d)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (9) as 
     paragraphs (7), (8), (9), and (10), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) The making available to Federal and non-Federal 
     entities of the United States, technologies that will enhance 
     the sustainable economic development of the Nation.''; and
       (2) in section 103--
       (A) by striking ``; and'' in paragraph (1) and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the term `sustainable economic development' means the 
     integration of environmental and economic development 
     concerns leading to continuous and long-term economic 
     development with reduced pollution and the more efficient use 
     of energy and materials.''.
       (e) NSF Amendments.--
       (1) Functions.--Section 3(a) of the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) to foster education and research that would promote 
     sustainable economic development nationally and 
     internationally.''.
       (2) Definition.--Subsection (g) of section 14 of such Act 
     is amended as follows:
       (A) By striking ``(g) For purposes of this Act, the term'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(g) For purposes of this Act:
       ``(1) The term''.
       (B) By adding after paragraph (1), as designated by 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(2) The term `sustainable economic development' means the 
     integration of environmental and economic development 
     concerns leading to continuous and long-term economic 
     development with reduced pollution and the more efficient use 
     of energy and materials.''.
       Subtitle B--Environmental Technology Innovation Initiative

     SEC. 211. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF INITIATIVE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an interagency 
     Environmental Technologies Innovation Initiative, to be 
     implemented as part of, and consistent with, the overall 
     Federal environmental technology strategy established in 
     section 201, to promote the research, development, and 
     demonstration of technologies that will contribute 
     significantly to sustainable economic development. The 
     Administrator shall administer the initiative in 
     collaboration with the heads of other Federal agencies, 
     including the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, 
     the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the National 
     Science Foundation, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the 
     Secretary of Interior, that have substantial capabilities in 
     advanced technology research and development.
       (b) Conduct of Initiative Programs and Activities.--The 
     initiative referred to in subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) the administration and award of the President's Total 
     Environmental Quality Award established under section 24 of 
     the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 
     U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), as added by section 213, and of the 
     National Environmentally Sound Technology Award established 
     under section 25 of such Act, as added by section 213;
       (2) the conduct of the Innovative Environmental Technology 
     Program described in section 212, the information activities 
     described in section 214, and the environmental technology 
     demonstration program described in section 215; and
       (3) the study provided for in section 216.
       (c) Agreements with Other Agencies; Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--To carry out a section referred to in 
     subsection (b)(2), the Administrator may enter into an 
     agreement with the head of another Federal agency, and enter 
     into contracts and cooperative agreements with, and award 
     grants to, entities eligible for financial assistance under 
     that section.
       (2) Competitive process.--The Administrator (or the head of 
     a Federal agency under an agreement under paragraph (1)) 
     shall select proposals for financial assistance under a 
     section referred to in subsection (b)(2) solely through a 
     competitive, merit-based evaluation process.
       (3) Integration of industry and other views.--The 
     Administrator (or the head of a Federal agency under an 
     agreement under paragraph (1)) shall develop mechanisms for 
     integrating the views of representatives of industry and 
     nonprofit and other appropriate organizations into the 
     process by which proposals for financial assistance under a 
     section referred to in subsection (b)(2) are evaluated and 
     selected.
       (d) Other Assistance Authorized.--The Administrator, in 
     collaboration with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies that have substantial capabilities in advanced 
     technology research and development and as appropriate, may 
     provide an entity receiving financial assistance under a 
     section referred to in subsection (b)(2) with any technical 
     and other assistance, including any equipment and facilities 
     of Federal laboratories (including the scientists and 
     engineers at those laboratories), necessary to carry out such 
     section.
       (e) Annual Interagency Plan and Review.--The Administrator, 
     in collaboration with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies (including the Secretary of Commerce and the 
     Secretary of Energy) and in consultation with representatives 
     of industry, nonprofit, and other appropriate organizations, 
     shall develop a strategic plan for the programs and 
     activities referred to in subsection (b)(2) as part of, and 
     consistent with, the overall Federal environmental technology 
     strategy established in section 201 and shall report to the 
     Congress on the performance of such programs and activities 
     as part of the annual report described in section 201(d). 
     Such report shall include an evaluation of--
       (1) the success of innovations resulting from such programs 
     and activities; and
       (2) the nature and extent of participation of socially 
     disadvantaged individuals and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals, as such terms are defined in paragraphs (6)(A) 
     and (5) of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(6)(A),(5)), respectively, including women, including 
     an evaluation of any steps taken to encourage the 
     participation of such individuals.
       (f) Administration.--
       (1) In general.--In administering the programs and 
     activities referred to in subsection (b)(2), the 
     Administrator shall--
       (A) monitor the manner in which any technologies developed 
     as a result of the programs and activities are used, and 
     report periodically to the Congress on the extent of any 
     international transfer of these technologies;
       (B) provide for appropriate dissemination of the results of 
     any research conducted under such program and activities; and
       (C) take any other action the Administrator considers 
     necessary to carry out the programs and activities and to 
     avoid unnecessary duplication of effort by Federal agencies.
       (2) Applicability of other law.--Paragraphs (5), (6), (7), 
     (8), and (11) of section 28(d) of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278n(d)) shall apply 
     to the administration of the programs and activities referred 
     to in subsection (b)(2).
       (3) Participation of socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals.--In carrying out the sections 
     referred to in subsection (b)(2), the Administrator shall 
     encourage the participation of socially disadvantaged 
     individuals and economically disadvantaged individuals, as 
     such terms are defined in paragraphs (6)(A) and (5) of 
     section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(a)(6)(A),(5)), respectively, including women.
       (g) Economically Depressed Areas.--The Administrator, in 
     collaboration with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies, shall seek to ensure that entities eligible for 
     assistance under a section referred to in subsection (b)(2) 
     and located in areas determined by the Administrator to have 
     a depressed economy, or a significant concentration of 
     defense-related industries, or chronically high unemployment, 
     are notified of the assistance made available under that 
     section and, to the extent practicable, to encourage and 
     facilitate the participation of such entities in activities 
     for which assistance is provided under that section.
       (h) Limitation on Construction of Facilities.--The 
     Administrator may not provide financial assistance to an 
     entity under this section for the construction of facilities.
       (i) Management.--The Administrator shall prescribe any 
     regulations necessary to carry out each section referred to 
     in subsection (b)(2), including regulations--
       (1) prescribing the form, time, and manner in which 
     proposals for financial assistance under such section shall 
     submitted; and
       (2) providing consideration of in-kind contributions by a 
     non-Federal Government entity participating in a program or 
     activity conducted under such section for the purpose of 
     determining the share of the costs of participating in the 
     program or activity that have been or are being undertaken by 
     that entity.

     SEC. 212. INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Administrator, in collaboration 
     with the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies 
     (including the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 
     Energy, and the Secretary of Defense), shall conduct an 
     interagency innovative environmental technology program to 
     develop or demonstrate advanced precommercial environmental 
     technologies and which, to avoid redundancy and ensure 
     efficiency, will be a part of, and consistent with, the 
     overall Federal environmental strategy established in section 
     201.
       (b) Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--An entity shall 
     be eligible for financial assistance to conduct a 
     demonstration or development project under the program 
     established under subsection (a) only if the entity is either 
     a single United States company or a partnership which--
       (1) includes two or more United States companies; and
       (2) may include, as determined appropriate by the 
     Administrator, a Federal laboratory or laboratories, United 
     States nonprofit organizations, United States institutions of 
     higher education, agencies of States governments, and other 
     entities that participate in the partnership by supporting 
     the activities conducted by such companies or corporations 
     under this section.
       (c) Criteria for Selection of Proposals.--The Administrator 
     shall give priority consideration to the following criteria 
     in evaluating proposals for financial assistance under this 
     section:
       (1) Contribution to the priorities established pursuant to 
     section 201(a)(2).
       (2) Significant improvement in environmental soundness of 
     the production process.
       (3) Contribution to industrial competitiveness, including 
     new markets, reduced production costs, and enhanced global 
     competitiveness.
       (4) Improvement in the environment of the workplace.
       (5) Applicability to other industrial processes.
       (6) Improvement in technological capability to recycle 
     complex combinations of materials.
       (7) Innovative application of post-consumer materials.
       (8) Direct application to environmental technologies needed 
     for United States business and industry.
       (9) Other criteria established by the Administrator.
       (d) Award Conditions.--Financial assistance provided under 
     this section shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) Such assistance may be made for not more than three 
     years for single United States companies and not more than 
     five years for partnerships.
       (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Federal 
     Government may provide financial assistance to a partnership 
     under this section in an amount that is not more than a 
     minority share of the cost of the project conducted by the 
     partnership.
       (3) The Federal share of the cost of a project conducted by 
     a partnership under this section may exceed the limitation 
     described in paragraph (2) if--
       (A) the partnership is composed entirely of small business 
     concerns; or
       (B) the Administrator determines that it would be 
     appropriate under the circumstances and would serve the 
     purpose of the program to provide more than a minority cost-
     share of the project conducted by the partnership.
       (4) The Administrator has determined that--
       (A) an applicant for any such assistance has made 
     reasonable efforts to obtain non-Federal funding for the 
     Federal cost share sought to be received under this section; 
     and
       (B) such non-Federal funding could not be reasonably 
     obtained.
       (5) Each project under this section shall be carried out 
     under such terms and conditions as the Administrator shall 
     require to ensure the protection of human health and the 
     environment.
       (e) Evaluation.--As part of the annual evaluation referred 
     to in section 211(e), the Administrator shall conduct an 
     evaluation of--
       (1) the extent to which technologies developed pursuant to 
     the program established under subsection (a) are used;
       (2) the contribution of such technologies to reduced 
     pollution and the more efficient use of energy and materials; 
     and
       (3) the contribution of such technologies to economic 
     development.
       (f) Recoupment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish 
     procedures and criteria for recoupment in connection with any 
     project, for which financial assistance is provided under 
     this section, which has led to the development of a product 
     or process which is marketed or used.
       (2) Requirement as condition for award.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     such recoupment shall be required as a condition for the 
     provision of financial assistance under this section, shall 
     be proportional to the Federal share of the cost of the 
     project, and shall be derived from the proceeds of royalties 
     or licensing fees received in connection with such product or 
     process.
       (B) Exception.--In the case of a product or process which 
     is used by the recipient of financial assistance under this 
     section for the production and sale of its own products or 
     processes, the recoupment shall consist of a payment 
     equivalent to the payment which would be made under 
     subparagraph (A).
       (3) Waiver.--The Administrator may at any time waive or 
     defer all or some of the recoupment requirements of this 
     subsection as necessary, depending on--
       (A) the commercial competitiveness of the entity or 
     entities developing or using the product or process;
       (B) the profitability of the project; and
       (C) the commercial viability of the product or process 
     used.

     SEC. 213. PRESIDENT'S TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AWARD AND 
                   THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY 
                   AWARD.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) Award programs such as the Malcolm Baldrige National 
     Quality Award Program have made substantial contributions to 
     private enterprise by providing a framework upon which 
     organizations can improve their operations and by focusing on 
     issues important to their competitiveness.
       (2) A President's Total Environmental Quality Award Program 
     modeled on the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award 
     Program would contribute to environmental quality and 
     sustainable economic development by--
       (A) helping to stimulate United States companies to 
     research, develop, and demonstrate environmental 
     technologies;
       (B) recognizing the achievements of such companies which 
     successfully research, develop, and demonstrate environmental 
     technologies; and
       (C) establishing guidelines and criteria that can be used 
     by business, industrial, governmental, and other 
     organizations in evaluating their own research, development, 
     and demonstration of environmental technologies.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to provide 
     for the establishment and conduct of a President's Total 
     Environmental Quality Award Program and a National 
     Environmentally Sound Technology Award Program under which 
     awards are given to recognize the successful research, 
     development, and demonstration of environmental technologies, 
     and information is disseminated about such success.
       (c) Establishment of Awards.--The Stevenson-Wydler 
     Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 23 the following new 
     sections:

     ``SEC. 24. PRESIDENT'S TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AWARD.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established the 
     President's Total Environmental Quality Award (in this 
     section referred to as the `Award').
       ``(b) Design.--The Award shall be evidenced by a medal 
     bearing the inscription `President's Total Environmental 
     Quality Award'.
       ``(c) Award Selection Process.--The Secretary, in 
     collaboration with the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator 
     of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of 
     Defense, shall establish a process for the acceptance and 
     evaluation of Award applicants. The Secretary shall, to the 
     extent practicable, refer to the procedures used in the 
     administration of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
     Award, including the definition of award categories, the 
     delegation of responsibilities, and provisions for publicity, 
     evaluation feed-back, and information transfer, as a model 
     for the President's Total Environmental Quality Award.
       ``(d) Presentation of Award.--
       ``(1) Recommendations by secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     submit to the President, and make available to the public, 
     the recommendations of the Secretary for the selection of 
     Award applicants.
       ``(2) Selection by the president.--On the basis of 
     recommendations received under paragraph (1), the President 
     shall periodically select for receipt of the Award United 
     States companies and other organizations which in the 
     judgment of the President have substantially benefited the 
     environmental, economic, and social well-being of the United 
     States through the research, development, and demonstration 
     of environmental technologies and the effective integration 
     of environmental concerns into its operations and management, 
     and which as a consequence are deserving of special 
     recognition.
       ``(3) Presentation ceremony.--The President or the Vice 
     President shall present the Award to recipients selected 
     under paragraph (2) with such ceremony as the President or 
     the Vice President considers to be appropriate.
       ``(e) Limitation.--The information gathered in evaluating 
     Award applications may be used only for the evaluation of 
     such applications and for publicity by winners of the Award. 
     Such information may not be used for regulatory or compliance 
     purposes.
       ``(f) Evaluation Criteria.--Criteria for evaluating Award 
     applications shall include the following:
       ``(1) The effectiveness of the organization's development 
     and demonstration of environmental technologies, as well as 
     the organization's provision for environmental technologies 
     in its future plans.
       ``(2) The effectiveness of the integration of environmental 
     concerns into the operations and management of the 
     organization.
       ``(3) The effectiveness of energy and materials use from 
     the perspective of the life-cycle of the production, use, 
     recycle, and disposal of a product.
       ``(4) The effective use of an integrated approach to 
     pollution prevention and control that considers all 
     environmental media (liquid, solid, gaseous).
       ``(5) The overall environmental performance of the 
     organization, including environmental compliance.
       ``(g) Funding.--The Secretary may seek and accept gifts 
     from public and private sources (and may, subject to annual 
     appropriations, use such gifts) to carry out this section. 
     The Secretary shall annually make available to the public a 
     list of any such gifts and the sources of the gifts. The 
     Secretary may provide for the imposition of a fee upon the 
     organizations applying for the Award.
       ``(h) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994 and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     President and the Congress a report on the progress made in 
     carrying out this section, including a report on any 
     indications that the Award has influenced the practices of 
     United States companies and other organizations. The report 
     shall include any recommendations of the Secretary for any 
     modifications of the Award the Secretary considers necessary.

     ``SEC. 25. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND TECHNOLOGY AWARD.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is established a National 
     Environmentally Sound Technology Award for the purpose of 
     awarding individuals who have pioneered the development and 
     use of highly innovative environmental technologies within 
     the meaning of section 104(3) of the Environmental 
     Technologies Act of 1994.
       ``(b) Administration.--Using the authority and procedures 
     established in section 24 and subject to the conditions 
     described in this section, the Secretary, in collaboration 
     with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     and the Secretary of Energy, shall receive and evaluate 
     applications for the National Environmentally Sound 
     Technology Award and provide for presentation of such Award.
       ``(c) Qualified Technologies.--Technologies that qualify 
     for such Award may include the following:
       ``(1) Manufacturing technologies.
       ``(2) Industrial or consumer products.
       ``(3) Consumer services.
       ``(4) Recycling technologies.
       ``(5) Pollution monitoring and control technologies.
       ``(6) Pollution remediation technologies.
       ``(7) Other technologies as appropriate.
       ``(d) Qualified Applicants.--Any citizen or permanent 
     resident of the United States may qualify for such Award. Any 
     such individual who is employed by or otherwise works for a 
     business, Federal laboratory, or other organization may 
     qualify for such Award only if the individual was 
     substantially involved in the invention or innovation for 
     which such Award is presented.
       ``(e) Limitation.--Not more than five such Awards may be 
     presented annually.
       ``(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994 and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the progress made in carrying out this 
     section. The report shall contain an evaluation of the 
     performance of such Award, including an assessment of the 
     extent to which the public recognizes such Award and such 
     Award encourages innovation of environmental technologies.''.

     SEC. 214. INCORPORATION OF INFORMATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   TECHNOLOGIES INTO EXISTING NETWORKS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, through the 
     Office of Research and Development of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and in collaboration with the Under 
     Secretary for Technology of the Department of Commerce and 
     the heads of any other appropriate Federal agencies, shall, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, use existing information 
     network capabilities of the Federal Government as part of, 
     and consistent with, the overall Federal environmental 
     technology strategy established in section 201 to provide 
     coordinated access to data on environmental technologies or 
     protocols developed, tested, verified, or certified under 
     programs established by this Act, and by other appropriate 
     Federal and non-Federal sources. Such data shall include--
       (1) information on--
       (A) activities carried out under this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act;
       (B) performance standards regarding environmental 
     technologies;
       (C) significant international developments in environmental 
     technologies, fully coordinating with other international 
     technology information programs of the Federal Government; 
     and
       (D) cost-effectiveness and performance of environmental 
     technologies; and
       (2) other information determined by the Administrator to be 
     of substantial value in promoting the research, development, 
     and demonstration of environmental technologies.
       (b) Use of Existing Resources.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable--
       (1) use existing public and private sector information 
     providers and carriers; and
       (2) coordinate with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
     agencies to make data described in subsection (a) accessible 
     through appropriate database systems of those Federal 
     agencies.
       (c) Outreach.--The Administrator, through the Office of 
     Research and Development of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency and in collaboration with the Under Secretary for 
     Technology of the Department of Commerce and the heads of any 
     other appropriate Federal agencies, shall conduct outreach 
     efforts to advertise, deliver, and disseminate the 
     information made available pursuant to subsection (a). As 
     part of such efforts, the Administrator shall consult with 
     United States industrial associations and take appropriate 
     action to ensure access to such information by industrial 
     assistance organizations and programs supported by a State or 
     local government, a non-profit organization in which a State 
     or local government is a member, an institution of higher 
     education designated by a State or local government, a 
     manufacturing extension and outreach service or regional 
     technical assistance service approved by the Federal 
     Government, or a Federal laboratory.
       (d) Evaluation and Report.--As part of the annual 
     evaluation referred to in section 211(e), the Administrator 
     shall conduct an evaluation of the extent to which the data 
     provided pursuant to this section are used.

     SEC. 215. USE OF FEDERAL FACILITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION.

       (a) Establishment.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     program, in collaboration with the heads of appropriate 
     Federal agencies (including the Secretary of Energy, the 
     Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Defense) as part 
     of, and consistent with, the overall Federal environmental 
     technology strategy established in section 201, to 
     demonstrate the performance of environmental technologies at 
     Federal laboratories and other Federal facilities.
       (b) Qualifying Technology Demonstration Projects.--
     Technologies that qualify for demonstration under such 
     program include--
       (1) environmental technologies that can be applied to a 
     major pollution control or remediation need at a Federal 
     laboratory or other Federal facility;
       (2) environmental technologies the development of which 
     would be significantly advanced by unique facilities or 
     capabilities of a Federal laboratory or other Federal 
     facility; and
       (3) other environmental technologies that have significant 
     potential as an environmental technology that will contribute 
     to sustainable economic development or that will make a 
     significant contribution to the cleanup of communities 
     significantly affected by pollution.
       (c) Administration.--As part of the program established 
     under this section, the Administrator--
       (1) may enter into a cooperative agreement with any other 
     Federal agency to make available, as appropriate, any 
     expertise, site, or facility under the jurisdiction of such 
     agency to an eligible entity under subsection (d) for the 
     purpose of demonstrating the performance of an environmental 
     technology;
       (2) shall establish application procedures for an eligible 
     entity under subsection (d) to apply to demonstrate an 
     environmental technology at an available site or facility, 
     including--
       (A) provisions for sharing the cost of demonstrating the 
     technology with an applicant that limit the Federal share of 
     the cost to not more than 50 percent of the total cost of 
     demonstrating the technology; and
       (B) provisions that provide special consideration of the 
     needs of small business concerns;
       (3) shall establish criteria for verification of the 
     efficacy of demonstrated environmental technologies;
       (4) shall establish specific procedures for the management 
     and oversight of demonstration activities conducted under 
     this section;
       (5) shall, pursuant to section 214, in consultation and 
     collaboration with other Federal agencies, and consistent 
     with the Federal environmental technology strategy 
     established in section 201, make available for entities 
     eligible under subsection (d) information regarding--
       (A) the facilities and expertise available at Federal 
     laboratories that would be valuable to the demonstration of 
     environmental technologies; and
       (B) sites at Federal laboratories or other Federal 
     facilities potentially available for demonstrating 
     environmental technologies, characterized by specific site 
     characteristics, including site geology and site contaminants 
     where appropriate;
       (6) shall document the performance and cost characteristics 
     of each environmental technology demonstrated pursuant to 
     this section; and
       (7) shall list and disseminate, pursuant to section 214, 
     nonproprietary information regarding the performance and cost 
     characteristics of the environmental technologies 
     demonstrated pursuant to this section.
       (d) Entities Eligible for Participation.--Entities eligible 
     to carry out a demonstration project as part of the program 
     established under subsection (a) are United States companies 
     (including small business concerns), United States nonprofit 
     organizations, United States institutions of higher 
     education, and other entities that the Administrator 
     considers appropriate.
       (e) Program Evaluation and Reporting.--In the report 
     required by section 211(e), the Administrator shall evaluate 
     the performance of the program established under this 
     section, including an evaluation and statement of--
       (1) the number of environmental technologies demonstrated 
     and the type of problems addressed;
       (2) the Federal and non-Federal financial resources 
     committed to the program; and
       (3) the extent to which technologies demonstrated pursuant 
     to this section are used.
       (f) Savings Provision.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to supersede any other provision of law that 
     provides authority to a Federal agency to demonstrate 
     environmental technologies. Technologies eligible for 
     demonstration under this section that are also eligible for 
     demonstration at sites under section 311(b) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9660(b)) shall be subject to 
     the limitations and requirements of that section. 
     Demonstration projects and activities under this section 
     shall not alter or interfere with the conduct or expeditious 
     completion of response actions at facilities proposed for or 
     listed on the National Priorities List.

     SEC. 216. STUDY OF FACTORS AFFECTING INNOVATION IN 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into an agreement 
     with the National Research Council to conduct a study of the 
     influences on technological innovation in environmental 
     technologies of economic, governmental, competitive, 
     financial, and other incentives and barriers.
       (b) Report.--The Administrator shall include in the 
     agreement referred to in subsection (a) a requirement that 
     the National Research Council complete a report describing 
     the results of the study referred to in such subsection not 
     later than two years after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. The report shall identify specific incentives for and 
     barriers to technological innovation and describe the reasons 
     for the positive or negative influences identified. The 
     Administrator shall submit the report to the Congress within 
     30 days after receiving the report from the National Research 
     Council. Nothing in this section may be construed as 
     authorizing the reprogramming of funds for such an agreement.

     SEC. 217. DISCLAIMER.

       Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, 
     shall be construed by the Administrator or the Secretary of 
     Energy, or any officer or employee of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or the Department of Energy, or by any 
     court as altering, affecting, supplanting, modifying, or 
     changing, directly or indirectly, any law which on the day 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act referred to, and 
     provided authorities or responsibilities for, or was 
     administered by, the Environmental Protection Agency or the 
     Department of Energy or the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency or the Secretary of Energy.
                 Subtitle C--Other Research Activities

     SEC. 221. ENVIRONMENTALLY ADVANCED ENGINEERING RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--The Director of the National Science 
     Foundation shall take appropriate actions to support research 
     activities that will advance the integration of engineering 
     practices and environmental protection in the development of 
     advanced technologies.
       (b) Interagency Collaboration.--The Director of the 
     National Science Foundation shall collaborate with the heads 
     of other appropriate Federal agencies, including the 
     Administrator, in carrying out this section.
       (c) Integration of Information.--The Director of the 
     National Science Foundation shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, provide for the dissemination of information 
     developed as a result of the research activities referred to 
     in subsection (a) through education activities of the 
     Foundation and through the information dissemination 
     activities developed pursuant to section 214.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are these amendments to title II?


              amendments offered by mr. barca of wisconsin

  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barca of Wisconsin: In section 
     201(b) of title II of the bill, (page 8, after line 17), 
     insert the following new paragraph (7):
       (7) ensure that in developing the interagency strategy for 
     the research, development, and demonstration of environmental 
     technologies pursuant to this section, priority is given to 
     geographic areas of significant environmental need, including 
     geographic areas that have been designated as nonattainment 
     areas under section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i));
       Page 8, line 18, redesignate paragraph (7) as paragraph 
     (8).
       Page 8, line 23, redesignate paragraph (8) as paragraph 
     (9).

  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I also have an amendment to 
title III that complements this amendment. I offer that amendment and 
ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment to 
title III.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barca of Wisconsin: in section 
     302(e) of title III of the bill, (page 52, after line 18, 
     insert the following new paragraph (5):
       (5) The capability of the applicant to conduct evaluations 
     of technologies that address priority environmental concerns 
     consistent with the priorities established in section 201 of 
     this Act, including geographic areas that have been 
     designated as non-attainment areas under section 
     107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
     7407(d)(1)(A)(i)).
       Page 52, line 19, redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph 
     (6).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca] for consideration of the two 
amendments en bloc?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, these 
amendments, I believe, are very necessary in order to ensure that the 
various communities across the country which need the help the most in 
meeting environmental goals, such as the Clean Air Act, receive 
priority for consideration in the development of new technologies. This 
is a problem that affects my home State of Wisconsin, but it also 
affects the State of Illinois and many Midwestern States. It affects 
much of California and much of the Northeast.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been working in collaboration with some of my 
colleagues from these parts of the country on the problem and also on 
this amendments.
  Basically, some nonattainment areas of the country are faced with 
compliance measures such as car poolings, vehicle emissions testing, in 
order to help improve air quality. However, a number of these regions 
receive a significant portion of their air pollution from other areas 
of the country. Recently, in a study of four different States--
Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, and Indiana--which shows that air 
transport coming from other regions of the country can exacerbate an 
area's efforts in order to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act. 
Transport occurs in other regions of the country as well. What we find 
is that even if areas such as mine are in full compliance with all the 
provisions of the Clean Air Act, for many there is an unfortunate 
probability that ozone levels will still exceed Federal limits.
  So, while the Environmental Protection Agency works with Members of 
Congress like myself and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] to 
try to address this problem, we believe that we should give 
nonattainment areas priority consideration for environmental technology 
that makes sense to help us solve these problems.
  New technologies should be geared toward those areas which need help 
the most--that is, nonattainment regions--so that businesses and 
municipalities have the best tools available to reduce pollution 
locally in a cost-effective manner.
  In order to insure we can meet the goals of the Clean Air Act, I urge 
my colleagues to support these very reasonable amendments.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. chairman, I move to strike the last 
word. I would like to indicate that we have reviewed these amendments, 
which require the administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
to give priority to technologies that would address certain 
nonattainment areas that suffer from ozone problems. Coming from Los 
Angeles, I think this is a very good amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say I too have had a chance to review the 
amendment, and I see no problem with the amendments. In the spirit of 
cooperation which we have developed on these amendments, I would be 
happy to accept them.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the 
gentleman's attitude on this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barca].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title II?


                   amendment offered by mr. fingerhut

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fingerhut: in section 211(b)(2) 
     (page 20, line 16), insert ``, and the demonstration program 
     established pursuant to section 218'' before the semicolon.
       At the end of subtitle B of title II of the bill (page 45, 
     after line 19), add the following new section:

     SEC. 218. ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFICIENT BUILDING MATERIALS.

       (a) Demonstration of Environmentally Efficient Materials.--
     Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of General Services and the heads of other 
     appropriate agencies, may establish a 3-year demonstration 
     program to promote research on, and development of, 
     environmentally efficient building materials, including the 
     use of such materials in the construction of new Federal 
     facilities and buildings and in existing Federal facilities 
     and buildings.
       (b) Characteristics of Materials.--In selecting 
     environmentally efficient building materials under the 
     demonstration program, the Administrator shall give priority 
     to those materials that most cost-effectively maximize the 
     conservation and preservation of natural resources.
       (c) Performance Verification.--Before using environmentally 
     efficient building materials under this section, the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of 
     General Services and the heads of other appropriate agencies 
     (including the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology), shall verify, through support of 
     appropriate tests and using, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, existing Federal capabilities, that such 
     materials--
       (1) are cost-competitive with comparable, more conventional 
     materials on a life-cycle cost basis; and
       (2) meet applicable Federal environmental, public health, 
     safety, and energy efficiency standards.
       (d) Research and Development.--The Administrator may 
     support the research and development of environmentally 
     efficient materials that show substantial promise for use in 
     buildings. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 212(d) shall 
     apply to support provided under this subsection.
       (e) Guidelines.--The Administrator shall cooperate with the 
     Administrator of General Services and the heads of other 
     agencies to ensure that, where applicable, the results of the 
     activities conducted pursuant to subsection (a) are 
     incorporated into guidelines developed by appropriate 
     Federal agencies for the use of environmentally efficient 
     building materials.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 60 days after completion of the 
     demonstration program, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the implementation of the demonstration 
     program. The report shall include the following:
       (1) A listing of the type and quantities of environmentally 
     efficient building materials tested, developed, and used.
       (2) A statement of the cost and performance of such 
     materials compared to comparable, more conventional 
     materials.
       (3) An assessment of the extent to which the use of such 
     materials can be expanded beyond the scope of the 
     demonstration program.
       (4) An assessment of the extent to which research on, and 
     development of, such materials occurred as a result of the 
     demonstration program and the extent to which further support 
     is needed to stimulate such research and development.
       (g) Integration of Other Views.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of General Services, shall develop mechanisms 
     for integrating the views of other agencies that carry out 
     major construction programs, including the Army Corps of 
     Engineers and the Veterans Administration, and 
     representatives of the environmental community, the 
     construction industry (including small business), 
     manufacturing companies (including small businesses) that 
     produce environmentally efficient materials, and the 
     scientific and technical community.
       (h) Preemption.--Nothing in this section is intended to 
     preempt any provision of law of a State or a political 
     subdivision of a State that is more restrictive than a 
     provision of this Act.
       (i) Waiver.--Section 211(h) shall not apply to the 
     demonstration program established pursuant to this section.
       (j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``agency'' means an Executive agency as 
     defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     any agency of the judicial or legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government.
       (2) The term ``environmentally efficient materials'' means 
     any recycled, recovered, reclaimed, or reused material whose 
     production, manufacture, fabrication, and use conserves and 
     preserves natural resources when compared to the production, 
     manufacture, fabrication, and use of comparable, more 
     conventional materials.
       (3) The term ``environmentally efficient building 
     materials'' means any environmentally efficient material 
     which may be used in the construction of a building or 
     facility.
       (4) The term ``construction'' with respect to any project 
     of construction under this section, means the erection or 
     building of new structures or the replacement, expansion, 
     remodeling, alteration, or modernization of existing 
     structures.

  Mr. FINGERHUT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, first let me express my support for this 
bill. It is an important measure. It does many significant things in 
the cause of advancing environmental technologies. I want to express my 
congratulations to the chairman and the ranking minority member, who 
have worked so hard on this legislation, and I also want to indicate to 
the ranking member that in consultation with our staff we are currently 
making one change to the draft of the language that the ranking member 
has requested. I hope that will be acceptable and we will have that for 
his review in a moment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to create the 
Federal Resource-Efficient Building Materials Pilot Program--to 
encourage the purchase and use by the Federal Government of building 
products made from recycled, reclaimed, or reused materials and which 
are energy efficient to use.
  As a society, we have begun to recognize the limits of our natural 
resources and the need to conserve these resources.
  As a nation, we are faced with a tremendous solid waste disposal 
problem. But we are not simply running out of places to bury our 
garbage. When we landfill, we throw away the resources contained in 
that waste and the land on which we bury our garbage.
  The building industry is an effective place to target efforts to be 
environmentally responsible because it is an industry that is resource 
intensive and generates much waste. According to the American Institute 
of Architects, 54 percent of all energy generated in the United States 
is consumed by the manufacturing of materials for, construction of, and 
operation of buildings and roads. In the building industry, there is 
great potential for:
  First, reducing the need for raw materials;
  Second, developing markets for recycled materials; and thus
  Third, significant reduction in the generation of solid waste; and
  Fourth, greater energy efficiency in the operation of buildings 
construction with the environmentally conscious material production and 
building operation.
  The bottom line is we conserve resources; we save money.
  In the past decade, we have made dramatic strides in the amount of 
garbage we recycle.
  However, our efforts to recycle are stymied by the lack of markets 
for recycled materials. Without markets, recycled materials become 
waste.
  This amendment addresses the need to reduce the generation of waste, 
to create markets for recycled materials and to be energy efficient in 
our production and use of buildings and the materials with which they 
are constructed.
  This amendment will encourage the Federal Government to take the lead 
in market development of environmentally responsible building 
materials.
  This amendment works to conserve natural resources, reduce waste, and 
save money. It is truly a win-win situation for everyone concerned.
  Specifically, the amendment would create a 3-year pilot program for 
the research, testing, and demonstration of environmentally efficient 
building materials. The program would be executed as part of the 
Environmental Technology Innovation Initiative established in H.R. 
3870.
  The amendment requires the testing and evaluation of candidate 
materials for their cost effectiveness and their satisfaction of 
environmental, public health, safety, and energy efficiency standards. 
Materials that passed the evaluation could be used in a demonstration 
program involving Federal buildings and facilities.
  The amendment requires the indepth participation of business, 
industry, and environmental interests, in the planning and execution of 
the program.
  The amendment authorizes cost-shared support for research and 
development of environmentally efficient building materials as part of 
the Innovative Environmental Technology Program of H.R. 3870.
  The amendment requires an evaluation of the program and the extent to 
which the materials tested or developed were used in the marketplace.
  At the conclusion of the 3 years, the results of the pilot program 
should be incorporated into guidelines developed by appropriate Federal 
agencies to maximize the use of environmentally efficient building 
materials.
  This amendment builds upon the current efforts of the private 
industry to recycle.
  Construction materials, primarily made up of wood and paper products 
have great potential for being cost-effectively recycled for use in 
building materials. Markets are currently emerging in the use of these 
materials for the manufacture of room partitions and exhibition boards. 
However, the major market for these products is in the construction and 
renovation of buildings.
  Paper and related products account for one-third of the municipal 
solid waste in this country by weight, over 60 million tons per year. 
This waste can be converted into construction materials. However, 
insufficient data exists regarding the performance and durability of 
these materials, as well as their conformance with safety and other 
regulations.
  This amendment moves the Federal Government--with all of its 
purchasing power--to lead the charge in the use of recycled and energy 
efficient building materials. This creates a potentially huge market 
for recycled materials.
  This new market will encourage recycling and further research and 
development on the use of these materials.
  Current examples of products made from these materials include: a 
concrete foundation system using recycled polystyrene and 
polypropoylene; roof shingles made from recycled computer hardware 
systems; floor tiles made from recycled glass; carpeting made from 
recycled plastic bottles; and steel beams, framing and doors made from 
recycled scrap metal.
  The Center for Resourceful Building Technology reports that there are 
at least 23 companies in Ohio that manufacture and/or distribute 
environmentally efficient building materials.
  We are only just starting to realize the business potential in the 
environmental marketplace. By encouraging the development of 
environmentally efficient building materials, we are only scratching 
the surface of resource efficient business opportunities.
  As a society, we must begin to look at the lifecycle cost of our 
actions. Failure to do so is wasteful and costly. The long-term 
implications of our irresponsibility for generations to come will be 
severe. We must act now on the recognition that what is good for the 
environment is good for the economy.
  Mr. Chairman I offer the following letters in support of my amendment 
to create the Environmentally Efficient Building Materials Program to 
be included in the Record.

                                              National Association


                                             of Home Builders,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     Hon. Eric D. Fingerhut,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Fingerhut: On behalf of the 170,000 
     members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 
     I would like to offer our support for the Fingerhut Amendment 
     to H.R. 3870, the Environmental Technologies Act of 1994. 
     This amendment will be offered during consideration of H.R. 
     3870 by the full House next week.
       This important amendment would require the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA), to establish a demonstration program 
     for promoting research on, and the development of, 
     environmentally efficient building materials. In selecting 
     such materials under the program, EPA must give priority to 
     those materials that most cost-effectively maximize the 
     conservation and preservation of natural resources.
       NAHB has long been in support of research into the area of 
     construction. The NAHB Research Center, a not-for profit 
     subsidiary of NAHB located in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, was 
     founded in 1964 for that purpose. The NAHB Research Center 
     studies all aspects of home building to identify better and 
     more affordable ways to build homes. The areas of research 
     conducted there include energy and resource conservation, 
     product development and introduction, the ways homes are 
     built and the materials used in home construction, In fact, 
     the NAHB Research Center has built the ``Resource 
     Conservation Research House'' to demonstrate construction 
     materials and methods that conserve our nation's resources. 
     This house is constructed entirely of recycled materials and 
     energy-saving and low-maintenance products. We invite you to 
     tour the NAHB Research Center and research homes at your 
     convenience.
       NAHB strongly urges your support for the Fingerhut 
     Amendment to H.R. 3879 when it is considered on the House 
     floor during the week of July 25th. Today conservation and 
     construction must join together as a team and this amendment 
     will promote such an effort.
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas N. Thompson.
                                  ____



                                     National Audubon Society,

                                      New York, NY, July 25, 1994.
     Hon. Eric Fingerhut,
     U.S. House of Representatives
     Washington, DC.
       To The Honorable Eric Fingerhut: I am writing to express 
     the National Audubon Society's support of your proposed 
     amendment to the Environmental Technology Act (H.R. 3870), 
     scheduled to be introduced in Congress on Tuesday, July 26.
       The amendment, to be included in section 211(b)(2) of the 
     Environmental Technology Act, addresses environmentally 
     efficient building materials, and calls on the Administration 
     to establish a 3-year demonstration program to promote 
     research and development of environmentally efficient 
     building materials, especially those used in the construction 
     and renovation of federal facilities.
       As you are aware, the National Audubon Society took up 
     residence in an environmentally responsible, energy efficient 
     headquarters in November 1992. Audubon's project has provided 
     a major impetus to the burgeoning sustainable architecture 
     movement. Our ``Building for an Environmental Future'' 
     program was launched in 1992 in an effort to inform and 
     educate architects, engineers, builders, developers, 
     corporate leaders and policy makers about the importance of 
     building, renovating and designing structures that conserve 
     energy, reduce air pollution, maximize recycling and minimize 
     use of the toxic materials that contribute to sick building 
     syndrome. This educational program includes Audubon's 
     sponsorship of weekly tours of its headquarters, the 
     publication of a comprehensive book, Audubon House: Building 
     the Environmentally Responsible, Energy-Efficient Office and 
     the production of a documentary ``Building Green,'' for 
     broadcast on public television.
       As president of the National Audubon Society, a 600,000 
     strong grassroots environmental organization, and as an 
     individual who has made a commitment to creating a model of 
     environmentally responsible architecture, I wholeheartedly 
     endorse the Fingerhut amendment.
       It is my hope that Audubon's environmentally responsible 
     headquarters will provide a replicable example for federal, 
     state and local government, as well as commercial and private 
     builders and designers. Using Audubon's renovation project as 
     a model, we have been urging policy makers to embrace the 
     concept of environmentally responsible building design, 
     replicate it where possible, and make its design philosophy 
     the standard for all future building and renovation projects, 
     whether governmental, commercial or residential structures. 
     In order to conserve energy and our precious natural 
     resources, we need to replicate Audubon's success on a 
     national scale--and the Fingerhut amendment is a step in the 
     right direction.
       Passage of the Fingerhut amendment makes sense for many 
     reasons. The demonstration structures it calls for will 
     advance environmentally responsible building construction and 
     design. Implementation of innovative techniques, technologies 
     and design philosophy have been proven critical not only for 
     conserving energy, reducing air pollution, maximizing 
     recycling and reducing sick building syndrome; their 
     application makes sound financial sense as well. The 
     Fingerhut amendment represents the beginning of crucial 
     government initiatives to `green' America's energy 
     squandering, unhealthy buildings. This amendment advances 
     sound public policy aimed at achieving real and lasting 
     results.
       Audubon urges the inclusion of the Fingerhut amendment in 
     the Environmental Technology Act and its prompt passage.
       Congressman Fingerhut, we applaud your efforts to include 
     energy efficient, environmentally responsible demonstration 
     in future federal construction and renovation projects. 
     Please let me know how I can assist in moving this effort 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter A.A. Berle,
                                                President & C.E.O.

                              {time}  1520

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The time of the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Walker and by unanimous consent, Mr. Fingerhut was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I had understood the gentleman from Ohio 
was going to ask unanimous consent to make a couple of changes in the 
amendment that had been worked out. If the gentleman can do that, this 
side has absolutely no problem accepting his amendment. But I did not 
hear that request made.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I saw the drafting work going on even as 
I was speaking, and I understand it has now been delivered to the desk.


 modification offered by mr. fingerhut to the amendment offered by mr. 
                               fingerhut

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be modified in accordance with the revisions that have been 
submitted to the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Fingerhut to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Fingerhut: On page 2, line 17 of the amendment 
     strike out ``research and development'' and insert 
     ``research, development and demonstration''.
       On page 2, line 19 strike out ``Paragraphs (2) and (3)'' 
     and insert ``Paragraphs (2), (3), and (5)''.
       On page 4 strike out lines 13 through 15.
       One page 4, line 16, strike out ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the modification to the amendment be considered as read 
and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio that the amendment be modified?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman reserving the right to object, with those 
revisions I would be happy to accept the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
modified.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there further debate on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I, of course, will accede to the request, and I accept 
the amendment, and I am pleased that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] finds it acceptable. I would just comment here that this 
amendment illustrates the wide range of opportunities that are going to 
be open to us through the enactment of this legislation. The 
demonstration of programs proposed in the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio applies just to one industry, the building 
industry, and yet it has ramifications that are extremely extensive. It 
also illustrates the fact that what we address in this bill is not only 
the development of new technologies, new products, or new processes, 
but the ways of better utilizing existing resource materials in our 
society and recycling those materials which are obviously very 
beneficial to the environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am more than happy to accept the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio, and I do not want to hope for more amendments 
to spell out additional programs, but I hope that this will illustrate 
the scope of the kinds of activities that can be conducted under this 
legislation that would benefit the environment.
  Mr. DEAL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, but I would come today to support 
the amendment offered by my freshman colleague from Ohio and to give 
tangible evidence of the importance of products such as this.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the areas of my district is Dalton, GA, which is 
the carpet capital of the world. Associated with the manufacture of 
carpet obviously are many remnants of that carpet that have to be 
disposed of, in many instances in the landfill. Recently one of the 
largest; in fact, the largest, manufacturer of carpeting in the United 
States, Shaw Industries, has had a project for the use of carpet fibers 
that are discarded to be mixed with concrete and used as a 
strengthening source for that concrete. I have in my hand a sample of 
that concrete material which is extremely satisfactory and, in fact, is 
now being used in the manufacture of a multistory building in Dalton, 
GA, as a part of Shaw Carpet Industries activities.
  Mr. Chairman, I would support the amendment and say this is a 
tangible type of evidence of what we can do, not only to utilize and 
recycle materials, but also to give us a step forward in the industry 
throughout the world.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
  The text of the amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Fingerhut, is 
as follows:

       In section 211(b)(2) (page 20, line 16), insert ``, and the 
     demonstration program established pursuant to section 218'' 
     before the semicolon.
       At the end of subtitle B of title II of the bill (page 45, 
     after line 19), add the following new section:

     SEC. 218. ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFICIENT BUILDING MATERIALS.

       (a) Demonstration of Environmentally Efficient Materials.--
     Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of General Services and the heads of other 
     appropriate agencies, may establish a 3-year demonstration 
     program to promote research on, and development of, 
     environmentally efficient building materials, including the 
     use of such materials in the construction of new Federal 
     facilities and buildings and in existing Federal facilities 
     and buildings.
       (b) Characteristics of Materials.--In selecting 
     environmentally efficient building materials under the 
     demonstration program, the Administrator shall give priority 
     to those materials that most cost-effectively maximize the 
     conservation and preservation of natural resources.
       (c) Performance Verification.--Before using environmentally 
     efficient building materials under this section, the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of 
     General Services and the heads of other appropriate agencies 
     (including the Director of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology), shall verify, through support of 
     appropriate tests and using, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, existing Federal capabilities, that such 
     materials--
       (1) are cost-competitive with comparable, more conventional 
     materials on a life-cycle cost basis; and
       (2) meet applicable Federal environmental, public health, 
     safety, and energy efficiency standards.
       (d) Research and Development.--The Administrator may 
     support the research, development and demonstration of 
     environmentally efficient materials that show substantial 
     promise for use in buildings. Paragraphs (2), (3), and (5) of 
     section 212(d) shall apply to support provided under this 
     subsection.
       (e) Guidelines.--The administrator shall cooperate with the 
     Administrator of General Services and the heads of other 
     agencies to ensure that, where applicable, the results of the 
     activities conducted pursuant to subsection (a) are 
     incorporated into guidelines developed by appropriate Federal 
     agencies for the use of environmentally efficient building 
     materials.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 60 days after completion of the 
     demonstration program, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Congress a report on the implementation of the demonstration 
     program. The report shall include the following:
       (1) A listing of the type and quantities of environmentally 
     efficient building materials tested, developed, and used.
       (2) A statement of the cost and performance of such 
     materials compared to comparable, more conventional 
     materials.
       (3) An assessment of the extent to which the use of such 
     materials can be expanded beyond the scope of the 
     demonstration program.
       (4) An assessment of the extent to which research on, and 
     development of, such materials occurred as a result of the 
     demonstration program and the extent to which further support 
     is needed to stimulate such research and development.
       (g) Integration of Other Views.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator of General Services, shall develop mechanisms 
     for integrating the views of other agencies that carry out 
     major construction programs, including the Army Corps of 
     Engineers and the Veterans Administration, and 
     representatives of the environmental community, the 
     construction industry (including small business), 
     manufacturing companies (including small businesses) that 
     produce environmentally efficient materials, and the 
     scientific and technical community.
       (h) Preemption.--Nothing in this section is intended to 
     preempt any provision of law of a State or a political 
     subdivision of a State that is more restrictive than a 
     provision of this Act.
       (i) Definitions.--For purposes of this secion:
       (1) The term ``agency'' means an Executive agency as 
     defined under section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     any agency of the judicial or legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government.
       (2) The term ``environmentally efficient materials'' means 
     any recycled, recovered, reclaimed, or reused material whose 
     production, manufacture, fabrication, and use conserves and 
     preserves natural resources when compared to the production, 
     manufacture, fabrication, and use of comparable, more 
     conventional materials.
       (3) The term ``environmentally efficient building 
     materials'' means any environmentally efficient material 
     which may be used in the construction of a building or 
     facility.
       (4) The term ``construction'' with respect to any project 
     of construction under this section, means the erection or 
     building of new structures or the replacement, expansion, 
     remodeling, alteration, or modernization of existing 
     structures.


             Amendments Offered by Mr. BAKER of California

  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Baker of California:
       On page 27, lines 17 and 18, strike ``for single United 
     States companies and not more than five years for 
     partnerships''.
       On page 27, line 21, strike ``a partnership'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``an entity''.
       On page 28, strike lines 6 through 10.

  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 
the amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, the award conditions for the 
Green Tech grants are open-ended and seemingly discriminatory between 
various types of firms. First, it says, ``If you're a single U.S. 
company, such as a small business, you get less consideration than a 
big conglomerate of businesses.''

                              {time}  1530

  In other words, the big boys can get 2 or more years of funding than 
the little guys. They get 5 years, and the little guys get 3 years. 
This amendment gives both the same treatment, 3 years of funding, and 
after all, the bill is only a 2-year commitment with a sunset, so it 
really does not matter whether it is 3 years or 5 years, but they all 
ought to be the same.
  The other provision this amendment seeks to change is to make the 
cost-sharing provision in the bill real. Right now the cost-sharing 
only applies to partnerships but to no one else. This means the Federal 
Government would fund everything for everyone else except partnerships, 
which must fund half of their jobs. The cost-sharing should apply 
equally to anyone getting taxpayer funding under this new subsidy 
program.
  Finally, the amendment preserves the matching requirement exemption 
for small business but drops the EPA's discretionary authority to waive 
any time it wants for all the others. This is a gigantic loophole to 
never get matching private funds. Our amendment drops the open-ended 
exemption and allows the rules to occur in both large and small 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am, unfortunately, going to have to oppose the 
amendment, first because I do not understand it all that well, and 
obviously anything I do not understand I tend to think is nefarious, if 
not evil. I hope that that is not the situation here.
  Actually, as I understand the proposal, its main effect is to reduce 
the time for which awards can be made to certain types of entities from 
5 years to 3 years. Am I correct in this?
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Yes; the law, as it is written, says you may 
have 3 years if you are a single entity, but 5 years if you are a 
partnership. Since we only fund for 2 years, it would seem rational to 
move them both to 3 or move them both to 5, but since we are only 
funding in 2-year cycles, it seemed better to make them both 3. But 
they should be equal, whatever they are. It does not matter whether 
they are partnerships or whether they are single entities, they should 
be the same.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Of course, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman sees 
this as being very plausible and reasonable, but I would point out that 
the reason we have 5 years in there is because we have already set a 5-
year standard for the advanced technology program. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] had suggested earlier as the one possibility 
for this whole program, which is to turn it over to the advanced 
technology program. If we had, there would be a 5-year authority.
  While I do not agree with turning it over to the advanced technology 
program, I think that the standard that we have already set that we can 
contract for 5-year periods ought to be adhered to here since, in 
effect, we are trying to develop parallel programs. That would be my 
argument.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield 
further, would the gentleman object to making them both 5 years? As 
long as they are both the same, we do not care whether they are 4 or 3 
or 2, which is what we are funding.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the staff advises me that 
there would be no particular problem with that. If the gentleman would 
like to modify his amendment, we would be glad to accept it on that 
basis.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Would the gentleman accept the rest of the 
amendment with that change? The rest of the amendment is a cost-sharing 
issue to make sure the administrator does not wipe out cost-sharing for 
one group and not the other.
  Mr. BROWN of California. The gentleman, admittedly with limited 
consideration, is willing to accept the remainder of the amendment 
also.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to change my amendment to make it 5 years for both categories 
of participants and have the rest of the amendment stay the same 
regarding cost-sharing. And, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California, the esteemed chairman of my committee, for his cooperation.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that we may 
continue speaking for just a few minutes while the staff prepares the 
language.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Will the staff please put that modification 
in the proper form so we can have the Clerk read it?
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], 
has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, while the staff is preparing the language, 
I would first off all like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown], for accepting the amendment, because what the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker], is addressing is the fact that the bill had 
been discriminatory between various kinds of businesses. This solves 
that problem by making everybody equal in terms of the number of years 
to which the whole thing could be committed.
  So it seems to me we get down to a simple matter of equity here, and 
in accepting the amendment we have made the situation equitable among 
single entities, corporations, partnerships, and whatever. The element 
here was one of fundamental fairness, and I think, with the adoption of 
the Baker amendment, that what we have done for small entrepreneurial 
kinds of businesses is assured that those kinds of single 
proprietorships will be treated on the same basis as partnerships will 
be treated on the same basis as partnerships or large conglomerates 
that enter into partnership with small businesses.
  So I think we get a balance out of this that will improve the nature 
of the bill. I personally want to thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Baker] for bringing this issue to the floor because I think it 
does improve the bill by showing us that everybody is going to be 
treated similarly under the provisions of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown], has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield further to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, with that filibuster, since the 
modification is now being discussed at the desk, I would be happy to 
turn back to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] in case he wants 
to filibuster for a little while.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to offer 
this comment: I do appreciate the contribution of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Baker]. Legislation is rarely perfect as it emerges, 
and the more scrutiny we can give it to avoid problems that might 
reflect the lack of equity or something of that sort, the better the 
legislation is going to be.
  I would also like to suggest, however, that to the extent possible we 
would like to do this in committee instead of using the House floor as 
an opportunity to write legislation. But I understand the situation in 
this case, and I am not going to belabor the point.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. In committee I 
did not get to page 28.
  Mr. BROWN of California. That is unfortunate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will now report the modification 
to the amendments.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Modification offered by Mr. Baker of California to the 
     amendments offered by Mr. Baker of California: In lieu of the 
     portion of the amendment on page 27, lines 17 and 18 strike 
     out ``three'' on line 17 and insert ``five''.

  Mr. BAKER of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the modification to the 
amendments offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker] is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendments offered 
by the gentleman from California, as modified.
  The amendments, as modified, were agreed to.
  The text of the amendments offered by Mr. Baker of California, as 
modified, is as follows:

       On page 27, line 17, strike ``three'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``five''.
       On page 27, line 21, strike ``a partnership'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``an entity''.
       On page 28, strike lines 6 through 10.


                     amendment offered by mr. klein

  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Klein:
       In section 211(b)(2), (page 20, line 16), insert ``, and 
     the international environmental technology demonstration 
     assistance provided under section 218'' before the semicolon.
       At the end of subtitle B of title II (page 45, after line 
     19), add the following new section:

     SEC. 218. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 
                   DEMONSTRATION ASSISTANCE.

       The Administrator may enter into agreements with the heads 
     of other appropriate agencies that support the export of 
     technologies to provide support for demonstrating the 
     technical and economic feasibility of innovative 
     environmental technologies substantially manufactured in the 
     United States and used in other nations.

  Mr. KLEIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to 
authorize through the environmental technology innovation initiative, 
support for the demonstration of the feasibility of the use of 
environmental technologies substantially manufactured in the United 
States in overseas markets.
  Before I discuss the amendment, I do want to first of all commend the 
chairman of the committee for his leadership in connection with this 
act on this bill with the green technologies bill, and I point out that 
green technologies represents one of the greatest, if not the greatest, 
opportunity for America to move ahead and create new jobs, the new jobs 
that I for one have urged be part of the congressional agenda.

                              {time}  1540

  I believe that that action is a necessary step in our broader export 
promotion efforts. The international market for environmental 
technologies is expected to reach from $400 to $500 billion by the year 
2000. These are goods and jobs that will provide American workers with 
the opportunity to have good, high paying jobs. Other advanced nations, 
including Japan and Germany, have targeted this green technology 
market, and have adopted strong policies to encourage the export of 
these technologies. We must make sure that the United States has a 
comprehensive policy so that our companies can compete fairly in the 
global market, and that our workers can have the job opportunities.
  While there have been several efforts dealing with the export of 
environmental technologies, the Congress has yet to address technology 
demonstration. There exist programs supported by the Federal Government 
that have the capability to provide financial support, including loans 
and loan guarantees, for the purpose of environmental technology 
demonstration. However, these programs do not currently provide support 
for this activity.
  I believe that it is vital that Congress provide leadership in this 
area.
  In commenting on my amendment, John Mizroch, executive director of 
the U.S. Environmental Technology Export Council, stated that their 
member companies ``have found that in-country demonstrations as a 
market entry strategy are extremely useful. A number of our foreign 
trade competitors in the environmental industry offer such assistance 
to their companies as a means of increasing competitive advantage. By 
increasing the resources available to fund the overseas demonstration 
of U.S. environmental technologies, our Government would provide 
American companies with an even playing field upon which to compete 
with foreign environmental companies.''
  I came to Congress with a commitment to support policies that would 
lead to the creation of quality, high paying jobs. Environmental 
technologies clearly hold the promise to create a large number of these 
jobs. We are looking at a global market that will be near half a 
trillion dollars in the next 5 years. We must do all we can to make 
sure we can compete fairly for our share of the global environmental 
technologies marketed. Technology demonstration is an area which has 
been neglected, and I thus urge adoption of this amendment.


 amendment offered by mr. walker to the amendment offered by mr. klein

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Klein: After line 8, add the following: ``Nothing in this 
     section shall be applicable if the President determines that 
     any provision of the section is actionable under the General 
     Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, or any other international 
     agreement to which the United States is a party.''.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the amendment essentially 
goes at an issue that I think arises here because of what I regard as 
some vagueness in the language.
  I just want to make certain that nothing that we do here would end up 
being actionable under our General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
obligations. Under article 9 of this proposed subsidies code of the 
GATT agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, Member nations 
of GATT can challenge a subsidy if, ``A member has reason to believe 
that this program has resulted in serious adverse effects to the 
domestic industry of the member.''
  One could envision a scenario where a member nation would challenge 
the support this amendment offers if it is in the form of a subsidy 
because they are interested in manufacturing the same technology we are 
demonstrating in their country, possibly having a serious adverse 
effect to their industry.
  My amendment is thus aimed at clarifying that nothing that would 
happen here would be in violation of the GATT agreement.
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, while I do not share the concern of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], I certainly have no objection 
to the caution that the gentleman demonstrates in his amendment. 
Therefore, I have no objection to the amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, with that agreement, if the gentleman is 
agreeable to this particular amendment, I have no problems with his 
amendment, and would accept it, with this amendment attached.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Klein].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Klein], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

                  TITLE III--PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

     SEC. 301. PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS.

       (a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Commerce, through the 
     Director of the national Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, in collaboration with the Administrator and the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, in consultation 
     with non-Federal standards organizations, and as part of, and 
     consistent with, the overall Federal environmental technology 
     strategy established in section 201, shall establish a 
     program to support the clarification of measurements of 
     performance--
       (1) for environmental technologies (not including 
     technologies primarily intended to improve the quality of the 
     environment through pollution control, pollution remediation, 
     pollution monitoring, and disposal), to clarify performance 
     and substitutability for conventional technologies and for 
     the fair evaluation of performance claims regarding such 
     environmental technologies; and
       (2) to develop appropriate standard reference materials 
     required to implement paragraph (1).
       (b) Existing Non-Federal Programs.--In developing the 
     program establish in subsection (a), the Director of the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, coordinate efforts under such 
     program with existing non-Federal standards activities that 
     affect the environmental technologies covered by subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (c) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--The 
     Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, shall coordinate with 
     the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies to ensure, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, the use of the best available 
     scientific and technical information in the evaluation of 
     environmental performance claims by such agencies.
       (d) Glossary of Terms.--The Secretary of Commerce, through 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, shall work with the heads of appropriate Federal 
     agencies and private-sector standards organizations to 
     facilitate the development and maintenance of a glossary of 
     standard definitions of terms used in the evaluation of 
     environmental performance claims.
       (e) Interational Harmonization.--The Secretary of Commerce, 
     through the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology, shall work with domestic and international 
     standards organizations to ensure harmonization of domestic 
     performance measurements with international performance 
     measurements consistent with applicable Federal and State 
     laws.

     SEC. 302. VERFICIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) Designation of Entities To Perform Environmental 
     Technology Verification.--The Administrator may, in 
     accordance with this section and as part of, and consistent 
     with, the overall Federal environmental technology strategy 
     developed in section 210, designate entities to perform the 
     functions described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of 
     subsection (b). The Administrator may enter into joint 
     agreements with Federal agencies, State and local 
     governments, and nonprofit, private-sector representatives to 
     support entities designated by the Administrator under this 
     section.
       (b) Functions.--Each entity designated under subsection 
     (a)--
       (1) shall verify, evaluate, and, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, certify the performance, cost-effectiveness, and 
     ecological benefits of environmental technologies;
       (2) shall disseminate information on the characteristics 
     referred to in paragraph (1), including information that 
     describes whether each environmental technology evaluated and 
     verified--
       (A) meets the performance criteria of applicable law 
     (including regulations issued by the Administrator) under 
     tested conditions at comparable or lower costs than other 
     existing environmental technologies; and
       (B) constitutes a significant advance in the development of 
     environmental technologies with broad applicability:
       (3) shall submit to the Administrator data and other 
     information compiled by the entity with respect to each 
     environmental technology verified and evaluated by the entity 
     under this section; and
       (4) may use support provided under this section to develop 
     technologies necessary for effective verification and 
     evaluation under paragraph (1) and may charge appropriate 
     fees for such verification and evaluation.
       (c) Review by Administrator.--After receiving data and 
     other information from an entity designated under subsection 
     (a) with respect to an environmental technology under 
     subsection (b)(1), the Administrator shall conduct 
     appropriate review of the data, other information, and 
     protocols developed by such entity with respect to such 
     technology.
       (d) Administrator.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Administrator shall--
       (1) by rule establish competitive procedures for soliciting 
     applications for and selecting, pursuant to criteria referred 
     to in subsection (e), entities to perform functions described 
     in subsection (b) and, as appropriate, designate model 
     entities;
       (2) by rule establish eligibility criteria for entities to 
     be designated under this section;
       (3) in collaboration with the heads of other appropriate 
     Federal agencies, including the Director of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology, certify, and as 
     appropriate, develop common protocols to evaluate the cost 
     and performance of environmental technologies;
       (4) make generally available through guidance manuals or 
     other appropriate methods information regarding testing 
     protocols for environmental technologies and establish a 
     regular process for approving and updating such protocols;
       (5) ensure that information regarding environmental 
     technologies verified and evaluated under this program is 
     disseminated pursuant to section 214;
       (6) develop mechanisms to facilitate the verification of--
       (A) environmental technologies developed or demonstrated by 
     small business concerns, nonprofit organizations, and United 
     States institutions of higher education; and
       (B) environmental technologies that provide source 
     reduction; and
       (7) consult with the heads of other Federal agencies to 
     make available, through cooperative agreements with the 
     entities designated under this section, sources and expertise 
     of Federal laboratories for use by such entities in 
     performing the functions described in subsection (b).
       (e) Selection Criteria.--The Administrator, in consultation 
     with the heads of other Federal agencies, State and local 
     governments, and private sector organizations, shall select 
     entities under this section based on the following criteria:
       (1) The capabilities of the applicant to provide a thorough 
     and credible technical and financial evaluation of 
     environmental technologies.
       (2) The clarity and efficiency of the proposed procedures 
     for the receipt and review of applications for technology 
     verification.
       (3) The likelihood of the continued viability of the 
     entity.
       (4) The existence of a plan for disseminating 
     nonproprietary information regarding technologies verified by 
     the entity.
       (5) Other criteria that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.
       (f) Merit-Based Selection Process.--Entities supported 
     under this section shall be selected only through a merit-
     based selection process, established by the Administrator, 
     pursuant to the criteria described in subsection (e).
       (g) Authority of Administrator.--The Administrator may, 
     consistent with applicable provisions of law and this 
     section, enter into cooperative agreements and contracts to 
     carry out this section.
       (h) Direct Verification.--If the Administrator determines 
     that entities designated under this section cannot adequately 
     verify the performance of environmental technologies because 
     of scale or complexity, the Administrator may, consistent 
     with applicable provisions of law and this section, enter 
     into direct agreements to verify the performance of such 
     technologies.
       (i) Review.--
       (1) In general.--Any action by the Administrator to verify 
     or evaluate a technology (or to review a verification or 
     evaluation) under this section shall not constitute a final 
     action by the Administrator and shall not be subject to 
     judicial review.
       (2) Failure to comply.--If a technology verified, 
     evaluated, or reviewed pursuant to this section fails to 
     comply with any applicable law (including regulations issued 
     by the Administrator), the verification, evaluation, or 
     confirmation shall not constitute a defense in an enforcement 
     action or suit and shall not create a cause of action against 
     the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (3) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this section may be construed 
     to authorize the Administrator to grant a seal of approval of 
     any kind for any entity or technology, to create any 
     competitive advantage or disadvantage for any entity, to 
     authorize the Administrator to require any person to install 
     or use any technology pursuant to any program administered by 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, or to designate any 
     technology as meeting a regulatory requirement.
       (j) Report.--The Administrator, in consultation with the 
     heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, and industry, 
     nonprofit, and other appropriate organizations, shall 
     annually submit to the Congress a report that evaluates the 
     implementation of this section. The report shall include a 
     description of the technologies verified pursuant to this 
     section, the number of the technologies verified, and the 
     extent of their use.

     SEC. 303. USE OF CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES BY THE 
                   FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--In any program of the President for 
     evaluating, prioritizing, and approving the purchase by the 
     Federal Government of environmental technologies, the 
     President shall, consistent with applicable procurement laws, 
     consider for such program any performance measurements for 
     environmental technologies as may have been developed by the 
     Secretary of Commerce pursuant to section 301(a).
       (b) Report.--Within one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the President 
     shall submit to the Congress a report describing the progress 
     made in carrying out this section and plans for carrying out 
     this section for the three years immediately following the 
     year in which the report is submitted.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

  TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 401. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 
                   TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) Program.--The Secretary of Energy (in this title 
     referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct programs of 
     research, development, and demonstration on--
       (1) new and improved technologies for environmental 
     restoration and waste management (including waste 
     minimization);
       (2) training for environmental technicians, engineers, and 
     scientists; and
       (3) technologies for reducing worker exposure to 
     radioactivity in association with site remediation. In 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary shall appropriately 
     consider the strategic plan submitted under section 201.
       (b) Implementation Authority.--In implementing this 
     section, the Secretary may award grants to, and enter into 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and other appropriate 
     arrangements with institutions of higher education, industry, 
     the National Laboratories, and other Federal agencies.
       (c) Coordination with Initiative.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the activities conducted pursuant to this section 
     are appropriately coordinated with the activities conducted 
     pursuant to the Environmental Technologies Innovation 
     Initiative established under section 211.
       (d) Coordination with Certain Other Activities.--The 
     Secretary shall coordinate activities under this section with 
     activities conducted by the Secretary of Labor under the new 
     technology program referred to in section 126(b)(9) of the 
     Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 and by 
     the hazardous substance research development and 
     demonstration centers established pursuant to subsections (l) 
     and (o) of section 118 of such Act. Nothing in this section 
     may be construed to affect the obligation of the Secretary of 
     Energy to comply with section 126 of such Act.

     SEC. 402. METALS RECYCLING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     to demonstrate the technological and economic feasibility of 
     recycling and reusing radioactively 
     uncontaminated and 
     decontaminated metals and equipment, and of other waste 
     minimization techniques. Under the program, the Secretary 
     shall analyze the extent to which sufficient private sector 
     commitment to provide decontamination services and to 
     purchase uncontaminated and decontaminated metals and 
     equipment either exists or can be generated to support such a 
     program of recycling and reuse.
       (b) Scope.--The demonstration program established under 
     subsection (a) shall provide for the recycling and reuse of 
     the metals and equipment at a minimum of 3 National 
     Laboratories or former nuclear weapons production facilities, 
     and shall be of sufficient scope, and shall include an 
     appropriate variety of materials, to demonstrate the 
     feasibility of recycling and reusing radioactively 
     uncontaminated and decontaminated metals and equipment at all 
     National Laboratories and former nuclear weapons production 
     facilities. Such demonstration program shall be carried out 
     for a period of 3 years.
       (c) Decontamination Technologies.--In the course of 
     carrying out the demonstration program, the Secretary shall 
     seek to promote the development of decontamination 
     technologies.
       (d) Implementation Authority.--In implementing this 
     section, the Secretary may award grants to, and enter into 
     contracts, cooperative agreements, and other appropriate 
     arrangements with institutions of higher education, industry, 
     the National Laboratories, and other Federal agencies.
       (e) Waste Storage Containers.--As part of the demonstration 
     program, the Secretary shall seek to demonstrate the 
     technological and economic feasibility of using only 
     materials owned by the Department of Energy on the date of 
     enactment of this Act for containers to store or dispose of 
     radioactively contaminated metals and equipment.
       (f) Reports to Congress.--
       (A) annually during the course of the demonstration program 
     established under this section, report to the Congress on the 
     progress made in the previous year under such program; and
       (B) within 6 months after the completion of such 
     demonstration program, transmit a final report to the 
     Congress on the results of the program.
       (2) Contents of final report.--The report required under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall include--
       (A) the findings of the Secretary on the success of the 
     demonstration program at achieving its purposes under this 
     section;
       (B) a comparison of recycling and reusing radioactively 
     contaminated metals and equipment with the alternative of 
     containing and disposing of such metals and equipment;
       (C) the quantitative assessment described in paragraph (3) 
     of this subsection; and
       (D) a proposal, including any recommendations for necessary 
     legislation, for expanding the demonstration program to cover 
     radioactively uncontaminated and decontaminated metals and 
     equipment at all National Laboratories and former nuclear 
     weapons production facilities.
       (3) Quantitative assessment.--To enable the Secretary to 
     carry out paragraph (2)(D), the Secretary shall develop a 
     quantitative estimate of--
       (A) all metals and equipment owned by the Department at the 
     National Laboratories and former nuclear weapons production 
     facilities that are not radioactively contaminated and that 
     are suitable for resale or recycling;
       (B) all metals and equipment owned by the Department at the 
     National Laboratories and former nuclear weapons production 
     facilities that have been radioactively contaminated but can 
     be recycled or reused by the Department; and
       (C) all metals and equipment owned by the Department at the 
     National Laboratories and former nuclear weapons production 
     facilities that have been radioactively contaminated but can 
     be decontaminated and may be appropriate for sale to the 
     public.
       (4) Factors in comparison.--In making the comparison 
     required under paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary shall consider 
     the full life cycle costs of each alternative, including 
     revenues or savings realized and the costs of treatment, 
     containment, storage, disposal, monitoring, and replacement. 
     Disposal costs shall be calculated on the basis of the costs 
     of such disposal to commercial disposal companies.

     SEC. 403. FUNDING AND AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Research and Development Funding.--The Secretary shall 
     incrementally increase the proportion of the annual budget 
     request for the Environmental Restoration and Waste 
     Management program that is attributable to research and 
     development until such proportion is at least 10 percent, 
     except that the Secretary shall ensure that an increase under 
     this subsection does not affect other programs and activities 
     of the Department of Energy. This subsection shall apply to 
     budget requests beginning with the budget request for the 2nd 
     fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Of those funds 
     requested under subsection (a) and made available for the 
     Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program that 
     are attributable to research and development, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       (1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and
       (2) $11,500,000 for fiscal year 1996,

     for nondefense research and development activities of the 
     Office of Technology Development, including the advanced 
     robotics program, for the development of safer, less 
     expensive, and more efficient environmental restoration and 
     waste management technologies.

     SEC. 404. COORDINATION.

       The Secretary shall, where appropriate, coordinate the 
     implementation of this title with the implementation of 
     sections 212 and 215 of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to title IV?


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. TANNER

  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tanner: Page 61, lines 13 through 
     17, strike ``those funds requested'' and all that follows 
     through ``research and development'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``the funds made available for the nondefense 
     Environmental Restoration and Waste Management program''.

  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, during deliberations by the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology on H.R. 3870, an amendment was offered 
in the committee which potentially, and I think unintentionally, 
attempts to use or possibly use defense dollars for use in nondefense 
research and development activities.
  The committee accepted this amendment with brief explanation, and 
following the markup, it was realized the actual language of the 
amendment went further than was understood, and it is for that reason 
that I offer this amendment.
  As I said, it potentially, and I think unintentionally, would allow 
for the above. What it does, this amendment directs that the 
environmental management funds that are authorized in title IV of the 
bill will be funded out of the nondefense funds appropriated to the 
environmental management program.
  As amended in committee, the language in the bill provides for the 
funds to come from any research and development funds in the 
environmental management budget, including defense funds which are 
authorized by the House Committee on Armed Services, not the Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology.
  I would like to add we have talked with the Committee on Armed 
Services, who have been cooperative and supportive in the development 
of the original language.
  So the provisions in title IV, in summary, in fact reinstate funds to 
a civilian research and development program in the environmental 
management area to address those remediations at the DOE, civilian 
laboratories among other things.
  The action taken in this amendment to amend what was done in 
committee I think is in full letter and spirit of the gentleman's 
amendment. What this does is direct that nondefense research and 
development funds will be taken from nondefense environmental 
management programs, all within existing funds as the gentleman wanted 
to establish in the committee.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. I think 
that the consequences here were unintentional. The gentleman does 
correct it to where I think the original intent was. As far as this 
side goes, we would be very happy to accept the amendment.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tanner amendment. 
During the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology markup, I agreed 
with my colleague's amendment based on his explanation of its intent. 
However, upon further reflection after the committee's deliberations, I 
found two points of the language highly objectionable.
  First, this language would give legislative stature to the 
administration's budget request. This precedence is unheard of, and I 
believe most Members will find this objectionable, as well. It also 
implies that the administration budget request for research and 
development in the Environmental Management Program would be granted in 
order to accommodate the authorizations in the bill. Again, such a 
precedent should not be made. This particular part of the language was 
never discussed or brought to light in the explanation in markup.
  Second, as I am also a member of the Armed Services Committee, I 
share Mr. Tanner's concern regarding the use of defense funds to pay 
for civilian programs. In the Armed Services Committee authorization, I 
was very disappointed that we could not accommodate the Environmental 
Management Program with the full budget request, but in today's 
budgetary climate, sacrifices must be made. But I certainly cannot 
condone taking more of that money to use on the civilian side when the 
civilian portion of the program was already fully funded. This too is a 
precedent. As a member of both committees, I have always been careful 
not to cross over the line between civilian and defense funding.
  Mr. Tanner has offered us a thoughtful solution to this problem by 
emphatically stating that civilian programs will be funded from 
civilian funds, and I urge Members to support it.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Tanner amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1550

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). Are there further amendments 
to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
                TITLE V--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     there is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     years 1995 and 1996 such sums as may be necessary to carry 
     out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Environmental Technologies Innovation Initiative.--
     There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     the Environmental Technologies Innovation Initiative 
     established in subtitle B of title II the following:
       (1) For fiscal year 1995, $80,000,000, of which $500,000 is 
     authorized to be appropriated for the President's Total 
     Environmental Quality Award established in section 213 for 
     fiscal year 1995 and $700,000 is authorized to be 
     appropriated for the study referred to in section 216.
       (2) For fiscal year 1996, $120,000,000, of which $1,500,000 
     is authorized to be appropriated for the President's Total 
     Environmental Quality Award established in section 213.

     SEC. 502. LIMITATION ON APPROPRIATIONS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no funds 
     are authorized to be appropriated for any fiscal year after 
     fiscal year 1996 for carrying out the programs and activities 
     for which funds are authorized by this Act, or the amendments 
     made by this Act.

     SEC. 503. COMPETITION REQUIREMENT FOR AWARDS OF FINANCIAL 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Competition Requirement.--No financial assistance 
     (including a grant, a contract, or any other award of 
     financial assistance) may be provided under a section of this 
     Act for research, development, or demonstration activities, 
     or for the construction of research, development, or 
     precommercial demonstration facilities, unless a competitive, 
     merit-based evaluation process consistent with such section 
     is used to award the financial assistance.
       (b) Requirement of Specific Modification of Competition 
     Provision.--
       (1) In general.--A provision of law may not be construed as 
     modifying or superseding subsection (a), or as requiring that 
     financial assistance (including a grant, a contract, or any 
     other type of financial assistance) be awarded under a 
     section of this Act in a manner inconsistent with subsection 
     (a), unless such provision of law--
       (A) specifically refers to this section;
       (B) specifically states that such provision of law modifies 
     or supersedes subsection (a); and
       (C) specifically identifies the person to be awarded the 
     financial assistance and states that the financial assistance 
     to be awarded pursuant to such provision of law is being 
     awarded in a manner inconsistent with subsection (a).
       (2) Notice and wait requirement.--No financial assistance 
     (including a grant, a contract, or any other type of 
     financial assistance) may be awarded pursuant to a provision 
     of law that requires or authorizes the award of the financial 
     assistance under this Act in a manner inconsistent with 
     subsection (a) until--
       (A) the head of the Federal agency intending to award the 
     financial assistance submits to the Congress a written notice 
     of the intent to award the financial assistance; and
       (B) 180 days has elapsed after the date on which the notice 
     is received by the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to title V?


                    amendment offered by mr. linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Linder: Page 62, strike lines 8 
     through 16 and insert the following:
       There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal 
     years 1995 and 1996 to carry out this Act the following:
       Page 62, line 17, strike ``$80,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$65,000,000''.
       Page 62, line 23, strike ``$120,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$65,000,000''.

  Mr. LINDER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 3870, 
the Environmental Technologies Act. I offer this amendment today in the 
interest of fiscal responsibility and commonsense budgeting. In this 
body, we often speak of the need to tighten our belts, reduce spending, 
and set priorities. We now have the opportunity to make our actions 
match our words.
  The amendment I am offering would reduce the authorization from the 
administration requested and committee-approved level of $80 million 
for fiscal 1995 and $120 million for fiscal year 1996 to $65 million 
for both fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996.
  This reduction in the authorization of H.R. 3870 is not an effort to 
make an arbitrary spending cut. The $65 million figure is a very 
significant figure because it is the amount that was provided for the 
environmental technology initiative in the House-passed fiscal year 
1995 Environmental Protection Agency appropriation. My amendment would 
simply bring the authorization down to the level of the fiscal year 
1995 appropriation and maintain that same level through fiscal year 
1996. Frankly, I find it absurd that we are considering the 
authorization after the appropriation has already been approved, but I 
believe the least we can do at this point is conform the authorization 
with the appropriation.

  This reduction in authorization would not endanger the goal of 
advancement of environmental technologies provided for by Environmental 
Technologies Act [ETA]. In fact, the programs established in the ETA 
largely duplicate programs already extant, including the Advanced 
Technology Program at the Department of Commerce, the Technology 
Reinvestment Program at the Department of Defense, and the technology 
transfer initiative at the Department of Energy. These three competing 
programs already total $1.35 billion in the President's fiscal year 
1995 budget.
  If we truly believe that the Government's advanced technologies 
programs should have an environmental component, that is a policy 
decision to be made by the administration, but Congress should be the 
final judge of the cost. In my view an authorization of $130 million 
through fiscal year 1996 for the programs in the ETA is enough new 
spending for this purpose.
  I would also add that the respected National Taxpayers Union has 
expressed its unqualified support for this amendment and urges its 
passage.
  I ask for your vote in favor of the Linder amendment to H.R. 3870 and 
demonstrate your support for responsible spending and for budget 
integrity.


 amendment offered by mr. brown of california as a substitute for the 
                    amendment offered by mr. linder

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California as a 
     substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Linder: Page 62, 
     line 17, strike ``$80,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``$70,000,000.''

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Georgia 
has already indicated, this bill authorizes $80 million for fiscal year 
1995 and $120 million for fiscal year 1996. The gentleman proposes to 
reduce that amount to $55 million for both years.
  This is obviously a rather drastic cut. The argument that the 
gentleman uses is that the House appropriation is currently at the $55 
million level.
  What he neglects to say is that the Senate appropriation is at a 
slightly higher level of $70 million. That is the figure which I have 
inserted.
  I would, frankly, prefer that we keep the $80 million figure, because 
there is no expectation that the appropriators will appropriate up to 
the last dollar of what is authorized. I think it is a waste of our 
time, as authorizers, normally, to try and guess what the Senate and 
the House will come up to in conference. But in the spirit of comity 
here, I am willing to go to the level that the Senate has already 
agreed on in their appropriation bill in the hopes that this will 
encourage the House to come up a little closer.
  They may not, but the difference is not all that large. It is only $5 
million.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would allow me to offer an 
amendment to his amendment to my amendment to include the second year, 
fiscal year 1996, at $70 million, I will not object to his amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman dislikes to 
write legislation on the floor. But if he has a good proposition, by 
all means, suggest it.


 amendment offered by mr. linder to the amendment offered by mr. brown 
 of california as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment 
offered as a substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Linder to the amendment offered as 
     a substitute by Mr. Brown of California to the amendment 
     offered by Mr. Linder: At the end of said substitute add:
       On page 62, line 23, strike ``120,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``70,000,000''.

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, let us do a little bargaining 
here.
  The gentleman is not even going to allow for inflation, to say 
nothing of the fact that this is a new program which normally would be 
expected to have a little growth in it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, frankly, this program is competing with 
environmental technologies in three other agencies of the Federal 
Government that are being funded this year at $1.35 billion. The 
question of a few million dollars against $1.35 billion is 
inconsequential. But I do think that we should put some limits on the 
growth next year.
  The present proposal is to move from the $65 or $70 million that is 
appropriated this year to as much as $120 million next year. I think 
that is too much.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a 
philosophical disagreement with the legislation and is trying to 
emasculate it. Frankly, I do not think that I would want to accept that 
kind of a figure.
  If the gentleman would be a little more realistic and, say, offer 
$100 million instead of $70 million, I would be willing to accept that 
amendment. And we could go ahead and go beyond that.
  I would point out to the gentleman that we have already one program 
in the development of nonpolluting technology; namely, the National 
Battery Program, on which we spend $60 million, one program.
  We are trying to expand that to cover all the industrial base of this 
country.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
would suggest then we put instead of 100, put the number 80, giving us 
a number of more than 10 percent growth in the next year.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed 
for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I really, in all good faith, I 
am splitting the difference with the gentleman essentially here. It is 
a good-faith offer. I am deserting my own administration. I am doing it 
because I value the cooperation that we have had so far. I would like 
to continue it.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the $80 million figure that the gentleman 
from Georgia proposes, it seems to me, is in line with at least a 
couple of the things that are on the board. The President, in his 
original budget for this, suggested $80 million. The Senate has taken 
that down to $70 million. The House has taken it down to $65 million.
  It seems to me that to have a figure of $80 million for fiscal year 
1996, that would approximate the Presidential request for this year and 
would make a very good compromise.
  We would then have $70 million the first year, and we would have $80 
million in the second year, which amounts to more than a 10-percent 
increase and does follow the figure that was sent to the Hill by the 
administration earlier this year. That is the reason why it seems to us 
that that particular figure has some saliency at this juncture in the 
debate.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I really 
do not wish to get involved in a rather nitpicking discussion of this. 
My information is the President is projecting to request $120 million. 
As I said, in offering to compromise at $100 million, I am deserting my 
own administration. But I hope I will be forgiven when I get to Heaven 
for doing that.
  If the gentleman is not willing to accept that very generous 
compromise offer on my part, we might as well go ahead and have a vote.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
part of our concern on that is that the gentleman did suggest earlier 
in the debate that we ought to have an inflationary increase. I think 
what we are suggesting is that there is an inflationary increase then 
involved.
  The gentleman's inflationary increase would get us something like a 
30-percent inflationary increase, which would be a fairly substantial 
inflation.

                              {time}  1600

  Unless the gentleman knows something about the economy that is about 
to come that we do not know.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's 
debating power so much that I am reluctant to get involved in it. But 
the gentleman will recall that I said inflation plus a startup program 
which is scheduled for a little bit of growth.
  I am suggesting a very little bit of growth, as well as a little 
inflation, and I think that is reasonable.
  I do not want to belabor the point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). Does the gentleman withdraw 
his amendment to the substitute?


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, if I withdraw may amendment to the 
substitute do we go to a vote on the substitute or on my amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The vote will be on the substitute unless 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] withdraws his substitute. The 
vote would then revert to the original amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I will then not withdraw my amendment. I 
insist on my position.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, my position is that I will 
have to oppose the gentleman's substitute with the figures of $70 
million for fiscal year 1995 and, what did the gentleman say, $80 
million for fiscal year 1996?
  Is the gentleman withdrawing that?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I said $80 million for 1996 and the number 
of the gentleman from California, $70 million for 1995.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] ask to withdraw his amendment, and does the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] ask to withdraw his substitute, so that we are 
on the original amendment of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], 
and that is what the gentleman has proposed.
  Is that what the gentleman would like?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offered my substitute in an 
effort to compromise with the gentleman. When you offer a compromise 
and it is not accepted, the best thing you can do is just have a vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not belabor the point any further. I will just 
ask for an ``aye'' vote on my substitute to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. However, the gentleman from Georgia has not 
withdrawn his amendment to the substitute.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment. My original 
amendment is $65 million. The gentleman has proposed a $70 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I insist on my position, the substitute, which is $70 
million in each of the 2 years.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try and clarify where I think we are so we can 
have an understanding of what we are just about to vote on.
  The gentleman from Georgia has an amendment at the desk that proposes 
that the funding for the program be at $70 million in the upcoming year 
and then $70 million in the second year. That would be a cut from $120 
million in the bill for the second year.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I put forth at the desk has 
$65 million.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman is talking about his substitute now.
  Mr. LINDER. The substitute has $70 million, the gentleman is right.
  Mr. WALKER. And the gentleman's amendment to the substitute maintains 
that $70 million for the 2-year period.
  Mr. LINDER. The gentleman is right.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman ask to withdraw the 
amendment?
  Mr. WALKER. No, the gentleman insisted on his position.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I said I insist on my position.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman did not withdraw?
  Mr. LINDER. No, I insisted on my position. So it is an amendment to 
the substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The debate is on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] to the substitute of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. WALKER. Again, to try to clarify, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's 
amendment to the substitute is to spend $70 million in this program in 
each of the next 2 years. That is a position which is different from 
that in the bill and is different from that which the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] offered in his original amendment.
  His substitute amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder] proposed $70 million for the first year but then 
left in place $120 million in spending for the second year. The 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] seeks to instead save the money by 
having a flat funding profile for the next 2 years.
  Understand, that flat funding profile is greater than the House-
passed appropriation for this year and it is equal to what the Senate 
has allocated for this year. So we are not by any means starving the 
program. We are simply suggesting that under this program that we ought 
not have massive spending increases into the out year.
  So the choice before the membership on the first vote here is whether 
or not in the second year of this program, whether Members want to have 
about 60-percent increase in the program in just 1 year. We will go 
from $70 million to $120 million on a 1-year period of time which would 
be about a 60-percent increase. That is not only a programmatic growth 
and an inflationary growth, that is a growth beyond all proportion. I 
think the gentleman from Georgia has corrected that with his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Members should know that if they want to vote to 
hold the line on spending, their vote on the amendment of the gentleman 
from Georgia should be a ``yes'' because what he is attempting to do is 
keep us at the appropriated level. Understand, it is the highest of the 
two appropriated levels. The appropriated level in the House is at $65 
million. That is where the gentleman's original amendment was. The 
gentleman from California has suggested that he wants to at least be at 
the Senate-passed level. The gentleman from Georgia has accepted that 
and in his substitute amendment accepts the Senate-passed figure of $70 
million but holds that then into the second year, thereby achieving 
some savings in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also point out to the membership that we 
specifically made a decision not to offer an amendment that includes 
the funding for this program under the ATP program. One of the 
suggestions we had on this side was to force all of the money to come 
out of the Advanced Technology Program. We have decided not to offer 
that amendment but instead to do what the gentleman from Georgia is 
suggesting, and that is, hold the spending line on this particular 
program.
  So the gentleman from Georgia has a twofold purpose: To hold the 
spending line and also to provide us with a vote on the question of 
whether or not this is a program that ought to have some spending 
constraints in it as we move ahead.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for both his original 
amendment and for the substitute, and urge the membership to vote for 
this substitute as a way of making certain that we restrain spending in 
this brandnew program.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has correctly presented the parliamentary 
situation. The underlying bill has in it the amount of $80 million for 
1995 and $120 million which is a 50-percent increase for 1996. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Georgia cut that $65 million for both 
years. My substitute raised that to $70 million and left the out year 
at $120 million. His amendment to my substitute leaves it at $70 
million for both years. I hope the audience watching intently on 
television fully understands exactly where we are.
  I am asking for a ``no'' vote on the amendment of the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Linder]. The reasons for this is this is more than a 
simple cost-cutting measure, this is an effort to emasculate a very 
important initiative which the President has suggested and which has 
the most widespread support of almost any legislation that I have seen 
brought to the floor. A suggestion that we in fiscal year 1996 cut this 
to $70 million when the President is intending to ask in his budget for 
$120 million should be considered ludicrous, to say the least. I point 
out that this legislation that we are considering passed the Senate by 
a vote of 85-14 and if all of the 14 were Republicans, and I happen to 
know they were not, more than 2 to 1 the Republicans supported this 
bill in the Senate, and this is the bill that the gentleman is trying 
to emasculate by cutting it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. I think it is fair to say that an effort to stop the 
program from doubling in size virtually in 1 year is hardly an effort 
to emasculate it. I support the program. I just do not think it should 
have a credit card for tomorrow.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I offered what I thought was a generous 
compromise to cut in half the increase. I am willing to do that but the 
gentleman was not willing to accede to that. So in view of the 
importance of this program, and I do not expect it will be funded at 
$120 million, I think it probably will be funded at somewhere around 
$80 million to $100 million by the Congress for fiscal year 1996 when 
that time comes up. But we do not have the luxury of engaging in these 
fine points. We do not know what 1996 will bring, and I think it is 
extremely important that we not put such stringent caps on this program 
as to prevent it from proceeding in the way that it can provide 
immeasurable benefits to the industrial and small business community of 
this country.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

                              {time}  1610

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] as a 
substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder].
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Linder) 
there were--ayes 8, noes 11.
  So the amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the 
amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] as a substitute for the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to title V?
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WALKER

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 64, after line 21, 
     insert the following new title VI:

                 TITLE VI--RISK ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT

     SECTION 601. CRITERIA FOR RISK ASSESSMENT.

       Any risk assessment under section 201(a)(2) shall contain 
     the following:
       (1) Criteria for accepting and evaluating data.
       (2) A complete description of any mathematical models or 
     other assumptions likely to be used in the risk assessment, 
     including a discussion of their plausibility.
       (3) A description of the default options, the justification 
     and validation for the default options, and an explicit 
     statement of the rationale for selecting a particular default 
     option, in the absence of adequate data, based on explicitly 
     stated science policy choices and consideration of relevant 
     scientific information.
       (4) The technical justification for, and a description of 
     the degree of, conservatism each default option imposes upon 
     the risk assessment.
       (5) Criteria for using iterative or tiered approaches to 
     risk assessment, with varying levels of effort and data 
     requirements in the conduct of risk assessment based on the 
     need for accuracy of the risk estimate.
       (6) Criteria for conducting uncertainty analysis during the 
     course of the risk assessment, and an explanation of the data 
     needs for such analysis.
       (7) Effective methods for reporting risk assessment, to 
     ensure that the results are reasonably understandable by 
     interested persons, including formats which clearly identify 
     and distinguish sources of uncertainty and variability in the 
     risk assessment.
       (8) Criteria for identification and use of the most 
     plausible and unbiased methodologies and assumptions, given 
     the scientific information available.
       (9) Relevant information on data and assessment methods 
     that significantly influence the risk estimate.
       (10) A statement of the limitations, assumptions, and 
     default options included in the assessment and a statement of 
     the rationale and extent of scientific consenus with respect 
     to their use.
       (11) A statement that identifies major uncertainties and 
     their influence upon the assessment. The statement shall 
     characterize uncertainties associated with experimental 
     measurement errors and uncertainties associated with the 
     choice of specific models and default options.
       (12) The range and distribution of exposures derived from 
     exposure scenarios used in a risk assessment, including, for 
     example, upper-bound and central estimate(s) and their 
     qualitative, or where possible quantitative, likelihood, and, 
     when available and appropriate, the identification of highly 
     susceptible groups, species, individuals, and subpopulations 
     whose exposure exceeds that of the general population.
       (13) The use of both quantitative and qualitative 
     descriptors, when available and appropriate, to present a 
     comprehensive range of risks which are or may be encountered 
     by the various populations and individuals in a human health 
     risk assessment, or by the various species and ecological 
     communities in an ecological risk assessment, exposed to the 
     environmental hazard being evaluated in the risk assessment.
       (14) A description of appropriate statistical expressions 
     of the range and variability of the risk estimate, including 
     the population or populations addressed by any risk 
     estimate(s), central estimates of the risk for the specific 
     population, any appropriate upper-bound and lower-bound 
     estimates, and the reasonable range or other description of 
     uncertainties in the assessment process.
       (15) Comparisons of risk to public health, including 
     appropriate comparisons with estimates of other risks to 
     health, including those that are familiar to and routinely 
     encountered by the general public, and relevant substitution 
     risks, where information on such risks is made available. 
     Comparisons shall identify relevant distinctions among 
     categories or risks and limitations to comparisons.

     SEC. 602. SAVINGS PROVISION.

       Nothing in this title shall be construed to modify any 
     requirement or standard provided for in another provision of 
     law that provides for risk assessment or is designed to 
     protect health, safety, or the environment. Nothing in this 
     title shall be construed to require the conduct of a risk 
     assessment or a risk characterization that is not required by 
     law.

     SEC. 603. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title:
       (1) The term ``comparison of risk'' means a process to 
     systematically estimate, compare, and rank the size and 
     severity of environmental risks or health risks in order to 
     provide a common basis for evaluating strategies for reducing 
     or preventing those risks.
       (2) The term ``default option'' means a condition, 
     assumption, or fact that is presumed on the basis of 
     available data and prevailing theory.
       (3) The term ``risk assessment'' means the process or 
     procedure by which the potential adverse health or ecological 
     effects of exposure of human or nonhuman species to 
     environmental hazards is characterized.
       (4) The term ``uncertainty analysis'' means the systematic 
     process of identifying that which is not known or is unclear, 
     including measurement errors, the lack of fundamental 
     knowledge needed to choose among alternative hypotheses, and 
     assumptions, or experimental models.
       (5) The term ``central estimates'' means estimates of 
     central tendencies or expected risk based, to the extent 
     feasible, on the most plausible and unbiased assumptions, 
     given the scientific information available.
       (6) The term ``substitution risk'' means a potential 
     increase in certain types of risk from a strategy designed to 
     decrease other risks.

  Mr. WALKER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, H.R. 3870, the 
Environmental Technologies Act of 1994, states that the Director of 
OSTP shall develop priorities for Federal environmental technology, 
research, development, and demonstration efforts by using 
scientifically objective information, data, and assessments of risk.
  Last Wednesday, the House Science Committee reported out a bill, H.R. 
4306, which elaborated on what should be contained in such risk 
assessments.
  The amendment I am now offering would merely take the basic elements 
of that bill, the Risk Assessment Improvement Act of 1994, and add them 
to the bill before us to guide the OSTP Director as to what the 
necessary criteria are for conducting the assessments that are required 
under H.R. 3870.
  Why is this necessary?
  Such legislation is necessary because risk assessments are currently 
conducted under agency discretion, not by congressional mandate.
  The amendment would establish legislative guidelines as to what 
constitutes the necessary elements of a sound risk assessment and the 
way in which such assessments should be communicated.
  During the past several years, the public at large has been told that 
certain substances which are used in daily commerce are a threat to 
their very survival only to be told later that the offending substance 
was either benign or much less of a threat to our well-being than was 
originally pronounced. These alarmist assessments have been 
mischaracterized by the media causing great economic harm to the 
manufacturers of these products. Whole industries and the people who 
are employed by them have been placed in jeopardy.
  What we should seek to do today is to bring some rationality to this 
process. There are certain elements that I think should be contained in 
a sensible risk assessment and communication policy.
  First, the risk assessment should be conducted to ensure that they 
are formulated using the most plausible and unbiased assumptions. This 
is requiring just plain, good science.
  Second, risk assessment should then be communicated so as to be 
understood by the general public. Assessments need to be comprehensible 
to the average person so that no one will know what the nature of the 
risk would be if one were to undertake a certain course of behavior. 
New risks should be compared to familiar, everyday risks to make them 
relevant and real, not a mysterious fear of the unknown.
  To me, this is the key element of the bill, because the average man 
or women should be able to determine what is in his or her best 
interests. We in Washington should not make the decision with regard to 
those peoples' concerns. They ought to make them.
  I think this is best summed up in the sentiments expressed by Stephen 
Coonts in his book, ``Cannibal Queen.'' He says:

       Ultimately the question boils down to a judgement about how 
     much risk make life worth living. Success as a risk-free 
     endeavor is impossible. Without some level of risk, life has 
     no meaning. Americans have traditionally believed that each 
     person should be allowed to make the risk judgement for 
     himself. Perhaps they sensed that such judgements were 
     intimately related to that ``pursuit of happiness'' clause in 
     the Declaration of Independence.

  That is what we are doing here. We are simply saying that since that 
risk assessment is required by the bill itself that there ought to be a 
criteria for making those kinds of judgments. This amendment 
establishes some criteria. It is criteria already agreed to by our 
committee in a bill and then transferred into this particular bill 
which is moving forward for future consideration.
  So I would hope that this is an amendment that can be rapidly agreed 
to, Mr. Chairman, because it does seem to make sense in the context of 
the bill that we are considering.


  amendment offered by mr. brown of california as a substitute to the 
                    amendment offered by mr. walker

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a 
substitute for the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of California as a 
     substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Walker: Page 62, 
     after line 4, insert the following new title:

                       TITLE VI--RISK ASSESSMENT

     SEC. 601. RISK ASSESSMENT.

       (a) In General.--In conducting the assessment of risk 
     called for in this Act, the Director shall--
       (1) Identify and define a set of environmental problems for 
     which risks will be considered;
       (2) use both available quantitative data and independent 
     and well-qualified expert advice; and
       (3) develop and use a common set of analytical methods for 
     ranking environmental problems based on the relative risks 
     they pose and the potential for addressing these 
     environmental problems through the development of 
     environmental technologies.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``assessment of risk'' means an identification of 
     environmental problems that pose the greatest opportunity for 
     being addressed by environmental technologies.

  Mr. BROWN of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to 
acknowledge a point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
made that is accurate. This issue that he brings up is an important 
issue. I would point out that there are efforts to address it in a 
number of different committees. And as he pointed out, we addressed it 
in our committee and marked up a separate piece of legislation on this 
just a week or so ago. And I think, although I have not perused it in 
detail, I think the essence of what he is offering is what we passed 
out of the committee.
  I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?
  Mr. WALKER. That is exactly right.
  Mr. BROWN of California. The problem that I have with this is despite 
the importance of this subject, it is an extremely controversial 
subject. There are a number of different concepts involved in the 
subject matter here.
  First of all, there is the concept of risk assessment which we 
consider to be a scientific process essentially which is in 
considerable need of improvement and of adopting on a uniform basis 
throughout the Government, and the bill that our committee reported out 
attempts to address that.
  In addition to the question of risk assessment, there is the question 
of risk management which is not necessarily a scientific question. It 
generally boils down to a polticial question in which we weigh the 
interests of various parties and way the cost versus the benefits and 
do a number of other things that are related to risk management.
  There is a third aspect of this which probably is getting the most 
attention, and that is the general question of the reduction of 
regulatory impact on small business and other business throughout the 
country.
  It so happens that extensive regulations impacts more on small 
business relatively speaking than it does on large business because 
large industries have a greater capability to do the analysis necessary 
to either conform to or fight regulations than small business does.

                              {time}  1620

  Small business is frequently completely swamped by the mandates of 
extensive environmental regulation, so the goal of reducing regulatory 
impact on small business, a goal which I thoroughly share and which, as 
I have indicated in previous debate, is shared by every President for 
the last generation; they have issued Executive orders on it, and in 
the debate last week, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], who is 
the author of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, was pointing out 
that that act had not worked as well as he would like, so he was 
supporting certain amendments to it.
  I can assure you that the Executive orders which were issued by 
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and now President Clinton, who has 
offered his own regulatory impact Executive order, none of these are 
working perfectly either.
  What this legislation before us, this environmental technology bill, 
does is an effort to reduce the need for regulation by developing and 
encouraging the development of inherently less polluting, less 
environmentally harmful kinds of regulations, of technologies thus 
requiring less regulation.
  Now, what the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] does very simply is to take some language which admittedly 
our committee reported out, although it was not exactly the way I want 
it, which is very controversial, and attempt to attach it to this bill 
which deals not with risk assessment, not with regulatory impact, only 
with the process of developing new environmental technologies. In other 
words, he wants to put the agenda of a large number of people, I will 
not disagree with that, he wants to do us the favor of attaching it to 
a bill which otherwise would be relatively noncontroversial, if I sense 
the situation correctly.
  Now let me tell you what we are doing following the reporting out of 
the bill from my committee.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The time of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Brown of California was allowed to proceed 
for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. I want you to pay careful attention to this, 
because after the passage of our bill out of committee, I was 
approached by a number of other committee chairmen who said that this 
is a situation which requires a coordinated effort. It cannot be 
structured by just one committee. Agriculture cannot structure it. 
Public Works cannot structure it. Energy and Commerce cannot structure 
it. They all have bills of a similar nature before them.
  So I took the liberty of contacting the President's science adviser 
and suggested that this needed a coordinated approach and invited him 
to start a process of bringing together representatives of all of these 
committees to see if we could reach some common agreement on language, 
and he has agreed to do that. At the staff level, we expect such a 
meeting to begin this process this week, and I certainly want our 
colleagues on the Republican side to be included as this thing goes 
forward.
  I will agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that there is 
overwhelming support for efforts to reduce regulatory impact, to 
improve risk management, and at the same time improve risk assessment.
  All of these, their time has come. They need to be done. We are not 
going to do it on the bill we have before us today. If we try to do it 
on this bill that we have today, it will just sink the bill.
  Frankly I know the gentleman thinks more of this legislation than to 
want to do that.
  My substitute incorporates the goals the gentleman has incorporated 
in his bill, but it eliminates the controversial directives to engage 
in all of the other kinds of risk-assessment activities that were 
contained in it, and I think it will assist the process which is 
ongoing to reach a consensus position within the House and Senate. 
There are strong feelings in the Senate about doing this.
  Senator Bennett Johnston has offered two different variations of 
language dealings with the whole problem of reducing regulatory impact 
and received overwhelming support in the Senate for this.
  I am convinced that we need to address the problem, but not on this 
bill. So I am asking the gentleman if he would take a long look at my 
substitute which recognizes the importance of the goals that he has set 
forth and leave us a little bit of time to develop a consensus position 
that can be accepted by all of the committees that are involved in this 
process and give us an opportunity to do something really landmark this 
year in the area of reducing regulatory impact and improving risk 
management by the Federal Government.

  I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my substitute.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I offered would apply to the bill 
that we have before us. It is not this overreaching, grandiose kind of 
situation that the gentleman from California describes.
  It is true that we took language from legislation that was prepared 
that does have sweeping consequences to adapt to this particular bill. 
I will tell you why we did it.
  This is a bill which purports to do something worthwhile for the 
environment by developing technologies related to the environment. All 
we are trying to do is assure that those technologies, as they are 
developed, meet certain environmental tests.
  Now, what we are also doing here is to assure that as we develop 
those technologies that the risks inherent in them is also properly 
understood. That was the purpose behind my amendment, and in order to 
get to that point, what I did was take the language that the committee 
had already adopted in order to get there.
  Now we have before us a substitute to my language that, in my view, 
takes us backward, not forward, on the whole issue of risk assessment. 
It does so because, first of all, it has a definition for risk 
assessment that is just absolutely untenable. It suggests that the only 
purpose of risk assessment is to identify environmental problems that 
pose the greatest opportunity for being addressed by environmental 
technology. That is the definition in the gentleman's substitute.
  That is not a definition of risk assessment. That is a definition 
that simply decides not to do anything about risk assessment.
  I mean, if anything, this is an attempt to absolutely weaken the 
entire concept of what constitutes risk assessment. So anyone who 
thinks that they have said to constituents we ought to do something 
about the regulatory problems inherent in the lack of risk assessment 
in the present situation cannot in any good conscience vote for this 
amendment, because it guts the very nature of the argument that we are 
having in the Congress regarding risk assessment.
  Let me also lay to rest the concerns that the gentleman expressed 
about cost-benefit analysis that was passed in the Johnson amendment in 
the Senate and also the whole business of risk management.
  Risk management is not included in any way, shape, or form in my 
amendment. It says nothing about risk management. It deals only with 
the criteria for assessment.
  Second, there is absolutely nothing with regard to cost-benefit 
analysis contained in my amendment. That is totally excluded.
  The only thing in here is on the question of assessment.
  Now, let us look at the question of assessment and figure out whether 
or not you are in favor of the substitute or whether you are in favor 
of my amendment.
  In my assessment criteria, what I am seeking to do is to make certain 
that only the most unbiased science is used for those assessments. The 
gentlemann's substitute does not even get to the question of unbiased 
science. It leaves in place the present regulatory situation which 
virtually everybody agrees is broke. The system, the present system, 
simply does not work. It has no congressional mandate. It is broke. 
Everybody wants to fix it. We are trying to figure out, within the 
process around here, how to fix it.
  All I am suggesting is, as we develop new environmental policies, we 
ought not leave them with the same old problems that presently exist in 
the present system. I am trying to set up new criteria.
  One of those criteria ought to be the use of unbiased science. If you 
adopt the substitute rather than my bill, or rather than my amendment, 
you are saying you are in favor of biased science; you are in favor of 
what we are now doing and using biased science as a way of doing risk 
assessment. Because there is absolutely nothing in the substitute that 
gets us away from biased science.
  It also is a substitute which is entirely inconsistent with where the 
Science, Space, and Technology Committee went just a few days ago. I 
thought we were beginning the process of setting parameters for some 
conscious and conscionable risk assessment in the governmental 
regulatory process. Instead, what we are doing here is totally 
backtracking and saying anything the Administrator decides to do is 
fine, that it will simply allow the process to go forward and 
everything that has been going on, we are perfectly happy with it, we 
will keep it.
  I do not think that is an acceptable standard, and since this is a 
new program that involves the environment, it seems to me perfectly 
logical that we take what we have already accomplished and adapt it to 
this new environmental area. That is all I am doing is suggesting the 
assessment criteria for the environmental technologies that are 
contained in this bill ought to be in line with the direction in which 
we have moved as a committee to assure that appropriate science is used 
for doing the assessment.
  I would hope that anybody who has said that they are for doing 
something positive about changing the risk-assessment regulatory 
climate in this country will vote against the substitute and then will 
vote for my amendment. It is the only way we have of addressing and 
assuring that the regulatory climate that grows up around environmental 
technologies does in fact use unbiased science as a means of 
establishing appropriate risk assessment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up too 
much of the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I do not want to 
interrupt his statement.
  Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman so that we can have 
a dialog, and then I will get additional time.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
  Mr. Chairman, I indicated earlier my agreement with the gentleman 
that we have a situation here which needs to be fixed. Basically, the 
process of risk assessment is flawed. We need to develop a better 
process and we need to continue to take steps to reduce the impact of 
regulation. But I have in my hand a letter just delivered from the 
Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I would just like 
to cite a couple of words to illustrate the problem we have here. I 
think the gentleman would appreciate this.

       Dear Mr. Chairman: Although we supported the July 13th 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute to the Risk 
     Assessment Improvement Act, we object to several of the 
     amendments made to the July 13th bill. Therefore, we wish to 
     inform you that we must now withdraw our support.

  So this bill is not going to go anywhere because the administration 
is not going to support it. I doubt if we could do much about it.
  Mr. WALKER. If the gentleman will yield, they are referring to the 
risk assessment bill?
  Mr. BROWN of California. Yes, the risk assessment bill.
  Now let me read further, and this is just one of several paragraphs:

       Finally, the bill requires, as amended, inclusion of 
     information on substitution risk and comparison that would 
     incur extraordinary expense.
       For example, the bill now includes in section 418, risk 
     characterization, a new paragraph that would require all risk 
     assessment to contain comparisons with everyday risks. A very 
     commonsense kind of thing, but this is a risk management 
     issue, not a risk assessment issue.
       Further, the new paragraph would require the risk 
     characterization to address substitution risk being presented 
     to the administrator by any person. The current language is 
     far too broad and vague to provide useful guidance to the 
     agency.

  Now, the gentleman and I may both disagree with her characterization, 
but I read the language to indicate that that bill that we worked so 
hard to get out of committee and to which I thought the gentleman made 
some constructive additions, is no longer satisfactory to the 
administration. I have already been approached by several other 
committee chairmen who say they do not like that language and would 
have to oppose the bill if it comes to the floor. I just think that we 
are flying in the face of reality to take essentially that same 
language and attach it to another bill to which it is related but still 
only peripherally to the main purse and seek to, by having redundant 
vehicles, get it adopted in some way.
  I just do not think it is going to happen.
  I would like to offer to the gentleman this opportunity.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi). The time of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Walker was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. I continue to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I would not ordinarily engage in this type 
of circuitous process of avoiding the time limitations, which already 
restrict me, if I did not think this was important to clarify.
  I want to invite in good faith the gentleman's full participation in 
an intracommittee activity, and this will be in cooperation with Mr. 
Hayes, Senator Bennett Johnston, and others who are interested in this 
process, to see if we cannot get some language which would be 
acceptable to a large majority.
  In the case of the language that was on the agriculture bill, it was 
the view of the chairman that that should have gone on the Suspension 
Calendar. I think language that we can agree on can go on the 
Suspension Calendar, and I will work to achieve that.
  But I beg the gentleman not to seek to burden this bill with language 
which is in the process of being negotiated and which has already been 
repudiated by the pertinent administration official.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for his explanation. I assure the 
gentleman I do want to work with him in trying to come up with an 
environmental risk assessment bill, an overall risk assessment bill, 
that in fact meets the criteria and, hopefully, could become law.
  But I would say to the gentleman that somehow it does not surprise me 
that the administration that has helped create the regulatory nightmare 
that we now face is not in favor of doing anything to really correct 
it. It also does not surprise me that several committee chairmen in 
this body who have served for many, many years, creating the regulatory 
nightmare that we now face, are also not in favor of doing tough things 
to correct it.
  So, those things do not really particularly surprise me. The question 
is whether or not we are going to proceed forward to do some of the 
things which rationally ought to be done if you are going to engage in 
real development of a risk assessment process. I come back to say to 
the gentleman, and I do not agree in any way, shape, or form that 
anything we are doing there does in fact involve risk management, I 
would agree that there is comparative risk involved in what I am doing 
here. The administration evidently objects to doing comparative risk 
assessment. I understand that because then every day Americans can 
understand what it is they are saying and they do not want that to 
happen. EPA would like to have everybody act in ignorance throughout 
the country and react only to horror stories that appear on the front 
page of USA Today.
  I understand that that is where they are. But the bottomline is I do 
not think that is where Congress is anymore. I believe that Congress 
had decided it is high time we begin to do some of these kinds of 
things.
  Now, there are all kinds of forces acting against that because we 
even had amendments proposed to a certain bill--for instance, the new 
bill to create the new Department of the Environment--the fact that the 
gentleman from Florida worked to put together, they are willing to kill 
the whole department, they are willing to have the whole department sit 
and go nowhere because somebody has raised the risk assessment and risk 
management issue in that regard and Congress might actually be for it. 
In this case, I think also Congress may be for doing something in the 
environmental area when we are developing new environmental programs. 
It is a fairly simple kind of thing we are doing.
  I realize it has broad ramifications, but we are only very narrowly 
going after the environmental technologies in this bill and simply 
suggesting that if Congress is going to move in that area, at the very 
least what we ought to do is to begin to develop criteria during the 
process of development of this bill that would in fact deal with risk 
assessments.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. WALKER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman further.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I did not 
personally characterize the language here as risk management, but I did 
point out that this is the view of the cognizant official in the 
Federal Government that what the gentleman considers to be legitimate 
comparative risk assessment they consider to be risk management.
  Again, I say to the gentleman that I am not opposed to moving forward 
in the direction he wants to go. But I think the gentleman has gotten 
into his rhetorical mode instead of his problem-solving mode. We are 
not going to solve this problem unless we can reach a larger area of 
agreement.
  My amendment, frankly, is just to buy a little time in order to get 
this process of reaching some agreement which has to involve a larger 
number of people than we are able to do at the present time.
  Mr. WALKER. That is where the gentleman and I disagree in this case. 
We have had a relative agreement on a number of things. I mean we just 
disagree that the gentleman's amendment accomplishes that. It does not 
buy time. In fact, it takes us backward. His definition of risk 
assessment in this amendment is in fact a tremendous backward step over 
where the debate has been. I personally think that anybody who favors 
risk assessment in this Congress cannot in any way buy an amendment 
that accepts this definition of risk assessment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield 
further?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Brown of California and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Walker was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WALKER. I continue to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for further yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a question, looking around here, that the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania and I may be the only ones who even come 
close to understanding the intricacies of this situation. We may be 
boring a much larger audience.
  I am going to ask support for my substitute, and I hope that I get a 
favorable vote on it. If not, we will let the cards fall where they 
may.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would not vote for the gentleman's 
amendment. I again say to the people who have lined up saying they are 
for doing something positive in the area of risk assessment, that the 
substitute for my amendment is a major step backwards, that my 
amendment represents the real reform and we have to defeat the 
substitute to get to the real reform.

                              {time}  1640

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, really as we plow new ground here today 
with this Office of Science and Technology, we really have to caution 
ourselves about making the same mistake that we have made in the past. 
For example, EPA is currently specifically directed by law, or limited 
by law in various legislation and laws that we have enacted, in how it 
conducts risk assessment, and even with the current provisions and 
directions in law, agencies, including EPA, do not conduct risk 
assessment in an appropriate or an effective manner.
  For example, EPA is a very well intended agency, but its history of 
using just this one area, risk assessment, even when mandated in 
general terms as in this bill, its history has been a disaster: We must 
spell out for EPA and other Government agencies specifically that they 
must prioritize their projects under this program. And the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], the chairman, has pointed out exactly the 
problem that we are talking about here, the need to have a clear 
definition of what we mean when we say risk assessment. His definition 
is a one-page, quickly-thrown-together definition.
  We have a very clear definition of what we mean by risk assessment, a 
clear evaluation, a clear direction, to the bureaucrats, to the 
agencies, the other Governmental bureaucrats, that will be interpreting 
this new legislative turf that we are plowing today. We must spell out 
for these agencies, unfortunately because they do not get the message; 
even in this missal today to us from EPA, they do not understand the 
difference between risk assessment and risk management. That is why 
this definition is so important. And what does the definition that we 
provide here today mean?
  First, it says that each project in fact shall address a real 
environmental risk or conduct a risk assessment and use a common basis 
for the definition of risk assessment. Second, that under this program 
or any program a prioritization of projects will allow us to address 
the development of technologies in a risk assessment fashion, 
addressing the greatest risk challenges in an orderly fashion, and that 
is one of the problems that you have today:
  Congress enacts laws, and the agencies get hold of those laws, and 
they misinterpret them. They create huge bureaucracies, rules, 
regulations, and the law may be well-intended, but the end result, the 
regulation, the expense, becomes the problem.

  I personally became involved in this issue after serving on the 
Committee on House Administration. There I heard testimony for months 
on end of how one agency, and that is just EPA, ignored, subverted, 
abused and misinterpreted even a common sense definition of risk 
assessment which they now work under. I became convinced then, and I am 
more convinced now, that we must provide risk assessment guide posts 
and exactly that language contained in the Walker amendment to Federal 
agencies at every juncture. Otherwise they go off on well meaning, but 
very expensive, costly, and nonfunctioning junctures.
  Remember, if my colleagues will, that on February 2, this year, 227 
of my colleagues joined me in defeating a rule that excluded 
consideration of risk assessment language on the EPA cabinet level 
elevation bill. This Congress understands risk assessment, as we have 
seen both in the action of February 2 and other cases. Let me cite 
them:
  The clean water bill will only pass this Congress with risk 
assessment language. The Superfund reauthorization will only pass this 
Congress with risk assessment language. Even the agriculture 
reorganization act, which just recently passed subcommittee, had 
similar risk assessment language.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member for including risk 
assessment in this bill. The term risk assessment in title II, section 
2, must be defined, and it must be a good definition, but I strongly 
support the Walker amendment. I strongly oppose the Brown amendment 
which does not provide a clear definition again to the bureaucrats, to 
the agencies. It is important for this bill, and it is important for 
the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Brown of California and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Mica was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MICA. In summary I think it is so important we do not make the 
same mistake we have made in the past, and I might suggest to the 
chairman and to the ranking member that we accept our language, that we 
defeat the language offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Brown], and then we address this, but let us not start out in a weaker 
position, and obviously this is very weak language. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has stood in the well of the House and 
defined the problems. The chairman has stood there and defined the 
problems of interpretation of risk assessment. This is good language. 
This is definitive language. This will serve as a guide post and a 
directive to the bureaucrats and the others. It is a starting point.
  EPA, I submit to this House, will oppose anything. They opposed any 
language from the beginning. They will oppose language now, and they 
will oppose it in the future. They do not understand risk assessment, 
and, if they did, we would not be here having this debate in the House 
of Representatives today.
  So I urge the defeat of the Brown amendment and urge my colleagues to 
support the Walker amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that 
I support his goals. He has correctly identified the strength of the 
movement here. I recognize it, and I am not going to butt my head 
against reality forever. I would just like to reassure him that now, as 
of this date, we have senior staff in both the White House and OMB 
working on the development of language which will not be the EPA's 
language but which we hope would be even better than that, and I am 
just asking for an opportunity to work this process out.
  Mr. MICA. In a quick response, again I appreciate the chairman's 
position, but I came here with the intent of reforming the way the 
Congress and the bureaucrats conduct business. The House has made a 
statement here; it made one February 2. We have an opportunity to make 
one again here today. I would rather we adopt the Walker language and 
similar Mica language that is so important for setting a guideline and 
position for you and for this Congress rather than adopt the weak, 
indecisive position which will only weaken our position again with the 
bureaucrats and the other folks that we have to deal with dealing with 
the interpretation of risk assessment.
  With that, again I urge the defeat of the Brown amendment and the 
consideration and passage of the Walker amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I do want to 
speak against the substitute and in favor of the Walker amendment. I am 
the cosponsor of the Risk Assessment Improvement Act from which this 
language was taken. I am also the cosponsor of the amendment to that 
bill that added some of the language that we are voting on today.
  There has been a lot of rhetoric going back and forth. There has been 
some politics going back and forth. I would advise the Members who have 
some question about the advisability of the Walker amendment to read 
the amendment. Some of the language is pretty technical, but at base it 
is only designed to assure that assessment done by the EPA be based on 
sound science, that we do not multiply very conservative assumptions 
one against the other so that we get truly unrealistic results that are 
not plausible and that are biased.

                              {time}  1650

  That is the objective of this amendment. I think the amendment does a 
very good job of laying it out. It reflects weeks and weeks of 
negotiation among all the interested parties. And, of course, the EPA 
opposes it.
  The EPA is an agency that wants to have free rein in the way it 
conducts its business, as every Executive Branch agency does. But it is 
our responsibility constitutionally as a coequal branch of government 
to express the will of our constituents as their Representatives, and 
our constituents want our policy to be based on sound science. Our 
constituents want risk assessments to be clear and understandable and 
clearly communicated to them. Our constituents want to make sure that 
our environmental policy, upon which tens of billions of Government 
dollars are spent and hundreds of billions of local and private dollars 
are spent, is rational and is accountable. That is what this is all 
about.
  So I think that if we get past the rhetoric and get past the politics 
and get past the turfsmanship involved on the part of the EPA, we will 
be voting for a commonsense piece of legislation if we adopt the Walker 
amendment.
  I do concede that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the 
chairman of the committee, has been very seriously engaged in this 
debate. He understands risk assessment and what is at stake, and I 
believe he is acting in good faith to try to resolve the issue. But so 
long as we try to resolve the issue by deferring unquestioningly to the 
EPA, we are never going to get anywhere. We are going to simply stay 
with the status quo, which everyone, including the gentleman from 
California, agrees is unsatisfactory. That is why I urge my colleagues 
to vote for the Walker amendment and oppose the Brown substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Walker) 
there were--ayes 13, noes 13.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi). Evidently, a 
quorum is not present. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule 
XXIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the pending question following the quorum 
call. Members will record their presence by electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--424

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1715

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Four hundred twenty-four Members have 
answered to their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will 
resume its business.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will announce that this vote may 
be followed by another 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 225, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               AYES--202

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barca
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--225

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barcia
     Carr
     DeLay
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Rangel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Slattery
     Tucker
     Washington
     Wheat
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1724

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. DeLay against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Young of Florida against.

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi and Mr. INSLEE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LEVIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Walker].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous announcement, this 
rollcall vote is reduced to 5 minutes.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 286, 
noes 139, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 353]

                               AYES--286

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     Derrick
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--139

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Bacchus (FL)
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hughes
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Baker (CA)
     Carr
     DeLay
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Meek
     Rangel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Shuster
     Slattery
     Tucker
     Washington
     Wheat
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1733

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Baker of California for, with Mr. Rangel against.
       Mr. DeLay for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Messrs. GIBBONS, MENENDEZ, and COLEMAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOLDEN, SWETT, and BROWN of Ohio changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 64, after line 21, 
     add the following new title VII.

      TITLE VII--PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and 
     products purchased with funds made available in this Act 
     should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirements.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
amendment. It is one that has withstood the test of time and it is 
excellent in every respect. I am more than willing to support it and 
ask for an ``aye'' vote on it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. chairman, We accept the amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the committee approve the Buy 
American amendment and urge an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Mazzoli) having assumed the chair, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 3870) to promote the research and development of 
environmental technologies, pursuant to House Resolution 483, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not, 
the question is on amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________