[House Report 104-199]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-199
_______________________________________________________________________


 
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT 
                                OF 1995

                                _______


  July 21, 1995--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

  THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE MARKUPS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
          ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

                                  and

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1814]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1814) to authorize appropriations for environmental 
research, development, and demonstration activities of the 
Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 1996, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 
amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purposes of the bill............................................4
 III. Background and need for the legislation.........................4
  IV. Summary of hearing..............................................6
   V. Summary of authorizations and major provisions in bill..........8
  VI. Section-by-section analysis.....................................9
            Section 1. Short Title...............................     9
            Section 2. Definitions...............................     9
            Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations...........     9
            Section 4. Scientific Research Review................    10
            Section 5. Prohibition on Lobbying Activities........    10
            Section 6. Eligibility for Awards....................    10
            Section 7. Graduate Student Fellowships..............    10
 VII. Committee views................................................10
            Agency budget justifications.........................    11
            Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations...........    11
                Air related research.............................    12
                Global change research...........................    13
                Lab and field expenses...........................    14
                Multimedia research..............................    14
                Limitations on appropriations....................    14
                Summary recommendations..........................    14
            Section 4. Scientific Research Review................    17
            Section 5. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities........    17
            Section 6. Eligibility for Awards....................    17
VIII. Committee actions..............................................18
            Subcommittee markup..................................    18
            Committee markup.....................................    18
  IX. Committee cost estimate........................................19
   X. Congressional Budget Office cost estimates.....................20
  XI. Effect of legislation on inflation.............................21
 XII. Oversight findings and recommendations.........................21
XIII. Oversight findings and recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................21
 XIV. Changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported..........21
  XV. Administration position........................................21
 XVI. Committee correspondence.......................................24
XVII. Dissenting Views...............................................26
XVIII.Proceedings of Subcommittee markup of Subcommittee Print.......29

 XIX. Proceedings of Committee markup of H.R. 1814...................55

                              I. Amendment

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Administrator $490,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 for the Office of 
Research and Development for environmental research, development, and 
demonstration activities, including program management and support, in 
the areas specified in subsection (b), of which--
          (1) $321,694,800 shall be for Research and Development; and
          (2) $109,263,400 shall be for Program and Research 
        Operations.
    (b) Specific Programs and Activities.--Of the amount authorized in 
subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated the following:
          (1) For air related research, $93,915,200, of which--
                  (A) $67,111,400 shall be for Research and 
                Development; and
                  (B) $26,803,800 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
          (2) For global change research, $2,385,700, of which--
                  (A) $2,125,400 shall be for Research and Development; 
                and
                  (B) $260,300 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
          (3) For water quality related research, $21,243,100, of 
        which--
                  (A) $9,453,100 shall be for Research and Development; 
                and
                  (B) $11,790,000 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
          (4) For drinking water related research, $20,652,400, of 
        which--
                  (A) $10,376,500 shall be for Research and 
                Development; and
                  (B) $10,275,900 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
          (5) For toxic chemical related research, $11,053,900, of 
        which--
                  (A) $5,028,600 shall be for Research and Development; 
                and
                  (B) $6,025,300 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
          (6) For lab and field expenses, $73,031,600, all of which 
        shall be for Research and Development.
          (7) For headquarters expenses of the Office of Research and 
        Development, $9,254,800, all of which shall be for Research and 
        Development.
          (8) For multimedia related research expenses, $158,656,800, 
        of which--
                  (A) $122,142,900 shall be for Research and 
                Development;
                  (B) $31,513,900 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations; and
                  (C) $5,000,000 shall be for graduate student 
                fellowships.
          (9) For program management expenses, $6,399,300, all of which 
        shall be for Program and Research Operations.
          (10) For pesticide related research, $13,345,200, of which--
                  (A) $7,192,800 shall be for Research and Development; 
                and
                  (B) $6,152,400 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
          (11) For oil pollution related research, $2,076,900.
          (12) For research related to leaking underground storage 
        tanks, $769,400.
          (13) For research related to cleanup of contaminated sites, 
        $56,195,500.
          (14) For research related to hazardous waste $21,020,200, of 
        which--
                  (A) $10,977,700 shall be for Research and 
                Development; and
                  (B) $10,042,500 shall be for Program and Research 
                Operations.
    (c) Limitations.--(1) No funds are authorized to be appropriated by 
this Act for--
          (A) the Environmental Technology Initiative;
          (B) the Climate Change Action Plan; or
          (C) indoor air pollution research.
    (2) 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, unless such funds are 
specifically authorized to be appropriated by Act of Congress with 
respect to such fiscal year.
    (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds are 
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1996 for carrying out the 
programs and activities for which funds are authorized by this Act 
unless such sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act.

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

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

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES.

    None of the funds authorized by this Act shall be available for any 
activity whose purpose is to influence legislation pending before the 
Congress.

SEC. 6. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from consideration 
for awards of financial assistance made by the Office of Research and 
Development after fiscal year 1995 any person who received funds, other 
than those described in subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year 
after fiscal year 1995, from any Federal funding source for a project 
that was not subjected to a competitive, merit-based award process. Any 
exclusion from consideration pursuant to this section shall be 
effective for a period of 5 years after the person receives such 
Federal funds.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to awards to persons 
who are members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided by law.

SEC. 7. GRADUATE STUDENT FELLOWSHIPS.

    In carrying out the graduate student fellowship program for which 
funds are authorized to be appropriated by this Act, the Administrator 
shall ensure that any fellowship award to a student selected after the 
date of the enactment of this Act is used only to support research that 
would further missions of the Office of Research and Development in 
fields in which there exists or is projected to exist a shortage in the 
number of scientists.

                        II. Purposes of the Bill

    The purposes of the bill are to:
          (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1996 for 
        environmental research, development and demonstration 
        activities of the Environmental Protection Agency 
        (EPA);
          (2) Provide program direction of EPA's research 
        program;
          (3) Eliminate low priority Office of Research and 
        Development (ORD) programs;
          (4) Streamline ORD functions and reduce 
        infrastructure costs; and
          (5) Enhance the role of the Assistant Administrator 
        for ORD.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation

    ORD is responsible for EPA's in-house and extramural 
research programs. ORD accounts for about 8.5 percent of the 
Administration's Fiscal Year 1996 request for EPA.
    As shown in the following table, the EPA $7.4 billion 
request includes $629,376,600 for ORD. The Fiscal Year 1996 
request for ORD represents and increase of $83,833,800--or 15.4 
percent--over the fiscal year 1995 estimate of $545,542,800 
over its Fiscal Year 1995 funding level.

          EPA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS (ORD) BY MEDIA          
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Fiscal year 1996     Change from   
                                         request        fiscal year 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air...............................             $106.7              +$2.5
Water quality.....................               21.2               -1.7
Drinking water....................               21.7               -0.5
Pesticides........................               13.6               -0.2
Toxics............................               15.5               -2.7
Hazardous waste...................               22.8               -3.9
Multimedia........................              357.2              +96.5
Superfund.........................               59.8               -7.3
LUST..............................                0.8                0.0
Oil spill.........................                2.1               +0.3
Management and support............                8.0               +0.8
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................              629.4          \1\ +83.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15.4 percent change.                                                

    Within the broad category of multimedia research, the 
Administration proposes to increase funding for the 
Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) in ORD to 
$80,000,000. In 1994, EPA was designated the lead agency for 
the ETI, whose intent is to expand the development and use of 
innovative environmental technology through Federal/State and 
private sector partnerships.
    ORD operates 12 research laboratories and 4 assessment 
offices. These assets are currently being reorganized to fall 
under the management of three national laboratories (National 
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) 
in Triangle Park, NC; the National Exposure Research Laboratory 
(NERL) in Triangle Park, NC; and the National Risk Management 
Laboratory (NRML) in Cincinnati, OH) and two national centers 
in Washington, DC (National Center for Environmental Research 
Quality Assurance (NCERQA) and the National Center for 
Environmental Assessment (NCEA)). The reorganization will not 
lead to the closing of field laboratories or assessment 
offices, but is intended to improve the quality and quantity of 
the laboratories' work by moving research management out of EPA 
headquarters and into the new national laboratories and 
centers.
    ORD is also expanding its use of extramural scientists by 
increasing dramatically its grants program to allow scientists 
outside ORD's laboratories to compete for $85,000,000 of 
environmental research grants funding. This funding represents 
an increase of $43,000,000 (over 50 percent) from Fiscal Year 
1995. ORD has also requested doubling its graduate student 
fellowship program, increasing funding to $10,000,000. 
Collectively, these increases have been termed the Science To 
Achieve Results (STAR) program.
    The Administration's proposed 15.4 percent funding increase 
for ORD does not increase funding for ORD's core missions. As a 
percentage of ORD's budget, spending on ETI and environmental 
fellowships is increased in the Administration's budget request 
while all other research declines.
    The Administration's Fiscal Year 1996 request also 
increases the percentage of each individual research account 
dedicated to overhead or ``infrastructure.'' For example, 
infrastructure spending accounts for 53 percent of the total 
toxic substances research appropriation for Fiscal Year 1995. 
In Fiscal Year 1996, the Administration recommends increasing 
that percentage to almost 65 percent. Similarly, infrastructure 
accounts for 49 percent of the dollars appropriated for 
drinking water research in Fiscal Year 1995. That percentage 
jumps to 52 percent in the Administration's request.
    This legislation is needed for two reasons.
    First, the programs of the ORD are currently unauthorized. 
The last authorization for ORD, the Environmental Research, 
Development and Demonstration Act of 1981 (P.L. 96-569), 
expired on September 30, 1981.
    Second, the American public gave this Congress a mandate to 
produce a balanced budget by the year 2002. Carrying out this 
mandate requires substantial reductions to current funding 
levels.
    Accordingly, the Committee examined closely each of the 
programs, projects, and activities proposed by the 
Environmental Protection Agency's ORD in its fiscal year 1996 
budget request and applied rigorously, as appropriate, the 
following six criteria in prioritizing its funding 
recommendations:
          1. Federal R&D should be focused on long-term, non-
        commercial research and development, with potential for 
        great scientific discovery, leaving economic 
        feasibility and commercialization to the marketplace.
          2. Federal funding of R&D on specific processes and 
        technologies should not be carried out beyond 
        demonstration of technical feasibility, requiring 
        significant additional investment for production.
          3. Revolutionary new ideas and pioneering 
        capabilities that make possible the ``impossible'' 
        (that which has never been done before) should be 
        pursued.
          4. The Federal government should avoid funding 
        research in areas that are receiving, or should be 
        reasonably expected to obtain funding from the private 
        sector, such as evolutionary advances or incremental 
        improvements.
          5. Government-owned laboratories should confine their 
        in-house research to areas in which their technical 
        expertise and facilities have no peer and should 
        contract out other research to industry, private 
        research foundations, and universities.
          6. All R&D programs should be relevant and tightly 
        focused to the agency's stated mission; those that are 
        not should be terminated. All research programs should 
        disseminate the results of the programs to potential 
        users.
    The Committee believes that this authorization bill, H.R. 
1814--the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995--meets the Committee's 
responsibility to set priorities and reflects a strong 
commitment to both good fundamental science that is vital to 
the Nation's future and a balanced budget. H.R. 1814 authorizes 
all ORD programs within the limits set by H. Con. Res. 67, the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, refocuses ORD resources on 
its core missions and improves oversight of science within the 
Agency.

                         IV. Summary of Hearing

    On February 13 and 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment held hearings on the Fiscal Year 1996 budget for 
EPA's ORD. The following witnesses testified before the 
subcommittee: Dr. A. Alan Moghissi, Associate Vice President of 
Environmental Health and Safety at Temple University, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dr. Robert J. Huggett, Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development, U.S. EPA, 
Washington, DC; and Dr. Roger O. McClellan, President, Chemical 
Industry Institute of Toxicology, Research Triangle Park, NC 
and Member of the Executive Committee, Science Advisory Board, 
U.S. EPA.
    Dr. A. Alan Moghissi testified that EPA program offices 
have consistently been displeased with the work of EPA's ORD, 
claiming that much of its work is not relevant to the 
regulatory mission of the program offices. The scientific 
community has also complained that ORD's work is often time of 
low quality and seldom publishable in peer-reviewed journals.
    Dr. Moghissi specifically recommended that ORD should 
supply EPA with necessary scientific information to ensure EPA 
regulation relies on ``best available science'' in all its 
decisions. ORD researchers should be encouraged to publish the 
results of their research activities in peer-reviewed 
scientific journals. In the absence of such peer-review, EPA 
will base its regulations on ``gray literature'' (information 
prepared by government agencies, advocacy groups, and others 
that has not been subjected to an independent peer-review) that 
is of questionable quality.
    Dr. Huggett testified in support of the EPA ORD's Fiscal 
Year 1996 budget request. He explained that ORD is making 
dramatic changes in the way it operates. ORD`s chief objective 
is to provide EPA with the sound scientific data it requires to 
promulgate appropriate regulations, and ORD proposes to achieve 
this objective by redirecting its research monies in two ways.
    First, said Dr. Huggett, ORD proposes to increase the 
proportion of its budget dedicated to long-term research. He 
explained that although it has long been known that long-term 
research is vital to understanding complex environmental 
interactions, in the past research to meet immediate needs 
received most of ORD's support. ORD now intends to evenly 
divide its research dollars between short- and long-term 
research.
    Second, testified Dr. Huggett, ORD intends to improve its 
science by increasing its use of existing academic institutions 
through an expanded peer-review program for investigator 
initiated grants. This program will be funded by redirecting 
monies currently being used for outside contractors and 
replacing them with grants to academics. This new emphasis is 
part of the STAR initiative.
    Dr. Huggett also discussed ORD's laboratory reorganization 
plan which will establish three national laboratories and two 
national centers to coordinate the activities of ORD's twelve 
laboratories.
    Dr. Huggett concluded by outlining ORD's intent to triple--
from 100 to 300--the number of environmental fellowships it 
funds over the next two years. This new emphasis is also part 
of the STAR program.
    Dr. McClellan testified about the importance of good 
science in the promulgation of EPA regulations. He pointed out 
that approximately $150 billion is spent every year complying 
with environmental regulations. Therefore, he explained any 
marginal improvement in the science used as a basis for these 
regulations can yield significant economic returns.
    Dr. McClellan went on to state that EPA as a whole should 
redirect more of its resources to research and development. He 
spoke in favor of the STAR initiative and singled out the need 
for additional research on ozone and airborne particulate 
matter. Dr. McClellan indicated that currently EPA does not 
have the scientific data necessary to set sound standards for 
airborne levels of particulate matter under 10 microns 
(PM10). Congressman Salmon expressed concern about the 
enforcement of PM10 standards in the desert regions of 
Arizona. Dr. McClellan agreed that such concerns were 
legitimate and stated that it may be scientifically unsound to 
attempt to translate data taken from heavily industrialized 
areas to desert regions. Dr. Huggett went on to note that more 
research needs to be done on the subject immediately since EPA 
is under a court order to produce a standard by 1997. In a 
written response to a question from Subcommittee Chairman 
Rohrabacher, Dr. McClellan recommended reducing funding from 
ORD's climate and global warning research and the (ETI) in 
order to increase funding for research on air quality.
    Dr. McClellan also emphasized the need for better research 
management within ORD. He noted that ORD's research management 
has been termed ``dysfunctional'' by the Science Advisory 
Board, and complemented Dr. Huggett for beginning to move ORD 
in the right direction.

       V. Summary of Authorizations and Major Provisions in Bill

    In February, 1995, the President transmitted to Congress a 
request of $629,376,600 for ORD for Fiscal Year 1996, an 
increase of $83,833,800--or 15.4 percent--over the fiscal year 
1995 estimate of $545,542,800.
    The Committee recommends an authorization level of 
$490,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, a decrease of $139,376,600--
or 22.1 percent--from the request level, and a decrease of 
$55,542,800--or 10.2 percent--from the fiscal year 1995 
estimate. The Committee's recommendation is consistent with the 
amounts established in the House-passed Concurrent Resolution 
on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995 (H. Con. Res. 67), as well 
as the conference report on the Resolution.
    The following table provides a summary of the amounts 
requested (using the President's February, 1995, request) and 
that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill (in the 
column labeled ``FY 1996 Mark''). Also included are current 
year estimates (in the column labeled ``FY 1995 Adjusted'') as 
well as comparisons of the Committee recommendation with both 
current year estimates and the 1996 request.

                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY                
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year--                Mark composed with (+ or -) fiscal
                                   ------------------------------------------                year--             
                                                                             --------------------------------------
                                        1995      1996 Request    1996 Mark                                  1996
                                      Adjusted                                  1996 Mark   1995 Adjusted  Request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
    EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND                                                                                  
         DEVELOPMENT (ORD)                                                                                      
Air research......................     104,194.9     106,710.1      96,300.9      -7,894.0      -10,409.2       
Water quality research............      22,902.3      21,243.1      21,243.1      -1,659.2            0         
Drinking water research...........      22,174.5      21,665.8      20,652.4      -1,522.1       -1,013.4       
Pesticides research...............      13,823.4      13,598.2      13,345.2        -478.2         -253.0       
Toxic substances research.........      18,208.7      15,490.4      11,053.9      -7,154.8       -4,436.5       
Hazardous waste research..........      26,748.3      22,815.9      21.020.2      -5,728.1       -1,795.7       
Multimedia research and                                                                                         
 development......................     260,679.3     357,232.5     240,943.2     -19,736.1     -116,289.3       
Mission and policy management--R&D       7,225.6       7,985.2       6,399.3        -826.3       -1,585.9       
Superfund research and development      67,049.5      59,784.7      56,195.5     -10,854.0       -3,589.2       
Leaking underground storage tanks                                                                               
 (LUST) research..................         769.2         773.8         769.4          +0.2           -4.4       
Oil spill response research.......       1,767.1       2,076.9       2,076.9        +309.8            0         
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, EPA ORD..............     545,542.8     629,376.6     490,000.0     -55,542.8     -139,376.6       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The major provisions of the bill are the following:
          Authorizes appropriations for ORD for Fiscal Year 
        1996;
          Directs authorizations for general and specific 
        research conducted by ORD and sunsets all programs 
        authorized by the Act after Fiscal Year 1996;
          Assigns scientific research review responsibilities 
        to the Assistant Administrator of the EPA for ORD and 
        requires the Assistant Administrator to report to the 
        Administrator of the EPA, the House Committee on 
        Science and the Senate Committee on Environment and 
        Public Works annually to detail all agency research 
        which is not of high quality or is duplicated by other 
        Agency research;
          Prohibits the expenditure of authorized funds for the 
        purpose of influencing legislation pending before 
        Congress;
          Requires a competitive merit based award process for 
        financial assistance provided by the ORD with 
        exceptions for awards to persons who are members of a 
        class specified by law for which assistance is awarded 
        according to a formula provided by law; and
          Requires the EPA Administrator to ensure that any 
        fellowship award to a student selected after the date 
        of enactment is used only to support research in fields 
        in which there exists, or is projected to exist, a 
        shortage in the number of scientists.

                    VI. Section-by-Section Analysis

                         section 1. short title

    Cites the Act as the ``Environmental Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995''.

                         section 2. definitions

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

                section 3. authorization appropriations

    Subsection 3(a) authorizes $490,000,000 for the ORD for 
Fiscal Year 1996. With the exception of funding for research on 
oil spills, leaking underground storage tanks, and contaminated 
sites; this sum is divided between the Research and Development 
and Program and Research Operation appropriations accounts.
    Subsection 3(b) apportions the authorized total for ORD 
among the following 14 research accounts: (1) air related 
research; (2) global change research; (3) water quality related 
research; (4) drinking water related research; (5) toxic 
chemical related research; (6) lab and field expenses; (7) 
headquarters expenses of the ORD; (8) multimedia related 
research; (9) program management expenses; (10) pesticide 
related research; (11) oil pollution related research; (12) 
leaking underground storage tanks; (13) cleanup of contaminated 
sites research; and (14) hazardous waste related research.
    Subsection 3(c)(1) provides that no funds are authorized to 
be appropriated by this Act for (A) the Environmental 
Technology Initiative; (b) the Climate Change Action Plan; or 
(C) indoor air pollution research. Subsection 3(c)(2) specifies 
that no funds are authorized to carry out the programs and 
activities authorized by the Act after Fiscal Year 1996 unless 
they are specifically authorized by a future act of Congress; 
and Subsection 3(c)(3) specifies that this Act is the only 
authorization for all programs and activities authorized by 
this Act.

                 section 4. scientific research review

    Subsection 4(a) requires the Administrator to assign to the 
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development the duties 
of (1) developing a strategic plan for scientific and technical 
activities throughout the Agency; (2) integrating that 
strategic plan into ongoing Agency planning activities; and (3) 
reviewing all Agency research to ensure the research is (A) of 
high quality, and (B) not duplicative of any other research 
being conducted by the Agency.
    Subsection 4(b) requires the Assistant Administrator to 
submit an annual report to the Administrator of EPA and to 
Congress detailing (1) all Agency research the Assistant 
Administrator finds is not of sufficiently high quality; and 
(2) all Agency research the Assistant Administrator finds 
duplicates other Agency research.

             section 5. prohibition on lobbying activities

    Section 5 states that none of the funds authorized by this 
Act shall be available for an activity whose purpose is to 
influence legislation pending before the Congress.

                   section 6. eligibility for awards

    Subsection 6(a) requires the Secretary to exclude from 
consideration for awards for financial assistance made by the 
Department after fiscal year 1995 any person who received 
funds, other than those described in subsection 6(b), 
appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal year 1995, from any 
Federal funding source for a project that was not subjected to 
a competitive, merit-based award process. Any consideration 
pursuant to this section shall be effective for a period of 
five years after the person receives such Federal funds.
    Subsection 6(b) states that subsection 6(a) shall not apply 
to persons who are members of a class specified by law for 
which assistance is awarded to members of the class according 
to a formula provided by law.

                section 7. graduate student fellowships

    Section 7 directs the Administrator of the EPA to ensure 
that any fellowship awarded to a student selected after the 
enactment date is used only to support research that would 
further the missions of the ORD and is in a field in which 
there exists, or is projected to exist, a shortage of 
scientists.

                          VII. Committee Views

    The bill is consistent with the funding levels set by H. 
Con. Res. 67, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. In order 
to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002, significant 
reductions to EPA's budget, including ORD's programs, are 
necessary. The Committee therefore supports reducing ORD 
overhead costs and the elimination of low priority ORD programs 
which do not support ORD's principal mission of providing 
adequate science to promulgate environmental regulations. The 
Committee supports ongoing efforts by the Assistant 
Administrator for ORD to improve the quality of science used by 
EPA. The Committee believes increasing extramural grants 
funding for research should contribute to these improvements.

                      agency budget justifications

    The Committee is concerned that the Agency's budget 
justification documents are not providing sufficient detail. 
Program justifications consistently fail to place activities in 
the context of how they help achieve program goals and 
objectives, and how they relate to other Agency program 
objectives and activities. Consequently, much information must 
be gleaned through additional program briefings and followup 
questions. The additional work could be reduced significantly 
if the Agency devoted more attention to the information 
provided in the initial budget submission. The Committee 
expects the Agency to remedy this situation in its fiscal year 
1997 budget request.

               section 3--authorization of appropriations

    The Committee recommends an authorization level of 
$490,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, a decreased of 
$139,376,600--or 22.1 percent--from the request level, and a 
decrease of $55,542,800--or 10.2 percent--from the fiscal year 
1995 estimate. The Committee's recommendation is consistent 
with the amounts established in the House-passed Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995 (H. Con. Res. 
67), as well as the conference report on the Resolution.
    The Committee supports funding for ORD's scientific 
research. The reductions taken from ORD's Fiscal Year 1996 
request, fall in large part on the office's infrastructure. The 
Committee feels that ORD should be able to maintain the same 
ratio of research funding to infrastructure funding as it 
maintained in Fiscal Year 1995. Since the Administration has 
recommended, and the Committee has adopted decreases in funding 
for research in water quality, drinking water, toxics, 
hazardous waste and contaminated site cleanup, corresponding 
decreases should be taken in ORD's infrastructure funding.
    The Committee recommends the following specific changes to 
the Fiscal Year 1996 request for the programs and activities of 
EPA's ORD:
          Air Research: -$10,409,200
                   +$9,673,600 for increased Air Quality 
                Research, including +$22,159,700 for research 
                on issues such as PM10 and ozone 
                transport; -$5,238,400 from Indoor Air, which 
                is under the jurisdiction of the Occupational 
                Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), not 
                EPA; -$2,277,500 from Infrastructure to 
                maintain the Fiscal Year 1995 level; and 
                -$1,437,700 from Cross Program for which no 
                budget justification was provided.
                  -20,082,800 from Global Change Research, 
                including -$15,224,500 from global change 
                research, and -$4,858,300 from Infrastructure 
                to reflect lower level of effort.
          Water Quality Research: $0
                  -$1,178,700 from Infrastructure to reflect 
                lower level of effort from Fiscal Year 1995; 
                and +$1,178,700 for Ecosystem Research.
          Drinking Water Research: -$1,013,400
                  -$1,013,400 from Infrastructure to reflect 
                lower level of effort from Fiscal Year 1995.
          Pesticides Research: -$253,400
                  -$253,400 from Cross Program for which no 
                budget justification was provided.
          Toxic Substances Research: -$4,436,500
                  -$4,025,900 from Infrastructure to reflect 
                lower level of effort, and -$410,600 for Cross 
                Program for which no budget justification was 
                provided.
          Hazardous Waste Research: -$1,795,700
                  -$1,073,900 from Infrastructure to reflect 
                lower level of effort, and -$721,800 from Cross 
                Program for which no budget justification was 
                provided.
          Multimedia Research and Development: -$116,289,300
                  -$86,200,900 from Innovative Technologies, 
                including elimination of the Environmental 
                Technology Initiative (-$80,000,000) and 
                Climate Change Action Plan projects 
                (-$6,200,000).
                  -$6,704,200 from Environmental Education to 
                fund at $5,000,000.
                  -$21,385,600 from Multimedia Research 
                Infrastructure (-$14,803,200), Headquarters 
                Infrastructure (-$1,582,400), and Lab and Field 
                Expenses (-$5,000,000) to reflect lower level 
                of effort.
          Mission and Policy Management--R&D: -$1,585,900
                  -$1,585,900 from Infrastructure to reflect 
                lower level of effort.
          Superfund Research and Development: -$3,589,200
                  -$88,000 from Cross Program for which no 
                budget justification was provided; and 
                -$2,898,500 from Infrastructure and -$602,700 
                from Management and Support to reflect lower 
                levels of effort.
          Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Research: 
        -$4,400
                  -$4,400 from Infrastructure to reflect lower 
                level of effort.

Air related research

    The Committee has increased criteria air pollution research 
funding by $25,739,300. This increase is intended to allow EPA 
to improve the level of science used to support its 
promulgation of air quality regulations. Specifically, the 
Committee notes that significant gaps appear to exist in the 
science behind implementation of the current national air 
quality standard for ozone and particulate matter.
    The Committee encourages EPA to conduct a study of the 
transportation of ozone and ozone precursors on a national 
scale. The Committee believes such a study should be conducted 
in association with the National Academy of Sciences and 
technical representatives from states potentially affected by 
long-range ozone transport. The Committee also believes that 
the study should be coordinated with EPA's on-going efforts and 
implementation of Phase II of EPA's ozone attainment 
demonstration program. The Committee encourages EPA to develop 
reports and recommendations to Congress regarding an effective 
strategy to achieve national attainment of the ozone standard 
by March 31, 1997.
    The Committee supports ongoing research efforts to 
understand ambient ozone levels and patterns, as well as the 
contributors to individual sources of ozone precursors to those 
ambient ozone concentrations of regulatory concern. In order to 
ensure EPA is basing its ambient ozone standards on scientific 
criteria, studies such as the North American Research Strategy 
for Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO) and the Southern Oxidants Study 
(SOS) should be completed before final control strategies for 
attainment of the current ambient ozone standards are 
finalized.
    For particulate matter, the Committee notes that EPA is 
facing a 1997 deadline for promulgation of ambient standards. 
The Committee is concerned that the current level of scientific 
knowledge on the health impacts of PM10 is insufficient to 
support a standard which is likely to have significant costs to 
the economy. The Committee encourages ORD to increase its 
research efforts in this area.
    The Committee supports terminating EPA's indoor air 
research program. ORD's primary mission is to conduct the 
research required to support EPA promulgation of scientifically 
sound regulation. The Committee notes that EPA has attempted to 
impose strict regulations on radon in drinking water in part to 
reduce the ambient levels of radon in private residences. The 
Committee further notes that EPA does not have, and should not 
have, the statutory authority to regulate indoor air. 
Currently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) regulates indoor air in the workplace. Indoor air in 
private homes is not regulated.
    The Committee supports Congress' historic reluctance to 
expand EPA's authority to include the regulation of indoor air. 
During the 102nd Congress, the last time the Committee 
considered a measure to increase EPA's authority over indoor 
air quality, the full Committee effectively killed H.R. 1066, 
The Indoor Air Quality Act of 1991, by voting unanimously to 
recommit the measure to Subcommittee. The Committee believes 
the research money currently proposed for indoor air could be 
better spent in support of science which underpins existing or 
future Agency rulemaking activities.

Global change research

    The Committee directs EPA to terminate ORD's global climate 
change research. The Committee believes that EPA's research on 
global climate change is of a lower priority than that 
sponsored by other agencies within the Federal government. The 
Committee notes that much of ORD's research assesses the social 
and economic impact of global warming rather than exploring 
whether the phenomena actually exists.
    The Committee notes that in EPA's documentation of its 
accomplishments from Fiscal Year 1994, the lead accomplishment 
listed for its global warming research program is the modeling 
of the possible future locations of commercial and recreational 
fishery stocks in a post-warming environment. The Committee 
believes that research of this nature is not a priority of ORD.

Lab and field expenses

    The Committee is concerned that the current ORD laboratory 
streamlining effort appears to simply shift personnel and 
expenses from headquarters to the field. While the Committee 
recognizes that some movement of personnel from headquarters to 
the field may be warranted and may indeed help improve 
operations, simply shifting personnel has significant up-front 
costs and no back-end savings. Until ORD can provide assurances 
that its streamlining efforts will result in reductions in 
bureaucratic layers, staff, and associated expenses, the 
Committee will not support increased funding for streamlining 
purposes. The Committee has not included the $5,000,000 
requested by the Administration for reorganization in this Act.

Multimedia research

    The Committee is concerned with the apparent shift from 
funding category specific research to funding multimedia 
research. Although most research topics incorporate some cross 
media components, if the current trend continues, all ORD 
funding will come directly from the Multimedia Research 
account.
    The Committee recommends termination of ETI, an ill-defined 
Administration initiative. The program appears to be either an 
attempt at environmental industrial policy or an overpriced 
effort to reform EPA's regulatory policies to eliminate 
barriers to ``green'' technologies. While the Committee 
supports the latter in concept, it notes that such an effort 
should not require the expenditure of $80,000,000. Further, 
many of the current barriers to improved environmental 
technologies are legislative. Such barriers will have to be 
removed by Congress.
    As for industrial policy, the Committee rejects the premise 
that ORD should expend its scarce resources on subsidizing the 
commercialization of environmental technology.
    The Committee supports funding environmental fellowships at 
$5,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1996. The fellowships must support 
research directly related to ORD's mission. The Committee 
believes that environmental education, while important, is not 
ORD's mission. The Committee's support of continued funding for 
ORD's fellowship program is conditioned on ORD demonstrating a 
direct link between ORD research and research conducted through 
the fellowship program.

Limitations on appropriations

    The Committee does not support funding ETI, ORD activities 
associated with Climate Change Action Plan, or indoor air 
research.
    The Committee intends this Act to be the sole authorization 
for all ORD programs. None of ORD's programs are authorized 
after September 30, 1996.

Summary recommendations

    Details of the Committee's recommendations of the following 
table.

                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY                
                                            [In thousands of dollars]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year--                  Mark compared with (+ or -)
                                      ---------------------------------------------         fiscal year--       
                                                                                   -----------------------------
                                       1995 adjusted   1996 request    1996 mark    1995 adjusted   1996 request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             AIR RESEARCH                                                                                       
Air Quality Research:                                                                                           
    Global change research...........          266.2            0              0           -266.2            0  
    Stratospheric ozone depletion....          879.2            0              0           -879.2            0  
    Air toxics.......................        6,009.6        9,852.1        6,319.6         +310.0       -3,532.5
    Criteria air pollutants..........       31,405.8       34,985.4       57,145.1      +25,739.3      +22,159.7
    Pollutants from motor vehicles...        5,182.3        3,646.7        3,646.7       -1,535.6            0  
    Indoor air pollution.............        6,773.8        5,238.4            0         -6,773.8       -5,238.4
    Infrastructure...................       26,803.8       29,081.3       26,803.8            0         -2,277.5
    Cross program....................        1,427.7        1,437.7            0         -1,427.7       -1,437.7
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, air quality research....       78,748.4       84,241.6       93,915.2      +15,166.8       +9,673.6
                                      ==========================================================================
Acid Deposition:                                                                                                
    Acid Deposition..................        1,477.5            0              0         -1,477.5            0  
    Infrastructure...................          586.8            0              0           -586.8            0  
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, acid deposition.........        2,064.3            0              0         -2,064.3            0  
                                      ==========================================================================
Global Change Research:                                                                                         
    Global change research...........       16,562.5       15,224.5            0        -16,562.5      -15,224.5
    Stratospheric ozone depletion....        1,668.5        2,125.4        2,125.4         +456.9            0  
    Infrastructure...................        5,151.2        5,118.6          260.3       -4,890.9       -4,858.3
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total global change research...       23,382.2       22,468.5        2,385.7      -20,996.5      -20,082.8
                                      ==========================================================================
      Total, air research............      104,194.9      106,710.1       96,300.9       -7,894.0      -10,409.2
                                      ==========================================================================
        WATER QUALITY RESEARCH                                                                                  
Ecosystem protection.................        8,604.3        8,010.2        9,188.9         +584.6       +1,178.7
Wastewater and sludge................        1,368.8            0              0         -1,368.8            0  
Infrastructure.......................       12,664.5       12,968.7       11,790.0         -874.5       -1,178.7
Cross program........................          264.7          264.2          264.2           -0.5            0  
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, water quality research..       22,902.3       21,243.1       21,243.1       -1,659.2            0  
                                      ==========================================================================
       DRINKING WATER RESEARCH                                                                                  
Ecosystem protection.................          453.5            0              0           -453.5            0  
Drinking water pollutants and                                                                                   
 disinfection........................        8,463.1        8,384.8        8,384.8          -78.3            0  
Groundwater..........................        2,059.7        1,991.7        1,991.7          -68.0            0  
Infrastructure.......................       10,869.9       11,289.3       10,275.9         -594.0       -1,013.4
Cross program........................          328.3            0              0           -328.3            0  
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, drinking water research.       22,174.5       21,665.8       20,652.4       -1,522.1       -1,013.4
                                      ==========================================================================
         PESTICIDES RESEARCH                                                                                    
Ecosystems protection................        1,290.9            0              0         -1,290.9            0  
Environmental releases of                                                                                       
 biotechnology products..............        1,157.7        1,576.1        1,157.7         +418.4            0  
Human exposure.......................        3,058.2        5,094.8        5,094.8       +2,036.6            0  
Health effects.......................          810.1          436.3          436.3         -373.8            0  
Environmental review of toxic                                                                                   
 chemicals...........................          445.1           85.6           85.6         -359.5            0  
Infrastructure.......................        6,808.2        6,152.4        6,152.4         -655.8            0  
Cross program........................          253.2          253.0            0           -253.2         -253.0
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, pesticides research.....       13,823.4       13,598.2       13,345.2         -478.2         -253.0
                                      ==========================================================================
      TOXIC SUBSTANCES RESEARCH                                                                                 
Ecosystems protection................          525.9            0              0           -525.9            0  
Environmental releases of                                                                                       
 biotechnology products..............        2,967.7          974.4          974.4       -1,993.3            0  
Wastewater and sludge................           56.9            0              0            -56.9            0  
Human exposure.......................        1,138.8        1,135.0        1,135.0           -3.8            0  
Health effects.......................        1,713.7        1,599.0        1,599.0         -114.7            0  
Health risk assessment methods.......          253.0          207.2          207.2          -45.8            0  
Environmental review of toxic                                                                                   
 chemicals...........................          738.3          512.7          512.7         -225.6            0  
Lead and other heavy metals..........          702.1          600.3          600.3         -101.8            0  
Infrastructure.......................        9,701.2       10,051.2        6,025.3       -3,675.9       -4,025.9
Cross program........................          411.1          410.6            0           -411.1         -410.6
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, toxic substances                                                                                   
       research......................       18,208.7       15,490.4       11,053.9       -7,154.8       -4,436.5
                                      ==========================================================================
       HAZARDOUS WASTE RESEARCH                                                                                 
Groundwater..........................        5,903.3        5,822.0        5,822.0          -81.3            0  
Waste management.....................        3,346.8        1,430.8        1,430.8       -1,916.0            0  
Surface cleanup......................          447.6          446.3          446.3           -1.3            0  
Bioremediation.......................        1,178.0          682.0          682.0         -496.0            0  
Pollution prevention.................        1,513.1        1,529.0        1,529.0          +15.9            0  
National and international technology                                                                           
 transfer............................          680.9          678.8          678.8           -2.1            0  
Environmental review of toxic                                                                                   
 chemicals...........................           97.3            0              0            -97.3            0  
Exploratory grants and centers.......          390.0          388.8          388.8           -1.2            0  
Infrastructure.......................       12,470.2       11,116.4       10,042.5       -2,427.7       -1,073.9
Cross program........................          721.1          721.8            0           -721.1         -721.8
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, hazardous waste research       26,748.3       22,815.9       21,020.2       -5,728.1       -1,795.7
                                      ==========================================================================
 MULTIMEDIA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                                                                            
Multimedia research:                                                                                            
    Ecosystems protection............       47,042.2       47,351.7       47,351.7         +309.5            0  
    Criteria air pollutants..........          697.7            0              0           -697.7            0  
    Pollutants from motor vehicles...          300.0            0              0           -300.0            0  
    Indoor air pollution.............          159.0            0              0           -159.0            0  
    Human exposure...................       11,296.0        6,765.4        6,765.4       -4,530.6            0  
    Health effects...................        1,359.8        6,307.4        6,307.4       +4,947.6            0  
    Health risk assessment methods...        4,271.9        8,910.2        8,910.2       +4,638.3            0  
    Pollution prevention.............        4,855.7        4,803.7        4,803.7          -52.0            0  
    Innovative technologies..........       47,151.8       92,883.2        6,683.2      -40,468.6      -86,200.0
    Environmental education..........        8,566.7       11,704.2        5,000.0       -3,556.7       -6,704.2
    National and international                                                                                  
     technology transfer.............        2,179.9        1,123.1        1,123.1       -1,056.8            0  
    Lead and other heavy metals......        1,963.3        1,706.8        1,706.8         -256.5            0  
    Exploratory grants and centers...       29,406.5       25,760.2       25,760.2       -3,646.3            0  
    Infrastructure...................       33,697.6       46,317.1       31,513.9       -2,183.7      -14,803.2
    Cross program....................       12,731.2       14,730.7       12,731.2            0         -1,999.5
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, multimedia research.....      205,679.3      268,363.7      158,656.8      -47,022.5     -109,706.9
Headquarters infrastructure..........        5,389.1       10,837.2        9,254.8       +3,865.7       -1,582.4
Lab and field expenses...............       49,610.9       78,031.6       73,031.6      +23,420.7       -5,000.0
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, multimedia research and                                                                            
       development...................      260,679.3      357,232.5      240,943.2      -19,736.1     -116,289.3
                                      ==========================================================================
  MISSION AND POLICY MANAGEMENT--R&D                                                                            
Mission and Policy Management--R&D...        7,225.6        7,985.2        6,399.3         -826.3       -1,585.9
  SUPERFUND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                                                                            
Hazardous substance research:                                                                                   
    Ecosystems protection............          421.9        1,770.0        1,770.0       +1,348.1            0  
    Groundwater......................        2,873.5        3,538.6        3,538.6         +665.1            0  
    Surface cleanup..................       28,361.7       22,889.2       22,889.2       -5,472.5            0  
    Bioremediation...................        4,549.7        5,334.1        5,334.1         +784.4            0  
    Health risk assessment...........        1,899.3        1,884.9        1,884.9          -14.4            0  
    Innovative technologies..........        1,109.5          958.2          958.2         -151.3            0  
    National and international                                                                                  
     technology transfer.............          347.5          350.7          350.7           +3.2            0  
    Exploratory grants and centers...       14,264.1        8,460.9        8,460.9       -5,803.2            0  
    Infrastructure...................       11,992.3       12,949.5       10,051.0       -1,941.3       -2,898.5
    Cross program....................           87.1           88.0            0            -87.1          -88.0
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, hazardous substances                                                                               
       research......................       65,906.6       58,224.1       55,237.6      -10,669.0       -2,986.5
    Management and support...........        1,142.9        1,560.6          957.9         -185.0         -602.7
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Superfund research and                                                                             
       development...................       67,049.5       59,784.7       56,195.5      -10,854.0       -3,589.2
                                      ==========================================================================
  LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS                                                                             
           (LUST) RESEARCH                                                                                      
Groundwater..........................          593.8          589.5          589.5           -4.3            0  
Innovative technologies..............            7.6           12.1           12.1           +4.5            0  
Infrastructure.......................          167.8          172.2          167.8            0             -4.4
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, LUST research...........          769.2          773.8          769.4           +0.2           -4.4
                                      ==========================================================================
     OIL SPILL RESPONSE RESEARCH                                                                                
Oil spill response research..........        1,767.1        2,076.9        2,076.9         +309.8            0  
                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, EPA ORD.................      545,542.8      629,376.6      490,000.0      -55,542.8     -139,376.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 section 4--scientific research review

    The Committee is concerned about the quality of research 
used by EPA in its regulatory rulemaking. The Committee 
supports efforts to ensure the quality of research within the 
Agency by centralizing the responsibility for the quality of 
all Agency research with the Assistant Administrator for ORD.

             section 5--prohibition of lobbying activities

    The Committee opposes the use of any ORD funds for 
lobbying.

                   section 6--eligibility for awards

    The Committee supports only Federal research grants awarded 
through a competitive merit-based process.

                        VIII. Committee Actions

                          subcommittee markup

    On June 8, 1995, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 
convened to mark up Subcommittee Print, the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1995. The purpose of the markup was to authorize appropriations 
for environmental research, development and demonstration 
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency for Fiscal 
Year 1996. No amendments to the measure were offered and the 
Subcommittee Print was adopted by voice vote and ordered 
reported to the Full Committee for consideration.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Hayes moved that a clean bill be 
prepared by the Chairman for introduction in the House and 
further consideration by the Committee. The motion was approved 
by voice vote. Subsequently, Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself and 
Mr. Hayes) introduced H.R. 1814, the Environmental Research, 
Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995, on 
June 13, 1995.

                         full committee markup

    On June 21, 1995, the Science Committee convened to mark up 
H.R. 1814, the Environmental Research Development, 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995. The purpose of the 
markup was to authorize appropriations for environmental 
research, development and demonstration activities of the EPA 
for Fiscal Year 1996.
    Of the seven amendments submitted, two were adopted, four 
were defeated and one was not offered.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Walker offered an en bloc amendment to 
eliminate all references to the term ``agency action'' in the 
bill and to clarify that indoor air research is not authorized 
under the bill. The amendment ensures that no funds are 
authorized for the ORD unless they are specifically authorized 
in this Act. It also prohibits the use of ORD funds for 
lobbying and includes an anti-earmarking provision. Mr. 
Walker's en bloc amendment was adopted by a rollcall vote of 27 
ayes to 11 noes.
    Amendment 1a.--Mr. Brown offered an amendment to the anti-
lobbying provision of Mr. Walker's en bloc amendment, which 
narrowed the scope of the language in the Walker en bloc 
amendment to only cover the use of Federal funds for salaries 
and expenses. The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote of 
18 ayes to 26 noes.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Brown offered an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to authorize $545,637,700 for Fiscal Year 
1996--$55,637,700 above the total authorized in H.R. 1814, 
including the funding of programs such as ETI, global climate 
change research, and indoor air. The amendment was defeated by 
a rollcall vote of 15 ayes to 25 noes.
    Amendment 3.--Mr. Boehlert offered an en bloc amendment to 
restore $5,000,000 to fund the EPA graduate fellowship program 
at the Fiscal Year 1995 level, and to specifically limit the 
fellowships to students conducting research in support of ORD's 
mission. The amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    Amendment 4.--Ms. Lofgren offered an en bloc amendment to 
strike the restriction on ETI and to provide $40,000,000 
million for that program. The amendment was defeated by a 
rollcall vote of 16 ayes to 26 nays.
    Amendment 5.--Mr. Olver offered an amendment to provide an 
alternative authorization. Mr. Olver's amendment stated that if 
the concurrent budget resolution approved by the House of 
Representatives and the Senate on the budget for fiscal year 
1996 is based on an assumption of a tax cut of less than 
$350,000,000,000, then the total amount authorized by the Act 
shall be increased by the amount equal to $55,637,000, 
multiplied by the fraction whose numerator is $350,000,000,000 
minus the amount of the tax cut reflected in the concurrent 
resolution and whose denominator is $350,000,000,000, to be 
allocated to each program in subsection 3(b) in proportion to 
the authorizations set out in that subsection. The amendment 
was defeated by a rollcall vote of 11 ayes to 13 noes.
    Amendment 6.--Mr. Traficant submitted an amendment to 
encourage the purchase of American goods. Mr. Traficant did not 
offer the amendment.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Brown moved that the Committee 
report the Bill, as amended, and that the staff prepare the 
legislative report and make technical and conforming amendments 
and Members have three days to file minority dissenting or 
additional views. The motion was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Ehlers moved that the Committee authorize the Chairman 
to offer such motions as may be necessary in the House to go to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 1814 or a similar Senate 
measure. The motion was adopted by voice vote.
    Mr. Walker asked and received unanimous consent that the 
Committee adopt, as part of the legislative report on H.R. 
1814, the summary chart.

                      IX. Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies 
a measure providing new budget authority, new spending 
authority, or new credit authority or changing revenue or tax 
expenditure to contain a cost estimate, as required by section 
308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, 
and, when practicable with respect to estimates of new budget 
authority, a comparison of the total estimated funding relevant 
program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current 
law.
    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII requires each committee report 
accompanying each bill or joint resolution of a public 
character to contain the committee's cost estimates, which 
include, where practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law.
    The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

       X. Congressional Budget Office Analysis and Cost Estimates

    Clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to include a cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office, pursuant to section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if the cost estimate is timely 
submitted. The following is the Congressional Budget Office 
cost estimate:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 23, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1814, the 
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Authorization Act of 1995.
    Enacting H.R. 1814 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 1814.
    2. Bill title: Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on Science on June 20, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: H.R. 1814 would authorize the 
appropriation of $490 million in 1996 for the Environmental 
Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development to 
conduct environmental research, development, and demonstration 
activities.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
appropriation of the amount authorized by this bill, H.R. 1814 
would cost $490 million over the 1996-2000 period.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization                                                           
 level...........        490          0          0          0          0
Estimated outlays        227        201         62          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 3000.
    6. Comparison with spending under current law: In 1995, 
about $545 million was appropriated for the activities of EPA's 
Office of Research and Development.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Kim Cawley.
    12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                 XI. Effect of Legislation on Inflation

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI requires each committee report on 
a bill or joint resolution of a public character to include an 
analytical statement describing what impact enactment of the 
measure would have on prices and costs in the operation of the 
national economy. The Committee has determined that H.R. 1814 
has no inflationary impact on the national economy.

              XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain oversight findings and recommendations required 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee has no 
oversight findings.

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

    Clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI requires each committee report 
to contain a summary of the oversight findings and 
recommendations made by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee pursuant to clause 4(c)(2) of rule X, whenever such 
findings have been timely submitted. The Committee on Science 
has received no such findings or recommendations from the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

       XIV. Change in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing 
law.

                      XV. Administration Position

                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
                                     Washington, DC, June 16, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am responding to your letter of June 
15, 1995, and offering my thoughts on the Environmental 
Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1995 being considered by the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment. This bill, as drafted, would have a significant 
adverse impact on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA) science and technology programs.
    I believe, and I am sure you agree, that a strong EPA 
environmental science and technology program is critical to 
ensuring that the Agency's decisions are made with the very 
best available scientific information. We therefore ask your 
support in maintaining the resources for our research and 
development program at the level of the President's FY96 
Budget. The Administration maintains its strong support for an 
effective environmental research program to provide a sound 
scientific basis for efforts to protect human health and the 
environment.
    In the past two years, EPA has thoroughly reinvented its 
science program. This includes expanding our partnerships with 
the academic community, reorganizing and strengthening the 
research in our EPA laboratories, working with the private 
sector to introduce more innovative and cost-effective 
solutions to environmental problems, and instituting more 
effective peer review.
    The legislation currently being considered would authorize 
appropriations for EPA's research and development budget some 
23 percent below the 1996 President's Budget. In addition, by 
decreasing the ORD salary account by a similar percentage (and 
significantly below the 1995 level), this legislation will 
force us to reduce substantially the number of scientists in 
our laboratories, may force us to close laboratories, and will 
have a significant adverse impact on ORD's ability to provide 
the quality science that is so important for EPA decisions. If 
enacted, this reduction would be extremely detrimental for 
programs critical to public health and environmental protection 
in the United States. With the current emphasis on conducting 
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis and reducing 
uncertainty, this should be a time for maintaining a strong 
research and science program--and not a time for significant 
budget reductions. We are also concerned that the bill is too 
prescriptive, defining very specific areas of science to 
emphasize and de-emphasize, and thus distorts our appraisal of 
the most important areas for research, assessment and science 
integration. Our appraisal is based on the magnitude and 
uncertainty of the risk, as well as on legislative mandates.
    In particular, the bill would eliminate:
          EPA's efforts to fix our policy framework by removing 
        barriers, creating incentives, and injecting 
        flexibility that will allow industry to adopt better, 
        lower cost, innovative solutions to the nation's health 
        and environmental problems;
          much of the funding for global climate change, thus 
        preventing us from understanding and assessing the 
        impacts of changes which will occur should the current 
        predictions by the scientific community prove accurate. 
        Without these results, informed decisionmaking to 
        reduce or avoid change will not be possible; and
          the graduate fellowship program in environmental 
        science that is so important for preparing the next 
        generation of scientists who will work in this area at 
        the state and local level, and who will provide the 
        scientific leadership for industry and government in 
        the next century.
    In addition, it appears in documents accompanying the bill 
that the Committee is considering eliminating the most 
consequential laboratory research in the Federal government on 
indoor air pollution, which affects millions of people in this 
country.
    Our base of excellent science is vital for finding common 
sense, cost-effective solutions to the complex environmental 
problems faced by this country. Reducing the authorized level 
below the President's FY96 budget request would seriously 
weaken the scientific underpinnings of environmental 
decisionmaking and potentially increase the cost of 
environmental compliance. Therefore, we strongly support the 
resources for our research and development program at the level 
of the President's FY96 Budget.
            Sincerely,
                                                  Carol M. Browner.
    Enclosure.
        impacts on the office of research and development budget
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for 
ensuring the quality of the nation's air, land, and water 
resources. The effectiveness of environmental protection 
programs established by more than a dozen major laws depends 
directly on the quality of the science and technology 
supporting these programs. Although Congress has called for a 
strong scientific basis for regulatory decisions and the House 
recently passed a bill on risk and cost-benefit analysis that 
Members argued would improve the scientific foundation for 
regulatory decisions, the Committee has proposed to slash EPA's 
research and development budget and eliminate or severely 
reduce important agency programs.
    The Clinton Administration is committed to basing 
regulatory decisions on sound scientific data and has taken 
many steps over the past two years to strengthen the basis for 
the decisions that protect the health of every American and the 
quality of our environment.
    The House Science Committee has proposed a research and 
development budget of $490 million for FY 1962, 23 percent 
below the President's request of $629 million. The Committee is 
proposing to:
          Eliminate EPA's indoor air research program, an 
        effort to understand and reduce the health risks 
        associated with radon, carbon monoxide, organic 
        compounds, and biocontaminants. This would halt 
        research on identifying and controlling indoor 
        contaminants that affect millions of Americans at home 
        and work and cost the Nation tens of billions of 
        dollars.
          Eliminate the Environment Technology Initiative 
        (ETI), a program designed to: remove federal and state 
        policy and regulatory barriers that inhibit the 
        incorporation of ``better, cleaner, cheaper'' 
        technologies in environmental permits, compliance 
        activities and voluntary clean-ups; build state and 
        local government capacity to pursue innovative 
        technological solutions to their environmental 
        problems; and ``get the word out'' about the best of 
        U.S. technologies that are available to lower the costs 
        of protecting public health and environmental quality 
        at home and abroad.
          Drastically cut (by 90 percent) the global climate 
        change research which is key to addressing the 
        uncertainties around climate change and its potential 
        impacts on agriculture, human health and other areas 
        affected by change in our global environment. This 
        research effort grew substantially and was strongly 
        supported in the Reagan and Bush Administrations. 
        Without this research on impacts, policy makers will be 
        unable to make informed decisions about the benefits 
        and costs of proposed actions to mitigate the potential 
        impacts of climate change.
          Drastically cut EPA's research staff, by close to 25 
        percent, thereby crippling the Agency's ability to 
        provide the science needed to reduce the uncertainties 
        of risk assessment and provide critical scientific 
        information needed to make sound decisions.
          Eliminate EPA's competitive graduate fellowship 
        program, a major tool for developing the next 
        generation of environmental scientists and engineers 
        and advancing the Nation's investment in education.

                     XVI. Committee Correspondence

                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                     Washington, DC, July 19, 1995.
Hon. Robert S. Walker,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: On June 20, 1995, the Committee on 
Science ordered reported H.R. 1814, a bill to authorize 
appropriations for environmental research, development, and 
demonstration activities of the Environmental Protection Agency 
for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.
    It is the position of the Commerce Committee that several 
provisions of H.R. 1814 fall within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee. As you know, a number of statutes within the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee authorize research and 
development activities. Under Rule X of the Rules of the House, 
the Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over public health and 
biomedical research and development, primarily through the 
Public Health Service Act.
    However, in view of your desire to move H.R. 1814 to the 
Floor expeditiously, and in view of your agreement to offer the 
amendments that we have jointly agreed to, I will agree not to 
seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1814. My agreement is based 
on an understanding that this waiver will be without prejudice 
to the Commerce Committee's jurisdictional claims over H.R. 
1814 and similar bills that may be offered in the future and 
that the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction will be protected 
through the appointment of conferees should H.R. 1814 go to 
conference.
    I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and would 
further appreciate your including this letter as a part of the 
Science Committee's report on H.R. 1814 and as part of the 
record during consideration of this bill by the House.
            Sincerely,
                                   Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman.
                                     Committee on Commerce,
                                     Washington, DC, July 19, 1995.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Tom: Thank you for your letter of July 19, 1995, 
regarding H.R. 1814, a bill to authorize appropriations for 
environmental research, development, and demonstration 
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 
Fiscal Year 1996, and for other purposes.
    I appreciate your offer not to request sequential referral 
on the bill. As you are aware, during the last Congress H.R. 
1994, a measure similar to H.R. 1814 which was reported by the 
Science Committee and passed by the House of Representatives, 
was not sequentially referred to any Committee.
    I acknowledge that the Commerce Committee could be 
successful in asserting a right to a sequential referral over 
H.R. 1814. I agree that your decision not to request a 
sequential referral on H.R. 1814 in no way prejudices your 
jurisdictional claims to the bill. I also agree to protect any 
valid jurisdictional claim your Committee may have through the 
appointment of conferees should H.R. 1814 go to conference. You 
also have my assurances that the attached language worked out 
between our staffs will be included in the manager's amendment 
when H.R. 1814 is taken up on the House Floor.
    Thank you again for your assistance in expediting the 
consideration of this important authorization measure.
            Cordially,
                                          Robert S. Walker,
                                                          Chairman.
    Attachment.
                         amendment to h.r. 1814
    On page 6, line 14 inset ``research'' after the word 
``technical''.

                         XVII. Dissenting Views

    The Committee's decision to report H.R. 1814 represents the 
first step in dismantling the scientific infrastructure that 
supports our understanding of the environment. At a time when 
the demand to reform environmental policy by the use of 
``better science'' and risk-assessment has reached a near 
crescendo, the Committee has ironically cut the very programs 
intended to bring better science to bear on environmental 
problems. Under H.R. 1814, EPA's research programs will be cut 
$55 million--ten percent below last year's level.
    Like many budget cuts created to meet the arbitrary budget-
balancing deadlines adopted by the majority, these short-term 
savings will certainly be wiped out by greater costs in the 
long run. Environmental research is an investment that pays off 
in reducing unnecessary regulations and reducing the costs of 
delay and litigation in setting environmental rules. For 
example, EPA's Office of Research and Development is 
responsible for developing new and better risk assessment 
methods, exposure models, and toxicity data. But with these 
cuts, EPA's ability to carry out its expanded risk-assessment 
requirements under the regulatory reform legislation presently 
being considered by Congress will surely be compromised.
    The majority attempts to justify the magnitude of the cuts 
by claiming that they were required by the House-passed budget 
resolution. That claim, of course, is patently false. There is 
nothing in the House or Committee rules that in any way makes 
the budget resolution binding on an authorization committee. In 
any event, it is hard to understand how the budget resolution 
could be considered to bind authorization committees. The House 
budget resolution itself contains only totals by budget 
functions; the authorization committees deal instead with 
programs that are within the overall budget function. For 
example, while the House budget resolution reduces the natural 
resources and environment budget function, it contains nothing 
about how the programs within that budget function should fare. 
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) represents only 
2.5% of the natural resources and environment budget function, 
and only about 7.5% of all of EPA's spending. Surely, it would 
have been within the power of the authorizing and 
appropriations committees to protect the science base for 
environmental protection while decreasing other programs to 
meet the overall budget function total.
    The majority apparently relies on language in the 
legislative report accompanying the Budget Resolution which 
suggests termination of the Environmental Technology Program. 
But as the report itself acknowledges, such report language is 
not binding on the authorization and appropriation committees 
which are expected to exercise their independent judgements. 
Otherwise, of course, the Budget Committee would be usurping 
the role of the authorization committees.
    In addition, attaching the Science Committee's action to 
the House Budget Resolution is like trying to anchor in 
quicksand. The House budget resolution assumed massive tax 
cuts; the Senate budget resolution did not. Obviously, the 
final budget resolution will differ substantially from the 
assumptions in the House budget resolution, ensuring that any 
authorization based on the House budget resolution will in fact 
be irrelevant.
    We offered a substitute amendment which would have resulted 
in a hard freeze for EPA's research activities--a cut of $84 
million below the President's FY96 budget request. In the 
context of the Committee's total authorizations, our proposed 
EPA research budget was consistent with the Conservative 
Coalition budget which also assumes balancing the budget within 
seven years, but without massive tax cuts. We believed that 
ORD's budget should be held at FY95 levels because of the 
importance of science in ensuring rational and cost-effective 
environmental regulations. The needed reductions in the natural 
resource and environmental budget should come from lower-
priority areas.
    We also have concerns about specific cuts mandated by H.R. 
1814. First, H.R. 1814 cuts particularly hard at EPA's internal 
research program. It would require EPA's Office of Research and 
Development to lay off 250 scientists, about 14% of EPA's 
internal research workforce. (ORD has hardly been a government 
growth sector; it has 500 fewer scientists than it did 15 years 
ago.) Reducing the number of internal scientists is in total 
contradiction to recent GAO reports which recommended that it 
would be cheaper and more productive for EPA to bring some of 
the research functions which had been carried out by external 
R&D contractors back into the agency to be carried out by 
career scientists.
    H.R. 1814 would seek to micromanage EPA's research 
activities in many other ways. For example, H.R. 1814 
completely terminates funding for global change research, 
indoor air quality research, and the Environmental Technology 
Initiative (ETI). These cuts are particularly ironic because 
they support EPA's efforts to promote environmental quality 
through non-regulatory means.
    To take one example, the indoor air quality research 
program supports a voluntary program with the building industry 
which gives the industry information it needs to avoid indoor 
air quality problems. EPA works with private standard-setting 
bodies to develop ventilation standards and works with industry 
to develop and test building products which reduce potentially 
toxic emissions. Since comparative risk studies have 
consistently created indoor air quality as one of the most 
serious environmental risks, EPA's R&D program to support 
voluntary industry efforts represents one of the most cost-
effective investments in environmental health imaginable. 
(Contrary to claims made by Chairman Walker at the markup, EPA 
has never sought to regulate indoor air in private homes.) 
Nevertheless, H.R. 1814 reflects the decision that the best 
policy is to leave consumers, homeowners, and builders without 
the scientific information they need to make informed 
decisions. In so doing, H.R. 1814 reverses the Committee's 
decade-old, bipartisan policy of supporting EPA research on 
indoor air quality, as set out in Title IV of the Superfund 
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Similarly, H.R. 1814 terminates EPA's research program in 
global climate change. While EPA plays a relatively small role 
in the federal Global Change Research Program, it is a leader 
on research relating to potential ecosystem effects caused by 
possible global warming. Such research is critical if Congress 
is to make informed cost-benefit decisions about controlling 
possible carbon dioxide emissions. Yet again, H.R. 1814 prefers 
a policy of blissful ignorance over knowledge.
    In addition, H.R. 1814 terminates ORD's funding for the 
Environmental Technology Initiative, another non-regulatory 
program which seeks to use market mechanisms, innovative 
technologies, and broad partnerships to tackle some of our 
toughest environmental problems. While opponents have claimed 
that ETI is ``corporate welfare'' that subsidizes technology 
development which the private sector ought to fund by itself, 
in reality less than 7 percent of the FY96 ETI proposal deals 
at all with technology development. But even when we addressed 
this alleged problem head-on, by an amendment offered by Ms. 
Lofgren which would have precluded EPA from funding private 
sector technology development, the majority still rejected the 
program.
    Unfortunately, the Committee has reported a bill that 
attempts to micromanage EPA's research program by substituting 
political ideology for sound priorities. This comes despite the 
fact that Congress has been repeatedly criticized for its 
overly intrusive supervision of EPA activities, resulting in an 
inflexible, inefficient, and largely crisis-driven regulatory 
system. The first recommendation in a recent study of EPA by 
the National Academy of Public Administration is: ``EPA needs a 
well-defined, coherent statutory mission and the flexibility to 
carry it out . . . At present, EPA is hobbled by overly 
prescriptive statutes that pull the agency in too many 
directions and permit managers too little discretion to make 
wise decisions. Congress should stop micromanaging EPA.''
    For the reason stated above, we dissent from the 
Committee's recommendations.
                                   George E. Brown, Jr.,
                                   Bud Cramer.
                                   Alcee L. Hastings.
                                   Mike Ward.
                                   Jane Harman.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Lloyd Doggett.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Paul McHale.
                                   John W. Olver.
                                   Karen McCarthy.

    XVIII. Proceedings of Subcommittee Markup of Subcommittee Print

                              ----------                              


SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1814, THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT 
              AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1995

                  House of Representatives,
                              Committee on Science,
                    Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The hearing will come to order. We are 
now--we will move on to consider the Committee print of the 
Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration 
Authorization Act of 1995, which was prepared by legal counsel 
and previously distributed to the Members.
    [The Committee print follows.]
    
    
    Mr. Rohrabacher. There are no amendments--are there any 
amendments?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Hearing none, we will--the Chair moves the 
bill as amended. All those in favor will say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The ayes appear to have it.
    Mr. Hayes. What happened to my part? Was my part cut from 
the script?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No, no. That was just----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No, we've got something else. You are 
next.
    Mr. Hayes. Okay.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hayes. It wasn't that much of a part, to begin with.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Hold on. We've got it here for you. There 
it is.
    Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, I move that a clean bill be 
prepared by the Chairman for introduction in the House for 
further consideration by the Committee.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All those in favor, say aye.
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. All opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. 
And, the bill is reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table.
    [Whereupon, the Subcommittee markup on the Environmental 
Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1995 is concluded at 4:32 p.m., this same date.]

           XIX. Proceedings of Committee Markup of H.R. 1814

     FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP--H.R. 1814, THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 
        DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1995

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:28 a.m., in Room 
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert S. Walker 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    The Chairman. As per previous notice to the Committee, the 
Committee is now in session.
    By previous agreement with the Ranking Democratic Member, 
George Brown, the Committee stands in recess until 1:00 p.m.
    [Whereupon, at 9:33 a.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 1:00 p.m., the same day.]
    The Chairman. I declare the recess ended and the Committee 
back in session. Pursuant to the Notice, the Committee on 
Science is meeting today to consider the following measures:
    H.R. 1814, the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995;
    H.R. 1816, the Department of Energy Civilian Research and 
Development Act of 1995;
    H.R. 1815, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration Authorization Act of 1995;
    H.R. 1175, the Marine Resources Revitalization Act of 1995; 
and
    H.R. 1601, the International Space Station Authorization 
Act of 1995.
    I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess.
    Is there objection?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California reserves the 
right to object.
    Mr. Brown. And I do not intend to object. I merely want to 
make this point.
    I will not object to any of the requests of the Chairman to 
recess for the purpose of voting to a time certain or something 
of that sort, but I am concerned about the possibility, which I 
hope would never occur, that the Chairman might choose to 
declare a recess, if he's granted unlimited authority for the 
purpose of, for example, compensating for the absence of his 
Members who are not here to vote, say, when a vote is called.
    And while I don't think the Chairman would do that, it 
would not be fair for him to be able to do that unless the 
minority were able to do that.
    So if you'll confine your recess requests to the situations 
that I've described, I will have no problems with it.
    The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman for his 
explanation. The problem for the Chairman is that I don't know 
what contingencies could arise in two days' worth of meetings 
here, and it seems to me that we do have to be aware that a 
broad recess authority does give us the opportunity then to act 
in a variety of ways, depending upon what contingencies arise.
    And so I am seeking to have a broad recess authority 
granted to the Chairman here so that we can in fact proceed in 
an orderly manner.
    Mr. Brown. Well, I've expressed my own feelings, Mr. 
Chairman, and they are in no way intended to handicap you. I 
would prefer that you ask on a case-by-case basis, and I would 
not raise any objections.
    If you feel that you have to have the broader authority, 
perhaps you could get it by a vote. It has to be by unanimous 
consent?
    The Chairman. Well we can in fact have, I mean under the 
rules we can in fact have someone move the matter; and that is 
certainly--that is certainly a potential for us to go ahead 
with a motion.
    It was the intention of the Chairman to try to move things 
along today so that----
    Mr. Brown. Let me put it this way.
    Would the Chairman give me his assurances that he will not 
use his authority to call a recess in order to kill time so 
that his Members may come in a situation where otherwise we 
would have used quorums but the Chair doesn't like quorums, but 
he likes recesses to allow his Members to come in?
    Now that's circumventing the purpose.
    Now if you will give me your assurances that you will not 
seek to circumvent the purpose of not having quorums by 
recesses, then I will not raise any objection.
    The Chairman. Well, we can move the matter.
    I would simply say to the gentleman that again, you know, I 
don't know what the contingencies are that may arise in the 
next couple of days.
    And the question is whether or not we have Members who have 
to be on the Floor for business, and there are several reasons 
why Members might not be in the room at a particular time, and, 
you know, I don't particularly want to have a situation where 
we simply game the system, either, and we can in fact----
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I've been assured that you do have 
the right to do this by vote. You understand my concerns.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Brown. I will withdraw my reservation at this point.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much.
    Before we begin today, I'd like to take note of the 
extraordinary job the Subcommittee Chairmen and Chairwomen have 
done to make possible the marking up of eight bills here today 
and Thursday. They've risen to the challenge of trying to 
operate under the concept of a balanced budget, a very tough 
schedule and burden of leadership by setting priorities and 
policies within the reality of the limited resources that we 
have. And I certainly commend them for that.
    Jim Sensenbrenner, Dana Rohrabacher, Connie Morella and 
Steve Schiff certainly have my respect and my gratitude for the 
work that was done in their individual subcommittees and 
continues here today.
    Many said they couldn't, they wouldn't, and they shouldn't. 
They just went ahead and they did the job, and I certainly 
appreciate what they've done.
    This is the case where there were promises made and indeed, 
from the subcommittees, those promises were kept and I thank 
them very, very much.
    Are there any Members seeking recognition for an opening 
statement with regard to the overall markup session?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If there are none----
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to 
insert a general statement in the record at this point, and 
then I have a brief statement for the EPA.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

           OPENING STATEMENT OF GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a brief statement on the 
bill before us, H.R. 1814. It was my earnest hope that--with 
all the recent talk of the need for ``good science'' in our 
federal environmental establishment--there would be little 
disagreement on the need to adequately fund EPA research and 
development activities.
    Although EPA's Office of Research and Development is a 
small program within the agency, it does play a vital role in 
furnishing the sound science base for EPA decisions. ORD 
programs span all of the environmental media and include 
research activities in air and water quality, waste disposal, 
pesticides, and remediation of contaminated sites, to name a 
few.
    The role of ORD is easily overlooked in an Agency as large 
and visible as EPA, but without the sound scientific and risk 
data provided by this office our environmental regulators will 
be left in the dark and may well blunder into erroneous 
decisions.
    I recognize that Mr. Rohrabacher's bill is a serious 
attempt to grapple with these needs while attempting to comply 
with a restrictive budgetary constraint imposed from above. 
However, I also have real concerns a bout the reductions in his 
bill and about the overall direction in which it would lead the 
Agency.
    In my opinion, Administrator Browner and Assistant 
Administrator Huggett are to be praised for their leadership in 
moving EPA towards greater flexibility, increasing partnerships 
with the industrial and academic communities, and greater 
reliance on a sound, world-class science base. H.R. 1814 would 
represent a retreat from these goals--which every Member here 
should rightly support--and for that reason I will reluctantly 
oppose the bill.
    I do plan to offer my own amendment in the nature of a 
substitute to H.R. 1814. This substitute will sustain ORD 
funding at its current, FY95 level, which is over $80 million 
below the Agency's FY96 request. My proposal will be consistent 
with the goal of an eventual balanced budget and with the need 
for top-notch research in environmental science.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back any remaining 
time.

    The Chairman. So ordered without objection, and the 
gentleman is recognized.
    The gentleman wants to make a statement on the EPA bill? 
Okay.
    We will now consider H.R. 1814, the Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995.
    I'd like to begin by thanking the Chairman of the Energy 
and Environment Subcommittee, Dana Rohrabacher, for all his 
hard work in putting together H.R. 1814, the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 
1995, which preserves the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Office of Research and Development's core mission requirements 
while remaining within the budget allocations for the 
subcommittee.
    1814's authorization falls within the limits set by the 
Budget Resolution passed by the House earlier this year.
    By meeting the exact same spending limits which restrict 
the appropriators, this bill meets the test of relevance and 
will set spending priorities for the House of Representatives 
for the Office of Research and Development in fiscal year 1996.
    H.R. 1814 authorizes the Office of Research and Development 
for that year. The total authorization is $490 million. This 
total is $56 million below fiscal year 1995, $139 million below 
the President's request for 1996.
    This particular bill refocuses ORD on its primary mission 
to provide the scientific underpinnings for sound regulatory 
policy within EPA.
    The bill accomplishes this goal by reducing ORD overhead 
and infrastructure costs, holding them level as a percentage of 
research funding, and eliminating total low priority programs, 
such as the Environmental Technology Initiative, Global Warming 
and Indoor Air Research, and the Environmental Fellowship 
Programs, which do not support ORD scientific research.
    The bill funds all other research at either the President's 
request for 1996 or the fiscal year 1995 level. The bill even 
provides a substantial increase for research on air pollution, 
an area of science which has been lagging well behind the 
burdensome and extremely expensive regulations which are being 
mandated by the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
    This is a good bill. It meets the budgetary targets 
outlined in the House Budget Resolution without adversely 
impacting ORD's scientific core mission.
    I congratulate the bill's authors, Subcommittee Chairman 
Rohrabacher and ranking Member Jimmy Hayes, for their fine 
work, and encourage all my colleagues to support the bill.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. And I recognize the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a brief statement.
    It was my earnest hope that with all the recent talk of the 
need for good science in our Federal environmental 
establishment, there would be little disagreement on the need 
to adequately fund EPA research and development activities.
    Although EPA's Office of Research and Development is a 
small office within the agency, it does play a vital role in 
furnishing the sound science base for EPA decisions.
    ORD programs span all of the environmental media and 
include research activities in air and water quality, waste 
disposal, pesticide, and remediation of contaminated sites, to 
name a few.
    The role of ORD is easily overlooked in an agency as large 
and visible as EPA but without the sound scientific and risk 
data provided by this office, our environmental regulators will 
be left in the dark and may well blunder into erroneous 
decisions.
    I recognize that Mr. Rohrabacher's bill is a serious 
attempt to grapple with these needs while attempting to comply 
with a restrictive budgetary constraint.
    However, I also have real concerns about the reductions in 
his bill and about the overall direction in which it would lead 
the agency.
    In my opinion, Administrator Brown and her deputies are to 
be praised for their leadership in moving EPA toward greater 
flexibility, increasing partnerships with industrial and 
academic communities, and a greater reliance on a sound world 
class science base.
    H.R. 1814 would represent a retreat from these goals, which 
every Member here should rightly support.
    And for that reason, I will oppose the bill.
    I do plan to offer my own amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. This would sustain ORD's funding at its current 
Fiscal Year 1995 level which is over $80 million below the 
Agency's 1996 request.
    My proposal will be consistent with the goal of an eventual 
balanced budget, and with the need for top notch research in 
environmental science.
    And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back the balance 
of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
    Any other opening statements that Members might have, we 
would ask for them to be submitted and they will be included in 
the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    I ask the Members----
    Mr. Brown. May I reserve the right to object, just for a 
clarification?
    I want to clarify that it is the Chairman's intention to 
deal first with the amendments on the roster and any amendments 
thereto, and that Members will still have the right to offer 
amendments to any section of the bill, even if they do not 
appear on the roster.
    The Chairman. The gentleman is correct.
    I was just going to ask that the Members proceed with the 
amendments in the order of the roster, but certainly Members 
are given the right to offer amendments in the process.
    Mr. Brown. With that clarification, I withdraw my 
reservation.
    The Chairman. I would ask, as we proceed with amendments 
then, I'd ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, as 
amended by the Walker en bloc amendment when that is offered, 
be considered as original text for the purposes of amendment.
    [The bill follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. All right. At this juncture, I would offer 
the first amendment which is an en bloc amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. My amendment makes several minor changes to 
H.R. 1814 to eliminate jurisdictional concerns raised by the 
Commerce Committee. Specifically, it eliminates all references 
to the term ``agency action'' throughout the bill.
    The amendment further clarifies, as indicated on the charts 
accompanying the bill, that indoor research should not be 
funded.
    OSHA, not EPA, is charged with regulating indoor air 
quality in the work place. And other attempts by the agency to 
regulate indoor air in private residences have been repeatedly 
rejected by the Congress.
    The amendment further clarifies that no funds are 
authorized for the Office of Research and Development unless 
they are authorized in this Act.
    The amendment also adds language prohibiting the use of ORD 
funds for lobbying and also has in it an anti-earmarking 
provision.
    These are all things that we think strengthen the bill as 
it comes out of subcommittee. This has been discussed with the 
subcommittee chairman.
    We are in agreement on these amendments, and would ask the 
Committee's favorable consideration.
    Are there additional members who wish to be heard on the en 
bloc amendment?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. If it's appropriate, I have a minor amendment to 
the en bloc amendments which I hope the Chair will not object 
to. And it is not in the packet, and I ask that the Clerks will 
distribute it.
    The Chairman. Would the Clerk distribute the amendment, 
please.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for the purposes 
of explaining his amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with the 
Chairman's intent in the first few lines of his bill--of his 
substitute, Section 5. Prohibition of Lobbying Activities.
    However, I think that the language has been drafted with 
undue breadth which would cause us problems when it comes to 
actually enforcing or carrying out the intent of it and might 
actually pose Constitutional questions with regard to violation 
of the First Amendment.
    My amendment therefore is more narrowly drafted to state 
merely that the funds authorized shall--
    ``None of the funds authorized . . . shall be used to pay 
the salaries or expenses of any grant or contract recipient, or 
agent acting for such recipient, relating to any activity 
designed to influence legislation pending before the 
Congress.''
    I think you will concur that we're aiming at the same 
purpose here, that is, to minimize lobbying. But you may feel 
that it's necessary to throw a broad net. I think that our 
language is much better.
    If Members want to go further, we ought to use language 
which can give people some reasonable certainty as to what type 
of activities are prohibited and the amendment which I am 
offering is identical to an amendment offered by the Chairman 
of the Basic Research Committee on the NSF bill last week, and 
it's been regularly included as a rider on several 
appropriations bills.
    It has been interpreted by the Comptroller General and the 
Department of Justice, and thus provides reasonably clear 
guidance.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for his explanation.
    I had hoped with the amendment language that is in the en 
bloc amendment, to go further than simply the salaries and 
expenses.
    In my view, that narrows it to the point that it allows a 
very large loophole.
    Under the amendment that the gentleman from California has 
offered, a group receiving Federal funds can still use those 
funds to lobby except in the very narrow case when those funds 
are used to pay salaries.
    Unless a group is wholly Federal funded or there is 
specific salary provision in the legislation which passes the 
Congress, one can always agree that the funds appropriated were 
for purposes other than salaries, and so the lobbying activity 
continues.
    I don't believe there's a Constitutional argument where 
we're talking about, as the amendment in the en bloc package 
does, the use of Federal moneys. We certainly have the 
Constitutional power to restrict the use of the moneys that we 
are authorizing and appropriating.
    My provision is basically a restatement of the current law 
which prohibits the use of Federal funds to lobby and I believe 
should be in a broader context, not a narrow one.
    Are there any other Members that wish to be heard on this 
issue?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Chair will put the question on 
the amendment to the amendment by the gentleman from 
California.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request a roll call 
vote.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California requests a roll 
call vote.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes no.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton votes no.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes no.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Hayes. Pass.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes yes.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    Ms. Harman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. How am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Sensenbrenner recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner is not recorded.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Mr. Graham. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mr. Graham recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham is not recorded.
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. Mr. Hayes, how is he recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes is not recorded.
    Mr. Hayes. Okay, can you wait a moment while I flip?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hayes. No, I'm going to vote yes.
    The Chairman. Mr. Hayes votes a reluctant yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes votes yes.
    [Pause.]
    The Chairman. Are there any other Members seeking to vote?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    [Pause.]
    Mr. Tiahrt. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. If the Clerk has not yet reported, how is Mr. 
Tiahrt recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt is recorded as voting no.
    The Chairman. I thought he just came in. Okay, that's fine.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the rollcall vote, yes--18, 
no--25.
    [The Clerk reported the tally incorrectly; the correct 
tally is: yes--18; no--26.
    Mr. Barcia. Mr. Chairman, how am I recorded?
    The Chairman. The Clerk has now reported on it. We will try 
to take Members right up until the time that that report is 
done, but the Clerk reports 18 ayes, 25 noes, so the amendment 
of the gentleman from California is not agreed to.
    Are there any other amendments to the en bloc amendment?
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. If not, the vote----
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I don't have an amendment, but I would like to, I would 
like to discuss the en bloc amendment for a moment, if I may?
    The Chairman. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, and I would be glad to 
yield to the Chairman at any point where a clarification seems 
appropriate, but as I understand it, there has been--as I 
understand it, there has been a conflict on the question of 
where indoor pollution is handled, whether the authorizations 
for the abatement of indoor pollution occurs under OSHA or 
under EPA.
    Is that the base information from which the en bloc 
amendment comes?
    The Chairman. For purposes of the work place, that's true.
    Mr. Olver. For purposes of the work place, the gist of the 
en bloc amendment is to concede jurisdiction in purposes of the 
work place to OSHA and take EPA out of that. Is that correct?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's correct.
    Mr. Olver. And then in private circumstances, in private 
housing and things like that, which are not work place 
relations, then the purpose of the en bloc amendment is to take 
EPA completely out of the consideration of what might be indoor 
pollution in individual locations, non-work place locations?
    The Chairman. The non-work place is based upon the fact 
that there has been a consistent rejection by the Congress of 
allowing EPA to invade private homes for purposes of this 
research.
    Mr. Olver. The end result of this then is to leave no 
authorization for consideration of non-work place air 
pollution, indoor air pollution, to leave no authorization left 
for any consideration of that. Is that correct?
    The Chairman. Well, what we are doing is making certain 
that when you do indoor air pollution studies that they are 
going to be done by OSHA, and we are saying that's where it 
should be done.
    In all honesty, the studies are not, are not going to be 
that different, and so in terms of the science that is required 
to be developed here, the decision here would be to go with the 
situation in law that suggests that OSHA is the place to do 
that research.
    Mr. Olver. But OSHA's purposes are in the work place?
    The Chairman. That's correct.
    Mr. Olver. And if we're talking about non-work place 
locations, do I understand the purpose of this is to place OSHA 
in the position of being in control of non-work place indoor 
pollution as well as work place indoor pollution?
    The Chairman. EPA, EPA has attempted, at times, to regulate 
indoor air in private residences. Those attempts to do that 
kind of regulation have consistently been rejected by the 
Congress. This would in fact say that we agree with past 
actions of the Congress that were aimed at preventing EPA from 
regulating private residences.
    Mr. Olver. Well, Mr. Chairman, my recollection is in the 
debate on the Risk Assessment Bill and in the record of the 
hearings on the Risk Assessment Bill that in fact indoor air 
pollution was cited by more than one of the scientific 
proponents of that legislation as an area which was receiving 
too little funding compared with the risks that are involved.
    And while I can't recollect precisely whether that was all 
related to work place indoor air pollution, it seems to me 
rather--I guess I'm wondering why would we, as a science 
committee, get ourselves out of the--place the OSHA as an 
agency in control of all indoor air pollution considerations 
when really those which are not related to the work place ought 
to more properly be in our area it would seem?
    That would be my--and I guess again I would ask the 
Chairman for a bit of the rationale for why we should do this 
for non-work place locations where it seems to me they are 
properly into the consideration of EPA if they are ever to be 
considered. And this en bloc amendment essentially concedes 
that field totally to OSHA.
    The Chairman. The Chairman has attempted to make an 
explanation--obviously without much success--that the issue 
here with regard to private residences is one where Congress 
has consistently decided that we do not want to regulate what 
people do in their private homes, and so therefore we are 
developing language to tell EPA to stay out of people's private 
homes.
    With regard to the work place issues, we are suggesting 
that that ought to be coordinated through OSHA.
    The gentleman is right on that.
    The gentleman may have a disagreement with the fact that we 
are telling EPA to stay out of private homes. That is 
specifically a policy decision that is being done within this 
particular bill.
    Mr. Olver. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the case of your 
characterization that EPA should stay out of private homes, I 
think there is--people should not be told what to do within 
their private homes and I agree totally with the Chairman on 
that.
    On the other hand, I think that people would like to know--
for instance in the case of radon, which is a typical issue of 
potential indoor air pollution which may be natural, obviously, 
but it isn't a matter of what they do in their private homes, 
but what it is that might be possible to do to be done that 
would protect them from a very serious health hazard that could 
occur within the private homes.
    It has nothing to do with what they do and nothing to do 
with encroachment on their private rights, but rather of 
protecting people from the possibility of serious health 
hazards that could come from an issue like radon.
    Ms. Rivers. Mr. Olver, would you yield for a question?
    Mr. Olver. Of course I will yield to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you. And I will address this to the 
Chairman.
    Because in listening to this, I recognize that there are 
many private homes in the United States that are not 
necessarily owned by the people who live in them. Those are 
renters who have no choice in making changes in the structure 
or whatever and may or may not be aware of whatever dangers are 
associated with how the home is put together and the 
accouterments that is in there.
    How would this affect renters, or where would you see 
renters being protected around issues like indoor air 
pollution?
    Who would have the jurisdiction there?
    The Chairman. Well it seems to me that we ought to 
understand what we're doing here. EPA's work is supposed to be 
done pursuant to regulations to be issued by EPA. ORD's 
research and development is not just a panoply of environmental 
research. It's supposed to be done pursuant to regulation.
    The fact is that Congress has rejected the idea that we 
want EPA regulating private homes.
    And so therefore, what we're saying is that that is 
something that we don't want them to pursue.
    Ms. Rivers. I understand that.
    But my question was. For renters in my scenario and for 
interested homeowners in Mr. Olver's scenario, who will 
actually do the research that will allow those individuals to 
understand which dangers may be within the environment in which 
they live, their home?
    The Chairman. Well there's lots of research being done, 
both public and private sector research on the whole issue of 
air pollution and indoor air pollution, and my understanding is 
that there would be a lot of data that would be available to 
people.
    The question here is. What should be the role of the Office 
of Research and Development at EPA? And we are making a 
specific policy statement here that they ought not be moving us 
toward the EPA regulating what goes on in private homes.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 
Olver.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's recognized.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I've almost given up trying to 
break the very admirable discipline on the Republican side but 
I do want the record to reflect the factual situation as I 
understand it, which may be somewhat different from the way 
others understand it.
    But the fact is we are voting on funds for EPA's research 
office. This office doesn't do any regulation. And so we're not 
talking about regulating indoor air pollution at this point.
    As a matter of fact, the law already includes a requirement 
that the EPA carry out research on indoor air quality and it's 
contained in Title 4 of the SuperFund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    So the authority already exists for them to do the 
research. This Committee gave it to them. This particular bill 
that we're considering does not deal with regulation. The 
research is not contingent upon there being any proposal to do 
regulation, and I think Mr. Walker and I may have a slight 
difference of understanding on this point.
    So the question before us really is:
    Do we continue with a mandate to do research on this, which 
can be used to educate the public or for voluntary activities 
or for any other number of other things, other than regulation, 
or do we not?
    And basically that's the question.
    Mr. Olver. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
    Mr. Brown. I'd be happy to yield.
    Mr. Olver. I would ask then, if I understand the import of 
what the Ranking Member is saying, what we are doing here is 
essentially precluding research on issues like indoor air 
pollution, on items like radon and others that might come up, 
even though there is no authorization, nor does this 
amendment--there isn't presently no authorization for 
regulation in those areas under the present law?
    If that's the correct understanding, then I think we're 
doing something rather dangerous. I think we're doing something 
which could seriously reduce our capacity for the research to 
be done that would lead to an understanding of what kinds of 
things might be in individual homes and radon's a perfectly 
good case. There may be another case like the development of 
housing on what were old nuclear slag dumps or things like that 
that people really ought, that we, as Members of Congress, 
ought to be trying to help people to understand those kinds of 
risks.
    Mr. Brown. Well, if I understand the gentleman's question 
correctly, I think he's correct in his assertion.
    What I think this bill before us does is actually to 
reverse an action the Congress has previously taken to 
authorize research on indoor air pollution--not regulation but 
research--in order to protect the future of American families 
who might live in polluted homes.
    Now I'm not sure that I, myself, want to start regulating 
at this point. What I do want to start, when I want to consider 
it, I want a full research base on which to make that kind of a 
decision.
    Mr. Olver. I thank the gentleman. That really clarifies it 
for me.
    The Chairman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that we should 
not be regulating private homes, but I'm wondering whether or 
not it is this type of research that caused the flow of that 
information that caused people to start putting in not only 
smoke alarms but the carbon monoxide alarm systems as a result 
of just having the information, and understanding what might be 
a remedy, and going out and purchasing these systems and 
placing them at a rather nominal cost in their homes.
    Is this the type of research?
    Mr. Chairman, you've known, as long as you've known me 
probably, that I'm a strong supporter of research because I 
think information saves lives and saves dollars as an 
investment.
    I wonder----
    The Chairman. This is not research into fire protection, 
and it is also----
    Ms. Johnson. No, I don't mean----
    The Chairman [continuing].--Not, since we've had radon 
raised, it's also not research into radon. There's a special 
$12.5 million program that's not in the jurisdiction of this 
Committee, but there is a $12.5 million program that 
specifically deals with the radon issue. So radon is not the 
issue here.
    And smoke inhalation is not the issue here. That is, those 
kinds of programs are through other programs.
    Ms. Johnson. But is it this kind of research that leads to 
this kind of information?
    The Chairman. No. The problem that we're dealing with here 
is the fact that what this agency is supposed to be doing is 
research pursuant to their regulatory authority.
    And so one has to assume that when you move in this 
direction, what you are also doing is assuring that the agency 
is going to move to regulate in these areas. That's what ORD is 
supposed to do.
    We are authorizing then a research pursuant to regulations. 
It anticipates regulation. That's the reason why we thought we 
shouldn't do it, given Congress' past performance in this area.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Chair would like to move this, move the 
en bloc amendments to a vote prior to Members leaving to go to 
the floor.
    The Chair will put the question.
    Those in favor of the en bloc amendment will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a roll call vote 
on this matter.
    The Chairman. Is there a chance we can go with a division?
    Mr. Olver. No, I would like a roll call vote.
    The Chairman. Okay, you want a roll call vote.
    The Chair would make the statement, since it appears as 
though we're going to have some discussion here, it is the 
intention of the Chair to do this bill, as well as the Energy 
Bill and the NOAA bill before we finish our work today.
    So I just hope Members will keep in mind that it is our 
intention, despite obligations later on this evening, to 
complete action on a number of pieces of legislation today.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes yes.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes yes.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes yes.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes.
    Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Schiff votes yes.
    Mr. Barton?
    Mr. Barton. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton votes yes.
    Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes yes.
    Mr. Baker?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes yes.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes yes.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes yes.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes yes.
    Mr. Graham?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes yes.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes yes.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes yes.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes yes.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes yes.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes yes.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes yes.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes yes.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Mrs. Myrick. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes yes.
    Mr. Brown?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes no.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes no.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes no.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes no.
    Ms. Harman?
    Ms. Harman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes no.
    Mr. Minge?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes no.
    Mr. Hastings?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes no.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Ms. McCarthy. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes no.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes no.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes no.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    The Chairman. Are there additional Members wishing to be 
recorded?
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. Aye.
    The Chairman. Mr. Baker votes aye.
    Are there additional Members wishing to be recorded?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, the Clerk will report.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the roll call vote, yes 27, no 
11.
    The Chairman. The en bloc amendments, which will be 
considered as original text for purposes of amendment, are 
adopted.
    At this point, the Chair will recess, and we will come back 
immediately following this vote on the floor.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The next amendment on the roster is the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute by Mr. Brown of 
California.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Brown. And the Chair recognizes Mr. Brown.
    The Chairman. And the gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, before I briefly describe the substitute 
which I'm going to offer, may I ask unanimous consent that the 
record reflect that I had not rushed out of the room before the 
last roll call, I would have voted no on your en bloc 
amendments, which would not change the results.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's statement will appear.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute to H.R. 1814. My amendment would achieve two 
important objectives.
    First, it would maintain overall funding for the EPA Office 
of Research and Development at its current Fiscal Year 1995 
level. In other words, it's a hard freeze. It provides no 
increase, inflationary or otherwise. And this is in contrast to 
the underlying bill which would cut EPA's research budget by 
ten percent from last year's level and 22 percent from the 
President's budget request.
    Second, my substitute would provide EPA with appropriate 
discretion to carry out critical environmental research 
programs, I might note parenthetically of the sort which the 
adoption of your amendments just precluded them from doing 
insofar as it involves indoor air pollution.
    H.R. 1814 contains several micromanaging provisions that 
will force EPA to contract out its research, fire up to 250 
employees, and totally eliminate certain important research 
programs, such as the environmental technology initiative, 
global change research, the indoor air, which I've already 
mentioned, and the environmental graduate fellowships program.
    Let me begin with a word of background about the Office of 
Research and Development.
    This office has two chief responsibilities. First, it must 
provide the sound science base for EPA's regulatory decisions 
and risk assessment.
    Second, it must undertake a vigorous program of fundamental 
research that seeks to look over the horizon, anticipating and 
deflating future environmental crises.
    In contrast to many governmental programs, the budget of 
ORD has not increased over the past 15 years. In fact, when 
adjusted for inflation, the budget of the office is below where 
it was in 1980 despite the continued growth in environmental 
problems.
    ORD currently has 1800 full time staff, compared to 2300 in 
1980. However, over the last decade and a half, the Congress 
and three presidents have dramatically increased EPA's 
statutory responsibilities through revisions of the Clean Air 
Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws.
    Combined, these trends tend inevitably to erode the 
effectiveness of ORD and in part at least to create the 
widespread criticism that it does not act in an adequate and 
rational way obviously because it has suffered such erosion.
    I know that the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, 
Mr. Walker, shares many of my views about the importance of 
environmental research.
    He's spoken very eloquently here and on the Floor on the 
importance of good science to the environmental decision-making 
process. He's argued that when the best science is applied, the 
total compliance costs will decrease since we will find the 
regulations that concern themselves with are not to be 
insignificant risk, and he's correct in this.
    For my part, I tend to agree with Mr. Walker that the 
better our science base, the more rational and efficient our 
environmental regulations will be.
    Let me say, as I've already indicated, that my substitute 
provides a hard freeze at $545 million and it maintains this 
level in the face of inflation and a significant bookkeeping 
change which will in fact result in a $31.6 million reduction.
    This provides for a very balanced research portfolio and 
beyond that, the amendment freezes spending for certain 
management and other functions.
    I know that some Members regard the environmental 
technology program as corporate welfare, but the fact is that 
only seven percent of those funds go to support direct 
technological research. The bulk of it goes to support 
regulatory reform efforts and performance verifications and 
demonstrations.
    In summary, my amendment is a tough but responsible budget 
for EPA R&D, and I urge that the Members act favorably on it.
    And I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and his kind words 
about the direction that environmental research ought to take 
us in terms of regulation, and my position on that.
    One of the main problems with the substitute that has been 
presented is that it authorizes $545.6 million, or $55.6 
million above the level currently in H.R. 1814. 1814 of course 
was prepared with the House Budget Resolution in mind, and is 
an attempt to select appropriate priorities.
    As the gentleman states, one of the major differences 
between the bill that we have before us and the substitute is 
in the area of the environmental technology initiative, which 
the gentleman's substitute would fund at $46.5 million above 
H.R. 1814.
    In other words, most of the increase that the gentleman 
proposes is in this one area, the environmental technology 
initiative.
    In our view, we ought to protect a lot of the research work 
that is going on in the EPA to the exclusion of some programs 
that do not have as high a priority.
    It should be remembered that the environmental technology 
initiative has gone through a number of reincarnations in an 
attempt to carry out what the President first outlined in his 
State of the Union speech in 1993, and at that time, he said it 
was specifically designed to develop and market the new green 
technologies.
    While that is a very worthwhile objective for American 
corporate entities to pursue, and because we have been leading 
the world in environmental areas, it is certainly an area where 
we ought to try to take a technological lead, it is not 
necessarily the highest priority for ORD to be pursuing.
    And so we have decided that in our need to prioritize, this 
is an arena where we don't need to spend the kind of money that 
is in the gentleman's substitute.
    This, once again, comes down to a question of discipline. 
Whether or not we are going to have discipline enough to do 
that which the House budget required.
    I'm aware that the minority is attempting to put their 
packages in light of the balanced budget initiative but the 
fact is their balanced budget initiative did not pass the House 
of Representatives nor is it reflected in the President's most 
recent budget announcements.
    And so what we're attempting to do is live within the 
constraints that the House has already developed.
    In my view, to move on this substitute would in fact 
abandon that discipline, and I think would render what we do 
here somewhat irrelevant to the on-going process.
    And so I do oppose the gentleman's substitute and I would 
recognize the gentleman from California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I join you in opposing this 
amendment. And I would just like to note that this reflects a 
strategy and also a modus operandi that we've been experiencing 
when trying to come to grips with our challenge of having a 
balanced budget.
    The fact is that we are confronting an amendment that would 
increase spending by about $55 million. Now I made it very 
clear in the subcommittee, when this bill went through 
subcommittee, that anyone had the option to move forward and 
reprioritize where that our spending would be.
    And I simply said that if you are going to, if you believe 
that a certain area, like ORD, should have priority, and you 
want to increase spending in that area, you must accompany that 
with a decrease in spending in some other area to be 
responsible and to show that we actually are not forgetting 
about the goal, the overall goal of a balanced budget.
    And of course this amendment has no offset decrease in 
another part of the budget. It is simply a $55 million increase 
in spending.
    Furthermore, the justification that this is somehow part of 
another budget plan that would balance the budget is, as we 
will hear in many such amendments to come today, totally 
fallacious. I mean, the fact is that we are talking about 
people who are proposing more spending.
    So if we have a situation where someone says, well this is 
consistent with some other plan to balance the budget, how can 
there be the other plan that will balance the budget if all 
we're ever talking about is more and more spending.
    Eventually you might expect to get some amendment from the 
other side that actually wanted to cut spending from some 
place.
    But, no, that's not what we see. And I think to be 
responsible, we've got to say that yes, let's pay attention to 
anyone from the other side of the aisle who has an offset that 
they'd like to show us but until you show us some offsets, how 
can we take your, you know, your proposal seriously?
    Thank you very much.
    I oppose the amendment.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from California.
    Are there other Members who wish to be recognized?
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In response to the chairman of the subcommittee, who has 
just spoken, this is not more and more spending. It is 
specifically not more and more spending. It is in fact a 
proposal for a freeze at exactly the level that is the spending 
level of the fiscal year that we are presently in.
    The $545 million proposal just is incorrectly characterized 
as more spending.
    At the, just to use one example, the proposal that we have 
before us completely zeros out climate change research. Now if 
there's anything more important ultimately that climate change 
research, since climate change research has to do with what 
happens to species' habitats and one of those species happens 
to be human beings, and certainly has to do with a whole series 
of crop species and the kinds of habitats that might be 
available there, it's really fairly critical that we not 
preclude the kind of research that would be beneficial in those 
areas.
    Now it's not entirely certain that the scientific community 
knows where we're going with global climate change but that is 
the function of research, not to know exactly where it is that 
you are going to end up in a program. You may only have an idea 
or a premise as to where, what's going on, and the research in 
fact is supposed to tell you.
    And the one thing that the scientific community is almost 
unanimous on is that global change is a serious threat that 
merits at least intensive research at understanding what its 
impacts would be upon human beings directly or indirectly 
through its effects upon other species, life species on this 
planet.
    And so I think that the idea of zeroing out global climate 
change research in this process, completely zeroing it out, is 
really a very serious problem, and I certainly am going to 
support the amendment offered by the ranking Member in this 
area.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
    I yield to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, just to have a little bit of 
exchange here, yes, that's right, we are talking about a 
freeze, which means that if what we are talking about is 
freezing the status quo, we are talking about freezing America 
into a $200 to $300 billion deficit.
    The reason why cuts have to be made and we have to change 
the status quo, is because our country is going bankrupt. We 
cannot freeze the status quo. We cannot change the status quo 
in an acceptable manner unless we actually find ways of cutting 
spending. Otherwise, we stay the way we are and on the path 
that we are, which is what the voters voted on to try to say, 
hey, we think this budget deficit is out of control. We've got 
to do something, because we know that after a certain number of 
years, it's going to have, it's going to cause major harm to 
future generations.
    So in fact, this, it is a $55 million increase over what we 
believe is necessary to balance the Federal budget. And we 
can't just go back to a freeze situation, because the current 
status quo is unacceptable.
    In terms of climate change research, this is not the only, 
we're, you know, we're not talking about the only place that 
climate change research takes place, in this bill. I mean, this 
is not the only place in the Federal Government that climate 
change research takes place.
    So we are affecting some climate change research and just 
to let you know, and I think that a very critical look at 
climate change research would say that perhaps that some of the 
premises that the climate change research is operating on are 
very questionable.
    And we've seen scientists come before our Committees that 
disagree and end up basically not presenting the case that this 
is the best use of the taxpayers' dollars.
    So that's why we made the decisions we did, but primarily, 
and again when I say we're talking about spending more money, 
give us an offset that will lead us to a balanced budget. 
That's what we're looking for. We're not looking for an offset 
that will keep us on the status quo and keep us on the road to 
economic oblivion.
    Mr. Dave Weldon. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Florida yields back the 
balance of his time.
    The gentleman from Tennessee.
    Mr. Tanner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would only ask that the previous speaker could help us 
with allowing, getting his Rules Committee to allow us to offer 
the lock box amendment on the Floor.
    Nonetheless, I would yield my time to the ranking Member.
    Mr. Brown. Thank the gentleman for yielding.
    We, as has been indicated, are sort of going through a 
little continuous reenactment of a scenario here in which the 
majority are contending that we're busting the budget and that 
we're acting irresponsibly.
    On our side, we are admittedly following a strategy of 
presenting alternative numbers to the majority which we contend 
are in accordance with a path to balance the budget, which 
admittedly the House did not adopt.
    But these are the scenarios that we're playing out here. 
Now basically I want us to be realistic in terms of what we're 
doing, and to understand the facts.
    There's nothing in the House passed Budget Resolution that 
deals with the environmental Office of Research and 
Development. That is at a level of detail which is not 
contained in the resolution.
    There may be some guidance contained in the report language 
but that has no standard in point of law.
    We had an interesting experience in connection with the 
budget reflected in a book that was written two or three years 
ago called ``The Cardinals of Capitol Hill,'' which I urge some 
of those of you who are not familiar with the appropriations 
process to read.
    And this reflects a conversation between Senator Johnson 
and Senator Wirth in the Senate about the budget.
    Senator Johnson's on both budget and appropriation.
    And Wirth says, why is there a budget committee?
    Johnson explains that the group's recommendations were 
merely advisory.
    And a flabbergasted Wirth inquired, it makes absolutely no 
difference what we do?
    Absolutely no difference, said Johnson, who was also a 
Member of appropriations.
    To make his point even more clear, Johnson declared, 
appropriators don't even know what we do.
    Now, not only do they not know what they do with regard to 
the items which are contained in the Budget Resolution, they 
pay even less attention to the non-binding language which is 
contained in the report.
    Now for this side, the majority to continuously claim that 
they are acting in accordance with the Budget Resolution and 
appropriators will pay no attention to us unless we meet 
exactly the figures which Mr. Walker handed down is in the 
realm of fantasy, and that is indicated somewhat by the action 
already taken by the Energy and Water Subcommittee and the 
Interior Subcommittee in appropriations.
    Energy and Water deviated substantially although not in a 
massive way from the numbers that Mr. Walker had offered to us.
    Interior, which just finished today, is $365 million higher 
than Mr. Walker's figures.
    And I think that pretty much says what Senator Johnson 
said, that the appropriators pay no attention to what Mr. 
Walker says the Budget Committee wants us to do.
    Now if you need any more evidence, it will be forthcoming, 
let me assure you. [Laughter.]
    And I therefore urge that we quit engaging in this kind of 
senseless and non-factual rhetoric and get down to the 
realities of what authorizes are supposed to do in their best 
judgment about policies which are good for this country.
    Now, Mr. Walker has a two-pronged argument and Mr. 
Rohrabacher, too. They first put up the veil of what the Budget 
Committee wants, which is a pretty thin veil, and then they 
include in that a lot of philosophical policy which they're 
deeply wedded to, such as not supporting climate change because 
it's the product of some fuzzy-brained scientists to don't know 
what they're talking about.
    Not to engage in support environmental technology for 
similar reasons and because they think that's corporate 
welfare.
    Or not to address indoor air pollution research because 
that might lead to regulation which we would oppose anyway.
    And with that, I strongly urge that you support my 
alternative which is free from all these sins. [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Rivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to comment relative to the subcommittee 
chair's arguments about balancing the budget, that everyone 
likes to posit these changes as if it is a choice between 
spending today and not spending tomorrow, when in fact a lot of 
these programs that are being proposed to be cut may indeed 
save us from having to spend a substantial amount of money in 
the future.
    And that we have no guarantee that by eliminating research 
into the green technologies we are going to in fact be able to 
continue to not spend money when in fact we know that the cost 
of cleaning up a problem is invariably much, much greater than 
the cost of preventing a problem, and we know that intervention 
in health matters, as opposed to prevention is incredibly cost 
effective.
    And so I am very concerned.
    When I looked through this list of environmental technology 
initiative programs that are being proposed for cuts, and I see 
significant research in areas, certainly from my area of the 
country where the automobile industry is a major economic 
force, these are important issues for the health and 
environmental protection of the Great Lakes Basin and into the 
midwest.
    These are not issues that we can simply say, by saying no 
today, we will have no costs in the future and we're balancing 
the budget. We may well be making the decision to see the 
budget grow out of control as we have to intervene in 
situations that are created because we didn't develop the 
technology when we had the chance.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Are there are additional Members which wish 
to be recognized on the substitute?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If not, all those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. And those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    Mr. Brown. Roll call, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California requests a roll 
call.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Sensenbrenner votes no.
    Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    Mr. Baker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Baker votes no.
    Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes no.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Mrs. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes no.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    Ms. Harman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    Mrs. Morella. May I ask how Morella is recorded?
    The Chairman. How is Mrs. Morella recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella is not recorded.
    Mrs. Morella. Morella votes no.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the roll call vote, yes 15, no 
25.
    The Chairman. And the substitute is defeated.
    The next amendment on the list is Mr. Boehlert's en bloc 
amendment.
    Mr. Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I believe it's in our packet. I'll be brief.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Boehlert. The amendment has been agreed to, as I 
understand it, both by you and by the ranking Member, Mr. 
Brown, and it would restore funding for the EPA graduate 
fellowship program which is beginning this year, and will 
restore that funding without increasing the total authorization 
in this bill.
    The fellowship program is part of EPA's effort to improve 
the quality of its science and to engage in more extramural 
research, two goals I think we all support.
    A review of the program by the National Academy of Sciences 
applauded the EPA for establishing the program, pointing to the 
need for more and better trained scientists in fields related 
to environmental concerns.
    However, the review also recommended that the program be 
more targeted toward areas of study where shortages of 
scientific personnel either already exist or are projected.
    This amendment would implement that recommendation.
    The amendment would continue funding the fellowship program 
at its current level, $5 million, rather than the $10 million 
requested by the Administration. This is a new program and an 
experiment, albeit one based on long-standing models at NSF and 
NIH. And I think we ought to let the program prove itself 
before increasing its budget.
    And, as I mentioned, the amendment specifically limits the 
fellowships to students conducting research related to EPA's 
research mission in subfields where shortages exist or are 
projected.
    Such a targeted program can only improve the quality of 
environmental science in this country.
    I urge the adoption of the amendment and I want to thank 
you and Mr. Brown for your approach to it.
    The Chairman. Before commenting on the amendment myself, 
let me yield to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff.
    Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I missed the 
last roll call vote on Mr. Brown's substitute due to a vote I 
was casting in the Judiciary Committee and not being able to 
run a little bit faster.
    Had I been present, I would have voted no, and ask 
unanimous consent that that appear at the appropriate place in 
the record. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's statement will be recorded.
    The gentleman needs to bring down his times.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentlewoman----
    Ms. Lofgren. If I could also be recognized, I was in the 
same roll call vote in the Judiciary Committee and missed this 
roll call vote. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's statement will be recorded.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, let the record show that I 
told the Judiciary Committee to take a flying leap and was here 
and voted no. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Hayes. Mr. Chairman, please have the record note that, 
not wanting to offend Mr. Brown, I ducked the last vote. 
[Laughter.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman's statement will be recorded.
    Mrs. Seastrand. Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from California.
    Mrs. Seastrand. Just to also have recorded, I was in a 
subcommittee on public buildings in a roll call, and I would 
have voted no.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Her statement will be 
recorded.
    Let me now comment on the Boehlert amendment. The Boehlert 
amendment does refund the EPA fellowship program. It is 
fiscally sound offsetting the increase with a cut to the air 
research, though it leaves a substantial amount of money in the 
Air Research Account, still $9.7 million above the President's 
request.
    The amendment also ensures that the fellowship program is 
refocused to support ORD research. It was this lack of a 
specific tie-in which was the reason why the money was 
eliminated in the first place.
    Mr. Boehlert has corrected that in his amendment and I am 
supportive of that amendment.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, may I add my support to this?
    Despite the fact that it offsets the cost of the program by 
a reduction in air pollution research, which is extremely 
important in Southern California, I'm still willing to support 
this very worthwhile program.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from California.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Boehlert 
the following question.
    Mr. Boehlert, does your amendment preclude fellowships in 
soft or social sciences in order to prevent scientific research 
funding from being used to fund graduate students in political 
or social sciences?
    Mr. Boehlert. May I answer the question with a question?
    Is that a loaded question?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Boehlert. Are you revealing some predetermined bias 
against the social sciences?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Especially when programs are supposed to 
be aimed at the hard sciences, I certainly am.
    Mr. Boehlert. Well, but let me respond by, you know, what's 
wrong with knowing more about the economics of regulation, the 
impact that regulations have had in previous cases and the 
methodology for conducting risk assessment?
    That's something that's near and dear to your heart so I 
was just trying to appeal to the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee by dealing with such a sensitive subject.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. As you know, when we have focused our 
efforts on directing money towards hard scientific research 
rather than focusing our money on extraneous issues that might 
be better handled in other parts of the Federal budget, perhaps 
in the education department or something like that, if you want 
to educate people in terms of how government works.
    But if, I would take it that your answer is that your 
amendment does not preclude----
    Mr. Boehlert. You take it correctly. We're all different. 
You like surfing, I like baseball. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you be willing to modify your 
amendment to ensure that the money is used for hard science 
rather than for soft sciences and social sciences?
    Mr. Boehlert. Only if I'm convinced I have to do so to get 
the necessary votes to get it passed. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I can't tell you that.
    Mr. Boehlert. No, look, I appreciate what you're saying.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would yield to my friend, Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. I appreciate what you're saying, but we have 
a different view of the social sciences. I don't just view them 
as something that's fun and games. I think it's serious 
business, and I would like to include, have this as being a 
comprehensive program and retain the social sciences if that 
would not cause you too much heartburn.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. That would not be my preference. My 
preference is in the, hard science, which is what we have 
actually gone through this entire budget and we have found a 
lot of money that has been added on to what people believe, and 
the public is being presented titles and categories that make 
it sound like money here coming through our Committee is being 
spent in science.
    And to the degree that it is not being spent on hard 
science, but instead for example, in many of the programs, we 
found in the environmental area in particular, we found money 
being spent for promotion, and that's basically what we're 
talking about here when you say learning the political process 
and how these decisions are made.
    We are responsible for making sure that the hard sciences 
and the scientific research that our country depends on is 
funded.
    Some of these other things might be nice but they are 
extraneous to the central purpose that we are challenged to do. 
So it doesn't cause me heartburn, it just seems to me that 
we've got to set priorities and the priorities should be 
spending money for those areas that we have been challenged to 
make sure that the money is being spent wisely on, and that is 
outside social scientists, political scientists are outside of 
our charge.
    Mr. Boehlert. Well, you know, if I may respond, I would say 
that two people can look at the same picture and get sort of a 
different interpretation.
    I have a high regard for the National Academy of Sciences 
as does the gentleman, I know. And the Academy has indicated 
that social science is a legitimate part of environmental 
research.
    Keep in mind, we're talking about stipends, fellowships for 
PhD candidates. We're not talking about some promotional 
efforts.
    So I would prefer, once again, that the gentleman yield 
just a millimeter in this instance and let us go forward with 
this, and I think you'll be rewarded by a feeling that what you 
did was well done.
    Mrs. Cubin. Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Boehlert. I yield back the balance of my time.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady from Wyoming.
    Mrs. Cubin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I for one cannot support this amendment as long as it isn't 
just for the hard sciences.
    As a chemist, I realize the shortage of physical 
scientists, if you will, in the marketplace and in academia. So 
I don't know of any place where there's a shortage of upper 
degreed people, should I say, in political science and social 
work.
    But in the physical sciences, there's a shortage almost 
everywhere. So the only way I could possibly support this would 
be if it is just for the physical science sciences.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Mrs. Cubin. Certainly.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, and every cent that we 
spend on a PhD getting a basically a political science or some 
sort of sociology degree takes away from the money that is 
available for our young people to get their advanced degrees in 
exactly the hard sciences which is the purpose of the program 
or at least is what the public would think would be the purpose 
of the program.
    So again we're talking about setting priorities and making 
sure that the money is being spent, and I would yield back.
    Mr. Boehlert. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Mrs. Cubin. Yes. Just let me make, go a little further on 
that point.
    When I was in school, and I think it's the same way today, 
we would have to go into Chemistry and Physics, for example, 
the emphasis that I took, we'd have to go four days a week to 
class and two days a week to labs, and our labs were three 
hours each, but they only counted one hour credit.
    And so already there's not an incentive for people to go 
into the physical sciences and the physical sciences are where 
we really need to encourage folks to go in spite of the way the 
courses are set up. They still only get one hour credit for a 
three hour lab twice a week.
    So I think we need to encourage people to go into the 
physical sciences.
    And now I'd certainly yield.
    Mr. Boehlert. Thank you so much for the contribution, and I 
agree where the emphasis should be placed. It's just that as a 
Member of the new majority, the party of the big tent, I don't 
want to be exclusionary, I want to be all inclusive.
    I would suggest that this is going to be a judgment call on 
EPA's part and the overwhelming majority of the fellowships 
will be awarded in areas that both you and my distinguished 
colleague from California would warmly embrace.
    And with that, since we've got a vote, I call the question, 
Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentleman calls the question on his 
amendment.
    Those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed.
    The Committee stands in recess to go vote and we'll come 
back immediately thereafter.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    The next amendment on the roster is the amendment of Ms. 
Lofgren of California.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I'd ask unanimous consent that an amended amendment be 
distributed by the Clerk that corrects a clerical error on 
pages two and five of the original amendment, and also ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
    The Chairman. Just so the Chair understands, the gentlelady 
is substituting the amendment now being distributed by the 
Clerk for the amendment which is in the packet?
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes. It corrects a clerical error on line 25, 
page two of the bill, and line 5, page three of the bill, 
having to do with numbers that was just not put in there 
through oversight, sir.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    My amendment would strike the restriction on the 
environmental technology initiative in the Committee bill and 
would provide an additional $40 million for that program.
    If we adopt this amendment, it would still leave the budget 
for the EPA Office of Research and Development $15 million 
below its current level and $100 million below the President's 
request.
    It would maintain funding for the environmental technology 
initiative with a hard freeze at the current year's level.
    As a number of Members, including the chairman of the 
subcommittee, seem to regard the environmental technology 
initiative as a corporate welfare program--and I do not agree--
ETI has been targeted for elimination without Committee 
hearings to learn or explore its purpose, what the program 
does, or does not do. And there have been comments offered that 
ETI gives checks to firms to commercialize their technology if 
it's got the word ``environment'' in it.
    This statement made by the Subcommittee Chair was the only 
justification that I'm aware of for eliminating ETI, and I 
think it misstates the program's true goals and activities.
    The purpose of the program is not to provide government 
support for commercialization. In the fiscal year 1996 budget, 
only seven percent of the funds go to support technological 
research of any kind.
    The majority of the funds, almost all the funds go to 
support regulatory permitting and enforcement reforms and 
technological verification and demonstration grants.
    The environmental technologies are good business in this 
country. A million Americans and 50,000 U.S. firms are 
currently active in this area, but the market forces alone 
aren't enough to bring us the full benefits of environmental 
technology.
    For example, I think many of us have complained that 
environmental permitting processes are very inflexible so that 
sometimes we end up using technology that is more costly, it's 
less effective and it's old-fashioned.
    And ETI is part of the way out of that syndrome.
    As an example of what ETI is already doing, we're providing 
funds in Massachusetts to bring together permit writers and 
technology developers to ensure that environmental permits 
promote, rather than prohibit, the use of the latest 
environmental technologies. And I think everyone wins by this 
effort.
    The permitted facility saves money; the technology 
developer gets business; and the public gets better protection.
    U.S. environmental technology firms also suffer from the 
failure of this country to develop any comprehensive system for 
verification of performance of environmental technologies, and 
I think that performance verification is a crucial step for new 
environmental technology to gain acceptance from both 
regulators and private customers.
    The failure of our country to develop a verification system 
hurts firms both at home and in international export markets, 
and I'll give you an example.
    In California, my home, we have the beginnings of a 
verification system but it's not clear that Oregon would 
recognize California's efforts.
    Part of ETI's work is to bring states together through 
reciprocity agreements and ultimately to develop a complete 
national verification network.
    And although EPA would coordinate the network, it's not a 
new Federal bureaucracy that would be created; the states and 
private labs and others would do the actual testing.
    I don't believe that ETI is corporate welfare, and with my 
amendment, it could never be accused of being one because this 
amendment requires that all ETI agreements must be merit-based, 
competitively selected and it specifically states no funds are 
to be provided to a private sector entity for the purpose of 
developing and commercializing a specific environmental 
technology.
    Further, it specifies the categories of projects that are 
eligible for funding and these projects are environmental 
technology verification and demonstration and for regulatory 
reform, dissemination of information and related efforts.
    These types of efforts I understand have enjoyed wide 
bipartisan support in the past and they deserve similar support 
now and in the future, and I hope the Committee will adopt this 
amendment.
    And I yield back whatever remains of my time, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 
time.
    This is another case where the proposal would in fact take 
us above the cap that was assigned to that particular 
subcommittee. In this case, it's a $40 million increase.
    The question here is whether or not, first of all, we want 
to break outside of the caps. And I listened carefully to the 
argument made a little while ago by the gentleman from 
California and I understand the point.
    The only thing is that the stage has changed somewhat since 
the comments made by the gentleman from Colorado and the 
gentleman from Louisiana were pertinent in that the 
appropriators are in fact working with us at the present time 
because the change in the rules that relates to the authorizers 
being permitted to bring points of order against spending on 
the Senate floor or on the House floor.
    And the question then becomes whether or not we are going 
to be a relevant enough part of the process in order to have 
the appropriators stick with our sense of priorities.
    And in my view, we have had a good deal of cooperation 
along those lines.
    Where the appropriators, and the gentleman from California 
pointed out that some of the appropriators have gone somewhat 
above our ceilings, we're attempting to adjust for that.
    I mean, this is on-going negotiation and the gentleman will 
see when we get to later bills, he said we'll hear more about 
this later. Well you will from us too. Because in accordance to 
what was developed at the subcommittee level, it is our 
intention to come back in and build back in some of that 
funding into later appropriations.
    In this particular case, we don't see that that's going to 
happen with the ETI program and so this is $40 million that 
raises some question.
    And we have not done these things arbitrarily. In the case 
of the ETI program, for instance, I have a letter from a 
gentleman who serves on the Science Advisory Board for the EPA 
who makes a specific point that he's not convinced that the ETI 
program is something that will yield the same kind of return on 
Federal investment that could be realized by other more higher 
priority programs within EPA.
    Now we realize that what we're doing here is saying that 
there are some things that might be nice to do if you had all 
the money in the world, but we can't afford to do all of it. 
This is one of the programs that we've decided that we cannot 
do.
    Now, again, I understand the gentlelady's language says 
that it cannot go for any kind of commercialization.
    I would simply point out that then what she has done is she 
has moved completely away from the vision of the President when 
he originally put out the program.
    The President stated what he wanted to do was strategically 
invest EPA funds in development and commercialization of 
promising new technologies, accelerate the diffusion of 
innovative technologies at home and abroad.
    So with the language that she has put forward, she has now 
moved us even away from the core of what the people who 
originally designed this program said it was supposed to do.
    And I think that that raises question about the very nature 
of the program.
    I would also make the point that insofar as it is meant to 
streamline regulation, that's something that some of us in the 
Congress are perfectly willing to do for free. We don't have to 
spend $40 million to get to the business of streamlining 
regulation. We think we can get there doing work of making the 
regulatory process work better without spending $40 million for 
R&D.
    Are there additional Members who wish to comment on this 
amendment?
    The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlelady 
for offering this amendment. It was a part of the broader 
substitute which I had offered and which failed, and I 
appreciate her being willing to offer what I consider to be a 
very high priority part of the program which would be cut or 
eliminated by the provisions of this bill.
    It's unfortunate that the gentlelady's efforts to 
accommodate the views of the majority by precluding the use of 
this program for activities leading to commercialization are 
being criticized as much as the original draft was.
    It appears that this puts EPA into a no-win situation where 
they seek to carry out the President's announced program, which 
you've described, and they are criticized for that.
    They attempt to eliminate that portion of it, and to 
proceed on the basis of funding research which basically does 
not lead to commercialization but provides an underpinning for 
private industry to proceed on their own to develop some of 
these things, and the gentlelady's amendment is criticized for 
that as well.
    That is extremely unfortunate. But what we hope to do with 
these amendments, and what this amendment illustrates perfectly 
is where the position that the majority takes precludes us from 
moving forward with more cost efficient, socially acceptable 
beneficial ways to mitigate environmental damage in fashions 
that we haven't been able to do before.
    This means that we have to rely more on regulation, and 
then as the regulatory process is emasculated, this will lead 
to a greater public hue and cry about the continued degradation 
of the environment.
    This is something that I've been fighting now for more than 
30 years in the Congress and I regret very much that we seem to 
be moving backward at this point.
    And again I commend the gentlelady for trying to help us 
move forward again.
    The Chairman. Are there additional people?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, just to note again, in the 
Subcommittee, we provided a forum for anyone who wanted to 
participate in the process of setting priorities.
    All anyone on either side of the aisle had to do, and 
several people availed themselves of this and actually there 
were several amendments that were passed, reestablishing the 
priorities with bipartisan support. And some of these 
amendments would not have passed except for people on both 
sides of the aisle supported them.
    Which just said, if you want to spend more money, please 
tell us, put forward an amendment, but at the same time, 
include what you want to decrease spending on.
    And, again, here we have a situation where an amendment's 
being offered where we're just talking about spending more 
money than we then is part of the plan to balance the budget.
    And I would just say one last little anecdote.
    In my area, there is a company that during the late 1970s, 
struggled to come into existence, and what it does is it 
produces an environmentally clean or an environmentally 
friendly cleaning fluid, as compared to some of our more 
traditional cleaning fluids.
    You know, fish can live in this stuff and it can still 
clean up all the goo on your engine, et cetera, et cetera.
    Well, the fact is, these people couldn't go into business 
during the late seventies when the inflation rate went up and 
when our economy was going screwy, but during the 1980s, when 
the interest rates began to go down, the people who set up this 
business were able to incorporate, and they have developed an 
incredible new, environmentally friendly cleaning fluid.
    The fact is, if we can get our economy straight, we're 
going to have environmentally safe technologies because the 
American people are insisting upon it. It's part of the 
consumer demand of our country, and God bless the people for 
that consciousness, and God bless the environmental movement to 
the degree they've helped establish that consciousness in our 
country.
    But in order to maximize the benefits of environmental 
technology, we have to make sure our fundamentals of our 
economy are sound and that's why we have to adhere to a plan 
for a balanced budget over a number of years.
    Now if people want to keep the environmental this 
technology initiative, that's fine, let's see an offset and 
talk about priorities, but if they don't do that, these types 
of measures should be defeated because they're not responsible.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I realize 
that different people can see this different ways, but it seems 
to me, and what I've heard from the business community, is that 
they need to know to what end are they working, and what is the 
standard to be met.
    And more than actual subsidies in this area, and I've heard 
from some companies recently, they need to know, they need 
verification and they need the standards to which they will be 
held in order to unleash their market forces and their 
creativity and their research talent.
    That's why this amendment precludes funding for actual 
research but does do something about setting the stage within 
which companies would, would work towards.
    And that's my intent, it's really to enhance the 
marketability of this technology.
    I understand the Chairman of the subcommittee disagrees, 
but I just wanted and I appreciate this opportunity to----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Would my colleague yield for a question?
    Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Maybe I don't have a disagreement with 
that. But why is it that there's no accompanying offset when 
we're all trying to balance the budget?
    I mean, here we are struggling to balance the budget. Why 
weren't you able to come up with something that you have as a 
lower priority so that when you're saying that we should have 
$40 million more in this budget for this issue, that you could 
say someplace else in the budget, let's cut this out?
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, I believe that this is less than what 
the President has asked for by a substantial margin. It's 
substantially less than is currently being spent.
    Mr. Brown. Would the gentlelady yield to me briefly?
    Ms. Lofgren. Certainly, Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Rohrabacher, you raised a question which 
really doesn't fit the realities of the situation.
    I pointed out earlier that the appropriators have already 
appropriated in subcommittee about $300 million than you've 
authorized in your subcommittee.
    Now if there's anything that will make an authorizing 
subcommittee futile, it's your effort to constrain the 
appropriators who refuse to be constrained.
    Now I gather from Mr. Walker's remarks that he's preparing 
to loosen the leash that he's placed upon you at some later 
date when he makes the decision to do so.
    So the answer to your question is, when you decide to 
become relevant to what the appropriators have already done, 
and when Mr. Walker loosens the leash, the $40 million question 
will disappear.
    Ms. Lofgren. I call the question, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady?
    Ms. Lofgren. I just wanted to call the question.
    The Chairman. Oh. Before you do that, consultation with my 
staff, and I want to make certain that you get done what you 
want to do, is that the amendment, in its present form, would 
still not accomplish what you need to do.
    That you need to, on page four, line 24, strike 122, 142, 
90 and replace that with 162, 142, 900.
    Do you wish to make that modification?
    I mean, we can try to accept that modification by unanimous 
consent so that we make certain that you do what it is you want 
to do.
    I'm not for what you want to do, but I want to make certain 
that your amendment is correct anyway.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will accept 
your guidance on that and appreciate your help.
    The Chairman. Okay, by unanimous consent, without 
objection, we will make that modification to make certain the 
amendment gets accomplished what the gentlelady wishes to do, 
adds $40 million for the purposes of the environmental 
technology initiative.
    Those in favor of the gentlelady's amendment will signify 
by saying aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    The noes have it, the amendment is----
    Ms. Lofgren. Roll call vote, Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Did the gentlelady ask for a roll call?
    Okay. I appreciate that. We will call the roll. If some of 
these things could be resolved by division votes at some point, 
it would help move the process along so that some of us might 
get to the White House picnic at some point, but we will call 
the roll.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. Pass.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes pass, thank you.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    Mr. Graham. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham votes no.
    Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes no.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    Mr. Hilleary. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hilleary votes no.
    Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    Mr. Foley. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley votes no.
    Mrs. Myrick?
    Ms. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    Mr. Hall. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    Mr. Geren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren votes yes.
    Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    Ms. Harman. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Harman votes yes.
    Ms. Johnson?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Lofgren votes yes.
    Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes no.
    The Chairman. Mr. Baker is recorded as no.
    How is Ms. Rivers recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers is not recorded.
    Ms. Rivers. I vote aye.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, am I recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Yes, Mr Sensenbrenner, you are.
    The Chairman. The Clerk will report.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, the roll call vote is yes 16, 
no 26.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is Mr. Olver's.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Olver. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The amendment's in the package.
    Mr. Olver. Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have that I've offered 
here, I'm sorry that the Chairman of the subcommittee, Energy 
and Environment Subcommittee is not here at the moment, because 
in fact it has the special additional benefit that it does meet 
what he has so eloquently spoken about as the standard that he 
would like to see amendments consider and that is that they be 
offset in some manner, not perhaps in the way that he has 
spoken in the last few amendments, but in this instance, this 
is a contingency amendment, which would suggest that if, in the 
final Budget Resolution that is agreed to by the two branches 
of the Congress, the number involved for tax cut is less than 
the number $350 billion of tax cut over the seven-year period, 
that is the premise under which the House passed its resolution 
and is, I understand, the premise under which the caps, however 
manufactured those caps may be, but the premise, in any case, 
under which the caps were created for what our authorization 
totals may be, this contingency amendment allows that if the 
$350 billion tax cut amount is reduced, that then the 
authorizations may be increased in the areas that the bill is 
authorizing expenditures by an offsetting amount in proportion 
to the amount of the reduction in the tax cut as a premise in 
the final resolution.
    So that if one takes the amendment that had been offered by 
the ranking Member, which was for a $545 million amount here in 
this bill, that then if the tax cut amount is less than $350 
billion, that an amount of that $55 million difference would be 
added as a contingency in the authorizations under my amendment 
to allow the authorizations to go upward without having to come 
back to the Committee.
    And really to this Committee, it seems to me that that's 
important because the possibility that we are likely to have an 
authorization bill and that that would pass both branches and 
there'd be a full authorization, and then we have the 
opportunity under a new Budget Resolution, agreed Budget 
Resolution then to come back to the Committee and create a 
second authorization bill which goes the whole route of 
authorization on this side, authorization on the Senate side, 
to a final authorization bill for EPA Research and Development, 
it seems to me that that is about as likely as the mountain 
going to Mohammed so to speak.
    That within that process, appropriations surely will have 
moved ahead before we could get on with the, to any 
consideration of a second authorization bill. And if 
appropriations cares at all what we say, then the contingent 
authorization makes sense.
    And if appropriations doesn't care, then the contingent 
authorization is simply going to be ignored, as anything else 
we do, by appropriations and we will have not done any harm to 
the research and development programs of the EPA under those 
circumstances.
    So I would hope that the Committee would consider this kind 
of a contingency authorization increase, contingent in that 
very specific way related to what might be the change in the 
Budget Resolution in regard to the total tax cut, would be an 
appropriate way, which is offset by that tax cut change, for 
which would meet, it seems to me, the kinds of concerns that 
the chair of the subcommittee has had and so eloquently spoken 
to earlier in these discussions.
    So I hope the amendment would be adopted.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The Committee will stand in recess.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts.
    Mr. Olver. Point of parliamentary inquiry, if I may, Mr. 
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you earlier had indicated that points 
of order lie at the Chairman's--at the Chairman's discretion 
for an amendment to an appropriations bill or for an 
appropriations bill that goes beyond the Budget Committee's 
authorization essentially, and therefore, may go beyond our 
caps.
    Does that apply, Mr. Chairman, to only the House Budget 
Resolution, or does that apply to the final Congressional 
Budget Resolution that is agreed upon by the Senate and the 
House?
    The Chairman. Well, it would be, it's operative under House 
rules, it's part of the House rules. In fact, those points of 
order lie for any Member, not just the Chairman.
    Mr. Olver. But does it apply under the House rule to the 
final Budget Resolution, or only to some interim Budget 
Resolution?
    The Chairman. It applies, no, it applies to the process 
under the House Budget Resolution as well. And the fact is that 
the full resolution will apply to conference reports.
    The gentlelady from Texas wished to be recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
simply wanted to bring to the Chairman's attention and the 
Committee's attention that I am in two markups at one time, or 
at least simultaneously, and would like to, Mr. Chairman, 
indicate how I would have voted on the Walker amendment that I 
understand that I missed because I was in the Judiciary 
Committee on another roll call vote, the Brown amendment and 
the Boehlert amendment, for the record, and have it so noted in 
the record, please.
    I would have voted, for the Walker amendment my vote would 
have been no.
    Mr. Brown's amendment, vote would have been aye.
    Mr. Boehlert's amendment, vote would have been aye.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's votes will be recorded.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, and the Lofgren 
amendment, my vote would have been aye.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's statement will be noted.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, due to an incident that I was 
unable to avoid, I missed the Lofgren vote, amendment vote, and 
if I had been here, my vote would have been aye.
    Thank you. I'd like the record to reflect that.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's statement will be noted.
    When the Committee went into recess, we were, Mr. Olver had 
described his amendment. That's pending business before the 
Committee.
    The Olver amendment would increase spending for ORD based 
upon the size of the tax cut coming out of the Budget 
Resolution tax cut. The two issues are not linked since even a 
smaller tax cut might not lead to an increase in spending on 
discretionary programs.
    If the additional sums become available to the House 
appropriators after the conclusion of the Budget Resolution 
conference, as with all bills before us today and Thursday, we 
are going to be able to adjust numbers at that point.
    I don't think that we ought to be bound by some sort of 
formula that suggests that particular moneys ought to go 
particular places. Rather, we ought to be able to make priority 
decisions that would reflect the will of the subcommittees and 
the Full Committee.
    The Olver amendment, however, assumes a correlation that 
may not be valid. It is that reduction in tax cut will yield 
additional discretionary spending.
    What if the money ends up instead being used for deficit 
reduction?
    Under the Olver amendment, we would increase the 
authorization anyway, and thereby get ourselves completely out 
of sync with reality.
    We end up then spending money we don't have, turning our 
responsibility and power over to the appropriators to make some 
of these decisions.
    I would also suggest that the amendment is based upon the 
premise that somehow tax cuts are bad and spending money is 
good.
    From our standpoint, that is a different kind of 
philosophy. We believe that giving the American people some 
amount of money back as a part of the process of reducing the 
overall size of government is in fact a good thing, and that 
spending ought to be cut in order to accommodate that.
    That may be just a difference in philosophies here, but 
there's a difference in philosophies that becomes very real 
when you have a proposal for us in the form of the Olver 
amendment.
    Are there additional Members that wish to be recognized on 
the Olver amendment?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would just comment that this is, 
in large part, the same amendment as Mr. Doyle had offered 
earlier in another subcommittee and in which the margin was 
very, very close, one or two votes, as I recall.
    It is an effort to bring some flexibility into our 
authorizing process, based upon the realities of what the final 
budget figures will be.
    I note that you have indicated that the Committee would 
have the flexibility and should have the flexibility to make 
changes in our authorization in the event that the final budget 
figures are different.
    You have not yet clearly indicated to me, and I presume to 
other Members of the Committee, how this would happen, say, if 
the final Budget Resolution is approved on the 30th of 
September, how we would make changes in the authorizing 
legislation that probably had already been passed and maybe 
even sent to the President.
    If you could explain to me how not acting in support of an 
amendment like this gives us some additional flexibility, it 
might affect my thinking, but in the absence of a persuasive 
explanation, I would urge us to take advantage of the 
opportunities this amendment offered by Mr. Olver offers to 
give us a modicum of flexibility as the process moves forward.
    The Chairman. Would the gentleman yield?
    We are attempting of course to provide that kind of 
flexibility, as the gentleman has noted earlier in his remarks. 
There has been some flexibility with moneys freed up in the 
appropriations process is in large part by money being 
transferred out of accounts that were not assumed by the Budget 
Committee into science accounts.
    It's our intention, when we get to that bill, to have a 
substitute that would in fact reflect those higher numbers. As 
the process rolls forward, we would intend to continue that 
process.
    Our bills are not likely to come to the Floor in the 
immediate future, even after they've moved out of this 
Committee. We think they will be helpful in guidance of the 
Appropriations Committee and we've already had some very 
important impact on what the Appropriations Committee has 
decided.
    But we're going to remain extremely flexible and free up 
the moneys and have those moneys, insofar as possible, reflect 
the priorities of this Committee as we move forward.
    And so we are operating under 602[b]s. It started with the 
budget as a premise. It is obvious that this is a process which 
is changing, and we're going to reflect that.
    The problem with the Olver kind of approach, and that which 
was offered by Mr. Doyle, I realize they were offered in very 
good faith, is that they bind us to a formula that I don't 
think necessary reflect it, and is a far less flexible 
procedure than finding room to make these decisions within the 
context of the on-going process.
    And so we are going to remain extremely flexible and we are 
going to be very willing to adjust things as the process allows 
those adjustments to be made.
    Mr. Brown. Would the Chair permit me to respond briefly?
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Mr. Brown. I, in large part, agree with much of what the 
Chairman's trying to accomplish, certainly to enhance the 
influence of the authorizing committee to give us a little bit 
more discipline.
    I do not agree with the processes that he's used, and I 
even find fault with his efforts to characterize what he's 
doing as a 602[b] process because the 602[b] language in the 
Budget Act has reference to a specific situation which is not 
the situation that we have in the Authorizing Committee.
    Furthermore, the Chair indicates that in his flexibility, 
he's going to make some changes, which I commend him for 
because that recognizes reality. The appropriators also make 
changes, as the circumstances change, as the Chair well knows, 
and goes through several iterations of the 602[b] process in 
the Appropriations Committee and these follow a certain 
prescribed course in which funds that become excess because 
they weren't appropriated in one 602[b] account are then 
redivided amongst the other accounts and you move forward with 
these new figures several times during the cycle.
    Now you have not indicated how you intend to accomplish 
this.
    It is my impression that you do it by fiat, and that is not 
something that I would look favorably upon. I trust you will at 
least get the full support of all the Members on your side when 
you do this. And if you do, that's a step forward.
    I would like it even more if we got a little consideration 
on this side.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    We are not operating by fiat in any way, shape or forum 
here. We are trying to operate a process which is wholly 
inclusive and I think we've done pretty good teamwork on our 
side on most of these bills, and we will continue to have that 
teamwork and we would like to include the minority in that 
particular accommodation.
    And we'll be happy to do so if the minority would decide to 
support us on some of the directions which we're going. But 
ultimately, we have to have votes to pass these measures out 
and so far, we haven't had that kind of indication of 
accommodation on these things.
    But I would be happy to do it on a bipartisan basis if in 
fact that leads us to some kind of a mutual consensus here.
    Mr. Olver. Mr. Chairman, would the Chairman yield?
    The Chairman. The gentleman from California I think still 
has the time.
    Mr. Brown. I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman.
    The Chairman. His time has expired.
    Well, then the Chairman will take the time and I'll yield 
to the gentleman.
    Mr. Olver. Since it is my amendment, I'd like to respond 
slightly here as well.
    The Budget Resolution that was adopted does have, as one of 
its major premises, a tax implication, a large tax reduction. 
The coalition budget, which was also a balanced budget 
amendment, did not have a tax implication. And essentially, I 
think there is no question here of tax cuts being bad, as you 
have suggested here, that there's an implication in this 
budget, but merely that a contingency be built in here in case, 
so that there might be an increase in research and development 
here in the EPA budget that is inversely proportional to the 
reduction in the reduction, if it does occur, and only for that 
purpose in the resolution that is finally adopted.
    The Chairman. Because we're going to have a vote here, I 
would reclaim my time, and thank the gentleman for his 
explanation. He had previously taken his five minutes for an 
explanation.
    I would like to get to a vote on this amendment before we 
move to have to go back to the floor.
    The vote is on the Olver amendment.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have 
it.
    The noes have it.
    Mr. Olver. Roll call, please.
    The Chairman. The gentleman from Massachusetts requests a 
roll call vote.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker?
    Mr. Walker. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Walker votes no.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert?
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Mr. Fawell?
    Mr. Fawell. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Fawell votes no.
    Mrs. Morella?
    Mrs. Morella. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Morella votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania?
    Mr. Curt Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Rohrabacher?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Mr. Schiff?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barton?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert?
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Calvert votes no.
    Mr. Baker?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Mr. Ehlers?
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ehlers votes no.
    Mr. Wamp?
    Mr. Wamp. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Wamp votes no.
    Mr. Weldon of Florida?
    Mr. Dave Weldon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Weldon votes no.
    Mr. Graham?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon?
    Mr. Salmon. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Salmon votes no.
    Mr. Davis?
    Mr. Davis. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Davis votes no.
    Mr. Stockman?
    Mr. Stockman. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Stockman votes no.
    Mr. Gutknecht?
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Gutknecht votes no.
    Mrs. Seastrand?
    Mrs. Seastrand. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Seastrand votes no.
    Mr. Tiahrt?
    Mr. Tiahrt. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tiahrt votes no.
    Mr. Largent?
    Mr. Largent. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Largent votes no.
    Mr. Hilleary?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin?
    Mrs. Cubin. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Cubin votes no.
    Mr. Foley?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick?
    Mrs. Myrick. No.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mrs. Myrick votes no.
    Mr. Brown?
    Mr. Brown. Aye.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Brown votes yes.
    Mr. Hall?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Traficant?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes?
    Mr. Hayes. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hayes votes yes.
    Mr. Tanner?
    Mr. Tanner. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Tanner votes yes.
    Mr. Geren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer?
    Mr. Roemer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Roemer votes yes.
    Mr. Cramer?
    Mr. Cramer. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Cramer votes yes.
    Mr. Barcia?
    Mr. Barcia. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Barcia votes yes.
    Mr. McHale?
    Mr. McHale. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. McHale votes yes.
    Ms. Harman?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Johnson votes yes.
    Mr. Minge?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver?
    Mr. Olver. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Olver votes yes.
    Mr. Hastings?
    Mr. Hastings. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hastings votes yes.
    Ms. Rivers?
    Ms. Rivers. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. Rivers votes yes.
    Ms. McCarthy?
    Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Ms. McCarthy votes yes.
    Mr. Ward?
    Mr. Ward. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Ward votes yes.
    Ms. Lofgren?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett?
    Mr. Doggett. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doggett votes yes.
    Mr. Doyle?
    Mr. Doyle. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Doyle votes yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    [No response.]
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther?
    Mr. Luther. Yes.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Luther votes yes.
    Mr. Minge. How is Mr. Minge reported?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Minge is not reported.
    Mr. Minge. He votes yes.
    Mr. Graham. How is Mr. Graham recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Graham is not recorded.
    Mr. Graham is recorded no.
    Mr. Foley. How is Mr. Foley recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Foley is not recorded.
    Mr. Geren. How is Mr. Geren reported?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Geren is not reported.
    Mr. Hall. How is Mr. Hall recorded?
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Hall is not recorded.
    Mr. Hall. I vote yes.
    The Chairman. Did you get Geren?
    Ms. Schwartz. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Anybody else?
    The Clerk will report.
    Ms. Schwartz. Mr. Chairman, yes 19, no 22.
    The Chairman. The amendment is not agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. Hearing none, the question is on the bill, 
H.R. 1814, the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1995, as amended.
    All those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [Chorus of nays.]
    The Chairman. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 
it.
    The gentleman from California?
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, first let me make a minor 
correction for the record. I voted aye when I meant to vote no 
a while ago.
    On the other hand, I'm going to move that the Committee 
report the bill H.R. 1814, as amended. Furthermore, I move to 
instruct the staff to prepare the legislative report, to make 
technical and conforming amendments, and that the Chairman take 
all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration.
    The Chairman. The Committee has heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed will say no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it, the motion is agreed to.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I request three calendar days in 
which to file supplemental minority dissenting or additional 
views.
    The Chairman. Without objection, the motion to reconsider 
is laid upon the table.
    I recognize Mr. Ehlers for a motion.
    Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move, pursuant to Clause 1, 
Rule 20 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, that the 
Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may 
be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate 
on the Bill H.R. 1814 or a similar Senate bill.
    The Chairman. You've heard the motion.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    [Chorus of ayes.]
    The Chairman. Those opposed, no.
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. The ayes have it.
    I ask unanimous consent that the Committee adopt, as part 
of the legislative report on H.R. 1814, the summary chart which 
the Members have before them.
    Is there objection?
    [No response.]
    The Chairman. If there's no objection, it is agreed to.
    This concludes our markup on the measure H.R. 1814.
    [Additional material follows:]