[House Report 105-99]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                             105-99, Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________


 
 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION AUTHORIZATION 
                              ACT OF 1997

_______________________________________________________________________


                  May 16, 1997.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1276]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 1276) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 
and 1999 for the research, development, and demonstration 
activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for 
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 
amended do pass.


                            C O N T E N T S

                                                                   Page
   I. Amendment.......................................................2
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................5
 III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................6
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................6
   V. Committee Actions...............................................8
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................8
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis and Committee Views................10
VIII. Committee Cost Estimate........................................20
  IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................21
   X. Compliance with Public Law 104-4...............................26
  XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............26
 XII. Oversight Findings and Recommendations by the Committee on 
      Government Reform and Oversight................................26
XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................26
 XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................26
  XV. Congressional Accountability Act...............................26
 XVI. Committee Recommendations......................................26
XVII. Additional Views...............................................27

                              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 1997''.

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 $481,064,800 for fiscal year 1998 and $494,806,500 for 
fiscal year 1999 for Science and Technology activities, including 
program management and support, in the areas specified in subsection 
(b).
    (b) Specific Programs and Activities.--Of the amounts authorized in 
subsection (a), there are authorized to be appropriated the following:
            (1) For administration and resource management, $227,700 
        for fiscal year 1998 and $234,500 for fiscal year 1999.
            (2) For research in the Office of Air and Radiation, 
        $81,898,900 for fiscal year 1998 and $84,355,800 for fiscal 
        year 1999, of which--
                    (A) $43,183,300 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $44,478,800 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides research;
                    (B) $6,741,200 for fiscal year 1998 and $6,943,400 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for particulate 
                matter, visibility, and haze research;
                    (C) $4,249,200 for fiscal year 1998 and $4,376,700 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for air toxics 
                research;
                    (D) $4,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $4,120,000 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for acid rain 
                research;
                    (E) $16,408,200 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $16,900,400 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                climate change research;
                    (F) $2,389,900 for fiscal year 1998 and $2,461,600 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for indoor 
                environment research;
                    (G) $4,147,100 for fiscal year 1998 and $4,271,500 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for radiation 
                research; and
                    (H) $780,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $803,400 for 
                fiscal year 1999 shall be available for the working 
                capital fund to support the National Vehicle and Fuel 
                Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the 
                National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory in 
                Montgomery, Alabama, and the Radiation and Indoor 
                Environments National Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada.
            (3) For enforcement and compliance assurance at the 
        National Enforcement Investigation Center, $8,893,100 for 
        fiscal year 1998 and $9,159,900 for fiscal year 1999.
            (4) For prevention, pesticides, and toxic substances, 
        $3,436,000 for fiscal year 1998 and $3,539,100 for fiscal year 
        1999, of which--
                    (A) $1,546,200 for fiscal year 1998 and $1,592,600 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                registration activities; and
                    (B) $1,889,800 for fiscal year 1998 and $1,946,500 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                reregistration activities.
            (5) For the Office of Research and Development, 
        $401,278,500 for fiscal year 1998 and $412,626,600 for fiscal 
        year 1999, of which--
                    (A) $105,457,900 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $108,621,600 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available 
                for ecosystem protection research;
                    (B) $14,138,600 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $14,562,800 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                global change research;
                    (C) $19,871,100 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $20,467,200 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                air toxics research;
                    (D) $3,344,800 for fiscal year 1998 and $3,445,100 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for waste, 
                site, and risk characterization research;
                    (E) $5,448,900 for fiscal year 1998 and $5,612,400 
                for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for waste 
                management and site remediation research;
                    (F) $53,626,000 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $55,234,800 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                human health protection research;
                    (G) $15,872,900 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $16,349,100 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                special environmental hazards research;
                    (H) $42,036,000 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $43,297,100 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available for 
                new technology and pollution prevention research; and
                    (I) $141,482,300 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $145,036,500 for fiscal year 1999 shall be available 
                for science quality and infrastructure research.
            (6) For the Drinking Water Technical Support Center, 
        $1,738,800 for fiscal year 1998 and $1,791,000 for fiscal year 
        1999.
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (6), the total amount which may 
be appropriated under this subsection shall not exceed the overall sums 
stated in subsection (a).
    (c) Additional Authorizations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Administrator--
            (1) for criteria air pollutants research by the Office of 
        Research and Development, $75,163,100 for fiscal year 1998 and 
        $77,418,000 for fiscal year 1999, including--
                    (A) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $51,500,000 for fiscal year 1999 for particulate matter 
                research; and
                    (B) $18,700,000 for fiscal year 1998 and 
                $19,260,000 for fiscal year 1999 for ozone research, 
                including study of the transportation of ozone and 
                ozone precursors on a national scale;
            (2) for drinking water research by the Office of Research 
        and Development, $39,467,600 for fiscal year 1998 and 
        $40,651,600 for fiscal year 1999;
            (3) for oil pollution related research, $1,017,200 for 
        fiscal year 1998 and $1,047,700 for fiscal year 1999;
            (4) for research related to leaking underground storage 
        tanks, $693,600 for fiscal year 1998 and $714,400 for fiscal 
        year 1999; and
            (5) for research related to the Comprehensive Environmental 
        Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, $39,755,900 
        for fiscal year 1998 and $40,948,600 for fiscal year 1999.
    (d) Limitations.--Other than amounts awarded through a competitive 
process, or as specifically authorized by an Act other than a general 
appropriations Act, no funds are authorized to be appropriated by this 
Act for--
            (1) the North Dakota Center for Air Toxic Metals Research;
            (2) Oil Spill Restoration at the Louisiana Environmental 
        Research Center;
            (3) the Mine Waste Technology Program;
            (4) Livestock and Agriculture Pollution Abatement;
            (5) Resource and Agriculture Policy Development;
            (6) San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Study;
            (7) the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASNET) 
        monitoring station in New England;
            (8) the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity 
        Project;
            (9) the Lung Disease Study by the National Jewish Center;
            (10) the Lower Mississippi River Cancer Study; or
            (11) the Northern Iowa Small Business Pollution Prevention 
        Center.
    (e) Transboundary Pollution Research.--From funds appropriated 
pursuant to this Act, $1,000,000 are authorized to be appropriated to 
the Administrator for each of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to support 
the United States-Mexico Foundation for Science for research related to 
environmental issues in the United States-Mexico transboundary region, 
including the Salton Sea.

SEC. 4. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.

    The Administrator shall assign to the Assistant Administrator the 
duties of--
            (1) developing a strategic plan for scientific and 
        technical research 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.

SEC. 5. 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 scientific 
research that would further missions of the Office of Research and 
Development.

SEC. 6. SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD.

    (a) Annual Report.--The Science Advisory Board shall submit to 
Congress and to the Administrator an annual report that contains the 
views of the Science Advisory Board on proposed research programs as 
described in the President's budget for research, development, and 
demonstration activities at the Environmental Protection Agency. Such 
report shall be submitted to Congress as soon as practicable after the 
submission of the President's budget to Congress. The Administrator 
shall cooperate with the Director of the Science Advisory Board, 
particularly with respect to the timely provision of budget information 
to the Science Advisory Board, to allow the Science Advisory Board to 
carry out its duties under this subsection.
    (b) Evaluation.--The Science Advisory Board shall conduct periodic 
evaluations of selected areas of the current and planned research, 
development, and demonstration activities of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The areas of evaluation shall be selected by the 
Science Advisory Board in consultation with the Administrator, the 
Office of Research and Development, other Agency programs, and 
appropriate committees of the Congress. Reports containing the Science 
Advisory Board's evaluations and recommendations shall be filed with 
such committees and the Administrator. The Administrator shall provide 
to such committees a written response to the Science Advisory Board's 
evaluation and recommendations within 60 days after the Science 
Advisory Board's report has been submitted.
    (c) Submission to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit to the 
Congress any report required by law to be submitted to the 
Administrator by the Science Advisory Board. The Administrator shall 
make any such submission not later than 60 days after the Administrator 
receives the report from the Science Advisory Board.
    (d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Administrator $2,418,300 for fiscal year 1998 and $2,490,800 for fiscal 
year 1999 for activities of the Science Advisory Board.

SEC. 7. LIMITATIONS.

    (a) 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, except 
that this subsection shall not prevent officers or employees of the 
United States or of its departments or agencies from communicating to 
Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress, 
through the proper channels, requests for legislation or appropriations 
which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public 
business.
    (b) Limitation on Appropriations.--No sums are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
the activities for which sums are authorized by this Act, unless such 
sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by this Act.
    (c) Eligibility for Awards.--
            (1) In general.--The Administrator shall exclude from 
        consideration for grant agreements made by the Agency after 
        fiscal year 1997 any person who received funds, other than 
        those described in paragraph (2), appropriated for a fiscal 
        year after fiscal year 1997, under a grant agreement 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 subsection shall be effective 
        for a period of 5 years after the person receives such Federal 
        funds.
            (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
        receipt of Federal funds by a person due to the membership of 
        that person in a class specified by law for which assistance is 
        awarded to members of the class according to a formula provided 
        by law.
            (3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
        ``grant agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal 
        purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to 
        carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized 
        by a law of the United States, and does not include the 
        acquisition (by purchase, lease, or barter) of property or 
        services for the direct benefit or use of the United States 
        Government. Such term does not include a cooperative agreement 
        (as such term is used in section 6305 of title 31, United 
        States Code) or a cooperative research and development 
        agreement (as such term is defined in section 12(d)(1) of the 
        Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
        3710a(d)(1))).

SEC. 8. NOTICE.

    (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by this Act 
are subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice to be 
provided to the Appropriations Committees of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, notice of such action shall 
concurrently be provided to the Committees on Science, Commerce, and 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
    (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall provide 
notice to the Committees on Science, Commerce, Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and 
the Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations of 
the Senate, not later than 15 days before any major reorganization of 
any program, project, or activity of the Agency.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

    With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of Congress 
that the Environmental Protection Agency should--
            (1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
        related problems in its computer systems to ensure that those 
        systems continue to operate effectively in the year 2000 and 
        beyond;
            (2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the 
        operations of the Environmental Protection Agency posed by the 
        problems referred to in paragraph (1), and plan and budget for 
        achieving Year 2000 compliance for all of its mission-critical 
        systems; and
            (3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the 
        Environmental Protection Agency is unable to correct in time.

SEC. 10. BUY AMERICAN.

    (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds appropriated 
pursuant to this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity 
agrees that in expending the assistance the entity will comply with 
sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act'').
    (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment or products 
that may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
provided under this Act, it is the sense of Congress that entities 
receiving such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
only American-made equipment and products.
    (c) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing financial 
assistance under this Act, the Administrator shall provide to each 
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
subsection (a) by the Congress.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is to authorize appropriations for 
Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999 for research, development, and 
demonstration programs of the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA). H.R. 1276 authorizes $639,580,500 for Fiscal Year 1998 
and $658,077,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 for these programs.

                III. Background and Need for Legislation

    EPA research and development (R&D) programs are funded in 
five separate appropriation accounts in the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill: Environmental Programs 
and Management (Science Advisory Board), Science and 
Technology, Hazardous Substance Superfund, Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank Research, and Oil Spill Response.
    The Science and Technology appropriation account, created 
in 1996, represents the largest component of EPA's R&D 
activities and funds the operating programs of the Office of 
Research and Development, the Office of Air and Radiation's 
research and development programs and the Program Office 
laboratories.
    The EPA Office of Research and Development controls twelve 
research laboratories and four assessment offices, which fall 
under the management of three national laboratories and two 
national centers: (1) the National Health and Environmental 
Effects Research Laboratory in Triangle Park, North Carolina; 
(2) the National Exposure Research Laboratory in Triangle Park, 
North Carolina; (3) the National Risk Management Laboratory in 
Cincinnati, Ohio; (4) the National Center for Environmental 
Research Quality Assurance in Washington, DC; and (5) the 
National Center for Environmental Assessment in Washington, DC.
    The Science and Technology Appropriations account also 
funds five non-Office of Research and Development Laboratories: 
(1) the National Vehicles and Fuels Emission Laboratory, (2) 
National Radiation Laboratories, (3) Analytical and 
Environmental Chemistry Laboratories, (4) Drinking Water 
Program Laboratory, and (5) National Enforcement Investigations 
Center. Congress has funded most of EPA R&D programs through 
direct appropriation without annual legislative authorization. 
The last comprehensive EPA research and development bill was 
the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Act 
of 1981 (Public Law 96-569), which expired on September 30, 
1981.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings

    The Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing 
on March 11, 1997, and heard testimony on the Fiscal Year 1998 
budget request of $658,154,400 for EPA R&D, the Science 
Advisory Board, and EPA's peer review practices. Witnesses 
included Mr. Joseph K. Alexander, EPA's Deputy Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development; Dr. Mark A. 
Harwell, Director of the Center for Marine Environmental 
Analysis at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric 
Science at the University of Miami in Miami, Florida, and 
Chairman, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee, EPA 
Science Advisory Board (SAB); and Mr. Stanley J. Czerwinski, 
Associate Director, Resources, Community and Economic 
Development Division, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO).
    Mr. Alexander presented the Administration's Fiscal Year 
1998 budget request and identified three major research areas 
for new or expanded attention: ``(1) Research to Tackle Today's 
High-Risk Environmental Problems, (2) Research and Development 
of Capability to Take Us Beyond Today's Science Tools, and (3) 
Research to Solve the Next Generation of Environmental 
Problems.'' Mr. Alexander also said that the Office of Research 
and Development's use of peer review had strengthened EPA's 
scientific enterprise and broadened its partnership base.
    Dr. Harwell reviewed the activities of SAB. He noted that 
although the SAB has been actively providing advice to the 
Administrator and to Congress on science at EPA for many years, 
the Board had not been able to conduct a formal review of the 
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request. One of the major factors 
hampering SAB's review of EPA's science budget, said Dr. 
Harwell, is that       ``. . . the Agency's budget submission 
is a complicated document and difficult to decipher and 
analyze. The budget is structured around a cluster of 
Congressional appropriations, making rational, holistic 
assessment and analysis very difficult, if not impossible.''
    Mr. Czerwinski discussed the EPA's implementation of its 
peer review policy. The GAO found that peer review continues to 
be implemented unevenly at the Agency, but that EPA appears to 
be more serious about peer review than in the past.
    The Subcommittee also held a hearing on March 12, 1997, and 
heard testimony on the science behind the EPA's proposed 
revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 
ozone and particulate matter (PM) from Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, 
Director of External Affairs, Lovelace Respiratory Research 
Institute, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Chairman of EPA's Clean 
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC); Dr. George T. Wolff, 
Principal Scientist, General Motors Environmental and Energy 
Staff, General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, and Chair 
of CASAC's Panels on Ozone and PM; Dr. Morton Lippmann, CASAC, 
Professor of Environmental Medicine, Institute of Environmental 
Medicine, New York University Medical Center, Tuxedo, New York, 
and Member of CASAC's Panels on Ozone and PM; and Mr. Daniel S. 
Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, 
Massachusetts. Dr. Mauderly stated that ``the current level of 
national support for epidemiological, laboratory, and 
atmospheric research on air pollution is badly inadequate in 
comparison to the magnitude of the health and socioeconomic 
stakes'' and recommended ``an effort on the order of $50 
million/year on PM research alone.'' All the other witnesses 
emphasized the need for more research on the health effects of 
particulate matter.
    Finally, the Subcommittee heard testimony on EPA and its 
Fiscal Year 1998 budget request at a hearing on April 9, 1997, 
from Mr. Fred L. Smith, Jr., President of the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute of Washington, DC; and Ms. Anna Aurillo, 
Staff Scientist, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. 
PIRG), Washington, DC. Mr. Smith expressed concern that some of 
EPA's R&D programs suffer from a ``regulatory bias'' that 
``seeks only evidence for ever more stringent regulation'' 
without supporting ``research on the unintended consequences of 
regulation.'' Ms. Aurillo testified that U.S. PIRG supported 
the Administration's Fiscal Year 1998 budget for EPA, and 
recommended that Congress ``fully fund EPA so that it can do 
its job of protecting our health and environment.''

                          V. Committee Actions

    As summarized in the previous section, the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment heard testimony relevant to EPA's Fiscal 
Year 1998 budget request at hearings held on March 11, March 
12, and April 9, 1997.
    On April 10, 1997, Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, introduced H.R.1276, 
the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Authorization Act of 1997, to authorize appropriations for EPA 
research, development, and demonstration activities for Fiscal 
Years 1998 and 1999.
    The Full Committee met to consider H.R. 1276 on Wednesday, 
April 16, 1997.
    Amendment 1.--Mr. Calvert, Chairman of the Science 
Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, offered a 
manager's amendment, which was adopted by voice vote.
    Amendment 2.--Mr. Hastings, on behalf of Mr. Traficant, 
offered an amendment to add a new Section 10 to the bill that 
requires any entity that is appropriated funds pursuant to this 
act or amendments thereto, to comply with sections 2-4 of the 
Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the 
``Buy American Act''), and that recipients of funds pursuant to 
this act shall be notified of subsection (a)'s requirement of 
compliance with the Buy American Act. The amendment was adopted 
by voice vote.
    With a quorum present, Mr. Roemer, Ranking Democratic 
Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment moved that 
the Committee report the bill, H.R. 1276, as amended, to the 
House and that the staff prepare the legislative report and 
make technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman 
take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration. The motion was approved by voice vote.
    Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the Committee on Science, 
asked and received unanimous consent that Committee members 
have 2 subsequent calendar days in which to submit 
supplemental, minority or additional views on the measure, and 
that, pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule XX of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, 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. 1276 or a similar Senate 
bill.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    H.R. 1276 authorizes appropriations for all research, 
development, and demonstration activities at the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Major provisions of the bill are as follows:

 Authorizes $639,580,500 for Fiscal Year 1998, an 
        increase of $48,399,800--or 8.2 percent--above the 
        Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations of $591,180,700; and 
        $658,077,600 for Fiscal Year 1999, an increase of 
        $66,396,900--or 11.2 percent--above the Fiscal Year 
        1997 appropriations.
 Authorizes $50 million for particulate matter research 
        in Fiscal Year 1998 and $51.5 million in Fiscal Year 
        1999.
 Authorizes $53,626,000 for Fiscal Year 1998, an 
        increase of $11,125,400--or 26.2 percent--above the 
        Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations of $42,500,600; and 
        $55,234,800 for Fiscal Year 1999, an increase of 
        $12,734,200--or 30.0 percent--above the Fiscal Year 
        1997 appropriations for Human Health Protection 
        research. This includes increases for research on the 
        health effects and exposure of sensitive subpopulations 
        and for assessing health risks to children.
 Eliminates funding authorization for 11 
        Congressionally-earmarked activities funded in Fiscal 
        Year 1997 for which EPA did not request funds for 
        Fiscal Year 1998.
 Assigns the Assistant Administrator the duties of 
        developing and integrating a strategic plan for EPA 
        research activities. In addition, it requires the 
        Assistant Administrator to review all Agency research 
        to ensure that it is of high quality and not 
        duplicative.
 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 that will 
        further the research mission of the Agency.
 Requires the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to submit to 
        Congress and to the Administrator a report on the 
        Board's views on proposed research programs as 
        described in the President's budget for research, 
        development and demonstration activities of the EPA and 
        to evaluate selected planned research development and 
        demonstration activities of the EPA. In addition, the 
        Administrator is required to submit to Congress any SAB 
        report required to be submitted to the Administrator. 
        Such submissions shall be made no later than 60 days 
        after the Administrator receives the report.
 Prohibits lobbying activities, limits appropriations 
        for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, and excludes from 
        consideration for grant agreements, for a period of 5 
        years, any person who received funding for a project 
        not subject to a competitive, merit-based award 
        process.
 Provides that if any funds authorized by this Act are 
        subject to a reprogramming action that requires notice 
        to be provided to the Appropriations Committees of the 
        House and Senate, then notice of such action shall 
        concurrently be provided to the House Committees on 
        Science, Commerce, and Transportation and 
        Infrastructure, and to the Senate Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works. Also requires the EPA 
        Administrator to provide notice to the aforementioned 
        House and Senate Committees, as well as the 
        Appropriations Committees of each body, not later than 
        15 days before any major reorganization of any program, 
        project, or activity of the EPA.
 Expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should 
        (1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
        related (``Year 2000'') problems in its computer 
        systems to ensure that those systems continue to 
        operate effectively in the year 2000 and beyond; (2) 
        assess immediately the extent of the risk to its 
        operations by the Year 2000 problem, and plan and 
        budget for achieving Year 2000 compliance for all of 
        its mission-critical systems; and (3) develop 
        contingency plans for those systems that cannot be 
        corrected.
 Requires any entity that is appropriated funds 
        pursuant to this act or amendments thereto, to comply 
        with sections 2-4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 
        U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the ``Buy American 
        Act''); and that recipients of funds pursuant to this 
        act shall be notified of subsection (a)'s requirement 
        of compliance with the Buy American Act.

          VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Committee Views

Section 1. Short Title

    Section 1 cites the Act as the ``Environmental Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997.''

Section 2. Definitions

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

Section 3. Authorization of Appropriations

    Table 1 provides a summary of the amounts appropriated in 
Fiscal Year 1997, the President's Fiscal Year 1988 request, and 
the Committee's recommended authorization levels for Fiscal 
Years 1998 and 1999. Also shown is the difference between the 
Committee's recommended authorization for Fiscal Year 1998 from 
the Fiscal Year 1997 appropriation, and the difference between 
the Committee's recommended authorization for Fiscal Year 1999 
and the Fiscal Year 1998 recommendation. The funding authorized 
in H.R. 1276 is generally consistent with the funding levels 
requested by EPA for Fiscal Year 1998 and supports a 3-percent 
increase for most programs for Fiscal Year 1999.
    Major changes to EPA's Fiscal Year budget request 
recommended by the Committee are concentrated in five accounts 
and include the following:

 Authorizing funding for the Office of Air and 
        Radiation's Climate Change program and the Office 
        Research and Development's Global Change program at 
        Fiscal Year 1997 levels for Fiscal Year 1998 and a 3-
        percent increase for Fiscal Year 1999;
 Increasing the available funding for particulate 
        matter research from the requested level of $26,577,700 
        to $50,000,000 in Fiscal Year 1998 and $51,500,000 in 
        Fiscal Year 1999;
 Restoring the drinking water research program to the 
        Fiscal Year 1997 appropriated level in Fiscal Year 1998 
        and a 3-percent increase for Fiscal Year 1999; and
 Assuming no funding of EPA's Fiscal Year 1998 request 
        for $15,000,000 for the President's Kalamazoo Right-to-
        Know Initiative in the New Technology and Pollution 
        Prevention program.

    These levels should provide adequate funding for EPA to 
carry out its research programs and are in keeping with the 
goal of balancing the budget by the year 2002.
    [Table 1 follows:]
    
    
    The Committee is, however, concerned with EPA's Budget 
Justification for Fiscal Year 1998. This document provides 
little of the information the Committee requires to analyze the 
EPA research budget. Detailed information on the funding 
requested for particular programs and initiatives is notable by 
its absence, and the Committee notes that EPA has not been 
forthcoming in providing it with descriptions and funding 
levels for many activities. The Committee expects that in 
future Budget Justifications EPA will make a better effort to 
provide a more coherent, detailed, and useful picture of its 
programs and activities than it has to date.
    Subsection 3(a) authorizes $481,064,800 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $494,806,500 for Fiscal Year 1999 for the Science and 
Technology account, including program management and support.
    Of the total amounts authorized in Subsection 3(a):

        Subsection 3(b)(1) authorizes $227,700 for Fiscal Year 
        1998 and $234,500 for Fiscal Year 1999 for 
        Administration and Resource Management.
        Subsection 3(b)(2) authorizes a total of $81,898,900 
        for Fiscal Year 1998 and $84,355,800 for Fiscal Year 
        1999 for research in the Office of Air and Radiation, 
        of which:

            (A) $43,183,300 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $44,478,800 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Nitrogen Oxides 
            research;
            (B) $6,741,200 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $6,943,400 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for 
            Particulate Matter, Visibility, and Haze research;
            (C) $4,249,200 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $4,376,700 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for Air 
            Toxics research;
            (D) $4,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $4,120,000 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for Acid 
            Rain research;
            (E) $16,408,200 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $16,900,400 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for Climate Change research;
            (F) $2,389,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $2,461,600 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for Indoor 
            Environment research;
            (G) $4,147,100 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $4,271,500 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for 
            Radiation research; and
            (H) $780,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $803,400 for 
            Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for the Working 
            Capital Fund to support the National Vehicle and 
            Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, 
            the National Air and Radiation Environmental 
            Laboratory in Montgomery, Alabama, and the 
            Radiation and Indoor Environments National 
            Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada.

        Subsection 3(b)(3) authorizes $8,893,100 for Fiscal 
        Year 1998 and $9,159,900 for Fiscal Year 1999 for 
        Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the National 
        Enforcement Investigation Center.
        Subsection 3(b)(4) authorizes $3,436,000 for Fiscal 
        Year 1998 and $3,539,100 for Fiscal Year 1999 for 
        Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, of which:

            (A) $1,546,200 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $1,592,600 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for 
            Pesticide Registration activities; and
            (B) $1,889,800 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $1,946,500 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for 
            Pesticide Reregistration activities.

        Subsection 3(b)(5) authorizes $401,278,500 for Fiscal 
        Year 1998 and $412,626,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 for the 
        Office of Research and Development, of which:

            (A) $105,457,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $108,621,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be 
            available for Ecosystem Protection research;
            (B) $14,138,600 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $14,562,800 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for Global Change research;
            (C) $19,871,100 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $20,467,200 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for Air Toxics research;
            (D) $3,344,800 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $3,445,100 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for Waste, 
            Site and Risk Characterization research;
            (E) $5,448,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $5,612,400 
            for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available for Waste 
            Management and Site Remediation research;
            (F) $53,626,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $55,234,800 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for Human Health Protection research;
            (G) $15,872,900 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $16,349,100 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for Special Environmental Hazards research;
            (H) $42,036,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $43,297,100 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be available 
            for New Technology and Pollution Prevention 
            research; and
            (I) $141,482,300 for Fiscal Year 1998 and 
            $145,036,500 for Fiscal Year 1999 shall be 
            available for Science Quality and Infrastructure 
            research.
            Committee Views
    The Committee's authorization recommendation for Fiscal 
Year 1998 for New Technology and Pollution Prevention assumes 
no funding of EPA's Fiscal Year 1998 request for $15,000,000 
for the President's Kalamazoo Right-to-Know Initiative. The 
Committee is concerned that at this time the Initiative is ill-
defined and may represent an open-ended commitment of resources 
that might be better spent on more pressing research.
    The Committee authorization recommendation for Fiscal Year 
1998 for Science Quality and Infrastructure provides an 
increase in funding for environmental fellowships. The 
Committee, however, expects the Office of Research and 
Development to demonstrate that the research conducted through 
these fellowships is directly linked the Offices's mission and 
research needs.
    Subsection 3(b)(6) authorizes $1,738,800 in Fiscal Year 
1998 and $1,791,000 for Fiscal Year 1999 for the Drinking Water 
Technical Support Center.
    The total amount authorized under Subsection 3(b) is not to 
exceed the overall sums stated in Subsection 3(a).
    The specific programs listed under the Science and 
Technology Account in subsection 3(b) contain authorization 
levels that exceed the total sum stated in Subsection 3(a) by 
$16,408,200 in Fiscal Year 98 and by $16,900,400 in Fiscal Year 
99. However, the bill provides that the total amount authorized 
under Subsection 3(b) is not to exceed the overall sums stated 
in Subsection 3(a). As a result, the bill will require a 
general reduction to the programs included in the Science and 
Technology Account. The Committee leaves the specific program 
areas in which these reductions will be made to the discretion 
of the Administrator. However, two program areas are 
specifically exempted from the general reductions: Criteria Air 
Pollutants and Drinking Water Research.
    Subsection 3(c)(1) authorizes $75,163,100 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $77,418,000 for Fiscal Year 1999 for Criteria Air 
Pollutants research by the Office of Research and Development 
including: (A) $50,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $51,500,000 
for Fiscal Year 1999 for particulate matter research; and (B) 
$18,700,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $19,260,000 for Fiscal 
Year 1999 for Ozone research, including study of the 
transportation of ozone and ozone precursors on a national 
scale.
            Committee View
    The Committee notes that EPA has recently proposed a new 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine particulate 
matter (PM), and it is concerned that the scientific 
justification for the new fine PM standard, which is likely to 
have significant costs to the economy, may be inadequate. The 
Committee has heard testimony from scientists who are expert in 
this field and who have urged EPA to institute a large-scale, 
comprehensive program of research into the health effects of 
fine PM. The Committee supports increased research in this area 
and recommends funding levels of $50,000,000 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $51,500,000 for Fiscal Year 1999. The Committee also 
encourages EPA to consult with the Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee as it designs its research program.
    Further, the Committee recommends funding levels of 
$18,700,000 for Fiscal Year 1998 and $19,260,000 for Fiscal 
Year 1999 for research into the production and transportation 
of ozone. The Committee agrees with the National Academy of 
Sciences that more scientific research is necessary to develop 
effective national strategies for ozone pollution. In order to 
ensure that EPA is basing its ambient ozone standards on sound 
scientific grounds, the Committee supports EPA's ongoing 
research efforts in atmospheric chemistry and modeling, and its 
participation in the North American Research Strategy on 
Tropospheric Ozone (NARSTO).
    Subsection 3(c)(2) authorizes $39,467,600 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $40,651,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 for Drinking Water 
research in the Office of Research and Development.
            Committee View
    The Committee is concerned that the Administration request 
calls for a cut in drinking water research. The Committee 
supports funding Drinking Water research at the Fiscal Year 
1997 level. Maintaining funding for this research is, in the 
Committee's view, necessary to support EPA's responsibilities 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in 1996.
    Subsection 3(c)(3) authorizes $1,017,200 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $1,047,700 for Fiscal Year 1999 for Oil Spill 
Research.
    Subsection 3(c)(4) authorizes $693,600 for Fiscal Year 1998 
and $714,400 for Fiscal Year 1999 for Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank Research.
    Subsection 3(c)(5) authorizes $39,755,900 for Fiscal Year 
1998 and $40,948,600 for Fiscal Year 1999 for Superfund 
Research and Development.
    Subsection 3(d) states that except for amounts awarded 
through a competitive process or as specifically authorized by 
an Act other than a general appropriations Act, no funds are 
authorized to be appropriated for the following:
    (1) the North Dakota Center for Air Toxic Metals Research;
    (2) Oil Spill Restoration at the Louisiana Environmental 
Research Center;
    (3) the Mine Waste Technology Program;
    (4) Livestock and Agriculture Pollution Abatement;
    (5) Resources and Agriculture Policy Development;
    (6) San Joaquin Valley PM-10 Study;
    (7) the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASNET) 
monitoring station in New England;
    (8) the National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity 
Project;
    (9) the Lung Disease Study by the National Jewish Center;
    (10) the Northern Iowa Small Business Pollution Prevention 
Center; and
    (11) the Lower Mississippi River Cancer Study.
            Committee View
    The Committee has a long-standing position that awards 
should be made through a competitive, merit-based process that 
ensures that taxpayers' dollars are spent in the most cost-
effective and productive manner. Based on this position, the 
Committee supports eliminating funding for earmarked research 
not subjected to a competitive process.
    Subsection 3(e) authorizes $1,000,000 for each of Fiscal 
Years 1998 and 1999 from funds appropriated pursuant to this 
Act to support the United States-Mexico Foundation for research 
related to environmental issues in the U.S.-Mexico 
transboundary region, including the Salton Sea.

U.S./Mexico Foundation for Science

    The non-governmental US/Mexico Foundation for Science was 
established in 1992 by the Governments of Mexico and the United 
States with the strong support of the research and business 
communities of both countries. Each country provided equal 
financial support to the Foundation (a total of $4 million).
    The Foundation's mission is to contribute to the 
technological and scientific strength of the two countries 
through fostering relevant research, training and human 
resource development, and promoting collaborative and 
comprehensive solutions of common problems.
    The Foundation is uniquely structured to accomplish this 
mission. The Foundation's Board of Governors consists of high 
level and influential members from the Mexican Academy of 
Scientific Investigation, the National Academy of Medicine, and 
the Academy of Engineering; and the US National Academies of 
Science and of Engineering and the Institute of Medicines. In 
addition, there are representatives of both Mexican and 
American businesses who are members of the Board.
    The Foundation is binational in structure and has the 
ability to be flexible in selection of priority areas which are 
defined as being of mutual interest and potential benefit to 
both countries. The Foundation has a proven track record of 
supporting high-quality research projects selected with a peer-
review system. The Foundation also currently supports a 
visiting scientist program, a Hewlett Foundation training 
program in S&T policy and graduate and summer scholarship 
programs.
    The Mexicans have agreed to provide additional funds to the 
Foundation, contingent upon a US contribution.

Section 4. Scientific Research Review

    Section 4 requires the EPA Administrator to assign the 
Assistant Administrator for Office of 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 
of high quality, and is not duplicative of any other research 
being conducted by the Agency.
            Committee View
    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 Research and Development.

Section 5. Graduate Student Fellowships

    Section 5 directs the Administrator of the EPA to ensure 
that any fellowship award to a student selected after the 
enactment date of this Act is used only to support research 
that would further the missions of the Office of Research and 
Development.
            Committee View
    Recognizing that environmental education, while important, 
is not directly related to Office of Research and Development's 
mission, the Committee supports EPA's fellowship program but 
believes any fellowship award by the Office should be used only 
to support research that would further the Office's missions.

Section 6. Science Advisory Board

    Subsection 6(a) requires the Science Advisory Board (SAB) 
to submit to Congress and the Administrator a report providing 
the Board's views on proposed research programs as described in 
the President's budget for research, development and 
demonstration activities of the EPA.
    Subsection 6(b) requires the SAB to evaluate selected 
planned research, development, and demonstration activities of 
the EPA. The areas to be evaluated should be selected by the 
SAB in consultation with the Administrator of the Office of 
Research and Development, other Agency programs, and 
appropriate Committees of Congress, and reports of these 
evaluations and accompanying recommendations should be 
submitted to the Administrator and the appropriate 
Congressional Committees. The Administrator must provide a 
response to each such SAB report within 60 days after it has 
been submitted.
    Subsection 6(c) directs the Administrator to submit to 
Congress any report required to be submitted to the 
Administrator by the SAB. Such submissions shall be made no 
later than 60 days after the Administrator receives the report.
    Subsection 6(d) authorizes $2,418,300 for Fiscal Year 1998 
and $2,490,800 for Fiscal Year 1999 for activities of the 
Science Advisory Board.
            Committee View
    The Committee views the Science Advisory Board as a 
valuable asset within the Agency and encourages EPA to call on 
the Board for advice and guidance. However, the Committee is 
concerned that the traditional Science Advisory Board review of 
EPA's budget request has not been conducted for the past three 
fiscal years. This section requires the Board to conduct and 
submit such a review annually. The Committee also supports 
giving the Board a greater role in assessing EPA's research 
programs.

Section 7. Limitations

Subsection 7(a). Prohibition of Lobbying Activities

    Subsection 7(a) forbids the use of funds authorized by this 
Act for any activity whose purpose is to influence legislation 
pending before Congress. However, this subsection does not 
prevent employees of the departments or agencies from 
communicating with Members of Congress to conduct public 
business.
            Committee View
    The Committee is committed to ensuring that awards for 
research are used solely for that purpose. Funds should not be 
used for any purpose, other than that specified in the award. 
The Committee, however, does not exclude appropriate 
communications between the executive branch and the Congress.

Subsection 7(b). Limitation on Appropriations

    Subsection 7(b) provides that no sums are authorized to be 
appropriated that are not specifically authorized to be 
appropriated by this Act for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, or by 
an Act of Congress in succeeding fiscal years.
            Committee View
    The Committee emphasizes that the only funds authorized to 
be appropriated for Environmental Protection Agency's research, 
development, and demonstration activities are made available 
under this Act. It is the Committee's position that annual 
authorizations designating specific sums are required for 
appropriations of such sums to be authorized.

Subsection 7(c). Eligibility for Awards

    Subsection 7(c) requires the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to exclude from consideration 
for grant agreements, for a period of 5 years, any person who 
received funds for a project not subject to competitive, merit-
based review process after Fiscal Year 1997. The subsection is 
not applicable to awards to long-standing Cooperative Research 
and Development Agreement program nor awards to persons who are 
members of a class specified by law for which assistance is 
awarded according to formula provided by law.
            Committee View
    The Committee has a long-standing position that awards 
should be made on a competitive, merit-based process that 
ensures that taxpayers' dollars are spent in the most cost-
effective and productive manner.

Section 8. Notice

    Section 8(a) requires that if any funds of this Act, or 
amendments made by this Act, are subject to reprogramming which 
requires notice to be given to the Appropriations Committees of 
the House of Representatives and the Senate, notice of such 
action shall be concurrently provided to the Committees on 
Science and Commerce of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate.
    Section 8(b) requires the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to notify the Committees on 
Science, Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, and 
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
Committees on Environment and Public Works and Appropriations 
of the Senate if any program, project, or activity of the 
Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to undergo any 
major reorganization no later than 15 days prior to such 
reorganization.
            Committee View
    The Committee believes that such notice must be given if it 
is to carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Rules 
of the House.

Section 9. Sense of Congress on the Year 2000 Problem

    It is the sense of Congress that the Environmental 
Protection Agency should give high priority to correcting the 
year 2000 problem in all of its computer systems to ensure 
effective operation in the year 2000 and beyond. The 
Environmental Protection Agency needs to assess immediately the 
risk of the problem upon their systems and develop a plan and a 
budget to correct the problem for its mission-critical 
programs. The Environmental Protection Agency also needs to 
begin consideration of contingency plans, in the event that 
certain systems are unable to be corrected in time.
            Committee Views
    Despite knowing of the problem for years, the Federal 
Government has yet to adequately create strategies to address 
the year 2000 computer problem. The Committee believes Congress 
should continue to take a leadership role in raising awareness 
about the issue with both government and the private sector.
    The potential impact on federal programs if the year 2000 
problem is not corrected in an effective and timely manner is 
substantial and potentially serious. If federal computers are 
not prepared to handle the change of date on January 1, 2000, 
there is a risk to all government systems and the programs they 
support. It is imperative that such corrective action be taken 
to avert disruption to critical Federal Government programs.

Section 10. Buy American

    Section 10 requires any entity that is appropriated funds 
pursuant to this act or amendments thereto, to comply with 
sections 2-4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
popularly known as the ``Buy American Act''); and that 
recipients of funds pursuant to this act shall be notified of 
subsection (a)'s requirement of compliance with the Buy 
American Act.
            Committee View
    It is the Committee's position that the Federal Government 
buy goods manufactured in the United States when feasible, and 
where cost-effective and practicable.

                     VIII. Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report accompanying 
each bill or joint resolution of a public character to contain: 
(1) an estimate, made by such Committee, of the costs which 
would be incurred in carrying out such bill or joint resolution 
in the fiscal year in which it is reported, and in each of the 
5 fiscal years following such fiscal year (or for the 
authorized duration of any program authorized by such bill or 
joint resolution, if less than 5 years); (2) a comparison of 
the estimate of costs described in subparagraph (1) of this 
paragraph made by such Committee with an estimate of such costs 
made by any government agency and submitted to such Committee; 
and (3) when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated 
funding level for the relevant program (or programs) with the 
appropriate levels under current law. However, clause 7(d) of 
that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when a 
cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted 
prior to the filing of the report and included in the report 
pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI. A cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of this 
report and included in Section IX of this report pursuant to 
clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI.
    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report that accompanies 
a measure providing new budget authority (other than continuing 
appropriations), new spending authority, or new credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures to 
contain a cost estimate, as required by section 308(a)(1) of 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and, when practicable with 
respect to estimates of new budget authority, a comparison of 
the total estimated funding level for the relevant program (or 
programs) to the appropriate levels under current law. H.R. 
1276 does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
1276 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section IX of this report.

             IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    [The CBO estimate follows:]
    
    
                  X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    H.R. 1276 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

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

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

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

                XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement

    Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each report of a Committee on a bill 
or joint resolution of a public character to include a 
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in 
the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint 
resolution. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the 
United States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 1276.

               XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    This legislation does not establish or authorize the 
establishment of a new advisory committee.

                  XV. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1276 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                     XVI. Committee Recommendations

    On April 16, 1997, a quorum being present, the Committee 
favorably reported the Environmental Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Authorization Act of 1997, by a voice vote, and 
recommends its enactment.

                         XVII. Additional Views

                                ------                                


                  ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. KEN CALVERT

    This bill reflects my strong support for basic research in 
defense of our environment. I restored the Administration's cut 
in the safe drinking water research and increased funding for 
criteria air pollution by $33.1 million. I am concerned that 
the proposed EPA regulations on PM 2.5 and ozone levels are not 
based on high quality science, rather on speculation and 
extrapolation. Numerous experts have testified that research 
monies must be increased if we are to be certain what 
pollutants are truly harmful at what levels. My increase in 
funds should be used to assure the American people that the 
proper criteria air pollutants are regulated at the proper 
level. Only then can we guarantee we are gaining the highest 
possible health benefits at the least possible economic costs.
    As Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, I 
am proud that H.R. 1276 passed unanimously by voice vote. This 
2-year authorization will provide stability to the Agency. I 
look forward to continued oversight of EPA's activities and 
programs.

                                                       Ken Calvert.




