[House Report 108-462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-462

======================================================================
 
          GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

                                _______
                                

 April 14, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3970]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
3970) to provide for the implementation of a Green Chemistry 
Research and Development Program, 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. Purpose of the Bill.............................................3
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................4
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................7
   V. Committee Actions...............................................8
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................10
 VII. Section-by-Section Analysis....................................10
VIII. Committee Views................................................11
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................13
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................14
  XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........15
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............15
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........15
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................15
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................15
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................15
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........16
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........16

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................17
  XX. Minority Views.................................................18
 XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................27

                              I. Amendment

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act--
          (1) the term ``green chemistry'' means chemistry and chemical 
        engineering to design chemical products and processes that 
        reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous 
        substances;
          (2) the term ``Interagency Working Group'' means the 
        interagency working group established under section 3(c); and
          (3) the term ``Program'' means the Green Chemistry Research 
        and Development Program described in section 3.

SEC. 3. GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

  (a) In General.--The President shall establish a Green Chemistry 
Research and Development Program to promote and coordinate Federal 
green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and 
technology transfer activities.
  (b) Program Activities.--The activities of the Program shall be 
designed to--
          (1) provide sustained support for green chemistry research, 
        development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer 
        through--
                  (A) merit-reviewed competitive grants to individual 
                investigators and teams of investigators, including, to 
                the extent practicable, young investigators, for 
                research and development;
                  (B) grants to fund collaborative research and 
                development partnerships among universities, industry, 
                and nonprofit organizations;
                  (C) green chemistry research, development, 
                demonstration, and technology transfer conducted at 
                Federal laboratories; and
                  (D) to the extent practicable, encouragement of 
                consideration of green chemistry in--
                          (i) the conduct of Federal chemical science 
                        and engineering research and development; and
                          (ii) the solicitation and evaluation of all 
                        proposals for chemical science and engineering 
                        research and development;
          (2) examine methods by which the Federal Government can 
        create incentives for consideration and use of green chemistry 
        processes and products;
          (3) facilitate the adoption of green chemistry innovations;
          (4) expand education and training of undergraduate and 
        graduate students, and professional chemists and chemical 
        engineers, including through partnerships with industry, in 
        green chemistry science and engineering;
          (5) collect and disseminate information on green chemistry 
        research, development, and technology transfer, including 
        information on--
                  (A) incentives and impediments to development and 
                commercialization;
                  (B) accomplishments;
                  (C) best practices; and
                  (D) costs and benefits; and
          (6) provide venues for outreach and dissemination of green 
        chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and 
        written materials in collaboration with, as appropriate, 
        industry, academia, scientific and professional societies, and 
        other relevant groups.
  (c) Interagency Working Group.--The President shall establish an 
Interagency Working Group, which shall include representatives from the 
National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and any other agency that the President may designate. The 
Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant 
Administrator for Research and Development of the Environmental 
Protection Agency shall serve as co-chairs of the Interagency Working 
Group. The Interagency Working Group shall oversee the planning, 
management, and coordination of the Program. The Interagency Working 
Group shall--
          (1) establish goals and priorities for the Program, to the 
        extent practicable in consultation with green chemistry 
        researchers and potential end-users of green chemistry products 
        and processes; and
          (2) provide for interagency coordination, including budget 
        coordination, of activities under the Program.
  (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Interagency Working Group shall transmit a 
report to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. 
This report shall include--
          (1) a summary of federally funded green chemistry research, 
        development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer 
        activities, including the green chemistry budget for each of 
        these activities; and
          (2) an analysis of the progress made toward achieving the 
        goals and priorities for the Program, and recommendations for 
        future program activities.

SEC. 4. BIENNIAL REPORT.

  Section 37(a) of the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1885d(a)) is amended by striking ``By January 30, 1982, and 
biennially thereafter'' and inserting ``By January 30 of each odd-
numbered year''.

SEC. 5. MANUFACTURING EXTENSION CENTER GREEN SUPPLIERS NETWORK GRANT 
                    PROGRAM.

  Section 25(a) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Act (15 U.S.C. 278k(a)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
          (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(6) the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to 
        continuously improve products and processes, increase energy 
        efficiency, identify cost-saving opportunities, and optimize 
        resources and technologies with the aim of reducing or 
        eliminating the use or generation of hazardous substances.''.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) National Science Foundation.--From sums otherwise authorized to 
be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
National Science Foundation for carrying out this Act--
          (1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
  (b) National Institute of Standards and Technology.--From sums 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be 
appropriated to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for 
carrying out this Act--
          (1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (2) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
  (c) Department of Energy.--From sums otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
of Energy for carrying out this Act--
          (1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
  (d) Environmental Protection Agency.--From sums otherwise authorized 
to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for carrying out this Act--
          (1) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
          (2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
          (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Act of 2004, is to establish an interagency 
research and development (R&D) program to promote and 
coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, 
demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities.

              III. Background and Need for the Legislation


Green Chemistry

    Green chemistry is most commonly defined as chemistry that 
involves the design of chemical products and processes that 
reduce or eliminate the use or generation of hazardous 
substances. It is sometimes characterized as ``benign by 
design.'' Also known as sustainable chemistry or benign 
chemistry, green chemistry seeks to prevent the creation of 
hazards, instead of focusing on cleaning up waste after the 
fact.
    Examples of green chemistry include the development of 
pesticide alternatives that are effective at killing target 
organisms, but are benign to non-target organisms and do not 
persist in the environment. Another example is the use of the 
benign solvent, supercritical carbon dioxide, in dry cleaning 
processes instead of toxic perchloroethylene.

Benefits

    In addition to the inherent advantages to human health and 
the environment, green chemistry can offer economic advantages 
and improvements to worker safety, public safety, and national 
security.
    Many in the private sector have recognized the potential 
savings that green chemistry offers. For example, by using 
benign chemical processes, businesses can avoid the costs 
associated with treating or cleaning up pollutants. Other 
savings can come from simply making more efficient use of raw 
materials (sometimes referred to as ``atom economy'') and 
energy. Dow Chemical Company's Midland, Michigan facility is an 
example of the level of savings a company can achieve. In 1996 
Dow partnered with the Natural Resources Defense Council to 
conduct a thorough review of the facility's processes to 
identify ways to implement more recycling and substitute benign 
materials for hazardous ones. By April 1999, after a one-time 
investment of $3.1 million, the facility had reduced emissions 
of targeted substances by 43 percent and the amount of targeted 
wastes by 37 percent primarily through green chemistry 
innovations. The improvements are saving Dow $5.4 million per 
year, a 174 percent annual return on investment.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Amato, Ivan, Fortune, New York: July 24, 2000, vol. 142, issue 
3, pg. 270U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many other inherent advantages come from green chemistry in 
the areas of worker safety, public safety, and national 
security. For example, many chemical processes are conducted at 
extreme temperature and/or pressure, two conditions that 
present a potential hazard for workers. Also, many processes 
involve toxic substances. Green chemistry seeks to design 
processes that can be conducted at or near room temperature and 
pressure, and that use benign substances. Both of these steps 
can improve working conditions for employees, and reduce the 
costs of liability protections for employers.

Federal Government Programs

    The Federal Government supports activities related to green 
chemistry through agencies including the National Science 
Foundation (NSF), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST). Some agencies--EPA, for 
example--run programs that are focused directly on green 
chemistry. Other agencies, such as DOE, fund green chemistry as 
byproducts of efforts to achieve other goals, such as improving 
energy efficiency. Because some green chemistry investments are 
direct and some are indirect, and because green chemistry is 
not broken out in agency budgets, it is difficult to determine 
the precise level of federal investment in green chemistry.
    It is clear however, that the investment in green chemistry 
and chemical engineering is small as compared to the investment 
in chemistry and chemical engineering as a whole. In 2000, the 
four agencies mentioned above spent approximately $540 million 
on chemistry and chemical engineering R&D investment in green 
chemistry R&D was probably close to $40 million. In addition, 
green chemistry activities are not fully coordinated among the 
agencies.
    The following table (Table 1) indicates what each agency 
believes it is spending on green chemistry and chemical 
engineering activities. The table is followed by descriptions 
of how this money is spent.

                                                     TABLE 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         EPA                  NSF                NIST                 DOE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04 funding...................  $7 million.........  $24 million.......  $4 million........  No dollar
                                                                                               breakdown
                                                                                               available.
FY05 proposal..................  $5 million.........  $24 million.......  $4 million........  N/A.
Total Chemistry and Chemical     $23 million........  $186 million......  $39 million.......  $292 million.
 Engineering (2000).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA supports both green chemistry research and development 
(R&D) and outreach efforts to promote green chemistry. The R&D 
is funded through the Office of Research and Development; the 
outreach and promotion through the Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).
    In fiscal year 2004 (FY04), EPA will spend approximately $5 
million directly on green chemistry and chemical engineering 
R&D, both at its own labs and at universities. Approximately 
half of the money is spent on internal R&D, conducted at EPA's 
lab in Cincinnati. The lab focuses on developing cross-cutting 
tools for industry such as benign solvent design software. The 
other half of this money funds external R&D, through the 
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. As part of the STAR 
program, EPA and NSF have developed a partnership, the 
Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program, which 
primarily funds green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D.
    The TSE program is the external R&D program most focused on 
green chemistry in the Federal government. The partnership 
between EPA and NSF is a model of cooperation. EPA and NSF put 
out a joint request for proposals, and then award grants based 
on their own mission. NSF funds more basic green chemistry R&D, 
while EPA funds more applied R&D. TSE was initiated in 1995 and 
has awarded 204 grants totaling just over $56 million since 
then. In the FY05 budget, the Administration has proposed to 
eliminate EPA's funding for this program.
    EPA's green chemistry outreach programs are funded at 
approximately $2 million in FY04. Among these programs is the 
annual Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Program, 
which was initiated in 1996. In FY05, the Administration 
proposes to increase funding for pollution prevention in OPPTS 
by $5 million. A portion of this funding would be used for 
green chemistry activities, including expanding the focus of 
the awards program.
    Outside of the TSE collaboration with EPA, NSF does not put 
out specific solicitations for green chemistry R&D, but funds a 
wide range of investigator-driven green chemistry R&D. While 
NSF does not have a specific line item in the budget for green 
chemistry activities, NSF estimates that in FY04 it will spend 
approximately $10.8 million on green chemistry activities in 
the chemistry division and $13 million on green chemistry 
activities in the chemical transport systems division. It is 
difficult to determine the precise level of investment because 
much of this funding may be used for ``multi-purpose'' 
fundamental research that has implications for green chemistry 
and other research areas.
    DOE does not track spending on green chemistry activities, 
and does not conduct activities that it specifically identifies 
as green chemistry. However, DOE conducts R&D that has many 
green chemistry applications. DOE's fundamental research 
efforts in chemistry are focused on attaining an atomic and 
molecular level understanding of processes involved in the 
generation, storage, and use of energy.
    NIST has no programs specifically focused on green 
chemistry, but conducts R&D with implications for, and 
application to, green chemistry. For example, the Chemical 
Science and Technology Laboratory produces more accurate 
measurement methods and standards to enable the development and 
implementation of green technologies and assess their impact.

H.R. 3970

    H.R. 3970 is designed to focus and integrate the Federal 
Government's green chemistry R&D activities, and to make them a 
higher priority. H.R. 3970 is also designed to increase 
education and training in green chemistry.
    One impediment to the application of green chemistry is the 
lack of a chemistry workforce that is skilled in green 
chemistry techniques. The Act would support undergraduate and 
graduate education in green chemistry. This should help create 
a new generation of chemists and chemical engineers who are 
familiar with green chemistry and its advantages, and can bring 
those skills to bear in the workplace. The Act would also 
support continuing education for professional chemists and 
chemical engineers so that the large existing workforce can be 
trained in green chemistry techniques.
    The coordinated R&D program would also support R&D and 
demonstration projects at universities, industry and federal 
labs. This includes industry-university partnerships to 
facilitate the transfer of new ideas to industry.
    In addition, the Act makes information about green 
chemistry activities readily available through a green 
chemistry database of accomplishments and best practices. This 
should aid interested companies in learning about, overcoming 
barriers to, and implementing green chemistry alternatives.

                        IV. Summary of Hearings


March 17, 2004--Hearing on the Green Chemistry Research and Development 
        Act of 2004

    On March 17, 2004, the Committee on Science held a hearing 
to receive testimony on federal and private sector green 
chemistry R&D activities, and on H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry 
Research and Development Act of 2004.
    The Committee heard from: (1) Dr. Arden Bement, Acting 
Director, National Science Foundation; (2) Dr. Paul Gilman, 
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, 
Environmental Protection Agency; (3) Dr. Berkeley Cue, Vice 
President for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Global Research 
and Development; (4) Mr. Steven Bradfield, Vice President of 
Environmental Development, Shaw Industries, Inc.; and (5) Dr. 
Edward Woodhouse, Associate Professor of Political Science, 
Department of Science & Technology Studies, Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute.
    Dr. Cue, Mr. Bradfield, and Dr. Woodhouse all expressed 
their support for the legislation. Dr. Cue stated that Pfizer 
has difficulty finding chemists and chemical engineers who are 
already trained in green chemistry. He said that this 
legislation would help alleviate that problem. Mr. Bradfield 
stated that the Carpet and Rug Institute supports the 
legislation. He also said he believed that green chemistry 
could keep U.S. chemical jobs from moving overseas. Dr. 
Woodhouse congratulated the Committee for its farsightedness in 
taking up the legislation.
    Both Administration witnesses said they supported the 
intent of the legislation, and looked forward to working with 
the Committee on this issue, but argued that the bill was 
unnecessary.
    Dr. Bement testified that NSF already funds a great deal of 
green chemistry R&D. He stated that NSF currently spends $13 
million through the Division of Chemical and Transport Systems 
and $11 million through the Division of Chemistry on green 
chemistry activities. These monies support individual 
investigators, teams of investigators, and research centers, he 
said. Bement said that NSF currently partners with EPA, DOE and 
NIST to leverage its green chemistry investments. NSF supports 
green chemistry research in chemical synthesis, catalysis, 
separations research, and environmental research, he said.
    Dr. Gilman testified that ``green chemistry and engineering 
represent the kind of science on which EPA is focusing to move 
to the next level of environmental and human health 
protection.'' He added that EPA is building interest in green 
chemistry and engineering in future generations through 
programs like the P3 Award competition, and is launching a new 
web portal to organize its programs. In addition, the joint 
NSF/EPA Technology for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program 
has resulted in 347 articles, 25 book chapters, 6 patents, and 
one Nobel Prize for Chemistry from the first 64 TSE grants 
alone, he said. Finally, Dr. Gilman testified that EPA is 
implementing a new research framework that includes green 
chemistry and engineering. EPA is releasing solicitations in 
the area of ``Collaborative Science and Technology Network for 
Sustainability,'' and will be partnering with states, local 
governments, and industry to address high-priority challenges.
    Dr. Cue described green chemistry as a win-win for Pfizer's 
goal of achieving economic, environmental, and social 
sustainability. He stated that Pfizer has achieved tremendous 
gains in efficiency through application of green chemistry in 
the production of pharmaceuticals. Pfizer has seen a five- to 
10-fold decrease in the amount of waste produced per kilogram 
of pharmaceutical product (from 25 to 100 kg to 5 to 10 kg). He 
underscored that few students graduating with chemistry majors 
are trained in, or even exposed to green chemistry. Thus, 
Pfizer must invest a huge amount of energy to educate its 
scientists about the green chemistry principles and how they 
apply to daily R&D efforts, he said. Dr. Cue testified that 
H.R. 3970 would help overcome this lack of familiarity with 
green chemistry.
    Mr. Bradfield testified that customer demand and 
profitability are the ultimate drivers of green chemistry 
adoption in industry, and that applying green chemistry 
processes in the carpet industry will keep U.S. jobs from going 
overseas. He also made recommendations for improving the 
federal green chemistry effort, including rewarding those that 
use green chemistry products and processes with tax credits. He 
also stated that the proposed Interagency Working Group should 
work closely with industry to establish R&D priorities.
    Dr. Woodhouse stated that economic and professional inertia 
are the main barriers to adoption of green chemistry. For 
example, he said small price increases prevent industry from 
selling green chemistry products, and universities are not 
updating their chemistry curricula to reflect green chemistry. 
Dr. Woodhouse also agreed with Dr. Cue that much more needs to 
be done to train future generations of chemists and chemical 
engineers in green chemistry.

                          V. Committee Actions

    On March 16, 2004, Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 3970, the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, along 
with Ms. Johnson (TX) and Mr. Ehlers. The introduction was the 
culmination of almost five months of bipartisan staff briefings 
on the issue from agencies, industry, and other relevant 
groups. As is Committee practice with bills that cut across the 
jurisdiction of most of the Subcommittees, the bill was held at 
full Committee.
    The Committee convened to receive testimony on the bill at 
a hearing on March 17, 2004.
    On March 31, 2004, the Committee on Science met to consider 
H.R. 3970. After consideration of several amendments, the 
Committee recessed and resumed consideration on April 1, 2004. 
The Committee considered the following amendments to the bill:
    1. Mr. Boehlert offered a technical amendment to stagger 
the date on which two biennial NSF reports are due. This 
amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
    2. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment that would have 
established a program on green chemistry within NIST's 
Manufacturing Extension Program. Mr. Gingrey offered a 
substitute amendment that would instead explicitly list green 
chemistry activities as allowable activities for Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership centers. Mr. Gingrey's substitute was 
adopted by a voice vote.
    3. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to require NSF to award 
grants to develop green chemistry curricula. Mr. Gingrey 
offered a substitute amendment. Both amendments were withdrawn.
    4. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment to make clear that non-
profits with experience in green chemistry were eligible to 
participate in activities under the Act. Mr. Gingrey offered a 
substitute amendment that removed the requirement that non-
profits already have experience in green chemistry. Mr. 
Gingrey's substitute amendment was adopted by a voice vote.
     5. Mr. Wu offered an amendment that would have established 
partnerships to retrain chemists and chemical engineers in 
green chemistry. Mr. Gingrey offered a substitute amendment 
that made such partnerships a program activity. Mr. Gingrey's 
substitute, as amended by unanimous consent, was adopted by a 
voice vote.
     6. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment that would have 
mandated federal procurement of green chemistry products. The 
amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y--14; N--19).
     7. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment that would have 
required a National Research Council study on barriers to the 
successful commercialization of green chemistry. The amendment 
was defeated by a voice vote.
     8. Ms. Johnson offered an amendment that would have 
increased the NSF authorization amounts. The amendment was 
defeated by a rollcall vote (Y--15; N--18).
     9. Mr. Honda offered an amendment that would have provided 
for research on ethical, legal, environmental, and other 
appropriate societal concerns. The amendment was withdrawn.
     10. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have 
established a community green chemistry grant program. The 
amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
     11. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have 
deleted references to ``sums otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated.'' The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
     12. Mr. Baird offered an amendment that would have added 
supporting efforts to fight invasive species to the list of 
program activities. The amendment was withdrawn.
     13. Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment that would have 
required the development of a report listing substances of 
concern as high priority categories for replacement with green 
chemistry alternatives for homeland security purposes. The 
amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote (Y--15; N--15).
     14. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered another amendment that would 
have deleted references to ``sums otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated.'' The amendment was defeated by a rollcall vote 
(Y--16; N--19).
     The legislation was agreed to by a voice vote. Mr. Gordon 
moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 3970, 
as amended, to the House with the recommendation that the bill 
as amended do pass, and that the staff be instructed to make 
technical and conforming changes to the bill as amended and 
prepare the legislative report and that the Chairman take all 
necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 
consideration. With a quorum present, the motion was agreed to 
by a voice vote.

               VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

     The major provisions of the legislation are:
     Establishes an interagency research and 
development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate federal 
green chemistry research, development, demonstration, 
education, and technology transfer activities.
     Establishes an interagency working group composed 
of representatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF), 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the 
Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), and any other agency that the President may designate, 
to oversee the planning, management, and coordination of all 
federal green chemistry R&D activities. Designates the Director 
of NSF and the Assistant Administrator for Research and 
Development at EPA as co-chairs.
     Requires the interagency working group to report 
to Congress within two years of enactment, summarizing 
federally-funded green chemistry research and development 
activities and progress made toward the goals and priorities of 
the program, as established by the working group.
     Amends the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology Act to make eligible as a Manufacturing Extension 
Program activity the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to 
conduct activities with the aim of reducing or eliminating the 
use or generation of hazardous substances.
     Authorizes appropriations from sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated for NSF, NIST, DOE and EPA. Total 
authorizations are $26 million in FY 05, $28 million in FY 06 
and $30 million in FY 07.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis


Sec. 1. Short Title

    ``Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004''.

Sec. 2. Definitions

     Defines terms used in the text.

 Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program

     Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) 
program to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry 
research, development, demonstration, education, and technology 
transfer activities. The program will provide sustained support 
for green chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive 
grants to researchers, teams of researchers, and R&D 
partnerships of universities, industry, and nonprofit 
organizations, and through R&D conducted at federal 
laboratories.
    The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, 
the application of green chemistry through encouragement of 
consideration of green chemistry in all federally funded 
chemical science and engineering R&D examination of methods to 
create incentives for the use of green chemistry; promotion of 
the education and training of undergraduate and graduate 
students and professional chemists and chemical engineers in 
green chemistry; collection and dissemination of information on 
green chemistry R&D and technology transfer; and provision of 
venues for outreach and dissemination of green chemistry 
advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written 
materials.
    Establishes an interagency working group composed of 
representatives from the National Science Foundation, the 
National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Department 
of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other 
agency that the President may designate, to oversee the 
planning, management, and coordination of all federal green 
chemistry R&D activities. Names the Director of the National 
Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for R&D at 
the Environmental Protection Agency as co-chairs and requires 
the group to establish goals and priorities for the program and 
provide for interagency coordination, including budget 
coordination. Requires the group to submit a report to the 
Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
Senate within two years of the enactment of this legislation 
that includes a summary of Federally funded green chemistry 
activities and an analysis of the progress made towards the 
goals and priorities established for the program, including 
recommendations for future program activities.

Sec. 4. Biennial Report

    Changes the reporting requirement under the Science and 
Engineering Equal Opportunities Act to stagger the dates on 
which two biennial reports are due.

Sec. 5. Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network Grant 
        Program

    Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Act to make eligible as a Manufacturing Extension Program 
activity the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to conduct 
activities with the aim of reducing or eliminating the use or 
generation of hazardous substances.

Sec. 6. Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs, 
from sums already authorized to be appropriated, for the 
National Science Foundation, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, and the 
Environmental Protection Agency.

                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Agency                       FY05     FY06     FY07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF..........................................       $7     $7.5       $8
NIST.........................................        5      5.5        6
DOE..........................................        7      7.5        8
EPA..........................................        7      7.5        8
                                              --------------------------
      Total..................................       26       28       30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         VIII. Committee Views


Federal Green Chemistry Efforts

    The Committee expects NSF, EPA, DOE and NIST to give more 
focused attention to green chemistry. That means running 
programs that are specifically targeted at funding green 
chemistry R&D, education, and technology transfer, not just 
funding such work as an afterthought or as a byproduct of other 
efforts, or if proposals related to green chemistry happen to 
be submitted by researchers.
    The Committee also expects the agencies to do a better job 
of coordinating their efforts in green chemistry so that the 
Federal Government has a comprehensive effort in green 
chemistry that can meet industry's needs while drawing on the 
unique strengths and expertise of each agency.
    The Committee expects that as part of its coordinating 
effort, the Interagency Working Group will submit a green 
chemistry budget to the Office of Management and Budget as part 
of the annual budget submission process. This should reflect an 
effort to think through what is specifically needed for green 
chemistry; it should not be a mere cobbling together of 
disparate budgets submitted by each agency.
    The Committee expects that, as part of its coordination 
efforts, the Interagency Working Group will identify areas in 
which green chemistry could help achieve federal, as well as 
industry needs. Obvious areas include improving homeland 
security and the development of non-toxic chemicals to combat 
invasive species. Clear industry needs include the development 
of benign solvents or solventless processes for a range of 
chemical processes, and new materials for buildings, such as 
paints and carpets that have lower toxicity.
    One way green chemistry R&D programs can help assure both 
relevance to, and adoption by industry is to fund university-
industry partnerships, which may also include national 
laboratories and other non-profit institutions. Not all green 
chemistry R&D should be funded this way, but it should be an 
emphasis in the R&D programs. The Committee intends that all 
R&D grants awarded under this legislation be competitively 
awarded and merit reviewed.
    Beyond operating more specific programs to fund green 
chemistry activities, the federal agencies should integrate 
green chemistry techniques in all of their chemistry and 
chemical engineering R&D activities. The Committee believes 
that, when soliciting and evaluating all chemistry and chemical 
engineering R&D grant proposals, the agencies should consider 
whether the application addresses the toxicity of the proposed 
chemical process and product.
    The Committee considers education and outreach activities 
as essential parts of a comprehensive green chemistry effort. 
The Interagency Working Group should make sure that 
participating agencies are engaging in these activities, 
consistent with their overall missions. Education activities 
should include curriculum development and student support.
    Outreach activities should include the creation of an 
easily accessible one-stop-shop for green chemistry 
information. Specifically, the Interagency Working Group may 
want to consider whether it would be useful to maintain a list 
of chemical products and processes that are benign so that a 
company looking for a green chemistry solution could have easy 
access to available green chemistry alternatives.
    In carrying out its responsibilities, the Interagency 
Working Group should consult regularly with a wide range of 
researchers and end-users, especially private companies.
    The Committee expects the Interagency Working Group to 
track federal expenditures on green chemistry. The Interagency 
Working Group should be able to provide the Congress with 
precise figures on how much is being sought for specific green 
chemistry activities in the President's annual budget request 
and with precise figures on how much was actually spent in a 
fiscal year.
    The Committee also expects the Interagency Working Group to 
be able to provide Congress with a clear explanation of the 
goals and priorities of the green chemistry program, how each 
agency's activities are contributing to those goals, and how 
achievement of those goals is being evaluated. An important 
metric for the program should be whether new green chemistry 
products and processes are being developed and whether they are 
being adopted by industry.

Section 6. Authorization of Appropriations

    It is the Committee's intent that the funds authorized in 
this Act be used for focused, explicit activities in green 
chemistry. Any other agency programs--current or future--that 
may advance green chemistry should be viewed as money over and 
above the amounts authorized in this Act.
    For example, NSF reports that it is currently spending 
almost $24 million per year on R&D related to green chemistry 
and chemical engineering. However, little of this is for 
efforts actually targeted toward green chemistry in specific 
requests for proposals. It is the Committee's intent that NSF 
expend the funds authorized in this Act on explicit green 
chemistry activities. The Committee expects that doing so would 
have no adverse effect on existing chemistry programs that 
happen to have funded about $24 million on projects related to 
green chemistry. Those programs should continue. The Committee 
in no way intends this Act to reduce the total amount of money 
NSF spends on green chemistry.
    Moreover, the Committee believes that all Federal chemistry 
and chemical engineering R&D programs should consciously strive 
to promote R&D that will result in an improved environment.

                           IX. Cost Estimate

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and 
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).

              X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 9, 2004.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
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. 3970, the Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Kathleen 
Gramp.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3970--Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004

    Summary: H.R. 3970 would authorize a total of $84 million 
in appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 for 
chemistry and chemical engineering research aimed at reducing 
or eliminating the use and production of hazardous substances 
(known as ``green chemistry''). It would authorize funding for 
such green chemistry programs at four agencies: the National 
Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under this bill, the 
amounts authorized would be derived from sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated.
    Assuming appropriation of the specified amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 3970 would cost $83 million 
over the 2005-2009 period. CBO estimates that enacting this 
bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 3970 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal 
governments either as regulators or as owners and operators of 
chemical facilities.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3970 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 250 
(general science, space, and technology), 300 (natural 
resources and environment), and 370 (commerce and housing 
credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                   2004    2005    2006    2007    2008    2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending for Green Chemistry Research Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority \1\........................................      35       0       0       0       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................      32      22       8       2       0       0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level.........................................       0      26      28      30       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................       0      12      23      28      16       4
Spending Under H.R. 3970:
    Authorization Level \1\.....................................      35      26      28      30       0       0
    Estimated Outlays...........................................      32      34      31      30      16       4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2004 level reflects agencies' estimates of the amounts appropriated for that year for activities similar
  to those authorized by H.R. 3970.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
amounts authorized will be appropriated each year and that 
outlays will occur at rates similar to those of existing 
research and development programs. In 2004, NSF expects to 
spend $24 million for green chemistry research, EPA about $7 
million, and NIST about $4 million. DOE currently does not 
conduct research specifically targeted to green chemistry 
technologies.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3970 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments either as regulators or as owners and 
operators of chemical facilities.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Kathleen Gramp. Impact 
on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Gregory Waring. Impact 
on the Private Sector: Selena Caldera.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

        XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)

     H.R. 3970 contains no unfunded mandates.

          XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

     The Committee on Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

       XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives

     Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the House of 
Representatives the general performance goals and objectives of 
H.R. 3970 are to establish an interagency research and 
development (R&D) program to promote and coordinate federal 
green chemistry research, development, demonstration, 
education, and technology transfer activities.

                 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement

     Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 3970.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

     H.R. 3970 does not establish nor authorize the 
establishment of any advisory committee.

                  XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

     The Committee finds that H.R. 3970 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).

      XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law

     This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or 
tribal law.

      XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

   SECTION 37 OF THE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT


                            BIENNIAL REPORT

  Sec. 37. (a) [By January 30, 1982, and biennially thereafter] 
By January 30 of each odd-numbered year, the Director shall 
simultaneously transmit a report to the Congress, the Attorney 
General, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, 
the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, and the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


  SECTION 25 OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY ACT


     REGIONAL CENTERS FOR THE TRANSFER OF MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

  Sec. 25. (a) The Secretary, through the Director and, if 
appropriate, through other officials, shall provide assistance 
for the creation and support of Regional Centers for the 
Transfer of Manufacturing Technology (hereafter in this Act 
referred to as the ``Centers''). Such centers shall be 
affiliated with any United States-based nonprofit institution 
or organization, or group thereof, that applies for and is 
awarded financial assistance under this section in accordance 
with the description published by the Secretary in the Federal 
Register under subsection (c)(2). Individual awards shall be 
decided on the basis of merit review. The objective of the 
Centers is to enhance productivity and technological 
performance in United States manufacturing through--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) the active dissemination of scientific, 
        engineering, technical, and management information 
        about manufacturing to industrial firms, including 
        small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies; [and]
          (5) the utilization, when appropriate, of the 
        expertise and capability that exists in Federal 
        laboratories other than the Institute[.]; and
          (6) the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to 
        continuously improve products and processes, increase 
        energy efficiency, identify cost-saving opportunities, 
        and optimize resources and technologies with the aim of 
        reducing or eliminating the use or generation of 
        hazardous substances.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     XIX. Committee Recommendations

     On April 1, 2004 a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research 
and Development Act of 2004 as amended, by a voice vote, and 
recommended its enactment.

                           XX. MINORITY VIEWS

I. Introduction
    Pollution prevention achieved through the application of 
improved industrial processes and the use of safer materials is 
a worthy goal that everyone can support. Research and 
development (R&D) in green chemistry and engineering is the 
first step--a necessary but not sufficient step--to the 
realization of a cleaner, safer environment. Congress 
recognized the promise of this approach and made pollution 
prevention a focus of federal activity with the passage of the 
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
    The introduction of H. R. 3970 provided an opportunity to 
improve federal pollution prevention efforts, private sector 
adoption of green chemistry and engineering processes, and 
progress toward cleaner and safer approaches to manufacturing. 
We applaud the introduction of this bill. Unfortunately, by 
severely limiting the bill's scope, the Committee has not 
seized the opportunity presented by the introduction of Rep. 
Gingrey's legislation.
    Our concerns are more with what is not in the bill than 
with what is in the bill. H.R. 3970 as reported, simply does 
not go far enough to promote the adoption of green chemistry 
and engineering. Amendments we offered to build upon the 
framework of the introduced bill were rejected, or were 
modified in ways that severely limited guidance to federal 
agencies about the program's direction and intent. In the end, 
while the bill authorizes certain R&D activities, it does 
little or nothing to facilitate the application of R&D to real 
problems. By limiting itself to a very narrow focus, the 
Committee has failed to dent the many barriers that continue to 
preclude broader diffusion of green chemistry.
II. Abbreviated Process for Consideration of the Legislation and 
        Failure To Utilize the Full Range of the Committee's 
        Jurisdiction
    In its consideration of H.R. 3970, the majority has 
consistently emphasized speed over content. In two weeks, H.R. 
3970 went from introduction to markup by the full Committee. 
The bill received a single hearing on the day of introduction 
and was marked up by the Committee two weeks later. No 
subcommittee hearings or markups were held. This is in contrast 
to the deliberate procedure utilized recently for two bills of 
similar complexity--H. R. 766, the Nanotechnology R&D Act, and 
H.R. 3980, the Wind Storm Hazard Reduction Act. With H.R. 3970, 
the Majority appeared to have an over-riding interest in moving 
the bill to the Floor quickly.
    More importantly, as a result of its breakneck pace, the 
majority adopted an excessively narrow interpretation of its 
jurisdiction relative to the amendments we offered to H.R. 
3970. Amendments on procurement, homeland security, and the 
establishment of a community grant program were all rejected 
due to the majority's concern that these additions would 
trigger referral to other Committees.
    Representative Lofgren's amendment would have tied the 
green chemistry R&D agenda to homeland security needs through 
an EPA report developed in consultation with the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS). The amendment mandated no regulatory 
action, nor did it require EPA or DHS to recommend regulatory 
action based on the findings of the report. Study and reporting 
requirements on a wide variety of topics have been included in 
much of the legislation acted upon by this Committee, and the 
Committee has jurisdiction over both EPA and DHS R&D programs. 
The majority's own report on this bill emphasizes the 
importance of green chemistry in reducing potential terrorist 
targets. Nonetheless, the majority took that unwarranted view 
that the Lofgren amendment would trigger debilitating 
referrals, or that such referrals (if they did occur) could not 
be worked out with other Committees.
    Representative Jackson Lee's amendment would have 
established a grant program for community-based environmental 
and public health groups to obtain technical assistance 
required to participate in joint pollution prevention projects 
with local industrial facilities. The majority's report touts 
the benefits of such programs in its description of a Dow/NRDC 
partnership begun in 1996 and laments that more of these 
programs have not sprung up around the country. The Jackson Lee 
grants would have removed barriers to the development of more 
of these agreements by supporting voluntary and cooperative 
activities that have nothing to do with regulation. In the past 
the Committee has frequently taken an active role in creating 
technology transfer and targeted R&D programs to address 
important research gaps. By limiting its jurisdiction in the 
rejection of the Jackson Lee amendment, the Committee has taken 
a step backward in an area of research that has produced 
technology that is ready for demonstration and application.
    We would have less concern over the rejection of these 
amendments if we were to be afforded an opportunity to offer 
these amendments during consideration by the House. We 
appreciate the majority's offer to work on a manager's 
amendment that may incorporate parts of the amendments that 
were rejected because of so-called jurisdictional concerns. 
However, from all indications, the Majority intends to bring 
this bill to the floor under suspension, a procedure that 
precludes minority Members from actually offering their 
amendments for an open vote.
    We do not understand the majority's unwillingness to make 
the bill more comprehensive and effective, even if such 
expansion required the Committee to negotiate its jurisdiction 
with other Committees of the House. As the table below 
indicates, the Committee routinely works out jurisdictional 
concerns with other Committees of the House through a simple 
exchange of letters.


III. Arbitrary Rejection of Substantive Improvements to the Legislation

    H.R. 3970 directs the President to establish a Green 
Chemistry R&D Program to promote and coordinate Federal green 
chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and 
technology transfer activities. Although the bill directs the 
President to establish a program that encompasses a full range 
of activities designed to go from basic research to application 
(see sections 3(b)(2)-3(b)(5)), the Committee did not include 
funding levels or specific programmatic direction that would 
enable this federal program to convert research into practice. 
Without specific Congressional direction, we believe that the 
Federal green chemistry will have little impact in removing the 
barriers that the majority details in its own report on the 
legislation.
    During the Committee's March 17, 2004 hearing, witnesses 
identified a number of barriers to the adoption of green 
chemistry and engineering by manufacturing facilities. One of 
the strongest concerns was that too few chemists and chemical 
engineers encounter green chemistry concepts in their formal 
training. Dr. Cue, from Pfizer, noted: ``today there are very 
few students graduating with chemistry majors who are trained 
in, or even exposed to, green chemistry''. This factor becomes 
an important barrier to the adoption and use of green chemistry 
in industrial products and processes.
    In response to this identified problem, Mr. Gordon 
unsuccessfully offered an amendment to fund competitive NSF 
grants at colleges and universities. The goal of these grants 
would be to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies 
through the revision of the undergraduate curriculum in 
chemistry and chemical engineering. As pointed out in the 
Committee's hearing by Prof. Woodhouse from Rensselaer 
Polytechnic Institute, there is a ``professional inertia'' in 
universities that is resistant to making curriculum changes. 
The NSF grants, including the requirement for cost sharing from 
awardees, would focus federal resources at those institutions 
that are serious about, and committed to, making curriculum 
revisions.
    A related education amendment was offered by Mr. Wu to 
establish a program to create partnerships between companies in 
the chemical industry and colleges and universities to provide 
professional development training to practicing chemists and 
chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and 
strategies. The Wu amendment would get at the problem of too 
few practicing scientists and engineers with knowledge on how 
to apply green chemistry concepts. By forging close 
relationships between the academic and industry partners, the 
amendment would ensure that courses of study would be relevant 
to industry and would provide practicing chemists with the 
skills and knowledge needed to employ green chemistry concepts 
in their work. The majority agreed only to add to the list of 
authorized activities the possibility of support for retraining 
chemists and chemical engineers. The positive requirement of 
the Wu amendment to establish a program was not retained nor 
were any provisions regarding how the program would be 
implemented.
    We offered four amendments designed to accelerate the 
movement of green chemistry from the laboratory bench into the 
manufacturing facility. While witnesses identified a number of 
promising green chemistry technologies and processes that have 
emerged through federal and private R&D efforts, most of these 
technologies have not been widely adopted by industry. The 
success of research and development in green chemistry and 
engineering cannot be measured solely in terms of published 
papers, patents awarded, and workshops held; the goal is the 
adoption and widespread use of green chemistry to reduce the 
use of toxic materials, to make workplaces and communities 
safer, and to avoid costly cleanups through pollution 
prevention.
    Three of our four amendments were rejected, and the fourth 
was stripped of its funding authorization, thereby seriously 
undermining its potential impact.
    By codifying the goal established under Executive Order 
13101, Representative Gordon's amendment to increase the 
federal government's purchase of environmentally preferable 
products responded to the testimony of several witnesses. The 
amendment would do for the products of green chemistry what the 
2002 Farm Bill did for bio-based products--namely, utilize 
procurement preferences to create a permanent guarantee of a 
federal market for desirable products.
    Mr. Steven Bradfield of the Carpet and Rug Institute 
testified that: ``We believe that rewarding those that 
commercialize green chemistry developments with research and 
development grants, tax incentives, and preferential federal 
purchasing programs will drive the desired advances in green 
chemistry.'' Representative Gordon's amendment would have 
provided a federal market to reward innovative companies. There 
can be no profit without a market. The federal government 
should support innovative firms investing in cleaner, safer 
technologies with a market for their products.
    Representative Gordon also offered an amendment to ensure 
that green chemistry processes and products were available to 
small supply-chain manufacturers through NIST's Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership Program. In 2003, EPA initiated the Green 
Suppliers Network (GSN) Program in conjunction with the MEP 
program. The voluntary GSN program was established to encourage 
large manufacturers to work with their suppliers to adopt 
pollution prevention techniques. The amendment was based on the 
statements of several witnesses that industry's failure to use 
green chemistry products and processes more widely is less a 
research issue than an education problem. This amendment was 
specifically targeted at this problem.
    Representative Gordon's amendment authorized the program 
with a modest funding level to enable the MEP centers to expand 
activities in this area. Representative Gingrey offered a 
substitute that eliminated all funding to implement the Green 
Supplier Network program. While the majority expressed support 
for the MEP Centers and this type of work, that support did not 
translate into actual funding for MEP. Although Mr. Gingrey 
noted that MEP funding was currently insufficient, his 
substitute amendment nonetheless increased MEP's 
responsibilities without providing the MEP program with the 
funding to carry out these added responsibilities.
    Ms. Jackson Lee's amendment to establish a community grant 
program would have enabled community groups to engage in 
constructive, cooperative projects with local industrial 
facilities to identify pollution prevention opportunities. Too 
often interactions between facilities and the communities where 
they are located are combative rather than constructive. In 
1996, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Dow 
Chemical signed an agreement to experiment with a different 
model. An important ingredient contributing to the success 
achieved at Dow's Midland, Michigan and La Porte, Texas 
facilities was the availability of technical assistance for the 
community groups participating in the program. The grants would 
only be awarded to communities that had identified a partner 
facility. This program would have helped to expand the options 
for identifying and implementing pollution prevention 
opportunities to make communities safer and cleaner.
    The Lofgren amendment is consistent with the goals of the 
current joint grant program of NSF and EPA. According to the 
written testimony provided by Dr. Paul Gilman of EPA: ``The 
goal of the Technology for a Sustainable Environment program is 
the discovery of innovative chemical alternatives with economic 
and environmental benefits through the design of inherently 
benign chemicals, materials, and energy for reduced risks, 
liabilities, accidents, and vulnerabilities.''
    A recent GAO report and examination of vulnerabilities 
associated with chemical manufacturing facilities included EPA 
estimates that 123 chemical facilities have toxic ``worst-
case'' scenarios where more than 1 million people in the 
surrounding areas could be at risk of exposure if a release 
occurred. Representative Lofgren's amendment requiring EPA to 
produce a report identifying chemical substances of concern 
would form the basis for directing R&D efforts to the discovery 
of replacements for the most hazardous substances. The report 
would also have provided a list of hazardous chemicals for 
which substitutes are currently available, but not in 
widespread use. This amendment is consistent with the purposes 
of the bill and would target R&D to areas of greatest need. 
Contrary to the claims of the majority during the markup, it 
mandated no regulatory action by either EPA or DHS.

IV. Inadequate Resources Provided To Support the Authorized Program

    In general, we believe that funding authorizations provided 
by the bill are insufficient to support the range of activities 
envisioned by the legislation. In the case of NSF, H.R. 3970's 
funding authorization for fiscal years 2005-2007 is 
significantly lower than the agency is currently providing for 
green chemistry activities. In the case of DOE and NIST, we 
cannot evaluate the sufficiency of funding levels in H.R. 3970 
because the Committee was not provided information on the 
current funding for activities authorized by the bill.
    H.R. 3970 purports to be an initiative to energize an 
interagency green chemistry R&D program. One might expect such 
an initiative to provide substantial new resources that will 
build on existing efforts, and in fact the Committee's March 16 
press release touting the introduction of H.R. 3970 claimed 
that it would ``increase Federal R&D into this science''. 
Unfortunately, the bill does not comport with the press 
release.
    As attested by the NSF Director in the March 17, 2004 
hearing, the authorization of appropriations provided for NSF 
by H.R. 3970 is approximately 70 percent below the current 
level that the agency is expending on green chemistry research, 
as the term is defined in the bill. Ms. Johnson offered an 
amendment to increase the NSF authorization level in order to 
provide modest growth above the agency's estimate of current 
funding for green chemistry research. We do not understand 
either why the majority rejected this amendment or why they 
assert in the report that, despite the discrepancy between the 
bill's authorization levels and NSF's testimony, there is no 
intention to reduce current funding levels at NSF.
    The authorization levels in the bill for EPA green 
chemistry R&D appear to be adequate, starting at the modest 
level the agency is currently expending, with 7 to 10 percent 
growth for the two out-years.
    We do not believe the Committee has received sufficient 
information to provide guidance on the adequacy of funds that 
are authorized in the bill for green chemistry activities at 
DOE and NIST. These agencies did not testify at the March 17th 
hearing, nor did they supply written testimony or other 
material for the hearing record to indicate either the current 
level of expenditures for green chemistry and engineering or an 
estimate of additional funding they would need to participate 
in the federal program established under the bill.
    The Committee report indicates the program will support R&D 
and demonstration projects at universities, industry and 
federal laboratories. The report also notes that some of the 
most significant barriers to the adoption of green chemistry 
are the lack of demonstrations and the costs associated with 
retooling of industrial infrastructure. DOE and NIST have 
experience in conducting cooperative projects and demonstration 
programs with industry. Input from these agencies regarding the 
likely cost of implementing this important component of 
technology transfer would have enabled the Committee to 
establish authorizations for these agencies that would ensure 
that these vital activities receive sufficient funding.
    The resource levels provided for EPA, NIST, and DOE, 
coupled with the actual reduction that would result from the 
NSF authorization, signal a considerably less than robust R&D 
initiative in an area that a bipartisan majority of the 
Committee believes is of national importance.
    A final problem with the authorization provisions in the 
bill is in the formulation that calls for the funds provided to 
come ``from sums otherwise authorized to be appropriated.'' 
This formulation has meaning in the case of NSF, since the NSF 
Authorization Act of 2002 provides an overall funding 
authorization through FY 2007. The 2002 Act authorizes a 
generous agency funding level and allows the Foundation 
considerable flexibility in carrying out its research and 
education activities by givingdirection for broad priority 
areas but by not specifying all of the activities that may be carried 
out under the Act. As a result, the formulation in H.R. 3970 that funds 
are authorized for green chemistry research ``from sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated'' is reasonable for NSF.
    On the other hand, for the other three agencies explicitly 
provided with funding authority in the bill (DOE, NIST and 
EPA), there are no funding authorizations in statute and none 
in immediate prospect. As a result, congressional authorizing 
committees have provided no general framework that sets program 
priorities and associated resource allocations at these 
agencies. The effect of the ``from sums'' language in the bill 
is to specify a funding level available for each of the three 
agencies from whatever appropriations are provided for a fiscal 
year covered by the bill. This is the case because an agency's 
appropriation for a particular year covered by H.R. 3970 is the 
authorization for that year, absent an authorization act. The 
actual effect of this formulation is no different from 
providing a normal authorization (``There are authorized to be 
appropriated''). As pointed out in discussions during the 
markup on the bill, CBO would score the bill identically under 
either formulation.
    This charade of attempting simultaneously to authorize 
funding for a program but not actually to specify any ``new'' 
money sidesteps the responsibility of the authorizing committee 
to state clearly its recommendations for the resource 
requirements necessary to implement a major activity it has 
authorized. We believe that the green chemistry R&D program is 
worthy of support and should be given an unequivocal 
authorization of appropriations at a level that is sufficient 
to effectively implement the initiative.

V. Conclusion

    H.R. 3970 is not up to the quality of legislation that the 
Committee has produced in the past. The Committee should have 
taken more time to increase and target Federal efforts in an 
area that has great potential to improve the economy and the 
environment. It should not have shied away from making the bill 
effective because it feared facing routine jurisdictional 
conflicts of the sort that we deal with every day in this 
institution. There is no logic in authorizing R&D without 
facilitating the application of its results to real problems. 
While we do not strongly oppose this bill, our support for it 
in its present state is not enthusiastic.
                                   Bart Gordon.
                                   Jerry F. Costello.
                                   Eddie Bernice Johnson.
                                   Lynn C. Woolsey.
                                   Nick Lampson.
                                   John B. Larson.
                                   Mark Udall.
                                   David Wu.
                                   Michael M. Honda.
                                   Brad Miller.
                                   Lincoln Davis.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Brad Sherman.
                                   Brian Baird.
                                   Dennis Moore.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Jim Matheson.
                                   Dennis Cardoza.


   XXI. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 3970, GREEN 
             CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. I want to welcome everyone here this 
morning. As usual, we are moving forward with bills that are 
bipartisan. All right. Before I get to my more official 
statement, as those of you know, the Committee on Science meets 
today to consider the following measures. H.R. 3980, the 
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act of 2004, H.R. 4030, 
Congressional Medal for Outstanding Contributions in Math and 
Science Education of 2004, and H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry 
Research and Development Act of 2004, and in consultation with 
Mr. Gordon, we agree that is the order we are going to proceed. 
The first two should go relatively easily. We will have a 
little more discussion on the Green Chemistry Bill, and we hope 
by then to have more Members in attendance.
    I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point, and without objection, so ordered.
    We will now proceed with the opening statements, and as I 
said before I so rudely interrupted myself, welcome. As usual, 
we are moving forward with bills that are bipartisan and 
moderate. Bills that will help make a difference in people's 
lives in very real ways. I am especially pleased that two of 
the bills were introduced by freshmen Members, Dr. Gingrey and 
Mr. Neugebauer. We hope that all of these bills will be able to 
move through the House before the May recess, although the Wind 
Bill, because it has a referral to another Committee, may be a 
little bit longer. As is our practice, I am going to talk about 
the bills now and let the sponsors describe them in greater 
detail when we get to the markup of each bill.
    I want to congratulate Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore for 
coming up with an affordable, targeted version of this Wind 
Bill. Windstorms cause much loss of life and property. We need 
a program for wind like the one we have for earthquakes that 
targets federal R&D resources toward developing better ways for 
buildings to better withstand windstorms. That is exactly what 
this bill will create.
    I want to congratulate Chairman Smith and Ms. Johnson on 
their bill to create an award for businesses that help our 
nation's schools. This is clearly an activity we want to see 
increase, and this award will provide an additional incentive. 
The bill was inspired in part by the very successful Baldrige 
Award Program, which as we all know, emanated from this 
committee.
    I want to take most of my time this morning to talk about 
Dr. Gingrey's Green Chemistry Bill because that is what this 
morning's debate will focus on. First let me say that this bill 
is exactly the kind of thing this committee should be doing; 
making sure that federal R&D programs give enough attention to 
important research that could advance national needs. The 
Federal Government has long had a smattering of Green Chemistry 
Programs, and even the Presidential Award, but we have lacked a 
sustained focused priority effort in this important area. This 
bill is designed to change that. The bill has attracted a 
surprisingly large number of amendments. I take that as a sign 
that we have hit on an important issue, one that has been 
previously neglected. So the amendments in that sense are a 
good sign.
    Unfortunately, we are going to have to oppose these 
amendments in their current form. Let me emphasize that. In 
their current form, even though I always try to be open to 
other ideas and to look for grounds for compromise. We may 
reach some compromises this morning, and we will be offering 
substitutes for some amendments so that we can get at least 
some of the ideas behind them into the bill.
    So what is wrong with the amendments? Well, the amendments 
fall into three categories. Several aim to increase spending in 
this bill. While I am sympathetic to the need to spend more in 
this program, we have a fiscal crisis, and both sound policy 
and sound politics dictate that we not make the program more 
expensive, particularly here and now. Hopefully, we will be 
able to spend more on green chemistry in later years.
    The second category of amendment aims to elaborate on 
activities already explicitly or implicitly permitted in the 
bill. We don't want to weigh down the bill with very 
prescriptive program language, but we are willing to go 
somewhat farther than the introduced bill does in describing 
what kinds of activities might be funded through the Green 
Chemistry Program. I hope we can reach some agreement on these 
amendments.
    The third category of amendment is the most problematic. 
These amendments would change the nature of this bill from one 
focused on R&D, and that is where I think we need the focus, to 
one that is more regulatory in nature. This bill's purpose is 
straightforward and non-controversial. We are trying to create 
an R&D program that will generate new ideas. If we add 
regulatory or procurement provisions, this bill will become 
controversial and will be referred to other committees, and we 
will have nothing to show for our efforts. I am sympathetic to 
some of these ideas, but this bill is not the proper vehicle to 
carry them forward.
    If prompted by this bill, Members are now interested in 
taking other actions related to green chemistry, and I hope 
they will be, then they should introduce their own bills and we 
can decide how to proceed on them. But we shouldn't be turning 
an R&D bill into a complex and controversial procurement and 
regulatory measure. That is contrary to our original basic 
purpose, to focus on research and development. So I hope we can 
have a collegial and productive markup today. I don't think 
there is any controversy on the underlying bills. I am pleased 
that the Members want to expand these bills further, but we 
can't expand so much that they won't fit into the House 
schedule. And when all is said and done, we have got to be more 
than just a debating society for ideas. We have got to be a 
Committee that generates good ideas that earn the support of 
our colleagues that get passed by the House, get passed by the 
Senate, and get signed into law by the President.
    I now recognize Mr. Gordon for his opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
                             March 31, 2004
    I want to welcome everyone here for our markup this morning. As 
usual, we are moving forward with bills that are bipartisan and 
moderate--bills that will help make a difference in people's lives in 
very real ways. I'm especially pleased that two of the bills were 
introduced by freshman Members--Dr. Gingrey and Mr. Neugebauer. We hope 
that all of these bills will be able to move through the House before 
the May recess, although the wind bill must go to another committee.
    As is our practice, I'm going to talk about the bills now and let 
the sponsors describe them in greater detail when we get to the markup 
of each bill.
    I want to congratulate Mr. Neugebauer and Mr. Moore for coming up 
with an affordable, targeted version of this wind bill. Windstorms 
cause much avoidable loss of life and property. We need a program for 
wind, like the one we have for earthquakes, that targets federal R&D 
resources toward developing ways for buildings to better withstand 
windstorms. That's exactly what this bill will create.
    I want to congratulate Chairman Smith and Ms. Johnson on their bill 
to create an award for businesses that help our nation's schools. This 
is clearly an activity we want to see increase, and this award will 
provide an additional incentive. The bill is inspired in part by the 
very successful Baldrige Award program that this committee created.
    I want to take most of my time this morning to talk about Dr. 
Gingrey's green chemistry bill because that's what this morning's 
debates will center on.
    First let me say that this bill is exactly the kind of thing this 
committee should be doing--making sure that federal R&D programs give 
enough attention to important research that could advance national 
needs. The Federal Government has long had a smattering of green 
chemistry programs and even a Presidential award, but we've lacked a 
sustained, focused and priority effort in this important area. This 
bill is designed to change that.
    The bill has attracted a surprisingly large number of amendments. I 
take that as a sign that we have hit on an important issue--one that 
has been previously neglected. So the amendments, in that sense, are a 
good sign.
    Unfortunately, we are going to have to oppose these amendments in 
their current form, even though I always try to be open to others' 
ideas and to look for grounds for compromise. We may yet reach some 
compromises this morning, and we will be offering substitutes for some 
amendments so that we can get at least some of the ideas behind them 
into the bill.
    So what's wrong with the amendments? Well, the amendments fall into 
three categories. Several aim to increase the spending in this bill. 
While I'm sympathetic to the need to spend more on this program, we 
have a fiscal crisis, and both sound policy and sound politics dictate 
that we not make the program more expensive. Hopefully, we will be able 
to spend more on green chemistry in later years.
    The second category of amendment aims to elaborate on activities 
already explicitly or implicitly permitted in the bill.
    We don't want to weigh the bill down with very prescriptive program 
language, but we are willing to go somewhat farther than the introduced 
bill does in describing what kinds of activities might be funded 
through the green chemistry program. I hope we can reach agreement on 
these amendments.
    The third category of amendment is the most problematic; these 
amendments would change the nature of this bill from one focused on R&D 
to one that is more regulatory in nature. This bill's purpose is 
straight-forward and non-controversial; we're trying to create an R&D 
program that will generate new ideas.
    If we add regulatory or procurement provisions, this bill will 
become controversial and will be referred to other committees, and we 
will have nothing to show for our efforts. I'm sympathetic to some of 
these ideas, but this bill is not the proper vehicle for them.
    If, prompted by this bill, Members are now interested in taking 
other actions related to green chemistry, then they should introduce 
their own bills and we can decide how to proceed on them. But we 
shouldn't be turning an R&D bill into a complex and controversial 
procurement and regulatory measure. If this bill doesn't pass, there 
will be fewer green chemistry ideas to get companies and the government 
to implement.
    So I hope we can have a collegial and productive markup today. I 
don't think there is any controversy on the underlying bills. I'm 
pleased that Members want to expand these bills further, but we can't 
expand so much that they won't fit into the House schedule.
    Mr. Gordon.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We on the Democratic 
side are pleased that you have moved forward with these three 
bills for consideration today. The National Windstorm Impact 
Reduction Act of 2004 is patterned after legislation written by 
Congressman Dennis Moore, the bill's chief sponsor. We all owe 
a debt of gratitude to Congressman Moore for identifying the 
need for a multi-agency Wind Hazard Reduction Program five and 
a half years ago. He worked to reach consensus among the 
agencies on the scope of such legislation. He founded the Wind 
Caucus to promote the program, and he worked with the private 
sector and the university community to make sure that the needs 
of those will carry out the work reflected in the bill's 
context or text.
    Time is of the essence on this bill. Many of our districts 
have been impacted by major windstorms since Mr. Moore began 
this effort, and we are pleased that all of the major elements 
of the Moore--the log bill can be found in the new Neugebauer-
Moore bill. Congressman Moore will go into greater detail on 
this point later in the markup. It is regrettable though that 
the proposed funding for the program had to be reduced so 
dramatically to perhaps a quarter of what we are spending on 
the problem of earthquake research. But the bill is still a 
positive start.
    In contrast, the Green Chemistry Research and Development 
Act of 2004 has not had such a lengthy period of maturation. It 
was introduced just 15 years ago--I mean 15 days ago, excuse 
me, and was the subject of a single hearing the following day. 
Our issue today is more than with what is not--is more what is 
not in the bill than what is in the bill. In other words, the 
bill is okay as a start, but it is not--does not go far enough 
to promote the adoption of green chemistry. Several Democratic 
Members on the Committee will offer amendments today in an 
effort to expand the impact and importance of the underlying 
legislation. Nearly all of these amendments are based on 
testimony given at our hearing by witnesses earlier this month. 
We hope the Chairman will be able to support many of these 
amendments, which we will offer in a constructive spirit.
    The final bill today, H.R. 4030, is non-controversial. 
Congressman Smith has worked closely with Congresswoman Johnson 
in perfecting the bill. We all agree with the purpose of 
honoring private-sector organizations that make outstanding 
contributions to strengthening science, mathematics, technology 
engineering education in our schools.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, all Members may place 
opening statements in the record at this point.
    [The prepared statement by Mr. Davis follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Lincoln Davis
    I would like to start by thanking the Chair and Ranking Member for 
the opportunity to speak at today's markup.
    There is bipartisan support among Members of the Science Committee 
for efforts to encourage green chemistry, or the development of 
materials and processes that are not harmful to people or the 
environment. Research and building construction at the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory (ORNL) are shining examples of the good things that 
happen when green chemistry approaches are put into practice.
    ORNL continues to contribute to a range of scientific and 
technological needs in green chemistry. New chemical approaches that 
use benign carbon dioxide (CO2) instead of noxious 
industrial solvents have been deployed commercially in new, safer dry 
cleaning technologies. Researchers have also worked to develop methods 
that result in decreased use of materials that are harmful to the 
environment.
    Even Oak Ridge buildings are getting ``green.'' The environmentally 
friendly design off a new 370,000 square foot complex has netted ORNL a 
2003 Excellence in Construction award from a major contractors 
association. Developing methods and products that are good for the 
environment is important. In the long run, it will save us untold sums 
in energy saved and damage deterred. I am proud that Oak Ridge is 
leading the way in green chemistry efforts and would encourage others 
to follow its example.
    I thank our distinguished Chair and Ranking Member for the 
opportunity to speak this morning and yield back to the Chair.

    [The prepared statement by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Chairman,

    I rise in support of this bill that will encourage ``green 
chemistry'' and define the federal investment in that important 
subject. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey for authoring 
a bill that may help focus some of our attention on the need to 
encourage our schools, and labs, and industries to work toward 
protecting and preserving our environment. However, I wish that we had 
had more time to study the bill, to solicit opinions from our 
constituents and academics, and to work together to improve and enhance 
the bill. However, I think it is an important subject, so I feel if we 
work together today in the bipartisan spirit that the Science Committee 
is known for, we can send an excellent bill to the Floor of the House.
    I assume that everyone in this room is ``for'' green chemistry. It 
only makes sense that if there are two ways to do something--a harmful 
way and a non-harmful way--we would all want to choose the non-harmful 
way. And assuming we agree that it is a responsibility of the Federal 
Government to stimulate research and investment in areas that could 
have a beneficial impact on our nation, I believe we would all agree 
that we should focus some of the Nation's research energies on green 
chemistry.
    The main question is: how much of our resources should be allocated 
to program? This is an especially tough question in a budget 
environment like the one we have today. Massive tax cuts for the rich 
and a violent and expensive foreign policy have left us with little 
money left to fund critical programs.
    The President's latest budget has slashed dozens of research and 
education programs. I have been very pleased with the bold leadership 
of the Chairman and Ranking Member of this Science Committee, pointing 
out that under-investing in science and technology is a grave error. It 
could jeopardize our position at the front of the world economy, and 
cost us jobs galore. I feel we need to find money to make investments 
in growth industries, and green chemistry certainly qualifies.
    I am concerned, however, that the bill we are discussing, although 
well-intentioned, may not make the necessary improvement of investment 
in the field. Because the bill only draw from funds that have been 
previously authorized, existing programs will have to be cannibalized, 
or simply renamed to fit the ``green chemistry'' label. As important as 
green chemistry is, I would hate to see it come at the expense of 
programs at NIST or DOE that we have been fighting for years. Some of 
the programs that are to be incorporated into the green chemistry 
initiative have not even been re-authorized in years, further confusing 
the matter of funding.
    Again, I am a firm supporter of green chemistry. It holds great 
promise for allowing our economy and standard of living to grow, while 
protecting our environment. However, hope that we can work together to 
ensure that it is funded appropriately.
    Also, I will be offering an amendment later that will encourage 
volunteer industry-community partnerships that will lead to reduced use 
and emission of toxic chemicals in the community, better relations 
between communities and their local industrial facilities, and cost 
savings for the facility. The amendment is modeled after programs that 
have proven successful in Michigan and Texas.
    I hope you will support these amendments. Thank you.

    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, may I make a short 
comment?
    Chairman Boehlert. You certainly may, Chairman Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. All of us here, in this committee 
especially, have been looking at how we improve math and 
science education, and maybe this is a small encouragement to 
have private sectors more involved--in the private sector in--
by way of nonprofit organizations, by the way of business and 
industry to do something that is going to be in their long-term 
advantage, as well as the advantage of the United States to 
improve and increase the education in math and science and the 
number of students that are interested and can perform well.
    This particular bill has no cost, but can be a stimulant to 
hopefully have more companies participate in working with 
schools and communities working with schools. And so I hope we 
can approve the amendment of the Chairman that allows us to do 
a technical change on alternating years for reports from the 
National Science Foundation.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much for the 
intervention. Now here is what I would like to do, with the 
indulgence of all my colleagues. We have three bills before us, 
two of them I think there is almost unanimous agreement on. Let 
us dispense with them immediately, and then focus our time and 
attention on the Green Chemistry Bill, which has us all 
interested, and we are coming from different perspectives. Is 
that--do I see from a nod of the heads that that is a good 
plan? Let us go. All right.
    Now onto--we will now consider the bill H.R. 3970, the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act. I now yield five 
minutes to Dr. Gingrey to introduce his bill.
    Mr. Gingrey. Well, I would like to thank Chairman Boehlert 
and Mr. Gordon for bringing H.R. 3970, the Green Chemistry 
Research and Development Act of 2004, to markup today, and also 
I would like to thank the Chairman for allowing me to deliver, 
some pun intended, this bill to the Science Committee. I am 
excited about this bipartisan piece of legislation that helps 
plan, manage and coordinate Federal Green Chemistry Research 
and Development activities.
    The emerging field of green chemistry holds many potential 
economic, environmental and national security benefits. We 
heard about some of them in the hearing we held a couple of 
weeks ago. However, we also realize that despite all of the 
promise and the potential of green chemistry, the Federal 
Government invests very little in this area. H.R. 3970 will 
establish a research and development program to promote and 
coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, 
demonstration, education and technology transfer activities 
within the National Science Foundation, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, and the Department of Energy.
    This legislation provides modest and prudent focus in an 
area that frankly deserves greater federal attention. The 
program established by the Green Chemistry Bill will provide 
sustained support for green chemistry research and development 
through merit reviewed competitive grants to researchers, 
university-industry partnerships and federal laboratories. In 
addition, this program will promote the education and the 
training of undergraduate and graduate students in green 
chemistry, and collect and disseminate information on green 
chemistry research and development and technology transfer. 
H.R. 3970 is fiscally prudent in these times of budgetary 
constraints by obtaining funding for this program from sums 
already authorized to be appropriated at the four agencies that 
I just mentioned.
    This legislation has received broad support from the carpet 
industry, drug manufacturers, chemical firms and the American 
Chemistry Council, all of whom we heard from last week in our 
hearing. I look forward to the Committee positively reporting 
H.R. 3970 today and to its passage and enactment into law in 
the very near future.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gingrey follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Phil Gingrey
    I'd like to thank Chairman Boehlert for bringing H.R. 3970, the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 to markup today. 
I'm excited about this bipartisan piece of legislation that helps plan, 
manage, and coordinate federal green chemistry research and development 
activities.
    The emerging field of Green Chemistry holds many potential 
economic, environmental, and national security benefits. We heard about 
some of them in the hearing we held a couple weeks ago. However, we 
also realize that despite all of the promise and potential of green 
chemistry, the Federal Government invests very little in this area.
    H.R. 3970 will establish a research and development program to 
promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, development, 
demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities within the 
National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of 
Energy. This legislation provides modest and prudent focus in an area 
that frankly deserves greater federal attention.
    The program established by the Green Chemistry Bill will provide 
sustained support for green chemistry research and development through 
merit-reviewed competitive grants to researchers, university-industry 
partnerships, and federal laboratories.
    In addition this program will promote the education and training of 
undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry and collect and 
disseminate information on green chemistry research and development and 
technology transfer.
    H.R. 3970 is fiscally prudent in these times of budgetary 
constraints by obtaining funding for this program from sums already 
authorized to be appropriated at the four agencies I mentioned.
    This legislation has received broad support from the carpet 
industry, drug manufacturers, chemical firms and the American Chemistry 
Council.
    I look forward to the Committee positively reporting H.R. 3970 
today and to its passage and enactment into law in the near future.
    Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The Chair 
recognizes Mr. Gordon for five minutes to present his opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Gordon. I yield to Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon and Mr. 
Chairman. Frequently we as legislators preach about how we want 
to make this world a better place for those who are to follow. 
This Green Chemistry Act is a first step to increasing the use 
of renewable fuels, encourage manufacturing processes that 
generate less toxic waste, and promote the development of 
materials which can be easily recycled. I am so pleased that my 
colleague Congressman Gingrey has introduced the Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, and I am proud 
to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation.
    Green Chemistry is the utilization of a set of principles 
that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous 
substances in the design, manufacture and application of 
chemical products. Over the past decade, there has been 
increasing interest in a fundamentally new approach to 
environmental protection. In studying green chemistry, we 
realize that science and technology can help produce processes 
and products that are both more environmentally benign and 
economically attractive. Although there is more work that can 
be done to strengthen this legislation, it provides the right 
impetus to encourage the science and manufacturing communities 
to start in the right direction, not only because green 
chemistry can save them money now in the short-term, but 
because it can also save our planet in the long-term.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    I ask unanimous consent that the bill is considered as read 
and open to amendment at any point, and that the Members 
proceed with the amendments in the order of the roster. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    [See Appendix for H.R. 3970.]
    Chairman Boehlert. The first amendment on the roster is an 
amendment offered by the Chair. I have an amendment at the 
desk. The Clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    I yield myself such time as is necessary to discuss the 
amendment.
    This is essentially the NSF amendment that we have done in 
the other two bills, and Mr. Gordon, you know that, and there 
is agreement on both sides. Is there any further discussion on 
the amendment? If not, the vote is on the amendment. All in 
favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the 
amendment is agreed to.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number two, 
as offered by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. Are you 
ready to proceed with the amendment? Which one is that? It's 
the amendment adding a new section four. Yeah.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward 
amendment. It establishes a small, competitive grant program to 
enable the manufacturing extension partnership centers to 
actively implement the green suppliers' network program in 
conjunction with EPA. Initiated in late 2002, the green 
suppliers' network allows EPA centers working with large 
manufacturers to actively engage all levels of their supply 
chain to prevent pollution. The goal of these grants is to 
enable supply chain manufacturers to continuously improve 
products and processes with the aim of reducing or eliminating 
the use or generation of hazardous substances.
    The GSN program allows the Environmental Protection Agency 
to leverage the national network with MEP centers to improve 
environmental and economic benefits to small supply chain 
manufacturers. The EPA amendment relies upon the MEP Center's 
technical expertise in contacts in the manufacturing community 
to implement the program. My amendment builds upon an existing 
program to ensure that the green chemistry concepts will be 
introduced and utilized within the manufacturing supply chain 
of smaller manufacturers also, and I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and is there any 
discussion?
    Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes? Who----
    Mr. Udall. I----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Gordon. I'd move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. Your gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be much briefer 
than five minutes. I just want to make a general observation 
about the Committee's actions today in relation to the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology. I have to--I am 
concerned that we have gotten into the habit of authorizing 
NIST by subject rather than by developing a comprehensive 
budget that balances and prioritizes all of NIST's many 
missions. We have authorized NIST activities in nanotechnology 
and computer security, and today, we are authorizing NIST 
activities in wind hazard research and green chemistry.
    We continue to give NIST new instructions to establish new 
programs without providing any overall budget increase. The 
result is that NIST makes the hard choices of what to cut in 
order to meet the Science Committee priorities. I don't believe 
we are doing our job as authorizers. NIST's budget has been 
increasingly under siege, and yet we have not moved a complete 
NIST authorization bill that would force us to make some hard 
choices on NIST funding priorities. While I support the 
objectives of the bills we are considering today, I think it is 
time that we move a comprehensive NIST authorization bill that 
fully funds NIST so that it can fully carry out its mission.
    Mr. Chairman, I would yield back any time I have remaining, 
but I think it is----
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. This is an important----
    Chairman Boehlert. We appreciate it, and like you, I am a 
big fan of NIST and it warms my heart to see the 2005 budget 
request, which is about a 25 percent increase for NIST, and 
that is much needed. We have got some problems in 2004, and you 
know they are facing some lay-offs, and we are working with 
them in trying to see what we can do to help and I am pleased 
to report there are some other agencies that are providing some 
assistance. But there is a financial crunch this year, but next 
year a good sized increase, except no increase for MEP. I think 
the Administration is wrong. I know the gentleman does. The 
Ranking Member does. I think everybody in this committee does, 
and so that is one of the reasons why you are going to see some 
of the reaction from our side as we try to add authorizing 
language in terms of more dollars.
    Are there any amendments to the amendment? Doctor----
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert.--Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer a substitute 
amendment to the Ranking Member's amendment. I have an 
amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk shall distribute the 
amendment. The Clerk shall report the substitute amendment, as 
it is being distributed.
    The Clerk. Amendment two, H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Gingrey.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. Dr. Gingrey is 
recognized for five minutes to explain his substitute 
amendment.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Again, this idea by 
Mr. Gordon is very good in concept. However, the manufacturing 
extension partnership is already financially burdened, and we 
do not want to add additional mandates. This amendment also 
adds additional money to the bill. This bill is funded modestly 
and the hope is to get a small program going that could grow in 
the future. I do not want to add new money to the program. I 
have a substitute amendment to the gentleman's amendment, and 
my amendment would make as an eligible MEP activity enabling of 
supply chain manufacturers to continuously improve products and 
processes, increase energy efficiency, identify cost-saving 
opportunities and optimize resources and technologies with the 
aim of reducing or eliminating the use of our generation of 
hazardous substances.
    So I think that this is a prudent amendment that addresses 
the gentleman's concerns that MEP play an important role in 
promoting green chemistry; however, without being overly 
prescriptive or adding additional money to the bill, and I 
yield back----
    Chairman Boehlert. And thanks----
    Mr. Gingrey.--Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert.--for that explanation, and I agree with 
the gentleman's reasoning, and once again, let me stress that 
there is no one in this committee or this Congress that is a 
greater fan of the manufacturing extension partnership than the 
Chair. I know a number of my colleagues equal me in their 
passion for the program. It is mind-boggling to think in terms 
of such an outstanding program getting short shrift from my 
Administration, and I am working with them to try to convince 
them of the error of their ways. But the reasoning given by Dr. 
Gingrey in his very eloquent, eloquent explanation of his 
substitute amendment is something that I embrace, and I thank 
him for that and I wonder if there is any further discussion on 
the amendment to the amendment.
    Chair recognizes Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree that the 
gentleman's argument was eloquent, but it was arguing for my 
amendment. He said that we should not place additional 
restriction--or additional burdens on the MEP program, and--
without funding them. Well, my amendment provides $5 million to 
fund the program, a program that we already all agree is under-
funded. Now what his amendment does is require them to do the 
same thing basically that I have done, but gives them no 
funding. So he was eloquent, but his eloquence was arguing for 
my amendment. So if we are going to give them those 
responsibilities, let us authorize an additional $5 million to 
accomplish it.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Is there any 
further discussion on the substitute amendment? Being no one 
seeking recognition, the vote is on the amendment--the 
substitute amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The 
ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. Let us see. The ayes 
have it, and the substitute amendment is agreed to.
    Now the vote occurs on the base amendment. We have got a 
substitute, we don't--oh, the substitute? Okay. All right. 
Just--all right. Got it. We will move on to the next one.
    The next amendment that is on the record is amendment 
number three, an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Tennessee, Mr. Gordon. Mr. Gordon, you are recognized.
    Mr. Gordon. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. And the Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Gordon.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman from 
Tennessee is recognized for such time as he may consume.
    Mr. Gordon. My amendment, Mr. Chairman, establishes a 
program in the National Science Foundation to fund competitive 
grants at colleges and universities to incorporate green 
chemistry concepts and strategies through the revision of the 
undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering. 
One of the serious impediments to gaining acceptance and 
widespread commercialization of products and processes 
consistent with green chemistry concepts is that students 
majoring in chemistry and chemical engineering are not exposed 
to green chemistry in their studies. This fact was pointed out 
by witnesses during the Committee's recent hearing on the bill.
    Dr. Cue from the--from Pfizer and I--said, and I quote, 
``Today, there are very few students graduating with chemistry 
majors who are trained in or even exposed to green chemistry.'' 
Similarly, Professor Woodhouse remarked that the professional 
inertia in universities is resisting making these types of 
curriculum changes. The amendment I am offering seeks to 
overcome this professional inertia and address the lack of 
graduates with training in green chemistry by using the 
prestige of the National Science Foundation grant to spur 
necessary curriculum and course revisions needed to bring in 
green chemistry. The grants will provide the incentive for 
faculty to invest the considerable time and effort needed to 
bring about comprehensive curriculum revisions.
    The funding authorized is at a high enough level, $15 
million per year, to get the attention of a reasonable number 
of universities. In addition, the institutions are eligible for 
grants only if they offer cost-sharing in an amount equal to 
the federal award. This provision will focus the federal 
resources at those institutions that are serious about and 
committed to making curriculum revisions. I would note that the 
funding authorization--authorized for this program does not 
come from any new money. Consistent with the main NSF 
authorization appropriation in section four, the funding is 
carved out of the amount already provided in the National 
Science Foundation by the five-year NSF authorization enacted 
in 2002.
    I ask my colleagues for support of this amendment, and I 
yield back my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Are there any amendments to the 
amendment?
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey.--I have a substitute amendment to the 
gentleman's amendment----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Member is recognized.
    Mr. Gingrey. And I have----
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. You have got the amendment at 
the desk?
    Mr. Gingrey. I have an amendment at the----
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk shall distribute----
    Mr. Gingrey.--desk, yes.
    Chairman Boehlert.--the amendment, and the Clerk shall 
report the substitute amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3790 offered by Mr. Gingrey.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman is 
recognized for five minutes or less.
    Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will--I am sure it 
will be less. On Mr. Gordon's amendment on undergraduate 
education, I do think that curriculum development will be an 
important part of this interagency program. But this amendment 
adds significant new money, and I consider $15 million a year 
significant new money, to be--to a very small program. The 
current language in the bill is broad and it does allow any 
activity that expands educational opportunities. At this point 
with the program in its infancy, we do not want to be too 
prescriptive, but allow the agencies to determine the most 
critical activities, and I have a substitute amendment.
    Mr. Chairman, my amendment would include Mr. Gordon's 
program for curricular development, but it would fund it out of 
the funds already in the bill, without adding an additional 
line item of $15 million per year, and also it would remove 
some of the more detailed language in the gentleman's 
amendment, so I offer this substitute amendment and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, and it will not surprise you 
to learn that Mr. Gordon would like to respond.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to be ugly here, but 
once again, Mr. Gingrey has introduced my amendment. My 
amendment does not provide any additional funds. My amendment 
says use the--use $15 million already in the NSF budget, and 
let me say, this $15 million comes from a one and a half 
billion dollar amount in the NSF budget that is above the 
authorization. So I think they have a cushion there, so if you 
really want to implement this program, we need to put the 
incentives for the universities to change those curriculum. And 
again, what this will do is you can't be eligible for these 
grants unless you agree as an institution to put up the same 
amount of your own money.
    So again, let me--again, I--maybe we are just talking 
beyond each other, but what you are suggesting is what I have--
what my amendment says, is to take the money out of existing 
funds, out of the one and a half billion dollars above their 
authorization.
    Mr. Gingrey. If the gentleman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Gordon. I will yield.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right in what 
he just said in regard to no additional funding, and I 
apologize. I was in error in stating that it would be $15 
million a year in additional money, so the gentleman is right 
about that point. But I still would object to his amendment and 
again offer to the Committee my substitute in that the language 
in his amendment is very prescriptive and it is very detailed 
language, and it--we just feel that it would make it a little 
more difficult to proceed with this program at this time, so I 
yield back----
    Mr. Gordon. Would the gentleman yield for one quick 
question?
    Mr. Gingrey. Yes. I will be glad to.
    Mr. Gordon. Okay. Does your amendment take out the cost-
sharing provision for universities?
    Mr. Gingrey. Yes, it does. It does.
    Mr. Gordon. So we are not going to make them have a stake 
in this?
    Mr. Gingrey. Well----
    Mr. Gordon. We will make blood from a stone? So we are 
going to make the federal taxpayers to pick up the full bill 
here with this curriculum change?
    Chairman Boehlert. Counsel, help us out on this thing. Sort 
of explain the reasoning.
    The Counsel. I will try my best. The amendment does take 
out the cost-sharing provision and the idea here is that we are 
not opposed to cost-sharing, but the NSF, and I can be 
corrected if I am wrong by counsel up there, has a lot of 
trouble determining what the cost share is when it is in-kind 
cost sharing and----
    Mr. Gordon. Chairman, if I could--might suggest, I think 
part of the problem is we only had one hearing on this bill. We 
really--and the bill hasn't been well vetted. It is a very--it 
is a good concept. We need to move forward with it. I think our 
misunderstandings really are a lack of communication. What I 
would suggest--you know, you have the votes here to do what you 
wish, but I would assume you want to get a good bill, and we 
can continue with these discussions and there can be a--
potentially a manager's amendment or something at another time 
because surely, you know, this amendment does not--or 
substitute you do not want to--to your other incentives----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah. And you know, I like your basic 
approach, and here is what I would like to do, and my word is 
my bond and I think my word is pretty good around here. I would 
like to move ahead and get this bill reported out, and then I 
would like to work with each element personally one on one, as 
well as our respective very able professional staff members, to 
come to some agreement so that when we bring it to the Floor, 
we can have a manager's amendment that hopefully, we can agree 
on.
    But it is certainly important that we operate from the same 
set of facts, and I thank Dr. Gingrey for the correction and he 
was mislead, and quite frankly, I was misinformed on this in 
terms of new money or money within the existing program. So it 
would be my intention to move forward and you are right. We do 
have the votes. We have worked long and hard on this thing. 
There are a few remaining questions, but we can get those 
questions resolved I think in--as we deal with the manager's 
amendment. The Chief of Staff of the Committee, Mr. Goldston, 
is recognized.
    Mr. Goldston. Mr. Chairman, it is easier to tell people to 
put the microphone on. I just want to clarify one thing. The 
issue on the cost sharing is as described. The other issue with 
the amendment was that there is an authorization for 
appropriations for federal funding in it, which would be about 
$15 million a year, and that was part of the controversy, so 
that the amendment has additional--the amendment as originally 
offered has additional authorizations for----
    Chairman Boehlert. But I am really--I am hearing from the 
background here, the box seats, the luxury seats, if you will, 
that there is some question about it. So----
    Mr. Gordon. We were very specific in that these funds would 
come out of the existing funds. Again, this is sort of a rush 
make haste. It is a good concept, a good bill. We just--you 
know, one hearing and not enough communication doesn't get a 
good bill to the Floor properly, and let us just continue the 
process. Again, I am--there is good faith on all sides. We want 
to have a good bill here. These are just--were some 
misunderstandings.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, a misunderstanding on one segment 
of an otherwise very good bill with outstanding intentions and 
most worthy objectives that unite rather than divide us. So we 
will proceed in the matter that I have just recommended, and 
one of the reasons we will do it is because I am sitting in the 
chair and I have got the votes.
    But I don't want to ram anything through, and I know from 
my conversations with my colleagues on both sides and with the 
conversation with the staffs that we all embrace this concept 
of green chemistry. We all want to advance it. We all want to 
have something worthy come out of this committee, and I think 
we are about to have something worthy come out of the Committee 
with a footnote, and the footnote will say we are going to have 
some further discussions to tweak it a little bit so that when 
we bring the bill to the Floor, we can have a manager's 
amendment that will absolutely clarify anything that might be a 
little bit murky right now.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will be happy to 
withdraw my amendment, and I am sure that we can work together 
and make this bill a better bill.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, sir, very much. That is the 
type of cooperation that this committee has a reputation for 
and we got it the old-fashioned way. We have earned it by 
working together, and I would point out that time after time, 
we are leading this Congress with the nanotechnology 
initiative, with the cyber security initiative, with the 
creation of Under Secretary for Research and Science and 
Technology and new Homeland Security Department. We have work 
that we can be proud of and we want this product that we can 
also be proud of.
    So without objection, Mr. Gordon's amendment is withdrawn.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey.--could I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
substitute amendment as well?
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, the substitute 
amendment is withdrawn.
    We will now proceed to amendment number 13, out of courtesy 
to our distinguished colleague from the great northwest.
    Mr. Baird. I thank the gentleman very much. I will offer 
this amendment and then withdraw it. Let me briefly----
    Chairman Boehlert. Chair recognizes Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you. Do we need to have the amendment 
introduced?
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Baird.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Baird. I thank the Chair and I know my colleagues Mr. 
Cardoza and Mr. Matheson want to speak. Very briefly, the 
second largest cause of habitat destruction in the United 
States today is invasive species. In the spirit of green 
chemistry, I think we have a real opportunity here to include 
in this legislation--I had thought about amending it, but I 
think we will perhaps withdraw the amendment and seek report 
language. But in recognition that consistent with the aims of 
green chemistry would be seeking to explore applications of 
various herbicides, pesticides and other chemical interventions 
to address invasive species.
    In my own district, I have a wonderful pristine estuary 
that is being literally overtaken by spartina grass, which 
threatens to wipe out literally thousands of acres of habitat 
for migratory birds, salmon, crabs, oysters and other species. 
We are currently using an ineffective chemical to fight this. A 
more effective chemical, ten times more effective that is less 
damaging to the environment is not labeled for this 
application. If there is a way we can use some of these 
chemicals to fight these invasives, we have a win-win in that 
we produce less toxics to the environment and we battle the 
invasives more effectively, and I would like to see us try to 
address that in this legislation.
    I yield one minute to my friend, Mr. Cardoza from 
California, who would like to speak to this.
    Mr. Cardoza. Thank you----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yielded from Dr. Baird.
    Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. 
Baird. I would just like to echo the remarks by my 
distinguished colleague and say that in California, we are 
threatened by a number of species--invasive species. Yellow 
star thistle. There is hyacinth in the rivers. There is a 
number of different species that needs this kind of look at it 
and see if we can't find more efficacious means to eradicate 
the invasive species.
    So I have been working with Congressman Pombo in the 
Resources Committee to look on some of these areas, and this 
legislation would greatly assist us in that effort, and I would 
encourage it to be included in the bill.
    Mr. Baird. Yield a minute, if I have one remaining, to Mr. 
Matheson. If not, maybe he would strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. Gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Matheson. Thank you, Mr. Baird, for offering the 
amendment. I think that every state probably has a story about 
invasive species and the problem, and in the west, in the Rocky 
Mountain west, we have a problem with the tamarisk, which is a 
huge consumer of water, and we live in an arid area and this is 
a serious problem for us. So I want to compliment you for 
raising this issue. I think green chemistry may offer one of 
the many solutions we need to find to the problem of invasive 
species, and I am pleased you offered this amendment.
    I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Baird. I thank my colleagues and would ask the Chair--
I'm willing--certainly would ask unanimous consent to withdraw, 
but I----
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Baird.--wonder if the Chair would be willing to join us 
in working in report language.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Chair is always willing to join with 
its distinguished colleague from the northwest.
    Mr. Baird. And that is what makes serving on this committee 
such a delight. I----
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you so much. Thank you.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Boehlert. The next amendment--back to the roster. 
Next amendment is amendment number four, an amendment offered 
by the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, are you 
ready to proceed?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Ms. Johnson.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the amendment--reading of the amendment. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    Ms. Johnson is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Johnson. This amendment would allow non-government 
organization, NGOs, to participate as partners in a 
collaborative effort on research and development. The NGOs, 
such as the Green Chemistry Council, will become eligible for 
awards under this amendment. In the past, NGOs have helped 
identify and work with businesses that are moving forward with 
sustainable development business activities, and the NGOs can 
play an important role in connecting companies to green 
chemistry resources at universities and federal research 
centers. And for this reason, NGOs should be included as an 
integral part of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to 
support and adopt this amendment.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I have a substitute amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert.--number one, and then number two, report 
the amendment as it is being distributed.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Gingrey.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Dr. Gingrey, you are recognized for five.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to commend my 
colleague Ms. Johnson, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee 
on Research, for her work on this important piece of 
legislation, and I do agree that adding nonprofits to the bill 
is a very good idea. But the requirement that entities 
demonstrate the green chemistry experience to get grants really 
runs counter to what this bill is aiming--or it aims at 
accomplishing.
    We want to encourage universities and companies who have 
little, very little experience with green chemistry to begin 
incorporating green chemistry into their thinking. So 
therefore, my substitute to Ms. Johnson's amendment would 
include nonprofits in the program, but not include the 
requirement that entities demonstrate green chemistry 
experience, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much for that 
explanation, and I think it hits to one of the points--one of 
the principle points of this whole legislation, and let me 
point out that we are joined from--by some very distinguished 
presidents of various campuses of the State University of New 
York system. And I dare say most of them don't have faculty 
members or any experience factor in dealing with this concept 
of green chemistry.
    So if we ask them as a requirement to compete for funding 
for these programs to cite all their experience, they are going 
to say, I think, we don't have this experience, but boy, we 
darn sure want to be involved with this area of research and we 
want to get into the program. So I think Ms. Johnson has a good 
idea, if we can--by adding nonprofits to the bill, but if we 
get out of the requirement that they have to demonstrate green 
chemistry experience, that runs counter to the basic purpose of 
the bill. We want to get more people into this relatively new 
area.
    Ms. Johnson, is that something that is acceptable to you?
    Ms. Johnson. It is acceptable, Mr. Chairman. I am sure he 
is going to rewrite the whole thing. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and Dr. Gingrey, 
the vote is on the amendment to the amendment. All in favor, 
say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the substitute 
amendment is agreed to. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. Thank 
you very much, Dr. Gingrey.
    Moving on with the roster, the next amendment on the 
roster--we are going to skip one and go to amendment number six 
from Mr. Gordon. Are you ready?
    Mr. Gordon. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Gordon.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this amendment adds a provision 
to establish a federal procurement program for the 
environmentally preferred products. During the hearing on H.R. 
3970, we learned that the economic factors play a critical role 
in the adoption of green chemistry processes. Creation of 
markets for products that are made with fewer toxic chemicals 
provides a strong incentive for manufacturers to adopt green 
chemistry practices.
    This amendment addresses one of the suggestions we received 
from our witnesses about how the Federal Government could spur 
the adoption of green chemistry; federal procurement based upon 
multiple criteria. This amendment is based upon two federal 
procurement programs currently in law. One for bio-based 
products adopted in the 2002 Farm Bill, and the recycled 
products procurement preference created in the Solid Waste 
Disposal Act. And I think it is also important to note that 
this is not a novel suggestion in that Executive Order 13101 
already provides for procurement preferences for 
environmentally preferred products.
    So this amendment would simply really establish a 
procurement preference in law rather than just by Executive 
Order. Who knows, our next president may not be as 
environmentally sensitive as President Bush, so it would seem 
that we should make this as law rather than Executive Order 
that could be taken away at a later time.
    An environmentally preferable product is designed as a 
product that has a lesser or reduced adverse effect on human 
health and the environment, when compared with competing 
products that serve the same purpose. The Federal Government 
should set an example and provide the incentives for the 
federal marketplace to spur investments that make our Nation 
healthier from an environmental as well as an economic 
standpoint. The amendment includes flexibilities for agencies. 
If products are determined to be unreasonably expensive or 
not--do not meet specifications for use, agencies are not 
required to purchase them.
    The amendment also establishes a voluntary program to 
authorize producers of environmentally preferred products to 
use the label ``EPA certified environmentally preferred 
product.'' This type of labeling program permits firms to 
market the environmental benefits of their product in a manner 
that provides consumers confidence in the validity of the 
level--of the label. Direct fellow support of green chemistry 
through procurement preference program moves research into the 
marketplace. This has worked for recycled and bio-based 
products. We should now expand this portion to reward companies 
that are making our products and our Nation an environmental 
responsible fashion.
    The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this. This really is a 
threshold issue. If we are going to get industry to make the 
long-term commitment in investment to produce these kinds of 
products, they have got to know there is going to be some 
certainty and that there is going to be a market for them. It 
is not going to cost the Federal Government more money because 
they are not required if it is unreasonable cost. So if we want 
to have a--just a press release today about green energy or 
green products, then you should oppose this amendment.
    If you want to do something, really want to do something 
and bring these types of products on the market, this is an 
imperative amendment, and I adopt its--I urge its adoption and 
yield back my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. This is an area 
where there is not much disagreement between the Ranking Member 
and the Chair. But let me tell you the reality of life on 
Capitol Hill in the year 2004. First of all, if we do this 
amendment, we are biting off a big chunk and we are guarantying 
not just controversy--and we can deal with controversy. We do 
it all the time. But we are guarantying sequential referral to 
other Committees, and we will never see the light of day.
    Secondly, the reason the Chair will oppose the amendment, 
while I agree in concept with the basic thesis, because I think 
the government should practice what we preach and not just, you 
know, tell everybody us what to do and not do it ourselves. But 
this takes this bill, a modest bill, takes the focus off the 
intended purpose, the principle objective to promote more 
research and development and gets it over into another area.
    So for that reason, I--the gentleman--the Chair feels 
constrained to support--to oppose the amendment and I would ask 
if any of my colleagues seek--if not. Yes, Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that this 
committee on a variety of occasions has come forth with 
legislation that has been referred to other Committees, and 
many times, when there is a minor referral, as I think this 
would be, we work out a letter of agreement between the 
Committees so that it does not take additional time. Now again, 
let me remind you, the bill we talked about earlier, Mr. 
Moore's bill concerning wind, it was out there for five and a 
half years and it got a--and we had a better bill. I don't 
advocate that we wait five and a half years, but on this 
particular bill, we have only had one hearing and we have 
already seen how there has been problems with technical 
misunderstandings all in good faith because it hadn't had time 
to really work it out.
    I can see no problem in taking a little more time, getting 
a good bill. The threat of a joint referral should not be a 
hindrance because it has not been a hindrance to this committee 
in the past. It just happens that I am on that committee of 
joint referral and I think that we will be able to work it out 
in a collegial manner.
    Chairman Boehlert. Let me tell you something from a little 
history lesson. Last year, the professional staff, very 
professional staff, both sides of this committee spent an 
entire recess, spent months trying to negotiate a procurement 
section that we introduced from this committee in the Ag bill, 
and it was all for naught. It was contentious. It took up a 
disproportionate share of the time of the very able staff, time 
that could be more effectively utilized dealing with other 
matters, as this committee is known to do.
    So it is----
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert.--not a slam-dunk. Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I agree 
with both the Ranking Member and with you. I agree with the 
Ranking Member that this is something--and with you that this 
is something that the Congress ought to be doing. But I also 
agree that if this is a part of this bill, that this is going 
to be the focus of the bill. This is going to get all of the 
lightening strikes and it is going to kill the rest of the 
bill.
    But what I would like to suggest, sir, is that I will be 
happy to work with whoever would like to work on this to draft 
a separate bill that asks the government to please do this. You 
are right. We should practice what we preach, and I have no 
problem with our Committee reporting this out, but I have a 
problem with attaching it to this bill because I think it would 
become the focus rather than the real focus, the intended focus 
of this bill. So I would like to see it as a separate bill that 
stands on its own with its own hearing and then vote it out and 
then see where it goes.
    Chairman Boehlert. That is an offer I don't think any 
reasonable person can refuse, and----
    Mr. Gordon. Well, you know, again we are all dealing in 
good faith and there is no effort to misrepresent anything 
here. We all want to get a good bill, but Mr. Chairman, you 
talked about how the Committee spent all the time working on 
the Agriculture Bill. It is a part of law now. They did spend a 
lot of time and it worked out and it is a part of that 
Agriculture Bill. And so I mean, it is the bio-based----
    Chairman Boehlert. And----
    Mr. Gordon. Yeah. And so, I mean, again, it shows that we 
can work these things out. Again, I--again, you--I know you are 
not trying to misrepresent it. It is just----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah.
    Mr. Gordon.--we need----
    Chairman Boehlert. Let me point out----
    Mr. Gordon.--to clarify it.
    Chairman Boehlert. Let me point out that your other 
Committee, the minor committee, the other committee you serve 
on, is doing its level best in the energy bill to repeal this 
government to buy----
    Mr. Gordon. Well, I guess the good work of our Committee 
and our staff----
    Chairman Boehlert.--environmentally friendly----
    Mr. Gordon.--prevails and it is a part of the bill now and 
the 2002 Ag Bill.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Bartlett, is your offer still open?
    Mr. Bartlett. Absolutely. I think that this is what we 
ought to be doing. I guess I have broke ranks with some of my 
conservative colleagues, but I think it is what we ought to be 
doing, and I know that we will get a lot of static on this. If 
this is a part of this bill, I think it will be the focus and 
bring this bill down, and I would like to not see this bill 
brought down, but I would like to see a separate hearing on Mr. 
Gordon's amendment and make it a separate bill and push it 
forward.
    Chairman Boehlert. I would agree----
    Mr. Bartlett. If we have sequential referral, let us do the 
sequential referral to get the thing out there.
    Chairman Boehlert. And not hold this one up.
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Not hold up something that is good and--
--
    Mr. Bartlett. Well, they are both good. It is just that 
this would----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah.
    Mr. Bartlett.--become--that this----
    Chairman Boehlert. This is a----
    Mr. Bartlett.--amendment would become the focus of this 
bill.
    Chairman Boehlert.--lightning rod. No question about. The 
focus of a bill that is designed to deal with research and 
development. Thank you very much. I will take you up on the 
offer, and we will see how many colleagues we can get from your 
side, Mr. Gordon, because we will try to move a separate bill. 
It does a good deal of sense. And incidentally--well, the 
earlier point, and I want to make sure everybody understands 
this. The earlier point whether or not this includes new money, 
both answers are right. One side said it doesn't. The other 
side says it does. So how can you get yes to both questions?
    The answer is CBO scores new money. This is new money, the 
$15 million. That is what Counsel and staff advise us. I agree 
it is not new money, but CBO says it is, so we have got to deal 
with the reality of having to do with CBO, how they score it. 
So that is enough on that one. Let us go on. Any----
    Mr. Gordon. If I could, just again, everything is in good 
faith here. I know that there is nobody trying to pull the wool 
over anybody's eyes. Mr. Chairman, on your $15 million 
question, going back to an earlier amendment, a change of 
language could take care of that. But Mr. Bartlett, I think in 
all good faith, you presenting an offer to try to come forth 
with an additional bill, the problem is that bill would be 
coming--have to come out of Commerce. It would not be 
authorized or would not--this committee would not have 
jurisdiction on that type of appropriation or procurement bill.
    So again, it is--you know, you want to help and it is all 
in good faith, but we can't come forward because that would not 
be our jurisdiction, and----
    Chairman Boehlert. Let me tell you, the creative geniuses, 
plural, behind me can work with the parliamentary and we can 
tailor the language in such a way as that I am virtually 
assured that we could get referral here, maybe dual referral. 
That is all right. We accept that. Thanks, Dr. Bartlett. The 
answer is yes. We take you up on your offer. We are going to 
work on it, and----
    Mr. Gordon. Well, I am on the Commerce Committee, so if you 
need a co-sponsor, we will get you started over there. We will 
try to get Ralph to help us too.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is there any further discussion? If not, 
the vote is on the Gordon amendment. All in favor, say aye. No? 
No's appear to have it, and the amendment is defeated.
    Are there----
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I hate to do this, but I think we 
need a roll call just so we can separate who is really for this 
and who is not.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. If the Clerk will call the 
roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. Aye--no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. It just shows how conflicted I am 
because I agree with the concept. The vote----
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Larson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Mr. Gordon. The Clerk would note, we have one additional--
--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Am I recorded?
    Mr. Gordon. Ms. Jackson Lee came in.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Am I recorded?
    The Clerk. She is not recorded. Mr. Chairman----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I vote aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Calvert recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert is not recorded.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Ms. Hart recorded?
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart is not recorded.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes 14, no 19.
    Chairman Boehlert. And the amendment is defeated. Next 
amendment, amendment number five, an amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Wu.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for such time as he 
may consume.
    Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment 
creates a program to encourage partnerships between companies 
doing chemistry and chemical engineering and partnerships with 
colleges and universities to provide existing professionals 
with development training to practice green chemistry. The 
motivation for the amendment is to address the problem, which 
was discussed by several witnesses in the Committee's recent 
hearing on the bill.
    Too few professionals in the fields are--have experience 
with green chemistry, prior experience, or in their 
undergraduate or graduate training, and this lack of training 
becomes an important barrier to the adoption and use of green 
chemistry in industrial products and processes. And this 
partnership between colleges and universities and businesses 
and industries would train chemists who are in the industry to 
ramp up in their green chemistry practices and bring green 
chemistry on-line much faster than it otherwise would.
    Specifically, the amendment creates a program to award 
grants to institutions of higher education to develop programs 
and curricular materials to retrain chemists and chemical 
engineers to be eligible for these merit-based competitive 
grants. Under the new program, a college or university must 
enter into a partnership with at least two private-sector 
companies in the chemical doing--currently doing chemistry. The 
partnership allows for multiple colleges and universities to 
participate in the partnerships, along with professional 
societies in the chemical and chemical engineering fields.
    And I--Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the agreement--of 
the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and I think you 
have got a good idea, but I note that Dr. Gingrey has----
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes? Who seeks recognition?
    Mr. Gingrey. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have a substitute 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk shall distribute the 
amendment, and while the amendment is being distributed, the 
Clerk shall report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Gingrey.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The gentleman from 
Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, is recognized.
    Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the Wu amendment 
on partnerships in green chemistry, providing training 
opportunities, professional--for professional chemists and 
chemical engineers is certainly a good idea. However, we can 
accomplish this more simply by adding education of 
professionals to the list of program activities. We do not need 
a lengthy new section, I don't think, on this topic. So have a 
substitute amendment, Mr. Chairman, that would do just that. It 
adds professional education to the list of allowed program 
activities.
    I applaud Mr. Wu for his idea, but I think that this is the 
best way to include professional education in the bill. And at 
this point with--again with the program in its infancy, we 
don't want to be too prescriptive, but yet allow the agencies 
to determine the most critical activities. So I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman, and I would submit this substitute amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, yes. So if I understand it 
correctly, you are in agreement. It is just you want to have 
the same objective, adding professional education to the list, 
but you are just saying you don't need more detailed language 
that is prescribed in the Wu amendment, but you want to list 
this as one of the activities----
    Mr. Gingrey. That is----
    Chairman Boehlert.--that----
    Mr. Gingrey.--correct, Mr. Chairman. That is in essence 
my----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Wu, what say you on that one?
    Mr. Wu. Well, I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that one 
of the objectives of the amendment as we originally wrote it 
was to include partnerships with private industry so that there 
could be more--the knowledge of practicing chemists and these 
businesses could be brought to bear. And I was wondering 
whether the gentleman from Texas would be willing to work with 
us to add part of that partnership concept to this--to the--
what I understand to be a secondary amendment to----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes, the amendment----
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert.--of the----
    Mr. Gingrey. Yes, I----
    Mr. Wu. The gentleman from Georgia----
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Chairman. He wouldn't admit that he is from Texas. 
He is from Georgia and proud of it.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I think I knew who he was 
talking about. I do not have a Texas accent, but I would ask 
unanimous consent to add that language that Mr. Wu recommended 
to my substitute amendment. I ask unanimous----
    Chairman Boehlert. And Counsel, can we accomplish that with 
a gentleman's agreement between two very distinguished 
colleagues from opposite ends of the country, and----
    The Counsel. I think----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes?
    The Counsel. I think that we can accomplish that.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Fine.
    The Counsel. We are looking right now to see how we could 
do that.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Fine. Mr. Gordon, is it 
necessary to get the precise word-for----
    Mr. Gordon. Not at all.
    Chairman Boehlert.--word language? Can----
    Mr. Gordon. Not at all.
    Chairman Boehlert.--we proceed? All right. The amendment--
the vote is on the amendment to the amendment.
    Mr. Wu. Thank the gentleman from----
    Chairman Boehlert. All in favor of the Gingrey substitute 
as agreed to with the very distinguished offer of the initial 
proposal. That is the vote. All in favor, say aye. No's? Ayes 
appear to have it, and the amendment is passed.
    Where are we, Counsel? Let us see how many more we have to 
give our colleagues some indication. How many more do we have? 
We have got six? Let us move. The next amendment on the roster 
is amendment number seven offered by Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson, are you ready?
    Ms. Johnson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an 
amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. Gentlelady is 
recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment 
requires the National Science Foundation and the Environmental 
Protection Agency to contract with the National Academy of 
Sciences for a study on the issues associated with the 
commercialization of innovations from green chemistry research. 
As was evident by the Committee's hearing on H.R. 3970, success 
at commercialization can be problematic, even for technical 
innovations that seem to be obvious candidates for exploration.
    The purpose of the study would be to systematically assess 
successful and unsuccessful attempts to--at commercialization 
of green chemistry innovations here and abroad, and attempt to 
tease out the controlling factors. The study would lead to a 
report that recommends research areas and research priorities 
that could assist in overcoming identified barriers to 
commercialization. This of course would provide a source of 
outside advice for the interagency working group that the bill 
directs to plan and coordinate the green chemistry research and 
development program.
    But at least as important as providing advice on research 
directions, the National Academy of Science is tasked to make 
recommendations on public policy options that could lead to 
greater use of green chemistry in commercial products and 
industrial manufacturing processes. The amendment would allow 
for a broad consideration of policy options, including federal 
regulatory tax and procurement policies. The past history of 
green chemistry commercialization makes clear that innovative 
ideas flowing from R&D is a necessary but not a sufficient 
condition to ensure success.
    The proposed study would help distill the key policy tools 
as well as research and development directions. It can help 
achieve the broad goals, in the words of Section 3 of H.R. 
3970, to examine methods by which the Federal Government can 
create incentives for consideration and use of green chemistry 
processes and products, and to facilitate the adoption of green 
chemistry innovations, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
adoption of the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Has the gentlelady completed her 
statement? Yes. All right. Well, the Chair has to oppose this 
one. I think it is important that we identify barriers to 
adoption of green chemistry, but the National Academy study is 
very expensive. It would cost at least $500,000 to get a 
National Academy study on this very small bill, and at this 
point, I think that the money in the bill is best spent in the 
agencies supporting R&D grants, education and dissemination of 
information. And also, NSF is probably not the right agency to 
commission this study, since they would not be able to 
implement its findings.
    So for those reasons, the Chair opposes the amendment. Is 
there any further discussion? If not, the vote is on the 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. No? No--the no's appear to 
have it. The no's have it and the amendment is defeated.
    The next amendment is amendment number eight, and----
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you for the use of the hall. I have 
another amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment 
addresses a problem with the funding authorized for the 
National Science Foundation in H.R. 3970. At the Science 
Committee's hearing on the bill on March 17, the NSF directly 
testified that the Foundation is currently spending $24 million 
per year on green chemistry research. H.R. 3970, on the other 
hand, authorizes only $7 million for fiscal year 2005, $7.5 
million for fiscal year 2006 and $8 million on fiscal year 
2007.
    It is inexplicable that the Committee would seek to 
energize federal planning and coordination for green chemistry 
research while at the same time cutting NSF's research 
activities in this area by 70 percent. I cannot believe that 
the majority's goal in moving this legislation is to reduce 
federal funding for green research--green chemistry research. 
But even taking into account disagreements about which specific 
research projects ought to be included in NSF green chemistry 
portfolio, the difference in funding between the bill and NSF's 
estimate is so large as to send only the message that the 
program is being cut.
    Consequently, I offer this amendment to adjust the 
authorizations of appropriations for NSF to reflect current 
funding levels attested to by the agency in formal testimony 
before the Committee. My amendment increases a base funding 
level for NSF by eight percent in the first year, by five 
percent in each of the next two years, authorized by H.R. 3970. 
The funding authority is carved out of the amounts already 
provided by the current NSF authorization statutes enacted in 
2002 so that no new money is provided.
    The amendment simply reflects the policy position, which is 
consistent with the rest of the language of the bill that NSF 
should devote increased attention and more resources to green 
chemistry research. I urge my colleagues to support the 
adoption of the amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. The distinguished Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Research?
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Yes. I think just to clarify--and 
Representative Johnson and I oversee the National Science 
Foundation. In their testimony, they used the figure of $26 
million, and I think the amendment reflects this. However, it 
is a definition problem really. NSF includes in that number a 
lot of things they do that might be related to the whole area 
of green chemistry, but this amendment I think, Representative 
Johnson, would limit the flexibility of NSF and more exactly 
require that they be more specific in spending this money, and 
I--so I would have to oppose the amendment because I like the 
flexibility that now exists.
    You know, in addition, that number reflects NSF funding, 
the best proposals that they get from individual investigators, 
and very little money at NSF is specifically allocated to green 
chemistry. And so, you know, this bill would not tell NSF to 
spend less money on green chemistry. So they are going to do 
what they say they are doing. So I would reluctantly have to 
oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to continue to give 
NSF the flexibility that they have.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment a little 
further. On March 17, the testimony by Dr. Bement from the 
National Science Foundation said Division of Chemistry, $11 
million per year; Engineering Directorate, $13 million per 
year, with the total being $24 million per year. February the 
2nd, 2004, CRS memo to the Science Committee: Division of 
Chemistry, $10.3 million per year, average for fiscal year 2001 
through 2003, and no estimate provided for the Engineering 
Directorate.
    So H.R. 3970 has, for fiscal year 2005, $7 million. Fiscal 
year 2006, $7.5 million and fiscal year 2007, $8 million. Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to request a recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. Ms.----
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, a little discussion----
    Chairman Boehlert. Discussion isn't completed yet. We 
have----
    Ms. Johnson. Okay.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Smith would like to discuss it. Mr. 
Gordon would like to discuss it.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, just for a moment in reacting, 
and I think Representative Johnson and I agree that what NSF is 
doing is probably the right thing to do, but I--still, we 
should make it clear that this bill is not going to tell the 
National Science Foundation to do anything less than they are 
already doing, and it becomes a definition problem, it seems to 
me, and maybe we could make this clear. And I will, Mr. 
Chairman, with your permission, make this clear in report 
language that certainly what they have been doing in terms of 
spending $26 million with flexibility, that in no way are we 
discouraging that amount to continue. But I would oppose the 
amendment that is going to limit their flexibility.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Gordon. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I know that there is 
no intention to undermine green chemistry here. But once again, 
we have a situation where we are rushing to act and making a 
mistake. Now if you look in the bill, Section 2 of the bill 
sets out definitions and it defines green chemistry. Well, when 
Mr. Bement came to testify, they testified on the bill, and so 
they knew what they were testifying about, the green chemistry. 
And that is when they said it was $11 billion for chemistry and 
$13 million, excuse me, million for chemistry and $13 million 
for engineering. They--again, they were testifying on the bill 
and were speaking specifically to those dollars for green 
chemistry.
    And so now what we have done is we are reducing what they 
can spend in those areas by about 70 percent. Again, that is 
not--I know that is not what you had intended to do, but we 
really need to take a look at this because I think that is what 
we are getting into. And I certainly yield back, yeah. I----
    Chairman Boehlert. But just again--Mr. Smith. Yeah.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. That we are not reducing in any way 
what they are doing now, and so there is no--and I----
    Mr. Gordon. Well, if you are cutting your----
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. If you don't do it----
    Mr. Gordon. If you are putting it----
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. We should change the language and we 
will make that clear----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan.--in report language that we are not 
going to reduce in any way what NSF is doing now in their 
effort and our--additionally what they testified.
    Mr. Gordon. Well, if you were to explicitly say that would 
be new money, then I think that that would accomplish your 
goals. But otherwise, you are going to do not what you want to 
do, and that is cut their budget significantly, all their 
spending in that area. Because when they came to testify, they 
didn't say we spend $11 million dollars in chemistry in 
general, and some of that goes to green. They said that is what 
they spend in the green chemistry area.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. Well, when we asked--and I'm sorry. 
May--would the gentleman yield----
    Mr. Gordon. Yeah. I yield back. Yes.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. And to wrap this up----
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan.--what they do is, coming up with 
their estimates on what they are spending now, they are 
reacting to applications coming in and that their estimate--and 
it does depend a little bit on definition of what they 
interpret those applications coming in to work in those 
specific areas. So again, I would reluctantly have to oppose 
the amendment.
    Mr. Gordon. And if the--if--one final comment. Reclaim my 
time. The CRS also did a memo for the Science Committee where 
they looked at the figure, and they came back and said it was 
10.3 in the area of chemistry. Again, you have got to be 
careful what you wish for. You might get your amendment here 
and I--the result is not going to be what you or this committee 
I think wants. So we do need to continue to look at this and be 
sure that your actions are really what you want to accomplish.
    Chairman Boehlert. We want to make darn sure of that. Dr. 
Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the amendment and 
really for the exact same reasons that the distinguished 
Subcommittee Chairman on Research, Mr. Smith, just stated. And 
I think that his final point, of course, is to make this very 
clear in the report of the bill and Mr. Chairman, this is a 
decision you will have to make, of course, but in--whether to 
specify in that final report that this is indeed new money is 
something that I am sure you can discuss with the Ranking 
Member. But I would oppose this amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. If there is no 
further discussion, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, 
say aye. Opposed, no. The no's appear to have it, and----
    Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a 
recorded vote.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    Chairman Boehlert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Biggert.
    Ms. Biggert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess.
    Mr. Burgess. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Costello.
    Mr. Costello. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Larson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Weiner. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardoza.
    [No response.]
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I vote no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Hall recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Akin recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin is not recorded.
    Mr. Akin. I vote no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Wu recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu is not recorded.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is the Chair recorded?
    The Clerk. The Chair has voted as no.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. And how is Mr. Hall recorded?
    Mr. Hall. Vote aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hall votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes 15, no 18.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. The amendment is defeated. 
The next amendment is amendment number nine.
    Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your fairness.
    Chairman Boehlert. You are welcome. Amendment number nine, 
amendment offered by Mr. Honda. Mr. Honda, are you prepared?
    Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 
the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. All right. Clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Boehlert. I would ask unanimous consent to dispense 
with the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Honda is recognized.
    Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment adds the 
provision to address issues that effect the adoption and 
commercialization of green chemistry to the list of activities 
now authorized under the Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Program. It was pointed out at the Committee's 
recent hearing on H.R. 3970 that technological barriers are 
only one aspect of the challenge associated with the 
utilization of green chemistry and industrial products and 
processes. Perhaps a more serious impediment comes from 
economic and social barriers. Several examples of this 
phenomena were given in the hearing, such as biodegradable 
water-soluble polymer for laundry detergent. That even though 
it would add only a minuscule amount to the cost of a bottle of 
detergent was nevertheless not adopted by any home products 
company.
    The amendment explicitly authorizes research in areas such 
as economics or behavioral science, which explores factors 
beyond the realm of the physical sciences and engineering, but 
which strongly effect whether the findings from research in 
such fields find their way into applications of value to 
society. In addition, the amendment provides for the mechanisms 
through which views from the public at large may be factored 
into the research and development agenda formulated by the 
interagency green chemistry program, authorized by H.R. 3970.
    The information exchange envisioned is two way so that 
public understanding may be improved regarding the value and 
potential application of green chemistry, and quoting Professor 
Woodhouse from his testimony at the Committee's hearing on the 
bill earlier this month, he quote--I quote ``Social science and 
policy are not ruled out by your proposed wording, but neither 
are they made as essential as a situation may justify.''
    This amendment attempts to increase the focus of the 
interagency green chemistry program on this set of issues. I 
urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the remainder 
of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Michael M. Honda

Explanation of Amendment on Social Science Research and Public Outreach 
                    to H.R. 3970

    This amendment adds a provision to address issues that affect the 
adoption and commercialization of green chemistry to the list of 
activities now authorized under the Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Program.
    As was pointed out at the Committee's recent hearing on H.R. 3970, 
technological barriers are only one aspect of the challenge associated 
with the utilization of green chemistry in industrial products and 
processes. Perhaps a more serious impediment comes from economic and 
social barriers. Several examples of this phenomenon were given in the 
hearing, such as a biodegradable, water-soluble polymer for laundry 
detergent that, even though it would add only a minuscule amount to the 
cost of a bottle of detergent, was nevertheless not adopted by any home 
products company.
    The amendment explicitly authorizes research in areas such as 
economics or behavioral science, which explores factors beyond the 
realm of the physical sciences and engineering, but which strongly 
affect whether the findings from research in such fields find their way 
into applications of value to society.
    In addition, the amendment provides for mechanisms through which 
views from the public at large may be factored into the research and 
development agenda formulated by the interagency green chemistry 
program authorized by H.R. 3970. The information exchange envisioned is 
two-way, so that public understanding may be improved regarding the 
value and potential applications of green chemistry.
    Quoting Prof. Woodhouse from his testimony at the Committee's 
hearing on the bill earlier this month, ``social science and policy are 
not ruled out by your proposed [bill's] wording, but neither are they 
made as central as the situation may justify.'' This amendment attempts 
to increase the focus of the interagency green chemistry program on 
this set of issues.
    I urge adoption of the amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. This is one that the Chair reluctantly 
opposes, and now I would ask, after I give you the reasons, if 
you would consider withdrawing the amendment with the thought 
that we might try to work something out that would deal with 
some of the areas that you are most interested in, in a way 
that would be acceptable to both the chair and the offer of the 
amendment. Let me tell you why I oppose it.
    First of all, I think it is overly burdensome on the 
interagency group. That is a problem. It requires the 
interagency group to convene regular and ongoing public 
discussions through mechanisms like citizens' panels and 
consensus conferences and educational events, all of which we 
usually stand up and applaud. But this is a very small program 
we are just creating, and we don't want to take time and money 
in a very small program in its infancy to spend all this money 
on this other stuff that this prescribed. So we do ask the 
interagency working group to investigate incentives to the 
adoption of green chemistry, and some of these economic and 
legal questions could be answered through that provision.
    So the Chair reluctantly opposes the amendment, but I give 
the gentleman an offer of working with him to see if we can't 
get something that would be acceptable to both of us by the 
time we reach the Floor.
    Mr. Honda. Knowing your word is good, Mr. Chairman, and 
that the experience that we had in dealing with the 
nanotechnology bill where there was also a need for--well, a 
group to discuss the economic and societal impacts on this kind 
of technology, I would be willing to work with you on the 
wording. But I need to reemphasize why this is so important in 
that our experiences from stem cell research, had we done a 
better job in educating the public, stem cell research progress 
would not have been stymied by the influx and inflow of a lot 
of reaction from the community that really virtually stopped 
all that--activities here in Congress and in research for the 
advancement of stem cell research.
    So I would like to keep--find some way to advance public 
knowledge and public education as we move into this new arena, 
because it can create all kinds of fears and unfounded kinds of 
resistance.
    Chairman Boehlert. Couldn't agree more with you, and I----
    Mr. Honda. So----
    Chairman Boehlert.--spend just about every single day of my 
waking time since I came here 22 years ago----
    Mr. Honda. Right.
    Chairman Boehlert.--trying to help educate the public on 
the importance of dealing responsibly with the environment, and 
I will continue to do that, and I will continue to do that 
comforted by the knowledge that we are on the same page.
    Mr. Honda. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my 
amendment.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman has unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment. Without objection, so ordered. The 
amendment is withdrawn, and the staff is instructed to make 
certain the Chair works cooperatively, as we always have so 
effectively, with the gentleman from Oregon.
    The next amendment, amendment number ten--where are we? Oh, 
from California, yeah. Yeah. Amendment number ten. Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading, and without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
respect the necessity of this committee, in light of the 
schedule that we have had, to work as quickly on this bill as 
we possibly can. And I hope the Chairman will view our 
amendments as attempting to make the bill both better but as 
well comprehensive for what generate--can generate into a very 
good idea, and the fact that the bill was recently introduced 
and had only one hearing and that we are now at the Full 
Committee instead of a Subcommittee, because we did not have a 
Subcommittee markup, these amendments I hope will be considered 
in that context that we hope that in looking at them closely, 
you will find that they add a lot to it.
    My amendment is simple. This amendment authorizes the EPA 
to establish a grant program to support voluntary partnerships 
between community groups and industrial facilities to encourage 
green chemistry and pollution prevention measures. Successful 
partnerships would lead to reduced use and emission of toxic 
chemicals into the community, better relations between 
communities and their local industrial facilities, and cost 
savings for the facility. The amendment is modeled after 
programs that have proven successful in Michigan and Texas.
    The initial pilot project took place at Dow Chemical 
Facility in Lapport, Texas. It has demonstrated the value of 
this type of cooperative engagement. The approach was expanded 
and improved in Michigan in the Michigan Source Reduction 
Initiative. The initiative undertaken by Dow Chemical, the 
Natural Resources Defense Council, community activists from 
midland and regional environmental groups lead to reduction of 
chemical releases in ways for the community--Midland community 
and a cost savings for Dow. My amendment would provide the 
support for this partnership and the voluntary efforts.
    We know in many instances sometimes, there are 
confrontations between industrial facilities and community 
groups that generate a great deal of ill will and result in 
years of legal battles before environmental benefits are 
achieved. The process pioneered by Dow and NRDC demonstrates 
that another approach is possible. One of the barriers of this 
type of cooperative effort is a lack of technical expertise 
available to the community groups. The Department of Defense 
and EPA have similar programs authorized to support community 
groups involved with Superfund site cleanups and issues related 
to military bases.
    The grant program created by this amendment would enable 
community groups to obtain technical assistance to work 
cooperatively with their partner facility. This lists the 
grants that are available, and might I say, Mr. Chairman, in 
the last 24 hours, many of you have seen the news with the 
terrible fire in my community. This kind of community effort 
would be helpful in the post-cleanup of that fire. We are very 
grateful that--no loss of life and no injuries to our 
knowledge, but it certainly was a very explosive fire in Texas 
City. This is just the kind of amendment that would help 
community relations and promote the kind of partnership that I 
think this bill lends itself to.
    I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
    I have an amendment at the desk.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This amendment authorizes the EPA to establish a grant program to 
support voluntary partnerships between community groups and industrial 
facilities to encourage green chemistry and pollution prevention 
measures. Successful partnerships would lead to reduced use and 
emission of toxic chemicals in the community, better relations between 
communities and their local industrial facilities, and cost savings for 
the facility. The amendment is modeled after programs that have proven 
successful in Michigan and Texas.
    The initial pilot project took place at Dow Chemical's facility in 
La Porte, TX. It demonstrated the value of this type of cooperative 
engagement. The approach was expanded and improved in Michigan, in the 
``Michigan Source Reduction Initiative.'' The initiative undertaken by 
Dow Chemical, the Natural Resources Defense Council, community 
activists from Midland, and regional environmental groups led to 
reduction of chemical releases and waste for the Midland community and 
to a cost savings for Dow.
    This amendment would provide support for voluntary efforts 
undertaken by people interested in working cooperatively to achieve a 
cleaner community environment. We know of many confrontations between 
industrial facilities and community groups that generate a great deal 
of ill will and result in years of legal battles before environmental 
benefits are achieved. The process pioneered by Dow and NRDC 
demonstrates that another approach is possible.
    One of the barriers to this type of cooperative effort is the lack 
of technical expertise available to community groups. The Department of 
Defense and EPA have similar programs authorized to support community 
groups involved with Superfund site cleanups and issues related to 
military bases.
    The grant program created by this amendment would enable community 
groups to obtain technical assistance to work cooperatively with their 
partner facility. Grants would only be awarded to groups that have 
established a partnership with a local industrial facility. Grants are 
capped at $100,000 for any single project (they could run for two years 
or more) and the applicants are required to provide a 20 percent match 
of federal funds--a condition similar to that in the Superfund 
technical assistance grants.
    We should support and facilitate cooperative efforts to achieve 
environmental protection and environmental benefits. This amendment is 
a natural extension of the Green Chemistry Act. I urge support for this 
amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The Chair will 
oppose it for the same reason I opposed earlier amendments. I 
think is the right church, the wrong pew. What you want to do 
is something I want to do too, but this is not the vehicle to 
do it at. This is a vehicle that is focusing on research and 
development in green chemistry, and that is what we want to 
keep the focus on. What you are talking about in your 
experience down in Texas and experiences other Members have had 
around the country, we have got to bring the communities into 
the cooperative arena in working together and all that sort of 
stuff. But those are for other programs.
    This is a specific, very modest program. Very modest, just 
dealing with research and development, and I am going to stick 
to the basic objective. And secondly, it refer--it requires a 
trigger to refer it to another Committee, which I think would 
probably not just slow it but halt progress on the bill. So I 
would like to get moving with this.
    Gentleman from Tennessee.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, let me just again quickly add 
that this is a voluntary program and this is modeled after 
successful Superfund programs that are already working. This 
should not be controversial in any way.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, certainly I do.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank Mr. Gordon very much. You are 
quite right, and not only that, the question is whether we are 
being modest or whether we are trying to be sufficiently 
comprehensive to help as many people as possible with this 
legislation, and I think the community partnerships are simply 
a winner for Congress when communities and industries can work 
together to fight against a negative environmental impact.
    And I would yield back to the gentleman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Couldn't agree more. They are very 
useful and they serve a very valuable purpose, but that is not 
the purpose of this particular, very carefully crafted bill, 
and we are starting very modestly and we want to focus on R&D.
    Are there any further comments? Anyone seek further 
comments? Then the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Opposed nay. The nays appear to have it. The amendment is 
defeated.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to be able to do my next 
amendment because I won't be able to come back and----
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. Tell us--the Clerk how Ms. Johnson 
is recorded on amendment number eight, the amendment 
previously----
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Johnson is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. The Chair will duly note the 
record and the gentleman's intentions.
    The next amendment, amendment number 11, is this the last--
this will be the last one. Ms. Jackson Lee, are you prepared to 
proceed?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Amendment at the desk, number----
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk will read the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I 
indicated, this bill was introduced about 15 days ago, and as 
well, we had no Subcommittee markup, and I think it is 
important for this committee, the full Committee, to fix what 
we can to make this bill comprehensive. My amendment fixes a 
technical problem in the bill to ensure that our intention to 
promote green chemistry will actually get funded as intended. 
H.R. 3970 purports to be a bill to strengthen federal planning 
and coordination of green chemistry research and development, 
and to that end authorize appropriations at four agencies.
    In each case, the funding authority is couched in language 
that specifies the amounts provided are from sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated. That is, the bill does not 
authorize any new money, but carves the amounts from existing 
statutory authorizations, and we know that that does not 
provide the kind of support this legislation needs. This 
formulation makes some sense for the National Science 
Foundation, which has a generous authorization, appropriations 
in place for each year, covered by H.R. 3970. However, for the 
other three agencies in the bill, no current authorization of 
appropriations has been passed into law.
    While legislation has been moved in the House for the 
Department of Energy, no general authorization bills are 
currently in the Committee's agenda for NIST or EPA, and final 
enactment for the DOE authorization appears doubtful. Where 
lies the opportunity to fund this legislation? How can we put 
teeth in legislation that we are passing and no money? As a 
result, H.R. 3970 does not actually provide a funding 
authorization for three of the four agencies in the bill. That 
means the job cannot get done.
    It is worse than being silent on funding because without 
such language, it would be effectively a such-sums-as-may-be-
necessary authorization, which really has no teeth. It is a 
paper tiger. Under the current language, no funds are 
authorized until and unless a subsequent authorization is 
enacted. It seems inappropriate for an authorizing Committee to 
be calling for appropriation of an--unauthorized funds. The 
amendment strikes the phrase from sums otherwise authorized to 
be appropriated for DOE, NIST and EPA.
    Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues, because we want 
this to be an effective bill and we want the job to get done, 
to actually provide language that says from an actual 
authorization of appropriations. Otherwise, we don't have a 
bill that we can stand on and promote throughout the Nation and 
our respective Congressional Districts. I urge adoption of this 
amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
    Mr. Chairman,
    This amendment fixes a technical problem in the bill to ensure that 
our intention to promote green chemistry will actually get funded as 
intended. H.R. 3970 purports to be a bill to strengthen federal 
planning and coordination of green chemistry research and development 
and to that end authorizes appropriations at four agencies.
    In each case, the funding authority is couched in language that 
specifies the amounts provided are from ``sums otherwise authorized to 
be appropriated.'' That is, the bill does not authorize any new money, 
but carves the amounts from existing statutory authorizations. This 
formulation makes some sense for the National Science Foundation, which 
has a generous authorization of appropriations in place for each year 
covered by H.R. 3970.
    However, for the other three agencies in the bill, no current 
authorization of appropriations has been passed into law. While 
legislation has been moved in the House for the Department of Energy, 
no general authorization bills are currently on the Committee's agenda 
for NIST or EPA. And final enactment for the DOE authorization appears 
doubtful.
    As a result, H.R. 3970 does not actually provide a funding 
authorization for three of the four agencies in the bill. It is worse 
than being silent on funding, because without such language, it would 
be effectively a ``such sums as may be necessary'' authorization. Under 
the current language, no funds are authorized until, and unless, a 
subsequent authorization is enacted. It seems inappropriate for an 
authorizing committee to be calling for appropriation of unauthorized 
funds.
    This amendment simply strikes the phrase ``from sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated'' for DOE, NIST and EPA. The effect of 
the amendment is to authorize actual funding for the three agencies to 
carry out their parts of the green chemistry program.
    If the green chemistry program established by H.R. 3970 is worthy 
of support, it should be given an actual authorization of 
appropriations. Otherwise it is simply window dressing.
    I urge adoption of the amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, and the Chair opposes this 
amendment, not that I oppose adding more money for green 
chemistry. Boy, I want to add it by the truckload. But this 
deals with such sums in a--from existing money, and that's what 
we have to focus on because this is not the time nor the place 
to add new programs, no matter how laudable the goals, when we 
know darn well that chances are slim to none that they would 
get anyplace, simply because we are in a very difficult 
financial situation as a Nation right now.
    And so we are starting with a modest program. We will use 
existing funds. We hope to have something that we can brag 
about and come back and--next year or the year after and gets 
some real money into the whole operation, but let us start 
small.
    Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I have to compliment Ms. Jackson 
Lee for trying to help solve what I think is an unintended 
consequence here. As she pointed out, DOE, NIST and EPA do not 
have authorized funds, and in all likelihood, there is not 
going to be an authorization. And so to say take funds out of 
what is already authorized there means you have no funds 
because there are no funds authorized and none intended to. So 
what you are going to wind up with is a zero here.
    So again, Ms. Jackson Lee, thank you for helping us try to 
stop from making a mistake here.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Will the gentleman just yield? To make it 
plainer--would the gentleman yield? To make it plainer, we 
are--actually have zero funding for major aspects of the bill, 
and when I understand the word zero, though I know we want to 
have a zero-based budget--but zero funding means we have zero 
activity in legislation that we are all trying to work on. So I 
would ask my colleagues to consider having funds authorized for 
this legislation.
    Chairman Boehlert. We are saying that within the existing 
authorization--which is more than the appropriators 
appropriate, I might add. Within the existing authorization, 
which we have already approved, they will have the flexibility 
to use their existing authorization to promote green chemistry, 
and we think that makes a lot of sense.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, again, I know your heart is in 
the right place, but there is no authorization for DOE, NIST 
and EPA, and there is likely not to be any authorization, so 
you can't take money out of authorized funds that aren't 
authorized.
    Chairman Boehlert. In those instances, the--essentially the 
appropriators come forward with money and they--that is what 
keeps the agency going, and that is how--there is where you get 
the pot to take the money from.
    Mr. Gordon. Well, then change the language to the 
appropriation rather than authorized because there is no 
authorization.
    Chairman Boehlert. Counsel? Yeah. Same thing. With no 
authorization, the appropriation automatically becomes the 
authorization. So you know and I know that these agencies get 
appropriations. If they are not authorized, they can use those 
appropriations if this passes, as we intend it to pass, to 
promote green chemistry.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the----
    Chairman Boehlert. It is as simple as that.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--Chairman yield for a moment, just----
    Chairman Boehlert. I will yield for one further moment, 
but----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert.--we are already close to----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, you----
    Chairman Boehlert.--recessing.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand, and you have been a champion 
on authorizing responsibility. I just simply think without the 
authorization, how can we rely upon appropriators in this 
instance? And I thank the Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. Now if there is no further 
discussion, the vote is on the amendment. All in favor, say 
aye. Opposed nay. The nays appear to have it. The amendment is 
defeated. We have vote on. Would the gentlelady be considerate 
of her other colleagues, knowing full well what the outcome of 
the vote would be?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Consider it----
    Chairman Boehlert. It is hard to ask----
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--a point----
    Chairman Boehlert.--somebody to be considerate of 
colleagues? I don't think--the amendment is defeated. Now the--
what is next?
    Mr. Honda. Mr. Chairman----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. I would ask for unanimous consent to present an 
amendment at the table on behalf of Lofgren, Congresswoman 
Lofgren.
    Chairman Boehlert. Gentleman is recognized. The Clerk will 
report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970 by Ms. Lofgren.
    Mr. Honda. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may, I will enter into 
the record her written statement and I will be brief on the 
amendment. This is----
    Chairman Boehlert. We have 6:40. Is it the gentleman's 
intention to proceed with this and call for a vote?
    Mr. Honda. Just to present it and to make my point that her 
amendment is very important in--with regards to the scope of 
the bill that the author is presenting here. Just so--Mr. 
Chairman just quickly if I can submit her written statement and 
then comment that the EPA, in consultation with the Department 
of Homeland Security, will produce a report that identifies the 
most dangerous chemical substances from the perspective of 
security in need of a green chemistry alternative. That report 
will be provided to the interagency working group as further 
data in their effort to develop a coherent green chemistry 
program.
    And Mr. Chairman, the amendment--I mean the bill is so 
large in its scope that it is incomprehensible to understand 
how we can move forward without the inclusion of this amendment 
so that it would be----
    Chairman Boehlert. Is it the gentleman's intention to seek 
a vote on the amendment?
    Mr. Honda. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Committee is recessed until 10:00 
tomorrow morning.
    [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 10:00 a.m. Thursday, April 1, 2004.]
                       Appendix, March 31, 2004:

                              ----------                              


        Amendment Roster, H.R. 3970, Section-by-Section Analysis






               Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 3970,
          Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004

Sec. I. Short Title

    ``Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004''

Sec. 2. Definitions

    Defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program

    Establishes an interagency research and development (R&D) program 
to promote and coordinate federal green chemistry research, 
development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer 
activities. The program will provide sustained support for green 
chemistry R&D through merit-reviewed competitive grants to researchers, 
teams of researchers, and university-industry R&D partnerships, and 
through R&D conducted at federal laboratories.
    The program will provide support for, and encouragement of, the 
application of green chemistry through encouragement of consideration 
of green chemistry in all federally-funded chemical science and 
engineering R&D examination of methods to create incentives for the 
use of green chemistry; promotion of the education and training of 
undergraduate and graduate students in green chemistry; collection and 
dissemination of information on green chemistry R&D and technology 
transfer; and provision of venues for outreach and dissemination of 
green chemistry advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and 
written materials.
    Establishes an interagency working group composed of 
representatives from the National Science Foundation, the National 
Institute for Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that the 
President may designate, to oversee the planning, management, and 
coordination of all federal green chemistry R&D activities. Names the 
Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant 
Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency as co-
chairs and requires the group to establish goals and priorities for the 
program and provide for interagency coordination, including budget 
coordination. Requires the group to submit a report to the Committee on 
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
Science and Transportation of the Senate within two years that includes 
a summary of federally-funded green chemistry activities and an 
analysis of the progress made towards the goals and priorities 
established for the program, including recommendations for future 
program activities.

Sec. 4. Authorization of Appropriations

    Authorizes appropriations for green chemistry R&D programs, from 
sums already authorized to be appropriated, at the National Science 
Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the 
Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency.



    From sums already authorized to be appropriated for each of the 
agencies.



 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONTINUATION OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 
       3970, GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2004

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, APRIL 1, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:14 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. Good morning. The Committee on Science 
will be in order. The Committee meets today to continue 
consideration of H.R. 3970, Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Act of 2004. I ask unanimous consent for the 
authority to recess the Committee at any point and without 
objection, it is so ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is amendment #1, an 
amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren. Are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Lofgren. I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970, offered by Ms. Lofgren.
    [See Appendix for the amendment offered by Ms. Logfren.]
    Chairman Boehlert. Gentlelady--I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentlelady is recognized for five minutes to explain her 
amendment.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement on both 
sides of the aisle that green chemistry can have a 
revolutionary effect in reducing the environmental costs of 
living in an industrial society.
    I want to propose that green chemistry may have a similar 
effect in reducing security risks to our country as well, and I 
hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can 
support my amendment.
    Where we rely on traditional chemicals for production, and 
those chemicals are especially explosive, or toxic, we leave 
ourselves vulnerable to attack. To the degree green chemistry 
could give our industries an alternative that would reduce 
risks, we should be encouraging those moves. We already know 
that EPA and the Department of Homeland Security are working 
with the chemical industry to try to produce more on-site 
security, to reduce stores of the most dangerous chemicals, and 
to encourage the search for less hazardous alternatives.
    However, today we have an opportunity to guarantee that 
security considerations are also incorporated into the effort 
to guide research and development and investment decisions. My 
amendment calls on EPA, in consultation with the Department of 
Homeland Security, to produce a list of the most hazardous 
chemicals from the perspective of homeland security.
    Then, within a year of passage of this Act, the EPA is to 
report to Congress and the Interagency Working Group on which 
dangerous substances do not have a green chemistry option. That 
information can then be used as a factor by the Interagency 
Working Group as they produce their plan for a green chemistry 
research program. That plan is due two years after passage, so 
the EPA report can be effectively integrated into that plan.
    I believe that there is no contradiction between tending to 
our environment and tending to our security. The two can go 
hand in hand, in the form of green chemistry, and it seems to 
me it would be a tragedy if we missed this opportunity to tie 
security concerns into the planning of the Interagency Working 
Group.
    I hope the Committee will endorse this proposal, and I 
understand that--some concern, at least at a staff level, may 
have been expressed that this amendment would trigger a joint 
referral. I don't believe that is the case. We have clear 
jurisdiction over DHS R&D, and adding Homeland Security to the 
interagency panel would not in any way be an issue that would 
trigger a joint referral.
    Further, the language of the bill, as it now stands, is so 
broad that any agency could be added to the panel at the 
President's discretion, and adding Homeland Security, an agency 
whose R&D we have jurisdiction over, merely provides 
specificity.
    The bill itself has enormous reach, and we have included 
green chemistry research at federal labs that are not actually 
necessarily limited to the labs under our jurisdiction, and we 
have included green chemistry in the conduct of federal 
chemical science and engineering research and development of 
programs that would also impact DOD, so if there are joint 
referral concerns, they are already included in the bill, and I 
am also aware that we frequently, in the Congress, have 
committees that waive referrals back and forth. That has been 
done with this committee with a variety of other committees, 
and I am sure what will have to be done in this case vis-a-vis 
DOD and others in any case, so I recommend this amendment, and 
I hope that we can come together and approve it as a group, and 
I thank the Chairman for the time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. The Chair will 
reluctantly oppose the bill, but I have something more to say 
in a moment, but let me make it clear that we have worked 
closely with the parliamentarian, and there are no 
jurisdictional issues with this bill, as presently constituted, 
and we hope to maintain that.
    This amendment would require the Department of Homeland 
Security and EPA to develop a report identifying the chemicals 
that pose the greatest threat to national security and green 
chemistry alternatives. I agree with the gentlelady in the 
offer of the amendment. Tending to the environment and tending 
to national security interests are not incompatible, and I 
would be willing to work with the lady as a co-sponsor of a 
stand-alone piece, if she would like to do that.
    Green chemistry can improve national security. However, 
this shifts the focus of the bill away from green chemistry 
R&D, something I think the legislation needs to remain focused 
on, and it brings up some questions about imposing regulatory 
issue--bringing up regulatory issues, and I think it most 
certainly would trigger a sequential referral, which would slow 
and possibly stop progress on the bill.
    So while the idea is valid, I wish to identify with the 
idea, and I applaud the gentlelady for her initiative, and am 
willing to work with her as a co-sponsor of her bill, and I 
would take second position on it, if she so desires, a stand-
alone bill to deal with this.
    But for those reasons, the Chair opposes the bill, the 
amendment. We want to get the bill to the Floor without any 
clouding over dealing with potential jurisdictional issues.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the Chairman yield for a question?
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means. I would be glad to.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the Chairman support a rule that would 
allow this amendment to be offered on the Floor, since we are 
in agreement on the substance, and that would avoid the 
referral issue which is of concern to you?
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, yes and no, and I hate to give an 
equivocal answer, but we think, if we do it the way I hope we 
are able to do it, we will get it on the suspension calendar. 
We are anxious to get this moving, and at a rapid pace, but 
that is open to discussion. I would be glad to have serious 
discussions with the gentlelady on this.
    Once again, let me stress, I like the idea, and I agree 
with you 110 percent that national security issues and tending 
to environmental issues are not incompatible. We can do both 
simultaneously.
    Is there any further discussion on----
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, this is probably the fifth or 
sixth incident where we had an amendment that is pretty 
universally agreed is a good amendment but was rejected because 
of potential for referral, and I would make two suggestions how 
this can easily be taken care of.
    One, as Ms. Lofgren suggested, rather than bring this bill 
as a suspension, I think that we could take it as a regular 
bill. Now, I know that we have had a hectic pace around here, 
but I--it looks to me like we could probably work one more bill 
into this--our activities.
    Secondly, let me point out that we have a situation here 
where there are concerns about referral, and already, this 
year, in the 108th Congress, this committee has waived its 
jurisdiction in minor ways, to Transportation twice, to 
Government Reform, to Resources, and then other committees have 
waived jurisdiction for our purposes, Resources three times, 
Armed Services twice, Small Business, Transportation twice. So 
it is common that when you have a good bill with small types of 
overlay that what a committee does is you exchange letters, the 
other committee yes, you know, this is our jurisdiction, and 
they do that to maintain that jurisdiction, but says go right 
ahead.
    I think that we could, you know, take care of this. We just 
continue to dumb down a bill when we could really get a good 
bill that this committee could be pleased with.
    Chairman Boehlert. Well, thank you very much for that 
intervention. I appreciate it. One of the reasons this 
committee waives referral on some of the things is that they 
are non-controversial, and we see no need to slow the process, 
but we are--we take an enlightened approach to this, but when 
we have asked for waivers from other committees, and there has 
been any element of potential controversy, the waivers have not 
been granted. They have been granted by other committees on 
non-controversial issues.
    This raises up a whole new series of questions regarding 
regulations if this amendment were adopted, and I am willing to 
work with the gentlelady on a stand alone bill, or if we decide 
in some way that we can work the leadership, and we are not 
able to go with a suspension calendar, we have to go another 
route, then we can be open to potential amendments. But I think 
it is on, quite frankly, a fast track, because there is 
universal recognition of the value and importance of green 
chemistry, and so let us move ahead with this, and get it 
wrapped up, and then deal with some of the other issues.
    And you are absolutely right. The Chair does recognize 
there are merits--this is merit to a number of the points made 
by other Members in advancing individual amendments, but when 
all is said and done, we want to gain support and not risk 
losing support for something that we have worked closely with a 
whole bunch of outside players on. We even have the American 
chemical industry acknowledging the merit of this bill, and 
signing on.
    So, with that, the Chair wishes to know if anyone else 
seeks recognition. If not, the vote is on the amendment. All in 
favor say aye. Opposed, no. No. The noes appear to have it, and 
the amendment is defeated.
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote?
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Nick Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Michigan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson votes no. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardoza votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Bonner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner is not recorded, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Bonner. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Udall recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall is not recorded.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. And Mr. Larson.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson is voted--is recorded as voting yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. I just want to make sure my 
distinguished colleague and good friend from Connecticut is 
recorded accurately. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Larson. Is there anyone else that seeks recognition? The Clerk 
will therefore report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes 15, no 15.
    Chairman Boehlert. The amendment is defeated on a tie vote. 
We will proceed. The second amendment on the roster is 
amendment #2, an amendment offered by Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Lee, 
are you ready to--Jackson Lee, are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3970, offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas.
    [See Appendix for the amendment offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee.]
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman, and to the Ranking Member. This is a story retold, 
but with clarification. I offered this amendment yesterday, and 
my proposed amendment today serves the same effort, if you 
will, as the amendment yesterday, to avoid confusion.
    Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this is a bill that 
will draw, I believe, a great deal of bipartisan support. It is 
noteworthy, however, that the fact that the bill was not marked 
up in subcommittee, and the bill has only been drafted and 
authorized, or at least presented, in the last 15 days. I am 
sure that most of us would want to ensure that the language of 
the bill, the substance of the bill, is fully funded.
    This amendment fixes a technical problem in the bill to 
ensure that our intention to promote green chemistry will 
actually get funded as intended in H.R. 3970. H.R. 3970 
purports to be a bill to strengthen federal planning and 
coordination of green chemistry research and development into 
that, and authorize appropriations at four agencies. In each 
case, the funding agency is couched in language that specifies 
the amounts provided are from sums otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated. That is, the bill does not authorize any new 
money but carves the amounts from existing statutory 
authorizations.
    This formulation makes some sense for the National Science 
Foundation, which has a generous authorization of 
appropriations in place for each year covered by H.R. 3970. 
However, as I noted yesterday, the other agencies, such as EPA 
or NIST, have no general authorization bills, aren't currently 
on the Committee's agenda, and therefore, have no specific 
authorizations, and therefore, specific appropriations. And 
final enactment for the DOE authorization appears doubtful.
    As a result, H.R. 3970 does not actually provide any 
funding authorization for three of the four agencies in the 
bill. It is worse than being silent on funding, because without 
such language, it would be effectively such sums as may be 
necessary authorization.
    Now, one can speculate that that is consistent with 
appropriators, and it can be appropriated. It is a technical 
question. But if this is a very--if this legislation is of 
importance to us, why not be more distinct and precise in our 
language? My amendment simply strikes the phrase ``from sums 
otherwise authorized to be appropriated'' for DOE, NIST, and 
EPA. The effect of the amendment is to authorize actual funding 
for the three agencies to carry out their parts of the green 
chemistry program.
    I think it is a simple technical amendment. It cleans up 
the bill. It would certainly be more effective, and I would ask 
my colleagues to be supportive. I would like--Mr. Gingrey, I 
would like to yield to you. I would like to ask the question, 
do you know how CBO will score this bill, the one before us?
    Chairman Boehlert. Let me----
    Mr. Gingrey. I am--we are going--I am going to ask counsel 
to help us on that, Ms. Jackson, if you will hold on just a 
second. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yeah, let me ask the Chief of Staff, 
because he has been working with everybody on this, and he is 
the most knowledgeable. Mr. Goldston.
    Mr. Goldston. CBO generally scores bills the same way, 
regardless of whether it actually says within authorizations, 
although we negotiate with them, and sometimes, the way--we can 
come up with ways to phrase it so that it doesn't score as new 
money, but our assumption is that CBO will score it as $84 
million over the next three years.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And does--and then how will CBO score my 
amendment? There is no difference. They will likewise score it, 
and it is more clarified. Is that correct?
    Mr. Goldston. I believe that is correct.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. I thank the distinguished counsel. 
Mr. Chairman, there is my answer. This will provide more 
clarity to this legislation. The scoring will equal, but the 
language will be more precise, and therefore, my amendment 
provides clarity to legislation that is not clear, and I would 
ask my Republican colleagues to support the amendment, because 
it is a technical cleanup that I think all of us would 
appreciate, particularly as legislation is written, we would 
want our committee to have precise language that distinctly 
indicates our commitment to this legislation, and Mr. Gingrey's 
intent to provide a good roadmap entitled the Green Chemistry 
Bill, and so I would ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and be at least in support of a clarified statement 
about our commitment to this legislation. I yield back.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, and essentially, 
for the same reasons as we articulated yesterday, we are 
opposing the amendment. The agencies included in the program 
authorized by this bill already fund chemical science and 
engineering research, including green chemistry research. Our 
goal is to authorize a more focused program, and encourage more 
meaningful interagency coordination, so that we get more bang 
from the buck from the dollars we are already spending.
    The approach to authorize ``from sums already authorized to 
be appropriated'' is exactly the approach this committee took--
incidentally, at that time, I was in the majority, and fully 
supported the minority when we passed the High Performance 
Computing Act in 1991. At the time that the High Performance 
Computing Act was reported out of committee and passed by the 
House, not every agency included in the program authorized by 
the Act was authorized outside of the annual appropriations 
bills. In particular, neither the Environmental Protection 
Agency nor the Department of Energy had an existing 
authorization at that time.
    Nonetheless, the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 was 
a ringing success, and let me stress once again, at that time, 
I was fully supportive of the majority sitting in this chair, 
because they had a good idea and a good approach. I believe 
that Mr. Gingrey's Green Chemistry Research and Development Act 
will take its place alongside the High Performance Computing 
Act as one of this committee's best efforts.
    And with that, let me reiterate, I oppose the amendment. Is 
there anyone else who seeks recognition? If not, the vote is on 
the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed, nay. Nay. 
The nays appear to have it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Roll call vote, Mr. Chairman. Roll call.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert.
    Mr. Boehlert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Boehlert votes no. Mr. Hall.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lamar Smith.
    Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Weldon.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Calvert votes no. Mr. Nick Smith.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Ehlers votes no. Mr. Gutknecht.
    Mr. Gutknecht. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gutknecht votes no. Mr. Nethercutt.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas.
    Mr. Lucas. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lucas votes no. Mrs. Biggert.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gilchrest.
    Mr. Gilchrest. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gilchrest votes no. Mr. Akin.
    Mr. Akin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Akin votes no. Ms.--Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Johnson votes no. Ms. Hart.
    Ms. Hart. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Hart votes no. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes votes no. Mr. Gingrey.
    Mr. Gingrey. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gingrey votes no. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bishop votes no. Mr. Burgess.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner.
    Mr. Bonner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bonner votes no. Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney votes no. Mr. Neugebauer.
    Mr. Neugebauer. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Neugebauer votes no. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gordon votes yes. Mr. Costello.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr.--Ms. Johnson.
    Ms. Johnson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Johnson votes yes. Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Woolsey votes yes. Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Lampson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lampson votes yes. Mr. Larson.
    Mr. Larson. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Larson votes yes. Mr. Udall.
    Mr. Udall. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Udall votes yes. Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Wu votes yes. Mr. Honda.
    Mr. Honda. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Honda votes yes. Mr. Miller.
    Mr. Miller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Miller votes yes. Mr. Davis.
    Mr. Davis. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes yes. Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee votes yes. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren votes yes. Mr. Sherman.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Baird votes yes. Mr. Moore. Mr. Weiner.
    Mr. Moore. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Moore votes yes. Mr. Weiner.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson.
    Mr. Matheson. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Matheson votes yes. Mr. Cardoza.
    Mr. Cardoza. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cardoza votes yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. Clerk, how is Dr. Bartlett recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bartlett is not recorded.
    Mr. Bartlett. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bartlett votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Rohrabacher recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher is not recorded?
    Mr. Rohrabacher. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.
    Chairman Boehlert. How is Mr. Smith of Michigan recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith of Michigan is not recorded.
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Smith of Michigan. The Clerk will 
report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, yes 16, no 19.
    Chairman Boehlert. And the motion is defeated. Are there 
any other amendments? Hearing none----
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I----
    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon.
    Mr. Gordon. Strike the last word.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Gordon. Quickly, Mr. Chairman, let me just--I want to 
compliment you and your staff for the consultation and 
constructive way you approached the National Windstorm 
Reduction Act. I think that we--it resulted in a bill of which 
this committee can be proud.
    I just wish it could have been a model for the Green 
Chemistry Act. This is an important bill, but we simply did not 
maximize, I think, the work that this committee could do and 
should have done. Quoting the legendary legislative scholar 
Orson Welles, ``No wine before its time,'' this bill simply 
isn't mature. We had one hearing, most all of the minority 
amendments came out of that hearing. They were uncontradicted 
suggestions from the panel, and we made an effort to try to 
make this bill better.
    You know, I think a good idea is a good idea. Mr. Gingrey 
had a good idea in bringing the green chemistry here. I think 
there were some good ideas that could have made it better. It 
is disappointing that we did not do that. With that said, I 
know that you have told us that there will be an effort to try 
to have a manager's technical correction bill before this goes 
to the Floor, and I just--I hope we don't get in the same rush, 
because I know we are going to try to put this thing up 
quickly. Let us don't wait until the day before the suspension 
to work on it.
    Again, I say that in a constructive way. I am going to vote 
for this bill. That is one of the reasons, I guess, we have a 
Senate to maybe clean it up some, and we will have a conference 
to try to also make it a little bit better, but thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon, and I 
want to particularly thank you for your kind words and positive 
comments on the manner in which we handled the first bill. I 
will take as constructive criticism your comments on the bill 
pending, and I will commit to you a continued effort on the 
part of our side to work constructively and positively with you 
on all the bills, not just a select number of bills, and I 
would further conceded that there is always room for 
improvement in our performance, and we will strive to improve.
    But what we are trying to do is get this bill through. It 
is a good idea. It is in its infant stages, and we are trying 
to produce a product that ultimately we can all be proud of. 
So, thank you very much, and with that, hearing no further 
amendments, the question now is on the bill H.R. 3970, the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 as 
amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of 
the Chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, and the--now 
recognize Mr. Gordon to offer a motion.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 3970 as amended to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended do pass.
    Furthermore, I move that staff be instructed to prepare the 
legislative report and make necessary technical and conforming 
changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to 
bring the bill before the house for consideration.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on the motion to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
it by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it, 
and the bill is favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon 
the table. I move that Members have two subsequent calendar 
days in which to submit supplemental, minority, or additional 
views on the measure.
    I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the House--Rules 
of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize 
the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the 
House to adopt and pass H.R. 3970 as amended, and to go to 
conference with the Senate on H.R. 3970, or a similar Senate 
bill.
    Without objection, so ordered. Now, this concludes our 
committee markup, and I want to thank both sides for their 
indulgence, for working positively and constructively, and the 
meeting is now over. And thanks.
    [Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                        Appendix, April 1, 2004:

                              ----------                              


                            Amendment Roster






