[House Report 109-82]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     109-82
======================================================================


 
          GREEN CHEMISTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2005

                                _______
                                

  May 16, 2005.--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

                        [To accompany H.R. 1215]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
1215) 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.............................................5
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................5
  IV. Summary of Hearings.............................................8
   V. Committee Actions..............................................10
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill........................12
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis....................................13
VIII. Committee Views................................................15
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................17
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................17
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........18
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............18
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........18
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................19
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................19
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................19
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........19
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........19

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................20
  XX. Minority View..................................................21
 XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................22

                              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 2005''.

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 while producing high quality products through safe 
        and efficient manufacturing processes;
          (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;
          (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;
          (7) support economic, legal, and other appropriate social 
        science research to identify barriers to commercialization and 
        methods to advance commercialization of green chemistry; and
          (8) provide for public input and outreach to be integrated 
        into the Program by the convening of public discussions, 
        through mechanisms such as citizen panels, consensus 
        conferences, and educational events, as appropriate.
  (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) Agency Budget Requests.--Each Federal agency and department 
participating in the Program shall, as part of its annual request for 
appropriations to the Office of Management and Budget, submit a report 
to the Office of Management and Budget which identifies its activities 
that contribute directly to the Program and states the portion of its 
request for appropriations that is allocated to those activities. The 
President shall include in his annual budget request to Congress a 
statement of the portion of each agency's or department's annual budget 
request allocated to its activities undertaken pursuant to the Program.
  (e) 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. 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. 5. UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION IN CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING.

  (a) Program Authorized.--(1) As part of the Program activities under 
section 3(b)(4), the Director of the National Science Foundation shall 
carry out a program to award grants to institutions of higher education 
to support efforts by such institutions to revise their undergraduate 
curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate green 
chemistry concepts and strategies.
  (2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, 
merit-reviewed basis and shall require cost sharing in cash from non-
Federal sources, to match the Federal funding.
  (b) Selection Process.--(1) An institution of higher education 
seeking funding under this section shall submit an application to the 
Director at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
as the Director may require. The application shall include at a 
minimum--
          (A) a description of the content and schedule for adoption of 
        the proposed curricular revisions to the courses of study 
        offered by the applicant in chemistry and chemical engineering; 
        and
          (B) a description of the source and amount of cost sharing to 
        be provided.
  (2) In evaluating the applications submitted under paragraph (1), the 
Director shall consider, at a minimum--
          (A) the level of commitment demonstrated by the applicant in 
        carrying out and sustaining lasting curriculum changes in 
        accordance with subsection (a)(1); and
          (B) the amount of cost sharing to be provided.
  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to amounts 
authorized under section 8, from sums otherwise authorized to be 
appropriated by the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 
2002, there are authorized to be appropriated to the National Science 
Foundation for carrying out this section $7,000,000 for fiscal year 
2006, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 
2008.

SEC. 6. STUDY ON COMMERCIALIZATION OF GREEN CHEMISTRY.

  (a) Study.--The Director of the National Science Foundation shall 
enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council to conduct 
a study of the factors that constitute barriers to the successful 
commercial application of promising results from green chemistry 
research and development.
  (b) Contents.--The study shall--
          (1) examine successful and unsuccessful attempts at 
        commercialization of green chemistry in the United States and 
        abroad; and
          (2) recommend research areas and priorities and public policy 
        options that would help to overcome identified barriers to 
        commercialization.
  (c) Report.--The Director shall submit a report to the Committee on 
Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation of the Senate on the findings and 
recommendations of the study within 18 months after the date of 
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 7. PARTNERSHIPS IN GREEN CHEMISTRY.

  (a) Program Authorized.--(1) The agencies participating in the 
Program shall carry out a joint, coordinated program to award grants to 
institutions of higher education to establish partnerships with 
companies in the chemical industry to retrain chemists and chemical 
engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and strategies.
  (2) Grants shall be awarded under this section on a competitive, 
merit-reviewed basis and shall require cost sharing from non-Federal 
sources by members of the partnerships.
  (3) In order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an 
institution of higher education shall enter into a partnership with two 
or more companies in the chemical industry. Such partnerships may also 
include other institutions of higher education and professional 
associations.
  (4) Grants awarded under this section shall be used for activities to 
provide retraining for chemists or chemical engineers in green 
chemistry, including--
          (A) the development of curricular materials and the designing 
        of undergraduate and graduate level courses; and
          (B) publicizing the availability of professional development 
        courses of study in green chemistry and recruiting graduate 
        scientists and engineers to pursue such courses.
Grants may provide stipends for individuals enrolled in courses 
developed by the partnership.
  (b) Selection Process.--(1) An institution of higher education 
seeking funding under this section shall submit an application at such 
time, in such manner, and containing such information as shall be 
specified by the Interagency Working Group and published in a proposal 
solicitation for the Program. The application shall include at a 
minimum--
          (A) a description of the partnership and the role each member 
        will play in implementing the proposal;
          (B) a description of the courses of study that will be 
        provided;
          (C) a description of the number and size of stipends, if 
        offered;
          (D) a description of the source and amount of cost sharing to 
        be provided; and
          (E) a description of the manner in which the partnership will 
        be continued after assistance under this section ends.
  (2) The evaluation of the applications submitted under paragraph (1) 
shall be carried out in accordance with procedures developed by the 
Interagency Working Group and shall consider, at a minimum--
          (A) the ability of the partnership to carry out effectively 
        the proposed activities;
          (B) the degree to which such activities are likely to prepare 
        chemists and chemical engineers sufficiently to be competent to 
        apply green chemistry concepts and strategies in their work; 
        and
          (C) the amount of cost sharing to be provided.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

  (a) National Science Foundation.--(1) From sums otherwise authorized 
to be appropriated by the National Science Foundation Authorization Act 
of 2002, there are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
Science Foundation for carrying out this Act--
          (A) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2006;
          (B) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (C) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  (2) The sums authorized by paragraph (1) are in addition to any funds 
the National Science Foundation is spending on green chemistry through 
its ongoing chemistry and chemical engineering programs.
  (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 2006;
          (2) $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $6,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  (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 2006;
          (2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
  (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 2006;
          (2) $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
          (3) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.

                        II. Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 1215, the Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Act of 2005, is to establish an interagency 
research and development (R&D) program to promote and 
coordinate 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, Invan, 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 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 research and 
development (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
                              (In millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        EPA      NSF      NIST     DOE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04 funding........................       $7      $24       $4      N/A
FY05 funding........................        3       25        4      N/A
FY06 proposal.......................        4       23        4      N/A
Total Chemistry and Chemical               23      186       39     $292
 Engineering (2000).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA supports both green chemistry 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 spent approximately $5 
million directly on green chemistry and chemical engineering 
R&D and approximately $2 million on other green chemistry 
activities. The R&D funding was split between internal R&D, 
conducted at EPA's lab in Cincinnati and external R&D through 
the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. As part of the 
STAR program, EPA and NSF developed a partnership, the 
Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) program, which 
primarily funded green chemistry and chemical engineering R&D. 
The other $2 million in funding for green chemistry activities 
supported green chemistry outreach programs such as the 
Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Award Program.
    The TSE program was the external R&D program most focused 
on green chemistry in the Federal government. EPA and NSF put 
out a joint request for proposals, and then each agency awarded 
grants based on its own mission. NSF funded more basic green 
chemistry R&D, while EPA funded more applied R&D. TSE was 
initiated in 1995 and awarded 204 grants totaling just over $56 
million between 1995 and 2004.
    However, in FY05, the Administration successfully proposed 
to eliminate EPA's funding for TSE, and in FY06 it has not 
requested any funding for this program. The result has been a 
large decrease in the amount of funding EPA spends on green 
chemistry activities. In FY05, EPA's green chemistry activities 
are funded at approximately $1 million for internal R&D and $2 
million for outreach programs. The President's FY06 proposal 
would likely fund R&D at $1 million and outreach programs at $3 
million.
    Because EPA discontinued funding for the TSE program, NSF 
has also virtually eliminated specific funding under the TSE 
program which was NSF's only explicit green chemistry funding 
opportunity. While NSF does not put out specific solicitations 
for green chemistry R&D, NSF 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 spent approximately 
$10.8 million on green chemistry activities in the Division of 
Chemistry and $13 million on green chemistry activities in the 
Division of Chemical Transport Systems. In FY05 and FY06, NSF 
estimates that this funding will not change dramatically, but 
may be lower due to the discontinuation of the TSE program. 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. 1215

    H.R. 1215 is designed to focus and integrate the federal 
government's green chemistry R&D activities, and to make them a 
higher priority. H.R. 1215 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 TSE program has resulted in 347 articles, 25 book 
chapters, six 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 to10 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


                             109TH CONGRESS

    On March 10, 2005, Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 1215, the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005, along 
with Mr. Marshall, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Filner, Mr. 
Rohrabacher, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Simmons. H.R. 
1215, as introduced, was substantively the same as H.R. 3970, 
the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004, as it 
was approved by the House of Representatives in the 108th 
Congress. As is Committee practice with bills that cut across 
the jurisdiction of most of the Subcommittees, the bill was 
held at full Committee.
    On April 13, 2005, the Committee on Science met to consider 
H.R. 1215. The Committee considered the following amendments to 
the bill:
    1. Mr. Gordon offered an amendment to require a report on 
federal procurement preference for environmentally preferable 
products. The amendment was withdrawn.
    2. Mr. Bartlett offered an amendment to require a report on 
the current rates of oil consumption. The amendment was 
withdrawn.
    3. Mr. Wu offered an amendment to establish academic-
industry partnerships to retrain chemists and chemical 
engineers in green chemistry. The amendment was approved by 
voice vote.
    4. Ms. Woolsey offered an amendment to establish a 
voluntary labeling program for environmentally preferable 
products. The amendment was withdrawn.
    5. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered two amendments en-bloc. The 
first would have established priorities for green chemistry 
research to reduce vulnerabilities to terrorism. The second 
would have established a grant program to provide communities 
with technical assistance on green chemistry. The en-bloc 
amendments were withdrawn.
    The legislation was agreed to by a voice vote. Mr. Gordon 
moved that the Committee favorably report the bill, H.R. 1215, 
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.

                             108TH CONGRESS

    During the 108th Congress, Mr. Gingrey introduced H.R. 
3970, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 
on March 16, 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. 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.
    After the bill was reported, Mr. Gingrey amended the bill 
to address amendments offered in Committee before bringing the 
bill to the House Floor. These amendments included: (1) a new 
section authorizing a program to award grants to institutions 
of higher education to update their curricula to include green 
chemistry funded at $22.5 million over three years, (2) a new 
section requiring the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
study of the barriers to commercial application of green 
chemistry R&D, (3) a new program activity authorizing economic, 
legal and other social science research to identify barriers to 
commercialization of green chemistry, (4) a provision requiring 
each federal agency and department participating in the Program 
and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to include in 
budget requests the specific amount being requested for 
activities under this program, and (5) language to make 
explicit that the authorization for NSF is intended to be above 
what NSF already spends on green chemistry and chemical 
engineering R&D through its ongoing chemical and chemical 
engineering programs.
    On April 21, 2004, H.R. 3970 was considered under 
suspension by the House of Representatives, and the bill, as 
amended was agreed to by a vote of 402-14, and the motion to 
reconsider was laid on the table and agreed to without 
objection.
    On October 8, 2004, S. 2967, the Green Chemistry Research 
and Development Act of 2004, a companion to H.R. 3970, was 
introduced in the Senate by Senators Snowe and Rockefeller.

              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 a program at NSF to award grants to 
institutions of higher education to support efforts to revise 
their undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical 
engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and 
strategies. This program is authorized at $22.5 million total 
over three years, FY06 through FY08.
     Requires the Director of NSF to enter into a 
contract with the National Research Council to conduct a study 
of the factors that constitute barriers to the successful 
commercial application of green chemistry R&D.
     Authorizes a program to award grants to 
institutions of higher education to establish partnerships with 
companies in the chemical industry to retrain chemists and 
chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and 
strategies.
     Authorizes appropriations from sums otherwise 
authorized to be appropriated for NSF, NIST, DOE and EPA. Total 
authorizations are $26 million in FY06, $28 million in FY07 and 
$30 million in FY08.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis


Sec. 1. Short title

    ``Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005''

Sec. 2. Definitions

    Defines terms used in the text.

Sec. 3. Green Chemistry Research and Development Program

    Establishes an interagency 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; provision of 
venues for outreach and dissemination of green chemistry 
advances such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written 
materials; support for social science research to identify 
barriers to adoption of green chemistry; and provision for 
public input.
    Establishes an interagency working group composed of 
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, 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 that each participating agency submit to the 
Office of Management and Budget, as part of its annual request 
for appropriations, a report that identifies all activities 
that directly relate to the program. Also requires that, as 
part of the President's budget request, each agency list the 
portion of their budget that is dedicated to activities carried 
out under the program.
    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. Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network Grant 
        Program

    Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
Act to include as an authorized activity in the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership Program the enabling of supply chain 
manufacturers to reduce the use or generation of hazardous 
substances.

Sec. 5. Undergraduate education in chemistry and chemical engineering

    Creates a grant program at the National Science Foundation 
to award competitive grants to institutions of higher education 
for the purpose of revising their undergraduate chemistry and 
chemical engineering curricula to incorporate green chemistry. 
Cost sharing in cash is required of all participating 
institutions of higher education. In addition to the sums 
authorized in Section 7, the National Science Foundation is 
authorized from sums already authorized to be appropriated $7 
million, $7.5 million, and $8 million in FY06-FY08, 
respectively.

Sec. 6. Study on commercialization of green chemistry

    Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to 
enter into an agreement with the National Research Council to 
conduct a study of the barriers to commercialization of green 
chemistry products and processes.

Sec. 7. Partnerships in green chemistry

    Authorizes a program to award grants to institutions of 
higher education to establish partnerships with companies in 
the chemical industry to retrain chemists and chemical 
engineers in the use of green chemistry concepts and 
strategies.

Sec. 8. 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Agency                          FY06 (millions $)  FY07 (millions $)  FY08 (millions $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF....................................................                  7                7.5                  8
NIST...................................................                  5                5.5                  6
DOE....................................................                  7                7.5                  8
EPA....................................................                  7                7.5                  8
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................                 26                 28                30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--From sums already authorized to be appropriated for each of the agencies.

                         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 is disappointed that 
the EPA-NSF Technologies for a Sustainable Environment (TSE) 
program, the government's only explicit green chemistry R&D 
program, was not funded in FY05 and was not proposed for 
funding in FY06. The Committee believes that this program is 
critical to the promotion of green chemistry and should be 
continued.
    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 the Interagency Working Group to 
track Federal expenditures on green chemistry. The legislation 
requires agencies and OMB to explicitly state the portion of 
their request that will contribute to the activities authorized 
by this legislation. The Committee expects this report to 
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. 
For this reason, the legislation authorizes two specific 
education programs--one to update undergraduate chemistry 
curricula to incorporate green chemistry concepts and 
strategies and a second to authorize grants for universities 
that partner with chemical companies to retrain professional 
chemists and chemical engineers in the use of green chemistry 
concepts and strategies. The Interagency Working Group should 
make sure that participating agencies are engaging in these 
activities, consistent with their overall missions.
    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.
    The Committee believes that there are many barriers to the 
successful commercialization of green chemistry. For this 
reason, the Committee believes that the Interagency Working 
Group should fund research to determine economic, legal and 
other barriers. This is also why the Committee authorizes a 
National Research Council study into the barriers to successful 
commercialization of green chemistry.
    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 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 8. 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 29, 2005.
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. 1215, the Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mike Waters.
            Sincerely,
                                      Elizabeth M. Robinson
                               (For Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1215--Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005

    Summary: H.R. 1215 would authorize appropriations for 
fiscal years 2006 through 2008 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. 1215 would cost $102 million 
over the 2006-2010 period. CBO estimates that enacting this 
bill would have no effect on direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1215 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. 1215 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--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending on Green Chemistry Research Under Current Law:
    Budget Authority\1\...................................       32        0        0        0        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................       31       21        7        2        1        0
Proposed Changes:
    Authorization Level...................................        0       33       36       38        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................        0       13       27       34       22        7
Spending on Green Chemistry Research Under H.R. 1215:
    Authorization Level\1\................................       32       33       36       38        0        0
    Estimated Outlays.....................................       31       33       34       36       23       7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 2005 level reflects agencies' estimates of the amounts appropriated for that year for activities similar
  to those that would be authorized by H.R. 1215.

    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. NSF expects to spend around 
$25 million in 2005 for green chemistry research. EPA and NIST 
estimate those agencies will spend $2 million and $4 million, 
respectively, in 2005 on green chemistry research. DOE 
currently does not conduct research specifically targeted to 
green chemistry technologies.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1215 
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: Mike Waters. Impact on 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Teri Gullo. Impact on the 
Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
    Estimate approved by: Peter Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

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

    H.R. 1215 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. 1215 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. 1215.

                XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement

    H.R. 1215 does not establish or authorize the establishment 
of any advisory committee.

                 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act

    The Committee finds that H.R. 1215 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 (Pub. L. 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 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 13, 2005 a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research 
and Development Act of 2005 as amended, by a voice vote, and 
recommended its enactment.

                           XX. Minority View

    H.R. 1215's main goal is to help promote and coordinate 
Federal research, development, demonstration, education, and 
technology transfer activities related to green chemistry. 
Along with my amendment to further encourage research 
institutions and private sector participation, I strongly 
support the work that is being done by Portland State 
University, Oregon's urban university in areas related to green 
chemistry, including but not limited to biocompatible 
nanomaterials and nanostructured materials for solar energy 
conversion, atmospheric gasses, and global atmospheric change. 
Portland State University's mission to address real community 
needs through research, education, and outreach programs make 
it an ideal laboratory and educational model where the 
innovations and discoveries resulting from work in green 
chemistry can be developed, disseminated, and incorporated into 
business and government operations. Additionally, PSU is in a 
unique position to help prepare the next generation of 
chemists, scientists, and environmental engineers, as well as 
provide new educational opportunities to those in need of 
upgrading their skills in order to make contributions in the 
workplace in this area. Industries and businesses that are 
developed in response to initiatives related to green chemistry 
are a key component of the Portland metropolitan region's and 
Oregon's economic recovery strategies and PSU is integral to 
recruiting, retaining, and expanding these business 
opportunities. These developments will be especially important 
to a state that has been hit hard by high levels of 
unemployment and changes in its economic base.
                                                          David Wu.

   XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup on H.R. 1215, Green 
             Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005

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

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 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 come to order.
    Pursuant to notice, the Committee on Science meets to 
consider the following measure: H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry 
Research and Development Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent 
for the authority to recess the Committee at any point during 
consideration of these matters. And without objection, it is so 
ordered.
    We will now proceed with the opening statements, and I will 
begin.
    I want to welcome everyone here today as we belatedly 
complete our March 17 markup. We have just one bill before us 
today, and an important one, to create a focused and 
intensified research program in green chemistry. While we liked 
the idea of moving green chemistry on St. Patrick's Day, there 
is no need to have a special day to move forward with this 
bill. Indeed, the whole point is to make environmentally benign 
chemistry a part of everyday life.
    So let me just say a few words about the bill.
    This bill was introduced in the last Congress and in this 
one by Mr. Gingrey, who is no longer on our committee, but is 
still deeply interested in this subject. The bill is just 
common sense. We need to put our scientific expertise to work 
to solve problems.
    Certainly one reason the government funds science is for 
societal improvement, so we ought to be encouraging the funding 
of green chemistry, which can result in new products and 
processes that are better for our environment. This bill has 
broad support, including the support of leading chemical 
companies and organizations. We got this bill through the House 
handily in the last Congress and working with Senators Snowe 
and Rockefeller, we will get it signed into law this Congress.
    Those with long memories may remember that last year we had 
a contentious markup on this bill. Perhaps it had something to 
do with the season, on the eve of a presidential election, but 
that is just a parenthetical thought. But between markup and 
the Floor, we reached a bipartisan agreement, and that 
agreement is reflected in the language before us today. Thus, 
we have very few amendments this time around.
    I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And let me say 
that it is just as appropriate to pass the bill as we approach 
income tax day as it was on St. Patrick's Day. Not only are 
both days associated with green, but this is a bill that will 
put taxpayers' money to work to solve real and critical 
problems in an efficient and effective way. I hope to move it 
swiftly through the House, and I appreciate that there were no 
groans in that last reference.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gordon.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Boehlert follows:]
          Prepared Statement of Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert
    I want to welcome everyone here today as we belatedly complete our 
March 17 markup. We have just one bill before us today, and an 
important one, to create a focused and intensified research program in 
green chemistry.
    While we liked the idea of moving green chemistry on St. Patrick's 
Day, there's no need to have a special day to move forward with this 
bill. Indeed, the whole point is to make environmentally benign 
chemistry a part of everyday life. So let me just say a few words about 
the bill.
    This bill was introduced in the last Congress and in this one by 
Mr. Gingrey, who is no longer on our committee, but who is still deeply 
interested in this subject.
    This bill is just common sense. We need to put our scientific 
expertise to work to solve societal problems. Certainly one reason the 
government funds science is for societal improvement. So we ought to be 
encouraging the funding of green chemistry, which can result in new 
products and processes that are better for our environment.
    This bill has broad support, including the support of leading 
chemical companies and organizations. We got this bill through the 
House handily in the last Congress, and working with Senators Snowe and 
Rockefeller, we will get it signed into law this Congress.
    Those with long memories may remember that last year we had a 
contentious markup on this bill. But between markup and the Floor we 
reached a bipartisan agreement and that agreement is reflected in the 
language before us today. Thus we have very few amendments this time 
around.
    I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. And let me say 
that it is just as appropriate to pass this bill as we approach Income 
Tax Day as it was on St. Patrick's Day. Not only are both days 
associated with green, but this is a bill that will put taxpayers' 
money to work to solve real and critical problems in an efficient and 
effective way. I hope to move it swiftly through the House.

    Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't be as poetic, 
but hopefully I will make that up with brevity.
    We are pleased to have the opportunity to reconsider the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act this morning. We 
all support the goal of encouraging more efficient 
manufacturing of safer products. It makes good economic and 
environmental sense to avoid past mistakes and costs associated 
with unnecessary use and misuse of toxic materials. Industry 
and government have formed effective partnerships, not only in 
research and development, but also to develop the adoption of 
new processes that reduce the use and the admission of toxic 
chemicals in the manufacture of products that are more easily 
recycled.
    H.R. 1215 continues this effort, but despite the 
improvements to the bill, it still does not go far enough to 
promote the adoption of green chemistry. Once again, Democratic 
Members of the Committee will offer amendments today in an 
effort to expand the impact and importance of this underlying 
legislation. We hope the Chairman will be able to support these 
amendments, which will be offered in a constructive spirit.
    And I yield back my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Bart Gordon
    Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to have the opportunity to reconsider 
the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act this morning.
    We all support the goal of encouraging more efficient manufacturing 
of safer products.
    It makes good economic and environmental sense to avoid past 
mistakes and costs associated with unnecessary use and misuse of toxic 
materials.
    Industry and government have formed effective partnerships, not 
only in research and development, but also to encourage the adoption of 
new processes that reduce the use and the emission of toxic chemicals 
and the manufacture of products that are more easily recycled.
    H.R. 1215 continues this effort, but despite the improvements to 
the bill, it still does not go far enough to promote the adoption of 
green chemistry.
    Once again, Democratic Members of the Committee will offer 
amendments today in an effort to expand the impact and importance of 
the underlying legislation.
    We hope that the Chairman will be able to support these amendments, 
which will be offered in a constructive spirit.

    Chairman Boehlert. I thank Mr. Gordon for yielding back his 
time, and reminding me of the constructive spirit that prevails 
in this committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
    Good morning. I am pleased the Science Committee is meeting today 
to mark up the Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005.
    Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes 
that reduce or eliminate the use and generation of hazardous 
substances.
    I am pleased the bill will provide support for, and encourages the 
application of green chemistry by supporting green chemistry in all 
federally-funded chemical science and engineering research and 
development, examines methods to create incentives for the use of green 
chemistry, promotes education and training of undergraduate and 
graduate students and professional chemists and chemical engineers in 
green chemistry, supports social science research to identify barriers 
to adoption of green chemistry, and encourages public input.
    However, this bill authorizes green chemistry programs to be funded 
from ``such sums as already authorized.'' Therefore, for NIST, NOAA and 
the Department of Energy, it is my understanding that this bill 
authorizes expenditures for these agencies which are consistent with 
its current funding level. But, who in Congress has been setting those 
expenditure levels? If appropriation bills that fund NIST, NOAA, and 
DOE are the only ``authorization'' that exists, I would like to point 
out that this is another example of appropriators doing the job of this 
authorizing committee.
    It happened last year when the Manufacturing bill came before the 
House and I had an amendment to study the affects of off-shoring in 
eight key areas. As you remember, the Science Committee allowed the 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations committee to fund a $2 million 
study without an authorization from this committee. From preliminary 
discussions on the progress of this report, duplicative information is 
being gathered and no new information is being examined.
    I am hopeful this year the Science Committee will assert its 
authorizing authority so we can continue aggressive oversight of 
programs and policies in our jurisdiction, including programs like the 
Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
    Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for bringing this 
bill up for consideration today, and I wish to acknowledge Mr. Gingrey 
for doing the hard work of drafting the legislation.
    I am pleased to consider the Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Act, which will allow us to focus chemical research efforts 
on environmentally sound methods, including waste minimization, 
substitution of less toxic for more toxic ingredients and processing 
agents, and development of less toxic products.
    The Committee is certainly aware that the Department of Defense, 
the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, 
the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology already conduct research projects that are classified as 
green chemistry. This bill would formally encourage federal agencies to 
continue green chemistry efforts.
    Finally, I believe the bill could be significantly improved by 
amendment. I also urge my colleagues to support the amendments under 
consideration, and thus, strengthen the legislation.
    I look forward to the long awaited consideration of this bill.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
    I rise in support of this bill that will again encourage ``green 
chemistry'' and define the federal investment in that important 
subject. I commend my colleague from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for again 
authoring this legislation 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.
    I assume that everyone in this chamber 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 an expensive foreign policy have left us with little money left to 
fund critical programs such as those for green chemistry.
    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 draws 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 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, I hope that we can work together 
to ensure that it is funded appropriately.
    Also, I have offered an amendment to this legislation that will 
encourage volunteer industry-community partnerships that can 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 will support this bill because it takes a step in the right 
direction; however, I feel it does not do enough to address the 
barriers to adoption of green chemistry practices.

    Chairman Boehlert. We will now consider H.R. 1215, Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005. I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill is considered as read and open to 
amendment at any point and that Members proceed with the 
amendments in the order of the roster. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    The first amendment on the roster is offered by Mr. Gordon.
    Are you ready to proceed?
    Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Mr. Gordon 
of Tennessee.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I guess it was back in the 
Clinton days, there was an Executive Order 13101 that later was 
reinstated by President Bush that encourages the various 
government agencies to purchase recycled products, to buy 
greener products, and to practice waste prevention measures. 
The problem is we don't know what they are doing. There has 
been no reporting. There has been no way to monitor this. So we 
have already on the books really good--I mean, a good vehicle 
to try to have the Federal Government be a leader in recycling 
as well as purchasing green products.
    I recognize that you have a concern that to try to have a 
reporting procedure with these various federal agencies would 
bring about a joint jurisdiction somewhere, and I will have to 
say that in major joint jurisdiction matters, I can understand 
not wanting to slow down a bill. But in these types of matters, 
I think we are really dumbing down good bills with small issues 
that have joint jurisdiction that really could be worked out 
with letters of exchange, which we have done many times before. 
But again, I say that as a general principle, and hopefully 
that as we continue the legislative process, that we can maybe 
see that as a principle later on.
    But I understand your situation here. For that reason, I am 
going to withdraw this amendment. I know that our staffs have 
talked, and I think that you agree that it makes sense that we 
have some kind of reporting from these agencies that hopefully 
the Senate, with wider jurisdictional concerns, can deal with 
this. And if it comes to conference, then we will have a chance 
to accept it.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
    I agree wholeheartedly with the purpose of the amendment, 
as you well know. In fact, as part of the farm bill a few years 
back, we fought vehemently and successfully to create a 
preference for the purchase of byproducts. I would note that 
our antagonists on the issues sneaked a repeal of that 
provision at last year's energy bill.
    My problem with this amendment, as you have made reference 
to, is that it would refer this bill to another committee and 
probably sink the bill. But I certainly support the language, 
and if it were added later in the process in a way that would 
not kill the bill, you have my pledge of support. Again, I am 
not willing to lose this important bill over this issue. But if 
adding the language at a later point would not hurt this bill, 
then I am all for it. And as I have said before, I would also 
be willing to work with you on language as a free-standing 
bill. We have got a good relationship, and I want to maintain 
it.
    Are there any others who seek comments? Without objection, 
the gentleman's request to withdraw the amendment.
    The next amendment on the roster is amendment number two, 
and that is offered by Mr. Bartlett.
    Are you ready, Mr. Bartlett?
    Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Mr. 
Bartlett of Maryland.
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. The Clerk will dispense with the 
reading. Without objection, so ordered.
    The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In the '40s and '50s, a geologist scientist worked for 
Shell Oil Company by the name of M. King Hubbard. He watched 
the discovery, the pumping, and the exhaustion of oil fields in 
this country. And he noted that they pretty much always 
followed a bell curve: slow at first and then increasing 
production and finally reaching a peak, after which production 
fell off. He noted that when that peak was reached that 
approximately half of the oil had been pumped from the field. 
He theorized correctly that if he knew how many oil fields 
there were in the United States and if they all behaved the way 
those that he had observed behaved, then he could then predict 
when the United States would reach its peak ability to produce 
oil. He made that prediction in 1956, and he predicted it would 
be about 1970. As a matter of fact, it was 1970. And the actual 
production points fall remarkably close to the bell curve that 
M. King Hubbard predicted in 1956.
    In 1973, using these analysis techniques, he predicted that 
world oil production would peak at about 2000. Now it didn't 
peak in 2000, because he couldn't have known that there would 
be an Arab oil embargo, that there would be the oil price 
spikes, that there would be a world-wide recession as a result 
of that, which delayed the peak oil production. Up until the 
Carter years, every 10 years we used as much oil as had been 
used in all of previous history. When you understand the 
exponential growth curve that is not so hard to understand, 
because that only takes seven percent growth, and in the heyday 
of our industrial revolution when we were using oil, we really 
grew, at least the oil use grew, at seven percent a year, and 
that means you double your use every 10 years, which means that 
when half of the oil was gone, there would only be 10 years of 
oil left in the world. Now we have slowed down since then 
because of efficiency and so forth.
    There are a number of people who believe that M. King 
Hubbard was right, that we are now on the verge and may be 
there at peak oil production. Oil prices are now over $50 a 
barrel. Goldman-Sachs says that they will go to at least $105 a 
barrel, that Americans won't change their driving habits until 
gas reaches $4 a gallon.
    Now if this is true, the United States, which has only two 
percent of the known reserves of oil in the world and uses 25 
percent of the world's oil and imports about \2/3\ of what we 
use, faces particularly great challenges. And yet there are 
entities in our government who believe, apparently, that oil is 
forever, because the Energy Information Agency has straight 
line curves that just predict the consumption of oil and the 
production of oil going up and up and up.
    And what our amendment to your bill would do, sir, is to 
ask the GAO to initiate a study of oil production and 
consumption in this country. A couple of Congresses ago, I 
chaired the Energy Subcommittee on this committee, and one of 
the first things we tried to do was to determine the magnitude 
of the problem, the dimensions of the problem. So we had 
experts from all over the world here. And there was pretty 
consistent agreement among them that we had about 1,000 
gigabarrels of known reserves that we had not yet pumped. That 
sounds like a lot of oil, but when you divide the 80-some 
million barrels a day that the world uses, we use 20-some 
million of that, by the way, one person out of 22 used \1/4\ of 
all of the oil in the world, that lasts only 40 years. That is 
not a straight line, 40 years, because if it follows M. King 
Hubbard's curve, we will plateau for a while and then start 
down the slope and then slide very abruptly down that slope.
    Sir, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw this 
amendment, because you have promised that you will write a 
letter to GAO, which would accomplish exactly what this 
amendment would have accomplished, and that is to require them 
to do a study of the reserves in this country and in the world, 
the consumption in this country and in the world, and what the 
future looks like. And I thank you very much for your 
cooperation.
    I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes. Who seeks recognition?
    Ms. Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey. I would like to sign on to that letter, if you 
would allow that.
    Chairman Boehlert. By all means, and others will be given 
the opportunity to sign on.
    And Dr. Ehlers wishes to address this amendment before we 
accept your unanimous consent to withdraw it.
    Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Ehlers. Just very briefly before we allow it to 
withdraw.
    I support everything that my colleague from Maryland has 
said. I first encountered the Hubbard curve many years ago, and 
the co-author of a book that used that curve and other issues 
regarding energy. This book was published in 1978. And his 
predictions are pretty much in line with what M. King Hubbard 
predicted. You can't argue with facts, even though people 
continue to try to do it. If you do a simple scientific and 
mathematical analysis, the point is energy is a finite 
resource. In addition, you have to remember two special things 
about energy compared to all of the other resources. First of 
all, it is most important, because without energy, we can not 
use our other natural resources. So that makes it the most 
important. Secondly, energy is the only non-recyclable 
resource. You use it, it is gone. It eventually becomes heat, 
which radiates into space. And those two factors mean energy 
has to be treated totally differently from all of the other 
resources, and I appreciate the gentleman offering this 
amendment and bringing that to our attention.
    And if you are taking co-signers on the letter to GAO, I 
would be happy to join in, also.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers, for agreeing with 
Dr. Bartlett. That is the scientific corner of the Committee.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I would just like to point out that we are 
lucky to have two Ph.D.s to tell us all about these things. And 
Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Bartlett contribute a great deal to this 
committee. Thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. I couldn't agree more with that 
observation. But let me point out, they are not the only Ph.D.s 
on this committee. We have a number of Ph.D.s. Even on the 
staff, we have a number of Ph.D.s who are scholars in their 
various disciplines who add immeasurably to the quality of the 
work product of this committee. And Mr. Gordon and I rely very 
heavily on their judgment. We don't always agree with it, but 
we rely very heavily on their judgment.
    The gentleman has a unanimous consent request that he be 
permitted to withdraw the amendment. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    The next amendment is amendment number three offered by Mr. 
Wu.
    Mr. Wu, are you prepared to proceed?
    Mr. Wu. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the 
desk, but first I want to agree with you. It is my observation 
in my first term here in Congress that you don't have to be a 
rocket scientist to be on this committee, but you do have to be 
a rocket scientist to staff this committee.
    Chairman Boehlert. And thank you very much for that 
intervention.
    The Clerk will report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Mr. Wu of 
Oregon.
    Chairman Boehlert. The gentleman is recognized.
    Mr. Wu. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
considered as read.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Wu. My amendment establishes a program to create 
partnerships between private 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.
    Now we all agree on this bill that green chemistry is very, 
very important, but if you are like my age or older, when you 
were trained in undergraduate or even graduate chemistry, you 
know, some of us were taught to just dump the reactants down 
the drain after we were through with it, and some retraining is 
in order for middle-aged chemists or above.
    The motivation for this amendment is to address this 
problem, which is discussed by witnesses on the Committee's 
recent hearing on the bill that too few professionals in these 
fields are exposed to green chemistry in their undergraduate 
and graduate courses. This lack of training becomes an 
important barrier to the adoption and use of green chemistry in 
industrial products and processes. Specifically, the amendment 
tasks the agencies that carry out the coordinated Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Program authorized by this 
bill to establish a program to award grants to institutions of 
higher education to develop curricular materials and to design 
courses to provide appropriate retraining for chemists and 
chemical engineers.
    To be eligible for a merit-based, competitive grant under 
the new program, a college or university must first enter into 
a partnership with at least two companies in the chemical 
industry. The program allows for multiple colleges and 
universities to participate in the partnerships along with 
professional societies in the chemical or chemical engineering 
fields. The idea of the partnerships is to forge a close 
relationship between the academic and industrial partners to 
this process to ensure that courses of study are available to 
put in place practices that are immediately relevant to 
industry and that are designed to provide practicing chemists 
and chemical engineers with the skills and knowledge that they 
will need to employ green chemistry concepts in their current 
work. The requirement for cost sharing helps to reinforce the 
engagement and commitment of private companies to this program.
    I urge adoption of the amendment by all Members.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
    Mr. Wu. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Since most of us on the Committee are 
your age or older, we can identify with your observations. I 
think it is a wonderful amendment, and I am pleased to embrace 
it. I wish I thought of it.
    Anyone else seek recognition? The vote is on the Wu 
amendment. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have 
it, and the amendment is passed.
    The fourth amendment on the roster is offered by Ms. 
Woolsey.
    Ms. Woolsey, are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Woolsey. I am, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will read the amendment.
    Ms. Woolsey. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my amendment be--
unanimous consent that we consider my amendment as read.
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Woolsey. This amendment----
    Chairman Boehlert. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
    Ms. Woolsey. Sorry.
    Chairman Boehlert. I am told by counsel the Clerk has to 
report the amendment.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendment to H.R. 1215 offered by Ms. Woolsey 
of California.
    Chairman Boehlert. Now we can dispense with the reading, 
and now the gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My amendment would establish a voluntary labeling program 
for chemical products that are created in an environmentally-
friendly manner and result in an environmentally-preferred 
product. This program would simply require that the EPA 
Administrator establish criteria for determining which products 
would be eligible to utilize a green label. This label would 
inform consumers that a chemical product was developed in an 
environmentally-friendly way and results in an environmentally-
preferred product.
    As it stands, because there are few defined criteria for 
green products, much of the information on product labels can 
be very confusing to consumers. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, 
consumers would greatly benefit from the creation of a 
voluntary labeling program for chemical products and at very 
little expense to the Federal Government. And such a program 
would be voluntary, not mandatory. Only those companies that 
wish to participate would do so. But if you ask me, there is 
very little reason why a given company wouldn't participate. 
There is a growing demand for all things green, and consumers 
would be glad to purchase this kind of product if they could 
count on the labeling.
    Some Members believe that the creation of a green label 
program is not within the jurisdiction of the Science 
Committee, but I think that this is the very place to discuss 
such a program. We would be remiss in marking up a green 
chemistry bill if we didn't try to promote green chemical 
products in the process.
    What we need to do is get support from Congress, but I 
understand we don't have that support, not really from Congress 
alone, that in a stand-alone bill it would not come--have the 
jurisdiction of the Science Committee, so I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw my amendment, but with the idea that we 
would support it if it ever comes along.
    Mr. Gordon. Ms. Woolsey, would you yield before you ask----
    Ms. Woolsey. Yes, I will.
    Mr. Gordon. Let me just suggest that I think there are a 
number of good amendments, and yours is certainly one of those. 
We will be trying to get those together and contact the Senate 
sponsors, give them the background, and I think that we will 
have good cooperation from the majority, also, if they come 
forward with these types of good additions to their bill in 
conference.
    Ms. Woolsey. I appreciate that very much.
    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you. And----
    Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. Rohrabacher.
    Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that Ms. Woolsey has a good idea, 
and if I could just recommend to her a course of action that 
might really bring this about, because I think it is 
fundamentally a good idea to label things and give the public 
choices. We need some R&D, I think, on establishing what 
standards to use on those labels. And that would go through 
this committee. And it seems to me that we should maybe focus 
on that and try to come up with an idea of what type of 
research is necessary to establish the standards of what would 
be green technology and what would not. And that is just a 
thought.
    Ms. Woolsey. I thank you.
    Chairman Boehlert. A valuable intervention, thank you very 
much.
    And I like the concept, so we will continue to work 
together, as Mr. Gordon had indicated, which is the habit of 
this committee. On occasion, we break the rule, but it is a 
habit.
    The gentlelady asked unanimous consent that she be 
permitted to withdraw her amendment. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    The fifth amendment on the roster is offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    Are you ready to proceed?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I am. I would like to offer both of my 
amendments en bloc, please. I have amendments pending in the 
Judiciary Committee, and I need to move this as quickly as I 
can.
    Chairman Boehlert. Yes. The gentlelady shall be permitted 
to do so. And without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Clerk will report the amendments. 
Excuse me, Ms. Jackson Lee. Both amendments.
    Ms. Tessieri. Amendments to H.R. 1215 offered by Ms. 
Jackson Lee of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. Okay. Those two are combined into one, 
but we are not going to give you double the time.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be considered as read.
    Let me, first of all, suggest to the Ranking Member that I 
hope maybe my amendments likewise can be considered, because I 
think that they--we have given this considerable thought, and I 
would hope that there is room for a thoughtful amendment that 
is, I think, in addition to this particular legislation.
    I just want to refer my colleagues very briefly to a large 
news item that occurred just about two weeks ago in my 
Congressional area of a large chemical plant that had an 
enormous explosion and caused the loss of life of 15 
individuals.
    My first amendment directs federal resources for green 
chemistry research and development to the vital task of 
reducing security risks to our country as well. I hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle can support this 
amendment. 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. 
Within a year of passage of this act, 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 a producer plan for green chemistry research. 
That plan is due two years after passage. So the EPA report can 
effectively be integrated into the plan.
    Just as an example, the GAO's January 2005 report on the 
implementation of the national strategy for homeland security 
stated although the chemical industry has undertaken a number 
of voluntary initiatives to address security concerns at 
chemical facilities, the extent of participation in the 
voluntary initiatives is unclear. The chemical industry faces 
significant challenges in preparing its facilities against a 
terrorist act. That list can go a long way in contributing to 
that knowledge.
    And that is the first amendment.
    The second amendment is a community assistance grant 
amendment to H.R. 1215. 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, a wonderful 
partnership that could exist between your local community and 
refineries. Evidenced by the tragedy that occurred in my 
community, I would think that perspectively that amendment 
would be very useful as this community tries to heal itself and 
go forward, living with the chemical facility along with the 
close-by neighborhood. Successful partnerships 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 are proving successful in Michigan 
and Texas.
    With that, I ask my colleagues to support both amendments, 
amendments now I believe 5 and 6.
    I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Mr. Chairman,

    We are in agreement on both sides of the aisle that green chemistry 
can reduce the environmental costs and improve the safety of products 
and the methods used to manufacture them.
    My amendment directs federal resources for green chemistry research 
and development to the vital task of reducing security risks to our 
country as well. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
can support my amendment.
    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, 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 effectively be integrated into that plan.
    Within the last few months, we have heard from GAO, the President's 
former Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, and a union representing 
workers in the chemical industry on our progress addressing the risks 
associated with chemical facilities. The news is not encouraging.
    GAO's January 2005 report on the implementation of the National 
Strategy for Homeland Security stated:

         ``Although the chemical industry has undertaken a number of 
        voluntary initiatives to address security concerns at chemical 
        facilities, the extent of participation in voluntary 
        initiatives is unclear. The chemical industry faces significant 
        challenges in preparing its facilities against terrorist 
        attack, . . .''

    In his January testimony before the Senate, Richard Falkenrath, 
former advisor to the President on Homeland Security included 
``Hazardous Chemical Security and Protection'' among the five highest 
priority items that remain to be addressed.
    The report released by the Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical and 
Energy Workers International Union last October found that:

         ``. . . preventative actions, that could directly reduce the 
        likelihood of a catastrophic event, were reportedly taken with 
        the least frequency, . . .''

    One of the preventative actions identified was reducing the volumes 
of hazardous substances at these facilities.
    Green chemistry--the development of less toxic alternatives--could 
certainly help to us to make chemical facilities safer places to live 
near and to work in.
    This bill authorizes no new funding for green chemistry research. 
Therefore, it is crucial that we focus the existing federal resources 
to address the most pressing issues. Clearly, reducing vulnerabilities 
and risk at chemical facilities across the country is something we must 
address as soon as possible.
    Surely, we can all agree that this modest, non-regulatory approach 
to addressing risks at chemical facilities is the least we should do to 
ensure that federal research and development efforts in green chemistry 
are invested wisely and where they can deliver the greatest benefits to 
all our citizens.
    I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

    Chairman Boehlert. Mr. Gordon, do you wish--
    Mr. Gordon. Yes. Ms. Jackson Lee, you have been a leader in 
safety both on the Earth and in space, and I think this is just 
one more example of that. I want to assure you that we will 
include these amendments when we make a presentation to the 
Senate sponsors of the bill and we are hopeful that they will 
accept them and that we can get this into a conference.
    Chairman Boehlert. Reluctantly--both deal with good ideas, 
but reluctantly, the Chair will oppose the en bloc amendment. 
So let me take them one at a time.
    I think what they do is shift focus away from green 
chemistry R&D, which I think this legislation needs to remain 
focused on. The first part of the amendment would require 
Homeland Security and EPA to develop a report identifying the 
chemicals that pose the greatest threat to national security 
and green chemistry alternatives. And that is something that we 
should probably do in a separate measure or a letter requesting 
that action. But this would automatically trigger reference to 
another Committee, and we get away from the basic focus we are 
trying to maintain on green chemistry R&D.
    And the second part of the amendment would require the 
Administrator of EPA to establish a grant program for 
communities entering into cooperative agreements with local 
chemical facilities to determine ways to reduce the use of--the 
release of toxic chemicals, and boy, I like the idea of those 
communities entering into cooperative agreements. But once 
again, here is something else that would establish a new grant 
program, and it would automatically trigger a referral to 
another committee, which would, I think, damage progress on 
this bill.
    So for both of those reasons, I am opposing the en bloc 
amendment, part A and part B, with the acknowledgment that you 
have, as you usually do, very good ideas. It is something that 
we should address, and I like the idea of Mr. Gordon talking to 
some of his friends, some people have friends, on the other 
side of the Capital.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. If the Chairman would yield for a moment, 
please.
    Chairman Boehlert. I would be glad to yield to the 
gentlelady.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate the Chairman's rebuttal of 
the amendments. I happen to think in this very collegiate 
Congress that cross jurisdiction is not a problem. And I think 
if you read the Houston Chronicle on, I believe, yesterday, you 
will see that there is a maze of confusion dealing with 
reporting entities with the chemical industry. So there needs 
to be some consistency.
    I would ask unanimous consent to allow my amendments to be 
withdrawn. I would like to work with the Ranking Member, 
because I believe these have a very important basis to them, 
and I would like to see them move forward. And I see a 
colleague on the other side of the aisle. I would like to share 
them with him and see how he views them as having merit. And 
let us see if we can work together. I know that it triggers, 
maybe, Homeland Security, but in fact, I think that that is a 
committee that is very collegiate as well, and we could work 
together with the Science Committee.
    So I ask unanimous consent to allow me to withdraw these 
amendments, and I look forward to working with the Committee.
    Chairman Boehlert. What was the unanimous consent request?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. To withdraw the amendments at this time 
and look forward to working with the Committee, working with 
the Ranking Member, and working with the Chairman on what I 
think are important amendments.
    Chairman Boehlert. Without objection, so ordered.
    But just let me--I am just wondering if we are serving in 
the same Congress. You are talking about the very collegiate 
Congress. Boy----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Committee.
    Chairman Boehlert. Oh, Committee. Good. Good, good, because 
the Committee is very collegiate, but boy, oh boy, I am still 
looking for any hint of it in the full Congress.
    All right. Are there any other amendments? Hearing none, 
the vote is on the bill H.R. 1215, Green Chemistry Research and 
Development Act of 2005. All of those in favor will say aye. 
Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
    Mr. Gordon, for a motion.
    Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
favorably report H.R. 1215, as amended, to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. Furthermore, 
I move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and 
that the Chair take the necessary steps to bring the bill 
before the House for consideration.
    Chairman Boehlert. The question is on the bill to report 
the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes 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 
Rules of the House of Representatives that the Committee 
authorizes the Chairman to offer such motions as may be 
necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 1215, Green 
Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    I want to thank the Members for their attendance at this 
collegial session. The Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              


        H.R. 1215, Section-by-Section Analysis, Amendment Roster






               Section-by-Section Analysis of H.R. 1215,
          Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005

Sec. 1. Short Title

    ``Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2005''

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; provision 
of venues for outreach and dissemination of green chemistry advances 
such as symposia, forums, conferences, and written materials; support 
for social science research to identify barriers to adoption of green 
chemistry; and provision for public input.
    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 that each participating agency submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget, as part of its annual request for 
appropriations, a report that identifies all activities that directly 
relate to the program. Also requires that, as part of the President's 
budget request, each agency list the portion of their budget that is 
dedicated to activities carried out under the program.
    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. Manufacturing Extension Center Green Suppliers Network Grant 
                    Program

    Amends the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act to 
include as an authorized activity in the manufacturing extension 
program the enabling of supply chain manufacturers to reduce the use or 
generation of hazardous substances.

Sec. 5. Undergraduate Education in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

    Creates a grant program at the National Science Foundation to award 
competitive grants to institutions of higher education for the purpose 
of revising their undergraduate chemistry and chemical engineering 
curricula to incorporate green chemistry. Cost sharing in cash is 
required of all participating institutions of higher education. In 
addition to the sums authorized in Section 7, the National Science 
Foundation is authorized from sums already authorized to be 
appropriated 87,000,000, 57,500,000, and $8,000,000 in FY06-FY08, 
respectively.

Sec. 6. Study on Commercialization of Green Chemistry

    Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to enter 
into an agreement with the National Research Council to conduct a study 
of the barriers to commercialization of green chemistry products and 
processes.

Sec. 7. 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.


