    [House Report 110-8]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    110th Congress                                                   Report
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
     1st Session                                                      110-8

    ======================================================================

                METHAMPHETAMINE REMEDIATION RESEARCH ACT OF 2007

                                    _______

    February 7, 2007.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
                  State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                    _______

    Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, from the Committee on Science and Technology,
                            submitted the following

                                  R E P O R T

                            [To accompany H.R. 365]

          [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

        The Committee on Science and Technology, to whom was
    referred the bill (H.R. 365) to provide for a research program
    for remediation of closed methamphetamine production
    laboratories, and for other purposes, having considered the
    same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend
    that the bill do pass.

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page
       I. Purpose of the Bill.............................................2
      II. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................2
     III. Hearing Summary.................................................3
      IV. Committee Actions...............................................4
       V. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................5
      VI. Section-by-Section Analysis (by Title and Section)..............5
     VII. Committee Views.................................................7
    VIII. Cost Estimate...................................................8
      IX. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................8
       X. Compliance With Public Law 104-4...............................10
      XI. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............10
     XII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........10
    XIII. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................10
     XIV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................10
      XV. Congressional Accountability Act...............................10
     XVI. Earmark Identification.........................................10
    XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........10
    XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported..........10

     XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................11
      XX. Minority Views.................................................11
     XXI. Proceedings of the Full Committee Markup.......................12

                             I. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

        The purpose of the bill is to establish a Federal research
    program to support the development of voluntary guidelines to
    help states address the residual consequences of former
    methamphetamine laboratories.

                  II. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

        Methamphetamine, also known as ``meth,'' ``speed,'' or
    ``crank,'' is a powerful stimulant that increases wakefulness
    and physical activity but can also induce symptoms ranging from
    extreme nervousness and hyperactivity to convulsions and
    irreversible brain damage. Chronic use increases drug tolerance
    and deepens dependence, requiring users to take higher doses
    more frequently. This often results in amphetamine psychosis, a
    condition characterized by extreme paranoia and violent
    behavior--a key factor in the death of most addicts. Due to
    high rates of addiction, the use and manufacture of meth
    without prescription or appropriate permission is illegal under
    Federal law.
        The Nation's meth problem originated in California and the
    Southwest, but it has spread considerably, facilitated by the
    proliferation of small labs that produce the drug for personal
    use and local distribution. In 1993, the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA) estimated a total seizure of 218 meth
    labs. In 2005 federal, state and local law enforcement officers
    netted almost 12,500 labs. Between 2003 and 2005 the DEA has
    reported more than 47,000 meth labs incidents. Of this number,
    small meth labs accounted for the majority of all incidents and
    they were found in every state in the U.S.
        Small meth labs can be set up nearly anywhere--fields,
    woods, cars--but roughly two-thirds are found in residential
    settings. A typical lab requires little in the way of
    materials, and the ingredients used to manufacture meth are
    commercially available anywhere in the U.S. The main ingredient
    can be either pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, two chemicals that
    are present in many over-the-counter cold and asthma
    medications, and the other chemicals are available in gasoline,
    drain cleaners, fertilizer and matches. The manufacture process
    requires almost no technical knowledge, and the recipe--as well
    as step-by-step instructions--is freely and easily available on
    the Internet.
        Of the 32 chemicals that can be used in varying
    combinations to make or ``cook'' meth, one-third are extremely
    toxic and many are reactive, flammable, and corrosive. In fact,
    nearly one in five labs is found because of fire or explosion,
    injuring or killing those involved in the manufacture of the
    drug as well as the law enforcement officers and the fire
    fighters who respond. During use and production, meth and other
    harmful chemicals are released into the air and distributed
    throughout the surrounding area. In residential settings, these
    chemicals collect on countertops and floors, and they are
    absorbed into furnishings, carpets and walls. In addition, for
    every pound of meth produced, approximately five to six pounds
    of toxic byproducts remain. This waste is frequently poured
    down drains or spilled onto the ground, where chemicals can
    migrate into drinking wells and leach into the soil.
        Once a meth lab is discovered, responsibility for cleanup
    and remediation typically falls to state and local governments
    and property owners. Although there are different statutes and
    regulations relating to meth labs, cleanup and remediation
    generally occurs in two distinct phases. The first phase is the
    cleanup of gross contaminants, which includes the removal of
    illicit laboratory equipment, chemicals and obviously damaged
    furnishings. During this phase, law enforcement secures the
    site, arranges for the removal of evidence, and oversees the
    cleanup. The second phase is the remediation of harder to
    identify residual contamination. During this phase, property
    owners are notified and responsibility passes to them,
    sometimes with the recommendation to engage a cleanup
    contractor.
        Currently there are no national guidelines or regulations
    on how to clean up and remediate a residential meth lab for
    reoccupation, and states and localities are struggling to
    protect the public and find a solution that is practical for
    property owners. While responses range from doing almost
    nothing to complete demolition, most remediation efforts
    involve one or more of the following measures: ventilation,
    encapsulation or sealing of interior surfaces, removal of
    drywall, decontamination of ventilation or wastewater systems,
    and removal of soil or treatment of contaminated groundwater.
    Depending on the remediation strategy, this can be expensive.
    According to one cleanup contractor, the cost to remediate a
    1,500 square foot single-family dwelling can range from $5,000-
    $15,000, and most insurance companies exclude ``contamination''
    and ``felony activities'' from coverage for private homes and
    some commercial properties.
        As the meth epidemic continues to sweep the Nation, state
    statutes, regulations, local ordinances and guidelines related
    to the cleanup and remediation of meth labs have begun to
    emerge. Some states, particularly those where meth has been a
    big problem for a number of years, have significant statutory
    and regulatory provisions in place. Others have only more
    recently begun to address these concerns. Most, however, have
    become increasingly concerned about the cleanup and remediation
    issues related to meth labs and they have requested assistance
    in dealing with the growing number of small labs in their
    states, particularly those located in residential settings.

                              III. HEARING SUMMARY

        On Thursday, March 3, 2005, the Committee on Science held a
    hearing to examine the clean-up and remediation challenges of
    residential methamphetamine laboratories. The hearing also
    examined H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act
    of 2005, introduced by Ranking Member Bart Gordon. The
    Committee received testimony from Scott Burns, Deputy Director
    for State and Local Affairs at the White House Office of
    National Drug Control Policy. The Committee also heard from Ms.
    Sherry Green, Executive Director, National Alliance for Model
    State Drug Laws; Dr. John Martyny, Associate Professor,
    National Jewish Medical and Research Center; Mr. Henry
    Hamilton, Assistant Commissioner for Public Protection, New
    York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Mr. Gary
    Howard, Sheriff, Tioga County, New York; and Dr. Robert Bell,
    President, Tennessee Technological University.
               Mr. Burns described the extent of the meth
            problem in the U.S., the Federal government's progress
            in reducing the number of meth labs and the findings
            and recommendations of the Administration's ``National
            Synthetic Drugs Action Plan'' regarding methamphetamine
            laboratories.
               Ms. Green described state efforts to address
            the cleanup and remediation of former methamphetamine
            laboratories.
               Dr. Martyny and Dr. Bell endorsed H.R. 798
            and discussed the research needs related to residential
            meth labs.
               Finally, the Committee heard from Sheriff
            Howard and Mr. Hamilton. Sheriff Howard described the
            challenges faced by those who seize these hazardous
            labs and endorsed H.R. 798. Mr. Hamilton described the
            Department's role in identifying and cleaning up
            contaminated sites and described the need for guidance
            to ensure the effective use of state resources and
            uniformity in response to meth labs.
               Testimony, submitted for the record, from
            the National Multi-Housing Council and the National
            Apartment Association described the challenges of small
            meth labs in residential, rental properties and
            expressed support for H.R. 798.

                             IV. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

                                 110TH CONGRESS

        On 10 January 2007, Chairman Bart Gordon, Ranking Member
    Ralph Hall, Representative David Wu and Representative Ken
    Calvert introduced H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation
    Research Act of 2007, a bill to establish a federal program of
    research to support the development of voluntary guidelines on
    the remediation of former methamphetamine laboratories. The
    provisions of H.R. 365 are largely based on H.R. 798, the
    Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2005, introduced in
    the 109th Congress.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ H.R. 798 was approved by the House of Representatives on 13
    December 2005. H.R. 798 was subsequently approved by the Senate on 9
    December 2006 with two modifications: 1) responsibility for the program
    is given to the Administrator of EPA rather than the Assistant
    Administrator at the Office of Research and Development and 2) funding
    is for a total of $5 million for two years, rather than the three year
    authorization in the House-passed bill. H.R. 365 reflects these
    modifications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Full Committee on Science and Technology met on 24
    January 2006 to consider H.R. 365. No amendments were offered.
    The bill was adopted by voice vote. Ranking Member Hall moved
    that the Committee favorably report the bill H.R. 365, with the
    recommendation that the bill do pass and that the staff be
    instructed to prepare the legislative report, and that the
    Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the
    House for consideration. The motion was agreed to by voice
    vote.

                                 109TH CONGRESS

        On February 15, 2005, Ranking Member Bart Gordon,
    Representative Ken Calvert and Chairman Sherwood Boehlert
    introduced H.R. 798, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research
    Act of 2005.
        The Environment, Technology, and Standards Subcommittee met
    on March 15, 2005 to consider H.R. 798. No amendments were
    offered. Mr. Wu moved that the Committee favorably report the
    bill, H.R. 798, to the Full Committee on Science, and that
    staff be instructed to make technical and conforming changes to
    the bill in accordance with the recommendations of the
    Subcommittee. The Motion was agreed to by voice vote.
        The Full Committee on Science met on March 17, 2005 to
    consider the bill. A substitute amendment, which made
    technical, clarifying and conforming changes to the underlying
    bill, was offered by Ranking Member Gordon. The amendment was
    adopted by voice vote. Mr. Gordon moved that the Committee
    favorably report the bill, H.R. 798, as amended, with the
    recommendation that the bill as amended do pass, 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. The motion was agreed to by voice
    vote.

                   V. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

        The bill requires the Administrator at the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a program of research on
    residues from the production of methamphetamines.
        The bill further requires the Administrator, in
    consultation with National Institute for Standards and
    Technology (NIST), to establish voluntary guidelines for
    preliminary site assessment and remediation of methamphetamine
    laboratories.
        The bill also requires the Administrator to convene a
    meeting of relevant state agencies, individuals and
    organizations to share best practices and identify research
    needs.
        The bill requires NIST, in consultation with EPA, to
    support a research program to develop methamphetamine
    laboratory detection technologies with an emphasis on field
    test kits and site detection.
        The bill also requires the EPA to enter into an arrangement
    with the National Academy of Sciences to study the status and
    quality of research on the residual effects of meth labs,
    identify research gaps, and recommend an agenda for the EPA
    research program.
        The bill authorizes $1.75 million for each of the Fiscal
    Years 2007 and 2008 for EPA and authorizes $0.75 million for
    each of the Fiscal Years 2007 through 2008 for NIST.

             VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION)

    Section 1. Short title

        The Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007

    Section 2. Findings

    Section 3. Voluntary guidelines

        Requires the Administrator the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), in consultation with the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST), to establish, within one year,
    voluntary guidelines for the remediation of former
    methamphetamine labs, including guidelines for preliminary site
    assessments and the remediation of residual contaminants.
        Requires that, in developing the guidelines, the
    Administrator consider relevant standards, guidelines and
    requirements in Federal, State and local laws and regulations;
    the varying types and locations of former methamphetamine labs;
    and expected costs.
        The voluntary guidelines are to be used to assist state and
    local governments. Requires the Administrator to work with
    state and local governments and other relevant nonfederal
    agencies and organizations, including through the conference
    required by section 5, to promote and encourage the appropriate
    adoption of the voluntary guidelines.
        Requires the Administrator to periodically update the
    voluntary guidelines, in consultation with states and other
    interested parties, to incorporate research findings and other
    new knowledge.

    Section 4. Research program

        Requires the Administrator to establish a research program
    to support the development and revision of the voluntary
    guidelines in section 3. Requires research to:
               identify methamphetamine laboratory-related
            chemicals of concern,
               assess the types and levels of exposure to
            chemicals of concern that may present a significant
            risk of adverse effects,
               better address adverse effects and minimize
            exposures,
               evaluate the performance of various
            methamphetamine laboratory cleanup and remediation
            techniques, and
               support other priorities identified by the
            Administrator in consultation with states and others.

    Section 5. Technology transfer conference

        Requires the Administrator to convene within 90 days of the
    date of enactment, and every third year thereafter, a
    conference of state agencies and other individuals and
    organizations involved with the impacts of former
    methamphetamine laboratories. The conference should be a forum
    for the Administrator to provide information on the voluntary
    guidelines and the latest findings of the research program, as
    well as an opportunity for the nonfederal participants to
    provide information on their problems, needs and experiences
    with the voluntary guidelines.
        Requires the Administrator within three months of each
    conference to submit a report to Congress that summarizes the
    proceedings of the conference, including any recommendations or
    concern raised and a description of how the Administrator
    intends to respond to them. Requires the report to be made
    widely available to the general public.

    Section 6. Residual effects study

        Requires the Administrator to enter into an arrangement
    with the National Academy of Sciences within six months of the
    date of enactment to study the status and quality of research
    on the residual effects of methamphetamine laboratories.
    Requires the study to identify research gaps and recommend an
    agenda for the research program in section 4. Requires the
    study to focus on the need for research on the impact of
    methamphetamine laboratories on residents of buildings where
    labs are or were located.

    Section 7. Methamphetamine detection research and development program

        Requires the Director of NIST, in consultation with the
    Administrator, to support a research program to develop new
    methamphetamine detection technologies, with emphasis on field
    test kits and site detection and appropriate standard reference
    materials and validation procedures for methamphetamine
    detection testing.

    Section 8. Savings clause

        Provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to
    change the regulatory authority of EPA.

    Section 9. Authorization of appropriations

        Authorizes $1.75 million for each of Fiscal Years 2007 and
    2008 for EPA. Authorizes $0.75 million for each of Fiscal Years
    2007 and 2008 for NIST.

                              VII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

        The program authorized by this Act requires the
    Administrator at EPA, within one year, to develop voluntary
    guidelines on preliminary site assessments and the remediation
    of residual contaminants. The Committee expects the initial
    voluntary guidelines to be largely based on a review of
    existing state guidance. For these initial guidelines, the
    Committee believes the Administrator should evaluate the
    existing science and state guidelines, using resources such as
    the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.
        In developing the guidelines, the Committee expects the EPA
    to take into consideration the estimated cost of carrying out
    any proposed guidelines. With respect to cost, the Committee
    believes the Administrator should remain cognizant of those who
    bear these costs--property owners in particular. The Committee
    is concerned that excessive remediation costs could result in
    the site being left untreated.
        The Committee expects the voluntary guidelines to be an
    evolving document that can offer guidance to states over time
    by incorporating new research findings as necessary. To that
    end, the Committee emphasizes the need to use the research
    program to update and revise the voluntary guidelines,
    particularly as new knowledge and new research findings become
    available.
        The Act requires the establishment of a federal program of
    research to support the development and revision of the
    voluntary guidelines. The Committee recognizes that very little
    funding--federal, state, local or private--is being directed at
    the national problem of the remediation of former
    methamphetamine labs. The Committee is pleased that the
    Administration has recognized this problem as acknowledged in
    the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Synthetic Drug
    Control Strategy: A Focus on Methamphetamine and Prescription
    Drug Abuse. The Synthetic Drug Control Strategy assigns the EPA
    responsibility for developing and establishing methamphetamine
    laboratory remediation guidelines. However, the EPA does not
    intend to publish guidelines identifying best practices for the
    remediation of former meth labs until January 2008 nor release
    draft Federal health-based guidelines for remediation until
    January 2011. To date, the EPA has allocated no specific
    funding for any of these activities. The Committee notes that
    the Drug Enforcement Agency has reported more than 47,000
    methamphetamine lab incidents between 2003-2005. Therefore, the
    Committee believes that the Administration's current efforts
    are not appropriate in scope in terms of the magnitude and
    urgency of the problem. The Committee expects EPA to move
    forward rapidly with the research program.
        The Committee also would like to note that Drug Enforcement
    Agency's (DEA), ``National Clandestine Laboratory Register,''
    is a useful tool in providing an estimate of the general scope
    of the meth lab problem. However, the Committee is concerned
    that the DEA does not have procedures in place to update its
    website once a residence has been cleaned in accordance with
    local regulations. The Committee urges the DEA to develop a set
    of transparent procedures for both listing and de-listing a
    residence on the ``National Clandestine Laboratory Register.''
        The Act requires the Administrator to convene a Technology
    Transfer Conference. The Committee believes the Conference will
    provide a national forum to share information. Initially, it
    will provide an opportunity for stakeholders, including states
    and local governments which have been trying to address the
    meth issue for years, to inform the drafting of voluntary
    guidelines. Future Conference meetings should provide a forum
    to share information on the implementation of the guidelines,
    disseminate new knowledge and research findings, and to update
    the research agenda. The Committee expects the Conference to
    include those involved in activities related to the impacts of
    former meth labs, including local law enforcement and nonprofit
    organizations like the National Jewish Medical and Research
    Center and the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.

                              VIII. 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).
        H.R. 365 does not contain new budget authority, credit
    authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming
    that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R.
    365 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as
    described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the
    bill, which is contained in section X of this report.

                 IX. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

                                                      January 25, 2007.
    Hon. Bart Gordon,
    Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology,
    House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
    prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 365, the
    Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007.
        If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
    pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
    Mehlman.
                Sincerely,
                                               Peter R. Orszag,
                                                              Director.
        Enclosure.

    H.R. 365--Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007

        Summary: H.R. 365 would establish a new research program
    for the cleanup of closed laboratories that have been used to
    produce methamphetamine. This legislation would authorize the
    appropriation of $1.7 million for the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) and $750,000 for the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST) for each of fiscal years 2007
    and 2008 to support such a program. EPA and NIST would
    establish guidelines on assessing sites and cleaning up
    contaminants, hold a conference to discuss research and
    guidelines with interested parties, and support research for
    the development of the guidelines and new detection
    technologies. The bill also would require the National Academy
    of Sciences to study the residual effects of methamphetamine
    laboratories on the environment.
        CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 365 would cost about
    $5 million over the 2007-2009 period, assuming appropriation of
    the authorized amounts. Enacting H.R. 365 would not affect
    direct spending or receipts.
        H.R. 365 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
    mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA);
    any costs to state, local, or tribal governments would be
    incurred voluntarily.
        Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
    budgetary impact of H.R. 365 is shown in the following table.
    The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300
    (natural resources and environment). For this estimate, CBO
    assumes that the bill will be enacted in fiscal year 2007 and
    that the amounts authorized by the bill will be appropriated
    for each fiscal year. Estimated outlays are based on historical
    spending patterns for similar programs.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       2007    2008    2009    2010    2011    2012
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

    EPA Research Program:
        Authorization Level.........................................       2       2       0       0       0       0
        Estimated Outlays...........................................       1       2       *       0       0       0
    NTIS Research Program:
        Authorization Level.........................................       1       1       0       0       0       0
        Estimated Outlays...........................................       1       1       0       0       0       0
    Total Changes:
        Authorization Level.........................................       3       3       0       0       0       0
        Estimated Outlays...........................................       2       3       *       0       0      0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--* = less than $500,000.

        Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 365
    contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
    defined in UMRA. State, local, and tribal governments would be
    able to adopt voluntary guidelines developed by EPA for the
    remediation of former methamphetamine laboratories. Any costs
    would be incurred voluntarily.
        Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman.
    Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
    Branum. Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
        Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
    Director for Budget Analysis.

                      X. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4

        H.R. 365 contains no unfunded mandates.

              XI. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

           XII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

        Pursuant to clause (3)(c) of House rule XIII, the goals of
    H.R. 365 are to assist state and local governments in
    responding to the cleanup of residential meth labs through the
    development of voluntary guidelines; to support a program of
    research at the EPA and NIST to build a base of knowledge on
    the health and environmental concerns of meth labs and to
    develop new meth detection technologies respectively; to
    convene a conference of stakeholders to share information; and
    to arrange for a study of residual effects of meth labs by the
    National Academy of Sciences.

                    XIII. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

        Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
    States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 365.

                   XIV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

        H.R. 365 does not establish nor authorize the establishment
    of any advisory committee.

                      XV. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

        The Committee finds that H.R. 365 does not relate to the
    terms and conditions of employment or access to public services
    or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of
    the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).

                          XVI. EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

        H.R. 365 does not contain any congressional earmarks,
    limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in
    clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.

          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

        None.

                         XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

        On January 24, 2007, the Committee on Science and
    Technology favorably reported the Methamphetamine Remediation
    report Act, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment.

                               XX. MINORITY VIEWS

        None.

          XXI: PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP ON H.R. 365,
                 METHAMPHETAMINE MEDIATION RESEARCH ACT OF 2007

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2007

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

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room
    2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Chairman Gordon. The Committee on Science and Technology
    will be in order. I think that the best way to try to get good
    attendance is to start on time, and so hopefully, we are going
    to set that precedent.
        Let me--I want to start with a couple of announcements. For
    26 years, Ralph Hall has been coming in this north door, both
    as a Democrat and as a Republican, and so what we decided to do
    was switch sides so Ralph would finally be coming in the--after
    12 years, coming in the right door. So we hope that makes it
    easy for you, Ralph.
        Mr. Hall. They love me.
        Chairman Gordon. Well, there will always be room. There
    will always be room.
        Let me say, also, that, for everyone here, this is probably
    your second or maybe your, even third, committee. And so, you
    know, we have lots of pulls on our time. We really want to make
    this committee to be a committee that is going to be
    interesting for you and important for our country. And so we
    welcome all of your participation.
        Let me give you a little bit of an idea of what we are
    going to be doing shortly. Next week, we are going to be having
    a bill on the--in this committee, E.85. It will be concerning
    low-sulfur fuel. Your staff has been noticed about this. Very
    soon now, the President will be sending up his budget, and so
    we are going to have a lot to do, as we always do, in reviewing
    those budgets. As we know, NASA has about $20 billion worth of
    assignments and $17 billion in the budget. That is pretty much
    the same for NIST and many of our other things, so we are going
    to have to work together to look through that.
        The competitiveness agenda is going to be very important
    for our country. I think, hopefully, you all remember a couple
    of years ago, Sherry Boehlert and myself, as well as Lamar
    Alexander and Jeff Dingumum asked the National Academies to do
    a review on competitiveness of America in the 21st century.
    Their conclusion was that we are in a race for competition and
    that we are losing. They made some recommendations. It is
    ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' This is really going to
    be our handbook for competitiveness for the first few weeks
    here. Norm Augustine, who--the ones that were on the Committee
    last time, remember, testified. We have got him scheduled. He
    will be back in March to testify as well as Craig Barrett. Norm
    was the former CEO of Lockheed Martin, Marietta. And Craig
    Barrett is the CEO of Intel. So that is going to be a very
    interesting hearing. And we will be working together on that.
    Roscoe Bartlett has already told me that he wants to be very
    involved in the ARPA-E part of that. I won't take everybody's
    time today to go through it, but we--that is going to be an
    important part of our agenda.
        And I hope at the end of the year that Democrats and
    Republicans can both look back on this year and look on the
    Science Committee and say that we were the Committee of good
    ideas and consensus. And when I say ``good ideas,'' I mean
    Democratic ideas and Republican ideas, and I really do hope
    that we can bring consensus on much of this legislation.
        Let me also say that I have had the--you know, when I was
    in the minority here, I would frequently have what I thought
    was good legislation. A lot of times we couldn't get it heard
    or couldn't get it--a hearing or even a vote. That is not going
    to be the case. And if Ralph tells me that even a blind
    squirrel occasionally gets an acorn, and so if Dana Rohrabacher
    happens to come up on a good idea every now and then, Dana is
    going to get his shot just like everyone else.
        Now let me also, again--you know, we might as well
    recognize, you know, the evident, and that is that--I mean, I
    have served in the minority, and I have served in the majority,
    and I know that for some of you, particularly that hadn't been
    in the minority, it is going to be a little more difficult. I
    think in some of the committees, you are going to become
    frustrated. There will be some Democratic arrogance and
    arbitrariness, I hope no more than we want to see, but that is
    inevitable. It is going to happen. And when it does, whether it
    is two years or 20 years, the Democrats will lose the majority,
    because that is just the way this cycle goes. And I hope that
    if you have frustration in other committees, that you can find
    the Science Committee as a committee where you can come, really
    bring your good ideas, get something done, and have an
    opportunity to fill some--you know, a vehicle for the passion
    that you might have for public policy. That is what we want to
    have. And again, at the end of the day, my objective is that
    when things do shift, whether it is 20 years or two years, that
    if you will treat us the way that we would have treated you
    during that period, we will have no complaints.
        Now pursuant to notice, the Committee on the Science and
    Technology meets to organize for the 110th Congress.
    Specifically, the Committee will--or must ratify the
    Subcommittee Chairs, the Subcommittee Ranking Minority Members,
    the Subcommittee membership. Further, we intend to adopt the
    rules of the Committee for the 110th Congress. After the
    organizational meeting and pursuant to notice, the Committee
    will meet to consider the following measures, which will be
    after our--after the markup today, and that is H.R. 365, the
    Methamphetamine Remediation and Research Act of 2007, H.Res.
    59, Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Engineers
    Week, and H.Con.Res. 34, Honoring the life of Percy Lavon
    Julian.
        As is our tradition on this committee, I ask unanimous
    consent for authority to recess the Committee at any point
    during consideration of these matters, and without objection,
    it is so ordered.
        We, first, take up the Committee rules. The Committee rules
    you have before you have been circulated to each of your
    offices with explanations and with the minor changes from the
    Science Committee rules of the 109th Congress. They are very
    similar to those rules. Most of the changes were made to bring
    our rules into greater conformity with current House rules. I
    would like to highlight and explain why we have made a few
    particular changes. The Committee subpoena rule has been
    changed, and I will speak more about that when we consider an
    amendment.
        In addition to those changes, two rule changes have been
    made, which affect the ability of the Chair to recess the
    Committee. Rule 1-J allows the Chairman to recess the Committee
    at any point. This incorporates the recess language Mr.
    Boehlert asked unanimous consent for at the beginning of every
    Committee meeting, and which we just did the same just a moment
    ago. Since this has become the Committee practice, I feel that
    it will only make sense to incorporate the provision into the
    rules. Rule 1-J covers all Committee proceedings up to the
    point where a record vote is ordered on the question of
    approving a measure. The new Committee Rule 2-T allows the
    Chairman to pursue--postpone proceedings after the record vote
    is ordered. There are limitations on this postponement power.
    First of all, once the roll call has begun, the Chairman cannot
    suspend the vote. Second for all--second of all, when the
    Committee meets after the postponement under this rule, the
    measure is open back up for debate. This prevents the rolling
    and stacking of bills. Committee Rule 2-T is almost verbatim
    from the House rules. It--I note that it is relevant. The House
    Rule is XI2(h)(4)(A) was created by the Republican majority in
    the 108th Congress, and I simply place the Republican-created
    House rule into the Committee rule.
        Now what does all of this mean? Let me tell you what the
    practical impact is here. If we had a situation where there
    were twice as many Republicans as Democrats here for a vote on
    some kind of amendment, and if the majority was afraid that we
    were going to lose that amendment and we felt strongly about
    it, we have two options. One option would be to keep the vote
    open for 20 minutes, for two hours, for two days, you know,
    until we went out and got all of our folks and brought them
    back in. As Ralph pointed out, we were talking about this the
    other day, that is really not a good way to do it, because you
    encourage folks not to attend meetings. The other way to
    accomplish it is for the Chairman to be able to adjourn, and
    then we talk about it, hopefully work out our differences, come
    back the next day or two hours later and move forward. But I--
    again, once the vote starts, you can't stop the vote, but this
    just allows the Chairman to say, ``Whoa. Let us talk about
    this, and we will start again.'' That is direct--the impact.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
        I realize how busy everyone is, and I will be brief in my remarks
    regarding H.R. 365.
        Many of our committee Members will remember this bill from the
    109th Congress, when it passed through the Committee and House
    unanimously. This bill also passed the Senate, with two minor changes
    in the last hours of the 109th Congress. However, we ran out of time to
    re-pass the legislation in the House.
        Unfortunately, the need for this legislation is just as strong
    today as when I introduced it a year and a half ago. We have a terrible
    problem with methamphetamine in Tennessee, and one side effect of the
    meth epidemic is the chemical waste dump left behind by meth cooks.
        This bill originated from a roundtable discussion in my district
    where I asked local officials about gaps in the fight against
    methamphetamine. Apart from additional funding for existing programs,
    they all agreed that they needed help in cleaning up former meth sites.
    Following that roundtable and a Committee hearing on the issue, we
    developed this legislation on a bipartisan basis.
        H.R. 365 focuses on the clean-up needs for former meth labs--a
    tremendous problem facing communities across the country. The Drug
    Enforcement Agency reported more than 12,500 domestic meth lab seizures
    in 2005 alone. These meth labs, most often found in residential
    settings, are contaminated not only with methamphetamine, but also with
    other toxic residues associated the production of meth.
        These chemical residues pollute the inside of a residence and also
    threaten septic and water systems. The meth epidemic has not only
    devastated families, it has also left thousands of potentially toxic
    waste dumps spread across the country.
        Right now there are unsuspecting families living in homes that were
    once illegal meth labs. Dangerous and hidden toxic substances in these
    sites threaten the health of these families--with children being the
    most vulnerable to the devastating, long-term effects of exposure.
        H.R. 365 addresses the specific problem of determining the level of
    clean-up required to ensure that a former meth lab is safe for
    occupation. I want to stress that H.R. 365 is not a federal mandate.
    Rather, it requires the EPA to develop model, voluntary, health-based,
    clean-up guidelines for use by states and localities if they desire.
        In addition, H.R. 365 authorizes NIST to initiate a research
    program to develop meth detection equipment for field use. This will
    help law enforcement agents detect active meth labs faster and assist
    in measuring levels of contamination in former meth labs. Finally, H.R.
    365 requires a study by the National Academy of Sciences on the long-
    term health impact of exposure to meth labs on children and first-
    responders.
        Specifically H.R. 365:

              requires EPA, in consultation with NIST and working
            with states and local authorities, to establish voluntary
            clean-up guidelines for former meth labs;

              establishes an EPA research program, in consultation
            with states and others, to continuously improve the guidelines;

              requires EPA to establish a technology conference to
            disseminate the information about the guidelines and to provide
            a forum for non-federal participants to inform EPA about their
            problems, needs and experiences with the voluntary guidelines;

              tasks the National Academy of Sciences to study the
            residual effects of methamphetamine labs with a particular
            emphasis on children and first responders;

              requires NIST to support a research program to
            develop new meth detection technologies with an emphasis on
            field kits;

              ensures that the legislation does not override any
            existing EPA regulatory authorities;

              and authorizes a total $5.0 million for EPA and NIST
            to carry out these activities.

        The National Association of Counties has identified the meth
    epidemic as one of the most devastating problems facing communities
    across the country.
        In the last Congress this bill was endorsed by:

              The National Association of Counties;

              The National Sheriff's Association;

              The Fraternal Order of Police;

              The National Narcotic Officers' Associations'
            Coalition;

              The National Association of Realtors;

              The National Multi-housing Council; and

              The National Apartment Association.

        H.R. 365 is not a complete solution to the methamphetamine
    epidemic. Unfortunately, there will always be people who decide to harm
    themselves by using and manufacturing dangerous drugs such as meth.
    H.R. 365 aims to protect innocent people whose lives are endangered by
    these illegal activities.
        I want to thank Ranking Member Hall, Rep. Wu and Rep. Calvert for
    working with me on this legislation in the last Congress and for
    sponsoring this legislation for re-introduction in the 110th Congress.
        We will also consider two other important bills today which will
    raise the awareness of the importance of science and engineering.
        Rep. Lipinski has introduced, H.Res. 59, Supporting the Goals and
    Ideals of National Engineers Week. National Engineers Week, February
    18-24, raises public awareness of the important and positive
    contributions made by engineers to our quality of life.
        In addition, Rep. Johnson has introduced H.Con.Res. 34, Honoring
    the Life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneering African-American chemist.
    A member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1973, he holds over
    100 patents in areas as wide-ranging as foam fire retardants and
    treatment for glaucoma.
        The authors of these bills will have more to say about them as we
    consider them today. We spend a lot of time talking about improving K-
    12 math and science education and encouraging our children to enter
    science and engineering fields to improve our economic competitiveness.
    These two bills go far toward raising public awareness about the types
    of people and the important job opportunities in these fields.
        I would urge you to support these three bills.

        Chairman Gordon. Now I recognize Mr. Hall for five minutes
    to present his remarks.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is an honor to be
    here to serve with you on this very important bipartisan
    Committee. And we have worked together in both parties in
    both--in the majority and the minority, so we don't really have
    any problem with the rule that you have just talked about
    there, because apparently you don't intend to stack the rules.
    You are going to do them one at a time. And if you survey the
    crowd and you are outvoted two to one or three to two or 19 to
    18, you would have the right to put it off. And you can do
    that. And that is what this rule--it simply goes into the rules
    rather than you having to make that--ask that request at the
    beginning of the session. So I don't--if any of our other
    people here have any objection to that, why, we will be glad to
    hear from them.
        A lot of our nation's most pressing challenges are related
    to the jurisdiction of this committee, so it is important that
    we work together, and we have always done that. I expect that
    we will do it in the future. Scientific research and
    technological innovation created an unparalleled economy,
    unparalleled, I guess, in the world. Future advancements are
    going to launch new industries, sustain economic growth, and
    maintain America's competitiveness in the global economy, and I
    really look forward to working with you and all of the Members
    in this committee to achieve these goals for all Americans. And
    on the--this rule that you have asked for, I--and I noticed
    that you refer to it as a Republican-created House Rule, and as
    long as you use the Republican-created House Rules, we are
    going to have very little problems. But the--this, you don't
    intend to stack them and have one part of a bill or an
    amendment debated and then roll it and then have another debate
    and then roll it and then come back to a very confused
    situation. You are going to do them one at a time.
        All right. I would like to yield some time to anyone else
    on this side of the aisle that has any problem with that, and I
    think we have discussed it today before, and we don't,
    apparently, have any problem with that. We look forward to
    working our goals together.
        This has, historically, been a committee where Republicans
    and Democrats work together, and I hope we can do that this
    year. I see no reason why we can't.
        I yield back my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here to serve with
    you on this important, bipartisan committee. As you know, some of our
    nation's most pressing challenges are related to the jurisdiction of
    this committee, and I look forward to working with you to find
    innovative solutions.
        Our nation's future depends on the actions we take today. We have
    always been a country of innovators, and we must continue to foster
    that growth well into the future. Our businesses are the most
    competitive in the world, and we must continue to encourage their
    success. We must also prepare the next generation of Americans for the
    challenges of tomorrow so that we can continue to lead the world.
        One of our nation's greatest challenges is energy. All of us want
    America to become more energy independent. To do that, we must address
    both short- and long-term solutions that build on the resources America
    has, and advance research and development in alternative energy
    resources for the future. I look forward to working with my colleagues
    on this committee to meet that challenge.
        So many of the advances we enjoy today were made possible through
    our space exploration programs. If we are to continue to set the
    standard for the world to follow, we must remain committed to our space
    agenda. Other nations will continue to explore space, and we must
    ensure that we are there to protect our interests and advance our
    goals.
        Scientific research and technological innovation created an economy
    unparalleled in the world. Future advancements will launch new
    industries, sustain economic growth, and maintain America's
    competitiveness in the global economy. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to
    working with you and all Members of this committee to achieve these
    goals for all Americans.

        Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
        As I have mentioned before, my grandfather used to tell me
    that, obviously, there were a lot of Tennesseans at the Alamo
    and that many Tennesseans helped to populate Texas. And he
    would tell me that every time the Grand Jury met in Tennessee,
    the population of Texas increased. And some of those were my
    relatives, I am sure, so we are looking forward to working with
    Cousin Ralph and the other Members of the Texas minority here.
        Mr. Hall. Talking about population increase, you mentioned
    Mr. Rohrabacher. You know, you are producing babies one at a
    time. He produces them three at a time, so I don't think we
    have any competition there.
        Chairman Gordon. The first amendment on the roster is an
    amendment offered by the Chair. The amendment is at the desk,
    and the Clerk will report the amendment.
        The Clerk. Amendment to Committee Rules, Amendment Rule 1-
    C----
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with
    the reading, and without objection----
        Mr. Neugebauer. Objection.
        Chairman Gordon. And what is your objection?
        Mr. Neugebauer. You----
        Chairman Gordon. Oh, okay. Certainly.
        The Clerk. Amendment to Committee Rules. Amendment Rule 1-C
    by substituting the following language: Power to sit and act,
    subpoena power. C-1, notwithstanding paragraph 2. A subpoena
    may be authorized and issued in the conduct of investigation or
    series of investigations or activities to inquire non-
    attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production
    of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and
    documents as deemed necessary. Only when authorized by majority
    vote of the Full Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may be,
    a majority of the Committee or Subcommittee being present.
    Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the Chairman of
    the Full Committee or by any Member designated by the Chairman.
    [XI2(m)]. The Chairman of the Full Committee, after
    consultation with the Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, or if the Ranking Member cannot be reached, the
    Ranking Minority Member of the relevant subcommittee may
    authorize and issue such subpoenas as described in paragraph 1
    during any period in which the House has adjourned for a period
    longer than seven days. [XI2(m)(3)(A)(i)] A subpoena duces
    tecum may specify terms of returned other than at meeting or at
    hearing of the Committee.
        Chairman Gordon. I now yield myself five minutes to explain
    the amendment.
        For the 110th Congress, the Committee on Rules on the
    issuance of subpoenas has changed in two ways. First, the
    subcommittees may now authorize the issuance of subpoenas.
    Second, during extended adjournments, the Chairman now has the
    authority to issue subpoenas after consultation with the
    minority. These rules were changed to accommodate oversight,
    which occur at subcommittees, and to prevent oversight from
    being stalled during extended adjournments. I would like to
    point out that in relation to other House Committees, our
    Subpoena Rule is very similar to the Energy and Commerce
    Subcommittee's Rule from the 109th Congress. The only
    difference is that the recess subpoenas may be issued by the
    Chairman only after seven days of a recess, opposed to three
    days recess contained in Energy and Commerce.
        Now let me be more practical with this. As we looked over
    our rules, I asked our counsel to look at the rules of the
    House as well as the other committees and try to, you know, get
    best practices.
        As we pointed out, at the Energy and Commerce Committee,
    for emergencies, they have the opportunity to have subpoenas
    during a period of recess. They do it three days, in other
    words, a long weekend. That, to me, is not an emergency. This
    is a situation where if you had a long August recess or in
    November or something of this nature.
        And let me--and the reason that we are doing the
    subcommittees, and this was brought up--and this is really the
    reason for the manager's amendment today, is we are going to do
    more at the subcommittee level than in the Committee. In the
    past, most everything was done at the Full Committee. We hope
    our subcommittees can work on their own. And our Democratic
    Caucus, the Subcommittees Chairs said, ``Well, if we are going
    to be doing this work, we would like also to be able to have
    the subpoena power.'' The bottom line is this: no subpoena can
    come out of this committee that is not signed by the Chairman.
    I do not want the Science Committee to be thought of as the
    committee of witch hunts. I want it to be the committee, as I
    said, of good ideas and consensus. There will be some oversight
    this year. There may be--necessary for subpoenas. All of you
    were here, and we saw the multi-billion dollar waste in NPOESS.
    When we see waste in the Federal Government, it means that
    there is some other good cause that can't be done. On my watch,
    and I hope your watch, you don't want to see another NPOESS. So
    there will be oversight. This is not a trick to try to develop
    some type of an extensive, again, investigation oversight, but
    we will do our job, and that is what we are called upon to do.
        With that, I yield back my time.
        Does any other Member wish to be recognized?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I would like to----
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Hall. Yes. As the Chairman and Members of the Committee
    know, our committee has always been a bipartisan committee. It
    seeks consensus rather than confrontation. And you have stated
    that from the 110th Congress, the Committee rules on the
    issuance of subpoenas has changed in two ways. It has changed
    from the present--you changed from the present to now. It is
    not correct, actually, because now it requires concurrence, not
    just a consultation. And you are changing that to where it is
    only consultation.
        I have a hard time believing that anything could come up
    where you would want someone to come before this committee and
    they would refuse this committee that you wouldn't have the
    right to resort to the subpoena. However, it seems to me it
    would be better and more amiable to have a consultation, and
    both of us agree. I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't
    agree, if the Chairman wants them before us, because you are
    acting for the majority. You have the right to have a vote on
    it, and we know how that vote would come out. And I want to
    work with you.
        It seems to me that if you are going to make that change,
    that you should have a consultation, and there will be times
    when you can't find me or I am not available for consultation,
    and I think we agreed on that, that it would--you could consult
    with the Ranking Member of the Committee effected, and I
    thought we said and one, or you would have two that you would
    consult with there, rather than me, if you can't get with me. I
    am not adamant about that, but I thought that is what we agreed
    to yesterday when we talked about it. It required sometimes
    talking to the Ranking Member of the subcommittee affected is
    well carried, but I thought we agreed that it would take two
    Members of the ranking committees to--for the consultation, if
    consultation is all there is going to be.
        But I would like to hear from some other Members on this
    side as to what their idea about consultation rather than
    confrontation.
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, and then we
    will provide----
        Mr. Hall. I do yield.
        Chairman Gordon.--five minutes for anyone who would like to
    speak.
        If there wasn't--we did talk about this. If there was a
    misunderstanding, I want to apologize. My understanding of our
    conversation was that if you were not available, you wanted to
    be able to have consultation with another Member, and what we
    tried to do was say that any of the Subcommittee Ranking
    Members then could be contacted for consultation. It was my--
    did I have a misunderstanding of what you wanted?
        Mr. Hall. It is--wasn't an important misunderstanding,
    because almost any Member that is ranking has about as much
    ability to consult with you as I would have. I will--it was my
    recollection that we were going to have any two Members if you
    couldn't reach the Minority Ranking Member, but I waive that. I
    don't have any problem with that, because any one of the
    Members, who are ranking, have the same ability and represent
    the same number of people that I do and would have as good an
    idea as to the agreement with you on the subpoena as I would
    have. If--with the--you know, with the knowledge that you have
    the votes to change the rule, I would like to hear from some
    Members, and I will yield part of my time to anybody on this
    side who wants to have some suggestion about it or something to
    say.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. Yes. The gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And number one, the--I look forward to working with you on
    this committee, and I appreciate your remarks about working in
    a bipartisan way and in a consensus-building way. And I also
    appreciate the fact that you are going to put some emphasis on
    oversight, because I believe that is certainly one of the
    responsibilities of this committee.
        But I view the subpoena power to be a very powerful piece
    of what this committee can do. And when we subpoena someone to
    come here, most of the time, it means that they are not coming
    here on their own volition, in many cases. And I think, in that
    sense of working together and being in a consensus-building
    position on this committee, I think that ought to require
    somewhat of an agreement on both sides that this is--that we
    are all kind of headed in that direction that there is a
    consensus that, yes, this is an area of oversight, yes, we are
    concerned about that. And just to give you the individual
    authority for subpoena doesn't seem much consensus-building. It
    seems more autocratic to me. and I know that--I am not
    questioning that the--or implying that the Chairman would be
    autocratic, but I think if we are truly going to sit down as a
    team and work together, that we ought to do that in such a way
    that if, for some reason, the Chairman and the Ranking Member
    cannot agree that that subpoena should be issued, then I think
    this body then ought to have the right----
        Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Yeah. I am just about finished. Yes. So
    with that--and I--so I will yield back to the gentleman.
        Mr. Hall. Along with your statement there, it is my
    understanding if we are kind of patterned after Energy and
    Commerce and we are both on the same committees, and have been
    for some 18 or 20 years, that Energy and Commerce rule is not
    just a rule that requires you to discuss it with them, but
    requires an agreement. That is my understanding is the practice
    that John Dingell and Joe Barton agreed that they would both
    have to agree. I may be wrong on that. If I am right, please
    tell me.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Hall. Sure.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well, I am not on the Energy and Commerce,
    but I think what we are discussing here is the rules of this
    committee, and I look across the way here, and I see reasonable
    people. But I think everybody here is thoughtful, has the good
    insight and ideas, and I just think it makes sense. I can't
    think of a situation where we would not be heading in a
    direction of oversight that we wouldn't concur that there would
    be--and if there are, I think then we ought to discuss that.
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield----
        Mr. Neugebauer. I would.
        Chairman Gordon. Let me bring some clarification. First of
    all, the--it takes a majority of a Committee vote to have a
    subpoena. That is the practice, that you--there has to be a
    majority vote. The only time this exceptional situation would
    come into play would be when we were in an extended recess. And
    quite frankly, this is a belt-and-suspenders sorts of--sort of
    thing. It was--again, it was--it is common practice in other
    committees, and as our staff reviewed things, it seemed to be
    the right thing to do. I agree with you. I cannot imagine when
    this would occur. By agreement, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Tauzin, I
    think, had a gentlemen's agreement to do it with approval and
    consultation. However, you know, you never know. Ralph could
    very well decide to go--to train for the Olympics or to get hit
    by a bus, and there could be different circumstances. We think
    this is fair and reasonable. We do not expect it to be used,
    but we are certainly prepared to live by it if there is a
    change in the majority.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Would the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Gordon. Certainly.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Well--and I understand that, if we are in
    session. But what I think the piece of it that best concerned
    me the most is when would we issue a subpoena when we are in
    recess that would cause such a necessity? Because I think it is
    more important in the recess pieces, we are not going to get a
    vote on it, that we at least have one vote on it, that the
    Ranking Member or his designee would have an opportunity to
    sign off with you, because otherwise, in the absence, if Ralph
    is training for the Olympics, that basically that puts all of
    the subpoena authority in one person. And I feel very strongly
    that that is a very strong authority and should come with, I
    think, some mutual consent from our side.
        Chairman Gordon. As I say, this is a belts-and-suspenders.
    Most all committees have this authority. I don't know that any
    of them have used them. I hope that we are not going to use it.
    But here would be the scenario. You don't just issue a subpoena
    and the next day the material comes in. you have--there is a
    lag time, and this basically would be something in August, so
    if we had an issue that was dragging out, dragging out,
    dragging out, we went into August recess, then, again--and
    again, this is--we are--I think we are talking about getting
    hit by a meteor here, but it would give you time to get the
    subpoena out and the process working. If somebody really did
    want to rope-a-dope you, then you would wait until you came
    back in after the August recess, and by the time you went
    through all of the legal process, then we could be adjourned
    then for November. Again, this is--we have nothing specific in
    mind planned. This is just bringing our rules in compliance,
    and even more lax, because other committees have a three-day.
    You know, long weekends are not--that is not, you know, an
    emergency or anything. And I don't expect it. This is just
    compliance with other committees, and again, we stand by living
    by it if things change.
        Ms. Biggert. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentlelady from Illinois is recognized
    for five minutes.
        Ms. Biggert. I--well, congratulations, and I think we all
    look forward to working with you this year.
        As to the amendment, I think that the subpoena power seems
    to strike a----
        Chairman Gordon. Yeah.
        Ms. Biggert.--lightning rod. And I have some concerns about
    the--not having concurrence of the Ranking Member or his
    designee in here. I think that if you know, even in August, you
    know, you can plan ahead for July to talk about issuing
    subpoenas. I can't think of the time to do it. What bothers me
    about it, and you brought up the fact that we are not going to
    have witch hunts. I think having the concurrence of the Ranking
    Member really gives you protection in why the subpoena would be
    issued during an extended recess. So I would urge you to
    reconsider this.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Gordon. Any other Member would like to--yes, my
    friend from Alabama is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Bonner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too,
    congratulate you on your new gavel.
        I would just ask a question. Based on the years that you
    were the Ranking Member and worked with Chairman Boehlert,
    whose portrait we now look at, was there anything during that
    time--usually you change rules because something didn't work,
    and admittedly, we can all agree that we could have done a
    better job of oversight in Congress under the previous
    majority, but was there any time, during your time as Ranking
    Member, that made you feel that the system on issuing subpoenas
    was not working that would result in this proposal?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Would the gentleman yield?
        Chairman Gordon. You know, if I might, let me--and I hope I
    am within the proper parliamentary process, and I ask my
    Democratic colleagues to give me indulgence.
        I would like to ask unanimous consent that this be amended
    to require concurrence rather than the consultation.
        Mr. Rothman. I object.
        Chairman Gordon. All right. Who--Mr. Rothman. Mr. Rothman
    is recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Rothman. What a way to start.
        My colleagues, we, in Congress, have a responsibility to
    not only do our own work but oversee the actions of the other
    branches of government as they affect our work and the people
    of the United States. It is not without precedent in the
    history of our country that respective Democrat and Republican
    administrations have put pressure on their respective
    majorities in the Congress to avoid those congressional
    responsibilities. And it has been difficult, as I have read in
    my history, for the respective Democrat and Republican
    majorities on occasion to--or minorities to resist the
    entreaties of the White House. And I believe that the work of
    the Congress has suffered in those instances.
        There is a remedy if the majority on this committee were to
    abuse its subpoena power. They would be thrown out of office
    within--in the next election cycle. And weighing the benefits
    and the costs of the potential of abuse of that use of majority
    power versus the cost of obstruction by a minority, who was
    simply trying to be loyal and faithful to an administration
    they respected, I think, especially in light of the history of
    the last six years, we ought to give this new system a try.
    Again, the people will have their say as to whether the present
    majority has abused its power, but we know that this
    administration has used its persuasive powers in the last six
    years to prevent us from doing our job. And many of us on this
    side of the aisle want to make sure that that doesn't happen
    while we are in the majority.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield back. We
    don't have unanimous consent, but let me give you this
    assurance that I will consult and ask for approval from the
    Ranking Member before any subpoenas are issued.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. And if----
        Mr. Rothman. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. If the Ranking Member is not available, as
    we had discussed earlier, then I will seek out a subcommittee
    Ranking Member to get that approval.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from Texas.
        Mr. Neugebauer. And that amendment would be to strike
    ``after consultation'' and insert ``with written consent of the
    Ranking Member''?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman asked for--did the gentleman
    ask for unanimous consent?
        Mr. Neugebauer. No, I just--I am making a motion to--for--
    to amend your amendment.
        Chairman Gordon. Is there a discussion on the second
    amendment?
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, as Ranking, I don't require that to
    be in writing. I don't--I am not asking for the amendment that
    the gentleman from Texas is asking for.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Hall. I don't think it needs to be.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from California is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I take the Chairman's commitment to heart.
    I think this is a totally needless amendment, and I appreciate
    the Chairman's willingness to work with us right off the bat
    and repose this amendment.
        Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Has the amendment been filed at the desk,
    Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. Has the Clerk--has the amendment been
    filed at the desk?
        The Clerk. No, we do not have an amendment.
        Chairman Gordon. And I will ask our counsel. Is an
    amendment in order?
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from California is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. I have dealt with the Chairman over the
    years, and I know him to be a man of his word, and I take you
    at your word that you will consult with either the Ranking
    Member or the ranking committee that has jurisdiction on the
    issue that----
        Chairman Gordon. More than consult. It will be more than
    consult.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. And require an agreement. So I take your
    word on that, sir, and I--you know, we have got a lot of
    attorneys on this committee, you know, and interesting enough,
    we don't deal a lot in legal affairs, but today, it seems that
    we are. But I would hope we can move on. Thank you.
        Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey.
        Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I--it seems obvious
    to me and very clear that the Chairman and the Ranking Member
    have come to an agreement on this issue. I understand the
    concern of the gentleman from Texas in regard to his amendment,
    but as the Ranking Member has stated, I think it--sort of the
    agreement that the Chairman has reached with the Ranking Member
    verbally has made that amendment a moot point, and I would
    certainly recommend that we move on. And I commend the Chairman
    for his willingness to cooperate in that regard.
        Mr. Hall. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Gingrey. I would be glad to yield to the Ranking
    Member.
        Mr. Hall. And I would add to that that probably I would be
    more insistent upon subpoena powers than the Chairman would be.
    I don't think we would have any problem on working that out,
    and I assure this Chairman that I have high regard for this
    Tennessean. I have worked with him for some 18 or 20 years, and
    I don't believe he would go on witch hunt, as I don't want to
    go on a witch hunt. I think we have got bigger things to do. I
    don't see this as a question, either way it goes. You can
    outvote us and put the wording you want in there. We can have
    our agreement. I will honor either way.
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, one other
    option would be for the gentleman from Texas to withdraw his
    amendment.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my
    amendment. I certainly want to be clear here that it was not--
    my amendment doesn't have anything to do with thinking whether
    my--the Chairman would keep his word or that he is off on any
    kind of agenda. I just learned a long time ago in business that
    you make all of your deals up front so that down the road, when
    there is a misunderstanding, that you try to avoid those. And I
    fully expect great cooperation between the Ranking Member and
    the Chairman, but I guess it is just the old businessman in me
    that I try to get all of the misunderstandings or potential
    complex out of the way in the front.
        But with that, with the word of the Chairman that he will
    consult with the Ranking Member, I withdraw my amendment.
        Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, let me say,
    this has been a constructive conversation, and I think we have
    a better committee by going forward with this, so all in favor,
    say aye. Opposed, say no. The ayes have it, and the amendment
    is agreed to.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, may I make one statement?
        The gentleman from Texas is right in his request, because I
    have always heard that an oral agreement is not worth the paper
    it is written on. But we now have an agreement. We are working
    together. We are starting out working together, and I think we
    will wind up this year working together, and I thank the
    Members on both sides.
        Chairman Gordon. I move that the Committee adopt the Rules
    for the Committee on the Science and Technology 110th Congress,
    as amended. All of those in favor, say aye. All of those
    opposed, say no. In the Chairman of the ayes, the--or the
    Chairman--in the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        Now the roster before each of you set forth Subcommittee
    Chairs and Democratic membership and ratios for each
    subcommittee. By order of a Democratic Caucus of the House
    Committee on Science and Technology, I ask unanimous consent
    that the Committee ratify those rosters. Without objection, so
    ordered.
        Let me also point out that those rosters, we have the
    photographs that will be in your packet. We also have packets
    of the staff.
        And let me make a quick comment about the staff, if I
    could, please. It is always a difficult transition going from a
    majority to minority. The minority has to reduce its staff. The
    majority has the responsibility of picking up good staff for
    everyone. In doing this, long--months ago, I went to Chairman
    Boehlert, as well as David, the Chief of Staff, and told them
    to please let their staff know that anyone who wanted to review
    or have an opportunity to join our staff would have the first
    chance. We interviewed several. We have hired seven of the
    former Republican staff, which is about half of the new staff
    that we have. It was--made our staff better. I want you all to
    know that those faces are familiar. I hope you are going to be
    comfortable with them. This committee's staff serves us all.
        Also, we are not completely staffed up now, so we have a
    couple of slots left, and those Republican staff members that
    neither stayed with their--the Republicans, came with us, or
    have other jobs, we are keeping them on the payroll as long as
    we have staffs available--slots for that to help them get onto
    the next area. I think that is the right way, and we are all
    better for it.
        I now recognize Mr. Hall for a similar motion.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, by direction of the Republican
    Caucus of the House Committee on Science and Technology, I
    submit the Republican subcommittee membership rosters and ask
    unanimous consent that they be ratified.
        Chairman Gordon. Without objection, so ordered.
        At this time, I would like to introduce our new Democratic
    Members to the Committee, and I will try to do this quickly.
        Mr. Lampson, of Texas, after a sabbatical, he is back on
    our committee. Ms. Giffords, from Arizona. Ms. Giffords is a
    former member of the State House and Senate. We are glad to
    have her. Mr. McNerney, from California. Mr. McNerney joins our
    Ph.D. caucus, so he and Mr. Ehlers can go up in that ivory
    tower, and we hope they don't shoot anybody while they are up
    there. Mr. Kanjorski, from Pennsylvania. Mr. Kanjorski and I
    are the five survivors of the 1984 class. Mr. Rothman, from New
    Jersey, has assured us that he will get all of our
    authorizations through the Appropriations Committee. We are--
    appreciate that. Mr. Ross, of Arkansas.
        And I will--just a quick note. I was telling our Members
    yesterday at our Democratic Caucus, the history of the Science
    Committee is that when the Russians launched Sputnik in 1958,
    Congress' reaction was in--rather they did it in 1957. In 1958,
    Congress set up a Select Committee on Science and Technology. I
    was--asked John Dingell about this the other day, and Mike and
    John said yes, he remembered it, and we took their committee
    from the Energy and Commerce. So Mike and I and Mr. Hall will
    make sure that we keep that jurisdiction from Energy and
    Commerce.
        Mr. Chandler, from Kentucky, will also help us with
    appropriations. Mr. Carnahan, from Missouri, comes back as a
    temporary member. Mr. Hill, from Indiana, another sabbatical.
    We are glad to have you back with us, Baron. Mr. Mitchell, from
    Arizona, both was the mayor of Tempe as well as a State
    Senator. And Mr. Wilson, from Ohio, also brings State Senate
    credentials. Thank you for joining us.
        I now recognize Mr. Hall to introduce the new Republican
    Members of the Committee.
        Mr. Hall. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to
    introduce our new Committee Members. I am very pleased to
    welcome Mr. James Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin, and Mr. Phil
    Gingrey, of Georgia, back to the Science and Technology
    Committee. I am also excited to welcome these new Republican
    Committee Members: Mr. Brian Bilbray, who returns to Congress
    from California, and Mr. Adrian Smith, joining us from
    Nebraska. I might also say that when I was with the Democratic
    Party, I served as Ranking Member under Mr. Sensenbrenner, who
    was the Chairman. And if I got along with Sensenbrenner, why I
    am sure I can get along with you.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Gordon. We welcome all of the--our new Members to
    our Committee.
        Now pursuant to the Committee Rules 2-H, I hereby designate
    the honorable Daniel Lipinski as Vice-Chairman of the Committee
    on Science and Technology. The Vice-Chair shall preside over
    the meetings of the Committee in my absence.
        This concludes our Full Committee organizational meeting.
        And we will now take up H.R. 365.
        We will now proceed with the opening statements, and I
    yield myself five minutes.
        Many of our Committee Members will remember this bill from
    the 109th Congress when it passed through the Committee and the
    House unanimously. This bill also passed the Senate with two
    minor changes in the last hour of the 109th Congress. Now we
    have a chance to re-pass it in this Congress.
        Now let me, again, give you the practical impact. I
    represent 15 counties. One of my counties is called Cannon
    County, a little town called Woodbury, next to my home of
    Murfreesboro. I was over there about three years ago, and I was
    talking to the senior class. And I asked that senior class what
    was the most significant problem that faced them. And I
    expected them to say ``getting a job'' or ``getting a date'' or
    something you would expect from an 18-year-old. They said the
    most significant problem facing them was methamphetamine. This
    was a wake-up call for me. I think this affects all of our
    communities. Like a lot of things, it started in California,
    but it has worked its way over.
        I want to stress H.R. 365 is not a federal mandate. Rather,
    it requires the EPA to develop model, voluntary, health-based
    clean-up guidelines for the use of state localities they--as
    they desire. Specifically, H.R. 365 requires EPA, in
    consultation with NIST and working with states and local
    authorities, to establish voluntary clean-up guidelines for
    former meth labs; establishes an EPA research program in
    consultation with states and others to continuously improve the
    guidelines; requires the EPA to establish the technological
    conference to disseminate the information about the guidelines
    and to perform a form for non-federal participants to inform
    EPA about their problems, needs, and experiences with voluntary
    guidelines; tasks the National Academies of Science to study
    the residual effects of methamphetamine labs with a particular
    emphasis on children and first responders; requires NIST to
    support a research program to develop new meth-detection
    technology with the emphasis on field kits; ensures that the
    legislation does not override any existing EPA regulation
    authorities; and authorizes a total of $5 million for EPA and
    NIST to carry out these activities. That is a bargain.
        In the last Congress, this bill was endorsed by the
    National Association of Counties, National Sheriffs
    Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National
    Narcotics Association Coalition, the National Association of
    Realtors, the National Multi-housing Council, and the National
    Apartment Association.
        Now let me just very briefly tell me what--tell you what
    this means.
        If you are a--if you are Aunt Bess and you bought a
    condominium or a duplex and you are going to live on one side
    of it and rent the other side out for your retirement and
    somebody goes into that other side, unbeknownst to you, and
    starts cooking meth, well, then you can't sell your place, you
    can't rent it, nothing--you can't do anything, because there is
    a standard now between what is cleaned up and what is not. And
    what this is, this is going to allow communities to be able to
    set those standards in a safe way. I think it is important, and
    it is all done within our jurisdiction. It doesn't satisfy all
    of the problems of methamphetamine, but it is something and a
    good idea that we can get done.
        I want to thank Mike Quear, on our staff, that has put a
    great deal of time and effort to put this bill together. I want
    to thank Mr. Calvert for his help. He is very interested in
    this issue, is Co-Chair of the House Methamphetamine Caucus. He
    has taken this bill and vetted it within the caucus and asked
    the other caucus members of the Methamphetamine Caucus to
    sponsor it. We have several sponsors now, and hopefully, we
    will have some additional ones later.
        We will also consider two other important bills today,
    which will raise the awareness of the importance of science and
    engineering. Representative Lipinski has introduced H.Res. 59,
    Supporting the goals and ideals of the National Engineers Week.
    In addition, Representative Johnson has introduced H.Con.Res.
    34, Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneering
    African American chemist. I would urge support of these bills.
        I now recognize Mr. Hall for five minutes to present his
    opening remarks.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I will be brief. You
    have very ably outlined the support for this bill.
        H.R. 365 will help our communities address the very
    daunting task of cleaning up former meth labs, as you have
    said, which is a major challenge for law enforcement officials
    around the country. For example, in my State of Texas, alone
    from 2001 through 2005, federal, State, and local officials
    made nearly 3,000 seizure at clandestine meth labs. And I am
    pleased to be an original co-sponsor to this bill and yield the
    remainder of my time to Mr. Calvert, who has worked hard, as
    you say, on this very important bill.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I am certainly proud to
    join you and Chairman Gordon and Mr. Wu as the lead co-sponsors
    of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of
    2007.
        As the Chairman pointed out, I am the Co-Chairman of the
    Methamphetamine Caucus to the House. We have over 100 members.
    Those new Members here may want to join that. This is a--
    unfortunately, a scourge that is all over this country and
    affects millions of people adversely. And so I think this is a
    great step forward. I am certainly proud to support you in this
    endeavor. And we were trying to get this passed last year. We
    didn't succeed, but hopefully, it will succeed this year.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Representative Ken Calvert
        Thank you, Mr. Hall. I am proud to join you, Chairman Gordon and
    Mr. Wu as the lead sponsors of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine
    Remediation Research Act of 2007. I appreciate the Chairman bringing
    this very important issue to the Congress' attention and for steering
    the bill quickly through the Committee at the start of the 110th
    Congress. I also thank the Committee's Majority and Minority staffs who
    have diligently worked together for the last several years to develop
    and revise the legislation. I am truly proud that the House Science and
    Technology Committee is doing its part in the fight against
    methamphetamine by tackling those aspects that fall within our
    committee's jurisdiction.
        As a founder and Co-Chairman of the Congressional Caucus to Fight
    and Control Methamphetamine, I know the meth epidemic in our country
    shows no deference to district or party-line. This is an issue everyone
    can agree is wreaking havoc on communities across the nation. As
    mentioned by my colleagues, H.R. 365 focuses its efforts on the
    procedures and standards needed to decontaminate a site where a
    methamphetamine lab is found so our communities can more thoroughly
    remediate these sites. The creation of voluntary, health-based
    remediation guidelines for former meth labs, crafted by the
    Environmental Protection Agency, will protect and ensure the health of
    our citizens and the surrounding environment.
        This is a distressing issue with which my area of Riverside,
    California and quite frankly, most of America has become all too
    familiar. Meth poses a significant environmental threat as its
    production leaves behind five to six pounds of toxic waste per pound of
    methamphetamine produced. The Drug Enforcement Agency estimates that
    more than 68 percent of all meth labs are located in ordinary homes in
    rural and residential areas. State and local agencies need all the
    resources and tools that we can provide them to remediate the
    contamination that remains after meth labs are dismantled so that
    innocent families are not endangered. Although we are all aware that
    more needs to be done to win the fight against this devastating drug, I
    am convinced H.R. 365 will be an important step and will be welcomed by
    our communities.
        I encourage my colleagues to pass this common sense legislation.
    Thank you, Mr. Hall and Mr. Chairman.

        Chairman Gordon. The--Representative Hooley from Oregon is
    recognized for five minutes.
        Ms. Hooley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        For those--methamphetamine started on the West Coast and
    moved east, unfortunately. It is an issue that I have spent a
    lot of time working on because of the highly addictive nature
    of the drug, but also because of the ease of production and the
    danger of chemical--toxic chemicals used to manufacture it,
    this is something that we absolutely need to do something
    about.
        These toxic chemicals can cause significant property damage
    from residue contamination in the floors and walls of a house
    to fires and even explosions. Not only are the chemicals used
    to make meth highly flammable and toxic on their own, but it is
    estimated for every pound of meth produced, five to six pounds
    of toxic waste are produced as well. A meth addict doesn't care
    where these toxic chemicals end up, often dumping the waste
    down the drain, into the ground, leaving it to contaminate
    community soil or water supplies.
        Oregon has been a leader in developing standards for the
    clean up of meth labs, setting standards for decontamination,
    and certifying that a property has been cleaned by a state-
    licensed contractor. But we need a consistent federal standard
    that is based on research and best practices. When the cost to
    clean up a small, single-family home can easily reach $15,000,
    we need to make sure that we are spending our money wisely by
    using the best possible remediation methods. This bill will
    help us do just that by establishing voluntary guidelines based
    on the best currently-available scientific knowledge for the
    clean up of meth labs.
        Last Congress, we took great strides in the fight against
    methamphetamine by establishing controls on the precursor
    chemicals used to make meth, both domestically and
    internationally, but the fight against this drug is not over,
    and we must ensure that our communities have the resources and
    information they need to clean up the toxic chemicals
    endangering our neighborhoods.
        And I yield back the remainder of my time. Let us get this
    bill done.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Representative Darlene Hooley
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        In my three decades of public service, I don't think I've ever seen
    a problem as pervasive or as damaging as the methamphetamine epidemic
    that is sweeping our country. Meth is a serious threat to public health
    and safety, not only because of the highly addictive nature of the drug
    itself and its ease of production, but also the toxic chemicals used in
    its manufacture that are contaminating our communities.
        These toxic chemicals can cause significant property damage, from
    residual contamination in the floors and walls of a house, to fires and
    even deadly explosions.
        Not only are the chemicals used to make meth highly flammable and
    toxic on their own, it's estimated that for every pound of meth
    produced, five or six pounds of toxic waste are produced as well. And a
    meth addict doesn't care where these toxic chemicals end up, often
    dumping the waste down the drain or onto the ground, leaving it to
    contaminate the community's soil or water supply.
        Oregon has been a leader in developing standards for the cleanup of
    meth labs, setting standards for decontamination and certifying that a
    property has been cleaned by a state-licensed contractor. But we need a
    consistent federal standard that is based on research and best
    practices.
        When the cost to clean up a small single family home can easily
    reach $15,000, we need to make sure that we are spending our money
    wisely by using the best possible remediation methods. This bill will
    help us do just that, by establishing voluntary guidelines, based on
    the best currently available scientific knowledge, for the clean-up of
    meth labs.
        Last Congress we took great strides in the fight against
    methamphetamine by establishing controls on the precursor chemicals
    used to make methamphetamine, both domestically and internationally.
        But the fight against this drug is not over yet and we must ensure
    that our communities have the resources and information they need to
    clean up the toxic chemicals endangering our neighborhoods.

        Chairman Gordon. Without objection, all Members' opening
    statements will be placed in the record.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Giffords follows:]
            Prepared Statement of Representative Gabrielle Giffords
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, I want to take a moment to express my sincere enthusiasm to
    serve on the Science and Technology Committee. I feel honored and
    privileged to have the chance to work with Republicans and Democrats on
    issues of such national importance: climate change, energy
    independence, border security, global competitiveness.
        Our response to these challenges will have profound implications
    for our quality of life here in the United States, and I am ready to
    roll up my sleeves and get to work with all of you to produce real
    results for the American people.
        I want to make some remarks on the Methamphetamine Remediation
    Research Act, a piece of legislation that will have a tremendous impact
    on my district in Southern Arizona. Like most of the other Members on
    this committee, meth has had extremely destructive effects on
    communities throughout my district.
        Our state attorney general has called meth the number one crime
    problem in Arizona, and the production and use of this drug has torn
    apart families and left too many children in a tragic situation.
        This bill will help us properly address the horrible environmental
    consequences of meth and its resulting toll on law enforcement,
    property owners, county governments, and families.
        This problem is especially acute in Arizona.
        Each pound of meth produced leaves behind an estimated five to
    seven pounds of toxic waste.
        Meth labs are seized in every county and every legislative district
    in Arizona. Between 2000 and 2005, there were over 1,400 meth
    production related seizures, and the disposal costs for gross
    contamination exceeded $4 million.
        The impact of meth labs on children and first responders is
    shockingly tragic. 30 to 35 percent of meth labs seized in Arizona are
    residences with children, and 51 percent of injuries at meth labs
    happen to first responders.
        This bill will go a long way towards bringing this crisis under
    control.
        My office has been in contact with some folks in the district who
    are on the front lines, and they have been able to offer some expert
    advice on the severity of this issue.
        Captain Dave Neri (Nair-ee), Commander of the Pima County/Tucson
    Metropolitan Counter Narcotics Alliance, stated that many of these meth
    labs are mobile vehicles or homes, some just abandoned on the side of
    the road. In these circumstances, the county is left with the remains
    of these toxic labs. They have to shoulder the burden of remediation
    and come up with the money to pay for it.
        He also pointed out that several people are, without knowing it,
    living in properties that are former meth labs, but were never fully
    cleaned up. Innocent folks are getting sick because the previous owners
    did not remediate the property according to the State standards.
        In fact, Captain Neri said, a lot of folks just hire a standard
    maid service to do the cleanup. It'll cost a few hundred dollars
    instead of a few thousand, but then the property will more likely than
    not remain contaminated and will sicken its residents, especially
    children.
        The responsibility for cleanup lies with the property owners, and,
    in Arizona, an astoundingly high 97 percent of all properties reported
    are not in compliance.
        A major reason for this is the high financial costs of remediation.
    The average cost of cleaning up one's property is about $8,000, and
    that's just for the contractor to clean up the contaminated property.
    That doesn't even include any lost rent from tenants or potential
    property damage.
        Another expert my office spoke with was Marie Light, the Chair of
    the Environmental Task Force for the Meth Free Alliance in the Tucson
    metropolitan area. We had a chance to ask her how long the turnaround
    time was for some of these remediation contractors to determine the
    specific toxins in a meth lab. Her answer: about two weeks. Clearly, we
    must find a way to speed up the process.
        She also mentioned that they were testing some new ``swipe''
    technologies to make the testing process more efficient, and that's
    great news--we need better technology for our folks on the ground to
    use.
        This bill before us today will have a tremendous impact on the
    environmental consequences of meth labs. The remediation guidelines
    will assist states in developing effective programs to clean up these
    toxic sites. And as Marie Light mentioned, the development of new,
    quicker methamphetamine detection technologies will go a long way
    towards fighting this crisis.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this bill before this
    committee. This legislation will make our communities healthier and
    safer places. I will enthusiastically vote for its passage.

        Chairman Gordon. Does anyone else like to be heard?
        Mr. Baird. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Baird.
        Mr. Baird. Well, actually from Washington, but that is all
    right. I look a lot like Mr. Wu. I think that is an easy
    mistake.
        Well, I--as the founder of the Congressional Caucus to
    Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I just want to compliment
    the Chair and the staff for--and Ms. Hooley for their great
    work on this. This methamphetamine problem has plagued our
    communities, and we have got to have some standards, because we
    have got--I have actually had constituents, and one couple I
    will never forget, bought a house as an investment, their first
    big investment, rented it out, within two weeks, somebody had
    established a meth lab in that house. The house became so
    contaminated that their only recourse at the end, with their
    primary life savings investment, was to burn it down for
    practice for the local fire department. And it is situations
    like that that we must fight, and I applaud the Chairman for
    his leadership and yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gordon. I ask unanimous consent that the bill is
    considered as read and open amendment--open for an amendment at
    this point. Without objection, so ordered.
        Are there any amendments? Hearing none, the vote is on the
    bill. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. In the opinion of
    the Chair, the ayes have it.
        I now recognize Mr. Hall to offer a motion.
        Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably
    report H.R. 365 to the House with the recommendation that the
    bill 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 Chairman take all necessary
    steps to bring the bill before the House for consideration.
        Chairman Gordon. The question is on the motion to report
    the bill favorably. Those in favor of the motion will signify
    by saying aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes appear to have it. The
    resolution is favorably reported.
        Without objection, the motion as reconsidered is laid on
    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
    authorize the Chairman to offer such motions as may be
    necessary in the House to adopt and pass H.R. 365. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        Let me thank the hard core for sticking with us through
    this meeting, and----
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Just----
        Chairman Gordon. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
        Mr. Neugebauer.--one personal privilege here. I want to
    congratulate you on your chairmanship and also wish you a happy
    birthday.
        Chairman Gordon. Well, thank you. This is a good way to--
    this is my best birthday present today. Thank you. And this
    concludes our Full Committee markup.
        [Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                   Appendix:

                                  ----------

            Committee Rules, Amendment to Committee Rules, H.R. 365

    Contents

        Rule 1. General Provisions
            General Statement (a)
            Membership (b)
            Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power (c)
            Sensitive or Confidential Information Received Pursuant to
            Subpoena (d)
            National Security Information (e)
            Oversight (f) (g) (h)
            Order of Business (i)
            Suspended Procedures (j)
            Other Procedures (k)
            Use of Hearing Rooms (l)

        Rule 2. Committee Meetings and Procedures
            Quorum (a)
            Time and Place (b)
            Open Meetings (c) (d)
            Audio and Visual Coverage (e) (f)
            Special Meetings (g)
            Vice Chairman to Preside in Absence of Chairman (h)
            Opening Statements; 5-Minute Rule (i) (j)
            Proxies (k)
            Witnesses (l) (m)
            Hearing Procedures (n)
            Bill and Subject Matter Consideration (o)
            Private Bills (p)
            Consideration of Measure or Matter (q)
            Requests for Written Motions (r)
            Requests for Record Votes at Full Committee (s)
            Postponement of Proceedings (t)
            Report Language on Use of Federal Resources (u)
            Committee Records (v)
            Publication of Committee Hearings and Markups (w)
            Committee Website (x)

        Rule 3. Subcommittees
            Structure and Jurisdiction (a)
            Referral of Legislation (b)
            Ex-Officio Members (c)
            Procedures (d) (e) (f) (g)

        Rule 4. Reports
            Substance of Legislative Reports (a) (b)
            Minority and Additional Views (c) (d)
            Consideration of Subcommittee Reports (e)
            Timing and Filing of Committee Reports (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k)
            Oversight Reports (l)

        Legislative and Oversight Jurisdiction of the Committee on Science
    and Technology

        Special Oversight Functions

    RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

                               General Statement
        (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives, as applicable, shall
    govern the Committee and its Subcommittees, except that a motion to
    recess from day to day and a motion to dispense with the first reading
    (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, are
    privileged motions in the Committee and its Subcommittees and shall be
    decided without debate. The rules of the Committee, as applicable,
    shall be the rules of its Subcommittees. The rules of germaneness shall
    be enforced by the Chairman. [XI 1(a)]
                                   Membership
        (b) A majority of the majority Members of the Committee shall
    determine an appropriate ratio of majority to minority Members of each
    Subcommittee and shall authorize the Chairman to negotiate that ratio
    with the minority party; Provided, however, that party representation
    on each Subcommittee (including any ex-officio Members) shall be no
    less favorable to the majority party than the ratio for the Full
    Committee. Provided, further, that recommendations of conferees to the
    Speaker shall provide a ratio of majority party Members to minority
    party Members which shall be no less favorable to the majority party
    than the ratio of the Full Committee.
                      Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power
        (c)(1) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), a subpoena may be authorized
    and issued in the conduct of any investigation or series of
    investigations or activities to require the attendance and testimony of
    such witnesses and the production of such books, records,
    correspondence, memoranda, papers and documents as deemed necessary,
    only when authorized by majority vote of the Full Committee or
    Subcommittee (as the case may be), a majority of the Committee or
    Subcommittee being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only
    by the Chairman of the Full Committee, or by any Member designated by
    the Chairman. [XI 2(m)]
        (2) The Chairman of the Full Committee, after consultation with the
    Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, or if the Ranking Member
    cannot be reached, the Ranking Minority Member of the relevant
    Subcommittee, may authorize and issue such subpoenas as described in
    paragraph (1), during any period in which the House has adjourned for a
    period longer than seven (7) days. [XI 2(m)(3)(A)(i)]
        (3) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other than
    at a meeting or a hearing of the Committee.
          Sensitive or Confidential Information Received Pursuant to
                                    Subpoena
        (d) Unless otherwise determined by the Committee or Subcommittee,
    certain information received by the Committee or Subcommittee pursuant
    to a subpoena not made part of the record at an open hearing shall be
    deemed to have been received in Executive Session when the Chairman of
    the Full Committee, in his judgment and after consultation with the
    Ranking Minority Member, deems that in view of all the circumstances,
    such as the sensitivity of the information or the confidential nature
    of the information, such action is appropriate.
                         National Security Information
        (e) All national security information bearing a classification of
    secret or higher which has been received by the Committee or a
    Subcommittee shall be deemed to have been received in Executive Session
    and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. The Chairman of the Full
    Committee may establish such regulations and procedures as in his
    judgment are necessary to safeguard classified information under the
    control of the Committee. Such procedures shall, however, ensure access
    to this information by any Member of the Committee, or any other Member
    of the House of Representatives who has requested the opportunity to
    review such material.
                                   Oversight
        (f) Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress,
    the Committee shall meet in open session, with a quorum present, to
    adopt its oversight plans for that Congress for submission to the
    Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on House
    Administration, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of
    Rule X of the House of Representatives.
        (g) The Chairman of the Full Committee may undertake any formal
    investigation in the name of the Committee after consultation with the
    Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee.
        (h) The Chairman of any Subcommittee shall not undertake any formal
    investigation in the name of the Full Committee or Subcommittee without
    formal approval by the Chairman of the Full Committee, in consultation
    with other appropriate Subcommittee Chairmen, and after consultation
    with the Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee. The Chairman of
    any Subcommittee shall also consult with the Ranking Minority Member of
    the Subcommittee before undertaking any investigation in the name of
    the Committee.
                               Order of Business
        (i) The order of business and procedure of the Committee and the
    subjects of inquiries or investigations will be decided by the
    Chairman, subject always to an appeal to the Committee.
                             Suspended Proceedings
        (j) During the consideration of any measure or matter, the Chairman
    of the Full Committee, or of any Subcommittee, or any Member acting as
    such, may recess the Committee at any point. Additionally, during the
    consideration of any measure or matter, the Chairman of the Full
    Committee, or of any Subcommittee shall suspend further proceedings
    after a question has been put to the Committee at any time when there
    is a vote by electronic device occurring in the House of
    Representatives. Suspension of proceedings after a record vote is
    ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting
    an amendment, shall be conducted in compliance with the provisions of
    Rule 2(t).
                                Other Procedures
        (k) The Chairman of the Full Committee, after consultation with the
    Ranking Minority Member, may establish such other procedures and take
    such actions as may be necessary to carry out the foregoing rules or to
    facilitate the effective operation of the Committee.
                              Use of Hearing Rooms
        (l) In consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, the Chairman
    of the Full Committee shall establish guidelines for use of Committee
    hearing rooms.

    RULE 2. COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES

                                Quorum [XI 2(h)]
        (a)(1) One-third of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a
    quorum for all purposes except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of
    this Rule.
        (2) A majority of the Members of the Committee shall constitute a
    quorum in order to: (A) report or table any legislation, measure, or
    matter; (B) close Committee meetings or hearings pursuant to Rules 2(c)
    and 2(d); and, (C) authorize the issuance of subpoenas pursuant to Rule
    1(c).
        (3) Two (2) Members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for
    taking testimony and receiving evidence, which, unless waived by the
    Chairman of the Full Committee after consultation with the Ranking
    Minority Member of the Full Committee, shall include at least one (1)
    Member from each of the majority and minority parties.
                                 Time and Place
        (b)(1) Unless dispensed with by the Chairman, the meetings of the
    Committee shall be held on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of each month the
    House is in session at 10:00 a.m. and at such other times and in such
    places as the Chairman may designate. [XI 2(b)]
        (2) The Chairman of the Committee may convene, as necessary,
    additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill
    or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other
    Committee business subject to such rules as the Committee may adopt.
    The Committee shall meet for such purpose under that call of the
    Chairman. [XI 2(c)]
        (3) The Chairman shall make a public announcement of the date,
    time, place and subject matter of any of its hearings, and to the
    extent practicable, a list of witnesses at least one (1) week before
    the commencement of the hearing. If the Chairman, with the concurrence
    of the Ranking Minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin
    the hearing sooner, or if the Committee so determines by majority vote,
    a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairman
    shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any
    announcement made under this Rule shall be promptly published in the
    Daily Digest, and promptly made available by electronic form, including
    the Committee website. [XI 2(g)(3)]
                            Open Meetings [xi 2(g)]
        (c) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the
    markup of legislation, of the Committee shall be open to the public,
    including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except
    when the Committee, in open session and with a majority present,
    determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the
    meeting on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure of
    matters to be considered would endanger national security, would
    compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame,
    degrade or incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law or
    rule of the House. Persons other than Members of the Committee and such
    non-Committee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, congressional
    staff, or departmental representatives as the Committee may authorize,
    may not be present at a business or markup session that is held in
    executive session. This Rule does not apply to open Committee hearings
    which are provided for by Rule 2(d).
        (d)(1) Each hearing conducted by the Committee shall be open to the
    public including radio, television, and still photography coverage
    except when the Committee, in open session and with a majority present,
    determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that
    hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of
    testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger
    national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
    information, or would violate a law or rule of the House of
    Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding
    sentence, and Rule 2(q) a majority of those present, there being in
    attendance the requisite number required under the rules of the
    Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony:
        (A) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of
    discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger
    the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
    information or would violate Rule XI 2(k)(5) of the Rules of the House
    of Representatives; or
        (B) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in Rule XI 2(k)(5)
    of the Rules of the House of Representatives. No Member, Delegate, or
    Resident Commissioner may be excluded from non-participatory attendance
    at any hearing of any Committee or Subcommittee, unless the House of
    Representatives shall by majority vote authorize a particular Committee
    or Subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a
    particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of
    investigation, to close its hearings to Members, Delegate, and the
    Resident Commissioner by the same procedures designated in this Rule
    for closing hearings to the public; Provided, however, that the
    Committee or Subcommittee may by the same procedure, vote to close one
    subsequent day of the hearing.
                    Audio and Visual Coverage [XI, clause 4]
        (e)(1) Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee is
    open to the public, these proceedings shall be open to coverage by
    television, radio, and still photography, except as provided in Rule XI
    4(f)(2) of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall not be able
    to limit the number of television, or still cameras to fewer than two
    (2) representatives from each medium (except for legitimate space or
    safety considerations in which case pool coverage shall be authorized).
        (2)(A) Radio and television tapes, television film, and Internet
    recordings of any Committee hearings or meetings that are open to the
    public may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan
    political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any
    person for elective public office.
        (B) It is, further, the intent of this rule that the general
    conduct of each meeting or hearing covered under authority of this rule
    by audio or visual means, and the personal behavior of the Committee
    Members and staff, other government officials and personnel, witnesses,
    television, radio, and press media personnel, and the general public at
    the meeting or hearing, shall be in strict conformity with and
    observance of the acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy,
    and decorum traditionally observed by the House in its operations, and
    may not be such as to:
        (i) distort the objects and purposes of the meeting or hearing or
    the activities of Committee Members in connection with that meeting or
    hearing or in connection with the general work of the Committee or of
    the House; or
        (ii) cast discredit or dishonor on the House, the Committee, or a
    Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner or bring the House, the
    Committee, or a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner into
    disrepute.
        (C) The coverage of Committee meetings and hearings by audio and
    visual means shall be permitted and conducted only in strict conformity
    with the purposes, provisions, and requirements of this rule.
        (f) The following shall apply to coverage of Committee meetings or
    hearings by audio or visual means:
        (1) If audio or visual coverage of the hearing or meeting is to be
    presented to the public as live coverage, that coverage shall be
    conducted and presented without commercial sponsorship.
        (2) The allocation among the television media of the positions or
    the number of television cameras permitted by a Committee or
    Subcommittee Chairman in a hearing or meeting room shall be in
    accordance with fair and equitable procedures devised by the Executive
    Committee of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Galleries.
        (3) Television cameras shall be placed so as not to obstruct in any
    way the space between a witness giving evidence or testimony and any
    Member of the Committee or the visibility of that witness and that
    Member to each other.
        (4) Television cameras shall operate from fixed positions but may
    not be placed in positions that obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of
    the hearing or meeting by the other media.
        (5) Equipment necessary for coverage by the television and radio
    media may not be installed in, or removed from, the hearing or meeting
    room while the Committee is in session.
        (6)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), floodlights,
    spotlights, strobelights, and flashguns may not be used in providing
    any method of coverage of the hearing or meeting.
        (B) The television media may install additional lighting in a
    hearing or meeting room, without cost to the Government, in order to
    raise the ambient lighting level in a hearing or meeting room to the
    lowest level necessary to provide adequate television coverage of a
    hearing or meeting at the current state of the art of television
    coverage.
        (7) In the allocation of the number of still photographers
    permitted by a Committee or Subcommittee Chairman in a hearing or
    meeting room, preference shall be given to photographers from
    Associated Press Photos and United Press International Newspictures. If
    requests are made by more of the media than will be permitted by a
    Committee or Subcommittee Chairman for coverage of a hearing or meeting
    by still photography, that coverage shall be permitted on the basis of
    a fair and equitable pool arrangement devised by the Standing Committee
    of Press Photographers.
        (8) Photographers may not position themselves between the witness
    table and the Members of the Committee at any time during the course of
    a hearing or meeting.
        (9) Photographers may not place themselves in positions that
    obstruct unnecessarily the coverage of the hearing by the other media.
        (10) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media
    shall be currently accredited to the Radio and Television
    Correspondents' Galleries.
        (11) Personnel providing coverage by still photography shall be
    currently accredited to the Press Photographers' Gallery.
        (12) Personnel providing coverage by the television and radio media
    and by still photography shall conduct themselves and their coverage
    activities in an orderly and unobtrusive manner.
                                Special Meetings
        (g) Rule XI 2(c) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
    hereby incorporated by reference (Special Meetings).
                Vice Chairman to Preside in Absence of Chairman
        (h) A Member of the majority party on the Committee, or any
    Subcommittee, shall be designated by the Chairman of the Full Committee
    as the Vice Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee, as the case may
    be, and shall preside during the absence of the Chairman from any
    meeting. If the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee or
    Subcommittee are not present at any meeting of the Committee or
    Subcommittee, the Ranking Majority Member who is present shall preside
    at that meeting. [XI 2(d)]
                       Opening Statements; 5-Minute Rule
        (i) Insofar as is practicable, the Chairman, after consultation
    with the Ranking Minority Member, shall limit the total time of opening
    statements by Members to no more than 10 minutes, the time to be
    divided equally between the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. The
    time any one (1) Member may address the Committee on any bill, motion
    or other matter under consideration by the Committee or the time
    allowed for the questioning of a witness at hearings before the
    Committee will be limited to five (5) minutes, and then only when the
    Member has been recognized by the Chairman, except that this time limit
    may be waived by the Chairman or acting Chairman. [XI 2(j)]
        (j) Notwithstanding Rule 2(i), upon a motion the Chairman, in
    consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, may designate an equal
    number of Members from each party to question a witness for a period
    not to exceed one (1) hour in the aggregate or, upon a motion, may
    designate staff from each party to question a witness for equal
    specific periods that do not exceed one (1) hour in the aggregate. [XI
    2(j)]
                                    Proxies
        (k) No Member may authorize a vote by proxy with respect to any
    measure or matter before the Committee. [XI 2(f)]
                                   Witnesses
        (l)(1) Insofar as is practicable, each witness who is to appear
    before the Committee shall file no later than 24 hours in advance of
    his or her appearance, both a statement of the proposed testimony and a
    curriculum vitae in printed copy and electronic form. Each witness
    shall limit his or her presentation to a five (5) minute summary,
    provided that additional time may be granted by the Chairman when
    appropriate. [XI 2(g)(4)]
        (2) To the greatest extent practicable, each witness appearing
    before the Committee shall include with the written statement of
    proposed testimony a disclosure of any financial interests which are
    relevant to the subject of his or her testimony. These include, but are
    not limited to, public and private research grants, stock or stock
    options held in publicly traded and privately owned companies, and any
    form of payment or compensation from any relevant entity. The source
    and amount of the financial interest should be included in this
    disclosure.
        (3) Members of the Committee have two weeks from the date of a
    hearing to submit additional questions for the record, to be answered
    by witnesses who have appeared in person. The letters of transmittal
    and any responses thereto shall be printed in the hearing record.
        (m) Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee on any
    measure or matter, the minority Members of the Committee shall be
    entitled, upon request to the Chairman by a majority of them before the
    completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority
    to testify with respect to the measure or matter during at least one
    (1) day of hearing thereon. [XI 2(j)(1)]
                               Hearing Procedures
        (n) Rule XI 2(k) of the Rules of the House of Representatives is
    hereby incorporated by reference.
                     Bill and Subject Matter Consideration
        (o) Bills and other substantive matters may be taken up for
    consideration only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or by a
    majority vote of a quorum of the Committee, except those matters which
    are the subject of special-call meetings outlined in Rule 2(g). [XI
    2(c)]
                                 Private Bills
        (p) No private bill will be reported by the Committee if there are
    two (2) or more dissenting votes. Private bills so rejected by the
    Committee will not be reconsidered during the same Congress unless new
    evidence sufficient to justify a new hearing has been presented to the
    Committee.
                       Consideration of Measure or Matter
        (q)(1) It shall not be in order for the Committee to consider any
    new or original measure or matter unless written notice of the date,
    place and subject matter of consideration and to the maximum extent
    practicable, a written copy of the measure or matter to be considered,
    and to the maximum extent practicable the original text for purposes of
    markup of the measure to be considered have been available to each
    Member of the Committee for at least 48 hours in advance of
    consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. To the
    maximum extent practicable, amendments to the measure or matter to be
    considered, shall be submitted in writing to the Clerk of the Committee
    at least 24 hours prior to the consideration of the measure or matter.
        (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of this rule, consideration of
    any legislative measure or matter by the Committee shall be in order by
    vote of two-thirds of the Members present, provided that a majority of
    the Committee is present.
                          Requests for Written Motions
        (r) Any legislative or non-procedural motion made at a regular or
    special meeting of the Committee and which is entertained by the
    Chairman shall be presented in writing upon the demand of any Member
    present and a copy made available to each Member present.
                  Requests for Record Votes at Full Committee
        (s) A record vote of the Members may be had at the request of three
    (3) or more Members or, in the apparent absence of a quorum, by any one
    (1) Member.
                          Postponement of Proceedings
        (t) The Chairman of the Full Committee, or of any Subcommittee, is
    authorized to postpone further proceedings when a record vote is
    ordered on the question of approving a measure or matter or on adopting
    an amendment, and to resume proceedings on a postponed question at any
    time after reasonable notice. Upon resuming proceedings on a postponed
    question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
    question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to further
    debate or amendment to the same extent as when the question was
    postponed. [XI (2)(h)(4)]
                  Report Language on Use of Federal Resources
        (u) No legislative report filed by the Committee on any measure or
    matter reported by the Committee shall contain language which has the
    effect of specifying the use of federal resources more explicitly
    (inclusively or exclusively) than that specified in the measure or
    matter as ordered reported, unless such language has been approved by
    the Committee during a meeting or otherwise in writing by a majority of
    the Members.
                               Committee Records
        (v)(1) The Committee shall keep a complete record of all Committee
    action which shall include a record of the votes on any question on
    which a record vote is demanded. The result of each record vote shall
    be made available by the Committee for inspection by the public at
    reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. Information so
    available for public inspection shall include a description of the
    amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name of each
    Member voting for and each Member voting against such amendment,
    motion, order, or proposition, and the names of those Members present
    but not voting. [XI 2(e)]
        (2) The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
    Records Administration shall be made available for public use in
    accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
    The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision,
    pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a
    record otherwise available, and the matter shall be presented to the
    Committee for a determination on the written request of any Member of
    the Committee. [XI 2(e)(3)]
        (3) To the maximum extent feasible, the Committee shall make its
    publications available in electronic form, including the Committee
    website. [XI 2(e)(4)]
        (4)(A) Except as provided for in subdivision (B), all Committee
    hearings, records, data, charts, and files shall be kept separate and
    distinct from the congressional office records of the Member serving as
    its Chairman. Such records shall be the property of the House, and each
    Member, Delegate, and the Resident Commissioner, shall have access
    thereto.
        (B) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, other than
    Members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, may not have
    access to the records of the Committee respecting the conduct of a
    Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the
    House without the specific prior permission of the Committee.
                 Publication of Committee Hearings and Markups
        (w) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee
    shall be published as a substantially verbatim account of remarks
    actually made during the proceedings, subject only to technical,
    grammatical, and typographical corrections authorized by the person
    making the remarks involved. Transcripts of markups shall be recorded
    and published in the same manner as hearings before the Committee and
    shall be included as part of the legislative report unless waived by
    the Chairman. [XI 2(e)(1)(A)]
                               Committee Website
        (x) The Chairman shall maintain an official Committee website for
    the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, including communicating information about the
    Committee's activities to Committee Members and other Members of the
    House. The Ranking Minority Member may maintain a similar website for
    the same purpose, including communicating information about the
    activities of the minority to Committee Members and other Members of
    the House.

    RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEES

                           Structure and Jurisdiction
        (a) The Committee shall have the following standing Subcommittees
    with the jurisdiction indicated.
    (1) Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
        Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
    authority on all matters relating to energy research, development, and
    demonstration and projects therefor, commercial application of energy
    technology, and environmental research including:

              Department of Energy research, development, and
            demonstration programs;

              Department of Energy laboratories;

              Department of Energy science activities;

              energy supply activities;

              nuclear, solar and renewable energy, and other
            advanced energy technologies;

              uranium supply and enrichment, and Department of
            Energy waste management and environment, safety, and health
            activities as appropriate;

              fossil energy research and development;

              clean coal technology;

              energy conservation research and development;

              energy aspects of climate change;

              pipeline research, development, and demonstration
            projects;

              energy and environmental standards;

              energy conservation including building performance,
            alternate fuels for and improved efficiency of vehicles,
            distributed power systems, and industrial process improvements;

              Environmental Protection Agency research and
            development programs;

              National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
            including all activities related to weather, weather services,
            climate, and the atmosphere, and marine fisheries, and oceanic
            research;

              risk assessment activities; and

              scientific issues related to environmental policy,
            including climate change.

    (2) Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation
        Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
    authority on all matters relating to competitiveness, technology,
    standards, and innovation:

              standardization of weights and measures including
            technical standards, standardization, and conformity
            assessment;

              measurement, including the metric system of
            measurement;

              the Technology Administration of the Department of
            Commerce;

              the National Institute of Standards and Technology;

              the National Technical Information Service;

              competitiveness, including small business
            competitiveness;

              tax, antitrust, regulatory and other legal and
            governmental policies as they relate to technological
            development and commercialization;

              technology transfer including civilian use of defense
            technologies;

              patent and intellectual property policy;

              international technology trade;

              research, development, and demonstration activities
            of the Department of Transportation;

              surface and water transportation research,
            development, and demonstration programs;

              earthquake programs (except for NSF) and fire
            research programs including those related to wildfire
            proliferation research and prevention;

              biotechnology policy;

              research, development, demonstration, and standards
            related activities of the Department of Homeland Security;

              Small Business Innovation Research and Technology
            Transfer; and

              voting technologies and standards.

    (3) Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
        Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
    authority on all matters relating to science policy and science
    education including:

              Office of Science and Technology Policy;

              all scientific research, and scientific and
            engineering resources (including human resources), math,
            science and engineering education;

              intergovernmental mechanisms for research,
            development, and demonstration and cross-cutting programs;

              international scientific cooperation;

              National Science Foundation, including NSF earthquake
            programs;

              university research policy, including infrastructure
            and overhead;

              university research partnerships, including those
            with industry;

              science scholarships;

              issues relating to computers, communications, and
            information technology;

              research and development relating to health,
            biomedical, and nutritional programs;

              to the extent appropriate, agricultural, geological,
            biological and life sciences research; and

              materials research, development, and demonstration
            and policy.

    (4) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
        Legislative jurisdiction and general oversight and investigative
    authority on all matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical
    research and development including:

              national space policy, including access to space;

              sub-orbital access and applications;

              National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its
            contractor and government-operated laboratories;

              space commercialization including the commercial
            space activities relating to the Department of Transportation
            and the Department of Commerce;

              exploration and use of outer space;

              international space cooperation;

              National Space Council;

              space applications, space communications and related
            matters;

              Earth remote sensing policy;

              civil aviation research, development, and
            demonstration;

              research, development, and demonstration programs of
            the Federal Aviation Administration; and

              space law.

    (5) Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight
        General and special investigative and oversight authority on all
    matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and
    Technology.
                            Referral of Legislation
        (b) The Chairman shall refer all legislation and other matters
    referred to the Committee to the Subcommittee or Subcommittees of
    appropriate primary and secondary jurisdiction within two (2) weeks
    unless the Chairman deems consideration is to be by the Full Committee.
    Subcommittee Chairmen may make requests for referral of specific
    matters to their Subcommittee within the two (2) week period if they
    believe Subcommittee jurisdictions so warrant.
                               Ex-Officio Members
        (c) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member shall serve as ex-
    officio Members of all Subcommittees and shall have the right to vote
    and be counted as part of the quorum and ratios on all matters before
    the Subcommittee.
                                   Procedures
        (d) No Subcommittee shall meet for markup or approval when any
    other Subcommittee of the Committee or the Full Committee is meeting to
    consider any measure or matter for markup or approval.
        (e) Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive
    evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to it.
    For matters within its jurisdiction, each Subcommittee is authorized to
    conduct legislative, investigative, forecasting, and general oversight
    hearings; to conduct inquiries into the future; and to undertake budget
    impact studies. Subcommittee Chairmen shall set meeting dates after
    consultation with the Chairman and other Subcommittee Chairmen with a
    view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of Committee and
    Subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever possible.
        (f) Any Member of the Committee may have the privilege of sitting
    with any Subcommittee during its hearings or deliberations and may
    participate in such hearings or deliberations, but no such Member who
    is not a Member of the Subcommittee shall vote on any matter before
    such Subcommittee, except as provided in Rule 3(c).
        (g) During any Subcommittee proceeding for markup or approval, a
    record vote may be had at the request of one (1) or more Members of
    that Subcommittee.

    RULE 4. REPORTS

                        Substance of Legislative Reports
        (a) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been
    approved by the Committee shall include the following, to be provided
    by the Committee:
        (1) the oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to
    Rule X 2(b)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, separately
    set out and identified [XIII, 3(c)];
        (2) the statement required by section 308(a) of the Congressional
    Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and identified, if the measure
    provides new budget authority or new or increased tax expenditures as
    specified in [XIII, 3(c)(2)];
        (3) with respect to reports on a bill or joint resolution of a
    public character, a ``Constitutional Authority Statement'' citing the
    specific powers granted to Congress by the Constitution pursuant to
    which the bill or joint resolution is proposed to be enacted.
        (4) with respect to each record vote on a motion to report any
    measure or matter of a public character, and on any amendment offered
    to the measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and
    against, and the names of those Members voting for and against, shall
    be included in the Committee report on the measure or matter;
        (5) the estimate and comparison prepared by the Committee under
    Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
    unless the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
    Congressional Budget Office prepared under subparagraph 2 of this Rule
    has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the report and
    included in the report [XIII, 3(d)(3)(D)];
        (6) in the case of a bill or joint resolution which repeals or
    amends any statute or part thereof, the text of the statute or part
    thereof which is proposed to be repealed, and a comparative print of
    that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and of
    the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended [Rule XIII, clause
    3];
        (7) a transcript of the markup of the measure or matter unless
    waived under Rule 2(v); and,
        (8) a statement of general performance goals and objectives,
    including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the measure
    authorizes funding. [XIII, 3(c)]
        (b) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been
    approved by the Committee shall further include the following, to be
    provided by sources other than the Committee:
        (1) the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
    Congressional Budget Office required under section 403 of the
    Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and identified,
    whenever the Director (if timely, and submitted prior to the filing of
    the report) has submitted such estimate and comparison of the Committee
    [XIII, clauses 2-4];
        (2) if the Committee has not received prior to the filing of the
    report the material required under paragraph (1) of this Rule, then it
    shall include a statement to that effect in the report on the measure.
                    Minority and Additional Views [XI 2(l)]
        (c) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by the
    Committee, any Member of the Committee gives notice of intention to
    file supplemental, minority, or additional views, that Member shall be
    entitled to not less than two (2) subsequent calendar days after the
    day of such notice (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays)
    in which to file such views, in writing and signed by that Member, with
    the clerk of the Committee. All such views so filed by one (1) or more
    Members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part
    of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or
    matter. The report of the Committee upon that measure or matter shall
    be printed in a single volume which shall include all supplemental,
    minority, or additional views, which have been submitted by the time of
    the filing of the report, and shall bear upon its cover a recital that
    any such supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any material
    submitted under Rule 4(b)(1)) are included as part of the report.
    However, this rule does not preclude (1) the immediate filing or
    printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the
    opportunity to file supplemental, minority, or additional views has
    been made as provided by this Rule or (2) the filing by the Committee
    of any supplemental report upon any measure or matter which may be
    required for the correction of any technical error in a previous report
    made by that Committee upon that measure or matter.
        (d) The Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee, as appropriate,
    shall advise Members of the day and hour when the time for submitting
    views relative to any given report elapses. No supplemental, minority,
    or additional views shall be accepted for inclusion in the report if
    submitted after the announced time has elapsed unless the Chairman of
    the Committee or Subcommittee, as appropriate, decides to extend the
    time for submission of views beyond the two (2) subsequent calendar
    days after the day of notice, in which case he shall communicate such
    fact to Members, including the revised day and hour for submissions to
    be received, without delay.
                     Consideration of Subcommittee Reports
        (e) After ordering a measure or matter reported, a Subcommittee
    shall issue a Subcommittee report in such form as the Chairman shall
    specify. Reports and recommendations of a Subcommittee shall not be
    considered by the Full Committee until after the intervention of 48
    hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, from the time
    the report is submitted and made available to full Committee membership
    and printed hearings thereon shall be made available, if feasible, to
    the Members, except that this rule may be waived at the discretion of
    the Chairman after consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.
                 Timing and Filing of Committee Reports [XIII]
        (f) It shall be the duty of the Chairman to report or cause to be
    reported promptly to the House any measure approved by the Committee
    and to take or cause to be taken the necessary steps to bring the
    matter to a vote. To the maximum extent practicable, the written report
    of the Committee on such measures shall be made available to the
    Committee membership for review at least 24 hours in advance of filing.
        (g) The report of the Committee on a measure which has been
    approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven (7) calendar days
    (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) after the day
    on which there has been filed with the clerk of the Committee a written
    request, signed by the majority of the Members of the Committee, for
    the reporting of that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the
    clerk of the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chairman of
    the Committee notice of the filing of that request.
        (h)(1) Any document published by the Committee as a House Report,
    other than a report of the Committee on a measure which has been
    approved by the Committee, shall be approved by the Committee at a
    meeting, and Members shall have the same opportunity to submit views as
    provided for in Rule 4(c).
        (2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the Chairman may approve the
    publication of any document as a Committee print which in his
    discretion he determines to be useful for the information of the
    Committee.
        (3) Any document to be published as a Committee print which
    purports to express the views, findings, conclusions, or
    recommendations of the Committee or any of its Subcommittees must be
    approved by the Full Committee or its Subcommittees, as applicable, in
    a meeting or otherwise in writing by a majority of the Members, and
    such Members shall have the right to submit supplemental, minority, or
    additional views for inclusion in the print within at least 48 hours
    after such approval.
        (4) Any document to be published as a Committee print other than a
    document described in paragraph (3) of this Rule: (A) shall include on
    its cover the following statement: ``This document has been printed for
    informational purposes only and does not represent either findings or
    recommendations adopted by this Committee;'' and (B) shall not be
    published following the sine die adjournment of a Congress, unless
    approved by the Chairman of the Full Committee after consultation with
    the Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee.
        (i) A report of an investigation or study conducted jointly by this
    Committee and one (1) or more other Committee(s) may be filed jointly,
    provided that each of the Committees complies independently with all
    requirements for approval and filing of the report.
        (j) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a Congress
    sine die, an investigative or oversight report approved by the
    Committee may be filed with the Clerk at any time, provided that if a
    Member gives notice at the time of approval of intention to file
    supplemental, minority, or additional views, that Member shall be
    entitled to not less than seven (7) calendar days in which to submit
    such views for inclusion with the report.
        (k) After an adjournment sine die of the last regular session of a
    Congress, the Chairman may file the Committee's Activity Report for
    that Congress under clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House
    with the Clerk of the House at anytime and without the approval of the
    Committee, provided that a copy of the report has been available to
    each Member of the Committee for at least seven (7) calendar days and
    that the report includes any supplemental, minority, or additional
    views submitted by a Member of the Committee. [XI 1(d), XI 1(d)(4)]
                               Oversight Reports
        (l) A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be
    considered as read if it has been available to the Members of the
    Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal
    holidays except when the House is in session on such day). [XI 1(b)(2)]

    LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND
                        TECHNOLOGY

        ``Rule X. Organization of Committees.
        ``Committees and their legislative jurisdictions.
        ``1. There shall be in the House the following standing Committees,
    each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related functions
    assigned to it by this clause and clauses 2, 3, and 4. All bills,
    resolutions, and other matters relating to subjects within the
    jurisdiction of the standing Committees listed in this clause shall be
    referred to those Committees, in accordance with clause 2 of rule XII,
    as follows:

                        *    *    *    *    *    *    *

        ``o) Committee on Science and Technology.
        ``(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration, and
    projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military
    energy laboratories.
        ``(2) Astronautical research and development, including resources,
    personnel, equipment, and facilities.
        ``(3) Civil aviation research and development.
        ``(4) Environmental research and development.
        ``(5) Marine research.
        ``(6) Commercial application of energy technology.
        ``(7) National Institute of Standards and Technology,
    standardization of weights and measures and the metric system.
        ``(8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
        ``(9) National Space Council.
        ``(10) National Science Foundation.
        ``(11) National Weather Service.
        ``(12) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
        ``(13) Science Scholarships.
        ``(14) Scientific research, development, and demonstration, and
    projects therefor.

                        *    *    *    *    *    *    *

                         ``SPECIAL OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS
         ``3.(k) The Committee on Science and Technology shall review and
    study on a continuing basis laws, programs, and Government activities
    relating to non-military research and development.''