[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.''


