(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
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.
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
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
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
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
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
Ms. Green described state efforts to address
the cleanup and remediation of former methamphetamine
Dr. Martyny and Dr. Bell endorsed H.R. 798
and discussed the research needs related to residential
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
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
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
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
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
The bill also requires the Administrator to convene a
meeting of relevant state agencies, individuals and
organizations to share best practices and identify research
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
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
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
evaluate the performance of various
methamphetamine laboratory cleanup and remediation
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
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
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.
Peter R. Orszag,
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
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
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
XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
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
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,
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
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
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-
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
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'
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
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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
Chairman Gordon. If the gentleman would yield, and then we
Mr. Hall. I do yield.
Chairman Gordon.--five minutes for anyone who would like to
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
Chairman Gordon. More than consult. It will be more than
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
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
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
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
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
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
Now let me just very briefly tell me what--tell you what
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.]
Committee Rules, Amendment to Committee Rules, H.R. 365
Rule 1. General Provisions
General Statement (a)
Power to Sit and Act; Subpoena Power (c)
Sensitive or Confidential Information Received Pursuant to
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
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)
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
Special Oversight Functions
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(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)]
(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
(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.
(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
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.
(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
(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
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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
(k) No Member may authorize a vote by proxy with respect to any
measure or matter before the Committee. [XI 2(f)]
(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
(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)]
(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
(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
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
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
(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
(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)]
(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
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
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
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
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including all activities related to weather, weather services,
climate, and the atmosphere, and marine fisheries, and oceanic
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
measurement, including the metric system of
the Technology Administration of the Department of
the National Institute of Standards and Technology;
the National Technical Information Service;
competitiveness, including small business
tax, antitrust, regulatory and other legal and
governmental policies as they relate to technological
development and commercialization;
technology transfer including civilian use of defense
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;
research, development, demonstration, and standards
related activities of the Department of Homeland Security;
Small Business Innovation Research and Technology
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
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
university research policy, including infrastructure
university research partnerships, including those
issues relating to computers, communications, and
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
(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
Earth remote sensing policy;
civil aviation research, development, and
research, development, and demonstration programs of
the Federal Aviation Administration; and
(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
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.
(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
(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
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
(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
(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)]
(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
``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,
* * * * * * *
``o) Committee on Science and Technology.
``(1) All energy research, development, and demonstration, and
projects therefor, and all federally owned or operated non-military
``(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
* * * * * * *
``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.''