Summary of activities of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives for the ... Congress

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Summary of activities of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives for the ... Congress
Uniform Title:
Summary of activities of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives for the ... Congress (Committee print)
Physical Description:
v. : ; 24 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science andTechnology
Publisher:
U.S. G.P.O.
Place of Publication:
Washington
Frequency:
annual[<1985->]
biennial[ former <96th congress>-19]
annual
regular

Subjects

Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Vols. for <1985-> distributed to some depository libraries in microfiche.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with 1975/76.
General Note:
At head of title, 1975/76- : Committee print.
General Note:
Previously classed: Y 4.Sci 2:
General Note:
"Serial J."
General Note:
Description based on: 96th Congress.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028772704
oclc - 02900573
lccn - 80646542 //r81
issn - 0271-342X
Classification:
lcc - Q127.U6 U485a
ddc - 328.73/0765
System ID:
AA00024953:00001

Related Items

Preceded by:
Summary of activities of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives
Related Items:
Summary of activities of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives for the ... Congress (House report)

Full Text

[COMMITTEE PRINT]









SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOR TIE

NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS





Serial BBBB













DECEMBER 1978







Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology


U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 37-445 WASHINGTON : 1978





















CO.MMN1TEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

OIN E. TEAGUE. Texas. Chafrwsan DON FUQUA. Floridla JOHN W. WYDLER, JR., New York
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
-MIKE M\CCORM.\ACK. Washington BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., Californiar
GEO.RGE E. BROWN. JR., California GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
DALE, MILFORD. Texas HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
RAY TH1ORNTON, Arkansas MANUEL LU'JAN,.Ja.. New Mexico
JAME1.S H1. SCHEMER, New York CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
RWHIARD L~. OTTINGER, New York HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
TOM.\ HARKIN. Iowa ELDON RUDD. Arizona
JIM-\ LLO(YD, California ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
JEROME A. AMBRO. New York ROBERT S. WALKER. Pennsylvania
ROBERT (BtOB) KRUE'GER, Texas EDWIN B. FOR'SYTHIE. New Jersey
'MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAME'S.J. BLANCHIARD, Michigan TIOTHIY E. WIRTH. C'olorado STEPH1-EN L. NEAL, North Carolina TI1OMNAS J. DONEFY, New York DOUG WALGR EN. Pennsylvania RONNIE G. FIPPO,-10 Alabama DAN GLICKMAN. Kansas BOB GAM'MAGE,. Texas AN.THIONY C. BIALENSON. California ALBEF~R GORE,. JR.,Tennessee WFA'S WATKINS. Oklahboma ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri CHIARLEFS A. MNosHER. E'xccu tire Director HARkloLDi A, GOULD. Deputy director PIiip B. YEAGER. Cou1018l JAMNES E. WILSON. Technical Conisultanit WIi~i lAMN (. WELJr-, Techical, Contsultanit R%'ALPH 'N. READ, Technical Contsultanit ROBE1RT C. KETCHAM. Counsel JOHN\ P. -kNDEiN,'~i\ Jr.. Sciecet Consultant JAMES W. SPENSLEY. Co11nsel REGI1NA A. DAVNIS. Chief Clerk PAUL A. VANDER MYDE, Minority Staff Director










LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMM7IMI1E ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
T Washington, D.C., January 2, 1979. H-on. THomAs P. O'NEILL, Jr., Speaker of the House, The Capitol,
Washington, D.C.
DiAR MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with Clause 1(d), Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, there is transmitted herewith the Summary of Activities of the Committee on Science and Technology for the 95th Congress.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Members of the House of Representatives, and the general public, with an overview of the legislative and oversight activities conducted by this committee, pursuant to Clause 1(r) and Clause 3(f) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
This document is intended as a general reference tool, and not as a substitute for the hearings records, reports and other committee files.
Sincerely,
OLIN E. TEAGUE, Chairman (III)



















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013













http://archive.org/details/activit95unit














CONTENTS

Page
History of the Committee on Science and Technology ------------------ 1
Committee on Science and Technology ------------------------------- 3
History of Appointments ------------------------------------------- 5
Subcommittees ---------------------------------------------------- 7
Rules Governing Procedure ------------------------------------------ 9
Legislative and Oversight Jurisdiction -------------------------------- 17
Summary of Legislative and Oversight Activity 19
Chapter I.-Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications ----------- 21
Bills Enacted Into Public 21
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Acty 1978 (Public Law 95-76, H.R. 21
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Acty 1979 (Public Law 95-401, H.R. 11401) ----------------- 22
Bills Reported by the Committee, Not Enacted Into Law---------- 23
Solar Power Satellite Research, Development and Demonstration
Program Act of 1978 (H.R. 23
Oversight Investigations and 24
Space Transportation System ------------------------------- 24
Earth Resources Information Systems ------------------------ 24
Seasat Program Cost, Performance and Schedule Review ------- 24 Lewis Research Center ------------------------------------- 25
Space Industrialization ------------------------------------- 255
NASA Program 25
Space Shuttle 25
World-Wide Space Activities -------------------------------- 25
Possibility of Intelligent Life Elsewhere in the Universe -------- 26 Future Space Programs ------------------------------------ 26
International Space Programs ------------------------------- 26
Space Applications User Development----------------------- 26
Space Telescope Program ----------------------------------- 27
Extraterrestrial Intelligence Research ------------------------ 27
NASA Program 27
Space Shuttle 27
United States and Soviet Progress in Space ------------------- 28
Astronauts and 28
System Acquisition ------------------------------------ 28
Technology Utilization --------------------------------- 28
Space 28
Shuttle Training 28
Selected Facilities 28
Weather and Climate ---------------------------------- 28
NASA/University S. R. & T. Policy --------------------- 28
'Tracking and Data 2&
Support Service 28
Trackin5and Data Relay Satellite System ---------------- 28
Galileo upiter Orbiter/Probe) 29
NASA R. & D. Program Support (DTMO and IMS) ------ 29
Large Space Structures Technology Program.-------------- 29
Landsat D and D1 Program ----------------------------- 29
Astronaut and Payload Specialist Training Program------- 29
M





VI

Chapter IL.-Subcommittee on Fossil and Nuclear Energy Research, ?ai
Development and Demonstration ------------------------------ 31
Bills Enacted Into Public Lw--------------31
Energy Research and Development Administration Authorization
of Appropriations for fiscal year 1977 (Public Law 95-39, S. 36) - 31
Department of Energy Act of 1978-Civilian Applications (Public
LawN 95-238, S. 130------------------32
ERDA National Security Programs for fiscal year 1978 (Public
Law 95-183, 1L. 66---------------- 36
Bills Reported by the Committee, Not Enacted Into Law------------37
Department, of Energy Authorization Act, 1979 (H.R. 12163)---.. 37
Department of Energy Authorization Act, 1979 (H.R. 11392)---..39
Oversight Investigations and Activi ties--------------------------- 43
Clinch River Breeder Reactor Prjc------------43
Market Oriented Program Planning Suy----------44 N ew Technologies for- Old Fes--------------44
National Laboratories Supporting DOE---------------------- 44
Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project, Part II---------------- 45
Environmental Protection Agency's New Source Performance
Stanard-----------------------------45
'Magnetohydrodynamics Prga--------------45
Nuclear W~aste Mngmn----------------46
Magnetic Fusion Prga-----------------46
General Oversight Efot-----------------47
Chapter 11.-Subcommnittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and Demonstration------49 Bils Enacted Into Public Law ---------------------------------- 49
Energy Research and Development Administration Authorization
of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1977 (Public Law 95-39, S.
36)--------------------------------------49
Department of Energy Act of 1978-Civilian Applications (Public
Law 95-238, S. 1340)------------------------------------ 50
Solar Photovoltaic Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-590, H.R. 12874)----------54
Bills Reported by the Committee, Not Enacted Into Law------------55
Department of Energy Authorization Act, 197 9 (H. R. 12163) -_ -_ 55Solar Power Satellite Research, Development and Demonstration
Program Act of 1978 (H.R. 12505)------------------------- 57
Oversight Investigations and Activities-------------------------- 58
The Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and
Demonstration Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-413);- Oversight
Hearings ---------------------------------------------- 58
Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974 (Public
Law 94-409); Oversight Hearings ------------------------- 59
Solar Photovoltaic Energy Systems -------------------------- 59
Energy Demand, the Potential for Energy Conservation and
Possible Lifestyle Changes Associated with Future Energy Use.. 59
Used Oil R-eiig------------------59
Earth Resources and Drilling Technology---------------------59
Alcohol Fuels---------------------------------------- 59
Bioconversion -------------------------------------------- 60
Passive So.,ar Heating and Cooling --------------------------- 60
Hydrogen Energy Sses----------------60
Chapter IV.-Subcommnittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere-. 61
Bills Enacted Into Public La-----------------61
Environmental Protection Agency Research Authorization,
Fiscal Year 1978 (Pubtic Law 95-155, H.R. 5101) --------------61
Environmental Protection Agency Research Authorization,
Fiscal Year 1979 (Public Law 95-477), H.R. 11302) ------------63
Energy Research and Development Administration AuthorizaStion, Fiscal Year 1978 (Public Law 95-238, S. 1340)------------64
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act Reauthorization, Fiscal Year 1978 (Public Law 95-153, H.R. 4297) ---------65
National Climate Program Law (Public Act 95-367, H.R. 6669)_ 66
Marine Pollution Environmental Research, Development and
Monitoring Act (Public Law 95-273, S. 17)--------68
Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-541, H.R.
7749-------------------------------------70





VII

'Chapter IV.-Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere-Con. Pao
Bills Reported by the Committee, Not Enacted Into Law - - - - - 72
Department of Energy Authorization, Fiscal Year 1979 (H.R.
72
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act Reauthorization, Fiscal Years 73
Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Act of 1978 (H.R.
74
Decommissioning and Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities
(H.R. 76
Foresight and Oversight Investigations and Activities -------------- 77
Environmental Health and Safety Implications of the President's
National Energy Plan: Foresight Hearings------------------ 77
Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Waste Management: Foresight
Hearings- 79
Ground Water Quality Research and Development: Foresight
Hearings and Investigations ------------------------------ 80
Environmental Research Reserve Networks: Foresight Hearings- 81 EPA Research and Development Issues: Oversight Hearings---- 82 Oil Spill Recovery Technology R. & D.: Oversight Hearings - - 83
Environmental Responsibility Within the Department of Energy:
Oversight Hearings -------------------------------------- 84
Research on the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Oversight
Hearings-- 85
Environmental Monitoring: Oversight Hearings --------------- 85
Environmental Health Research at the National Institutes of
Health: Oversight Hearings for the Fiscal Year 1978 Budget-- 87
Environmental Health Research at the National Institutes of
Health: Oversight Hearings for the Fiscal Year 1979 Budget-- 87
Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group: Oversight Hearings----- 88 Special Urban Air Pollution Problems: Oversight Hearings------ 89 NOAA Organic Act: Oversight Investigation (H.R. 9708)------- 90
National Weather Services Act of 1978: Oversight Investigation
(H.R. 91
Proposed Weather Station Closures: Oversight Hearings -------- 92 Weather Modification: Oversight Hearings-------------------- 93
The Status of Resource Recovery: Oversight Investigation - - 94
National Conference on the Environment and Health Care Costs:
Special 95
Proposed Study by the National Academy of Sciences on the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation: Special Project----- 96 Chapter V.-Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Weather---- 99 im Bills Enacted Into Public 99
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act, 1978 (Aeronautics Portion) (Public Law 95-76, H.R.
99
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization
Act, 1979 (Aelonautics Portion) (Public Law 95-401, H.R.
11401) ------------------------------------------------- 100
Bills Reported by the Committee, Not Enacted Into Law - - - - - 101
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 1978 (H.R.
101
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 1979 (H.R.
11495) ------------------------------------------------- 102
National Weather Services Act of 1978 (H.R. 13715) ----------- 103
Oversight Investigations and Activities --------------------------- 104
The First "A" in NASA ------------------------------------ 104
Future Needs and Opportunities in the Air Traffic Control
105
Chapter VI.-Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology ------ 107
Bills Enacted Into Public Law ---------------------------------- 107
National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1978 (Public
Law 95-99 H.R. 107
Earthquake Ylazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124,
H.R. 6683 S. 126) --------------------------------------- 107
Standard Reference Data Act Authorization (Public Law 95-322,
H.R. 11232) -------------------------------------------- 108





VIII

Chapter VI.-Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology-Con.
Bills Enacted Into Public Law-Continued
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act Authorization (Public '
Law 95-422, H.R. 11291)-------------------------------109
National Science Foundation Authorization Act, 1979 (Public
Law 95-434, I .R 11400) --------------------------------- 109
Native Latex Commercialization and Economic Development Act
of 1978 (Public Law 95-592, I.R. 12559, S. 1816)-------- 110
Bills Reported by the Committee, Not Enacted Into Law -----------i
Recombinant DNA Act (H.R. 11192) ------------------------111
Oversight Investigations and Activites--------------------------112
Science Policy Implication of DNA Recombinant Molecule
Research ---------------------------------------------- 112
Oversight of the National Bureau of Standards ----------------112
Review of the Technology Assessment Act--------------------112
A National Policy for Mateiials: Research and Resources...... 112
Informal Oversight; National Science Foundation-------------- 113
Informal Oversight; Office of Science and Technology Policy------- -113
Oversight TripsI ........ 113
Chapter VIL-Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific
Planning, Analysis and Cooperation-....- 115
Oversight Investigations and ActivitiesI ....... -115
The Third U.N. Law of the Sea Conference ------------------- 115
Appropriate Technology--115 Technology Transfer to the Members of OPEC----------------110
U.S.-U.S.S.R.: Key Issues in Scientific Exchanges and Technology Traner_-117
UN Conference on Science and Technology for Development... 117 Nutrition Research and Surveillance---------------------. 118
Nutrition and the Recommended Dietary Allowance Standards.. 118
The Role of the Department of Justice's National Research Institute- 119
Research into Violent BehaviorI ..... ---------------------119
Research into Criminal Sentencing----120 Computers and Health Care--120 Technology and the Cost of Health Care ---------------------121
Computers and the Learning Society-.....-121
The Role of Research and Development in Improving the Quality of Urban Life_---122
New Drug Approval Procedures in the Food and Drug Administration ----------------------------------------------123
Chapter VII.--Special Oversight: Research to Aid the Handicapped -...125 Chapter IX.-Minority Activities-.....- 129
Committee Publications-- -- -- -- -- --133
Hearings-- 133
Reports--- 136
Public Laws ..----------------------------------------------139











HISTORY OF THE C0.1,111ITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee on Science and Technology is the successor of the Committee on Science and Astronautics which was formed as a standing committee in the House of Representatives in 1959. The predecessor committee was a direct outgrowth of the intense escalation of scientific and technological endeavors in the United States after World War II. Science and technology began to play an increasingly iniportant and demanding role in every f acet of our lives.
It was recognized that certain functions and jurisdictions related to science and technology that heretofore had been dispersed anionrIn several House committees, should be combined under the province of one standing committee.
In addition to bringing these functions together under the new Committee on Science and Astronautics, the House of Representatives also charged this committee with new functions incident to the ,development of outer space.
The formal jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Astronautics included outer space, including exploration and control thereof, astronautical research and development inclusive of resources, personnel, equipment and facilities, scientific research and development, science scholarships and legislation relating to scientific agencies, particularly the Bureau of Standards (standardization of weights and measures and the metric system), the National Aeronautics and Space X(Iministration, the National Aeronautics and Space Council and the National Science Foundation.
The Committee on Science and Astronautics retained this jurisdiction from 1959 to 1974 until the end of the 93rd Congress. Whereas the Committee's original emphasis in 19059 was almost exclusively astronautics, over its 15 year history its jurisdiction had expanded to encompass scientific research and development in general and both the ,emphasis and workload of the Committee had diversified to include this more comprehensive area.
In March of 1974, the Select Committee on Committees, appointed by the House of Representatives to conduct an extensive study of the ,organization of the House and the alignment of its respective Committee jurisdictions, presented its recommendations to the Congress. Included in these was the provision to establish a Committee on Science and Technology to replace the existing Committee on Science and Astronautics.
The new Committee on Science and Technology became operational at; the commencement of the first session of the 94th ConLyress. It retained the previous jurisdictions of the Committee on Science and Astronautics and took on the responsibility of functions that were implied but not explicitly spelled out within the mandate of its predecessor. These include policy functions for science and the development of
(1)






technology andl also scientific and technological considerations bearing on policy decisions that are not primarily scientific. The general realm of scientific research and development now encompassed energy, environmental, atmospheric and civil aviation research and development.
In addition, the Committee on Science and Technology was delegated jurisdiction over the National Weather Service. It was considered that the independence of weather with oceans and atmosphere made this a logical responsibility for the Committee.
Over and above the oversight functions that come within its legislative jurisdiction, the Committee on Science and Technology was assigned special oversight functions to review and study on a continuing basis all laws, programs and government activities involving nonmilitary research and development.
At the beginning of the 95th Congress, upon the abolition of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the jurisdiction of the Science and Technology Committee was expanded to include nuclear research and development.













COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY



OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
DON FUQUA, Florida JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California GARY A. MYERS. Pennsylvania DALE MILFORD, Texas HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey TOM HARKIN, Iowa ELDON RUDD, Arizona
JIM LLOYD, California ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES J. BLANCHARD,. Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas BOB GAMMAGE, Texas ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee WES WATKINS, Oklahoma ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri
CHARLES A. MOSHIER, Executive Director
HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director REGINA A. DAVIs, Chief Clerk PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel JAMES E. WILSON, Technical Consultant WILLIAM G. WELLS, Technical Consultant
RALPH N. READ, Technical Consultant ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel JOHN P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Counsel PAUL A. VANDER MYDE, Minority Staff Director
(3)















HISTORY OF APPOINTMENTS
CO 3IITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TEC INULOGY
NINETY-FI IFT1 CONGhRESS


The following Members were elected by II.Res. 117. adopted January 19.1977: Olin E. Teague (clchairman) Texas: Don Fuqua, Florida; Walter Flowers, Alabama; Robert A. Roe, New Jersey; MAlike McCormack, Washington; George E. Brown, Jr., California; Dale Milford, Texas; Ray Thornton, Arkansas; James I. Schener, New York; Richard L. Ottinger, New York; Tom Harkin, Iowa; Jim Lloyd, California; Jerome A. Ambro, New York; Robert (Bob) Krueger; Texas; Marilyn Lloyd, Tennessee: James J. Blanchard, Michigan; Timothy E. Wirth, Colorado Stephen L. Neal. North Carolin ; Thomas J. Downey, New York; Doug Walgren, Pennsylvania: Ronnie G. Flippo,. Alabama; Dan Glickman, Kansas: Bob Gannage, Texas; Anthony C. Beilenson. California; Albert Core, Jr., Tennessee: WeP Watkins, Oklahoma: Richard A. Tonry, Louisiana.
The following Memnbers were elected by II.Res. 11 adopted January 19, 1977: John W. Wvdler, New York; Larry Winn, Jr., Kansas; Louis Frey, Jr., Florida: Barry M. Goldwater, Jr., California: Gary A. Myers, Pennsylvania: IHamilton Fish, Jr., New York: Manuel Lujan, Jr., New Mlexico: Carl D. Pursell. Michigan: Harold C. Hollenbeck, New Jersey; Eldon Rudd, Arizona; Robert K. Dornan, C(alifornia; Robert S. Walker, Pennsylvania. Edwin B. Forsythe, New Jersey, was elected to the Committee by H.Res. 371, adopted March 3, 1977.
Mr. Tonry resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives May 4, 1977.
Robert A. Young, Missouri. was elected to the Committee by HI.Res. 697, adopted July 20, 1977.
(5)

















SUBCOMMITTEES

SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
DoN FUQUA, Florida, Chairman
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LARRY WINN, Jr., Kansas
JIM LLOYD, California Louis FREY, Jr., Florida
THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama ELDON RUDD, Arizona
BOB GAMMAGE, Texas ALBERT GORE, Jr., Tennessee TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama, Chairman
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York HAMILTON FISH, Jr., New York
DouG WALGREN, Pennsylvania BARRY 3M. GOLDWATER, Jr., California
BOB GAMMAGE, Texas MANUEL LUJAN, Jr., New Mexico
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
MIKE MCCORMACK, Washington ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
DALE MILFORD, Texas EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
RAY THORNTON, Alabama Louis FREY, Jr., Florida
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California JIM LLOYD, California ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama

ADVANCED ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
MIKE MCCORMACK, Washington, Chairman
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York BARRY M. GOLDWATER. Jr., California
'TOM HARKIN, Iowa ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York LARRY WIxNx, Jr., Kansas
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan HAMILTON FISH, Jr., New York
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama ELDON RUDD, Arizona
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California ALBERT GORE, Jr., Tennessee WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado WES WATKINS. Oklahoma RAY THORNTON, Arkansas ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri





8

ENVIRONMENT AND THE ATMOSPHERE
GEORGE E. BRowN, Jr., California, Chairman
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvaniia
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York LARRY TVNN, Jr., Kansas
DouG WALGREN, Pennsylvania EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California VWES WATKINS, Oklahoma TOM HARKIN, Iowa

TRANSPORTATION, AVIATION AND WEATHER
DALE MILFORD, Texas, Chairman. JIM LLOYD, California JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
HOBERT A. ROE, New Jersey ELDON RUDD, Arizona
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas BARRY -M. GOLDWATER, Jr., California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York Do- FuQUA, Florida
ROBERT A. YOUNG, Missouri

SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas, Chairman Do- FUQUA, Florida HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MAN'UEL LUJAN, Jr., New Mexico
RONNIE G. FLIPPo, Alabama MIKE MCCORMACK, Washington GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California


DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC PLANNING, ANALYSIS AND COOPERATION
JAMFES H. SCHEUER, New York, Chairman
JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas ALBERT GORE, Jr., Tennessee DALE "MILFORD, Texas


The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member shall serve as ex officio memhers 'of all subcommittees and shall have the right to vote on all matters before the subcommittees, subject to the provisions of Clause B 18 of the Committee Rules Governing Procedure.











RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE

COr1rvITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TE CHNOLOGY
NINETY-FIFTII CONGRESS
A. General
1. The Rules of the House of Representatives, insofar as they are applicable, shall govern the committee and its subcommittees. The rules of the committee, insofar as they are applicable, shall be the rules of any subcommittee of the committee.

B. Committee Meetings and Procedures
1. The meetings of the committee shall be held on the 1st and .3r(d Tuesday of each month the House is in session at 10 a.m. and at such other times and in such place as the chairman may designate; however, a regular Tuesday meeting of the committee may be dispensed with bv the chairman.
2. The chairman of the committee may call and convene as considered 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. The committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the chairman.
3. If at least three members of the committee desire that a special meeting of the committee be called by the chairman, those members may file in the offices of the committee their written request to the chairman for that special meeting. Such request shall specify the measure or matter to be considered. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the clerk of the committee shall notify the chairman of the filing request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of the request. the chairman does not call the requested special meeting, to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the members of the committee may file in the offices of the committee their written notice that a special meeting of the committee will be held, specifying the date and hour of. and the measure or matter to be considered at that special meeting. The committee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the clerk of the committee shall notify all members of the committee that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered; and only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at t~hat spial meeting.
4. If the chairman of the committee is not present at any meeting of the committee, the rankingmember of the majority party on the coinmittee who is present shal preside at that meeting; the same rule shall apply to all subcommittees.
(9)

37-445-79 2




10

.. One-third of the Members of the committee shall constitute a quorumin for all purposes except that a majority must be present in all cases in order to: (1) report any legislation, measure or matter out of the committee, (2) close committee meetings or hearings or (3) authorize the issuance of subpoenas. This rule shall also apply to all subcominittees of the committee to the extent applicable.
6. No general proxies may be used for any purpose: however, a em)er may vote by special proxy. The special proxy authorization shall be in writing, shall assert that the Member is absent on official business or is otherwise unable to be present at the meeting of the committee, shall designate the person who is to execute the proxy authorization and shall be limited to a specific measure or matter and any amendments or motions pertaining thereto; except that a Member may authorize a general proxy only for motions to recess, adjourn or other procedural matters. Each proxy to be effective shall be signed by the Member signing his or her vote and shall contain the date and time of day that the proxy is signed. Proxies may not be counted for a quorum.
7. A rolleall of the Members may be had at the request of three or more Members.
8. No measure or recommendation shall be reported or tabled by the committee unless a majority of the committee is actually present, nor shall the committee or any of its subcommittees make any determination by poll on any measure or matter involving their substantive, or nonprocedural, legislative or oversight functions.
9. (a) It shall not be in order for the committee or any subcommittee of the committee, to consider any new or original measure or matter.
(1) unless a written copy of the measure or matter to be considered has been available in the office of each Member of the committee or subcommittee for at least 3 calendar days, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays;
(2) unless written notice of the date, place, and subiect matter
of consideration has been available in the office of each Member of the commitee or subcommittee for at least 3 calendar days in advance of consideration, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays; and
(3) unless a transcript, and a record of all motions and votes by
each Member present, is maintained during the meeting, and is made promptly available upon demand to any Member of the
committee or subcommittee.
(b) No subcommittee shall meet for markup or approval, when any other subcommittee of the committee is meeting to consider any measure or matter for markup or approval.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing sections of this rule, consideration of any measure or matter by the committee or subcommittee shall be in order by vote of two-thirds of the Members present, provided that written notice of the meeting and motion for consideration, and a description of each specific measure or matter to be considered has been delivered to the office of each Member of the committee or subcommittee at least 1 hour in advance of the meeting.
(d) For purposes of this rule: (1) the Members of a subcommittee shall include ex-officio Members; (2) the term "measure or matter"




11

shall include but not be limited to, bills and resolutions, including reports thereon, other reports, subpoenas, and the disposition of committee or subcommittee resources.
10. 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 rolicall vote is demanded. The result of each suceh rollcall 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,--.
11. All legislation and other matters referred to the committee shall be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate jurisdiction within 2 weeks unless, by majority vote of the Majority Members of the full committee, consideration is to be by the full committee.
12. 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.
13. Bills will be taken up for hearing only when called by the chairman of the committee or subcommittee or by a majority vote of a luorurn of the committee or subcommittee. except those matters which are the subject of special-call meeting outlined in rule B-3.
14. The time any one 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 15 minutes, and then only when he has been recognized by the chairman, except that this time limit may be waived by the chairman or acting chairman. The rule of germaneness will be enforced by the chairman.
15. Any legislative or nonprocedural motion made at a regular or special meeting of the committee or its subcommittees and which is entertained by the chairman shall, be reduced to writing upon the demand of any Member present and a copy made available to each Member present.
16. No private bill will be reported by the committee if there are two or more dissenting votes. Private bills so rejected by the committee will not be reconsidered durin g the same Congreszs unles!s new evidence sufficient to justify a new hearing has been presented to the committee.
17. The majority of the Majority Members of the committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of Majority to Minority Members for 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 than the ratio for the full committee. Provided, further, that Majority Party representation on conference committees also shall be no less favorable to the Majority Party than the ratio for the full committee.
18. The chairman and ranking Minority Member shall serve as exofficio members of all subcommittees and shall have the right to vote and be counted as part of the quorum on all matters before the subcommittees.




12

19. 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 at least 1 day during the hearing.
20. No committee or subcommittee hearing may be held unless one Member of the Majority and one Member of the Minority are present.
21. The number of Members to constitute a quorum for taking testimony and receiving evidence shall not be less than two.
22. Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the committee or any of its subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the committee or subcommittee in open session and with a quorum present, determines by rolleall vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public: Provided, however, that no person other than members of the committee and such congressional staff and such departmental representatives as they may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. This paragraph does not apply to open committee hearings which are provided for by clause 4(a) (3) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives or by Rule B-21 contained herein, or to any meeting that relates solely to internal budget or personnel matters.
23. Each hearing conducted by the committee or any of its subcommittees shall be open to the public except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a quorum present, determines by rolleall vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that d(ay shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evi(dence. or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security or would violate any lw or rule of the House of Representatives: Provided, however, that the committee may by the same procedure vote to close one subsequent day of hearing.
24. The committee shall make public announcement of the date, place. and subject matter of any of its hearings at least 1 week before the commencement of the hearing. If the committee determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, it shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this subparagraph shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest.
2)5. The committee shall, insofar as is practicable, require each witness who is to appear before it to file with the committee (in advance of his or her appearance) a written statement of the proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary of his or her argument.
26. The committee or any of its subcommittees may sit while the House is reading a measure for amendment under the 5-minute rule,. provided 10 or more Members on the House floor do not object when special leave for such committee or suboccommittee to sit is requested.
27. Clause 2(k) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is hereby incorporated by reference.





13

C. Subcommittee Structure. JiIrisdiction and Procedures
1. The committe shall have the following standing subcommittees with the jurisdiction indicated. All bills, resolutions and other matt er relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of each subcommittee shall be referred to such subcommittee.
(a) Subcommittee on Space Seience and Applications.-Authorizing legislation, general and special oversight and all other matters relating to the National Aeronautics and Space Adminiatration (except aeronautical research and development), and national programs of research and development in space exploration, space applications and related matters.
(b) Subcommittee on Fossil and Nuclear Energy Research, Develop ment and Demonstration.-All legislative and oversight matters related to research, development. and demonstration of energy technologies utilizing fossil and nuclear resources. inclulinig the fuel cycle, except space nuclear applications and nuclear
science.
(c) Subcommittee on Advanced Enierqgy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and Dem ns'tratio n.
All legislative and oversight matters related to research, developmnent, and demonstration related to energy conservation technologies and of energy technologies utilizing solar and geothermal resources, and including space nuclear applications, basic energy
sciences and high energy physics.
(d) Subcommittee on the Enriron menft and the Atmosphere.Legislation and other matters relating to environmental research and development (including. but not limited to. EPA's research and development program. ERDA's environment and safety program life sciences and biomedical applications), the National Weather Service, the National Environmental Satellite Service, and the research and development activities of the National
'Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(e) Subcomimittee on Transportation, Aviation, and Weather.iegislation and other matters relating to civil aviation research nd development (include that part of the annual authorization )f the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to aeronautical research and development and the annual authorization of the Fede.al Aviation Administration research and development) and operational weather programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: and oversight of surface transportation research and development (includes Department of Transportation, TTrban Mass Transportation Administration.
"ederal Railroad Administration. Federal Highway Administra.ion, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the
Coast Guard).
(f) SubcomI.ittee on Reclence. Research and Terlchnology.-Authorizing legislation and other matters relating to the National Science Foundation (NSF). to the National Bureau of Standards ,(NBS), all scientific research and development and applications;




14

science programs: national science policy; science centers and libraries; scientific resources (including manpower); science scholarships; technology transfer; technology assessment; technological innovation; standards (weights, measures, etc.); patent policies as they relate to Federal research and development programsi,: and special oversight into all non military research and development not falling under other subcommittees and which
transcends the responsibility of two or more executive agencies.
(g) Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientif
Planingq, Anlys8s, and Cooperation.-Special oversight and evaluation of single agency, nonmilitary research and development programs for those agencies not included in the jurisdiction of other subcommittees; legislation, oversight, and other matters relating to integrovernmental mechanisms for research development, and technology transfer, international technology transfer includmg economic effects; international cooperation in science and technology. including bilateral agreements and relationship to foreign policy; and interagency and international coordination of population-related research and development, including food, crime control, health, housing, and resources, not within the jurisdiction of other subcommittees.
2. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the committee on all matters referred to it. Each subcommittee shall conduct legislative and general oversight, future research and forecasting, and budget impact studies on matters within their respective jurisdictions. 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.
3. All Members 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.
4. A majority vote of any subcommittee will be required to report any bill, resolution, or other matter to the full committee, or to table any bill, resolution, or other matter before it.

D. Reports
1. The report of the committee on a measure which has been approved by the committee shall include (A) the oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to the last sentence of clause 2(b) (1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives separately set out and clearly identified: (B) the statement required by section 308
(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and clearly identified, if the measure provides new budget authority or new or increased tax expenditures; (C) the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of such Act separately set out and clearly identified, whenever theDirector (if timely submitted prior to the filing of the report) has.







submitted such estinmate and comparison to the committee; andI (P) a summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by thle Committee on Government Operations under clause 2 (b) (2) of 11 ulle X of the Rules of the House of Representatives separately setout 'Ind( clearly identified whenever such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the legislative committee in a timely f ashion to allo w an opportunity to consider such findings and recommendations dung the committee's deliberations on the measure.
2. Each report of the committee on each bill or joint resolution of public character reported shall contain (A) a detailed analytical statement as to whether the enactment of such bill or joint resolution into law may have an inflationary impact on prices and cost in the operation of the national economy, and (B) with respect to eahrollcall vote on a motion to report such bill or resolution, the total number of votes cast for and the total number of votes cast against the reporting of such bill or resoluLtion.
3. If, at the time of approval, of any measure or matter by the comnmittee, any member of the committee gives notice of intention to tile supplemental, minority, or additional views, that member shall be entitled to not less than 3 calendar days (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 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 cov er a recital that any such supplemental, minority, or additional views (and any material submitted under subdvisions (C) and (D) of Rule D-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 subparagraph 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.
4. The chairman of the committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, shall advise Members of the day and hour wh~len the time for subm-itting 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. If the chairman of the committee or subcommittee, as appropriate. decides to extend the time for submission of views beyond 3 days, hieshall, communicate such fact to Members, including the revised day and hour for submissions to be received, without delay.
5. Any committee, subcommittee or staff report published by the committee or a subcommittee shall follow the same procedure f*or itsc approval, including the opportunity to submit views, as is followed in the case of a report accompanying a measure or matter which is intended to be filed.




16

6. 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.
7. In any event, the report of the committee on a measure which has been approved by the committee shall be filed within 7 calendar dys (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 a 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.
8. Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee shall not be considered by the full committee until after the intervention of 3 calendar days, excluding Saturday, Sunday and holidays, from the time the report is submitted and printed hearings thereon shall be made available, if reasonably possible, to the Members, except that this rule may be waived in the discretion of the chairman.

E. Broadcasting of Committee Hearings
1. The committee may permit, by majority vote, hearings or meetings which are open to the public to be covered in whole or in part by television, radio and still photography-or by any such methods of coverage-in accordance with Clause 3 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
2. The authority contained in Rule 1 above shall extend to the standing subcommittees of the committee, subject to the same regulations and procedures.













LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


"RULE X. ESTABLISHMENT AND JURISDICTION OF STANDING COMMITTEES
"The Committees and Their Jurisdiction
"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 : and all bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of aiiy standing committee as listed in this clause shall (in accordance with and subject to clause 5) be referred to such committees, as follows:

"(r) Committee on Science and Technology.
"(1) Astronautical research and development, including resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities.
"(2) Bureau of Standards, standardization of weights and measures and the metric system.
"(3) National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"(4) National Aeronautics and Space Council.
"(5) National Science Foundation.
"(6) Outer space, including exploration and control thereof.
"(7) Science scholarships.
"(S) Scientific research and development.
"(9) Civil aviation research and development.
"(10) Environmental research and development.
"(11) All energy research and development.
"(12) National Weather Service.
"In addition to its legislative jurisdiction under the preceding provisions of this paragraph (and its general oversight function under clause 2(b) (1)), the committee shall have the special oversight functions provided for in clause 3 (f) with respect to all non-military research and development.


"SPECIAL OVERSIGHT FUNCTIONS
"3. (f) The Committee on Science and Technology shall have the function of reviewing and studying, on a continuing basis. all laws. programs. and Government activities dealing with or involving nonmilitary research and development."
(17)















SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANDI) OYERSIGIT ACTIVITY
During the 95th Congress, 2-24 bills were referred to the ConliitIe on Science and Technology. The Committee reported 27 bills to the House (one adversely), 18 of which were enacted into law.
This activities report summarizes the legislative activity of the Committee by subcommittee. Section C (1) of the Committee Rules Governing Procedure is reprinted here for emphasis:
C. Subcommittee Structure. Jurisdiction and Procedures
1. The committee shall have the following standing subcommittees with the jurisdiction indicated. All bills, resolutions and other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of each subconmittee shall be referred to such subcommittee.
(a) Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications.-Authorizing legislation, general and special oversight and all other matters relating to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (except aeronautical research and development), and national programs of research and development in space exploration,
space applications and related matters.
(b) Subcommittee on Fossil and uiiclear Energy Research.
Development and Demomstration.-All legislative and oversight matters related to research, development, and demonstration of energy technologies utilizing fossil and nuclear resources, including the fuel cycle, except space nuclear applications and nuclear
science.
(c) Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologfes arnd
Energy Conservation Research. Development and Demo.s'tration.-All legislative and oversight matters related to research.
development, and demonstration related to energy conservation technologies and of energy technologies utilizing solar and geothermal resources, and including space nuclear applications, basic
energy sciences and high energy physics.
(d) Subcommittee on the Environmenwt and the Atmosiphere.Legislation and other matters relating to environmental research and development (including, but not limited to. EPA's research and development program. ERDA's env ironment and safety program. life sciences and biomedical applications), the National Weather Service; the National Environmental Satellite Service; and the research and development activities of the Nationa
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(e) Subcommittee on Transportatlon, Aviation, and Weather.Legislation and other matters relating to civil aviation research and development (includes that part of the annual authorization of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to aeronautical research and development and the annual authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration's research and devel(19)




20

om)ient) and operational weather programs of the National (hceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and oversight of surface transportation research and development (includes Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin istrantion and the Coast Guard).
(f) Subommittee on Science, Research and Technolocy.Authorizing legislation and other matters relating to the National Science Foundation (NSF). to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). all scientific research and development and applications; -cience programs: national science policy; science centers and liraries: scientific resources (including manpower); science scholarships; technology transfer; technology assessment; technological innovation; standards (weights, measures, etc.); patent policies as they relate to Federal research and development programs: and special oversight into all nonmilitary research and development not falling under other subcommittees and which transcends the responsibility of two or more executive agencies.
(g) Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientifie
Panningq, Analy.is and Cooperation.-Special oversight and evaluation of single agency, nonmilitary research and development programs for those agencies not included in the jurisdiction of other subcommittees; legislation, oversight, and other matters relating to intergovernmental mechanisms for research, development. and technology transfer; international technology transfer including economic effects; international cooperation min science and technology, including bilateral agreements and relationship to foreign policy:; and interagency and international coordination of population-related research and development, including food, crime control, health, housing, and resources, not within the jurisdiction of other subcommittees.
In addition, the Committee authorizes its seven subcommittees to, conduct their own oversight activities. Each Subcommittee has included a summary of their oversight studies and investigations during the 95th Congress.
The Committee on Science and Technology has, since the latter days of the 94th Congerss, conducted special oversight activity in the area of Federal Research to aid the handicapped. This special oversight activity is summarized in a separate chapter, following the seven subcommittee chapters.











CHAPTER I.-SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS
BILLS ENACTED INTO PUBLIC LAw
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE AD3IN ISTRIUTIOX AUTIIORIZATIOXN ACT, 1978
Public Law 95-76 (H.R. 4088)
To Authorize Appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ior research and development, construction of facilities, and research and program management, and for other purposes.
Summary
Public Law 95-76 authorized $4,049,429,000 to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1978. The Authorization included $3,041,000,000 for research and development programs under the following twelve (12) line items: Space Shuttle, Space Flight Operations, Expendable Launch Vehicles, Physics and Astronomy, Lunar and Planetary Exploration, Life Sciences, Space Applications, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Space Research and Technology, Energy Technology Applications, Tracking and Data Acquisition, and Technology Utilization. The Authorization included $160,940,000 for Construction modification and rehabilitation of facilities including land acquisition under seventeen (17) line items and $846,989,000 for Research and Program Management which includes the salaries of employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Continuous authorization was provided, subject to repeal by subsequent legislation, for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into and maintain a contract for tracking and data relay satellite services (TDSS) with no cost to the government prior to rendering of services, and contingent liability of the government reported to Congress each January. Public Law 94-39 and Public Law 94-307 were amended to terminate specific prior authorizations for which appropriations had not been made. Public Law 94-307 was also amended to increase NASA authorization in fiscal year 1977 by $95,000,000 for the Space Shuttle Program research and development. Legislative history
H.R. 2221 was introduced on January 19, 1977, and referred to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications. Hearing's were held by the full Committee in February 1977, and by the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications in February 1977. The Carter Administration amended the original budget request and H.R. 4088 was introduced on February 14, 1977 reflecting the changes. H.R. 4088 was referred to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Application .
(21)






Hearings were held by the full Committee in February 1977, and by I he Subcommittee on Space Science and Application in February 1977. The Carter Administration amended the original budget request and IT.R. 4088 was introduced on February 14, 1977 reflecting the changes. IT.R. 4088 was referred to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and superseded H.R. 2221 in further action. Additional hearings were held in February 1977, and in March, 1977.
II.R. 4088 was reported to the full Committee on March 1, 1977, which then ordered it reported to the House with amendment in the form of a substitute on March 9, 1977 (H.R. Rept. 95-67). An open rule with one hour of general debate was granted waiving all points of ord(ler on germaneness. The House passed H.R. 4088 on March 17, 1977, with one amendment introduced on the floor. The vote was 338 yeas, 44 nays, 50 not voting. Referred to the Senate Committee on (ommerce, Science and Transportation.
The House disagreed with the Senate amendment in the form of a substitute to H.R. 4088 which passed the Senate on May 13, 1977 (S. Rept. 95-120). Conferees were appointed, the Conference Committee met and agreed to the Conference report (H. Rept. 95-448) which was filed June 21, 1977. The conference report contained $10,640,000 more than the Senate and $4,400,000 less than the House. The conference report passed the House on July 19, 1977, and the bill became law on July 30, 1977. Public Law 95-76.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1979
Public Law 95-401 (H.R. 11401)
To authorize appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research and development, construction of facilities, and research and program management, and for other purposes. Sulmmary
Public Law 95-401 authorized $4,401,600,000 to be appropriated to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 1979. The Authorization included $3,337,600,000 for research and development programs under the following twelve (12) line items: Space Shuttle. Space Flight Operations. Expendable Launch Vehicles, Physics and Astronomy, Lunar and Planetary Exploration, Life Sciences, Space Applications, Aeronautical Research and Technology, Space Research and Technology, Energy Technology Applications, Tracking and Data Acquisition, and Technology Utilization. The authorization included $150,000,000 for construction, modification and rehabilitation of facilities including land acquisition under fifteen (15) line items and $914,000,000 for Research and Program Management which includes the salaries of employees of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 USC 2473) was amended to include the declaration that NASA apply its expertise to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs. In addition, NASA was directed to report to Congress bv December 31. 1978, on its employee conflicts of interest, conduct and disclosure policy.




23

Legi8lative history
H.R. 10664 was introduced on January 31, 1978,. and referred to t he Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications. Hearings were held in February 1978 (jointly with the Subcommittee on Transportation. Aviation and Weather on February 22). H.R. 10664 was reported to the full Committee with amendments on March 7, 1977. Additional amendments were incorporated in full Committee on March 7, 1977, and the full Committee reported a clean bill, H.R. 11401 (H. Report 95-973) on March 14, 1978. A one hour rule was granted, and the House passed H.R. 11401 on April 25, 1978, with one amendment introduced on the floor. The vote was 345 yeas, 54 nays, 35 not voting. Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
The House disagreed with the Senate amendment to H.R. 11401 in the form of a substitute which passed the Senate on May 10, 1978. (S. Rept. 95-799). Conferees were appointed, and the Committee of Conference exchanged papers between the House and Senate and agreed to the Conference report (H. Rept. 93-1509). The Conference report contained $13,000,000 more than the Senate and $13.700.000 less than the House. The conference report passed the House on September 19, 1978 and became law on September 30, 1978.


BILLS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE, NOT ENACTED INTO LAW
SOLAR POWER SATELLITE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROG(RAMi ACT OF 19 7 8
(H.R. 12505)
To provide for a research, development and demonstration program to determine the feasibility of collecting in space solar energy to be transmitted to Earth and to generate electricity for domestic purposes.
Summary
The need for energy sources, which can provide near non-depletable base power, requires this nation to investigate all reasonable technologies to a point of understanding where comparative evaluation of alternative technologies can be made. Hearings held jointly by the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and Demonstration in April, 1978. confirmed that the technical, environmental, economic and other issues cannot be resolved without an adequate technology verification program.
T.R. 1 505 would hve authorized amronriations of ~5.000.000 in fiscal year 1979. The Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would have been required to emphasize exnevimponttion amd sun ) moment Solar Power Ratell te reld research and development including environmental studies, socioPoon( mic studies, and assessments of alternative technologies. Thi Secretary of Energy would have been required to transmit to the Congress by January 3, 1979 a comprehensive plan including decis n points for evaluating technology and justifying further program commitments leading to a demonstration satellite.





24
ZLegislative history
II.R.L 10601 was introduced on January 30, 1978, and referred jointly to the Subconunittee on Space Science and Applications and the subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and Demonstration. Hearings were held jointly by the two Subcommittees on April 12, 13, and 14, 1978. Mark-up of the bill by the Subcommittees was held on April 25, 1978 uIId the bill was reported to the full Committee with amendments. HI.R. 12505 superceded H.R. 10601 as a clean bill, and the full Committee ordered reported H.R. 12505 (H. Rept. 95-1120) on May 3, 1978. A one hour open rule was granted and the House passed H.R. 12305 on June 22, 1978, with one amendment introduced on the floor. The vote was 267 yeas, 96 nays, 1 present and 69 not voting.
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, anid Transportation which failed to report the bill.


OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS AND ACTIVITIES
SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications held hearings to review the status of the National Space Transportation System (STS) and provide definitive documentation of present data. The Space Transportation System, of which the Space Shuttle is the main element, is being developed to satisfy national launch vehicle needs during the 1980's. Testimony was received from representatives of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Air Force. The report identifies a munmber of findings under the categories of Space Transportation System status and commitments, STS operations support, Payload planning and STS utilization, assessments of program variations, Transition planning, and Operation costs and reimbursement policy.

EARTH RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The number of users of earth resources data obtained by Landsat satellites and the market for earth resources information have increased dramatically. There is concern, however, for the present lack of commitment to insuring a continuing source of this data and that the time has arrived to prepare for transition from an experimental status to an operational system. Witnesses from federal and state agencies as well the private sector gave testimony at hearings before the Subcommittee. The report based on the hearings and invited letters and papers submitted for the record includes a number of findings and recommendations associated with achieving the objectives of an operational earth resources information system.

SEASAT PROGRAM COST, PERFORMANCE AND SCTEDT'LE REVIEW
The Seasat program was initiated as a "proof-of-concept" miss on to evaluate the effectiveness of remotely sensing oceanological and related meteorological phenomena from a satellite in space. The Sub-






25

eonunittee held hearings to review the cost, performance and schedule status of the systems under development as well as NAAs long raIIe plans for conducting the Seasat program and providing data to users. The report provides a synopsis of key issues and addresses a number of findings and recommendations based on the hearings of the Subcommittee.
LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER
Hearings were held at Lewis Researchl Center, Cleveland, Ohio, to review the status of current programs at the Center and plans for the future utilization of the (C'enter's personnel and laboratory resources. The major technology areas reviewed by the Subcommittee included advanced propulsion systems for space and airborne applications and alternative energy source programs supported by the D)epartment of Energy.
SPACE INDUSTRIALIZATION
The Subcommittee maintains continuing review of current activities and future opportunities for space industrialization to assure that all reasonable steps are taken to reap the benefits of practical space applications at the earliest possible time. Hearings were held to receive testimony from witnesses representing segmen s of the private sector including Aerospace industry and Space Systems development, industrial research and university research. The major areas covered were the prospects for large structures in space for earth services, solar power conversion, material processing and considerations for space venture financing.
NASA PROGRAM REVIEW
The Subcommittee followed the practice of holding NASA program review hearings in the fall of the year prior to the Administration's budget submission for the next fiscal year. The Hearings were held in September 1977 to provide the Subcommittee with an overall review of NASA program with a focus on areas which require special attention or are of particular concern to the Subcommittee including cost, schedule, and performance. NASA witnesses presented testimony covering the Office of Space Science. Energy Programs, Space Flight, Aeronautics and Space Technology, Tracking and Data Acquisition, and Center Operations.
SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM
The Space Shuttle is NASA's major development program requiring substantial funding and program resources. The Subcommittee staff conducted a detailed cost, performance and schedule status review of the Space Shuttle to update the staff study published in December 1976 and provide source material for use of the Subcommittee for the fiscal year 1979 authorization hearings. This review delineates the current major management and technical issues which must be resolved by both NASA and industry to reach the goal of a first orbital flight.

WORLD-WIDE SPACE ACTIVITIES
The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress conducted an investigation at the request of the Subcommittee which docu37-445-79-3




26

rnented space program participation of all the nations of the world with the exception of the United States and Soviet Union as derived from the open literature. This investigation provided the Subcommittee with a unique compilation of world-wide space activities, analysis of significant issues, and source material for support of later hearings and panel discussions held during the 95th Congress 2nd Session.

POSSIBILITY OF INTELLIGENT LIFE ELSEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE
The Science Policy Research Divisions of the Library of Congress
revised and updated the report published in 1975 which provided the Subcommittee with man's current knowledge and understanding relating to the question of the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. This document includes information obtained from the Viking biological probes which landed on Mars, the conclusions of a -NASA sponsored 2-year study, and addresses the issue of radio frequency overcrowding and interference.

FUTURE SPACE PROGRAMS (FULL COM3lTEE ACTION)
The direction and( vitality of this nation's future activities in Space is of great concern to the Subcommittee and the Full Committee. The benefits derived from our continuing space efforts can be maintained and expanded to their full potential only if vital and imaginative programs are sought. Hearings were held by the Full Committee to conduct a broad overview of the current Administration's planning for NASA and the range of opportunities which exist for future space planning.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE PROGRAMS
With space emerging as a place of international importance, it is necessary to determine how the research and development programs of NASA may best fulfill the Space Act of 1958. enhance international cooperation and interchange, and strengthen the United States and other nations in participation in world-wide space activities. The Subcommittee held hearings, which were followed up a month later with panel discussions, to review the opportunities for international cooperation in space and to consider the economic and technological implications inherent in such cooperation. The hearings brought together various government, university and industry representatives from around the world. The panel discussions utilized space experts from the United States. The report of the panel summarizes the hearings and panel discussions. identifies specific issues which can have major impact on the extent of snace utilization, and includes a number of conclusions and recommendations.
SPACE APPLICATIONS USER DEVELOPMENT
NASA terrestrial and space applications program is developing remote sensing technology utilizing satellites in earth orbit. Space represents a unique location from which mankind can view the earth for resources detection and monitoring, earth dynamics monitorin g and forecasting, ocean condition monitoring and forecasting. environmental quality monitoring and weather and climate observation and





27

forecasting. The Subcommittee held hearings to examine NASA efforts in developing users for space applications remote sensing technology and to receive testimony from representatives of Federal agencies, state agencies, and the private sector.

SPACE TELESCOPE PROGRAM
The Space Telescope, initiated by NASA as a new program in fiscal year 1978, will be a major achievement for scientific investigation, providing substantial new capabilities above ground based observatories. The program is international in scope and involves a number of system and organizational interfaces. The Subcommittee held hearings to review the development status of the various system elements and establish schedule and cost commitments for this complex undertaking.
EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH
A major aspect of NASA's space research involves the advancement of human knowledge through analyzing the radiation from space. This exploration provides unique opportunities for understanding the processes which have occurred and arc occuring many light years from earth, in the remote regions of our galaxy and the universe. Hearings were held by the Subcommittee to review space research dealing with analyzing the radiation from space for evidence of signals which may be intelligent in origin. Testimony was received from representatives of the government and scientific community.

NASA PROGRAM REVIEW
The Subcommittee followed the practice of holding NASA program review hearings in the fall of the year prior to the Administration's budget submission for the next fiscal year. The Hearings were held in September 1978 to provide the Subcommittee with an overall review of NASA programs with a focus on areas which require special attention or are of particular concern to the Subconmmittee including program cost, performance, and schedule. Particular attention was given to the Space Shuttle and the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System. NASA. witnesses presented testimony covering the Office of Space Transportation Systems, Space Tracking and Data Systems, Space and Terrestrial Applications, Space Science, Aeronautics and Space Technology and Management Operations.

SPACE SHUTTLE PROGRAM
The Space Shuttle is NASA's major development program requiring substantial funding and program resources. The Subcommittee staff conducted a detailed cost, performance and schedule status review of the Space Shuttle to update the staff study published in January 1978 and to provide source material for use of the Subcommittee for the fiscal year 1980 authorization hearings. This review delineates the current major management and technical issues associated with first orbital flight schedule changes and the new cost and performance targets, and examines planning for the operational Space Transportation System.




28

UNITED STATES AND SOVIET PROGRESS IN SPACE
The Science Policy Research Division of the Library of Congress reviewed the Soviet space program from material available in the open literature and compared status and progress with the United States space program. This information is provided to the Subcommittee a a reference document of the comparative aspects of the two program and as a basis for viewing possible future developments.

ASTRONAUTS- AND COSMt0ONAUTS
The Science Policy Research Division of the Library of Congress reviewed the current status of all present and former astronauts and astronaut candidates of NASA, the X-15, X-20 Dyna-Soar and Manned Orbiting Laboratory programs as well as the Soviet-bloc cosnimonauts. This information is generally provided to the Committee on an annual basis and used as source data by the Subcommittee.

ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
In addition to the hearings and repors published, the subcommittee undertook other investigations and activities representing significant areas of subcommittee oversight jurisdiction:
System Acq(uisition.-Reviewed selected aspects of NASA's system development and acquisition management practices and philosophy;
Technology Utilization.-Monitored progress of the cost benefit analysis which was requested in the Committee report on NASA fiscal year 1978 authorization bill;
Space Applications.-Reviewed materials processing and space comminunications activities;
Shuttle Training Program.-Reviewed the planning and program composition for personnel training for an operational Space Shuttle System;
Selected Facilities Review.-Examined the status of key NASA onstruction programs in terms of schedule and cost conformance and examined the further submissions of NASA for a Water Immersion Facility;
Weather and CUmate.-Reviewed NASA's weather and climate program and the long range direction of this program;
NAA/Uni ,er.qity RR&T Policy.-Reviewed the procedures used in selecting NASA in-house and university work for the supporting research and technology programs and the cost elements included in selection criteria:
Tracking and Data Acquisition.-Reviewed NASA planning for earth orbital and deep space tracking during the period of transition to shuttle operations and planning of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS).
Support ,Service Contraetors.-Reviewed the policy and practice of using contractors at the NASA centers to provide necessary R&D and institutional services.
Tracking and Data Relay Satellite ARstem.-Reviewed the tracking and data relay satellite system (TDRSS) program cost, performance




29

and schedule objectives in meeting NASA service requirements. including the status of ground and space systems development and operational planning;
Galileo (Jupiter Orbiter/Probe) Program.-Reviewed the cost, performance and schedule status of the Galileo Program including the Jupiter orbiter, atmospheric entry probe, scientific instruments and the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) required for transplanetary injection; NASA R&D Program Support (DTMO & ZI/S).-Reviewed this category to gain a full understanding of the functions and costs in the Program Support budget (DTMO & IMS) and to assure that this category is being used as intended, as a source for multi-program support services;
Large Space Structures Technology Program.-Reviewed the current status and future plans for the NASA large space structures technology program;
Landsat D and D' Program.-Reviewed the Landsat D and D' Program cost, performance and schedule status including space and ground system development, mission operations and data handling requirements, user development activities, institutional arrangements, and overall coordination of the various program elements; Astronaut and Payload Specialist Training Program.-Obtained a current update on the astronaut training program being conducted at Johnson Space Center and reviewed the payload specialists training at Marshall Space Flight Center.














CHAPTER II.-SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
BILLS ENACTED INTO PUBLIC LAW
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION
OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1977
Public Law 95-39 (S. 36)
To authorize appropriations to the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes. W8?,i 7 hal and background
The bill is the result of the failure of the previous Congress (94th) to pass a bill authorizing appropriations for FY 1977 to the Energy Research and Development Administration prior to adjournment. The bill authorized the appropriation of the following sums to the Energy Research and Development Administration for Fiscal Year 1977:
(1) For Non-Nuclear Energy Research, Development and Demonstration of Fossil, Solar, Geothermal, and other forms of energy and for Energy Conservation and Education... $1,175,671.
(2) For Environmental Research and Safety Basic Energy
Sciences and Related Non-Nuclear programs ... $464,302,000.
Other Highlights of the bill are as follows:
Imposes limits and conditions on fossil energy development programs. Stipulates that authorizations for fossil energy demonstration plants shall expire at the end of three fiscal years without further Congressional action.
Authorizes the Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration to establish a price-support program for demonstration of municipal solid waste reprocessing systems.
Establishes a program of small grants not to exceed $50,000 for the dissemination of information with respect to energy-conserving technologies.
Directs the Administration, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, to prepare a report on the environmental monitoring and assessment costs associated with nonnuclear energy demonstration projects.
Lists allocations for additional plant and capital expenditures. Places percentage limitations on the amount of cost overruns allowable without additional Congressional authorization.
(31)




32

Title Y: Energy Extension Service-National Energy Extension Service Act-establishes an energy extension service in the Energy Research and Development Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive program for the identification and application of energy, conserving practices and techniques. Stipulates that programs shall provide for technical assistance and practical demonstration in the agricultural, commercial, residential and small business sectors.
Requires that the national program permit states to establish technical support Minstitutes at colleges or universities as designated by the Governor of each state.
Stipulates that such program shall be implemented in a manner designed to minimize conflict with existing services in the private sector of the economy.
Establishes procedures and criteria for the development of state plans for implementing the provisions of this title. Allows for federal development of plans for states in which an acceptable plan has not been submitted.
Directs the Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration to develop a comprehensive program and plan for coordination of federal energy education and information dissemination programs. Stipulates that such plan shall detail procedures for assessing the energy efficiency of various federal programs.
Establishes a National Energy Extension Service Advisory Board to conduct a continuing review of the program developed under this title.
Authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary from the fiscal year 1977 authorization for nonnuclear programs, to carry out the purposes of this title. Prescribes a formula for allocation of such funds to the states.
Legislative history
S. 36 passed the Senate on Apr. 4. 1977 and was referred to the House on April 19, 1977. The Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported the bill on Apr. 27, 1977 (H. Rept. 95-224). On May 2, 1977. S. 36 passed the House under Suspension of Rules by vote of 360-30. The Senate agreed to House Amendments with amendments on May 13, 1977. The House agreed to the Senate amendments on May 18. 1977, clearing the measure for the White House. On June 3, 1977, S. 36 was signed into law by the President. Public Law 95-39.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACT OF 197 8--CIVILIAN AIFLICATIONS
Public Law 95-238 (S.1340)
To authorize appropriations to the Department of Energy, for energy research, development, and demonstration, and related programs m accordaniice with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes. Summary and background of legislation
This legislation (8. 1340) authorizes appropriations of $6.081.445,000 to the Department of Energy for civilian applications for Fiscal





33
Year 1978. S. 1340 was the product resulting from the removal of tihe objectional items iterated by the President in vetoing S. 1811.
S. 1811 was vetoed by the President on November 5. 1977. The major
.5, 1977 Th ia
objection expressed in the President's veto message was continued funding for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project and limiting language to the effect of prohibiting the use of any funds for cancellation or termination of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project, or to plan such termination or cancellation. The President's veto message also expressed objections to various "One House" veto provisions of the bill.
S. 1811 authorized appropriations of $6.161,445.000 for the Energy Research and Development Administration Civilian Research and Development programs for 1978. The total figure represented results of the House/Senate conference and represented a total of $292 million more than President Carter's revised budget request and approximately $400 million less than the House bill (H.R. 6796). Major funding included approximately $854 million for fossil energy. $3 billion for nuclear enerv-. $393 million for solar energy, $127 million for geothermal energy, $397 million for energy conservation and $276 million for environmental research and safety.
There was no attempt to override the veto of S. 1811 but rather the objectional parts were removed, the bill S. 1340 introduced, agreed to by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President into Public Law on February 25. 1978. This bill contained all of S. 1811 with the exception of the major funding and language associated with the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project ($80 million was removed), plus the removal of the "One House" veto provisions and further language of the Uranium Enrichment pricing provision.
The House bill (H.R. 6796) authorized appropriations of $6.747.889.000 to the Energy Research and Development Administration for Fiscal Year 1978. The House in the Committee of the Whole passed H.R. 6796 on September 23. 1977 by a vote of 317-14, laid the bill on the table by voice vote. called Senate Bill S. 1811 from the table. struck all after the enacting clause and incorporated H.R. 6796 in S. 1811 and called for a Conference with the Senate.
Highlights of S. 1340 include the following:

Title II.-General Provisions
(I) Amends the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to impose limitations and conditions upon annual expenditures for energy research and development activities. Prohibits the vesting of title to facilities or property in entities other than the United States without prior Congressional review. Places dollar and percentage limits in cost overruns allowable on specific projects without prior Congressional review. Imposes additional limitations on cost overruns allowable without additional Congressional authorization;
(II) Requires the Secretary to report within six months on the impact of the Administration's nonproliferation policy on cooperation between the U.S. and other nations in the development of nuclear technologies:
(III) Requires the Secretary to provide reasonable opportunities for small competitors to participate in its programs, and to report to




34

Congress at least once every six months on its progress in awarding stmai business contracts:
(IV) Extends the authority of the ERDA Administrator to male assistance payments to the County of Los Alamos. New Mexico, and Los Alamios school district. Permits ERDA to use the guidelines and com net provisions of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, during the ten year extension :
(V) Directs the Administrator to develop and transmit to the Congress a comprehensive environment and safety program which evaluartes all environmental, health, and safety consequences associated with each energy technology program. Requires the detailed description of ongoing or completed environmental and safety research, development and demonstrationll efforts and of procedures adopted to mitigate undesirable impact:
(VI) Authorizes the Administrator to make Loan Guarantees for Alternative Fuel Demonstration facilities. Sets forth guidelines and procedures concerning applications for loan guarantees and the awarding of loan guarantees. Directs the Administrator to submit annual reports to the Congress setting forth his recommendations on the best opportunities to implement a program of federal financial assistance with the objective of demonstrating production and conservation of energy. and reports concerning actions taken or not taken by the Administrator during the previous year. regarding this objective. Requires further action by the Congress prior to issuing any guarantee or commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement;
(VII) Authorizes the Administrator to mnke Lo n Guaranntes for demonstration facilities for the conversion of municipal or industrial wastes into synthetic fuels and for the generation of desirable forms of energy, including synthetic fuels, from municipal or industrial wastes. Sets forth simplified procedures concerning applications for loan guarantees and the awarding of loan guarantees;
(VIII) Authorizes $19,000.000 for federal procurement and technolo rv development of Solar Photovoltaic equipment:
(TX) Limits the application of all provisions contained in this title to authorization and appropriations made to ERDA for programs and functions which do not include: (1) military applications of nuclear energy: (2) research and development in support of the Armed Forces; and (3) the common defense and security;
(X) Transfers 5.955 acres of land in the State of Idaho presently under the jurisdiction of the Energy Research and Development Administration to the Secretary of the Interior. Directs the Secretary of Interior to make such lands available for sale to farmers for whom reclamation of land damaged bv the Teton flood of June 5, 1978, would be economically unfeasible: and
(XI) Authorizes to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of administration of this Act.

Title III.-Automotive Propulsion Research and Development Act
(I) Establishes within the Department of Energy a research and development program to insure the development, within five years or sooner, of advanced automobile propulsion systems. Sets forth the





35
duties of the Secretary in conducting such prog-rams. incluin : (1) establishing and conducting new projects and accelerating existing projects in furtherance of the goals; (2) giving priority attention to the development of advanced propulsion systems, with appropriate attention to those which are flexible in the type of fuel used: and (3) insuring that the program supplements but neither supplants nor duplicates private industry programs;
(II) Requires that the Secretary coordinate his activities with the Secretary of Transportation. and utilize, to the maximum extent practicable, the expertise of the Department of Transportation in conducting programs under such Act. Provides for the participation of other federal agencies which have appropriate capabilities. Directs the Secretary to collect, analyze, and disseminate to developers information, data, and materials that may be relevant to the development of advanced automobile technology;
(III) Requires that the Secretar-iy submit to Congress an annual report of activities under such program and sets forth the contents of such report;
(IV) Directs the Secretary to conduct a survey of developers, lending institutions, and others, and to make a study in order to determine whether, and under what conditions, research, "development and demonstration and commercialization of advanced automobile technology may be aided by loan guarantees. Requires the Secretary to report the results of such a survey to the Congress; and
(V) Amends National Aeronautics and Space Act to provide authoritv for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to undertake development of advanced automotive propulsion systems.

Title IV.-Establishment of Financial Support Programs for Municipal Waste Reprocessing Demonstration Facilities
(I) Amends the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 to establish a financial support program for reprocessing municipal waste into fuel and energy intensive products. Authorizes ERDA to make grants, contracts, price supports, and cooperative agreements to foster municipal waste reprocessing demonstration facilities. Directs the Administrator to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency, and defines the responsibilities of each agency. Requires that the Administrator submit annual reports to the Congress, and sets forth the contents of such reports.

Title V.-Amendments to the Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1974
(I) Amends the Geothermal Energy Research. Development and Demonstration Act of 1974 to permit ERDA to administer the Geothermal Loan Program on the same basis as the loan guarantee programs of other federal agencies. Authorizes the Administrator to borrow funds from the treasury whenever ERDA lacks sufficient funds to meet its guarantee obligations; and
(11) Authorizes the Administrator to assist states, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes to plan and prepare for any potential





36

economic environmental and social impacts which may result from projects guaranteed under the geothermal loan guarantee program. Authorizes such assistance to be in the form of loan guarantees, direct loans or grants.

Title VI.-Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Program
(I) Provides for an ongoing research and development program in the area of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Demonstration. E-stablishes the Electric and Hybrid Vehidce Development fund for the purpose of carrying out a loan guarantee and assistance program. Legidtire history
On April 29, 1977, Mr. Teague introduced H.R. 6796. The full committee favorably reported the bill to the House on May 16, 1977 (H. Rept. 95-349, pt. 1). H.R. 6796 was sequentially referred to the Conuittee on Ariied Services (H. Rept. 95-349, pt. 2) and the CommIittee on International Relations (H. Rept. 95-349, pt. 3). On Setember 23, 1977, ILH.R. 6796 passed the House by vote of 317-47. Subsequently, passage was vacated and S. 1811 was passed in lieu after striking all after the enacting clause and substituting the language of H.R. 6796, as passed. The House requested a conference with the Senate on the same day. On October 7, 1977, Conference report 95-671 was filed in the House. A point of order was sustained against the conference report. and the House requested a further conference. House Report 95-714 was filed in the House on October 17, 1977, and passed by the House on October 20. The Senate agreed to the conference report on October 20. 1977. On November 5, 1977, the President vetoed S. 1811. On December 7, 1977, S. 1340 was taken in lieu from the Speaker's table and passed the House by voice vote. The House agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the text of the bill that contains the language of the conference version of S. 1811, but without the authorization for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and language concerning uranium enrichment services pricing. The Senate agreed to House amendments Feb. 8, 1978, and S. 1340 was ed into law by the President on Feb. 25, 1978. P.L. 95-238.

ERDA NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMiS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978
Public Law 95-183 (S. 1339) (H.R. 6566)
To authorize appropriations for the use of the Energy Research and Development Administration in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and for other purposes.
Summary of Leglsation.-The bill H.R. 6566 authorizes an appropriation of $1,990,100.000 to the ERDA for fiscal year 1978 for operating expenses for various national security programs. The bill lists specified amount authorized for weapons activities, special materials production, laser fusion, Naval Reactor Development and Program Management and Support.




37

Background of Legislation.-H.R. 6566 was originally referred to the Armed Services Committee, and because of the Committee on Science and Technology civilian R&D jurisdiction dealing with energy matters, the bill H.R. 6566 was referred to this Committee on May 9, 1977.
The Committee on Science and Technology felt that the non-military Research and Development activity associated with the Laser Fusion and the Naval Reactor Development areas was properly the jurisd(iction of the Committee.
This position was so stated in the mark-up of H.R. 6566 by the Science Committee whereby it claimed the total funding associated with Naval Reactor Development and also a portion of the R&D funding associated with the Laser Fusion program.
An accommodation was subsequently agreed to between Chairman Price of the Armed Services Comunmittee and Chairman Teague of the Science Committee whereby the Committee on Armed Services would retain their traditional jurisdiction over Naval Reactor Development while recognizing that certain new R&D activities were civilian in nature and would be recognzed as within the purview of the Science Committee and so stated in the future years budget request. Also. the Armed Services Committee accepted the Science Committee mark of $9.2 million for civilian laser fusion R&D in I.R. 6566. This item would also be broken out from the Armed Services bill in future budget requests.
The Science Committee did not oppose H.R. 6566 on the House floor when it was brought up on September 29, 1977. Legislative history
H.R. 6566 was introduced on April 22 1977, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services (H.Rept. 95-272, pt. 1, May 9, 1977). On May 9, 1977, the bill was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology, who favorably reported the bill on May 16, 1977 (H. Rept. 95-272, pt. 2). On September 29, 1977, the bill passed the House by vote of 330-78. Subsequently, passage was vacated and S. 1339 was passed in lieu after striking all after the enacting clause and substituting the language of H.R. 6566, as passed. On October 6, 1977, the Senate requested a conference. House agreed to conference on Oct. 12, and a conference report was agreed to in the House Nov. 2, 1977. The bill was signed by the President on Nov. 15,1977.


BILLS REPORTED BY Co~rMITEE, NOT ENACTED INTO LAW
DEPART ENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1979
(H.R. 12163)
To authorize appropriations to the Department of Energy in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and section 660 of the Department of Energy Reorganization Act. for




38

Energy Research and Development, and for other purposes for Fiscal Year 1979.
Summary of Legislation.-The bill H.R. 12163 authorizes approximately S,.5 billion for all the Department of Energy civilian research and development programs for fiscal year 1979. The authorization figure is approximately $252 million above President Carter's request.
iaclk'Uround of Legislation.-I.LR. 12163 is a clean bill reflectin the actions of the Committee on Science and Technology mark-up o the Department of Energy Fiscal Year 1979 civilian research and development legislation. (House Report 95-1078, Part 1).
Subsequent to the action of the Committee. the bill was sequentially referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs respectively. (House Reports 95-1078, Parts II and III).
The Chairman of the three Committees involved in this legislation (Teague-Science and Technology, Staggers-Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Udall-Interior and Insular Affairs) agreed on amended versions of II.R. 12163 and a Staggers, Udall bill H.R. 11392, such that all DOE programs are considered and none are duplicated. Chairman Teague introduced an amendment to H.R. 12163 during floor debate that reflected this agreement.
On July 17, 1978, the House agreed to amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole and passed by a yea-nay vote of 325-67 (recorded vote No. 553).
On July 19, 1978, the bill was received in the Senate and placed on Senate Legislative calendar under regular orders. The Senate failed to vote on the bill prior to adjournment sine die of the 95th Congress.
H.R. 11392, the comparison DOE Bill was not brought up on the House calendar prior to the House adjournment sine die.
Highlights of the legislation include:
1. Nuclear Fission-the Teague amendment redirects some of the programs in Title IV of the Science Committee bill which was sequentially referred, and increases the programs in Title VII of H.R. 1392 which was jointly referred. The uranium enrichment which was transferred includes $220 million for construction of the Portsmouth Centrifuge Plant. The Nuclear Fuels Resource Assessment program was also transferred. The total transfer in authorization is $1.329 billion.
Actions by other Committees for Nuclear R&D were deleted. Title IV of the Teague Amendment to H.R. 12163 contains three centrifuge R&D items totaling $81.7 million. The Nuclear Materials, Security and Safeguards program, $40.089 million, was deleted since funds were authorized in I.R. 11686 by the Armed Services Committee.
1(a)-Nuclear Fission-(+$226.0 million over budget request). ,159,100,000 was added to the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project. The Committee also directed that the CIVEX reprocessing process which shows promise in proliferation resistance be investigated. The breeder demonstration conceptual design study which President Carter proposed as a substitute for the Clinchl River plant was also funded. The Teague Amendment decreases this authorization by $1.379 billion by transferring the uranium enrichment program and the nuclear fuels resource assessment program to the joint bill, H.R. 11392.





39

2. Fossil-The line item for Coal is not changed from the $543.177 million reported by the Science and Technology Committee.
2(a)-Fossil (-$142.8 million under budget request). Reflects increases for enhanced oil recovery, enhanced gas recovery, coal cleaning and preparation, and MIID. The reductions were for a few unpromising coal technologies, and reflect congressional control in denying requests for full project funding. The Teague Amendment does not affect this item.
3. Nuclear Fusion- (+24.7 million over budget request). The Committee established a small inertial confinement fusion program for civilian applications ($8.8 million), and added funding to the manetic fusion program (15.9 million) for alternative flion experiments and support facilities. The Teagule Amendment does not affect this item.
4. Other Initiatives-These include a revised system for reporting on progress in the civilian research and development construction proects and a section to encourage greater small business participation in DOE civilian R&D programs.
5. Other views-Other views concerned arguments pro and con to continue the Clinch River project; overlap between the Department of Energy and other agencies; and improved utilization of Federal laboratories.
Legislative history
H.R. 10969 was introduced by Mr. Teague on Feb. 15, 1978. ()n April 12, 1978, the full committee ordered a clean bill (H.R. 12163) to be introduced. The bill was reported by the Science and Technology Committee on April 20, 1978 (H. Rept. 95-1078, pt. 1) and sequentially referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular AffaIirs (H. Rept. 95-1078, pt. 2), and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (H. Rept. 95-1078, pt. 3). H.R. 12163 passed the House by vote of 325-67 on July 17, 1978. On July 19. the bill was received in the Senate and placed on the legislative calendar. The Senate failed to vote on the bill prior to adjournment sine die of the 95th Congress.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1979
(H.R. 11392)
To authorize appropriations to the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to section 660 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, and for other purposes.
Background of Legislatio-n.-The bill was introduced on March 8, 1978 and referred to five Committees: Committee on Armed Services, Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Interior and Insular Affairs, International Relations, and Science and Technology.
The bill was reported by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on May 15. 1978 (H. Rept. 95-1166, Part I). Reported amended by Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce May 19, 1978 (H. Rept. 95-1166. Part II). Adversely reported from the Committee on Science and Technology on June 9, 1978 (H. Rept. 9.5-1166,. Part III).
Summry of Legislation-The bill H.R. 11392 authorizes $6.2 billion for the civilian non-R&D programs of the Department of Energy




40

for FY 1979. This is a net of $895 million less than the bill originally reported by the Commerce Committee due to the elimination of overhlapping authorizations or transfer of funds to H.R. 12163.
Resolution of Jurisdictional Issues-A summary of the agreement between the Conmmittee on Science and Technology and the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and the Committee on Interior and Insular Alairs is as follows:
The results of discussions, which included representatives of the minority, are reflected in two committee prints, one of which passed the House, as amended, H.R. 12163. An explanation of the lanuae agreed to by the three Committees concerned with H.R. 11392 follows:
Title I of IH.?. 1392.-,The agreement transfers $9 million for solar commercialization from title I to title VII of the bill.
The policy and management authorization for the Assistant Secretary for Environment is transferred from title I to title VII. At the same time, the agreement reduces the amount set forth for overview and assessme nt from $3 million to about $1.5 million and transfers it to title VII. That sum. together with about $5.5 million from the overview and assessment item in title III of H.R. 12163, will provide $7 million for Department of Energy environmental policy and analysis under NEPA, including the environmental aspects of regulatory prograims administered by the Department of Energy, other than FERC.
Added to title I is $330,000 for industrial cogeneration that had been inclded in H.R. 12163.
There is also reduction in funds for policy and management for the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Solar Application.
There are no other changes in title I of H.R. 11392.
Tite II and III of H.R. 1139.92.-The $10 million authorized for construction. operation, and eqnipmnent for loss-of-fluid test facility functions is to remain in this title and to be administered by the Assistant Secretary for the Environment. That same item is deleted from H.R. 12163.
The decontamination and decommissioning provisions of the bill are as follows:
Title III of I.R. 12163-$14.990.000.
Title IV of IT.R. 12163-$8,710,000.
Title IV of HI.R. 11392-$3.000,000.
The last item is subject to enactment of pending mill tailings legislation. All duplication of these funds is eliminated.
The funds for light water reactor technology are retained i title II of HI.R. 12163 with the provision that at least $4 million of this sium will be available for safety enhancement and deleted from H.R. 1139,2.
Funds for nuclear energy assessments are also retained in title I of HI.R. 12163 as part of the advanced reactor concepts and deleted from I.R. 11392.
The policy and management authorizations for the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology and for the Assistant Secretary for Resource Applications are transferred to title IV of H.R. 12163 and title VII of H.R. 11392. respectively.
The amounts authorized for uranium enrichment functions, other than the U-235 process development, are transferred to title VII of H.R. 11392 and deleted from H.R. 12163. This includes $324.5 million in construction funds, including funds for Portsmouth. The U-235 pro-




41

cess and the remaining construction funds are retained in title IV of H.R. 12163 and are deleted from H.R. 11392. There are no other substantive changes in title IV.
Title V of H.R. 1139.-This title is changed to make it clear that the report required will come to the Speaker and the Presideit of the Senate for distribution to the appropriate conunittees.
Title VI of H.R. 11392.-There is no change.
Title VII.-The study added by the Interior Committee to this title is deleted, since it has been covered in title V.
The funds for the extension service are increased from $15 million to $25 million and the $35 million authorized in II.R. 12163 is deleted from that bill.
All policy and management funds for the Assistant Secretary for Resource Application appear in H.R. 11392. All such funds for the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology appear in title IV of 1I.R. 12163, except for $1 million for interagency policy review of nuclear waste management.
The small grants for appropriate technology funds of $10 million are in H.R. 12163 and deleted from H.R. 11392.
The authorization for solar heating and cooling commercial denionstration, residential and commercial conservation, and cogeneration are deleted from II.R. 11392, but have been retained in II.R. 12163. Funds for solar information. and solar demonstration support fun(t ions remain in H.R. 11392 and have been deleted from tI.R. 12163.
The authorization for commercialization of existing high-efliciencvy energy conversion functions remains in II.R. 12163 and is deleted fior IH.R. 11392.
Foreign currency funds in the amount of $2 million will appear in I-.R. 12163.
There are some revisions in funds for the Offices of Administraition and Controller, and the field offices, as suggested by the Armed Sevices Committee. Those funds, plus the Office of Defense programs sa feguards funds, are included in the Department of Energy authorization bill-military.
Title VII of H.R. 11392 retains $6 million for small hydroelectric projects at existing dams, but makes it clear that such funds are for grants for non-R&D purposes. This amount is deleted from title IV of H.R. 12163. Title I of H.R. 12163 retains $6 million for hydroelectric power R&D.
Title VIII of H.R. 11392.-There are only minor technical changes in section 803(a).
Other Highlights of the bill are as follows:
Department of Energy Civilian Programs Authorization Act-Title I: Energy use, application, conservation, and regulation, authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Fiscal Year 1979. Declares that nothin in this title shall be construed to authorize funds for research and development purpose or for the testing or production of atomic weapons or other nuclear weapons activity.
Title II: Amendments to Energy Conservation and Production Act and certain other energy-related acts-amends the energy Conserva37-445-79-4




42

tion and Production Act to establish an Office of Competition and Consumer Affairs within the Department of Energy.
Title III: Power Marketing Administrations; Resource Development-authorizes the appropriations of funds to implem ent the
authority over specified programs transferred to the Department of Energy concerning flood control, naval petroleum reserves, and other progran Is.
Title IV: Uranium Management and Use of Nuclear Energyainthorizes funds for specified programs concerning the use, transission in interstate commerce, and regulation of power and related facililies, and the management, assessment and use of uranium. Requires the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study regarding the stora" at away-from-reactor spent fuel-sites of spent nuclear fuel. Directs the Secretary to publish a summary of the report and submit a copy t t President, the Congress, and the Governor of any affected State, and to initiate preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Title V: Charge for Uranium Enrichment Services-amends the Atmnic Energy Act of 1954 to specify that the prices charged by the Government for ranium Enrichment services shall assure the
recovery of the Government's costs over a reasonable time. Requires further that prices shall result in revenues sufficient to cover normal business expenses, taxes and return on equity which would otherwise be reflected in prices charged by a commercial organization for such services. Stipulates that the Secretary transmit to the President and the appropriate Committees of the Congress a report on the results of the study on changes in prices for enrichment services required pursuant to this title, and recommendations for legislation.
Title VI: Amendments to Title V of the National Energy Extension Service Act-deletes from the formula used to compute the allocations for individual states, the requirements that the latest decennial census be used.
Directs the Secretary of Energy to conduct a study of: (1) the prices established by the Secretary for Enrichment Services; and (2) the need for increasing such prices, including the need for increasing such prices to recover, in acdition to all of the Government's costs, the costs of such services, such as ordinary business expenses, taxes, and return on equity, which would normally be included in a commercial organization's charge for such services.
Title VII: Program Direction-Authorizes the appropriation of funds for specified administrative, management, and support function of the Department of Energy.
Authorizes appropriations to the Department of Energy for FY 1979 to carry out coal-based alternate fuel commercialization projects be administered by the Assistant Secretary for Resource Apphcations.
Stipulates that of these appropriated funds: (1) not more than 60 percent can be provided as the federal share of any one project; (2) none may be used for construction and procurement except under specifled circumstances; and (3) none are available for high Btu gas projects nor for price supports or loan guarantees for Synfuel projects.
Title VIII: General Provisions-Establishes within the Department of Enery an Office of Administration.




43

Authorizes appropriations for salaries. pay. retire et oz t) A e benefits for federal enmployes, and for oficial cIentertainment re ept ion and representation expenses.
Permits any moneys received in any fiscal year by the I)epart, ent from Uranium enrichment and other reimburabe progt(n-s to be retained and used by the Department.
Requires receipts, inclidig any payment r cein d beca,,we of in charges, of the Secretary of the Comnis ion to be dkposited in the Treasury of the United Sates as miscellan( ous receipts.
Limits the authority, under this act, to enter into contracts oAbligatig the United States to those outlays that are provided for in advance in appropriation acts.
Provides that this title shall not apply to any authorization for appropriations for any military application of nuclear energy, for research and development in support of the Armed Forces, or tor tie common defense and security of the United States.
Stipulates that contracts between $5,000,00 and $25,000,000 must be approved by a Presidential appointee except contracts for the Fe deral Energy Regulatory Commission. Provides that contracts in excess of $2.5,000,000 must be approved by the Secretary of Energy or the deputy of Under Secretary of Energy.
Provides that this act shall cease to have effect after Decembler 31, 1978.


OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS AND .CTIVITIES
Oversight activities of the subcommittee included nine hearings. several oversight reports, and a variety of overnight trips both by subcommittee members and staff. These oversight investigations and activities involved all important program areas within the authorizing jurisdiction of the subcommittee.

CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PROJECT (CRBIRP)
The first major oversight activity for the 950th Congress was investigation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) project. Chairman Teague personally led a delegation to the reactor site where the Chairman and his colleagues were briefed by the project managers and DOE headquarters personnel.
The project was the subject of the first set of oversight hearings as well. James Schlesinger, then special assistant to President Carter, presented the Administration's decision to cancel the project on economic grounds as well as for non-proliferation considerations. Two additional days of hearings followed permitting those with views on all sides including representatives of the nuclear industry, the universities, professional societies and public interest groups, to present the reasons why they agreed or disagreed with the Administration's decision. Another day of hearings featured testimony on estimates of uranium reserves and the confidence that should be placed on these
estimates.




44

MARKET ORIENTED PROGRAM PLANNING STUDY (MOPPS)
The second oversight hearing topic of the year was the Market Oriented Program Planning Study (MOPPS). In January of 19", Acting ElRI)A Administrator Fri assembled a 70-person task force to review over 250 potential and actual energy research and development
programs in light of the likelihood of their making market penetrations h the years 1985 and 2000 in the transportation, residential. and industrial energy sectors. Testimony before the subeommitteesfeatured the three lERDA officers most directly involved in managing the tudy. The most significant conclusions at that time were that even as late as the year 2000, for energy, we will still primarily be dependent on coal nuclear energy, and ofher fossil fuels to the extent that they are available. The witnesses also felt one could conclude from the MOPPS work that natural gas deregulation could significantly increase natural gas supplies but that oil deregulation, because of the relatively small amounts of undiscovered domestic oil. would not impact the quantity of primary oil recovery in any significant way. Solar and geothermal contributions by the year 2000 were expected to be 2.5 qnds elh or around 2 percent of the total energy supply.
NEW TECHINOLOGITES FOR OLD FUELS
The New Techinologwes for Old Fuels hearings on November 1. 1977. permit ted the subcommittee to focus on unconventional technologies tlhat can be built today to produce energy from coal, peat or wood. One et of witnesses di~s,15ed1 the German coal conversion process from World War II and the extent to which German coal liquefaction and coal gasification technology would be applicable today in the United States. Two other witnesses with long experience in gasification disC'lsedS making gs from various types of biomnass for specialty uses .nd utilization of pent as a fuel. The other witness discussed the possibilities of using wood as the source of fuel on a regional basis.

NATIONAL LABORATORIES SUPPORTING DOE
One of the major ongoing oversight activities of the subcommittee was investigation of the role in the new Department of Energy of the national laboratories which had originated under the Manhattan project. These major installations employ 35,000 persons including 20,000 scientists and engineers and have reached capabilities in many disciplines which are unmatched in the world. Subcommittee staff visited most of these laboratories to investigate their management and their perception of technology development. These trips were followed up by two sets of hearings. In the first sets the directors of all eight laboratories came and testified on the present capabilities and problems of the laboratories and on what the laboratories can offer to the new Department. The second set of hearings featured witnesses from other agen(ies having major research laboratories in an effort to gain insight into the way they manage research and development, and the views of tese agencies on the extent to which their management techniques could beadopted by the Department of Energy.





45
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PROJECT-PART II
Again at the beginning of the 95th Congress, the fate of thie Clinch River Rector became a major issue within the Committee and the subject of the first oversight hearings of the new year. Under Secretary .of Energy, Dale Myers, spent two days testifying before the Committee on the details of President Carter's proposal to replace the Clinch River Breeder Reactor with a detailed design study of a larger reactor. Representatives of the utilities, the nuclear industry and of the public interest community testified in subsequent hearings on Clinch River and the merits of the new proposal. The Committee also commissioned the Library of Congress and outside consultants to put together a report on alternate breeding cycles for nuclear power. This document carefully analyzes the five most likely advanced nuclear technology successors to light water reactors from engineering and economic pointi s of view to provide background information to the Committee and the Congress when it reviews the options for nuclear fission power.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The debate over EPA's new source performance standards led to an important set of hearings entitled the Effect of the Clean Air Act Amendment on New Energy Technologies and Resources. Early in 1978 EPA released a draft of revised new source performance standards for public comment. These proposed standards were so strict that many energy businesses felt that new technologies such as fluidized bed combustors, SRC and MHD. would be prevented by regulation from ever being developed even though they represented environmental and/or efficiency improvements over present use of coal. EPA's testimony during the FY 1979 Authorization Tearines did not put the
uncertainty to rest. Therefore, two days of oversight hearings were held on this important topic.
On the first day. representatives of utilities as well as other end-uiisers, and developers of new technologies and environmental cleanup systems were invited to testify on the standards. The following week, representatives of EPA, DOE and the Department of Interior were asked to give their testimony on the standards. The Interior Department felt they could live with the standards but the Department of Energy felt that more flexibility must be built into the standards including recognition of the varying amounts of sulfur in raw coals. EPA reported that discussions with the Department of Energy were taking place and its witnesses were displaying a more flexible attitude than they had the first time they appeared as witnesses.

MAG.NETOHIYDROY'AMICS (IfID) PROGRAM
The MHD program was a subject of great interest during both sessions of the 95th Congress. A number of Members saw MHD as the
-most promising technology for clean, efficient combustion of coal and proposed major funding increases. On the other hand. concerns were also being expressed about the management history of the program




46

and( the extent to which the MID research community was effectively directed towards the goal of a commercialized technology. During three days of hearings, representatives of all the companies and all the laboratories doing major work in the MHD area were brought before the Committee to explain their roles in the MHD program. DOE headquarters personnel were also invited to give their perspective on program management. Questions for the record were also submitted to al 14 witnesses. At the request of the Subcommittee Chairman, the subcommittee staff and a consultant prepared a staff report on the MHDprogram which summarized the hearings and made findings, conclusions and recommendations about the overall MilHD program.

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT
Nuclear waste management was one of the most important issues faced by the 95th Congress. In response to widespread interest in this subject the subcommittee held four days of oversight hearings dealing mainly with high-level civilian wastes but also branching into the related problems of spent fuel handling, disposal of military wastes, and low and intermediate level wastes. Representatives of major professional societies historically concerned with nuclear wastes, the utility ind(lustry, the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were among those giving their views and expertise on this important topic. The final day's hearing featured Dr. Alan Pasternak, who was the only member of the California Energy Resources Commission to vote in favor of siting a nuclear power plant in California and S. David Freeman, Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority. who detailed his proposal for long-term storage of spent fuel assemblies in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. At the request of the Subcommittee Chairman the subcommittee staff also prepared a nuclear waste management report setting out staff findings, conclusions and recommendations for the future of the civilian high level waste management research and development program as well as summarizing the waste management hearings.
MAGNETIC FUSION PROGRAM
The final day of oversight hearings of the 95th Congress came about as a result of intense public interets in the major magnetic fusion achievements which took place at Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in August of 1978. Dr. Gottlieb, Director of Princeton Lab, along with John Deutch and Edward Kintner of the Department of Energy appeared before the Committee and gave their assessment of the significance of these experiments as well as other successful experiments occurrinz earlier during the year at MIT. The general conclusion was that although progress may have occurred faster than earlier anticipated, it would be many years before fusion became a commercial reality.
Another significant oversight study was prepared on the CRESAP Liquefaction Test Facility. It presented a history of this facility, listed findings, conclusions and recommendations.
In addition to the formal hearings and reports the Subcommittee Members on the staff maintained a continuous oversight over develop-





47

ments in both fossil and nuclear programs and made trips to most of the important sites of fossil and nuclear research. The trip reports are published as a Committee document to describe the findings and(l experiences gained by this oversight activity. Each year the Fossil and Nuclear Energy Subcommittee staff also went through detailed program reviews of each of the fossil and nuclear programs and during 1977 Members of the Committee went through nuclear briefings to help establish a knowledge base from which to work with their new nuclear jurisdiction.
GENERAL OVERSIGHT EFFORT
On site investigation in the fossil area included: trips by Committee Members to coal conversion facilities in Leatherhead, England, and Westfield, Scotland, as well as to coal liquefaction and coal mining facilities in the States. Subcommittee staff activities in the fossil area included visits to various liquefaction and fluidized bed pilot plant sites, a trip to the Component Development and Integration Facility in the MHD program, a visit to Pittsburgh Energy Technology Center and Pittsburgh Mining Operations, and attendance in a course in coal preparation.
A much larger portion of oversight time was spent on the nuclear programs. Members visited a variety of domestic sites including the Clinch River Breeder Reactor site and the Fast Flux Test Facility as well as reviewing nuclear research activities in eastern and western Europe and in Japan. Staff members traveled to most of the national laboratories, to several nuclear contractors and to university campuses to review most aspects of the nuclear fission and fusion programs and attended nuclear conferences.














CHAPTER III.-SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADVANCED ENERGY
TECHNOLOGIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION
BILLS EN.XACTED INTO PUBLIC LAW
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION AUTHLORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1977
Public Law 95-39 (S. 36)
To Authorize Appropriations to the Energy Research and Development Administration in Accordance with Section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended. Section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, and Section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for Other Purposes. Summary a'nd background of legislation
This bill is the result of the failure of the previous Congress (94th) to pass a bill authorizing appropriations for FY 1977 to the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) prior to adjournment. It authorizes $1,639.973,000 to ERDA for its nonnuclear research, development and demonstration programs in fossil, solar and geothermal energy, energy conservation, scientific and technical education, environmental research and safety and basic physical research for Fiscal Year 1977.
Highlights of the legislation include the following:
(I) Imposes limits and conditions on fossil energy development programs. Stipulates that authorizations for fossil energy demonstration plants shall expire at the end of three fiscal years without further Congressional action:
(II) Authorizes the Administrator of the Energy Research and Development Administration to establish a price-support program for demonstration of municipal solid waste reprocessing systems:
(III) Establishes a program of small grants not to exceed $50.000 for development and demonstration, and dissemination of informnation with respect to energy-conserving technologies:
(IV) Directs the Administration, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, to prepare a report on the environmental monitoring and assessment costs associated with nonnuclear energy demonstration projects;
(V) Lists allocations for additional plant and capital expenditures. Places percentage limitations on the amount of cost overruns allowable without additional Coneressional authorization:
(VI) Title V: National Energy Extension Service Act establishes an energy extension service in the Energy Research and Development Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive programin
(49)




50

for thie identification and application of energy conserving practices and techniques. Stipulates that programs shall provide for technical assistance and practical demonstration in the agricultural, commercial, residential and small business sectors. The National Energy Extension Service Act also: Requires that the national program permit states to establish technical support institutes at colleges or universities as designated by the Governor of each state;
Stipulates that such program shall be implemented in a manner demi-ned to minimize conflict with existing services in the private sector of the economy;
Establishes procedures and criteria for the development of state plans for implementing the provisions of this title. Allows for federal development of plans for states in which an acceptable plan has not 1)e(n submIitted;
I)irects the Administrator the Energy Research and Development Administration to develop a comprehensive program and plan for coordination of federal energy education dissemination programs. Stipulates that such plan shall detail procedures for assessing the energy efficiency of various federal programs;
Establishes a National Energy Extension Service Advisory Board to conduct a continuing review of the program developed under this title: and
Authorizes the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary from the fiscal year 1977 authorization for nonnuclear programs, to carry out the purposes of this title. Prescribes a formula for allocation of such funds to the states.
Le eg-dative history
36 passed the Senate on April 4, 1977 and was referred to the HTouse on April 19, 1977. The Committee on Science and Technology favorably reported the bill on April 27, 1977 (H. Rept. 95-224). On May 2 1977. S. 36 passed the House under Suspension of Rules by vote of 360-30. The Senate agreed to House Amendments with amendments on May 13. 1977. The House agreed to the Senate amendments on May I 977. clearing the measure for the White House. On June 3, 1977, S. 36 was signed into law by the President. P.L. 95-39.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ACT OF 1978-CIVILIAN APPLICATIONS
Public Law 95-238 (S. 1340)
To authorize appropriations to the Department of Energy, for energy research, development and demonstration, and related programs in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energoy Act of 195 as amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes. S!rnmary/ and back ground of legislation
This legislation (S. 1340) authorizes appropriations of $6.081.445,000 to flhe Department of Energy for civilian applications for Fiscal Year 197R. S. 1340 was the product resulting from the removal of the 'objectional items iterated by the President in vetoing S. 1811.






S. 1811 was vetoed by the President on November 5, 1977. The major objection expressed in the President's veto message was continued funding for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project and limit ing language to the effect of prohibiting the use of any funds for cancellation or termination of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project or to plan such termination or cancellation. The residents veto m (ssa5g also experssed objections to various "One House" veto provisions of the bill.
S. 1811 authorized appropriations of $6,161.-14,000 for the Energy Research and Development Admniistration Civilian Research and Development programs for 1978. The total figure represented results of the House/Senate conference and represented a total of 292 million more than President Carter's revised budget request and approximately $400 million less than the House bill (II.R. 6796). Major funding included approximately $854 million for fossil energy, $3 billion for nuclear energy, $393 million for solar energy, $127 million for geothermal energy, $397 million for energy conservation and $276 million for environmental research and safety.
There was no attempt to override the veto of S. 1811 but rather the objectional parts were removed, the bill S. 1340 introduced, agreed to by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President into Public Law on February 25, 1978. This bill contained all of S. 1811 with the exception of the major funding and languae associated with the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project ($80 million was removed), plus the removal of the "One House" veto provisions and further language of the Uranium Enrichment pricing provision.
The House bill (H.R. 6796) authorized appropriations of ,6,747.889.000 to the Energy Research and Development Administration for Fiscal Year 1978. The House in the Committee of the Whole passed
-H.TR. 6796 on September 23. 1977 by a vote of 317-14, laid the bill on the table by voice vote. called Senate Bill S. 1811 from the table. struck all after thle enacmting clause and incorporated H.R. 6796 in S. 1811 and called for a Conference with the Senate.
Highlights of S. 1340 include the following:

Title II.-General Provisions
(I) Amends the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to impose limitations and conditions upon annual expenditures for energy research and development activities. Prohibits the vesting of title to facilities or property in entities other than the United States without prior Congressional review. Places dollar and percentage limits in cost overruns allowable on specific projects without prior Congressional review. Imn-)oses additional limitations on cost overruns allowable without additional Congressional authorization :
(II) Requires the Secretary to report within six months on the impact of the Administration's nonproliferation policy on cooperation between the U.S. and other nations in the development of nuclear technologies:
(III) Requires the Secretary to provide reasonable opportunities for small competitors to participate in its programs, and to report to




52

Congress at least once every six months on its progress in awarding small business contracts:
(IV) Extends the authority of the ERDA Administrator to make assistance payments to the County of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Los Alamos school district. Permits ERDA to use the guidelines and contract provisions of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended. during the ten year extension:
(V) Directs the Administrator to develop and transmit to the Congrss a comprehensive environment and safety program which evaluates all environmental, health, and safety consequences associated with each ener y technology program. Requires the detailed description of ongoing or completed environmental and safety research, development and demonstration efforts and of procedures adopted to mitigate undesirablle impact;
(VI) Authorizes the Administrator to make Loan Guarantees for Alternative Fuel Demonstration facilities. Sets forth guidelines and procedures concerning applications for loan guarantees and the warding of loan guarantees. Directs the Administrator to submit annual reports to the Congress setting forth his recommendations mon the best opportunities to implement a program of federal financial assistance with the objective of demonstrating production and conservation of ener(igy and reports concerning actions taken or not taken by the Administrator during the previous year. regarding this objeti,. Requires further action by the Congress prior to issuing any guarantee or commitment to guarantee or cooperative agreement;
(VTII) Aulthorizes the Administrator to make Loan Guarantees for demonstration facilities for the conversion of municipal or industrial wastes into synthetic fuels and for the generation of desirable forms of energy, including synthetic fuels, from municipal or industrial wastes. Sets forth simplified procedures concerning applications for loan guarantees and the awarding of loan guarantees:
(VIII) Authorizes $19.000.000 for federal procurement and technolorr development of Solar Photovoltaic eanuipment;
(IX) Limits the application of all provisions contained in this title to authorization and appropriations made to ERDA for programs and functions which do not include: (1) military applications of nuclear energy: (2) research and development in support of the Armed Forces: and (3) the common defense and security;
(X) Transfers 5.955 acres of land in the State of Idaho presently under the jurisdiction of the Energy Research and Development Administration to the Secretary of the Interior. Directs the Secretar of Interior to make such lands available for sale to farmers for whom reclamation of land damaged by the Teton flood of June 5. 1978, Would be economically unfeasible: and
(XI) Authorizes to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the purposes of administration of this Act.
Title IIIH.-Automotive Propulsion Research and Development Act
(T Establishes within the Department of Energy a research and development program to insure the development. within five years or sooner. of advanced automobile propulsion systems. Sets forth the duties of the Secretary in conducting such programs, including:






(1) establishing and conducting new projects and accelerating
existing projects in furtherance of the goals; (2) giving priority attention to the developilmenlt of advanced poilsan :sy. m., wit b appropriate attention to those which are flexible in the type of
fuel used; and
(3) insuring that the program supplenwnts but neither -upplants nor duplicates private idustry p'oganus;
(II) Requires that the Secretary coordinate his activities wNith the Secretary of Transportation, and utilize. to the maxiLum extent practicable, the expertise of the Department of Tranportation ini conducting programs under such Act. Provides for the participation of otuier federal agencies which have appropriate capa lit es. res the eretary to collect, analyze, and disseminate to developers infornmation, data, and materials that may be relevant to tihe development ot advanced automobile technology;
(III) Requires that the Secretary submit to Congress an annual report of activities under such program and sets forth the contents of such report;
(IV) Directs the Secretary to conduct a survey of developers, lending institutions, and others, and to make a study in order to determine whether, and under what conditions, research, development and dem.onstration and commercialization of advanced automobile technology may be aided by loan guarantees. Requires the Secretary to report the results of such a survey to the Congress; and
(V) Amends National Aeronautics and Space Act to proxy ide authority for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to undertake development of advanced automotive propulsion systems.
Title IV.-Establishment of Financial Support Programs for
Municipal Waste Reprocessing Demonstration Facilities
(I) Amends the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 to establish a financial support program for reprocessing municipal waste into fuel and energy intensive products. Authorizes ERDA to make grants, contracts, price supports, and cooperative agreements to foster municipal waste reprocessing demonstration facilities. Directs the Administrator to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency, and defines the responsibilities of each agency. Requires that the Administrator submit annual reports to the Congress, and sets forth the contents of such reports.

Title V.-Amendments to the Geothermal Energy Research,
Development and Demonstration Act of 1974
(I) Amends the Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1974 to permit ERDA to administer the Geothermal Loan Program on the same basis as the loan guarantee programs of other federal agencies. Authorizes the Adminnistrator to borrow funds from the treasury whenever ERDA lacks sufficient funds to meet its guarantee obligation; and
(II) Authorizes the Administrator to assist states. political subdivisions, and Indian tribes to plan and prepare for any potential economic, environmental and social impacts which may result from




54

projects guaranteed( under the geothermal loan guarantee program. Authorizes such assistance to be in the form of loan guarantees, direct loans or grants.

Title VI.-Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and Demonstration Program
(I) Provides for an ongoing research and development program in the area of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Demonstration. Establishes theI Electric and IHybrid Vehicle Development fund for the purpose of carrying out a loan guarantee and assistance program. Le-slhze te history
On April 29, 1977. Mr. Teaghe introduced H.R. 6796. The full committee favorably reported the bill to the House on May 16, 1977 (H. Re)t. 95-349, pt. 1). II.R. 6796 was sequentially referred to the Committee on Armed Services (IT. Rept. 95-349. pt. 2) and the Committee on International Relat ions (IT. Rept. 95-349, pt. 3). On September 23, 1977, 1H.P. (790 passed the House by vote of 317-47. SubsenuentIy. passage was vacated and 8. 1811 was passed in lieu after striking all n fter the enacting clause and substituting the language of H.R. 6796 as passed. The House requested a conference with the Senate on the same day. On October 7, 1977. Conference report 95-671 was filed in the House. A point of order was sustained against the conference report, and the Hiouse requested a further conference. House Report 95714 was filed in the House on October 17, 1977. and passed by the House on October 20. The Senate agreed to the conference report on October 20, 1977. On November 5, 1977, the President vetoed S. 1811. On December 7, 1977. S. 1340 was taken in lieu from the Speaker's table and passed the House by voice vote. The House agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the text of the bill that contains the lanouage of the conference version of S. 1811, but without the authorization for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor and language concerning uranium enrichment services pricing. The Senate agreed to House amendments Feb. 8, 1978, and S. 1340 was signed into law by the President on Feb. 25, 1978. P.L. 95-238.
SOLAR PITOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
AND DEMONSTRATION ACT OF 1978
Public Law 95-590 (H.R. 12874)
A Bill to Provide for an Accelerated Program of Research, Development and Demonstration of Solar Photovoltaic Energy Technologies leading to Early Competitive Commercial Applicability of such ''echInooies to be carried out by the Department of Energy, with the support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Bureau of Standards, the General Services Administration, and other Federal Agencies.
&umnnary and baAground of legislation
'1'he Subcommittee held extensive hearings on this legislation, which originated as H.R. 10830 and was reported out of Full Committee in clean bill form as H.R. 12874.




00
H.R. 12874 passed the House on June 28, 1978 and was then considered in the Senate where it passed amended. The Senate struck all after the enacting clause and substituted the language of S. 332. House agreed to the amendments and the measure was cleared for the President on October 13, 1978. The President signed the bili on November 4,1978 and it became Public Law 95-590.
This Act provides for a focused, goal-oriented research, development and demonstration program over the next decade relating to solar photovoltaic energy systems.
The Public Law authorizes $125 million in FY 1979 to be used for a balanced combination of accelerated research and development activities and private and public sector demonstrations, all of which a le vital to meet cost reduction goals.
One of the goals of this program is to reduce the average cost of installed photovoltaic energy sytems to $1.00 per peak watt by FY 1988. Expenditures of $1.5 billion are estimated to be required over the next ten years to meet this goal.
The authorization of $125 million in this Act is consistent with the amount authorized for the photovoltaic program in H.R. 12163. the DOE Authorization for FY 1979, and is consistent with the procurement of photovoltaic systems in the National Energy Act. Legislative history
H.R. 10830 was introduced on Feb. 8, 1978. The Subcommittee heli hearings on the bill in April and Mlay of 1978. On May 23, 1978 the Subcommittee ordered a clean bill reported to the full committee. ILR. 1'2874 was introduced on May 25. 1978, and reported by tho full committee on June 9, 1978 (HI. Rept. 95-1285). On June 28, 1978. the bill passed the House under Suspension of Rules by vote of 38I-14. The bill was passed by the Senate on October 10, 1978. The HIouse agreed to the Senate amendments on October 13, 1978, and H.R. 12 74 was signed into law November 4, 1978. P.L. 95-590.


BILLS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE, NOT ENACTED INTO LAW
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION ACTI 1979
(H.R. 12163)
Authorizing Appropriations to the Department of Energy in accordance with Section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, Section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and Section 660 of the Department of Energy Reorganization Act. for Energy Research, Development, and for Other Purposes, for Fiscal Year 1979.
Summary and background of legislation
On February 15, 1978, H.R. 10969, a bill authorizing appropriations for the civilian research and development programs of the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 1979, was introduced and referred




56

to the Committee on Science and Technology for consideration. During February and March 1978, the Subcommittees on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and )c1nonstration; Fossil and Nuclear Research, Development and Deonstration; and Environment and Atmosphere held extensive hearings on this bill with DOE and outside witnesses and completed mark up o W their assigned portions of the bill. The Subcommittee on Add Energy Tecinologies and Energy Conservation Research, Developmnclit and Demonstration recommended amendments to the Administration's authorization reqeust for the research and development programs within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
While the Science and Technology Subcommittees were marking up H.R. 10969, II.R. 11137, a bill authorizing appropriations for programs for fiscal years 1979 and 1980, was submitted by the Administration, introduced by request and referred jointly to several committees including Science and Technology, Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Interior and Insular Affairs, Banking and Currency, Armed Services and international Relations. No Subcommittee hearings were held on t his bill prior to adjournment sie die of the 95th Congress.
Also at this time, I.R. 11392, sponsored by Chairman Udall and Staggers, was introduced and referred by title to Committees sharing allI or part of this bill. Several titles were jointly referred to the Comittee on Science and Technology. No Subcommittee hearings were held on these titles.
Following these actions, on April 18 the Committee on Science and Technology marked up H.R. 10969 and reported out H.R. 12163 as a clean bill (H.Rept. 95-1078, Part I). H.R. 12163 included the recomniendations which had been previously made by the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, I)evelopmient and Demonstration. Portions of this bill were sequentiallv referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Conunerce and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for their consideration. The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs ordered H.R. 1.163 reported with amendments by voice vote on May 15 (I.Rept. 95-1078, Part II). The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Coimnerce ordered H.R. 12163 reported by voice vote on May 15 and filed its report on May 19 (H.Rept. 95-1078, Part III). On May 15, the Committee on Science and Technology reported adversely H.R. 11392 (LH.Rept. 95-1166. Part 3).
On July 17, 1978, the House approved an amendment to H.R. 12163, proposed by Chairman Teague, reflecting an agreement among the three Committees dividing the DOE programs, consistent with the jurisdictional interests shown by the referrals, between this bill and HIT.R. 11392. H.R. 12163 was received in the Senate on July 19, 1978, but was not considered on the Senate floor prior to adjournment sine die of the 9..th Congress. H.R. 11392 was not considered by the House prior to aldournmient sine die of the 95th Congress.
HTT.R. 12163 authorizes approximately $4.6 billion for the DOE civilian research and development programs for fiscal year 197. This amount is approximately $334 million above the Administration's request, and includes approximately $516 million for solar energy programs (including fuels from biomass, $52 million, and low-head





57

hydroelectric research and development, $6 million), $146 million for geothermal energy research and development, $417 million for energy conservation programs, $653 milion for basic research programs and $21 million for advanced technology and assessment projects. In addition, H.R. 12163 authorizes approximately $824.5 million for fossil energy research and development and $1.454 billion for nuclear energy research and development, including $172.5 million for the continuation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project.
Additional highlights of the legislation include the following:
(i) Directs the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment to collect information on energy-related environmental, health and safety research sponsored by other agencies;
(ii) Directs the Secretary of Energy to make a detailed study of the uranium/plutonium cycle and the uranium/thorium cycle breeder reactor and to report to Congress on the results of such study;
(iii) Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to annually evaluate DOE's environmental control technology R&D programs for adequacy, applicability and effectiVeness and report with recommendations to Congress;
(iv) Directs the Secretary of Energy to annually review and report, to Congress on EPA's research activities in relation to the energy control technologyv research of DOE;
(v) Directs the WSecretary of Energy to encourage greater small business participation in DOE civilian R&D programs;
(vi) Extends solar cooling programs under the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act'_of 1974 from 5 to 8 years;
(vii) Provides for a revised system for reporting on progress in civilian research and development construction projects; and
(viii) Provides for a definition of research and development for the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and specified other A-cts.
Legislative history
HI.R. 10969 was introduced by Mr. Teague on Feb. 15, 1978. On April 12, 1978, the full committee ordered a clean bill (H.R. 12163) to be introduced. The bill was reported by the Science and Technology Committee on April 20, 1978 (H.Rept. 95-1078, pt. 1) and sequentially referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (H.Rept. 95-1078, pt. 2), and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (H.Rept. 95-1078, pt. 3). H.R. 12163 passed the House by vote of 325-67 on July 17, 1978. On July 19, the bill was received in the Senate and placed on the legislative calendar. The Senate failed to vote on the bill prior to adjournment sine die of the 95th Congress.

SOLAR POWER SATELLITE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DE31ONSTRATION PROGRAM ACT OF 1978
(H.R. 12505)
To provide for a Research, Development and Demonstration Program to Determine the Feasibility of Collecting in Space Solar Energy to be Transmitted to Earth and to Generate Electricity for Domestic Purposes.
37-445-79-5




58

Summary and background of legislation
The Subcommittee held hearings jointly with the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications. The hearings were held on the original bill, IH.R. 10601, which became H.R. 12505 when jointly reported out by these Subcommittees. Testimony on solar power satellite systems and the provisions in the proposed bill was received from a variety of witnesses, including space technologists, environmental scientists and economists. Government witnesses included personnel from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Witnesses expressed a wide range of concerns related to this legislation, including environmental factors, economics, and technical feasibility. Several of these concerns were incorporated in the final version of the bill (HII.R. 12505) that was reported out of Committee. This bill provides for an R&D program to determine the feasibility of collecting solar energy in space and transmit the energy to Earth via microwaves for the generation of base-load electricity. Authorizing $25 million in FY 1979, the bill provides that the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration initiate research and development on technological feasibility, environmental effects, and non-satellite power alternatives.
H.R. 12505 passed the House on June 22, 1978 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources where hearings were held on August 14, 1978. The bill was not reported out of the Senate Committee prior to adjournment sne die of the 95th Congress.
Legislatie history
H.R. 10601 as introduced on January 30, 1978, and referred jointly to the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommittee on Advanced Energy Technologies and Energy Conservation Research, Development and Demonstration. Hearings were held jointly by the two Subcommittees on April 12, 13, and 14, 1978. Markup of the bill by the Subcommittees was held on April 25, 1978 and the bill was reported to the full Committee with amendments. H.R. 1250 superceded H.R. 10601 as a clean bill, and the full Committee ordered reported H.R. 12505 (H. Rept. 95-1120) on May 3, 1978. A one hour open rule was granted and the House passed H.R. 12505 on June 22. 1978, with one amendment introduced on the floor. The vote was 267 years. 96 nays, 1 present and 69 not voting.
The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation which failed to report the bill.


OVERSIGHT INvESTIGATIO.NS AND ACrITrIES
The Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Res.earch, Development and Demonstration Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-413).-Subcommittee hearings were held to ascertain the optimum schedule for the Federal Demonstration Program and the effect of different schedules on the likelihooQd of attaining the program objectives. As a result of these hearing, P.L. 94-413 was amended (P.L. 95-238, Title VII). The changes in-





59
clude lengthening the demonstration period and allowing the early phases of the demonstration to be oriented to fleet oper-ations in a controlled environment. The amendment also established a T'rea sury account for the Electric Vehicle Industry Loan Guarantee Program which allowed more efficient program implementation.
Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974 (P.L. 94409) .-The results from the first three years of activities under P.L. .93-409 were reviewed in hearings by the Subcommittee. An amendinent to this Act was proposed by the Subcommittee and incorporated into the Department of Energy Authorization Bill for FY 79 (H.R. 12163).
Solar Ph otovoltaic Energy Systems.-DOE's Solar Photovoltaic 'Energy Systems Program was reviewed with respect to its timing, balance and effectiveness. The Subcommittee concluded that a clear
-statement of a continued multi-year Federal role would significantly improve the chances for the successful commercialization of this technology. The legislation which was drafted formulating this role was enacted into law as The Solar Photovoltaic Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-090).
Energy Demand,, the Potential for Energqy Conservation anid Pos.sible Lifestyle Changes Associated With Future Energy Use.-The
Subcommittee held hearings on energy demand, the potential for energy conservation and possible lifestyle changes associated with future energy use. Of special interest during these hearings were the .assumptions behind different energy demand forecasts. Each study forecasts an annual energy growth rate, implying some level of conservation and, perhaps, concurrent lifestyle changes influenced by price increases or regulations or both. Two foresight activities relat64 to this question were undertaken by the Congressional Research Service at the Committee's request-one was a workshop on the, relation between energy use, economic growth and national productivity; the other was a workshop on the use of energy in communities.
Used Oil Re-reflning.-A field hearing on used oil re-refinino was held in Seminole, Oklahoma. Although used lubricating oils have been reprocessed for many years, the volume has been declining. Most in-place re-refining technology has difficulty meeting pollution control standards, so that new technology may now be required.
Earth Resou races and D rifling Tee h/nolog y.-Heari ngs were held( ,on earth resources and drilling technology. Important information was presented on the relationship of drilling technology and R&D prIograms to the development of underground energy resources, such as geothermal resources, petroleum, methane andl uranium. Testimony was received from the private sector, as well as from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Alcohol Fuels.-Hearings were held on the production and the use, of alcohol, derived from grains, wood and other forms of biomass, for use as motor vehicle fuel. Testimony indicated that the details of supply, economics, and energy efficiency for the production of significant ,quantities of ethanol ar-e not well known, but that use of gasolineethanol blends, commonly referred to as gasohol, should be further investigated as a possible near term alternative.




60

Bio Converion.-Field hearings on bioconversion wr held Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York and in Den Colorado, as part of a review of the present state and future pros for technologies that would convert our biomass resources m ergy. The Brookhaven hearing focussed on the principal bi sion resources of the Northeast Region, namely wood and i solid waste. The Denver hearing included testimony on the tion of methane from animal wastes and bioconversion of gra agricultural wastes.
Passive Solar Heating and Coolin .-A hearing was held on passive solar heating and cooling, a technology which takes advan of convection and radiant effects to heat and cool buildings nualy. Testimony was received on the latest developments in thi ara the Department of Energy, ihe Department of Housing an4 U Development and the American Institute of Architects. Hydrogen Energy Sptem.-The National Bureau of was asked to provide information on hydrogen energy s A
workshop was held in Reston, Virginia under their direct' The objectives of this workshop were to study the conditions hydrogen can emerge as a major fuel of the future, identify barriers/ incentives to implementation, make comparisons with alternate and outline policy changes which would speed or deter hydrogen use. Six interdisciplinary panels together with seventy partici dressed questions relating to hydrogen development d workshop.











,CHAPTER IV.-SUBCOMMJTTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE ATMOSPHERE

BILLS ENACTED INTO PUBLIC LAW

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION FISCAL YEAR 1978

Public Law 95-155 (H.R. 5101)
To authorize appropriations for activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.
Back ground.- The Environmental Protection Agency conducts significant research and development programs to produce the scientific information and technology on which their control and abatement programs are based. Because the agency's research program, as well as the agency itself, was assembled from many parts and because Congress has assigned many tasks to the agency in various pieces of legislation, the research program has suffered. For example, the various deadlines in the regulatory legislation have led to artificial schedules for research programs and Subsequently the Office of Research and Development within EPA has been criticized for being unresponsive to the regulatory programs. At the same time, EPA has been criticized by the National Academy of Sciences for not doing enough long-term research.
Because of the undisputed importance of sound information to the agency's regulatory program, the Science and Technology Committee undertook to assure that the agency had an adequately funded and wellIdirected R&D program. The jurisdiction for environmental research was assigned to the Committee at the start of the 94th Congress. Thus, the Committee authorized the fiscal year 1976 research program for the agency in Public Law 94-475 (H.R. 7108). Similar legislation, H.R. 12704, authorizing the FY 1977 research program was reported by the Committee and passed by the House (on May 4, 1976), but died in the Senate.
Summary: The bill, HT.R. 5101., could be. divided into two partsone which authorized FY 1,978 appropriations and a second which contained other provisions giving direction to the agency.
The bill authorized a total of $253,603,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency's environmental research and development program for fiscal year 1978. An additional $120 million was authorized. for air pollution-related research in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 (Public Law 95-95). This made a total of $155 million avillable for air research under both bills, and the bill under discussion here allocated the total $1,55 million among four program areasthat is, Health and Ecological Effects, $36 million ; Monitoringy and
(61)




62

Technical Support, $11 million; Industrial Processes. $7 million; a Energy, $101 million. There was also $45 million authorized in th Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580) for EPA research and development related to solid waste ma n t and resource recovery.
The bill also authorizes $25 million to fund demonstrations for wastewater recycling.
There were several other provisions in the Act relating to the agement and utilization of the agency's research program. One of these provisions gave a statutory mandate to the agency's Science Advisory Board. This Board had been established in January, 4, and the Committee felt that it was wise to authorize it in law so t the Committee could, when necessary. call upon it for advice. Indeed, in this bill, the Committee called for two reports by the Science Board-one, a report on the EPA Five-Year Research Plan, and the second on the agency's health effects research. Another provision of the bill required that at least 15% of all program-related fun propriated to the Administrator for environmental research bspecifically utilized to support long-term research. Section 4 of the bil1 provided that the agency's Five-Year Research Plan should contain three budget projections to assist the Congress in evaluating progress and level of effort of the research program-thee alter tive budget levels are described as no-growth, moderate-gro high-growth levels. Finally, a provision required EPA to impl all the recommendations in the November, 1976 report done by the Committee on Science and Technology entitled. "The Envi Protection Agency's Research Program With Primary Emphasis on the Community Health and Environmental Surveillance System (CHESS)."
Leq slative History: H.R. 5101 was introduced on March 16, 19771 bv Mr. Brown of California and eight other Members of the House. The cosponsors were Messrs. Lujan, Wirth, Ambro, Walgren, Scheuer, Beilenson, Walker and Winn. Following its referral to the Committee on Sciences and Technology hearings were held on ruary 22, 23, 24, 25 and March 1, 1977, by the Subcommittee, Testimony received from agency and public witnesses strongly suggested the need to strengthen EPA's research and development efforts. After carefully considering the evidence presented at the hearings, the ubcommittee ordered the bill as amended reported to the full Committee on March 17, 1977. The full Committee received the Subcommittee report, marked up the bill, and ordered it reported, with amendment, on March 30, 1977. On April 5, 1977, the Rules Committee held a hearing and granted a one-hour open rule. The bill passed the House on April 19, amended, by a vote of 358-31. On May 27, 1977, the bill passed the Senate, amended, by a voice vote after striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof provisions of Senate companion bill S. 1417. On September 23, the House requested a conference, and appointed as conferees Messrs. Brown of California, Wirth, Watkins, Ambro, Walker and Winn. On September 30, the Senate agreed to conference and appointed as conferees Senators Culver, Muskie and Wallop. On October 19, 1977, the conferees agreed and a report was filed in the House on that day as House Report 95-




63
722. The Senate agreed to the conference report by a voice vote on October 20, 1977, and the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 343-19 on October 25, 1977. The bill was signed by the President on November 8, 1977, becoming Public Law 95-155.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1979
Public Law 95-477 (H.R. 11302)
To authorize appropriations for environmental research, development, and demonstrations for the fiscal year 1979, and for other purposes.
Background: A discussion of the pertinent background for this legislation is covered above under the FY 1978 bill. The FY 1979 bill, P.L. 95-477, represents a continuation of the annual authorization process for EPA's R&D program.
Summary: The bill authorized appropriations for EPA programs and also contained other provisions giving direction to the agency's research activities.
The bill authorized a total of $400,564,000. Of this, $365,564.000 was for the regular programmatic activities of the agency. This compares with $324,128,000 requested for these activities. In addition, the bill authorized $30 million for programs for which the agency made no request. These are: $7 million for grants for long-term programs at universities; $3 million to support the Gulf Coast Air Quality Study as authorized in section 403 (d) of the Clean Air Act; $2 million for a study of the coordination of environmental research; and $3 million for grants for futures studies by bonafide public interest groups. There was also a $15 million authorization for grants to demonstrate technologies or systems reusing wastewater. 'In addition to this, the bill contained a $5 million authorization for environmental activities carried out at the National Bureau of Standards-this was the only authorization for programs not at EPA. Other sections of the bill contained the following provisions: (1) Section 2 (d) of the bill prohibited the transfer of certain control technology, programs from EPA to DOE and the reciprocal transfer to EPA from DOE of certain health and environmental effects programs. This transfer had been proposed by the Administration. (2) Section 6 of the bill provided authority to the agency for academic training programs, the use of post-doctoral researchers and the use of research associates sponsored by industry. (3) Section 7 of the bill amended last year s authorization bill (P.L. 95-155); specifically, the provisions of that bill dealing with grants for the demonstration of wastewater reuse. The amendment stated that for projects in which the reuse of water is for human consumption as opposed to agriculture or irrigation the agency should develop and promulgate guidelines or treatment requirements for microbiological, viral, radiological, organic and inorganic contaminants. However, water not intended for human consumption should have appropriate standards.
Legislative History: The House bill, H.R. 11302, was introduced on March 6, 1978 by Mr. Brown of California, with cosponsors Mr.




64

Wirth, Mr. Walker, Mr. Ambro, Mr. Winn, Mr. Wal Forsythe and Mr. Beilenson. It superseded the bill H.R. 1119,. hc had been marked up by the Subcommittee on February 24,1978. The full Committee met and on March 14 received and approved the Sbcommittee report, marked up the bill, and ordered it reported with amendments. House report 95-985, accompanying the bill, on March 17. The bill passed the House on April 27, 1978, by a vote of 367-33. The Senate's amended version of the bill passed on May 26, 1978, by a voice vote. On June 13, the House requested a conference with the Senate and appointed conferees Brown of California, Wirth, Waigren, Watkins, Walker and Forsythe. On June 23, Senate agreed to a conference and appointed conferees Culver, M i Hart, Wallop and McClure. The conference report (H. Rept. 951593) was filed in the House on September 20, 1978. The Senate to the conference report by voice vote on September 26, 1978 the House on October 4, 1978 approved the conference report by a vote of 387-15. The bill was signed into law as Public Law 95-477 on October 18,1978.

ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION FY 1978
Public Law 95-238 (S. 1340)
To authorize a appropriations to the Department of Energy, for energy research, development, and demonstration, and related programs in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization A of 1974, and section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and for other purposes. Background: When Congress created ERDA, the Environment and Safety Office was given the responsibility for ensuring that the energy technologies that were developed were safe, clean and environmentally acceptable.
In 1977, the Subcommittee authorized, for the first time, all of the activities of the Office of Environment and Safety. The budt for that office was divided into five categories: Overview and ment, Environmental Research, Decontamination and Decommissoning .and Light Water Reactor Safety Facilities.
The objective of the Overview and Assessment Program is to ensure that ERDA places emphasis on environmental health and safety consi derations in formulating and implementing energy RD&D decisions plans and programs. The primary objective of the Environmental Research Division is to support research which will provide information to assure that all energy technologies are developed with minimal detrimental impact on human health and the environment. The Life Sciences Program includes General Life Science and Biomedi Appl-cations.
Summaryy: The bill authorizes $275,093,000 for Environmental Sifetv research and development, which represents an addition of $10 million over the President's request. Of this. $7 million was added to the Overview and Assessment Category for a number of activities, in(elluding the National Coal Utilization Assessment and a study of the




65

safety of liquified natural gas. $1 million was added to the Environmental Research category for a study of the environmental consequences of carbon dioxide production, and $2 million was added to the Decommissioning and Decontamination category.
In addition, the Subcommittee included a provision directing the Administrator of ERDA to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive environment and safety program which evaluates all environmental health and safety consequences associated with each energy technology program. The Subcommittee also directed the development of a comprehensive plan for management options, ownership and alternate disposition of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, New York.
Legislative History: The ERDA budget for fiscal year 1978 was submitted to the House of Representatives on January 17, 1977 by President Ford. On February 22, 1977, a revised budget was submitted by President Carter. On March 28, 1977, the fiscal year 1978 authorization bill was transmitted to Congress for the revised budget, and on April 29, 1977, H.R. 6796 was introduced by Chairman Olin E. Teague.
On March 1, 1977, the Subcommittee held hearings on the environment and safety research and development of that budget. Subsequently, the Committee met on May 10, 11 and 12 to mark up the bill and after completing this action the bill was reported favorably.
After passing the House, the conference committee was convened. S. 1811 which was identical to H.R. 6796 was substituted and was subsequently vetoed. The nuclear programs were removed from H.R. 6796 and S. 1340 containing all non-nuclear R&D was substituted. S. 1340 was signed into law on February 25, 1978 (P.L. 95-238).

MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT
REAUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1978
Public Law 95-153 (H.R. 4297)
To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to authorize appropriations to carry out the provisions of such Act for fiscal year 1978.
Background: The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 was passed by the Congress in response to a number of serious environmental concerns which had arisen due to the increasing trend of ocean disposal of various wastes including sewage sludge toxic industrial wastes, and construction debris. The Act is organized into three major sections. The first is essentially a regulatory program established in the EPA which issues ocean dumping permits and regulates the activities of permittees. The second major section is an ocean environmental research program within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The third major section establishes a system of Marine Sanctuaries to be administered by NOAA.
This bill marked a significant step by the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere as it was the first time that the Subcommittee had exercised its legislative authority in joining with the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to authorize sec-




66

tion 2 of the bill pertaining to oceanic research and development. The Committee on Science and Technology was given a sequential referral on this legislation. In following years the Committee would receive joint referrals with the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
The most significant feature of H.R. 4297 as reported to the House as a joint Committee substitute was language setting December 31, 1981, as the final date on which sewage sludge could be disposed of by dumping it into the oceans.
Sunnmary: The bill, as reported to the House of Representatires, amended the basic legislation to provide authorization of exp)enditures in fiscal year 1978.
The amounts provided in H.R. 4297 for expenditure during fiscal year 1978 were $4.8 million for Title I; $6.5 million for Title II; and $500,000 for Title III.
The bill further mandated the end of all ocean dumping of sewage sludge not later than December 31,1981.
Legislative History: The bill, H.R. 4297, was introduced March 2, 1977 by Mr. Leggett, Mr. Roe, Mr. Forsythe and Mr. Pritchard, and was referred initially to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. On May 16, 1977. that Committee reported the bill (House Report 95-325, part I) with an amendment and it was sequentially referred to the Committee on Science and Technology for consideration of such portions of section 2 of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee.
On May 20. 1977, the Committee on Science and Technolog reported the bill (House Report 95-325, part II), with an amendment adding $500,000 to Title II which was intended as pass-through funding for research conducted in the New York Bight area by the EPA Region II office. A joint Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute containing features of both versions was considered in the House on October 14, 1977 and passed by a roll call vote of 359-1. On October 20. 1977. the measure passed the Senate and on Novemher 4, 1977, H.R. 4297 was enacted as Public Law 95-153.
NATIONAL CLIMATE PROGRAM ACT

Public Law 95-367 (H.R. 6669)
To establish a national climate program, and for other purposes Background: A bill, H.R. 10013. was introduced into the 94th Congress by Representative Hayes of Indiana and hearings were held before the Subcommittee in May of 1976. Those hearings were summarized in a report entitled "Climate Research and a National Climate Program" (Committee Serial III). The principal finding was that there was a definite need for a national climate program to improve our nation's ability to respond to climate fluctuations and changes. The cold winter of 1976-77, which saw fuel-laden barges frozen in the Ohio River. and natural gas shortages in one part of the country and surpluses in another, further emphasized the need for such a program. An example of the tvpe of problem to be addressed is the "CO -greenhliouse effect" caused by burning fossil fuels. The energy





67

implications of this are of course best handled by DOE, yet most of the scientific expertise needed for the analysis resides in NOAA. Thus, interagency cooperation was essential to address this critical climate problem.
S nmary: The stated purpose of the bill was to establish a national climate program that would assist the nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications. The heart of the bill was section 5, in which the National Climate Program was established and described and certain elements of its operation were provided for. The National Climate Program was to be established by the President, who would also promulgate the five-year plans described below and define the roles in the program of the various federal offices and departments. This was particularly important because the purpose of this bill was not to pull existing climate activities out of the agencies where they are now being carried out, but rather to ensure intimate coordination and cooperation between the various programs, thereby assuring a more effective and efficient national program. Thus the bill established a National Climate Program Office in the )epartment of Commerce, which was to be the lead entity responsible for administering th e program. In the legislation, particular attention was given to striking a balance between too much and too little centralized authority in the program. Section 5 (d) described the program elements which were: impact assessments; basic and applied research: climate forecasts; data collection and analysis; information and data dissemination, including mechanisms for consultation with users of such information; international cooperation and intergovernmental climate programs; experimental climate forecast centers; and a five-year plan for the program. The bill also provided that the program should make extensive use of both interagency and extra-federal advisory committees. Section 5(g) provided for the development of a program budget, which would enable the National Climate Program Office to have information on all federal climate programs. Section 6 of the bill authorized intergovernmental climate programs. This would be a program of grants to states or groups of states to set up local programs for climate-related studies or services subject to certain conditions that are specified in the bill. This would enable the national program to have close coordination with state and local programs. Section 7 provided for an annual report on the program. The bill authorized $50 million for FY 1979 and $65 million for FY 1980. plus $10 million for each of those fiscal years for grants to carry out the intergovernmental climate program.
Lecslati-re HtMory: H.IR. 6669. the House bill, was introduced on April 27, 1977 by Mr. Brown of California with 24 cosponsors. At the same time, H.R. 6670 was introduced with four additional cosponsors. This bill superseded the bill T.R. 6380, introduced by Mr. Brown on April 20, 1977. and also ThR. 783, H.R. 3399. H.R. 4468 and I.R. 5o, the last four of which were all identical and represented a redrafting of the ideas contained in the 94th Conress, H.R. 10013 mentioned above. H.R. 6380 had been reported by the Subcommittee on April 25, 1977, as a clean bill, which became H.R. 6669. This bill, in turn, was reported by the full Science Committee on May 3, 1977, with amend-




68
ments. The legislative report accompanying the bill (House 95-266) was filed on May 6, 1977. The bill passed the House on 8t ber 9, 1977, with amendments, by a vote of 282-60. On April 2, 8, the bill with this number passed the Senate; however, the Se struck all after the enacting clause and inserted the substance of their bill and a conference was necessary. Conferees for the HI Messrs. Teagte, Brown of California, Ambro, Wirth, Walker and Winn; Senate conferees were Senators Cannon, nuson, Stevenson, Pearson and Schmidt. The conference report was filed in the House (House Report 95-1489) on August 14, 1978. Aucust 17, the Senate agreed to the conference report by a voice v and on September 6, 1978 the-House agreed to the conference repor, also by a voice vote. The President signed the bill into law (PIL. 95367) on September 17, 1978.

MARINE POLLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, DEVELOP T AND
MONITORING ACT
Public Law 95-273 (S. 1617)
To establish a program of ocean pollution research and monitoring and for other purposes.
Background: At the time of introduction of this legislation, ocean pollution research was being administered by eight Departments, nine independent agencies and 37 other units of government.
There was deep concern in the Committee on Science and Technoogy that immediate and vigorous efforts must be undertaken to accomplish a number of specific goals: (1) there must be a comprehensive assessment of all federal efforts related to marine pollution, with particular attention to the long-term fates and effects of pollutants in the marine environment; (2) there must be an establishment of national priorities and a plan to reach the goals which must be accomplished in the immediate future; (3) the establishment of a close interagency coordination and cooperative group in on all efforts related to marine environmental pollution was considered an immediate goal.
Summary: S. 1617 as finally agreed to by the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries designated the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the lead agency to prepare (in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and appropriate federal officials) a comprehensive five-year plan for all federal ocean pollution research and development and monitoring programs, to be submitted to the Congress and President by February 15, 1979, and to be revised biennially. The plan, at a minimum, was to contain: an assessment and ordering of national needs and problems relating to ocean pollution; a detailed listing and evaluation of existing federal programs, their capabilities and costs; policy recommendations as necessary to ensure that priorities are met; and a description of the actions taken by the Administrator of NOAA and the Director of OSTP to coordinate the budget review process. The bill also authorized the Administrator of NOAA to provide grants or contracts to any person, institution of higher education, federal agency or state or local government for up





69

to 100%7, of the cost of research projects to meet planned priorities not adequately addressed by any federal agencies; the Administrator wa~s required to act upon any application within six months of receipt of required information; and the projects were to be administered to the maximum, extent possible through existing federal programs. The bill further authorized and instructed the heads of each federal agency involved with ocean pollution research to cooperate with NOAA, including supplying information, services, facilities, and personnel. Finally, the bill provided for the dissemination of findings and results of federally sponsored research projects.
Legislative History: This legislation was originally introduced in the House of Representatives on June 20, 1977 as H.R. 7878, sponsored by Mr. Brown of California. Other legislation pertaining to ocean pollution had been introduced on February 7, 1977 as H.R. 3209. This bill had dealt more specifically with problems of oil pollution.
Following referral of H.R. 7878, and H.R. 3209 and companion bills to the Committee on Science and Technology, hearings on oil spill recovery were held June 28 and 29, 1977 by the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere. On August 2 and 3, 1977, the Sub'Committee held hearings on oceans environmental research and devel.opment and received further testimony.
After careful consideration of all testimony and evidence submitted, the Subcommittee unanimously reported a clean bill, H.R. 8823, which contained basic language included in H.R. 7878. Following Subcommittee action and reporting a clean bill, the Ocean Pollution Environmental Research and Development Act, several potentially serious problems arose which indicated that the Committee on Science and Technology should conduct additional investigations into the matter of designating lead agency responsibility for oil spill recovery research and development. Accordingly, on September 20, 1977, the Committee
on Science and Technology adopted substitute language deleting refer,ences to oil spill recovery research and development. The Committee then ordered the substitute language reported (H. Rept. 95-626, Part I) as an amendment in the nature of a substitute to 5. 1617, which had been previously passed by the Senate. On September 26, 1977, the bill was sequentially referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
On October 17, 1977, the Committee on, Merchant Marine and Fisheries reported the bill with a further amendment (H. Rept. 95-626, Part II).
On February 28, 1978, the bill 5. 1617 as amended, was called up under a motion to suspend the Rules. At that time the Committee on 'Science and Technology and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries offered a substitute bill in the nature of a joint. Commiittee 'Substitute which incorporated the best points of the measure as reported originally by the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committee on Merchant Mfarine and Fisheries. That bill was adopted by the House of Representatives on a voice vote.
on April 24, 1978, the Senate agreed to the Houise amendments to S. 1617 and passed the bill as amended. On A pril 26. 1978 the mieasur-e was sent to the President and on Mlay 8, 19 78, 5. 1617 was enacted as Public Law 95-273.




70

ANTARCTIC CONSERVATION ACT OF 1978
Public Law 95-541 (H.R. 7749)
To implement the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora of the Antarctic Treaty, and for other purposes.
Background: Antarctica, the continent lying concentrically about the South Pole, is 98 percent covered by a massive ice sheet and h inhospitable climate. Despite this, Antarctic contains a unique variety of some 700 species of plants including algae, fungi, lichens and mosses, which provide food for over 200 species of invertebrates and other simple terrestrial organisms. The ocean around Antarctica teems with life and supports-large populations of krill, fish, whales, seals. penguins and other sea birds and marine animals. Many of the sea birds, seals and penguins use Antarctic for breed ing purposes. Because of the extreme weather conditions the ecosystem of Antarctica is particularly fragile and vulnerable to mans' activities.
Antarctica is not sovereign territory of any nation although several countries have, prior to 1950, claimed sections of the continent. In 1959 twelve nations, Argentina. Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States followed later by Poland concluded the Antarctic Treaty which provides that the area south of 600 south latitude will be used for peaceful purposes only.
The 13 members of the Treaty at a meeting in 1964, adopted the "Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Flora and Fauna" which sought to protect the Antarctic terrestrial ecosystem by limiting the taking of native species of plants and animals, controlling the introduction of non-native species, regulating the disposal of pollutants, and providing for the special protection of certain areas of Antarctica. These Agreed Measures have been formally adopted by all of the Treaty Parties with the exception of Japan, Australia and the United States.
At a further meeting of the Antarctic Treaty in 1976 Recommendation VIII-3 was adopted which established management plans for seven designated areas of special scientific interest in Antarctica.
The National Science Foundation which has primary responsible itv for United States activity in Antarctica has adopted the Agreed Measures and Recommendation VIII-3 as interim guidelines. H.R. 7749 would provide statutory authority to enforce the guidelines. Such authority is necessary to control the activities of U.S. citizens in Antarctica because of the growing public interest and activity in Antarctica.
Sumar: The Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (H.R.
7749) provides for the protection of the animals and plants in Antarctica and of the ecosystems upon which they depend.
The Act directs the Director of the National Science Foundation to establish a permit and regulatory system to control the taking of plants and animals native to Antarctica, the introduction of nonnative species into Antarctica, the disposal of pollutants in Antarctica, and the activities of the United States citizens in certain areas of Antarctica.





71

Permits authorizing the taking of species native to Antarctica may only be issued for the purpose of providing specimens for scientific study, or for public display, educational or cultural institutions. No permit may be issued if taking of specimens will jeopardize the ecosystem or the survival of the species. Specially protected areas which have been agreed by the Antarctic Treaty may only be entered for compelling scientific purposes, and in such a way as to minimize ecological disturbance.
No specific authorizations were included in the Act since the National Science Foundation stated that it already has sufficient authorization under existing legislation.
Legislative History: The bill, H.R. 7749, provides for the conservation and protection of the animals and plants in Antarctica and of the ecosystems upon which they depend, consistent with the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, the Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, and Recommendation VIII-." of the Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. The Act directs the Director of the National Science Foundation to establish a permit and regulatory system to control the taking of plants and animals native to Antarctica, the introduction of nonnative species into Antarctica, the disposal of pollutants in Antarctica, and the activities of United States citizens in certain areas of Antarctica.
H.R. 7749 was introduced at the request of the Department of State on June 13, 1977, by Mr. Murphy of New York and eight other Members. On June 15, 1977, the bill was referred jointly to the Committees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and Science and Technology. Certain technical amendments to the bill were transmitted to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries by the Department of State on August 31,1977.
On September 12, 1977, joint hearings were held on the legislation by the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of the Committee on Science and Technology. After giving careful consideration to the evidence presented at the hearings and the amendments recommended by the Department of State, the SuIIbcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere, on April 20, 1978, ordered the bill reported to the full committee with an amendment. On May 3, 1978, the full committee, by unanimous vote, ordered the bill, as amended by the subcommittee, reported to the House.
Since the bill, H.R. 7749, had already been reported to the House by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on March 31, 1978 (Rept. 95-1031) (Part I) and because the two subcommittees concerned worked closely together in perfecting the legislation, the Subcommittee and the full Committee on Science and Technology adopted the text as reported by the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee except for the authorization section provided for the National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation assured the Committee that their responsibilities under this legislation could be accommodated under existing authorizations to the Antarctic program.
(The bill became law on October 28, 1978 as Public Law 953-541)




72

BILLts REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE, NOT ENATED INTO LAW
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1979

(H.R. 12163)
To authorize appropriations to the Department of Energy in accordance with section 261 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, section 305 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, section 16 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, and setion 660 of the Department of Energy Reorganization Act, for energy research and development, and for other purposes.
Background: Because theDepartment of Energy was officially organized on October 1, 1978, the fiscal year 1979 authorization was the first time the Subcommittee authorized DOE's environmental reseah. The Department of Energy was created from three different agencies: Energy Research and Development Administration, Federal Energy Administration, Federal Power Commission, and programs from various other agencies. The environmental research and development is primarily within the auspices of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental and incorporated the programs of the ERDA Office of Environment and Safety. The Subcommittee authorized that DOE program.
Summary: The portion of this legislation considered by the Subcommittee authorized appropriations for environmental research and development as contained within the auspices of the Assistant Secretary for Environment. The total amount authorized for environmental research was $295,788,000. The budget for the Office was divided into five major categories: Overview and Assessment, Environmnental Research, Life Sciences Research, Decontamination and Decommissioning, and Light Water Reactor Facilities.
The objective of the Overview and Assessment Program is to ensure that DOE places emphasis on environmental health and safety considerations in formulating and implementing energy RD&Ddecisions, plans and programs. The primary objective of the Environmental Research Division is to support research which will provide information to assure that all energy technologies are developed with minimal detrimental impact on human health and the environment. The Life Sciences Program includes General Life Science and Biomedical Applications. The Decontamination and Decommis sioning program deals with environmental analysis, management and safe disposition of surplus radioactivity contaminated DOE sites, former contractor sites and inactive uranium mill tailings sites. The Light Water Reactor Safety Facilities program provides DOE facilities for the conduct of reactor safety research.
Legislative IIistory: The Department of Energy budget was submitted to the House of Representatives on January 19,1978. The bill, H.R. 10969, was introduced by Mr. Teague, Chairman of the Committee on Science and Technology on February 15, 1978, authorizing appropriations for the Department of Energy for fiscal year 1979.
On January 25,1978, the Committee on Science and Technology held a posture hearing to receive testimony from DOE. The Subcommittee held hearings on February 14,15 and 16, 1978. Subsequently on March





73

14, 15, 21 and April 11 and 12, 1978, the full Committee met to amend the legislation.
IOn February 23, 1978, the President submitted to the I-oilset the offiecial authorization bill, H.R. 11137, which was jointly referred to the Committee on Sicience and Technology, Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, Committee on International Relations, Committee~ on Armed Services, Committee on Interior and Insular Af-airs and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. liecause that bill was still in committee when H.R. 10969 was ready to be reported, on April 18, 1978, the Committee on Science and Technology reported out a clean bill, H.R. 12163. Substantial time and effort were .devoted to negotiations with the Committees on Interstate and For-eign Commerce and Interior and Insular Affair's to identify jurisdiction for appropriate Commiiittee action.
The bill, H.R. 12163, was passed by the House of Representatives on July 17, 1978, by 325 to 67.
The Senate's companion bill for the Department of Energy, S. 2692
-was reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but was not considered by the full Senate. Thus, no authorization legislation was enacted for FY 1979 for the Department of Energy. MARINE rROTEMTON, RESEARCH AND SANCTUARIES ACT REAUTIJIORIZAflON, FISCAL YEARS 1979-1980
(H.R. 10661)
To amend the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 to authorize appropriations to carry out the provisions of such act for fiscal years 1979 and 1980.
Baclkground: The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, which is explained in more detail in the summary of H.R. 4297, continued to be a major focus of the efforts of a number of Coinmittees of both Houses of the Congress interested in cleaning up the ocean environment. In 1978 the Subcommittee joined the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in receiving 1 joint referral of LNPR SA amendments.
While H.R. 10661 was destined to die in the Senate at the end of the 95th Congaress, it was significant in that it signaled the beginning of a full working partnership between the two House Committees in this important area. H.R. 10661 would also signal another major step forward in the battle to end pollution of the oceans. Included in the joint Committee amendment offered by the two Committees when the bill reached the House was a provision supported by both which would end the ocean dumping of industrial wastes by December 31, 1981. It is expected that a similar provision will be included in any extension of MkPRSA to be considered by the two Committees in the 96th Congress.
Summary: Section 1 amended section 111 of the MPRSA to provide authorizations of $6.8 million for FY 1979 and $7.8 million for FY 1980, which represented increases of $2 inillion per Year andI $3 million per year, respectively, for EPA to regrulate the disposal of land-based materials into ocean waters. Section 2 added a new section 113, placing in the Administrator of the EPA the authority to study alternatives to ocean disposal of harmful materials and striking see37-445-79-6




74

tion 203 of the MPRSA, thus removing that authority from NOAA. This language also provided that nothing in section 113 was to be construed to affect the December 31, 1981 termination date for ocean dumping of sewage sludge. Section 3 amended section 304 of the Act to authorize $7.5 million for FY 1979 and $9 million for FY 1980 for lif the administration by NOAA of Title II of the Act, relating to certain a ocean disposal research programs. Section 4 provided that the ter "State" means any of the several states or any territory or possession having a popularly elected governor. Section 5 amended section 03 of the Act, relating to marine sanctuaries, by providing state governors with additional flexibility in their authority to disapprove the appli- A cability of marine sanctuaries within their state waters. Section 6 amended secton 304 of the MPRSA to authorize $2 million for FY t 1979 and $3 million for FY 1980 for administration of Title Ill. Section 7 amended section 4 of the MPRSA to subject industrial P
wastes to the December 31, 1981 deadline for ocean disposal.
Legislative History: H.R. 10661 was introduced on January 31,
1978 and jointly referred to the Committees on Science and Technology and Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Following hearings by the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere, the bill was reported unanimously to the full Committee on Science and Technology, which reported the bill with an amendment to the full Houset on May 12, 1978 (House Report 95-1145, part I). On May 15, 1978, the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries adopted an amendment to the bill as reported by the Science Committee and reported their bill as amended to the full House (House Report 95-1145, part II). On September 25, 1978, the measure was called up in the House under a motion to suspend the Rules and the bill as amended in the nature of a joint Committee substitute incorporating elements of both Committee versions, was passed. On September 28, the bill was calendared in the Senate and died there at the expiration of the 95th Congress.
Since the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, carried authorization for expenditure of funds only through fiscal year 1978, the agencies involved are currently operating without authorization and based on funding provided in their appropriations bills. It is apparent that the Committees on Science and Technology and Merchant Marine and Fisheries will again have to consider authorizing legislation to extend MPRSA through fiscal year 1980 early in the first Session of the 96th Congress.

CHESAPEAKE BAY RESEARCH COORDINATION ACT OF 1978

(H.R. 12631)
To provide for the coordination of federally supported and con(bducted research efforts regarding the Chesapeake Bay, and for other purposes.
Background: The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest estuary and plays a vital national and regional role as a fishery habitat, a transportation waterway, and a source of recreation. However, the Bay's integrity as a natural system is being threatened by pressures from increasing urban and industrial development, expliitation of resources




75

and pollutant loading. In order to better understand and minimize the impact of man's activities on the Bay, and to manage its resources wisely, numerous research and resource management programs on water quality, coastal zone management, shoreline erosion, fisheries, and wildlife are carried out by federal, state and local government agencies, and research and educational institution.
The Federal agencies most involved in the Chesapeake Bay research effort are the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a miandate through appropriations acts to conduct a research program on the Bay's environmental problems; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the Department of the Interior; the National Science Foundation; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This proliferation of individual agency and institutional activities has raised concerns about the effectiveness of the overall research effort in the Chesapeake Bay.
Specifically, concerns were raised that undesirable duplication and gaps in the research effort might occur as a result of the often narrow and possibly conflicting mandates of the agencies involved, coupled with'the absence of a specific coordinating mechanism. In addition, a strong need was perceived for the improved collection, dissemination, and utilization of information regarding the Chesapeake Bay in order to make maximum use of research findings and results in managing the Bay. H.R. 12631 would establish the mechanisms through which these, concerns could largyely be met.
Summary: The Chesapeake Bay iResearch Coordination Act of 1978 (H.R. 12631) would provide for the improved coordination, planning and utilization of federally-funded efforts in the Chesapeake Bay area.
To accomplish this purpose, the legislation would establish an indlependent "Office of Chesapeake Bay Research, Coordination" which would contain a Director and Deputy Director to be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Administrator of EPA. This Office, upon consultation with the Advisory Committee (see below), would maintain a clearinghouse for all information related to research in the Bay, review and evaluate the Federal research effort in the Chesapeake Bay, and develop a priority listing of additional research needed in the Bay. The Office would be required to submit an annual report to the Congress and the Secretary on its activities, with recommendations for improving the research effort.
H.iR. 12631 would also establish a Chesapeake Bay Advisory Com.mittee, which would advise the Director of the Office with respect to implememiiing, the Act, and comment upon the effectiveness of the Office in the Office's annual report.
An amount not to exceed $300,000 for fiscal years 1979, 1980 and 1981 would be authorized. Finally, provision is made for termination of thle Act and authorities conferred by it three years after enactment. At this time, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the IEPA Administrator, would report to the Congress upon the effectiveness of the Office and the Act.
'Legislative His tor'y: HI.R. 10064, the predecessor to HI.R. 12631, ws introduced on November 8, 1977 by Mr. Bauman, Mrs. Holt and Ms. Mikulski, and was jointly referred to the Committees on Mlerchanlt




76

Marine and Fisheries and Science and Technology. The Su on Oceanography of the Merchant Marine and Fishere held a hearing on H.R. 10064 on March 3, 1978, and reported the bill with amendments on May 5, 1978. On 1I.R. 10064, as amended, was reintroduced with additional and the new bill, H.R. 12631, was jointly referred to the Co Merchant Marine and Fisheries and Science and Technol new
bill was adopted by unanimous voice vote in the Merchant and Fisheries Committee without amendment on May 10, 1 Report 95-1177, part I). Subsequently, the Subco the
Environment and the Atmosphere held a roundtable di the bill on July 10, 1978, and held a hearing on the bill on A 9, 1978. After giving careful consideration to the conmnents and inendations received, H.R. 12631 was ordered reported with an ndment to the full Committee on Science and Technology on Au 16, 1978. The Science and Technology Committee adopted the b wth amendment by a unanimous voice vote on September 18, 1 ( Report 95-1177, part 11). H.R. 12631 was passed by the H nder suspension of the Rules on September 26, 1978, but was not acted upn by the Senate.

DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION OF NUCLEAR FA
(H.R. 6181)
To provide for a study of certain consequences of the deco m ing, disposal, and decontamination of elements involved in the utilization of nuclear energy.
Background: Nuclear facilities generally have a life expectcy of 30 years, and when they become obsolete they will eventually have be decontaminated and decommissioned due to the presence of lonlived and intense radioactivity. However, there is a large am t uncertainty about the environmental, health and economic cons lees of the decommissioning and decontamination process, sine the .operational experience with this process thus far has been very l In addition, there are a number of historical cases, such as that ii ving the plutonium and uranium reprocessing plant in Wet V New York, where insufficient planning for decommissioning in the has caused serious problems.
In response to this situation, Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.,
(I)-Cal.) introduced H.R. 6181 on April 6,1977, a bill which called for a generic study of the consequences of decommissioning, decontamination and disposal of all elements involved in the utilization of nuclear fission energy. In addition, funds were added by the Subcommittee to the ERDA fiscal year 1978 authorization bill for the preparation of a ,study of the technical and institutional options for decommissioning the West Valley facility and disposing of the high-level radioative wastes at the site. Hearings were held on the decommissknf and dlecontalination of nuclear facilities and on the disposal of nuclear wastes in order to provide background on the West Valley situation and on the need for H.R. 6181.





77
Summary of Hearings: Hearings were held on June 15 and 16, 1977.
The first day was focused on the technical and institutional problems associated with the West Valley reprocessing facility. Testimony was received from the Honorable Stanley Lundine (D-N.Y.), Dr. Richard Lester of Rachel Carson College, and from representatives of the (Geiineral Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Nuclear Fuel Services. Inc., and the Sierra Club- Throughout the hearing, it became clear that although the question of who should bear the financial and managerial responsibility for the facility was complex tand controversial, the overriding concern was that remedial action be taken
quickly to ensure public health and safety.
The legislative hearing on the second day examined the generic
issues related to decommissioning, decontamination and nuclear waste disposal. Witnesses from the General Accounting Office, the ERI)A S Office of Environment and Safety, the U.S. Navy, the Atomic Industrial Forum, and the Connecticut Public Utilities Control Authority S discussed the technical alternatives, methods and costs of decomnuissioning, as well as the institutional mechanisms for handling, regulating and financing the operation. The hearing supported the need for the legislation by reaffirming that future planning for decommissioning and decontamination was not adequate, and that existing or planned studies did not address alternative institutional arrangements of financing methods. The hearing record is entitled "Decommissioning and Decontamination" (Committee Print No. 20).
Legislative Hi.tory: Subsequent to the hearings, the Subcommittee
reported H.R. 6181 without amendment to the Committee on August 4, 1977. However, the bill was tabled in the Committee markup on 0 September 20, 1977, with the understanding that its language would he
included in the conference report on the ERDA fiscal year 1978 authorf ization bill, H.R. 6796 (Report No. 93-714). However, while $1 million
was appropriated for the study of West Valley, no funds were appropriated for the generic study as defined in H.R. 6181 and as calk d for
in the conference report.
In February, 1978, a report based upon the hearings was published
entitled "Decommissioning and Decontamination of Nuclear Facilities" (Serial S) containing a number of Subcommittee findings and
recommendations.

FORESIGHT AND OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATIONS AND ACTIvITIEs
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL ENERGY PLAN: FORESIGHT HEARINGS
Background: In April, 1977, the President submitted a National
Energy Plan (NAP) to the Congress. A major component of this plan was an increase in the dependence on United States coals for meeting the Nation's energy needs. In addition, the NEP called for increased use of non-plutonium based nuclear power, coupled with the deferral of the recycling of spent nuclear fuel. The significant environmental, health and safety consequences associated with this proposal necessitated a thorough re-evaluation of the existing environmental R&D





78

programs, which was carried out through a series of hearings before the Subcommittee.
Sumnwry of leaiings: The foresight hearings on June 8 and 9, 1977. were held to generate a comprehensive list of the environmental, health and safety issues raised by the President's proposed Witnesses at these hearings came from the Energy Research a Develop ment Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Nuclear Regu latory Commission. Environmental Policy Center, Natural Resources Defense Council. National Wildlife Federation, Edison Electric Institute. National Coal Association, Union Oil, Friends of the Earth, and the State of Texas. Additional materials were submitted for the record.
These hearings led the Subcommittee to request a document entitled "Environmental Challenges of the President's Energy Plan: Implications for Research and Development", (October, 1977; Serial J) from the Congressional Research Service. This document containsan assessment of the NEP. an analysis of the environmental impacts of various energy technologies, a comparison of the environmental concerns of the nuclear and fuel energy cycles with ongoing federal enviromnit RI&D programs, and an evaluation of environmental monitoring needs and opportunities.
Based upon the foresight hearings, the Subcommittee decided to hold detailed hearings on the adequacy and appropriateness of environmental and health programs related to both the nuclear and fossil fuel Cynles.
The hearings on the coal fuel cycle were held on July 21, 26 and 27', 1977. and involved experts in the fields of public and occupational health, energy analysis, scientific and public policy, and environmental and biolocrcal effects. The major issue that arose in these hearings was the possible greenhouse effect from increased carbon dioxide production associated with increased coal combustion. It became clear that a great deal more research is needed in this area and that the existing research programs need to have improved management and productivity. Additionally, in attempting to assess the overall impact on the enviironment of increased use of coal, it became evident that better health and environmental monitoring systems are necessary. Although the need for such monitoring is clear, the institutional mechanisms by which it would be accomplished are confusing and require substantial improvement. A single environment/energy research overseer might hel ) in this area.
The nuclear fuel cycle hearings were held on September 26, 27 and 2. 1977. and involved representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Boston Edison Company, and the American Physical Society's Study Group on Nuclear Fuel ('veles and Waste Management, as well as experts in environmental medicine, nuclear engineering, and environmental engineering. These hearings focused on six topics:
(1) spent fuel disposal and waste management; (2) hazards associted with increased mining and milling: (3) environmental and health research on alternative fuel cycles; (4) nuclear reactor safety





79
research; (5) waste disposal program oscillation; and (6) research on
health effects of routine, low-level radioactive emissions.
The full record of the three sets of hearings is entitled "Environmental Implications of the New Energy Plan" (Committee Print No.
45).
p In order to utilize the results of this series of hearings in the evaluation of the proposed FY 1979 environmental research budgets over which the Subcommittee has jurisdiction, an analytical report was requested from the Congressional Research Service. This report, entitled "Research and Development Needs to Merge Environmental and
[I Energy Objectives" (March, 1978, Serial T), describes the Federal
l -&D response to energy-related environmental concerns and identifies issues and priority needs in energy-environment R&D. In addition, it includes summaries of the nuclear and fossil fuel cycle hearings (Apa. pendix II).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR WASTE IIANAGE3IENT: FORESIGHT HEARINGS
Background: The overall problem of nuclear waste management and
disposal has received broad public attention in the past year. Numer,ous congressional hearings have addressed technical, engineering, geologic and regulatory issues associated with offshore and onshore waste disposal alternatives. Resolution of the problem of nuclear waste management appears to be the major stumbling block to widespread use of nuclear power generation. The Subcommittee held foresight hearins early in the 95th Congress on the environmental aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and other hearings on decommissioning and decontamination, with particular attention to the West Valley nuclear fuel reprocessing site. The present hearing grew out of the Subcommittee's responsiblity for environmental research and development and focused on the environmental aspects of nuclear waste management.
Summary of Hearings: The witness list for this hearing included
Dr. William Rowe, Office of Radiation Prorams. Environmental Protection Agency; Mr. Thomas Cochran, Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Dr. Peter Montaue, Director Center -for Environmental Research and Development, New Mexico. The witnesses addressed the need for and development of criteria for environmentally acceptable nuclear waste repositories and interim manage-ment techniques. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with developing environmental protection standards for the various types of radioactive wastes. The first set of environmental criteria will -establish the basic principles from which later, more specific, environmental criteria can be developed. All of the witnesses agreed that the development of environmental criteria was a worthwhile approach to the nuclear waste problem. EPA came out with its first set of general policy criteria in November, 1978. These criteria have been the subject of widespread public review which will later be published as final criteria. Compliance with these criteria by other federal agencies, especially the Department of Energy, was raised with regard to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to be constructed in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Dr. Montague criticized the activities of the Department of




80

Energy with respect to the environmental aspects of that facial hearing explored the interaction between environmental/ criteria and the development of a comprehensive research, dev and demonstration program.

GROUND WATER QUALITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: FE
ITEARLNGS AND INVESTIGATIONS
Background: The Subcommittee has recognized the gro ness throughout the country of the important contribution o water to our Nation's water supply. On the average in the States, ground water supplies 20 percent of the fresh water u other areas, the percentage is-above 98 percent. On account of the interest of several Members, the Subcommittee focused on the improve ground water research and development programs within the relevant federal agencies.
With the assistance of an informal interagency task force cors of federal and state representatives, the Subcommittee utilized the experience of experts to assess the need for Federal legislation in this. area. The task force was formed in February, 1978, and charged with carrying out the following specific tasks:
1. Identify the extent of current research and development on ground water within the agencies and States and recommend measures to strengthen these efforts;
2. Identify current State legislation and procedures on ground water;
3. Identify gaps or overlaps in existing programs relevant to ground water research and development:
4. Identify ground water research and development relating to specific regional or pollutant-source characteristics; and
5. Recommend procedures and mechanisms that we might in legislation to address these problems.
Over the next six months, the task force held regular meetings members of the Subcommittee staff. The final product of the work a draft bill, which was eventually introduced as H.R. 13946.
In addition to the work of the task force, the Subcommittee scheduled three days of hearings on ground water issues. A field hearing was held on April 8, 1978, at Glen Cove, Long Island, as a case study to investigate current ground water problems facing communities today. Subsequently, on April 26 and 27, the Subcommittee count with hearings in Washington to solicit formal agency comments on the need for better ground water research and development. During thehearings in Washington, the Subcommittee conducted a workshop on ground water research and development. The workshop invited 20, ground water experts-representing nine federal and state agencies a. trade association, a consulting firm, and the university community. The workshop addressed ground water research and development technology transfer, and manpower training. The half-day session wasmarked by largely open and frank discussion, with the particip serving as ground water professionals rather than as agency representatives. One of the major conclusions which emerged from the work shop was that ground water and surface water must be managed in an integrated approach.




81
The ground water bill, H.R. 13946, had four major titles which addressed the need for Federal agencies to coordinate their efforts in the preparation of an integrated five-year R&D plan, encouraged the Office of Water Research and Technology in the Department of the Interior and the National Science Foundation to increase the use of extramural research grants concerning ground water, established a training program for professionals, and encouraged the transfer of research results, technology and data to State and local levels.
Legislative Hi.istory: As mentioned earlier, the hearings, workshop, and numerous meetings of the informal interagency task force resulted in draft legislation described above which was aimed at rectifying past and current dangerous trends toward fragmented and duplicative efforts in ground water research and development. Although the bill, H.R. 13946, was not formally considered by the Subcommittee in the course of our legislative process, the Subcommittee did have the opportunity to provide valuable input to legislation which emerged from the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, H.R. 11226-the Water Research and Development Act of 1978. The Subcommittee worked with the Interior Committee in addressing the need for better interagency coordination in future water research and development )programs, particularly as they involve the integration of ground and surface water resources.
ENTIRONMENTAL RESEARCH RESERVE NETWORKS : FORESIGHT HEARINGS
Background: As man's activities increasingly impinge upon the natural environment, the ability to understand and predict the response of the environment becomes more essential. It is particularly important to maintain both pristine natural areas on which baseline sumrvevs and long-term environmental monitoring can be conducted (serving as experimental control), and areas on which long-term, manipulative research can be performed to test the response of ecosystems to various perturbations and management strategies. These areas are referred to by the Subcommittee as "environmental research
-reserves."
In the past, a number of environental research reserves have either been established or proposed, and in general fall into one (or more) of four major sv5tems. These four systems are the (1) Research Natural Areas (RNAs), of which 389 to date have been established by the federal land management agencies: (2) National Environmental Research Parks (NERPs). which are sponsored by and located on four sites owned by the Department of Energy (then ERDA). (3) Biosphere Reserves. of which 118 have been designated around the world through UNESCO's Man and the Biosnhere Programme, and (4) Experimental Ecological Reserves (EERs). which represent a recent proposal sponsored by the Federal Committee on Ecological Reserves involving an initial network of 71 sites.
Sun mary of Hearing.: Hearings were held on July 28 and 29, 1977, to determine what lands are available for or dedicated to environmental research, how they are managed. and what protection they 1ve against being put to other uses. Testimony was given on each of the four systems discussed above by witnesses representing the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department




S2

of 1jiterior's Fish and Wildlife Seiwice, National Park- Service and B111vall of Land Mainigellielit, the U.S. Forest Ser6ce, the Depart111vilt of State. the National Science Foiiii(lation, the President's Counoil 116ronmental Qiiality. the Federal Con-linittee on Ecolo ical R.v-,ei-N-es, aiid bN- a niimb(,,r of distincoruislied ecologists.
1.,ol 1()NN. i I I -r 01 ('k llearlilws, a sununary report with the Suboommittee& Jjjl(lill4r. -111(1 re(-oininendat ions entitled "Creation -and Utilization of a Coordiiinied Network of Environinental Research Reserves" (Feb-i-itary. 1!17S, Seria.1 W) was published. As a result, of its findings that 11011(: of flie reseaivli reserN-e systenis are protected or supported by lriri.-dat ioll, and t1lat di%-erse n4na(renient policies and procedures liax:e iwol I fei-ated oil the exi-ting sites, the Subcommittee recommended that :I (10111prelteiisk-o natioiml network of em-ironinental research reserves1w esta bl ished and stipported.
EPA RESEARCH AN-1) DEVELOr'_N1ENT ISSUES: OA-ERSIGTIT1IEARIN4GS
The slibconlillittee liqs been concerned not onlv witl-t Itow EPA's research prorri-ains support, its abatement. and control acbtit also with ]low the abatenient and control offices support; flie Offive of Research and Development. The reason for this concern is; Hutt EPA ellibr-wed the zero-based budo-etin(r process in which
NIS(IIIII(Ili -ind deN-elopinent projects rnuc;t, coiiipete for resources with tll(, re4r11l-lto1-V and eiiforceinent, prograins of flip arrency. In the Pa-st ?7 L
tlie lias been giN-en that, the re rulatoyy program office
sev, the re.,-;earcli procyraiiis as only a clinical stipp rt function. As a 11"1111t of t1iis N-iow, needed long-range research has not been supported in tlie zPro-N-ise(l J)11&r(,t11l. M'OCOS !. Vie cons-equence has been :1 I'(1,14111117141h prourrani coml- osed I-arcr(Illy of Short-term, projects fielding i)i,-ii-LrMal ii-lervinents of information rather thart a more ftin&mental understanding of pertinent problems, such as the pbotochemistrv of fol,1110ioll of Olf"1(1 Pild other oxiclants. Tliorefoi-e. the Subcommittee decided to hold bearincro to see how much the. regulatory programs reZn
I lell iipon the products of the research program.
S'laninalw of 0?1 Jillv Administrator Costle,
feshfied. a(-coiflpaiiied by Dr. Stephen Gacre, Atssisfiint Administrator for'Reqeareli and Develo"pment: on Scptvinber 13 and 14, the five other As istnllt. Adillillistintors testified, namely. Thom.,qq Jorlin,(r, Assistant
_% dy,)iiiistnitor for IV,iter qtid TT,,izar(loiis"\f,,iteii(,ils, 'Van-in Dvurnin.,
_V,4 i4niit Adiiiini -,trator for Enforcempnt, William Dravton. Assistmit Adiiiiiii--tnitor for Plannincr and 1fana(ren-lent. David Rqwkins, c i,4,qiit Adniiiiistrator for Air and *NV,,-l,-;;tP )raiiarrpment, and Steven Je1linek, Assistant, Administrator for Toxic Substances. Again, Dr. Craze aeponipanied. The testirnwiv at the hearincrq tended to confirm fll(, ("Irlier ill1pressions: that is, i*n spite of the witnesses' general aqslirfinceq tllat re ;("q rch aild del-elopment, iq iieeded and used bv the, PI(rillatorv procrn9mR, tli(, overwhelming iii-lpression was tbat the P&D efforts, :irc- Still appreciated niainlv as very short-term, dire".t("I f qllpport 'gotiN-itie-Z. with little understapdimT on tl)p
7),11-t of the rP_(r1il,,itorq of tlie. need for Nicr-terni and fundamental ITN411111cl). Tyi a(Mition, the hearing q broii zht oiiia newTnanagement plan 111)(1011 AvIlicli T)rim:iry resDonsibilitv for a hqr ye fraction of rpsouree.4 fle(lirited to research and developri-lent would be transferred to the





83

regulatory program offices. This would undoubtedly further worsen the situation described above. The Subcommittee intends to follow up on these findings during the next'Session of Congress.

OIL SPILL RECOVERY TECHNOLOGY R. & D.: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Background.' On December 15, 1976, the tanker Argo Merchant ran aground on rocks off the coast of New England with nearly 7.7 million gallons of No. 6 fuel oil aboard. After six days of battering by towering seas, the tanker broke apart and virtually all 7.7 million gallons of oil were released into the sea. Only the good fortune of an offshore wind saved the New England coast from fouled beaches which might have extended from New York to Newfoundland. During that same period, the United States experienced a number of serious spills in our rivers and inland waterways. The result of these incidents was the introduiction in the first Session of the 95th Congress of a number of* bills aimed at improving technology to be able to respond to such environmental disasters. Among these bills were H.R. 3209, introduced by Congressman Edgar of Pennsylvania, and H.R. 7878, sponsored by Chairman George B-rown, which would eventually become the Marine Pollution 'Environmental Research and Development Act.
Summary of Hearings: On June 28 and 29, 1978, the Subcommittee held hearings on oil spill recovery technology research and development and heard representatives from the Env-xironmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and. the U.S. Coast Guard presenting the Administration's view of current state-of-the-art of oil spill recovery technology.
The Subcommittee also received testimony from two distinguished members of the academic community-Dr. John Farrington, a marine, geochemist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and ProfessorRichard L. Perrine, Chairman of the Environmental Science and Engineering Program at the University of California at Los Angeles. These witnesses addressed questions of current technology, nongovernmental research efforts, and the issue of gaps in current knowledge. The Committee also heard from Mir. David Usher, the President of the. Oil Spill Control Association of America, who appeared with a representative of the American Petroleum Institute to discuss current industry efforts in recovery technology and to share with the Committee their view of required advanced research and development. The Comimittee also heard from Professor Jerome H. Milgram. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was able to address numerous. questions on shortcomings in current technology and areas where additional research should be concentrated. Legislative 'History.: Following these hearings it became apparent to the Subcomnmittee that the scope of the problem of ocean environmental pollution far exceeded the mere problem of oil spill recovery technology. Therefore., the Committee, broadened its attention beyond the somewhat limited scope of H.R. 3209 and these hearings became. the foundation for later Committee considerations of H.R. 7878 and S. 1617. These later bills finally became merged as S. 1617 as amended by both the Committee on Science and Technology and the Committeeon Merchant Marine and Fisheries and were later enacted as the M.Na-






rine Pollution Environmental Research and Development Act, Public Law 95-273.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Background: With the Creation of the Department of Energy in October. 1978, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for the Environment was established. This office was largely an outgrowth of the Office of Environment and Safety in the Energy Research and Development Administration. The Subcommittee authorizes the budget for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, and in the process of that authorization it became evident that substantial environment resp)onsibility-research and development--resides within the purview of various other Assistant Secretaries. Therefore, an oversighthearing was held to assess the extent to which environmental responsibility is distributed within the department.
Sumr of Hearings: The witness list included Assistant Secretary for Enerf Technologo, Robert D. Thorne; Assistant Secretary for ResourceAplications, George S. Mcisaac; Acting Assistan~t Seretary for Conservation aAnd Solar Applications, Donald A.Beattie; the Director of the Office of Energy Research, John Deutch; and the Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, James L. Liverman.
The subject of the hearing was environmental personnel, activities and budget within the various offices of the Department of Energy. Special attention was given to the interaction of those offices with the Office of Environment and the Assistant Secretary for the Environment and with other federal agencies. Specific focus was given to the processes and institutional mechanisms by which the environmental perspectives and issues are included in DOE decision-making. In that context, the implementation of tihe National Environmental Policy Act and the Departmental Environmental Development Plan and Environmental Readiness Documents were examined.
Although an Assistant Secretary level Environmental Issues Committee has been established to resolve environmental problems, the testimony indicated that it was not being utilized by the other Assistant Secretaries. Furthermore, prior to the hearing, some of the Assistant Secretaries had not even recognized the existence of this committee.
Department of Energy policy is to conduct environmental research as part of each technology development program. Nonetheless, only the Assistant Secretary for Energy Technology could even estimate thel biludget amounts for such research which tended to indicate the low priority it was given.
Within the purview of the Assistant Secretary for Environment is n Offic( of NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) Complian. This office is responsible for standard setting, quality control and indepl)endent review and approval of an NEPA document. Nonetheless this office had a staff of 14. 7 of whom were identified as "professionals". Additionally, that office has been maintained at rather constant funding in spite of recent increases in responsibility. As established by D)OE procedures the NEPA office has final responsibility for approval of NEPA documents yet determination of the need for NEPA documents is not mandated to that office.




85

RESEARCH ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Bakground: Within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for the Environment, research is conducted on the biological and human health effects of ionizing radiation. This is within the budget category of biological and environmental research and is authorized by the Subcommittee. In recent months, congressional and public attention has been focused upon the health effects of ionizing radiation research. News reports and Congressional hearings have focused on the fate of the Marshall Islanders and military personnel involved in the Smoky tests, both of which raised some questions about the information bases upon which these decisions were made. In addition, questions of the management and scientific per review of federal radiation research have been raised. Therefore, this oversight hearing was held on research concerning the health effects of ionizing radiation to investigate what steps were being taken or planned by DOE to remedy the allegations which had been raised.
Summa-y of Hearings: Witnesses were invited from the various agencies conducting research on ionizing radiation. The witness list included Dr. James Liverman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Department of Energy; Dr. William D. Rowe, Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Joseph Hendrie, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and Dr. Arthur Upton, Director, National Cancer Institute. The witnesses briefly summarized the ongoing research efforts in their various offices in the area of ionizing radiation. Additionaly, they commented on the need for coordination among various agencies involved in such research programs, both now and in the future. The majority of such studies at the present time are epidemiological studies, and one major area of inquiry focused on the institutional barriers to those studies. For example, it was brought to the Subcommittee's attention that lack of uniform standards and record-keeping sometimes make it difficult to analyze occupationally received doses. Moreover, even when the infor,Mation is available, sometimes provisions of the Privacy Act impair the ability of researchers to use and analyze that data.
Testimony was also solicited on the need to coordinate the research agencies with the regulatory agencies in the area of ionizing radiation. In this context the 1hite House memorandum to the Secretar -of DHEW was mentioned on account of the interagency coordination which would be a major focus of the study. This hearing culminated in a National Academy of Sciences study on ionizing radiation research.

ENVIRONMENTAL M0-NITORING: OVERSIGHT IIEARINGS
Background: Monitoring includes a very complex set of activities for the purpose of systematic measurement of the quality of the environment. At present, the United States does not have a comprehensive, national environmental monitoring program. The Subcommittee has recognized that there are deficiencies in existing environmental moitoring programs; observations of current monitoring programs have





86

found fragmentation, significant data gaps, and data of widely varyPig quality that often are not compatible.
The Subconnittee investigated ways to improve the nation's monitoring without significant new expenditures or major organizational changes and without clear knowledge of what a comprehensive national or international system would ultimately entail. Thus, a proposal was made for a prototype experimental monitoring management program that would be designed to gain actual experience in operating key elements of a national program as well as to produce useful infornation for addressing an environmental problem of national concern. The Subonnmmittee held two sets of hearings in this Congress; the first was to review applicable monitoring programs and the second was to investigate the feasibility and practicality of developing and implemenitingsuch a prototype system.
The Subcommittee was also aware of the Interagency Task Force on Environmental Monitoring chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality, which was called for by President Carter in his 1977 Environmental Message. This task force has been preparing recommendations addressing federal monitoring problems.
Summary of Hearings: An initial series of hearings was held on September 13, 14 and 15, 1977. The basic purpose of these hearings was to review current monitoring activities preliminary to vestigatig the feasibility of establishing a prototype environmental monitoring management system. Witnesses at these hearings came from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Qual ity. the Energy Research and Development Administration, the .S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Occupational Health Laboratory, State of Vermont, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the National Bureau of Standards, the University of Maryland and Princeton University.
Three main points emerged from the hearings. The first point was that data of poor quality can be worse than no data. Second, the hearings showed a clear need to establish connections between the various monitoring activities now underway. Third, the hearings pointed out that good data is often slow in coming, scarce and costly, while poor data, on the other hand, is often used because it tends to be timely, abundant and cheap.
As a result of these initial hearings, a draft bill was prepared that would provide a framework for the cooperative, integrated management of environmental monitoring efforts on a prototype basis.
A second series of hearings was held on June 27, 28, 29 and July 21, 1978. These hearings focused on the draft bill. Witnesses at these hearings were from Rice University, North Carolina State University, the National Wildlife Federation, the New York Department of Air Resources, Utah State University, the Pennsylvania Electric C('ompany. the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, the Association of Bay-Area Governments. the General Electric Center for Advanced(l Studies. Colorado State University, and the Council on Environmental Quality. The Honorable James Jeffords also testified.
The hearing record demonstrated that the overall response to the draft bill was highly favorable. The limited, experimental approach





87

was commended for being prudent and appropriate, given the complex nature of the problems of environmental monitoring. Two specific areas of concern did emerge from the hearings. First, flexibility purposely written into the draft bill had caused some confusion con-eerning objectives and purpose, and, second, concern was expressed about the centralization of the administration of the demonstration. Advantages and disadvantages of a "lead agency,",including the need for a strong mandate to achieve coordination, were explored in the testimony.
Following these hearings a revised draft bill was published in
-October, 1978. The revise draft retains flexibility in that it does not identify the subject for demonstration but it does clarify administra-five duties and participants. The lead agency concept was retained, but with provisions to ensure substantial non-federal and private
-participation.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH AT TILE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS FOR THlE FISCAL YEAR 1978 BUDGET
Background. :A great deal of environmental research is conducted
-at the National Institutes of Health; specifically, at the National In:stitute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute. Because of the Subcommittee's jurisdiction over environI-ental researchthere is a need to see how the NIH program fits in with related environmental health programs in EPA and DOE. For this reason, hearings were held on March 10, 1977 and testimony was received from Dr. Donald Frederickson, Director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Frederickson was accompanied by Dr. David Rall, Director, NIEHS, and Dr. Guy Newell, Acting Director, NCI, wv7ho contributed to the testimony presented.
Sunmary of Heari'ng8: Dr. Frederickson presented the NIH program, in envi ronmental. health research. The budget is approximately $25-0 million, which. represents some, 50%7 of the federal effort in
-environmental health research. In general, the programs seem to be well-conceived and adequate; however, it was apparently to some degree limited by a shortage of toxicologists and epidemiologists.
For this reason, subsequent to the hearings, the Committee recommended to the House Budget Committee that the NIH program be increased by $2 million to provide extra funds for training of toxicologists and epidemiologists. This was, in fact, acted upon favorably by the Appropriations Committee and funds were available to the Institutes in FY 1978.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH AT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1979 BUDGET
Background: These hearings were essentially an update of the hearings held on the FY 1978 budget, and represent a, continuation of the Subcommittee's interest in this matter. Dr. Donald Frederickson, Director of the National Institutes of Health, testified to the Subcommittee on March 1, 1978, accompanied by Dr. David Rall, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and Dr. Arthur Upton, Director of the National Cancer Institute.




88

Suitmmry of Hearings: Dr. Frederickson again presented the program of the National Institutes of Health in the area of environmental research. 1le estimated that for fiscal year 1979 the NIH will devote $293 million in this area. Dr. Frederickson also described several ways that the MIH is increasing its emphasis on environmental health.
Based on the information presented at the hearing, the Subcommittee decided to recommend to the House Budget Committee an ,
increase in the NIHl budget of $20, $10 million each for NCI and il NX IEHS. For NCI, the extra funds were to be equally divided between three areas-environmental cancer studies, carcinogenesis research, and research on co-carcino.ens. For NIEHS, the increase was to be for extramural programs in prediction, detection and assessment of environmentally-caused diseases, mechanisms of environmental diseases and disorder, and development of environmental health manpower. This would be an increase over the $2 million increase recommended for this purpose last year.

INTERAGENCY REGULATORY LIAISON GROUP: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Background: One of the early acts of the Carter Administration was formation of the Interagency Regulation Liaison Group, which brought together the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of improving the regulatory activities of the four agencies. The Subcommittee was interested in this effort because of its oversight of EPA's research program and its hope that by such cooperation the 1 effectiveness and efficiency of EPA's research efforts could be increased. Therefore, the Subcommittee invited the heads of the four agencies to hearings to discuss their cooperative efforts. This was, in fact, their first opportunity to present to the Congress the results of their cooperation to date.
Summary of Hearings: On April 25, 1978, the Subcommittee took testimony from Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of EPA; Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health; S. John Byington, Chairman, Consumer Product Safety Commission: and Donald Kennedy, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration. The principal findings of the hearing was that the IRLG can make a significant contribution to the coordination of the separate but often overlapping activities of EPA, OSHA, CPSC and FDA in the area of environmental research and development if there continues to be support and encouragement of their efforts from both the Congress and the Executive Branch.
The second significant finding of the hearing was that there are real institutional barriers to interagency cooperation and coordination. These barriers can be lessened only if there continues to be support from top agency management, increased interagency program accountability built into the effort, and provision of adequate resources.
Finally. a third major finding was that efforts to develop fundamental knowledge about environmental problems will continue to be




1 89

Neglected as long as our nation's major regulatory agencies are allowed A-to view research and development only as short-term, regulatory and, il operational support. That is, there is a need for continuing long-termn W research programs to generate sound, credible scientific information
4 on which to base effective regulations.

)qi. SPECIAL URBAN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
au Background:- In conducting its general oversight and authorization activities with respect to EPA's environmental research and develop&Iment program, the Subcommittee has become aware of many urban air fgo pollution problems. In fact, this was discussed extensively in the legisEllative report accompanying H.R. 5101, the authorization bill for EPA's ej FY 1978 research program (House Report 95-157). This report stated, rer, in part (page 42),
Id The Committee is aware of the difficulty many urban areas are
experiencing in attaining clean air because of a lack of informnation and understanding of the problem. This is partly a problem of information transfer, which should be improved, but mainly a problem of insufficient research. For example, some cities, Husfill ton being one, are afflicted with an aerosol haze which may not be
related to the criteria pollutants for which standards have been set. Because states and local bodies retain significant authority
let to write and enforce regulations necessary to attain national Stand!lie ards, there is a need for research on the unique air pollution probes. lems of individual cities.
fit In addition, section 403(d) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of he 1977 directed EPA to conduct a study of air quality in the Gulf Coast
n- region, including an analysis of the fine aerosols problem and its im[ pact on the public health. The EPA authorization act for FY 1978 i, included $3 million to implement this study. Because the Houston or 1S Gulf Coast project was already underway, and because the Committee
was aware of other problems, it was decided to hold hearings in )1, Houston and in Denver to investigate these special urban air pollution la problems.
[11 Summary of Hearings: The hearings were held on November 19 and :Y 21, 1977, in Denver and Houston, respectively.
2 In Denver, the Subcommittee heard 11 witnesses and received an le additional five statements for the record. Witnesses included health
IP and physical scientists, local officials, and representatives of the busir ness and environmental communities. The consensus of the testimony
1i was than Denver has a serious and not well understood air polluttioni
problem. A beginning has been made to attack the problem-for example, through transportation plans-but because the ph ,ysics and
le chemistry and health effects are not well understood, there is some
I- reluctance to endorse stringent control measures.
In Houston, the Subcommittee heard 11 witnesses and received four
11 additional statements for the record, along with other material. Again, 2 state and local officials, health scientists, representatives of business
and environmental groups were heard from. The situation was somewhat different in Houston in that most of the witnesses agreed that
large reductions in emissions had been made as it result of control

3T-445-79-7




90

strategies adopted by the city and county governments but that no appreciable change in air quality had been observed as a result of these control measures. The witnesses therefore a(reed that the air quality must be improved, for it is in violation of EPA standards, but that there is a need to develop a new implementation strategy for achieving clean air.
These hearings essentially formed background for the FY 1979 authorization hearings, and led to certain actions embodied in H.R. 11302. the bill authorizing EPA's FY 1979 research program. For example, thile Committee continued the $3 million per year authorization for the Houston study, and recommended that $400,000 of EPA 's research resources he applied to a study of the air quality problems found in Denver. The Committee further recommended in its report (pages 7 and 8 of the House Report 95-985) that in carrying out this research program EPA cooperate with local groups and state agencies in initiating the study and that insofar as practical support and cooperation be given to the NOAA Boulder, Colorado laboratories for execution of the study.

NOAA ORGANIC ACT: OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATION
(II.R. 9708)
Background: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was created on July 9, 1970. under the President's reorganization Plan No. 4 from the consolidation of various scientific and service programs of several agencies related to the oceans and the C atmosphere. Since then, it has been assigned a number of new environmental management responsibilities by legislation under the Coastal i Zone Management Act of 1972, the Marine Protection, Research and s Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and the Fisheries Conservation and Manage- re menit Act of 1976.
However, many of NOAA's activities are carried out without specific enabling or authorizing legislation, and much of the existing egisation under which the agency operates is outmoded or "ad hoc." The Subcommittee had earlier explored this problem through hearings on August 2 and 3, 1977. on NOAA's atmospheric and oceanic R&D activities (entitled "Oceans Environmental Research and Develop- a ment, No. 51). This situation, coupled with the absence of a comprehensive statement of national policies concerning the oceans and the atmosphere, led to the introduction of H.R. 9708, the NOAA Organc Act of 1977. on October 20, 1977. The Act would establish a national ocean olicy to be carried out by NOAA, and broadly codifies the agency s organization and missions.
Legislatie History: H.R. 9708 was jointly referred to the Com- I, mittees on Science and Technology and Merchant Marine and Fish- pr eries. On October 27. 1977, it was referred to the Subcommittee in light of its jurisdiction over the R&D activities, National Weather Service, the National Environmental Satellite Service of NOAA. It n was later given a joint referral to the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Weather (on June 8,1978). Se
The Subcommittee held hearings on H.R. 9708 on April 18 and June 22, 1978 to begin identifying which environmental and atmospheric policy issues and activities should be considered in the devel-





91

opmnent of a NOAA Organic Act, since H.R. 9708 did not adequately address NOAA's atmospheric side. The April 18 hearing involved representatives of the General Accounting Office, who pointed out the need for a strong lead-agency in the atmospheric sciences, and Richard Frank, the Administrator of NOAA, who supported the intent of thie bill but recommended that action on it be postponed until the Administration's pending proposals on oceans policy and natural resources reorganization were made. On June 22, comments received from Dr. Robert Al. White, former Administrator of 'NOAA, and two distinguished members of the academic atmospheric sciences community, pointed out a number of significant policy issues relating to atmospheric services and research which were not addressed by either H.R. 9708, or H.R. 8763, an organic act for the National Weather Services (later superseded by H.R. 13715). Perhaps the most important unresolved issues concerned the respective responsibilities of the Federal government and the private sector in providing weather services and conducting'L atmospheric research.
As a result of these comments, the Subcommittee sponsored two workshops jointly with the Senate Commerce Committee to explore these policy issues. The first one, held on -October 12 anid 13 at the Offices of the American Meteorological Society in Boston, Massachusetts, involved more than 35 individuals and was held to solicit the views of those federal agencies who perform or utilize atmospheric research or services. The second workshop was held on November 15 and 16 at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and involved a number of private sector meteorologists, a, variety of users, members of the academic community, and a limited number of federal agency representatives. The results of the workshops will be published in early 1979, and will provide the basis for redrafting the NOAA Organic Act.

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICES OF ACT 1978: OVERSIGHT INVESTIGATION
(H.R. 13715)
Background: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric A dministrma tion (NOAA), of which the National Weather Service is an integral and major component, was created under the President's Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970 from the consolidation of various scientific and service programs of several agencies related to the oceans and the atmosphere. However, many of NOAA's activities are carried out without specific enabling or authorizing legislation, and much of the existino' legislation under which the agency operates is outmoded or "ad hoc ". In addition, there is no comprehensive statement of national policies concerning the oceans and the atmosphere which could provide NOAA with an overall mission. This situation led to the introduction of a number of related bills, including H.R. 13715, which basically serves as an organic act for the National Weather Service, and H.R. 9708, the NOAA Organic Act of 1978.
Summary of Hearing8: H.R. 137151 provides the National Weather Service with a single' comprehensive statutory charter for its activities by consolidating the statutes under which it has operated in the past. "The bill assigns the Secretary of Commerce responsibility for





92

the coordination of the weather-related activities of the Federal govemment, and for functions and activities related to weather services, ranmg from research to collection of relevant data to the provision of basic and specialized weather forecasts. It authorizes the Secretary to provide weather services to other federal agencies and departments as requested; however, weather services specific to the needs of the military are to be provided by the Secretary of Defense.
Legislative History: In exercising its jurisdiction over NOAA's atmospheric and environmental activities, the Subcommittee hJias een involved in a number of oversight and legislative activitie, such as the hearings on the proposed closure of 19 weather stations (April 4 and 6, 1978) and the passage of the Ocean Pollution Research, Developient, Monitoring and Planning Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-273). At the time joint referral was received on H.R. 8763, the predecessor to H.R. 13715, on June 8, 1978, the Subcommittee had already begun consideration of the broader bill, H.R. 9708. Therefore, an agreement was made with the Transportation, Aviation and Weather Subcommittee that both bills would be considered together as component steps in developing a NOAA Organic Act. However, when the effort to report H.R. 9708 in 1978 was deferred, the Committee decided to go forward with H.R. 13715 with the goal of using it as part of a more comprehensive legislative effort in the 96th Congress.
It.R. 13715 was reported by the Committee by unanimous voice vote on August 16, 1978. (H. Rept. No. 95-1499). It was subsequently passed by the House under suspension of the rules on September 19, 1978. No action was taken by the Senate.
PROPOSED WEATHER STATION CLOSURES: OVERSIGHT HEARINGS
Background: The President's budget request for fiscal year 1979 proposed closure of 19 weather stations around the Nation. The proposal met with immediate and serious opposition from Members of Congress, local and State officials, and numerous private citizens. The Subcommittee, together with the Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Weather, scheduled joint hearings on April 4 and 6, 1978 to receive testimony on the issue.
Summxary of Hearings: The weather stations proposed for closure in the fiscal year 1979 budget included Bridgeport, Connecticut; Trenton, New Jersey; Mansfield, Ohio; Block Island, Rhode Island; Lynchburg, Virginia; Parkersburg, West Virginia; Fort Myers, Elorida; Orlando, Florida; Rome, Georgia; Colorado Springs, Colorado&; Clayton, New Mexico; Roswell, New Mexico; Ballantmne, Nebraska; LaCrosse, Wisconsin; Long Beach, California: Stockton, California; Elko, Nevada; Burns, Oregon; and Milford, Utah.
The Subcommittee received testimony from numerous Members of Congress, representatives of the National Weather Service, and representatives of various private groups. Among those giving testimony were Dr. Richard Hallgren, Director of the National Weather Service, Mr. Leo Harrison of the National Weather Service Employees' Organization, representatives of the Airplane Owners and Pilots Association, and the following Members of Congress: Dan Glickman, Kansas; Manuel Lujan, New Mexico; Caldwell Butler, Virginia; Dan