\(> I ! 1 I I IK! AN OLD I-Ossll I III 



839 



The loan guarantees supporters did succeed in attracting to their 

 side Symington, W'axman, Lloyd of California, and Pressler, who had 

 voted against section 103 in 1975- Conlan switched to the opposition 

 and Blanchard, Harkin, and Hall, who had signed the committee 

 report in May, swung back to the opposition on September 23. On 

 the vote, the committee members divided 21-11 in favor of the rule. 

 Several members told Teague thev would change their votes if he 

 wanted to pass the rule, but he declined. 



LOAN GUARANTEES FOR BIOMASS 



Loan guarantees were inserted in a minor way in the ERDA au- 

 thorization conference report which passed the House on September 30, 

 1976, but did not pass the Senate, and did not in fact become law until 

 the following year. The conference report required ERDA to obtain 

 congressional approval on a project-by-project basis for any guarantees 

 for coal gasification or oil shale development. But thelegislativehistory 

 indicates the central purpose of the legislation relating to loan guaran- 

 tees was to fund $300 million for biomass commercial demonstration 

 facilities. The following colloquy between Goldwater and Teague on 

 September 30 confirms this fact : 



Mr. Goldwater. Would the gentleman agree that title VII is only for biomass 

 and further, that, under the language in this title of the conference version, no other 

 technologies could be given loan guarantees, so as now written it is not for coal 

 gasification or oil shale, among others? 



Mr. Teague. I agree with the gentleman. The conference provision is completely 

 limited to biomass loan guarantees. 



The provision on loan guarantees for all energy resources was eventu- 

 ally included in new legislation which President Carter signed in 

 June 1977. 



MORE SUPPORT FOR COAL 



Despite their concentration on loan guarantees, members of the 

 Fossil Fuels Subcommittee did not let up in their efforts in 1976 to 

 push forward the frontiers of research in the entire area. The subcom- 

 mittee worked for months to beef up the fossil programs. At the 

 urging of the Hechler subcommittee, the full committee and House 

 added $55 million in 1976 to various coal, oil, and natural gas programs 

 in the areas of coal gasification, liquefaction, and direct combustion, 

 including environment and safety programs. These increases were 

 not enacted until the next Congress convened in 1977. 



The subcommittee held a very useful, productive six days of 

 hearings on "Coal Mining Research and Development." Among the 

 issues tackled were methane recovery in advance of mining; develop- 



