SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 1970-79 571 



burn treatment to be undertaken by the National Institutes of Health. 

 Mosher, who handled the bill for the minority, paid special tribute to 

 ressman Steele, whose "knowledge, expertise, and specific pro- 

 posals have been invaluable as groundwork in our drafting of this 

 hill." 



When the bill reached the floor, the Interstate and Foreign Com- 

 merce Committee pointed out that the burn treatment provision 

 interfered in the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Health headed 

 by Representative Paul G. Rogers (Democrat of Florida), so Davis 

 agreed to an amendment deleting the $2 million authorization for that 

 purpose. 



EXPANDED FIRE SAFETY LEGISLATION PASSED IN 1974 



There was very little vocal opposition against the bill, aside from 

 Gross and Representative William F. Goodling (Republican of 

 Pennsylvania), both of whom quizzed Davis closely on where the 

 money was coming from and how it was to be used. Goodling told the 

 House: 



This is one more instance where emotion takes over and good judgment goes 

 out. * * * I suppose I should have on a bullet-proof vest before I oppose this bill. * * * 

 Tornadoes are very prevalent and I assume that any time now we are going to have a 

 bill to prevent tornadoes. 



The Davis bill passed the House, 365 to 12. The conference committee, 

 once the bill had passed the Senate, changed the administrative struc- 

 ture to set up a National Fire Prevention and Control Administration 

 within the Department of Commerce. An indication of the rising 

 importance of the issue was the decision of the conference committee 

 to hike the spending authorization to $455 million over a two-year 

 period. The President signed the landmark legislation on October 29, 

 1974. 



As the new chairman of the subcommittee, Symington scheduled 

 hearings on January 22, 1976, to extend the authorization in the 1974 

 act and also take a look-see at how well the new agency was performing. 

 Symington voiced his displeasure with the low level at which the 1974 

 act had been funded (less than half the two-year amount authorized 

 $18.8 million). He added: 



I believe we are not quite satisfied that the direction we have indicated has been 

 followed vigorously. Money is a problem, of course. The purpose of these hearings is to 

 identify the degree to which the Federal Government has decided to come to grips 

 with the mandate of the law. 



Both Symington and Esch expressed regret that the jurisdictional 

 hassle with the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee had 

 probably resulted in the lack of action in implementing the plans out- 



