\\I\\ NAM! VND EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR THI COMMITTEI "T] 



among Tcague, Staggers, and Udall, who finally arrived ar an agreement 

 on the jurisdictional issues. 



DALE MYERS SUPPLIES DEFINITIONS 



In order to help clarify the meaning of R. & D. and other terminol- 

 ogy utilized by the Department of Energy, Teague hit on the idea of 

 writing to Dale D. Myers, Under Secretary of the Department of 

 Energy, asking him to provide a set of clear definitions of various proc- 

 esses on the long road toward commercialization. Myers responded on 

 May 10, 1978, with a copy of the definitions to Dingell. When the DOE 

 authorization bill was being considered in the House on July 17, Fuqua 

 offered an amendment incorporating definitions of the following terms 

 into the bill: Basic and applied research; exploratory development; 

 technology development; concept and demonstration development and 

 operational systems development. Dingell, having a copy of the defi- 

 nitions, strenuously objected to their inclusion into the legislation. 

 After some sharp words exchanged with Fuqua, Dingell attempted 

 unsuccessfully to get the amendment knocked out on a point of order 

 as not germane to the bill. 



Perhaps the most objective and statesmanlike commentary on 

 the entire issue was the brief conclusion written by Brown, printed 

 as "Additional Views" appended to the DOE authorization bill: 



Generally, committees fight out their lunsdictional struggles until everyone 

 tires of the process, with the result that legislation begins to be drafted more and 

 more narrowly to avoid future jurisdictional conflicts. * * * I believe it is impossible 

 to organize our committees, or the agencies of the Executive Branch, in a manner 

 which would eliminate overlaps and conflicts. We continuously reform or reorganize 

 our structure to minimize conflicts, but it would be foolish to pretend that we can 

 ever achieve unambiguous organizational lines in an ever-changing society. Instead, 

 we must focus on procedures for resolving the inevitable ambiguities, and con- 

 centrate on setting precedents for more effective techniques of resolution than those 

 represented by the handling of this first Department of Energy authorization bill. 



Brown went on to recommend that the problems Congress encountered 

 in dealing with the energy bill be looked at as a general organi- 

 zational problem and not as a special case. He cited similar juris- 

 dictional conflicts in the areas of welfare reform, urban policy, 

 water policy, and health care. He concluded: 



We can continue to deal with these questions in a fragmented, ad hoc fashion, 

 such as the establishment of ad hoc select committees, or simply letting the disputes 

 be settled on the House floor, or we can attempt an approach of negotiation and 

 arbitration, perhaps with the assistance of the Rules Committee. * * * I simply 

 believe that there must be a better way than our recent actions indicate, and every- 

 one's time can be put to more productive use if we find it. 



