NO FUE1 I IKI \\ oi.U FOSSI] UN 



805 



As the dispute raged on without resolution, Hechler finally said to 

 Teague : 



You've got CO get us both down to your office and knock our heads together. 



The principals and staffs of the Brown, McCormack, and Hechler 

 subcommittees were assembled in Teague's office, and each put his 

 best foot forward. Teague then resolved the two disputes in this 

 fashion: He directed that the Hechler and McCormack subcommittees 

 hold joint hearings on the environment and safety authorization, 

 after which the bill would be sequentially referred to the Brown 

 subcommittee. Teague stated: 



This sequential referral would permit the Environment Subcommittee to make 

 independent recommendations to the full committee, should it so desire. 



The process worked amicably and well. 



Because MHD had been placed under the Fossil Fuels Assistant 

 Administrator, jurisdiction in this area was awarded to the Hechler 

 subcommittee, whose charter was expanded to include "fossil fuel 

 conversion technology (MHD using coal)." 



To provide a further opportunity for an informal briefing on the 

 ERDA budget and plans, Hechler hosted a business luncheon with 

 ERDA Administrator Seamans and all the subcommittee members 

 and staff. This event took place a few days before Dr. Seamans pre- 

 sented his testimony in the formal hearings, and proved to be a good 

 (but time-limited) chance to shoot a lot of questions off the record. 



COMPRESSED PUBLIC HEARINGS 



With only two weeks to hold public hearings, covering a new 

 agency whose budget presentation was generalized and confusing, 

 the subcommittee (of which more than half its members were first- 

 termers) found it had a real bear by the tail. The subcommittee spent 

 the first week of public hearings squeezing as much information as 

 possible from ERDA officials. The second week involved hearing 

 officials from FEA, Bureau of Mines, NASA, two university profes- 

 sors, and representatives from the coal, oil, and natural gas industries. 



The subcommittee held four extensive markup sessions early in 

 March, even before going into a joint markup with the McCormack 

 subcommittee, on environment and safety matters. The first issue 

 raised by many members was the fact that ERDA had presented only 

 two figures in its authorization bill : a lump sum for operating expenses, 

 and a $20 million figure for a clean boiler fuel demonstration plant. 

 The Office of Coal Research as well as the Atomic Energy Commission, 

 transferred to ERDA, had been in the habit of operating on "no-year 

 funds" —meaning that big sums were funded at the start of projects 

 and remained in the pipeline for many years. At the outset of the 



