826 



HISTORY OF THl COMMITTEI ON SCIENC1 AND TECHNOLOGY 



Surprisingly, section 102 went down by an even larger majority, 

 28} 1 17. The breakdown of committee votes was as follows: 



Opposing section 



GETTING READY FOR THE 1976 FIGHT 



Teague immediately moved to send the ERDA bill back to the 

 Senate without the two sections, where it quickly passed. There were 

 many recriminations after the fight. Teague felt that the administra- 

 tion, through its late decision, its zigging and zagging on amendments, 

 and failure to make a greater effort in the final stages had contributed 

 to the 1975 defeat. Both sides brushed the dust off and got ready for 

 another round of debate in 1976 over loan guarantees. By now the 

 country had a clearer idea of what was involved in the issue, ERDA 

 had more time for planning, and the legislation itself was vastly 

 improved over the first attempts to jam it through in the late summer 

 of 1975. 



Early in 1976, Teague asked 37 companies this question: 



Would your company build demonstration plants of a commercial scale without 

 Federal loan guarantees, using existing technology? 



Most of the companies responded in the negative. 



Working closely with the administration, Teague then drafted a 

 new loan guarantee proposal. His strategy was to make sure that there 

 would be no procedural boobytraps this time. He was determined to 

 develop a proposal which the administration would enthusiastically 

 support, which the energy companies would really work for, and which 

 would also give a full, free, and fair opportunity for the committee and 



