924 HISTORY OF THJ COMMITTEE ON SCIENC1 AND TECHNOLOGY 



when it looked like the skids were well-greased, the loan guarantee 

 light derailed the whole package and the conference report on the 

 ERDA authorization did not reach the Senate floor before Congress 

 adjourned in 1976. But some fast footwork early in 1977 resulted in 

 the insertion of the Energy Extension Service as a separate title in the 

 ERDA authorization bill which the President signed on June 3, 1977. 



AUTOMOTIVE TRANSPORT R. & D. ACT 



Starting in 1976, the McCormack subcommittee began to con- 

 centrate seriously on passage of an Automotive Transport Research 

 and Development Act — along the lines of the legislation cosponsored 

 by Brown and Symington in 1974. When the House took up the con- 

 ference report on the Energy Policy and Conservation Act on Decem- 

 ber 15, 1975, an interesting dilemma occurred for Science Committee 

 members. Senator John V. Tunney had tacked on an automotive effi- 

 ciency development amendment, similar to proposals being advanced 

 by Brown, but giving authority to the Department of Transportation 

 which would remove it from Science Committee jurisdiction. McCor- 

 mack, Goldwater, and Teague attacked the provision, and Goldwater 

 obtained a separate vote through a point of order based on germane- 

 ness. Although Brown voted for the Tunney amendment because of its 

 substantive value, most Science Committee members opposed it on 

 jurisdictional grounds, and it went down to defeat by 300-103. 



In two days of hearings in March, McCormack and Brown presided 

 as expert testimony was presented by representatives of the Jet Pro- 

 pulsion Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, ERDA, 

 NASA, and the Department of Transportation, as well as by an enthu- 

 siastic member of the committee, Congressman Scheuer. Teague, 

 Mosher, and Emery also joined in sponsoring legislation authorizing 

 R. & D. to produce automobiles which were more energy-efficient, less 

 polluting and could burn fuels other than gasoline. Teague stated: 



If we can improve the fuel economy of the automobile fleet in this country 

 by 6 miles per gallon, that will result in savings of nearly 900 million barrels of 

 imported oil per year. At $11 per barrel that is about $10 billion per year that will 

 not he sent to the oil exporting nations. 



McCormack pointed out that the automobile had developed during 

 the period when we had vast sources of cheap energy and also when 

 the atmosphere was considered as an infinite dumping ground that 

 could swallow anything we could feed it. He suggested that the 

 catalytic converter route of meeting the clean air standards inevitably 

 had the result of a loss of fuel economy. He added: 



With refinements expected from research and development, alternative engines 

 such as the Stirling, turbine or diesel are projected to be significantly better from the 

 standpoint of the efficiency vs. emissions than the internal combustion engine. 



