a strong scientific program on the effect of radiation on human health. The FY 1988 budget request specified funding for two major initiatives related to the development and safe use of energy technologies: a proposal to decode the human genome and an expanded effort in the area of radon research.

Leroy Hood, California Institute of Technology, provided testimony on the desirability of launching a national research initiative to map and sequence the human genome. This will lead to a fuller understanding of the human genetic profile and will aid scientists in diagnosing and treating a variety of illnesses. In his testimony, Paul H. Silverman, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, related that this undertaking was a natural extenion of he Department's interest in human biology.

Donald F. Grether, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, provided testimony on the Department's research into the effects of radon radiation on human health. Roger O. McClellan, Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, discussed the current state of scientific knowledge concerning the dangers of radon exposure and what remains to be done in this regard.

The Subcommittee held further hearings on March 25, 1987, to consider the progress of DOE's Office of Environment, Safety and Health in executing initiatives for improved environmental safety and health oversight and to determine whether more rigorous oversight is necessary to ensure environmentally safe operation of DOE facilities.

Mary L. Walker, Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health, told the Members that the Environmental Surveys designed to evaluate health and safety conditions in 40 contractor-operated facilities around the nation were underway. When these surveys are completed, DOE will begin to set priorities for the clean-up activity required under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Keith O. Fultz, Carl Bannerman and William Fenzel of the General Accounting Office (GAO) described the findings of several years of investigations into the Department's health and safety activities. GAO maintains that although an inventory of the problems existing at DOE facilities is essential, the Department has sufficient information to undertake immediate remedial action at several sites. It was recommended that a DOE-independent review committee be established to provide oversight of the Department's nuclear defense facilities. In addition, GAO recommended that the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, which was established by Secretary John Herrington in late 1985, be legislatively mandated by Congress.

On April 23, 1987, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine DOE's program on Nuclear Medicine including research priorities and the adequacy of the FY 1988 budget request.

The field of nuclear medicine was developed largely at DOE laboratories where there is ready access to accelerators, reactor byproducts (i.e., isotopes and sub-atomic particles), skilled personnel and long-term funding. This technology offers a non-invasive alternative for monitoring body functions, diagnosing and isolating the

causes of diseases and identifying anatomic and physicologic abnormalities in ways that were previously not possible.

Howard J. Dworkin and Alfred P. Wolf, representing the Society of Nuclear Medicine, provided testimony on the advantages of nu-clear medicine-based procedures over conventional diagnostic protocols. They described the important role DOE has had in supporting basic research and development of the clinical applications of nuclear technology. Urging that the Members consider increasing by 10% the authorization level for this activity, the Society's testimony said that nuclear medicine-based procedures lead to improved patient care and ultimately reduce consumer health care expenses, making this activity one of the most efficient investments of federal research dollars.

David Goldenberg of the Center for Molecular Medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry-New Jersey testified on the use of radio-labeled antibodies in the detection and treatment of certain forms of cancer.

A plan to convert a reactor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to a nuclear medicine facility which would provide boron-neutron capture therapy for patients suffering with a malignant brain tumor known as glioblastoma was presented by John H. Spickard, INEL, Patrick Gavin, Washington State University, Ronald Dorn III, Mountain States Tumor Institute and Stephen Marano, Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center.

The future of nuclear magnetic imaging technologies and their usefulness in detecting a variety of conditions including cardiovascular abnormalities were discussed by Gerald M. Pohost, Center of Nuclear Imaging Research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and Paul C. Lauterbur, College of Medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Campagne.

On the basis of these hearings and briefings by Department officials, the Subcommittee forwarded its recommendations to the Committee on May 7, 1987. The Subcommittee supported the Administration's overall budget request of $288,000 million while making some adjustments to individual programs. Committee Publication Number 100-58.

Background

3.3(c)-The Future of the Landsat System

The United States pioneered the use of satellites to conduct remote sensing of the Earth's surface to locate mineral deposits, and monitor the health of crops and water resources. In 1984, Congress passed legislation that provided for a phased transition of land remote sensing to the private sector after the demise of the final government satellite (expected to occur about 1988). The legislation provided for a government subsidy of $250 million to enable the private-sector firm (EOSAT) to maintain an operational capability until the development of the Nation's first new space industry since the advent of space communications in the 1960's. However, funding for the Landsat subsidy has been imperiled since the incepction of this effort and has been further complicated by the loss of the space shuttle "Challenger." Thus, the viability of Landsat commercialization is not clear.

Hearings

On March 31, 1987, and April 2, 1987, the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Environment and the Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation held oversight hearings on the Future of the Landsat System. The hearings examined the costs of continuing the Landsat system; the uses and users of Landsat; what the Nation loses without a U.S. presence in multi-spectral remote sensing; levels of technology necessary for Landsat 6 and Landsat 7 to compete effectively in the international arena; prospects for successful commercialization of Landsat; and prospects for increased international cooperation in remote sensing.

Witnesses at the hearings included Senator Larry Pressler; Joseph Wright, Deputy Director, Office of Management and Budget; Clarence Brown, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce; Anthony Calio, NOAA Administrator; Donald Latham, Assistant Secretary for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence, Department of Defense; Peter M. P. Norris, Executive Vice President, EOSAT; Warren Nichols, Director, Hughes Santa Barbara Research Center; Charles Schmidt, Vice President and General Manager, GE-RCA Astro-Space Division; Dr. Shelby Tilford, Director, Earth Science and Applications Division, NAŠA; Micheal A. G. Michaud, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology Affairs, Department of State; Doyle Frederick, Associate Director, U.S. Geological Survey; James Donald, Chairman, World Outlook Board, Department of Agriculture; Dr. Frederick Henderson, President, GEOSAT Committee; Harry Stewart, Sun Exploration Corporation; Samuel McCandless, Jr., User System, Inc.; Dr. Thomas Lillesand, University of Wisconsin; David Julyan, SPOT Image Corporation; Mark Brender, ABCTV News; Greogry Koeln, Ducks Unlimited; Dr. James Taranik, Dean, MacKay School of Mines; James McCarthy, Harvard University; Charles Sheffield, Earthsat Corporation; and Dr. John McElroy, Hughes Communications, Inc. Committee Publication Number 100-4.

3.3(d)-The Conservation of Biological Diversity

Background

Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexity in which they occur. The escalating global trend towards human modification of natural areas has made it necessary to undertake measures aimed at preserving biological resources.

Ecological problems have little to do with national boundaries. In a world linked by commerce, communications and politics, the suggestion that ecological problems can be solved on the local level is unrealistic. Most losses in diversity are the unintended consequences of human activity. In less developed countries, the loss of biological resources are due to the combined pressures of population growth and poor agricultural practices. Rapid and unintended reductions in biological diversity undermine economic development

since the end result is the elimination of untapped resources for agricultural, industrial and pharmaceutical development.

Hearings

The Subcommittee held hearings on May 28, 1987, to consider the report, "Technologies to Maintain Biological Diversity" which had been prepared for the Subcommittee by the Office of Technology Assessment. Susan Shen, Director of the OTA study, provided the Subcommittee with an overview of the global trend towards the loss of biological resources.

Mark Plotkin, World Wildlife Fund/Conservation Foundation and Professor Garrison Wilkes, University of Masssachusetts, described the economic importance of preserving diversity. Plant-derviverd drugs account for an $8 billion dollar market in the U.S. alone. In addition, wild relatives of agriculturally important plants (most of which are not native to North America) contain characteristics which are used to strengthen the crop strains upon which we rely. Professor Bryan Norton, New College of the University of South Florida, provided testimony on the ethical and esthetic considerations involved in preserving and maintaining biological diversity.

Peter S. Ashton, Director, Harvard Arnold Arboretum, and Warren Thomas, Director, Los Angeles Zoo testified on ex situ reinedies for preserving diversity. William Gregg, Co-Chairman of Man in the Biosphere Directorate, National Park Service, described U.S. participation in the United Nations Man in the Biosphere program which seeks to integrate the aims of development with preservation of natural resources.

Since the consensus of these witnesses was that the U.S. lacked a comprehensive approach to arrest the loss of biological diversity, a second hearing was held on September 22, 1987, to consider critical elements in developing a national conservation strategy for biological resources. Although various laws and programs of Federal, State and private organizations already provide the framework for a concerted and comprehensive approach, few of these programs have as their explicit aim the protection and maintenance of biological diversity. The lack of coordination among programs has resulted in duplication of efforts, conflicts in goals and gaps in geographic and taxonomic coverage.

Testimony presented by the following witnesses provided the Members with a framework for developing legislation to address this issue: Kenton Miller, Director-General, International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; Robert Hoffman, Director, National Museum of Natural History, The Smithsonian Institution; John Buffington, Deputy Regional Director for Research, Fish and Wildlife Service; William Penn Mott, Director, National Park Service; Dale Robertson, Chief, U.S. Forest Service; Robert Jenkins, Vice-President for Science, The Nature Conservancy; Michael Bean, Director of Wildlife Program, Environmental Defense Fund; George Davis, Past-President, American Association for Systematics Collections; and Michael Soule, President, Society for Conservation Biology. Committee Publication Number 100-70.

3.3(e) Global Climate Change and Climate Act Reauthorization

Background

The National Climate Program Act of 1978 set up five-year program plans for global climate data collection, monitoring, and research in a number of government agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Interior, State and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; the Council on Environmental Quality; the National Science Foundation; and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In 1986, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act amended the Climate Program Act by establishing a "Climate Program Policy Board" reporting to the Secretary of Commerce, requiring the Board to review each agency's climate program and requiring an update of the National Climate Plan every four years.

In the decade since the passage of the National Climate Program Act, concerns about potential changes in global climate have greatly increased. Carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas, continues to increase due to rising fossil fuel consumption. Trace gases have been found to have an additive effect to carbon dioxide in potential greenhouse warming. An "ozone hole" has been observed in the Antarctic which may be attributable to industrial CFC's destroying stratospheric ozone. Numerical climate models have indicated that a doubling of greenhouse gases could lead to a four degree warming of the Earth and modifications in global moisture patterns resulting in major changes in viable agriculture areas. Regional weather events have indicated that changes in seasonal weather patterns can cause a significant economic impact on major areas of the world.

Hearings

On July 22 and 23, 1987, the Subcommittee held hearings on the National Climate Act and Global Climate Change Program. The purpose of the hearings were to: determine the predicted 50- to 100year change in the atmosphere and oceans due to natural and human-induced change, and the measurements required to document these changes; determine the impact of global climate change on agriculture, transportation, and the economy, and the probability of structuring national and international policy to ameliorate the negative impacts of global change; review the status and future of the National Climate Program; and review current global change programs to consider the need for additional climate and global change legislation.

Witnesses at the hearings included Dr. Stephen Schneider, Director, Natural Systems Group, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, Director, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab, NOAA; Prof. Wallace Broecker, Lamont Doherty Geophysical Observatory; Dr. George Woodwell, Director, Woods Hole Research Center; Dr. Michael Giantz, Director, Environmental and Societal Impacts Group, NCAR; Dr. Norman Rosenberg, Resources for the Future; Dr. Charles Weiss, University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Irving Mintzer, World Resources Institute; Prof. Tom Wigley, Director, Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England; Dr. Dan Albritoon, Director, Aeronomy Lab, NOAA; Dr.