cent below fiscal year 1981 funding levels. Total full-time personnel have declined by nearly 500 positions, or about twenty percent, since fiscal year 1980.

Hearing

The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. Vaun Newill, the Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Dr. Newill testified that, despite increases in certain research programs, EPA's grant program to support investigatorinitiated research in areas of importance to environmental protection had declined and that EPA would not be able to support any new grants under the budget proposal. Dr. Newill agreed with the conclusions of a contractor report which stated that EPA's grants program was a significant and unique resource of funding for many areas of environmental research for university scientists.

The Subcommittee also received testimony from Dr. Morton Lippman, Institute of Environmental Medicine of New York University, and Member of the EPA's Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on the Research and Development Budget. Dr. Lippman presented the major recommendations of the Science Advisory Board's report on the fiscal year 1989 research budget request. The SAB report concluded that the demands placed upon the Agency for new knowledge through research continued to grow at a faster pace than the increase in research funding.

Dr. William E. Bishop, President of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, and Dr. Richard G. Luthy, President of the Association of Engineering Professors, also testified on the need of additional funding of research with respect to environmental risk assessment and engineering. Committee Publication Number 100-116.

3.3(m)-Oversight of the National Acid Precipitation Program

Background

The Subcommittee authorizes the acid deposition research program of three agencies that participate in the federal interagency National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP): the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Taken together, the three agencies account for nearly 80 percent of the $85 million funding for the NAPAP program. NAPAP was created by the Acid Precipitation Act of 1980 (Title VII of the Energy Security Act of 1980, P.L. 96-294).

In April, 1987, the Government Accounting Office released a report, "Acid Rain: Delays and Management Changes in the Federal Program," which discussed inter alia the failure of NAPAP to issue required annual reports and a key midterm assessment document in a timely fashion.

Two years late, the "interim assessment" was published in September, 1987. The Interim Assesment, and in particular, the Executive Summary, sparked immediate controversy. Several scientists, environmental groups, and the Canadian government denounced the Executive Summary as a distortion of the scientific research contained in the more voluminous technical appendices. Many re

viewers stated that while the underlying science was quite good, the way in which the facts was presented tended to minimize the extent of the acid rain problem.

Hearing

The Subcommittee held a hearing on April 27, 1988, to review the management and progress of NAPAP, to review NAPAP's Interim Assessment, to examine the extent of the scientific and policy uncertainties that are likely to remain at the conclusion of the NAPAP research program in 1990, to review the plans for producing the Final Assessment due in 1990, and to consider the need for, and organization of, acid rain research after 1990.

The Subcommittee received testimony from Dr. James R. Mahoney, Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, and the Members of the NAPAP Interagency Science Committee: Dr. George Y. Jordy, Department of Energy; Dr. Willam Sommers, Department of Agriculture; Dr. R. Jack Pickering, Department of Interior; Dr. Courtney Riordan, Environmental Protection Agency; Dr. Lester Machta, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Dr. James S. Morris, Tennessee Valley Authority.

At the hearing, Dr. Mahoney underscored his commitment to producing a scientifically crediable assessment document in 1990 which would be useful to policymakers. In response to criticisms of the Interim Assessment, Dr. Mahoney agreed to supply to the Subcommittee by September, 1988, a response to the criticisms, an analysis of whether scientific information which had become available since the Interim Report would affect its conclusions, and a plan for addressing the criticisms in the Final Assessment. The response was received by the Subcommittee on September 16, 1988, and included as part of the hearing record.

The Subcommittee also received testimony from Dr. Gene Likens, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, New York Botanical Garden, who addressed the findings of the Interim Assessment; Dr. James Galloway, University of Virginia, who discussed research on acidification of Eastern streams not included in the Interim Assessment; and Mr. Joseph Goffman, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), who addressed the energy projections protion of the Interim Assessment and a recent report by EDF on the contribution of acid rain to water pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. Committee Number Publication 100-125.

3.3(n)-Field-Testing of Genetically-Engineered Organisms

Background

The past five years have seen the movement of genetically-engineered organisms move from the laboratory-contained development phase to the field testing and commercialization phase. Despite the publication of the Coordinated Federal Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, in July 1986, concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of the federal review process for biotechnology products. Since that time, the Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee (BSCC) has failed to produce a definition of such essential terms such as "release to the environment." The Environ

mental Protection Agency has failed to promulgate rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act for genetically-engineered organisms. Absent these critical elements in the federal regulatory structure, concerns continue to be raised about the risks associated with the use of altered organisms in the environment.

Hearing

On May 5, 1988, the Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment convened to consider a report prepared by the Office of Technology Assessment entitled, "Field Testing Genetically Engineered Organisms: Genetic and Ecological Issues," and to review the experience of federal agencies in reviewing and regulating field tests of genetically engineered organisms. The Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Luther Val Giddings, Office of Technology Assessment; Dr. James Wyngaarden, National Institutes of Health; Dr. John A. Moore, Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency; and Dr. Kenneth Giles, Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Committee Publication Number 100-108.

3.3(0)-The Quality of Health Care: Information for Consumers Background

The growing government investment in health care, has led to increased concern about the quality of the health care services that are provided. The proportion of the Nation's health care bill borne by the federal government has led to a strong commitment on the part of agencies such as the Health Care Financing Administration to monitor the quality of services provided. The $70 billion (in 1987) Medicare program alone, has made the intervention of federal agencies a powerful tool for improving health care delivery. In addition, the consumer movement has given rise to demands for informed choices based upon reliable assessments of medical provid

ers.

Hearing

The Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment held a hearing on June 6, 1988 in New York City to consider how information on the quality of health care services could be made available to consumers to aid them in making decisions related to the purchase of medical services.

The hearing focused on the recommendations contained in the recently completed Office of Technology Assessment report entitled, "The Quality of Medical Care: Information for Consumers.' Dr. Jane Sisk of OTA outlined the findings of the report which called for increased research into defining methods and techniques for assessing the quality of medical care. The Subcommittee also heard testimony from Ms. Sondra Bauernfeind, Victims Against Medical Abuse; Ms. Marian Stackhouse, Sullivan County Coroner; Mrs. Elaine O'Rourke, Stop Hospital and Medical Errors (SHAME); Louis Krieger, American Association of Retired Persons; Ms. Esther Lustig, Lexington Center for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired; Dr. Lowell S. Levin, Yale University School of Medicine;

Dr. David Axelrod, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health; William Tobey, Regional Administrator, Health Care Financing Administration; Dr. Charles D. Sherman, Medical Society of the State of New York; Dr. Juanita K. Hunter, New York State Nurses Association; Ms. Suzanne G. Martin, New York City Health and Hospital Corporation; Ms. Carolyn Scanlan, Hospital Association of New York State; Ms. Carol Dye, Hospital Trustees of New York State; and Ms. Rose Ann Liveo, SHAME. Committee publication Number 100-105.

3.3(p)-Technologies for Conserving Species; Saving the Endangered Rhinoceros

Background

Every two to three years, the world loses another fifty percent of its rhinoceros population. The rhino's contemporary and dramatic demise makes it the best-documented loss of species to date. The fight to save the rhino thus makes an excellent case study in stateof-the-art endangered species conservation. Of the five species of rhinoceros, the African black rhino stands out because of the swiftness and magnitude of its decimation, and because conservationists recognized the animals plight early enough to enable them to take action.

The rhino's decline is due not only to the loss of native habitat, but also due to extensive poaching. Used in traditional folk medicines in the Orient, and carved into ceremonial dagger handles in North Yemen, the rhino's horn is worth its weight in gold.

Many different public and private groups are currently involved in rhino conservation. The Government of Kenya has a well-developed rhino rescue plan; Zimbabwe follows a less articulated strategy but is actively working to preserve its remaining wild rhino populations from marauding bands of poachers.

The leading non-government organization involved in rhino conservation is arguably the African and Elephant Rhino Specialist Group (AERSG), based in East Africa. An arm of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, AERSG provides a forum for discussion, information exchange, and policy development offering some limited financial resources.

In the U.S., the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums is a coordinating body for much of the research being conducted by American zoos and conservation biologists. Organizations like Rhino Rescue USA, Wildlife Conservation International, the World Wildlife Fund, and Save the African Endangered Wildlife (SAVE), provide a mix of funding, assistance, public relations, and scientific expertise.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) provided $100,000 in matching grants for rhino conservation worldwide in 1987 as part of its budget for biodiversity programs.

The Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment first examined the plight of the rhino in the 99th Congress. In that hearing, Singapore was identified as a major entrepot in illegal international rhino trade. As a result of the hearing and subsequent pressure exerted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department, Singapore agreed to ban all trade in

rhino products and to join CITES, the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species.

Hearing

The Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment held a hearing on June 22, 1988, to review the progress in ending the international trade in rhino horn, to review efforts to thwart poaching through the establishment of sanctuaries and armed antipoaching squads, and to examine efforts to manage remaining populations in the wild and to breed them in captivity.

The Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr. Thomas J. Schneider, Chairman, and Mr. Robert M. Schule, Trustee, Rhino Rescue USA; Dr. David Western, Chairman, IUCN African Elephant and Rhino Specialist Group and Acting Director, Wildlife Conservation International; Dr. Esmond Bradley Martin; Dr. Willie Nduku, Director, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management, Zimbabwe; Dr. Oliver A. Ryder, San Diego Zoo; Dr. Thomas J. Foose, American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums; Dr. Eric Dinerstein, Smithsonian Institution; Mr. Tony Dyer; and Mr. Brian Carey, Armstrong Tire Co. Committee Publication Number 100-133.

3.3(q)-Technologies for Remediating Global Warming

The Subcommittee on Natural Resources, Agriculture Research, and Environment and the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology held a joint hearing on June 29, 1988, to examine potential technologies to reduce the fossil fuel emissions which have been implicated in global warming. For a full discussion of the background and hearing, see the discussion under the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology, below. Committee Publication Number 100-137.

3.3(r)-H.R. 5000, the Recyclable Materials Science and Technology Development Act of 1988: Plastics in the Environment

Background

Public attention and Congressional action on plastic pollution has focused within the last few years on the threat of plastics to marine environments. An OTA study in July 1987 estimated that hundreds of thousands of sea birds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year by ingesting or becoming entangled in plastic debris. Six pack rings are particularly implicated in sea bird entanglement, and plastic bags are a threat to marine turtles which mistake them for jellyfish.

In recent weeks, debris washing up on Northeastern U.S. beaches has renewed concern about the disposal of materials in the oceans, including plastic materials. According to the Environmental Action Foundation, a recent 3-hour beach clean-up along 157 miles of Texas coast netted 31,773 plastic bags, 30,295 plastic bottles, 15,631 plastic six-pack rings, 28,540 plastic lids, 1,914 disposable diapers, 1,040 tampon applicators, and 7,460 milk jugs.