3.7(0)-Competitive Implications of Toxicological Standards and the Need for Consistent International Standards

There is concern among U.S. industry that inconsistent toxicological standards between the United States and other nations may disadvantage American chemical manufacturers. Although international agreement exists on scientific methods used to identify and evaluate carcinogens, agreement does not exist on the type and degree of evidence necessary to classify a carcinogen as a “known”, "probable," or "possible" carcinogen.

As a result, various scientific and regulatory organizations including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have devised different categories for classifying carcinogens. These categories are critical because they are used by regulatory agencies in developing safety standards. The European Community utilizes the IARC list; the United States uses EPA and NTP guidelines; and a number of states, including Wisconsin, California, and New York, use a variety of lists when developing regulatory standards for control of these chemicals.

The Subcommittee held one day of public hearings on March 17, 1988 and received testimony from three witnesses: a former Chairman of IARC, a former toxicologist with EPA, and a representative from an industry trade association. The Subcommittee was interested in highlighting the differences between EPA Toxicity standards and those developed by IARC, in assessing the prospects for harmonization of international toxicological standards, and in evaluating competitive problems that could be experienced by American firms as a result of different toxicity classification schemes. In addition, questions for the record were submitted to EPA and NTP. The Subcommittee expects to continue its oversight of this subject during the 101st Congress. Committee Publication Number 100-97.

3.7(p)-Sharing Foreign Technology: Should We Pick Their Brains? Part of Japan's economic success in recent years has been attributed to its active national effort to collect, translate, and apply foreign scientific and technical information to meet its own industrial needs. The U.S. has not had a similar coordinated effort on a national scale.

With the passage of the Japan Technical Literature Act in 1986, and the 1987 Executive Order "Facilitating Access to Science and Technology", the federal government is authorized to collect and disseminate foreign scientific and technical information, and to coordinate such activities among various Federal agencies. As a result, the U.S. has begun to recognize the commercial benefits of adopting technological advances developed in other nations.

The objective of this effort is to help the U.S. remain internationally competitive by taking advantage of the free flow of ideas across the global spectrum. But despite these intentions, interest in foreign scientific and technical information remains weak.

The Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation convened on April 27, 1988, for a hearing to examine current demands for foreign technical information and policy options which might be

pursued to improve the exchange of this information. Senator Rockefeller underscored the importance of sharing foreign technology and reported on the status of machine translation, on which the Japanese are concentrating. Witnesses from government agencies involved in this effort, including the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and the National Science Foundation, testified in writing on the activities and initiatives underway in their respective programs. Private sector witnesses emphasized the serious shortfall in demand for this information despite its importance for U.S. competitiveness and rated the effectiveness of several policy recommendations to overcome this shortfall. Committee Publication Number 100--.

3.7(q)-Science and the Summit

Bilateral science and technology exchanges between the United States and the Soviet Union have grown markedly in the past five years and are an increasingly important part of the overall U.S./ Soviet relationship. At the conclusion of the May 29-June 1, 1988, summit meeting in Moscow between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, several new areas for scientific cooperation were added to that relationship: (1) an agreement to fly scientific instruments on each other's spacecraft; (2) an agreement to conduct national studies of solar system exploration to investigate further U.S./Soviet cooperation on such missions; (3) an agreement in transportation science and technology; and (4) a commitment to expand cooperation in global climate and environmental change. Other areas, such as cooperation in basic sciences and in manned exploration of Mars, remain potential areas for U.S./Soviet scientific cooperation.

The Subcommittee heard testimony from Department of State witnesses on June 14, 1988, to review the status of U.S./Soviet cooperation in science, space, and technology in light of the Summit agreements. The discussion focussed on a number of issues. The Agreement in Basic Sciences was discussed but not signed at the summit, because of U.S. concerns that the draft agreement would encourage direct contacts between Soviets and private American companies involved in sensitive technologies. Questions were also raised as to whether the increase in scientific exchanges with the Soviet Union would necessitate reorganized mechanisms or additional resources for U.S. government agencies to conduct national security review. The pros and cons of a cooperative U.S./Soviet Mars mission were also reviewed. Committee Publication Number 100-129.

3.7(r)-Hearing on U.S./Japan Sciences and Technology Agreement

Although the 1980 comprehensive science and technology agreement with Japan raised expectations for cooperative research opportunities, U.S. officials felt that it did little to counterbalance inequities in the U.S./Japan science and technology relationship.

Since 1985, when the agreement was renewed for two years, U.S. officials have sought a higher level of access to high-quality Japanese science and technology research. In Japan, much of the best research of this kind, although Federally funded, is conducted in

private laboratories, and foreign access to these labs has been difficult. In the U.S., on the other hand, much of the best science and technology research is also Federally funded, but is often conducted in universities and Federal laboratories which provide relatively easy access for foreign scientiests.

In June, following intensive negotiations, the U.S. and Japan signed a major agreement to renew cooperation on research and development in science and technology. The Administration actively sought this agreement as a means of redressing what appeared to many to be an inequitable flow of scientific and technical informations out of this country and into Japan.

The Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation convened for a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology on July 13, 1988, to examine whether the U.S. had achieved its objectives with the signing of this agreement. Witnesses from the Department of State were supported by representatives from the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

They detailed the resolution of two key points of contention. On national security, the final agreement contains a provision to prevent leakage of military useful information; on intellectual property rights, the agreement provides that rights will be given on a case-by-case basis, according to the contributions made by each side. Japan also agreement to several specific steps to strengthen the overall science and technology relationship, including: 1) commitment to open research and development systems; 2) continued efforts to improve Japanese language training programs for scientists and engineers; 3) providing, publicizing, and promoting comparable opportunities for U.S. researchers in government-supported research programs; and 4) publishing and distributing key government-funded S&T reports through central sources. Committee Publication Number 100--.

3.8—SUBCOMMITTE ON TRANSPORTATION, AVIATION AND MATERIALS

Background

3.8(a)-Railroad Technology

The Subcommittee has had a long-standing interest in encouraging the use of modern technology to improve transportation safety. The research and development programs of the Federal Railroad Administration are primarily focused on enhancing the safety of rail transportation by providing a sound basis for rail safety regulations and, through the use of new technology, to improve the safety of track and equipment.

The Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials has also had a long-standing interest in high-speed rail technology. In fact, the Committee recommended in a September 1982 report that Congress consider the development of high-speed rail corridors as a key component of future national transportation policies. Although the Federal Government's role has been minimal, it is clear that if the United States is to develop a truly balanced national

transportation system, high-speed rail technology must certainly be considered as a key component.

Summary of Hearings

The Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials conducted a hearing February 25, 1987 to examine the January 4th accident in Maryland involving Amtrak and Conrail trains to determine what technological solutions, if any, may be necessary to prevent similar accidents in the future. While the primary focus of the hearing was the adequacy of current rail safety technology such as warning systems and automatic train control systems, the Subcommittee also examined other related human and regulatory factors.

Following the hearing, the Federal Railroad Administration issued safety regulations regarding the operators of trains. Committee Publication Number 100-9.

The Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials conducted a field hearing in West Palm Beach, Florida on April 3, 1987 to hear testimony on the status of development of a highspeed railroad system in Florida and the various railroad technologies suitable for use in Florida. Issues addressed at the hearing were track requirements, noise levels, emission of pollutants, safety, initial cost, and long-range maintenance. Committee Publication Number 100-11.

Background

3.8(b)-National Critical Materials Council

The National Critical Materials Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-373), in creating the National Critical Materials Council, called on that Council to take a number of steps to implement a comprehensive national materials program. Two specific requirements included a report assessing the long-range needs for critical materials as well as the establishment of a national federal program plan for advanced materials research and development.

The long-range assessment report on national critical materials needs, due April 1, 1985, took more than three years to complete. Meanwhile, problems related to critical materials continued, including stockpile management and goals, South African policy regarding critical materials, our decline of domestic basic metals and mining capacity, and the increasing competitiveness in the international marketplace for advanced materials and advanced materials technology. With regard to a program plan for advanced materials R&D, despite the requirement for annual revision and coordination with the $1.5 billion material R&D budget, no final plan has been released. The Committee, through various hearings, reports and assessments, including one currently being conducted by OTA, has identified three critical advanced materials areas as requiring attention: structural ceramics, advanced composites and rapidly solidified alloys. These advanced materials are strategically and economically vital to such programs as SDI, aerospaceplane, SSC and the Space Station. Japan, Western Europe and others have already targeted special national programs in these and other advanced materials areas to provide those nations with a technological edge

for their industries. More recently, the Committee identified the new superconducting materials considered critical to the nation's economic and strategic needs.

Summary of Hearing

The Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials conducted a hearing March 31, 1987, to focus on the two reports attempting to understand what steps the Council has taken to implement the law, why they have taken so long in establishing even an agenda of action for the Council, and what now needs to be done to implement these requirements. Outside witnesses specifically focused on problems and concerns related to advanced polymeric composites.

Results of the hearings include the following: a new staff director was appointed and subsequently new staff (technical and non-technical) were assigned to the Council; a preliminary draft of the materials assessment has been completed (November, 1987) and is under agency review; an outline of the Advanced Materials R&D Program Plan document has been produced (December, 1987) and is under development; and the Council, through the Federation of Materials Societies and with the support of the Bureau of Mines, met in January, 1988, with representatives of the private sector to elicit their recommendations regarding advanced materials R&D. Committee Publication Number 100-18.

3.8(c)-Progress in Aviation Weather Prediction and Reporting Background

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-726) directs the National Weather Service to provide meteorological data to the Federal Aviation Administration that is essential for air commerce. The law also directs the FAA to develop, procure, operate and maintain equipment for disseminating aviation weather information. During the past 10 to 15 years, with the advent of high speed communications and automated data processing, a number of system improvements have been made. However, further improvements are needed to meet both the growing air traffic demands and the need for timely and accurate aviation weather information and services.

Severe weather accounts for about half of the aviation accidents in this country. It is a factor in two-thirds of all U.S. commercial airline delays. Weather has been called the greatest threat to aviation safety, yet pilots report they often do not receive the real-time warnings of precipitation and turbulence essential to take evasive action. These timely forecasts are especially crucial when an aircraft is in the immediate approach or departure area of an airport. The National Transportation Safety Board reports that pilots are usually able to see dangerous weather cells, but often are not af forded the same level of information about storm severity as is broadcast to the public over the radio and television.

Summary of Hearing

The Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials conducted a hearing September 30, 1987 to: (1) Receive from the General Accounting Office the results of their two-year assessment