establishing priorities of R&D in the quest for substitutes. However, it is also important that the progress of R&D for this purpose be assessed periodically to determine the extent of progress and realistic estimates of the time span to commercial application of substitutes under development. Concurrently, analysis would also be needed as to the extent to which a proposed substitue could replace a scarce material. Section 204 (a) (1) proposes that the Council "shall establish a coordinated materials information system" within 6 months after adoption of Title II. It is questionable as to whether this is a realistic allowance of time. It required the Office of the President almost a year to name the members of the National Commission and more than a year to name the public members of the Commission on Supplies and Shortages. It took another three months for the staff of the latter commission to block out a research plan, allowing for recruitment and to determine the initial views of the Commission members. For the proposed Council and its staff to familiarize themselve with existing information systems, after constituting themselves a working organization, would certainly require upwards of a year. Title III presents an innovative legislative approach to some important problems of national concern. One possibility not dealt with in the title is that of joint public-private sponsorship of applied research institutes to maximize the utility of particularly abundant materials (wood, glass, steel) in place of less abundant materials. This idea is developed in a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, and a copy is attached. (The report is accompanied by an introductory analysis, prepared in CRS for the House Committee on Science and Technology.) One assignment under this title, Sec. 305 (3) to the Secretary of Commerce is to develop an "index of materials substitution". This is an extraordinarily difficult assignment. It is suggested that it be modified into an assignment to make a systematic study of various approaches to the design of substitution indices under various probable conditions and for various time frames. Thus, if an index of this sort is proposed in order to establish research priorities in the development of substitutes, the relevant time frame would be 20 years hence. There would be no advantage in starting a R&D program in a substitute for material that would be short in one year. Probably the best single parameter for a substitution index is actual volume in use. But for some materials like silicon, glass, and magnesium, the volume in use is determined by demand at market price. If more is needed, and if the demand is substantial, more can be produced. For most other materials this is not the case. The technical discussion of disclosure arrangements and patent policy with which the bill concludes is not considered in this analysis. The only points that should be stressed are these: when private industry is asked to volunteer data of a proprietary nature, there should be no lingering doubt as to the absolute protection given it; and protection of patent rights is a subject of intense concern to private industry, closely related to ability to obtain investment capital to exploit new technology. The alternative proposal, S. 1410, concentrates much more on the establishment of an information system, with less emphasis on how the information is to be analyzed or how the consequent policy is to be implemented. It seems important to mention that there needs to be a close operational relationship between the management of programmatic information and the programs it is being collected to support. The definitions presented in the bill are painstaking, but seem unwieldy. The definition of "materials" in the staff draft of S. 1415, which is essentially the same as that used in the National Materials Policy Act of 1972 setting up the National Commission, is simpler, easier to interpret, and quite as precise. The definition of "resource" departs somewhat from Dr. McKelvey's formula as presented in Geological Survey Professional Paper 940 (copy attached). This formulation seems to be generally accepted in the materials community. It is not clear what would now be intended by adoption of Part B of S. 1410. The proposed bill was introduced in April 1975, before the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages had been activated. It has now been active for some four months, and the Executive Director expresses a strong commitment to a schedule calling for a final report before the close of the calendar year 1976. The provision in Part C for the creation of a single institution to manage the entire scope of materials information calls for a very large undertaking. It could upset an enormous array of existing institutions, most of which are working quite well. Carried to a logical extreme of a single data base, the concept could involve costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars. As given, however, the scope of information covered by the proposed institution appears to be essentially limited to supply/demand data. The technological and research information, and materials property aspects appear not to be covered. As far as it goes, the definition of scope is excellent, particularly with respect to the need for data from outside the United States. However, in making analyses of long-range future supply/demand conditions, attention needs to be given to technological changes and innovations, which S. 1410 appears to neglect. Conversely the use of supply/demand projections as a means of shaping the national R&D effort require that both supply/demand projections as a means of shaping the national R&D effort require that both supply/demand and ongoing R&D be assessed together. SOME CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS The essence of the problem of national materials policy is the need for an institutional adaptation to changing conditions of supply/demand in materials on a worldwide basis, resulting from rising populations and per capita consumption. The United States, as foremost consumer of materials both nationally and per capita, is faced with the necessity of reacting to this world trend. The reaction can take several forms: a vigorous effort at autarky, with heavily subsidized domestic mining, conservation and recycling, development of substitutes, and tariffs on imports; or, vigorous competition for increasingly tight supplies from abroad, bidding less affluent consuming countries out of the market; or a middle course of negotiating for a reasonable share of world resources, coupled with increased frugality of use. An institutional arrangement is needed to translate these generalities into a substainable course of action built around coherent and consistent policy. The institution needs information on which to convert policy into operational programs. It also needs sufficient authority to motivate and coordinate the execution of these operational programs. Most of these elements appear to be emerging in S. 1415, and some of them in S. 1410. The complexities of both bills, and the protracted attention to problems of reconciling the protection of privileged information with the principle of freedom of information, tend to obscure the main thrust of the proposals. HOLMDEL, N.J., January 11, 1976. Senator WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MAGNUSON: The imminent exhaustion of the high-grade iron ore deposits around Lake Superior (including the fabled Mesabi range) was a matter of common knowledge and general concern about 25 years ago. For example, Raymond Moley wrote in Newsweek, July 25, 1949, "The most profoundly important physical question in North America centers upon the length of life that remains for Mesabi and what we shall use for iron after it is gone. At last year's rate of removal it will last about a dozen years. . . ." The predicted exhaustion did eventually occur; but in the meantime, American industry had adapted to the use of lower-grade ores (taconite), foreign sources (such as Labrador), and other metals (such as aluminum). By 1969, twenty years later, Mesabi was gone, but iron was not a problem. How did American industry accomplish such a complete adaptation to inevitable shortage without extensive government intervention? I don't know: but I suggest that getting answers to this and similar questions is just as important for a materials information system as cataloguing the current status of producion, consumption, and reserves. It is a fact that 25 years ago American industry correctly foresaw a critical materials shortage and adjusted to it. Now Congress is being asked to find that American industry is incapable of this kind of prediction and adjustment. Why? The Committee on Commerce is considering the creation of an agency charged with coordinating the efforts of other agencies, or assuming their responsibilities, to gather information on materials availability. I believe, but I will not insist, that creating a redundant agency for the purpose of eliminating redundancy is a waste of taxpayers' money. (This belief may be regarded by some as unspeakably reactionary.) I do insist that any such materials information agency should be charged also with the task of conducting retrospective studies of past materials crises for the purpose of determining how they developed and were dealt with. What actions were taken by government and by private enterprise? How did these activities affect one another? What was the effect of each administrative action and its execution? What would probably have happened if particular actions had not been taken, or if alternative actions had been taken? What can be said on the basis of experience about the general effects of certain types of administrative action? May I repeat a quotation from Senator Tunney? "The mismanagement in the past of the Nation's energy resources can be a lesson for our policy with respect to the availability of other basic materials." Nowhere in any of the bills being considered by the committee (as of November 1975) is anyone charged with the responsibility for studying the lessons of the past. I ask that this omission be corrected. I also have a comment on the research and development program proposed in the staff working draft on S. 1415. J. K. Galbraith (in Economics and the Public Purpose, 1973) has supported two ideas that point to opposite attitudes toward this proposal. One is that American corporate enterprise, through its economic power, has so far exempted itself from the law of supply and demand that it cannot adapt to changing supplies of materials without help from the government. The other is that the political power of American corporate enterprise enables it to win favorable action from the government by disguising its private interest as public interest. In other words, we don't know whether industry really needs help with materials research and development or only wants it. If they don't need it, the program could lead to misallocation of research resources through emphasis on grant swinging rather than production needs. The program could thus actually reduce the ability of industry to meet its own needs and increase its dependence on government. In the face of this uncertainty I would urge that no program for materials research and development support be established until and unless materials information clearly shows not only that there is a need that cannot otherwise be met, but also that on the basis of past experience a supported research and development program is likely to have a positive effect. Sincerely, MARTIN B. BRILLIANT. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Hon. JOHN V. TUNNEY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., January 12, 1976. Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Commerce, Committee on Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR TUNNEY: We appreciate your keeping the record open on the materials management hearings, as indicated in your December 16 letter. We, too, are very interested in presenting as complete a story on COMAT as we possibly can in the short time available. Unfortunately, we will not be able to complete our materials R and D inventory report by mid-January as we had anticipated. This project is a prototype that we want to have as complete as possible so that it will be useful and effective as a planning tool. These considerations, coupled with the magnitude of the effort, have caused delay, especially since coding and entering the data into the computer system took longer than estimated because of the sheer volume of information received. Rather than produce a partial report, we waited a short time in order to include all the information in a complete report. We report that we will not be able to place this report in the record of the materials management hearings. On the other hand, I am more than satisfied that the Inventory Task Force has applied exceptional speed and skill to a unique and difficult assignment and that the resulting product will be the best possible for a unique effort. We are providing the enclosed summary of the activities of the three task forces which you requested and will send you their findings when available. We are happy to cooperate with your Subcommittee on the need for improved materials management on the national level, and appreciate your recognition of the efforts of COMAT and its Task Forces in this direction. Sincerely yours, JACK W. CARLSON, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. JANUARY 5, 1976. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS ON THE FEDERAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY'S COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS (COMAT) (Prepared for the United States Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Commerce by T. A. Henrie, COMAT Executive Director.) ESTABLISHMENT Under the auspices of the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), there have been committees to coordinate the materials research efforts of the Federal Government since 1963. From 1963 to 1970, it was designated the Coordinating Committee on Materials Research and Development (CCMRD). From 1970 to 1974, the National Academy of Sciences maintained the overview of Federal engineering materials programs through the Interagency Council for Materials (ICM). In 1974, FCST recognized a growing need for closer coordination of Federal materials R&D and in the Spring of 1975 established the Committee on Materials (COMAT). Some of the significant features of COMAT are: High level membership of the Committee. Broad concern with the entire materials cycle from basic raw material resource identification to products and effective disposal or recycle. Inclusion of all materials, except food and drugs. Targeted impact on Federal budgeting and allocation of resources. SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES COMAT was given the following specific responsiblities: To provide a forum on major materials problems, especially, the immediate materials requirements for energy and the need to produce materials without adversely affecting the environment. To implement materials R&D remedies through cooperative Government activities. To coordinate the total materials R&D effort within the Government. To identify manpower requirement problems for materials technology development. COMAT MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION There are 16 members in COMAT representing 13 Federal departments and agencies. The Chairman of COMAT is Jack W. Carlson, Assistant SecretaryEnergy and Minerals, U.S. Department of the Interior; and the Executive Director is T. A. Henrie, Associate Director-Mineral and Materials Research and Development, Bureau of Mines. COMAT initially established the following three task forces to gather materials R&D information within the Federal Government and to assess the total program assigned to each: Task Force No. 1.-Inventory and Analysis of Materials R&D in Government and Private Industry. Chairman-T. V. Falkie, Director, Bureau of Mines. Task Force No. 2.-Determination of Materials Requirements and R&D for the National Energy Objectives. Chairman-James S. Kane, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Energy Research and Development Administration. Task Force No. 3.-Development of Government Perspective Between the Need for Production of Materials and the Maintenance of a Safe Environment for Physical Well-Being. Chairman-Wilson K. Talley, Assistant Administrator for R&D, Environmental Protection Agency. The descriptions of the establishment of the three task forces are appended to this Summary. PRESENT STATUS All three task force groups are actively and successfully pursuing their objectives. The status of their activities are summarized below: Inventory Task Force No. 1.-The progress of this task force is the most advanced of the three and is receiving major attention because of the immediate need for an adequate materials R&D program data base, suitable for analysis. The work has been phased into R&D in the Government and industrial sectors with future plans to gather information on international materials R&D programs. The task force now represents 18 Federal departments and agencies and has held four general meetings, its organization meeting being on August 4, 1975. It has collected data on over 2,000 programs amounting to over $1 billion in Federal funding. The data, based on FY 76 budget information, has been entered into a sophisticated computerized materials information system. The final updating of the data, prior to issuing the task force's first report is scheduled for early January. A preliminary draft of part of the report was prepared and is currently being revised. The final version of the report will address itself to an analysis of the Federal materials R&D program funding based on national goals, materials problems, life cycle of materials, and specific commodities or classes of materials. This information system, under the cognizance of the COMAT inventory task force, should be capable of forming the basis for a materials management organization that would not produce disruptive effects on the existing Federal agencies. It is anticipated that the report draft will be submitted for final review to Committee members by late January. In the meantime, a meeting has been scheduled for early January with industry representatives to determine the best means of obtaining comparable information that can be used to analyze the total materials R&D activity. Energy Task Force No. 2.-The activities of this task force have progressed rapidly. Eight subgroups, representing all activities of energy generation, transmission, conversion, conservation, etc., have been organized. The activity has been divided into the preparation of two reports, one on materials requirements for the near-term period (until 1985) and the other for the intermediate-term (1985– 2000) and long-term (beyond 2000) periods. The first report is in final editing and copies should be available for committee review by mid-January. This report will include recommendations for priority funding, providing additional funds are available. A workshop was held in December to define the scope for the second report, which is to be submitted to the Task Force Chairman by the end of January. Environmental Task Force No. 3.-This task force is now increasing its rate of effort as the materials R&D inventory upon which it is dependent, nears completion. The task force is completing its strategy for using the COMAT inventory to provide useful and valid interpretations of Federally funded programs. Analysis of the materials R&D data relating to environmental problems will be started in January. In summary, COMAT currently offers the most expedient means of coordinating the Nation's materials R&D programs by its direct and rapid communication with each of the pertinent agencies from which the information is being obtained. If successful in incorporating comparable R&D information from industry into this materials information system, the means of assessing and analyzing the total National activity in this area of technology, will be achieved for the first time. ADDENDUM TO JANUARY 2, 1976, SUMMARY ON COMAT COMAT TASK FORCE ACTIVITIES-FROM MINUTES OF COMAT MAY 7, 1975, MEETING Task Force No. 1.-Inventory and analysis of materials research and development for Government and Private Industry Status. A quick survey of ongoing Government research and development is an indicator of the complexity of our economic system and the role that a complex but integrated materials base makes in advancing our society. The effective extraction, refinement, production, recycling and utilization of materials to support our economic system requires highly sophisticated technology ranging from exploration geology, agriculture, and mineral and materials production to solid state physics and internal medicine. The development of materials may range from mining hundreds of thousands of tons of ore in a nonferrous metals |