Mr. BENJAMIN. At this point we would also appreciate having the statement of Chairman Udall. CHAIRMAN UDALL'S STATEMENT Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I have a four-page statement which is penetrating, logical, and persuasive. Mr. BENJAMIN. As always. Mr. UDALL. As always. I won't read it all, but let me summarize some of the high points. It is my pleasure, as the new Chairman of the Technology Assessment Board, to appear today to present the fiscal year 1980 budget request for the Office of Technology Assessment. REDUCED BUDGET REQUEST The request, in the amount of $11.2 million, was approved by the board last month, and is a downward modification of the request originally submitted by the office. The consensus of the board-and we have a 12-man bipartisan bicameral board, six from each body and three from each party in each body-was that we were presented with an opportunity to confront the current national concern with inflation and government spending by approving a budget that would represent a constant, rather than increased, level of effort by OTA during fiscal year 1980. The $11.2 million request is equal to the obligation authority provided to the office for fiscal year 1979, which included carryover and supplemental authority. Likewise, as the justification of estimates demonstrates, no increase is requested in the number of authorized staff employ ees. Our Director did want a small increase. The Board felt that we ought to hold the line on total staff. We are confident that the authorization of this budget request will allow OTA to continue its fine record of producing high quality studies in a manner which is responsive to the needs of its many clients in the Congress. DEVELOPMENT OF OTA-WORK PLANS Mr. Chairman, personally, during my tenure on the board-and I have been there since the beginning-I have enjoyed watching OTA develop, in building this record, to the point where it is now on a decisive and effective course. After that difficult period in the life of any institution as it becomes established, our growing pains are beginning to subside. This progress is due in large part to the efforts of Senator Kennedy, who chaired during the last Congress, and Congressman Winn of Kansas, who was the Vice-Chairman during the last Congress, and-I must also say-to the fine work of Director Peterson. Mr. Chairman, the justification of estimates explains in some detail the specific projects which OTA is currently performing. It also describes some of the studies which the Director may present for approval to the board for startup later this year and in fiscal This classification provides for the transporting of technical documents to our committees and panel members and contractors, and for other miscellaneous transportation charges. 23.0 Rent, Communications and Utilities This classification covers the cost of rental of office space and equipment, telephones, postage, telegrams, etc. 24.0 Printing and Reproduction This classification covers the cost of printing assessment reports and other day-to-day printing requirements such as stationary, envelopes, and special reports. 25.0 Other Services This classification covers the cost of technology assessment contracts and other government and non-government services. 26.0 Supplies and Materials This classification provides for the cost of day-to-day operating supplies and materials. 31.0 Equipment This classification provides for the purchase of typewriters, adding machines, calculators and other office machines, and for office furniture and equipment, technical books and publications. Mr. BENJAMIN. At this point we would also appreciate having the statement of Chairman Udall. CHAIRMAN UDALL'S STATEMENT Mr. UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I have a four-page statement which is penetrating, logical, and persuasive. Mr. BENJAMIN. As always. Mr. UDALL. As always. I won't read it all, but let me summarize some of the high points. It is my pleasure, as the new Chairman of the Technology Assessment Board, to appear today to present the fiscal year 1980 budget request for the Office of Technology Assessment. REDUCED BUDGET REQUEST The request, in the amount of $11.2 million, was approved by the board last month, and is a downward modification of the request originally submitted by the office. The consensus of the board-and we have a 12-man bipartisan bicameral board, six from each body and three from each party in each body-was that we were presented with an opportunity to confront the current national concern with inflation and government spending by approving a budget that would represent a constant, rather than increased, level of effort by OTA during fiscal year 1980. The $11.2 million request is equal to the obligation authority provided to the office for fiscal year 1979, which included carryover and supplemental authority. Likewise, as the justification of estimates demonstrates, no increase is requested in the number of authorized staff employ ees. Our Director did want a small increase. The Board felt that we ought to hold the line on total staff. We are confident that the authorization of this budget request will allow OTA to continue its fine record of producing high quality studies in a manner which is responsive to the needs of its many clients in the Congress. DEVELOPMENT OF OTA-WORK PLANS Mr. Chairman, personally, during my tenure on the board-and I have been there since the beginning-I have enjoyed watching OTA develop, in building this record, to the point where it is now on a decisive and effective course. After that difficult period in the life of any institution as it becomes established, our growing pains are beginning to subside. This progress is due in large part to the efforts of Senator Kennedy, who chaired during the last Congress, and Congressman Winn of Kansas, who was the Vice-Chairman during the last Congress, and—I must also say-to the fine work of Director Peterson. Mr. Chairman, the justification of estimates explains in some detail the specific projects which OTA is currently performing. It also describes some of the studies which the Director may present for approval to the board for startup later this year and in fiscal which fall within the capability of the Office, I would like to mention briefly two projects which I personally feel will be of utmost value to the interested committees and members of the Congress. STUDY OF DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE OTA recently began a study of disposal of nuclear waste. Although we are more than three decades into the nuclear age-we have had military and civilian programs now for three decadeswe have an ever-growing volume of high-level waste from weapons manufacture, and power plant operations which is almost all still in "temporary" storage. Not a single pound has yet been put in a permanent repository of any kind. So permanent isolation of the waste is essential. It is dangerous and it is long lasting, lasting up to 1 million years, with potent effects. Five different committees requested that study and another five have expressed interest in it. We are now assessing the state of the art of disposal of high-level radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, and we are investigating social and environmental aspects of the issue which are sometimes more narrowly focused. The study is exploring such questions as: What steps are involved in selecting, evaluating and licensing potential waste repository sites? What is involved in developing and managing a full-scale waste disposal system? What is the role of State and local governments in management of nuclear wastes? What additional research and development work is needed to demonstrate the ability to safely dispose of nuclear waste? STUDY OF CONSERVATION ISSUES IN HOME ENERGY USE The other study I would like to mention deals with conservation issues in home energy use, which is scheduled for completion very shortly. Before the 1973 oil embargo and the last two unusually severe winters, little attention was paid to future energy shortages. Since then, several Federal programs and regulatory initiatives have been designed to reduce residential energy consumption and increase the efficiency of home energy use. In this assessment, OTA is studying the trends of energy use in residential buildings, the role of energy prices in encouraging conservation, and the opportunities for promoting energy savings in Federal housing programs. We are exploring the role of consumer attitudes and the problems of low-income homeowners. We are examining the effectiveness of Federal, State, and local conservation programs as well as the nationwide status of research and development in energy conservation and opportunities for technological advances. In addition, the study will point out the consequences of reducing residential energy use. By improving the efficiency of home energy use, residents are protected against the full impact of rising prices, and substantial energy savings result. The study brings into focus Two other projects of interest to me and described in the justification of estimates deal with the feasibility and effects of using cost-effectiveness techniques in allocating health resources and with an assessment of appropriate technologies as contributing to attaining domestic urban and rural community goals. Mr. Chairman, I would be most happy to respond to any questions the subcommittee may have. REDUCED BUDGET REQUEST Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the downward adjustment, which I assume results from your January 31 board meeting. Mr. UDALL. Yes. Mr. BENJAMIN. In this, it reflects that you are looking for the same budget authority that you had in this fiscal year. I note that that includes a carryover which you mentionedMr. UDALL. Yes. Mr. BENJAMIN. [continuing]. Of about $758,000. In that respect, should that carryover be deducted in the $11.2 million? Mr. UDALL. We don't want to deduct it from our budget, but I think if you are taking issue with my arithmetic, you are probably right. Yes, the justification, it is not correct to say this is the same base level, because we did have that carryover. Mr. BENJAMIN. That carryover, I believe, out of the $900,000 that was previously appropriated and allowed for carryover to OTA. Mr. DE SIMONE. Yes. Mr. BENJAMIN. Then Deputy Chairman Winn last year testified there would be no carryover from 1978 to 1979. Can anyone explain if that is correct? Was he correct in his assessment? Mr. DE SIMONE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Winn was correct in his assessment. The carryover that we are talking about now, $758,000, is actually a carryover from fiscal year 1977. Mr. BENJAMIN. Yes. Mr. DE SIMONE. So Mr. Winn was correct in stating that there would be no carryover of fiscal year 1978 funds. USEFULNESS OF OTA REPORTS Mr. BENJAMIN. Let me ask you one last question, Mr. Chairman. You may not want to comment on it. Within one of the recent national journals, there is a small quip by a member of your board, who is on the Senate side, who indicated that about 60 percent of OTA's work was needed and the rest was apparently not needed. Would you have any comment on that? Mr. UDALL. Yes, I would make a couple of comments. We are there to serve the committees and the members. We don't sit in the office and generate very many requests ourselves. That isn't the basic function. We were to be like the Library of Congress as the legal, factual backup for the Congress. The GAO is the investiga |