S< II N< 1 l\ I III W IIITI HOUSE 649 



POLITICAL BRAWL OVER APPOINTMENT OF DR. STEVEB 



Once the bill w.is signed, you would have thought the committee 

 could put the issue on the shelf. Not so A major political brawl 

 developed over President Ford's selection of a Director tin the Office 

 ot Science and Technology Policy. Dr. Stever was a natural for the 

 post. But the air was soon rent with cries from four U.S. Senators that 

 as Director of the National Science Foundation Dr. Stever had mis- 

 managed public funds bv supporting programs like MACOS (see 

 chapter XII for an account of the MACOS controversy). The four Re- 

 publican Senators Jesse A. Helms of North Carolina, Carl T. Curtis of 

 Nebraska, Clifford P. Hansen of Wyoming, and James A. McClure ot 

 Idaho- wrote a stinging letter to the President on June 9, contending 

 it would be "an affront to the Congress for Dr. Stever to be appointed 

 to another high position before this bad NSF situation had been 

 completely investigated, and the full extent of official involvement 

 is known." The letter also attacked Symington in the House and 

 Kennedy in the Senate for their handling of the MACOS and other 

 NSF issues. 



This was too much for Teague. Despite the fact that he personally 

 had been disturbed by the MACOS program and had spoken out against 

 it in the committee, he deeply resented what he regarded as a hit-and- 

 run attack on Dr. Stever and one of his subcommittee chairmen. 

 Mosher was equally upset by the attack and wrote to the four Senators 

 on June 11, saying he was "startled and disappointed" by their letter, 

 adding: 



I have read and reread your letter to the President very carefully, and I cannot 

 help but believe that you and your colleagues are being used most unfortunately for 

 propagandists purposes. As one who has been completely involved in the lengthy 

 and complex situation at the National Science Foundation, to which ycur letter 

 alludes, I must say it seems to me your letter to the President gives a very distorted 

 picture of that situation. I cannot help but believe that you accepted very inadequate, 

 selective and distorted information as the basis for the judgments you expressed.* * * 



Mosher also defended Symington against the charges made by the 

 four Senators. 



Teague responded on June 17 : 



Based on its inaccurate content, the letter you and three of your Senate colleagues 

 sent to the President on June 9 is an affront to me and to the Committee on Science 

 and Technology. Apparently you sent the letter with no attempt to ascertain the 

 facts from anyone in a position ot authority on our committee. I conclude that you 

 were either misled or that you were not interested in the truth about a very com- 

 plicated situation. 



In the last paragraph of your letter you make charges against Mr Symington 

 and the work of this committee which are untrue. Any fair-minded review of the over- 

 sight record of this committee will show that broad, vigorous examination ot the 

 National Science Foundation has been one of our highest priorities for more than four 

 years and especially the past eighteen months. * * * 



