

ORY OF THE COMMITTE! ON SCIENC1 USID TECHNOLOGY 



portani factors in achieving that goal is maintaining .1 viable, dynamic acron.uniL.il 

 R. & ] I vci since 1 have been in Congress, I have maintained that NASA 



should vigorousl) strive to meet this challenge, and not place aeronautical R. & D 

 on the back bu 



GROUND PROPULSION R. & D. 



There were only minor changes in the aeronautical R. & D. sec- 

 tion of the NASA authorization bill which the subcommittee brought 

 out in 1976. One very promising provision which had been inserted 

 by the full committee to authorize NASA to utilize its scientific and 

 engineering competence in emphasizing ground propulsion R. & D. 

 was unfortunately knocked out in the conference committee. 



Back in the 1960's and early 1970's, when the subcommittee 

 lacked the jurisdiction to exercise oversight in this area, it was under- 

 standable that priority concentration was in the area of aeronautics. 

 Some subcommittee members, however, were restless at the failure 

 of the subcommittee to do more aggressive work on ground propulsion 

 systems once the jurisdiction was expanded in the congressional 

 reforms which took effect in 1975. Milford's background and interest 

 were clearly confined to aeronautics, and most of his time and effort 

 was devoted to this area with which he felt secure. Aside from "over- 

 view" briefings in 1975, and a "simulated authorization" series of 

 hearings concerning DOT ground transportation R. & D. during 

 July and August 1976, the subcommittee was not active in this area. 

 The exciting probe which Symington's Space Science and Applications 

 Subcommittee had conducted in 1974 which lifted the curtain on 

 alternatives to the internal combustion engine for automobiles failed 

 to get any followup from the Milford subcommittee. Concurrently, 

 the aggressive interest of McCormack in the possibilities of electric 

 vehicles caused him to seize the ball. McCormack's subcommittee 

 linked the whole issue to energy, and won a jurisdictional battle 

 without firing a shot. 



DISSENSION REARS ITS UGLY HEAD 



During 1976, the first signs of dissension within the subcommittee 

 appeared. The attendance at meetings began to fall off. Milford 

 wrote memos to both Teague and the members, complaining that 

 there was very little enthusiasm for productive hearings if only one 

 or two members attended. Several members, notably Goldwater, 

 indicated that they were never informed or consulted concerning 

 future committee plans until the last minute, at which time they 

 were simply notified: "This is it", without a chance to have mean- 

 ingful advance discussion of decisions. Milford asked Teague whether 



