560 HISTORY OF THE COMMIT!! I ON SCIENC1 AND TECHNOLOGY 



hers Miller, Mosher, Davis, and Symington — went across the Capitol 

 to testify before the Senate Rules Committee on the bill. They con- 

 ceded the Board could be reconstituted as an all-Congress Board, but 

 they disagreed with Brooks that it should be always ruled by the 

 majority party, with the Director acting in the subordinate role of 

 the staff director of a joint committee. The House members also argued 

 that liaison with the public could best be established through an 

 advisory council appointed by the Board, which was done. Soon a 

 substitute bill backed by Brooks surfaced; it did away with the Board 

 and placed the mechanism under the Joint Committee on Congres- 

 sional Operations, of which Brooks was chairman. Senator Lee Met- 

 calf (Democrat of Montana), vice chairman of the joint committee, 

 fought for the Brooks version in the Senate. Senator Kennedy was 

 able to stave it off. 



PRESIDENT SIGNS OTA ACT 



Just when full concentration was needed desperately, political 

 problems suddenly took center stage. Senator Jordan and Chairman 

 Miller both lost their party primaries. The national conventions oc- 

 cupied the attention of most Members through the summer. The 

 Senate finally passed the bill on September 14. Miller, Davis, Cabell, 

 Mosher, and Esch served on the conference committee, which came to 

 an early agreement. The House then endorsed the final version of the 

 OTA bill without a roll call on October 4 and the President signed it 

 into law on October 13. 



Tlie final version restored equality between Republicans and 

 Democrats by authorizing six House and six Senate Members on the 

 Technology Assessment Board, to be appointed by the Speaker of the 

 House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate. 

 The chairmanship and vice-chairmanship rotated between House and 

 Senate every two years. Much of the Director's power was restored, 

 which was important in light of the fact that everybody's choice for 

 the first Director was former Congressman Daddario. 



It is interesting to note that somewhere along the legislative trail 

 that familiar battle cry "early warning" fell by the wayside. Ever 

 since Daddario and his allies had been talking about the need for 

 technology assessment — going back to 1966 the graphic phrase "early 

 warning" had been used. It was a striking analogy to equate tech- 

 nology with the flight of an intercontinental ballistic missile, and the 

 warning system set up for alert purposes. But it was the kind of term 

 which raised doubts in the minds of some in private industry. There 

 were sardonic references to "technology arrestment" on the part of 

 those who feared that the whole exercise was designed to be negative in 



