636 history or THE committee < >\ s< ienci and technology 



was support for the statement of science policy which the Teague- 

 Moshcr bill had included in title I. but there was opposition to the 

 Cabinet Department of Research and Technology Operations. There 

 was also opposition to one feature of the bill which had recommended 

 establishment of an information corporation. 



DRAFTING A NEW TEAGUE-MOSIIER BILL 



Concurrent with Mrs. Bates' analysis, which was completed on 

 June 22, the staff drafting team was frantically redrafting a new bill to 

 take the place of the original Teague-Mosher version. All this was 

 going on while almost nonstop meetings, conferences and phone calls 

 were taking place and involving the White House (particularly Cannon 

 and the Vice President's office), the scientific community, and numerous 

 other interested parties. Daddario was a frequent and unannounced 

 visitor. Franklin P. Huddle of CRS was around so much he seemed like 

 a regular staff member. The Legislative Counsel's Office had more than 

 its customary share of deadline demands to meet. 



One striking feature of all these negotiations was that most 

 members of the full committee were not enlisted in the process. One 

 of the arguments for handling the bill in the full committee was that 

 all members could then participate. Yet none of the analyses of the 

 hearings held in 1973, 1974, or 1975 included any mention of ques- 

 tions or suggestions by any member of the full committee. Other than 

 the principals and a few last-minute efforts by McCormack and Brown, 

 there was little effort to enlist other committee members in developing 

 the necessary consensus or entertaining new ideas and approaches. 

 Members were repeatedly told that staff members stood ready to sup- 

 ply any information needed in response to questions, and once the 

 September version of the bill was drafted in 1975 there were briefings 

 for both members and their staff. Yet the feeling pervaded that most 

 decisions had to be closely held until shared later when they were 

 more frozen. 



THE JULY 30 REVISED BILL 



The decision on a July 30 bill was certainlv of this character. A 

 new version of the Teague-Mosher bill, radically different from the 

 earlier one, was dropped into the hopper on July 30, 1975. Although 

 the new bill retained the old title I on science policy, the administra- 

 tion recommendation of an Office of Science and Technology Policy 

 was incorporated— and survived the rest of the tortuous legislative 

 process. Also included was the Rockefeller plan for a Director and up 

 to four Assistant Directors, but the functions were spelled out in 

 greaterdetail than in theadministration bill. The sections of the original 



