INTRODUCTION XXIX 



Most importantly, in January 1959 as a freshman Congressman, 

 he became one of the original members of this committee, participating 

 very actively throughout all of its first 18 years, as chairman of impor- 

 tant subcommittees for 15 of those years. 



So why did I first hesitate to suggest Ken Hechler to be our author? 

 First, there was the obvious question, whether one so intimately in- 

 volved in the committee's history could recount it with sufficient 

 objectivity. Second, there was the fact that Hechler, though always 

 one of the most productive and stimulating of our committee mem- 

 bers, exerting genuine leadership qualities, also was at times a stub- 

 bornly independent member on occasion provocatively at odds with 

 the committee's decisions. (Example, in the 94th Congress, his ulti- 

 mately successful opposition to the committee's bill which would have 

 authorized funding by Government-guaranteed loans for private indus- 

 try to construct large facilities, to demonstrate the feasibility of pro- 

 ducing synthetic fuels on a commercial scale.) We enjoyed and re- 

 spected him even when we disagreed with him; but would the chairman 

 or other members think me facetious in suggesting that he was ideally 

 the one to write our history? 



Those doubts were quickly resolved. It indicates the wisdom and 

 vital spirit of Teague's chairmanship that he and other committee 

 members recognized Hechler's qualifications, trusted his judgment and 

 integrity, ignored any old disagreements, and agreed he should write 

 our history. It emphasized the objectivity of this work, our require- 

 ment that it not be a superficial puffery job, that the author has solid 

 credentials as an independent critic. It also emphasized the nonparti- 

 sanship typical of this committee, that I — a long time Republican 

 member — and a Democrat, Hechler, of independent spirit, were as- 

 signed prime responsibilities for the history 



As author, he was promised a free hand in recounting these 20 

 years. He was instructed only to be as accurate as possible, but to pro- 

 duce far more than a routine chronological report, to deal realistically 

 with substantive issues, personalities, and interesting anecdotes, to tell 

 this committee's story "warts'n'all," to try to identify the actual sig- 

 nificance, strengths, and weaknesses of its role and impact during a 

 most vital, changing period of American history. The facts, the em- 

 phases, the adjectives, and somewhat colloquial style, ail these are Ken 

 Hechler's own responsibility. 



He has fulfilled that charge admirably. This is far different and 

 better reading than the ordinary congressional report. Personally I find 

 it more fascinating than I could have hoped, it abounds in meaningful 

 incidents and details of which I was not aware. I have learned much, I 

 have a very valued, better understanding of the inner dynamics and 

 broader influence of our committee's efforts. 



