50 



HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON* SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



stolen from under their noses. But although McDonough controlled 

 the time, he graciously yielded to Ford to make his pitch. 



Once again, Ford spoke eloquently against annual authorizations. 

 He pointed to his work on the select committee, and how he had 

 worked to draft the Space Act setting up NASA. He charged that the 

 authorization process would slow down the space program since — 



time is of the essence if the United States is to move forward in space com- 

 petition with the Soviet Union. * * * I doubt if it is necessary to have a complete 

 and total authorization each year plus a review hy the House and Senate Committees 

 on Appropriation. 



Ford was joined by a new ally, Representative Albert Thomas of 

 Texas, who in 1958 had argued on the other side in favor of the annual 

 authorizing power. Thomas told Brooks that "I am sure that my able, 

 congenial, and distinguished friend realizes that he is departing from 

 the normal procedure in the House." The atmosphere became tense. 

 Needing a two-thirds vote to pass the bill, the leadership wasn't quite 

 sure it had the horses. When the debate finished, the bill was pulled 

 from the floor and a 24-hour delay imposed while votes could be 

 rounded up. 



It wasn't an easy task to get a two-thirds majority against the 

 powerful opposition of the entire Appropriations Committee, led by 

 opponents like Clarence Cannon, George Mahon, Gerald R. Ford, and 

 a coalition of conservatives such as John Rhodes, William Colmer, 

 and Howard Smith and liberals like Wright Patman and Hale Boggs. 

 But the Science and Astronautics Committee won the day by a vote of 

 294-128. 



The principle of true oversight and annual authorization was now 

 embedded in the power of the new committee. 



PANEL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



The long parade of witnesses from in and out of the Government 

 who appeared before the Science and Astronautics Committee during 

 1959 came in response to a specific summons from Chairman Brooks, 

 and their testimony covered a wide variety of issues which the com- 

 mittee identified as important, timely, and useful. Special consultants 

 were available to address specific problems when needed. But it soon 

 became apparent to thoughtful members, the staff, as well as to the 

 chairman, that there were many immediate and long-range problems 

 which were recognized by farsighted scientists and engineers but which 

 were not reaching the Congress soon enough for constructive action. 



In February 1959 Chairman Brooks first mentioned to Dr. James A. 

 Van Allen the concept of a panel of scientists and engineers, plus other 

 objective individuals in the field, who could advise or meet with the 



