Foreword 



The George Washington University, 



Graduate Program in Science, 

 Technology, and Public Policy, 

 Washington, D.C., November 20, 1979. 



What Congress does is, to almost a total degree, influenced by 

 what its committees do. Thus, an account of the evolution of a key 

 congressional committee should be of interest to all those -scholars, 

 activists, journalists, citizens, and even Congressmen themselves— 

 with a concern about what happens on Capitol Hill. In putting to- 

 gether a history of the House Committee on Science and Technology, 

 Ken Hechler has performed an invaluable service. 



This history sees the world from the point of view of the small 

 group of diverse individuals — members and staff — who work in an 

 atmosphere of both cooperation and competition to apply the public 

 interest, as they define it, to overseeing an area of Government activity. 

 Hechler captures beautifully the congressional perspective on such 

 matters, and the multiple influences of personality, self-interest, a 

 concern for the good of the country, the internal workings of the Hill, 

 and agency-Congress relationships on that perspective. He does not 

 gloss over the fact that Members of Congress are human, with limita- 

 tions as well as strengths. Thus, I think he has come close to portray- 

 ing the reality of how Congress sees itself in operation. 



The history draws upon rich sources not often available to an 

 outsider, such as extensive personal interviews and the private records 

 of the committee. These add a level of detail and reality to the account 

 that makes it not only valid history but interesting reading. 



The Committee on Science and Technology is to be commended 

 on opening up its workings to the scrutiny of outsiders. Certainly 

 those who worked with the committee from the outside may find that 

 their perspective and interpretation of events differ from this account. 

 But that is the point; Congress is a peculiar institution with a par- 

 ticular perspective, and Hechler's account reflects that perspective 

 very well. 



John M. Logsdon, Director. 



