244 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE OX S( II \( I AND TECHNOLOGY 



Representative Larry Winn, Jr. (Republican of Kansas) clashed 

 with Representative Roudebush over the usefulness of the program 

 during a spirited floor debate in 1967. Winn told the House: 



I want to go "ii record .i^ supporting the committee recommendation concerning 

 the sustaining university program. Although I am usually one of the first to vote for 

 cuts in our Government spending programs, I do think that we ought to take a good 

 look at our space efforts for the future * * *. This is an important long-range pro- 

 gram, which is badly needed to protect the billions of dollars we are pouring into the 

 space ctiort. We must maintain the equilibrium of NASA by urging them to further 

 promote research and the training of space educated young men and young women 

 from the outstanding universities of our Nation. 



Roudebush shot back: 



This is tomfoolery; $11 billion is being offered by agencies of Government this 

 year. The appropriation is $10 million more than the agency wants. I just regret 

 that my colleague feels as he does. 



Representative Bob Eckhardt (Democrat of Texas) took up the 

 fight for the sustaining university program, producing letters from 

 hundreds of educational institutions testifying as to the value of the 

 program. Pettis, Lukens, and Mosher were among the Republicans 

 supporting Winn's efforts to keep the $10 million increase voted by the 

 subcommittee, while Wydler and Rumsfeld backed Roudebush in 

 trying to cut the authorization back to the $20 million originally re- 

 quested by NASA. Roudebush argued that 28 other Federal agencies 

 were subsidizing education to the tune of $11 billion a year. Karth 

 jumped into the fray to declare: 



I would submit to the gentleman from Indiana that it is brains and not brawn 

 that has put this country ahead; it is brains and not brawn that is going to keep this 

 country ahead if indeed it stays ahead at all. 



Karth also enunciated his philosophy of the proper role of the 

 subcommittee in considering budget requests: 



Not only do I think we are here to remove, or to reduce, or to cut their budget 

 requests, but if in our independent judgment there ought to be more money in certain 

 projects to make them effective and to allow them to reach the objective for which 

 they are intended then I think that we ought to take such independent action. 



I have heard all too often on the floor of this House that this committee does 

 not use that kind of independent judgment or there are not enough committees in 

 this Congress that use sufficient independent judgment. 



Fulton, who had earlier in the debate commended Winn and 

 Eckhardt, suddenly reversed his position and sternly warned: 



I believe that in no case should we go above the budget request for this type of 

 program in this time ot war. 



Although Roudebush lost his amendment by a voice vote, Fulton's 

 successful omnibus motion to recommit included the Roudebush cut 



