540 HISTORY OF THE COMMIT'] I I ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



Scheuer observed lofrilv that he hoped the political process would not 

 get involved with the National Science Foundation 



You could always tell when Flowers was about to make a funny. 

 With only the suggestion of a slight twinkle in his eves, Flowers 

 turned toward Teague and pointedly remarked: 



I think the sex habits of the African buffalo can be investigated even at Texas 

 \ & \1 College just as well as at M.I.T. 



It is unfortunate from the standpoint of history that at this point 

 the repartee went off the record and was forever lost. 



In his dissenting views in the committee report in 1978, Rudd 

 presented some startling figures on the problem. He showed that the 

 latest NSF grants (fiscal year 1977) showed that the institutions in 

 four States (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York) 

 received 42 percent of all funds awarded by NSF, while 9 other states 

 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

 Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) received only 6.4 percent. 

 The dollar figures for the four "have" States was $685-1 million, 

 against $44.3 million for the "have nots." Rudd also pointed out 

 that one institution alone — M.I.T. — received $20.9 million from NSF, 

 far beyond the total of many entire States. 



The lesson in all this is not that the bureaucracy ignores the 

 Congress, although that is partially true. The conclusion can only be 

 drawn that the Science Committee itself did not present a united 

 front, and NSF like NASA knew that the Congressmen from the 

 have States could be counted on to protect them from the thunder- 

 ing rhetoric of the have-not legislators. It is quite certain that Flowers 

 formula for "getting the mule's attention" would have worked, but 

 it is equally certain he would have had great difficulty in getting such 

 a proposition through Congress despite the fact that there was a 

 big representation from the have-not States. 



FLOOR DEBATE ON NSF AUTHORIZATION IN 1978 



In presenting the bill on the House floor on April 18, 1978, Harkin 

 pointed out that the committee-sponsored increase of $4.4 million for 

 science education exactly equaled what NSF had initially requested 

 of OMB. Harkin labeled science education as "an area that the Science 

 and Technology Committee has supported for years but which has 

 been held down by the Office of Management and Budget." Although 

 Rudd ami Bauman spoke generally against the size of the NSF author- 

 ization, a challenge to the committee was made by Representative 

 John B. Breaux (Democrat of Louisiana), who offered a floor amend- 

 ment to restore the $3.2 million which the committee had cut from 

 the NSF's deep-ocean drilling project. Harkin and Hollenbeck success 



