SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TI< HNOLOGV 1970-79 



543 



1 would hope our Members would be very careful in considering this amendment 



us today. * * * If we discourage our best talent from studying purely scientific 



questions which the) can perceive but which you oi I might ridicule, il instead we 



ihem to study only questions which the untrained mind can understand, soc iety 



W ; II lose 



Despite che eloquence of some of its opponents, the Ashbrook 

 amendment struck a strong and sensitive chord among many House 

 Members, who apparently felt that their constituents were more tax- 

 conscious about simple arguments than understanding sophisticated 

 logic. The Ashbrook amendment went down by 229 174, but in 1979 

 .i similar amendment passed. 



The differences with the Senate were resolved in an unusual way 

 in 19~8, without a formal meeting of the conference committee. 

 Once the Senate passed its bill, Members and staff trekked back and 

 forth between the House and Senate working out compromises on 

 numerous dollar differences on programs. For example, a House- 

 sponsored increase of $2.4 million in the Antarctic program was com- 

 promised down to an increase of $500,000; and a House-passed increase 

 of $4.4 million in science education wound up as a net increase of 

 $7.2 million over the budget. The final legislation, which was signed 

 by the President on October 10, 1978, called for submission of a two- 

 year budget in 1979. 



THE SUBCOMMITTEE IN 1979 



At the beginning of 1979, the following members were assigned 

 to the subcommittee: 



Democrats Republicans 



George E. Brown, Jr., California, Chair- Harold C. Hollenbeck, New Jersey 



™» Robert W. Davis, Michigan 



James H. Scheuer, New York Donald Lawrence Ritter, Pennsylvania 



Donald J. Pease, Ohio 

 Tom Harkin, Iowa 

 Allen E. Ertel, Pennsylvania 

 Kent Hance, Texas 

 Wes Watkins, Oklahoma 



The subcommittee jurisdiction was outlined as follows: 



Legislation, general and special oversight and other matters relating to the 

 N'ational Science Foundation, the National Bureau of Standards, the Office 

 ence and Technology Policy and the Office of Technology Assessment; scientific 

 research and development and applications; science policy; scientific resources (in- 

 cluding manpower}; science education; science information; technology transfer; 

 technology assessment; industrial R. & D.; standards (weights, measures, etc.); 

 patent policies as they relate to Federal research and development programs; R. & 

 D. involving governmental health, biomedical, nutritional and handicapped pro- 



