544 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



grams; legislation and other matters relating to intergovernmental mechanisms for 

 R & D. and international cooperation in science and technology; oversight of high 

 energy and nuclear physics programs of the Department of Energy; and all other 

 non-military K & 1) not assigned to other subcommittees 



With abolition of the DISPAC subcommittee at the end of 1978, 

 those functions were absorbed into the Science, Research and Tech- 

 nology Subcommittee. Brown surprised some of his colleagues by 

 choosing the SRT chairmanship instead of one of the energy subcom- 

 mittees (see chapter XX). Bill Wells moved in to become staff director 

 of SRT, as Philip B Yeager was named general counsel of the full 

 committee. Dr. Thomas H. Moss became staff director, November 15, 

 1979. 



THE NSF IN 1979 



Instead of a two-year budget for the National Science Foundation, 

 as recommended by Congress in 1978, once again the subcommittee 

 felt that better oversight could be achieved by an annual budget re- 

 view. For the first time in its history spanning a little over 25 years, 

 the NSF budget exceeded $1 billion. As he opened the hearings, Brown 

 waved a copy of what he labeled his "highly significant" prepared 

 remarks, which he said he would "mercifully abbreviate" and place 

 into the record. He said that he intended to enlist each subcommittee 

 member to play a substantial role in the shared work burden of the 

 subcommittee. Although this is the announced objective of every 

 committee and subcommittee chairman, only through the practice of 

 genuine democracy, personal relationships, careful delegation, and in- 

 spirational leadership is it ever done effectively. Brown probably suc- 

 ceeded better than most chairmen because he was determined to practice 

 all of these strategies. In his delivered remarks, Brown commented- 



This occasion of change in membership is an appropriate - time for reexamining 

 our missions, our strategy or plans for achieving them, and the standards or criteria 

 which guide our judgments and choices. It is an excellent opportunity to examine 

 from a fresh viewpoint whether the National Science Foundation and the Federal 

 Government are doing what is right for the American people. Perhaps we shall want 

 to have a new look at some "old foundations" right here, in these hearings. 



1 lollenbeck added: 



At a rune when many question the capacity for innovation in the Nation's 

 political economy, it is heartening that our subcommittee, under your leadership, 

 refutes conventional wisdom in your mandate tor these hearings. 1 welcome, therefore, 

 your call to consider a new look at old foundations for science and technology, and 

 the National Science 1 oundation specifically. 



Actually, there was insufficient time for the kind of indepth new 

 look which Brown envisioned for the quick review in March 1979, 

 with the budget deadline staring the subcommittee in the face. The 



