548 HISTORY OF THI COMMITTEE ON SCIEN< I AND TECHNOLOGY 



the new Department of Education to have a nucleus of high quality 

 science education programs. Accordingly, Fuqua sponsored an amend- 

 ment in the Brown subcommittee which cut the amount to be trans- 

 ferred in half "but still permitted the transfer of a small nucleus of 

 programs those which 1 considered to be more on the fringes of 

 science, such as minority and pre-college programs." Once again the 

 Fuqua amendment passed. 



The full committee report took a firm position against further 

 transfer of NSF education programs to a new Department of Educa- 

 tion, but did not feel that such language should be written into the 

 NSF authorization act. Hence it was on March 27, 1979, that when 

 Ashbrook offered a floor amendment to prohibit such a transfer, 

 Fuqua, Brown and the committee decided to oppose the Ashbrook 

 amendment. Ertel, who had filed dissenting views to the report lan- 

 guage opposing a transfer, made an even stronger argument on the 

 House floor against a move "to unnecessarily lock ourselves in at this 

 point" before a specific proposal was made. Brown, with a slight 

 tinge of sarcasm, remarked: "I am touched by the gentleman from 

 Ohio (Mr. Ashbrook) wanting to protect the National Science Foun- 

 dation." Wydler spoke for the Ashbrook amendment, but it failed by 

 218-175, with most committee members in opposition. 



When the House debated the Department of Education bill on 

 June 13, 1979, Harkin offered an amendment to block the transfer of 

 the science education programs of NSF to the new Department. He 

 noted that 9 percent of the NSF budget was devoted to science educa- 

 tion, whereas less than one-half of 1 percent of the Department of 

 Education budget would go for that purpose. He argued that the close 

 relationship between scientific research and science education justified 

 keeping these activities under the same roof. Hollenbeck, Pease, Ritter, 

 McCormack, and Wydler all spoke for the Harkin amendment. Fuqua 

 announced his opposition, stating that the transfer of ]usr a few 

 programs was a logical compromise. He explained: 



The teaching of ethics and values, science information for citizens and public 

 interest groups, precollege level science education, programs that were specifically 

 designed for minorities and minority groups, these programs had certain social 

 implications that could be logically transferred within the framework of the Depart- 

 ment of Education. That was the reason this compromise was worked out. 



Although over twice as many committee members supported the 

 Harkin amendment, rather than Chairman Fuqua's position, the 

 amendment was defeated bv 240-165. 



