438 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



McCormack praised the effective work of the science attaches he had 

 met in his worldwide travels. Lloyd, drawing on the experience of his 

 recent trip to Mexico (see chapter XV), stressed the value of tech- 

 nology transfer in international relations. On a division (standing) 

 vote, the cut by the House Appropriations Committee was restored 

 by 175-62. 



TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY TO OPEC COUNTRIES 



To follow up on the 1975 hearings by the Thornton subcommittee, 

 in September 1978, the DISPAC Subcommittee held an oversight re- 

 view of technology transfer to the members of OPEC. As Scheuer 

 noted in a July 28 letter to Teague: 



Beginning on September 6th, for three days we plan to do an "update" on Ray's 

 earlier initiative on OPEC technology transfer. Much has happened during the past 

 three years as petrodollar surpluses have built up in various OPEC nations' accounts. 

 Moreover, technology transfer from the United States has been cited by Saudi Arabia 

 as a high priority item; it is my belief that finding more ways of "recycling" petro- 

 dollars is urgent and that attractive "technology transfer" packages should be de- 

 veloped to facilitate this process. 



U.S.-U.S.S.R. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS 1978 



Later in September 1978, the DISPAC Subcommittee launched 

 another set of hearings to update the work of the Thornton subcom- 

 mittee in the area of U.S.-U.S.S.R. relationships. The 1978 hearings 

 covered three separate issues, scientific exchange of persons, technology 

 transfers, and some of the impediments to both, including human 

 rights considerations and science policy. 



On February 1, 1979, Hollenbeck, with the assistance of Anthony 

 Scoville of the committee staff, drafted a persuasive letter to Dr. Frank 

 Press, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, express- 

 ing deep concern for the physical safety and condition as well as the 

 intellectual freedom of Soviet scientists and nonscientists. The letter 

 was cosigned by Brown, Scheuer, Harkin, and Glickman, and included 

 these comments: 



As members of the Committee on Science and Technology concerne d for the long- 

 term health of science, at a time when solutions to the problems of energy and ma- 

 terials shortages, of environmental quality and of social change depend upon un- 

 fettered intellectual curiosity, we believe that human rights must be axioms of science 

 policy, we believe that the United States ability to retain intellectual and techno- 

 logical leadership depend upon the spiritual respect which we command for champion- 

 ing the political, intellectual, and economic rights of individuals here and in other 

 nations. 



Similar sentiments were expressed in the committee views in the 

 NSF authorization report released March 21, 1979- The committee 



