622 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTE1 ON SCIENCE AND ih IIXOLOGY 



This prompted this Brown-Price exchange: 



Mr. Brown. Just to be nonpartisan about it, wouldn't you say that the academic 

 community would have had the same attitude toward President Johnson if he had 

 continued in office? 



Mr. Price. They already did. 



TIMING THE LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE 



Congress watchers were eager to discover how the real power- 

 houses on the committee were going to react. Up until the end of June, 

 Teague and Mosher seemed to follow a scrupulously noncommittal 

 course in their observations. Then when the hearings resumed in July, 

 the mood seemed to change. The long-range plan had called for a far 

 longer period of intensive study before drafting legislation. 



During the July 1974 hearings, there were some public clues as to 

 what might be in store to speed up the timetable. On July 10, a blue 

 ribbon panel of four former science advisers to the President served as 

 witnesses: Drs. George B. Kistiakowsky, Jerome B. Wiesner, Donald 

 F. Hornig, and Lee A. DuBridge. This powerful quartet lent influential 

 support to the concept that Congress should act. Then Mosher opened 

 up to the public the issue of timing a legislative initiative: 



As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, it is your strategy to have our staff prepare 

 legislation which will perhaps embody certain recommendations of the Academy, 

 and use that legislation to hold hearings, to be a lightning rod for further consid- 

 eration of this, and rather specific consideration of initiatives which we, this com- 

 mittee and the Congress, might take to strengthen the advisory mechanism for 

 science and technology at the White House level. * * * Perhaps this committee 

 could perform a very useful purpose in proposing specific legislation which would 

 give the White House a new opportunity to consider this whole matter, and to give 

 a signal to the Congress that it would welcome a change and a strengthening of this 

 apparatus. 



The panelists all reacted very positively to Mosher's suggestion, al- 

 though they modestly chorused the reminder that they would not 

 presume to be giving "political advice." 



Turning again to Teague, Mosher then concluded: 



Mr. Chairman, these gentlemen said in general they would not presume to give- 

 us political advice. I am going to presume to give you some political advice. I very 

 strongly believe in more congressional initiative, in exerting congressional leader- 

 ship I, for one, hope you will go ahead with the strategy you are proposing. 



Teague then expressed his philosophy and strategy for action. 

 His instincts told him the moment of decision on drafting legislation 

 was at hand. Yet he wanted to be sure that legislation would have 

 acceptability at the White House. Here is how he expressed it in 

 response to Mosher: 



I think the Congress has taken the initiative. Certainly we have had no requests 

 from downtown for this kind of legislation. It seems when the Congress sees a prob- 



