SCII \c 1 [N 1111 Win II housi 635 



DR. STEVER LEADS OFF 



Opening the formal hearings after the Vice President's appearance 

 was Dr. Stever, who devoted his argument to explanation and support 

 of the administration bill. He was followed on June 11 by another 

 strong pitch by McCormack on behalf of a cabinet department with the 

 acronym STEAM (Department of Science, Technology, Energy and 

 Materials). McCormack received some high compliments for his 

 proposal, but Wydler responded with an adroit combination of 

 parliamentary courtesy and severe analysis: 



Mike, you have a very good idea here hut — with all due respect to you and the 

 friendship I have tor you — I would advise you to forget it. * * * This is said with all 

 real kindness, because the idea has great merit. I can see that. As a practical matter, I 

 suppose what I am saying is, I think it will he an exercise in futility. 



Those testifying in the June 1975 hearings were not all optimistic 

 about getting a consensus and passing legislation very soon. Mosher 

 asked Dr. David: 



As a matter of strategy, do you think by statute this should be made effective as 

 of 1977 rather than immediately, considering where we are? 



Dr. David pessimistically replied: 



I think it would be a wise move. I suspect, however, that, given the natural 

 pace of the legislative machinery, including the inevitable conflicts and scheduling 

 difficulties, that the coming legislative effort will not become effective until that 

 date in any case. 



Teague was not about to accept the "natural pace of the legislative 

 machinery" if that meant inordinate delay. But he now faced a serious 

 dilemma. He appreciated the fact that a bill as comprehensive as the 

 Teague-Mosher bill would not be accepted by the administration. 

 Yeager realized this too, but also cautioned that now was not the time 

 to toss overboard the accumulated wisdom of a decade of insight by 

 the committee. Teague agreed that these issues must not be sacrificed 

 on the altar of appeasement. Two other factors complicated the picture 

 at the conclusion of the 1975 hearing in June: The comprehensive 

 Senate bill was ever present like Banquo's ghost; and there was a power 

 struggle going on within the White House and executive branch itself 

 over the constitutional and political issues of precisely how much 

 power could or should be delegated by the President to the new 

 advisory apparatus. 



So what do you do when events and rumors are swirling around? 

 Analyze, that's what. Following its usual pattern, the committee staff, 

 with the stalwart assistance of the Science Policy Research Division, 

 bravely tackled the June 1975 hearing record. Mrs. Dorothy M. Bates 

 produced an analysis by title and by witness which showed that there 



