640 HKI'ORY Ol nil COMMITTEE ON SCIENCJ AND TECHNOLOGY 



that the idea first occurred to the person whose name was on the 

 press release. 



A tew minutes after the hearing had opened on October 9, 

 Wydler said he understood Teague had the President's "approval or 

 concurrence with the hill as it now stands." Mosher responded: 



Mr. Teague and I have personal letters from the White House and his personal 

 assurances that he very much approves the piece of legislation before us. 



Teague then quoted the second paragraph in President Ford's letter: 



Members of my staff and I have reviewed the September 16th version of the sub- 

 stitute bill, H.R. 9058, developed by you and Congressman Mosher. This bill, while 

 somewhat different from the one I submitted on June 6, is acceptable and I will support 

 it if your committee and the full House approve it essentially as it now stands. I 

 also want to thank you and Congressman Mosher for your leadership on this matter 

 and for the cooperative manner in which our staffs have been able to work on the 

 bill. 



Teague was his usual blunt self when he presented the bill to the 

 full committee: 



For those of you that don't know this, this bill has been kicked around in this 

 committee for three years. This has been between the executive branch and the com- 

 mittee. It contains almost the same language as what the White House wants. We 

 worked very closely with them and the whole scientific community. We have a bill 

 that is satisfactory to them, provided there are no major changes. I hope we can pass 

 this bill as is. This would give us a basis to work from. Next year, if we need to change 

 it, we will have hearings and take up any changes anybody wants to make. 



Mosher labeled the legislation "the product of the initiatives from 

 this committee" plus the request from President Ford. He added: 



I think we have developed a piece of legislation that is extremely important to 

 the Nation and to the whole science and technology community. I agree with you, 

 that it would be best if we used restraint in our processing of, and the development 

 of, this bill. I hope we can maintain it largely as it comes to us. 



When the committee met on October 9, the members were in a 

 compromising mood. McCormack announced: 



In deference to the leadership of the committee, I have agreed to this modest 

 approach, simply to request the committee that is created to include this concept in 

 its overall studies. 



Although Brown agreed merely to mention "long-range planning" 

 in the bill, he insisted on including extensive "Additional Views" at 

 the back of the committee report. In his separate views, Brown again 

 argued strongly that more stress on long-range planning should be 

 placed in the bill. He incorporated the arguments he had previously 

 made, plus the language of the Academy of Sciences and AAAS recom- 

 mendations. With these minor variations, the bill was unanimously 

 reported by the full committee on October 9. 



