702 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



mack's caliber and dedication available to chair such an important subcommittee 

 at this time. 



MCCORMACK AND ENERGY 



McCormack led into his testimony by describing the energy crisis, 

 and commenting that this had produced a crisis within Congress in 

 organizing to meet it. He pointed out how fragmented authority, 

 dispersed among many committees, had produced confusion and im- 

 potence in the legislative branch. He stated that there was no inte- 

 grated team of top flight scientists, engineers, economists and other 

 specialists working as a unit to tackle the energy crisis. McCormack 

 characterized the response of Congress "insipid," and blamed the 

 nature of the response on the diffused committee structure. He was not 

 bashful in his prescription: 



I believe that these responsibilities logically fall to the Committee on Science 

 and Astronautics. This committee has established a tradition of dealing with tech- 

 nological problems, and of doing so in a scientific manner. 



To bolster his argument, McCormack even drew on the example of the 

 defunct Panel on Science and Technology, which had not met for over 

 a year and which Teague apparently had no intention of reviving. He 

 then presented 52 tightly drawn printed pages of analysis which sup- 

 ported his arguments. The analysis went into deep detail on the current 

 House committee system for energy matters, assessments of that 

 system from the standpoint of efficiency, output, and other criteria of 

 operation, and a complete evaluation of existing committee jurisdic- 

 tions pertaining to energy. There was included an identification and 

 evaluation of alternative jurisdictional systems, along with carefully 

 presented interpretations and conclusions. From the hearings and re- 

 ports of the various House committees, charts were prepared indicating 

 their interests and output in relation to various sources of energy, and 

 why a more centralized jurisdiction made sense. He described the work 

 of his Energy Subcommittee as "constructive, deliberate, sincere, not 

 excessive publicity, and nonpartisan." Much of McCormack's material 

 was drawn from the study which Kratchman had produced while 

 detailed to the committee from the National Science Foundation. 



Teague then wound up the presentation with a challenge that 

 "the House of Representatives must be ready to respond with timely 

 and effective legislation and vigilant oversight." 



The questions were sympathetic, from Boiling, Martin, and other 

 Members. The main thrust of the questions was on oversight, and 

 Teague pointed out the "absence of scandals and overruns" in the space 

 program as an illustration of the value of oversight. Boiling offered 

 a nostalgic reminder of the committee chaired by Teague, on which 

 Boiling has served, which had reviewed the operation of the G.I. Bill 

 of Rights: "That certainly was an oversight operation." 



