SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TIC HNOLOGY, 1970-79 519 



to the floor under these circumstances, Conlan would offer an anti- 

 MACOS amendment and there would be a divisive tight which might 

 even defeat the NSF bill. 



A pragmatic man, Teague took a drastic move to try and minimize 

 the serious opposition. After consultation with the House Parlia- 

 mentarian, with subcommittee Chairman Symington and with Mosher, 

 the ranking Republican on the committee, Teague arose in the House- 

 on March 17 and obtained unanimous consent to have the NSF bill 

 recommitted to the committee. Then he immediately called a full 

 committee meeting for March 19- Each committee member was given 

 a copy of a 4-page letter from Dr. Stever, indicating that he was with- 

 holding any further support from MACOS "and any other precollege 

 science course developments" until a thorough review by "a top-level 

 group" inside and outside NSF. 



MACOS DEBATED IN FULL COMMITTEE MEETING 



Ottinger protested the hearing itself on these grounds: 



I find myself deeply concerned about this hearing because I think it evidences an 

 intent of us as Members of Congress to try to censor the content of a program that we 

 have authorized, and I think that is an inappropriate action for us to take. * * * This 

 seems to me an idea which tramples on the First Amendment of the Constitution. 



Wydler shot back : 



1 find that an amazing statement. We are going to provide money, it seems to me, 

 and we have some responsibility how it is spent and what it is spent for. I keep assur- 

 ing the people of my district I will trv to maintain some oversight as a Member of 

 Congress on how the money is spent. That is their money, and I intend as long as I 

 am here to do this, whether it is called censorship or anything else. 



Teague recognized Conlan, who savored a victory of sorts: 



Mr. Chairman, apparently since our last meeting there have been some substantial 

 second thoughts in the National Science Foundation, as to the program in question, 

 as to the qualification and granting of funds to their entire social sciences educational 

 grants — and not to mention this specific educational program. 



During a colloquy with Symington, Conlan indicated that he 

 would wait to see what the National Science Board did with the 

 MACOS issue before making up his own mind whether or not to offer 

 a MACOS amendment on the House floor. It was a clever move, 

 because Conlan knew he could focus more national attention on a 

 floor fight rather than a committee fight. 



Myers offered an amendment to require NSF to inform local com- 

 munities through public notices and offer for public inspection mate- 

 rials which might be used in connection with such courses. The com- 

 mittee rejected the amendment on the grounds that this involved 



