SCIEN< I i\ i HE \\ in II in 'i SI 613 



Davis and Moshcr, as chairman and ranking minority member of 

 the Science Subcommittee, were anxious to proceed to hold formal 

 hearings on the implications of the plan. According to Yeager, in a 

 May 3 memo to Teague: 



Indications are strong that people are anxious to he hearj on the matter- 

 scientists, engineers, industry representatives, government representatives, econo- 

 mists, educators, etc. They are looking lor a Federal forum. 



Yeager recommended to Teague that the subcommittee proceed with 

 hearings in mid-June or July, as a logical followup to the national 

 science policy hearings which the subcommittee had held in 1970: 



The subcommittee has, in fact, been awaiting an occasion for a followup; the 

 current situation offers an excellent one. 



At about the same time, Teague was asked to testify before the 

 Boiling Select Committee on Committees (see chapter XV). During 

 his appearance before the Boiling committee, Teague pointed out the 

 strong need for "a central focal point in the Congress where the 

 complete Federal program in support of scientific research and develop- 

 ment is studied and reviewed each year." He added: 



Until Congress is enabled to see this picture in its totality, legislation endeavor- 

 ing to deal with Federal support for R. & D. — and that is a sizable endeavor amount- 

 ing to some $17 billion per year — will necessarily be a patchwork affair containing a 

 large element of guesswork. 



FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS 



Chairman Teague decided that the issue was important enough to 

 hold hearings in the full committee, rather than the subcommittee. 

 Unlike Davis and Hechler, who shook their fists angrily at the White 

 House for what they deemed to be ill-advised actions which down- 

 graded the importance of science and technology, Teague and other 

 senior members of the committee took a very calm and equable ap- 

 proach. On July 5, 1973, Teague announced that the committee would 

 begin a "comprehensive inquiry into Federal policy, plans and or- 

 ganization for the support and utilization of science and technology" — 

 scarcely a very provocative introduction. Teague stated that one of the 

 purposes of the inquiry was to ascertain the effect of the reorganization 

 on the National Science Foundation; this was about as bland a state- 

 ment as you could make on a move which had rocked the scientific 

 community. When he opened the hearings on July 17, Teague an- 

 nounced that the first phase "will be devoted primarily to eliciting 

 information on the background and status of the current Federal 

 posture on science and technology." That too was a statement carefully 

 calculated not to raise any hackles downtown. There was a method 

 in Teague's approach : he wanted to be sure that out of the action of the 



