S( ii m I i\ mi wim i hoi 51 



629 



The committee drafting team showed considerable political savvy- 

 in putting together both the bill and supporting material. When it 

 was discovered that Rockefeller would be assembling recommenda- 

 tions for the President, the committee staff had CRS analyze Rocke- 

 feller's statements and record on science policy. Unearthed was the 

 fact that Rockefeller as Governor had made an extensive "Statement 

 of National Science Policy" on August 4, 1968. The memorandum to 

 Cannon slyly pointed out that Rockefeller had proposed a Council of 

 Science Advisers, adding: 



That proposal had been studied with interest. There would appear to be some 

 similarity between the draft provision outlined here and Mr. Rockefeller's proposals 

 in 1968. There are, of course, obvious differences. 



THE FIRST TEAGUE-MOSHER BILL 



The committee draft bill, calling for a five-member Council of 

 Advisers on Science and Technology similar to the Council of Eco- 

 nomic Advisers, was introduced by Teague and Mosher on March 6, 

 1975. In announcing the introduction of their bill, Teague and Mosher 

 issued a joint public statement emphasizing that their bill should be 

 considered neither a fixed position nor a final product. They added 

 they wanted to invite commentary and criticism in all forums. In a 

 statement on the House floor, Teague was very modest in pointing 

 out that the bill was not by any means "cast in concrete." Unlike so 

 many sponsors of legislation who contend that their panacea will cure 

 all the ills of the world, Teague repeatedly noted that he was simply 

 offering the bill for "discussion and critique," and there would be 

 additional committee hearings later to air everybody's views. He 

 characterized as "wheel-spinning" the process of forcing a science 

 advisory mechanism on the President, which the latter might find 

 distasteful or foreign to his mode of operation. 



Yet along with the modesty and humility, there was pride in 

 Teague's recital of the years of careful background work which had 

 preceded the introduction of the Teague-Mosher bill. Teague told the 

 House: 



I do not believe it is an exaggeration to describe this legislation as a product 

 of the most thorough congressional scrutiny yet accorded to the focused issue of 

 policy and planning by the Federal Government as to its own role in handling 

 science and technology. 



Teague mentioned the 2,500 pages of testimony, data, findings, and 

 recommendations which had helped firm up the foundations of the 

 legislation. He sketched in how important it was to provide a statutory 

 base to bring order and stability to the Government's use of science 

 and technology. He pointed out that science and technology are an 



