TASK FORC1 AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, 1971 633 



for a meeting between the subcommittee chairmen and ranking minor- 

 ity members and Ash and his aides, Tcague wrote the OMB Director a 

 four-page letter on March 18, 1974. The letter detailed in an inquiring 

 and objective fashion a large number of questions of basic interpreta- 

 tion necessary before the committee tackled the NASA and NSF 

 authorization bills. There were questions like how far should NASA 

 go in developing energy technology, what should be the ratio between 

 applied and basic research in NASA, and how far toward development 

 and demonstration should NSF take its support of applied research 

 projects. Teague opened up the issue of solar energy R. & D. beyond 

 heating and cooling — including solar thermal, wind energy, bio- 

 conversion, ocean thermal and photovoltaics. He argued: 



NSF, to my knowledge, did not request this money or responsibility originally 

 from OMB. It was an add-on, evidently ordered by OMB. NSF has little experience 

 for handling applied research, demonstration projects, prototype development, etc. 

 In fact, it has no statutory authority for doing any development. * * * NASA does 

 have the managerial, as well as both scientific and technological expertise to handle 

 the programs — plus existing equipment and facilities. * * * Satellite solar power is 

 a space program in itself, and is not presently funded. 



It was an unusual meeting. Although everybody assembled in the 

 main committee room and there was a reporter with a stenotype mak- 

 ing a record, it was not labelled an "executive session." It was given 

 the simple title of "informal meeting" — perhaps so the committee 

 could claim at the end of Congress that all its meetings and hearings 

 had been open. Yet for the purposes of absolutely frank discussion, it 

 could not have been otherwise. The meeting lasted for over two hours, 

 with Ash staying for the first thirty minutes, and his assistants Frank 

 Zarb and William McCormick filling in after his departure. 



The following senior committee members made observations and 

 asked questions during the historic March 20 meeting with OMB: 

 Teague, Mosher, Hechler, Davis, Wydler, Bell, Fuqua, Winn, McCor- 

 mack, Frey and Cronin. Ash once again defended NSF as the logical 

 spot to handle solar research activity, because "there is no ERDA 

 (and) NSF does have a running start." McCormack rebutted that the 

 issue had been discussed for weeks in his subcommittee and full com- 

 mittee, concluding: 



When you get to the point you need a demonstration program, NSF is simply not 

 constituted either by its organizational structure or by its management to carry the 

 program out. This is exactly where we broke away from your budget proposals and 

 said that if you are going to get the job done, instead of just carrying on endless 

 research, if you are going to solve the energy problem, we have to put this particular 

 program someplace where there is competent management, personnel, mission- 

 oriented organization to carry it forward. * * * Roy, 1 think that if I may in all sin- 

 cerity and with complete respect suggest that in all of your thinking about this 



