— 4 HISTORY OF TH1 COMMITTEE ON SCIENC1 AND I I ( HNOLOGY 



Milford responded that the amendments were "ones that will fly" 

 and Winn did not press his opposition any farther. The two items on 

 the east and west coasts involved starting a trans-sonic research tunnel 

 .u Langle) And modifying the subsonic wind tunnel at Ames. Although 

 the two items survived the House, the Langley item was knocked out 

 m conference, and the Ames project survived. 



Milford submitted a useful table in his report to the full com- 

 mittee, tracing the history of aeronautics funding from the beginning 

 of NASA. The revealing statistics showed that an average of only 

 4 " percent of the grand total of NASA budgets had been spent on 

 aeronautical R. & D. Milford also criticized the fact that aeronautical 

 K & D. had not been accorded "sufficiently high priority," and that 

 facilities for this purpose had basically been built in the 1940's. In 

 the absence of Teague, Hechler was presiding, and Wydler commented: 



I subscribe to the committee view, Mr Chairman. I think in fairness to the 

 former committee chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and meaning yourself, 

 and the emphasis you put on getting NASA to pay proper attention to the aero- 

 nautics part of the budget, it should be pointed out that although these overall 

 figures are as staled, the fact of the matter is that from 1963, when I first came to 

 this committee and I think about that time Mr. Hechler became the chairman of 

 i he subcommittee- only about 1.3 percent of the NASA budget was being applied 

 to aeronautical R. lV D. We have reached the point now where it is 9.6 percent in 

 the current fiscal year. 



DEVELOPING FUTURE PLANS 



On May 6, 1975, the subcommittee assembled to discuss future 

 plans for the calendar year, including the following: 



Overview hearings of the Department of Transportation R. & D., to determine 

 objectives, allocations and problems. 



Oversight extending through a 20-month future period to determine the inter- 

 relationships between NASA, FAA, Department of Defense and industrv in conduct- 

 ing aeronautical R. & D, and whether overall objectives are being pursued effectively. 



Oversight on aircraft noise R. & D. 



Review and outlook for aeronautics to the year 2000. 



Aviation safety. 



Milford indicated that the concentration in 1975 would be on the 

 major oversight review of all Government-sponsored aeronautical 

 R. & D. He reached an agreement with the House Public Works 

 Committee, of which he was a member, that the R. & D. portion of 

 the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1975 would be reviewed 

 by the subcommittee. Milford seemed unsure of his ground, although 

 the 1974 reforms were very explicit. He told his subcommittee: 



It was one of those shady areas jurisdictional^ thai we were not sure of, as 

 there are some others under this new reorganization plan. The negotiation with 

 Public Works resulted in agreeing that this was under our jurisdiction 



