\\l\\ NAM] AND EXPANDED AUTHORITY FOR TH1 COMMITTE1 -JH 



difference in the wording of the "special oversight" clauses. The Han- 

 sen committee language read: 



The Committee on St ience and Technology shall have the function of reviewing 

 and studying, on a continuing basis, all laws, programs, and Government activities 

 dealing with or involving nonmilitary research and development. 



The major difference, of course, was that the Hansen committee re- 

 moved any special oversight over military R. & D. from the Science 

 Committee. 



SIMILARITIES IN HANSEN RECOMMENDATIONS 



The big similarities between the Hansen and Boiling recommenda- 

 tions, to the benefit of the Science Committee, were the addition of 

 civil aviation research and development, and environmental research 

 and development. All energy research and development except nuclear 

 (the latter being dropped from the Boiling recommendations by the 

 Hansen committee) was pegged for the Science Committee. This gave 

 the Science Committee pieces of jurisdiction formerly held by Com- 

 merce, Interior, Merchant Marine, and Public Works Committees. 



So far as the nuclear area was concerned, the Hansen report stated: 



Xuclear research and development is specifically excluded, but it seems clear that 

 the jurisdiction of this committee is meant to include those matters relating to non- 

 nuclear research and development presently handled by the AEC labs, for example. 



The Hansen proposals were presented to the Democratic Caucus 

 on July 23, 1974. Unlike the earlier tug-of-war within the caucus, this 

 time by voice vote it was agreed to send both the Hansen and Boiling 

 proposals to the House floor for debate and disposition. An open rule 

 from the Rules Committee also allowed amendments to be presented 

 freely on the floor. But before the Rules Committee voted, there was 

 a vast amount of filibustering as numerous Members who opposed any 

 change at all asked to appear and use up time before the Rules Com- 

 mittee, hoping to prevent any action at all. 



The Science Committee staff was not idle. On September 26, 

 Swigert distributed to all members a huge summary, with charts, of 

 the alternative proposals. On the day the House debate opened, the 

 full committee met for a briefing on the proposals. Finally, on Septem- 

 ber 30, the House commenced its extensive debate and amendment 

 of the plans. 



TEAGUE SPEAKS AGAINST MINORITY STAFF 



As the debate opened, Teague became the first Science Committee 

 member to lob a shell at the Boiling committee. He objected to the 

 requirement that the minority be entitled under the rules to one- 



