1 gg HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



As will be noted in the next chapter, political considerations also 

 certainly accompanied NASA's decision to build an Electronics Re- 

 search Center adjoining MIT in Cambridge, Mass. 



Other geographical prizes soon surfaced. Mississippi's Senator 

 John Stennis was understandably pleased that a test facility had been 

 established in his State, thus making more inviting his task of ap- 

 proving NASA's appropriations through the subcommittee that he 

 chaired. In 1961, Science Committee Chairman Overton Brooks was 

 upset that the Michoud launch vehicle assembly plant was located 

 near New Orleans (Representative F. Edward Hebert's district) in- 

 stead of Shreveport, but at least it was located in Louisiana. 



The lion's share of contracts went to the coastal States, and as 

 the have-nots began to grumble in the early 1960's, the haves polished 

 up their rhetoric. "This is no WPA program," Chairman Miller 

 frequently commented, pointing out that even if California were well 

 endowed with space installations, his own congressional district was 

 not being benefited. The coastal States pointed to the need for water 

 transportation and argued on the lofty plane of taxpayer and national 

 interest, demeaning those "grubby" Congressmen who would stoop 

 to snatch at "pork." 



The case for fairer distribution of NASA's billions did not come 

 out in the open until 1964. It was sparked by hearings held in Dad- 

 dario's Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development. Repre- 

 sentative Roush started his long fight in 1964. At his own expense, 

 he visited the northeastern office of NASA in Boston, and discovered 

 that NASA personnel were being used to go out and assist contractors 

 and universities in that region to formulate proposals leading to 

 NASA contracts. Roush also pointed out that there was a western 

 regional office which served the same purpose on the Pacific coast, 

 and that Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana were 

 well-represented by NASA installations in those States. He urged that 

 more balanced attention be given to the Middle West. 



In an executive session of the committee on March 17, 1964, 

 Chairman Miller castigated Roush with this comment: 



I will say, Mr. Roush, I hate to think of NASA and its activity being put on a 

 parochial ground for any one section or sections of the country. * * * My own section 

 of the country has less work in it than the State of Indiana. 



In 1965, Roush did a lot of missionary work and lined up enough 

 support in the committee to incorporate his amendment into the 

 authorization bill. The bill with the Roush amendment passed the 

 House of Representatives. 



When the conference committee met, NASA officials approached 

 the conferees and urged that the amendment either be deleted or 



