GEMINI AND APOI.I.O 



189 



watered down. As a result, the conference voted to make the amend- 

 ment read: 



It is the sense of Congress that it is in the national interest that consideration be 

 given to geographical distribution of Federal research funds whenever feasible, 

 and that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration should explore ways 

 and means of distributing its research and development funds whenever feasible. 



The conference report, largely through Miller's and Teague's 

 influence, slipped in a sentence indicating that the Senate had "modi- 

 fied the House language to avoid the implication that present govern- 

 mental procurement philosophy, derived as a result of years of expe- 

 rience, will be materially altered by an overriding consideration being 

 given to geographic distribution of Government funds." 



In vain did Roush try to protest that his "very gentle, nudging 

 amendment" was not in any way intended to make geographic distri- 

 bution an "overriding consideration." But Chairman Miller assured 

 Webb that he had little to worry about if he were concerned about 

 the amendment. 



Webb himself, in a letter to Science Committee staff member, 

 Frank R. Hammill, Jr., outlined his philosophy on the amendment: 



To base the award of contracts on geographical considerations, rather than on 

 competition for all companies regardless of location, would be inconsistent with the 

 statutory procurement authority currently applicable to NASA. Moreover, limiting 

 competition to geographical areas might mean that the company with the best capa- 

 bility for a project of importance would not be awarded a contract because of its 

 location. 



It was obvious that NASA quickly put its wagons in a circle, 

 and called on assistance from Capitol Hill whenever the issue of 

 fairer geographic distribution came up. In 1966, when NASA sent up 

 the suggested text of a new authorization bill, the geographic section 

 for some strange reason had been quietly dropped. Although the com- 

 mittee then restored the Roush amendment, in practical fact, given 

 the attitude of NASA and Chairman Miller, it didn't amount to a 

 hill of beans. 



PASSAGE OF THE NASA AUTHORIZATION BILL IN 1965 



The Manned Space Flight Subcommittee made one of its strongest 

 and most convincing presentations on the House floor in 1965- Repre- 

 sentative Alphonzo Bell (Republican of California) went into con- 

 siderable detail to describe how the Committee over the years had 

 pushed hard toward booster capability and rendezvous capability. 

 Representative Don Fuqua (Democrat of Florida) described the 

 process the committee followed in reaching its recommendations: 



