514 HISTORY OF THF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



As the 94th Congress opened in 1975, the following were assigned 

 to the Symington subcommittee: 



Democrats Republicans 



James W. Symington, Missouri, Chairman Charles A. Mosher, Ohio 

 Don Fuqua, Florida Marvin L. Esch, Michigan 



Walter Flowers, Alabama William M. Ketchum, California 



Mike McCormack, Washington David F. Emery, Maine 



George E. Brown, Jr., California 

 Ray Thornton, Arkansas 

 James H. Scheuer, New York 

 Tom Harkin, Iowa 

 Jim Lloyd, California 

 Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut 

 Tim L. Hall, Illinois 

 Robert (Bob) Krueger, Texas 

 Marilyn Lloyd, Tennessee 

 Timothy L. Wirth, Colorado 



It was the largest number of members — 18 — in the history of the 

 subcommittee. 



On January 24, the year started innocently enough with Symington 

 announcing oversight hearings on the NSF science education. He ex- 

 pressed concern over the reduction in science education support over a 

 10-year period, from $120 million down to $74 million, at a time when 

 the total NSF budget was increasing about 60 percent. In opening the 

 hearings, Symington also called attention to the reorientation in 

 emphasis: 



Funds for fellowships, summer institutes, and similar activities have been cut 

 back, while research and development activities, such as curriculum development, 

 have been allowed to grow. 



NSF EDUCATION PROGRESS IN 1975 



In a special report to the committee by the NSF entitled "The 

 Future of the National Science Foundation's Education Programs," 

 the NSF identified the following problems: 



—Increasing the number of women and minorities in scientific 

 and engineering careers; 



— Maintaining the vitality of the Nation's science faculty in the 

 face of decreasing enrollments and fewer employment oppor- 

 tunities; 



—Providing engineering and scientific manpower for emerging 

 needs such as energy, resource development, materials, pro- 

 ductivity, and food; and 



—Increasing citizen understanding of science as society is in- 

 creasingly involved in decisionmaking on scientific and tech- 

 nological alternatives. 



