698 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



The entire issue came to a head at the start of the 92d Congress 

 in 1971. Symington, going into his second term in the House, had made 

 his mark as an active participant in committee affairs. Genial, co- 

 operative, imaginative, with a sharp sense of humor, one of the two 

 father-and-son teams in the Congress (Symington and Goldwater, 

 whose fathers were both in the Senate), Symington had a high standing 

 in the scientific community as well. Symington mentioned to Dr. 

 William D. McElroy, Director of the National Science Foundation, 

 that he had been offered a vacancy on the House Interstate and Foreign 

 Commerce Committee. Symington told Dr. McElroy that he probably 

 would have to leave the Science Committee because of the Democratic 

 caucus rule which prohibited him from serving on more than one major 

 committee. In an unusual gesture of support for a Congressman who 

 sat on the other side of the witness table during NSF hearings by the 

 Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development of which 

 Symington was a member, Dr. McElroy mentioned to Miller and 

 Davis how unfortunate it would be if the rules prevented Symington 

 from continuing on the Science Committee. Since Interstate and 

 Foreign Commerce gave Symington the leverage he needed in his home 

 district in Missouri, he was prepared to leave the Science Committee. 



HOW THE COMMITTEE BECAME "nONMAJOR" 



What subsequently transpired is very clear: The Science Com- 

 mittee in 1971 was redesignated as a nonmajor committee and 

 Symington was able to serve on both committees of his choice. 

 Exactly how and precisely when this deed was accomplished has been 

 lost in the fading memory of the participants, and the lack of precise 

 documentation. Speaker McCormack, who relinquished his office at 

 the end of 1970, and Speaker Albert, who took office in 1971, both 

 served on the Science Committee and did not in 1978 recollect the 

 move. Neither the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 

 (Representative Wilbur D. Mills — Democrat of Arkansas) nor his 

 staff director, John M. Martin, Jr., recall the circumstances, although 

 Chairman Mills remembers it was done to accommodate one of the 

 Members who wished to serve on two committees. Neither the 

 Parliamentarian's Office, the Democratic Steering and Policy Com- 

 mittee (which inherited from the Ways and Means Committee the 

 power to recommend committee designations and assignments) nor 

 the Democratic caucus have a record of how it happened. Nor do 

 Miller or Teague recall the precise chain of events which caused the 

 redesignation of the committee. 



One senior subcommittee chairman, Karth, has a very vivid recol- 

 lection of his reaction to the move. Karth was furious that Miller, as 



