Senator JOHNSON. Do you recommend favorable action on this bill? Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes, sir; although I have specific comments on certain features of it.

Senator JOHNSON. We are not going to stop anybody from commenting: I just want the record to show whether you appear here in favor of it, even though with serious reservations.

Mr. MACINTYRE. I appear here in favor of it, subject to reservations as to specific language.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you intend to prepare a memorandum which you will submit to the committee incorporating those recommendations or reservations?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I have no specific recommendations to make, because I am inclined to think that my interpretations may clarify the particular language.

Senator JOHNSON. If there is any language in this bill that you don't approve, I want to invite you to submit any suggested amendments to clarify that language or strengthen it or delete it or add to it, or anything else.

Mr. MACINTYRE. I think my comments will cover that area.
Senator JOHNSON. But you do appear in support of the bill?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I do appear in support of the bill in principle. Senator JOHNSON. Now, let's don't get out on that "principle." What I want to know is are you for or against it?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I am for it, subject to my interpretation of some of the language.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, is it any different? Did somebody interpret it differently?

Mr. MACINTYRE. It could be.

Senator JOHNSON. It could be?

Who?

Mr. MACINTYRE. Well, certain other people.

Senator JOHNSON. Who are "certain other people"?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I think perhaps the Bureau of the Budget might not interpret some of the words as I do.

Senator JOHNSON. Who is the Bureau? That is a pretty general term.

Mr. MACINTYRE. I can't tell you. I only know that a possible agency interpretation could be different than mine.

Senator JOHNSON. Has someone indicated to you that they have another viewpoint on it?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I understand there may be a different interpretation.

Senator JOHNSON. Whom do you understand that from?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I understand that from my discussions with other people in the Defense Department.

Senator JOHNSON. Would you specify those people? I'm going around the mulberry bush here. Do you know who wrote this bill? Mr. MACINTYRE. I don't know who wrote it.

Senator JOHNSON. Did you see it before it was sent up here? Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes, I saw a draft of a bill which was substantially this.

24 HOURS TO CONSIDER BILL

Senator JOHNSON. How long did you see it before it came up here? Mr. MACINTYRE. I think it was over in the Air Force for a day.

30543 O-58-pt. 1-13

Senator JOHNSON. Did you make any comments on it during that day?

Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON. Were they in support of the bill?

Mr. MACINTYRE. They were in support of the bill subject to some changes.

Senator JOHNSON. Were the changes made?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I don't believe so.

Senator JOHNSON. In other words, the bill came to you; you were given 24 hours to consider it; you considered and made some suggestions, they didn't incorporate them and they sent the bill on up just as they sent it to you, is that right?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I'm not sure it was just as they sent it to me. Senator JOHNSON. You are sure as far as your comments are concerned that they weren't incorporated?

Mr. MACINTYRE. That is correct, although some of the comments went to interpretation.

Senator JOHNSON. You say that someone in the Defense Department told you that someone in the Budget Bureau wrote it. Is that as specific as you can be?

Mr. MACINTYRE. That is as specific as I can be, yes.

Senator JOHNSON. Who was it in the Defense Department that told you that somebody in the Bureau of the Budget wrote it?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I couldn't say precisely, because there were a couple of people of whom I inquired at the joint meeting.

Senator JOHNSON. Who were the two?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I discussed this with Mr. Quarles and with Mr. Johnson.

Senator JOHNSON. You discussed it with whom?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I discussed it with Mr. Quarles.

Senator JOHNSON. He is the Deputy Secretary. And who else did you say?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I discussed it with Mr. Johnson and my legislative liaison people.

Senator JOHNSON. So of those three men, you don't remember which one told you that this bill now before the committee was written in the Budget Bureau?

Mr. MACINTYRE. That is correct.

Senator JOHNSON. And they also told you that there was a difference in interpretation between you and the Budget Bureau, is that correct? Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes.

Senator JOHNSON. But you do know who wrote it in the Budget Bureau?

Mr. MACINTYRE. No, I don't.

Senator JOHNSON. And you only had 24 hours in which to consider it. Did they give you any reason why they limited you to 24 hours? Mr. MACINTYRE. No, there wasn't any reason given.

Senator JOHNSON. What did they say?

Mr. MACINTYRE. The Air Force, as is customary when a bill comes up that perhaps may involve them, is given a draft of the bill, and there is set a time limit for comment. It happened that the time limit meant that we had to get it back at the conclusion of this particular day.

Senator JOHNSON. Is that the general practice? Do you always handle things that speedily-within 24 hours?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I can't say that it is.
Senator JOHNSON. Well, is it, or isn't it?
Mr. MACINTYRE. I wouldn't think so, "no."
Senator JOHNSON. Then the answer is "no"?

Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. You are normally more deliberate about other matters?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I have found it so.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you know of any justification for not being deliberate about this one?

Mr. MACINTYRE. I don't know why the time limit was set.
Senator JOHNSON. But you do appear here in favor of the bill?
Mr. MACINTYRE. Yes, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. You may proceed.

Mr. MACINTYRE. I start with sputnik simply because it intensified national concern and symbolized a new age to which we must adjust. This national reaction stemmed, no doubt, from the insecurity almost universally felt throughout the free world.

All this, while a healthy sign, nevertheless created confusion and needed time to place our appraisal of the space age in the proper perspective. Today, our evaluations might be considered more mature perhaps because the presence of our own satellites in the sky has reassured us in a way that mere words-however factual-could never have done. At the same time, I believe you will agree with me that we must not let our meager space efforts lull us into a false sense of security.

With regard to the military aspects, this committee may possibly hear some who cannot visualize the useful military applications of space technology, and who honestly believe that the ballistic missile we know today represents the ultimate in military weapons. The Air Force does not share that view.

In fact, I should like to emphasize a thought that appears to have been overlooked by some who question the usefulness of space for military purposes. I don't know what kind of weapons man will use in future space vehicles, but I do feel reasonably sure that present-day concepts and weapons will not be mated to space traversing vehicles. No one can now foresee all of the military applications that might result from the development of space technology. Historically, it has always taken years to determine all the military applications to be derived from new advances of science. Perhaps this stems mostly from the fact that changes in military concepts, strategy, and tactics usually have to be made in order to exploit major new developments. The current tendency to measure the military value of space flight on the basis of existing warfare concepts can lead to highly erroneous conclusions. I believe that any nation, or combination of nations, that has the capability to perform reconnaissance missions and to deliver destruction to any target on earth, while being able to deny similar capability to its enemy, will have achieved a dominant military position. Today, United States airpower, including missiles, is the free world's primary instrument in seeking this condition while operating within the atmosphere. Operations in space will play a like role in the not too distant future.

The advent of piloted and unmanned space vehicles would appear to provide the ultimate in target accessibility in both peace and war. Today, satellites can enjoy uncontested access to the space above all nations. It might logically follow that the capability to control space or selected portions thereof should become a vital element in insuring peace among the earth nations.

The development of space techniques will in due course provide the military with additional means of observing and striking earth targets; with the only means of destroying space vehicles; andeventually-with the most effective means of counteracting artificial asteroids or bases on other planets. This in turn suggests that a space warfare capability on the part of the United States is vital to the survival of the free world.

We in the Military Establishment sincerely hope that all nations join together in whatever measures need be taken to insure that space is never used for any but peaceful purposes. Until such arrangements are realistically established, however, only our possession of the capability to deny control of space to aggressor nations can guarantee liberty to the free nations and insure the anticipated benefits of space to all. In a very general sense, freedom of space might be considered analogous to freedom of the seas. In the past when military capability to control the seas was exercised by peacuful nations, people everywhere profited.

My point is that we must seek out every possible means of acquiring a military capability to control space-or to deny that capability to an enemy. Unless we do this, we may well lose our present deterrent potential to an aggressor who has no inhibitions about using space for its own self-aggrandizement. At the same time, in searching out both peaceful and military useful aspects of space, we will learn more about our earth, the solar system, and the universe. And, undoubtedly, man will benefit from new and amazing discoveries. Since I am not a scientist, I will not pretend to tell you how mankind will benefit; but past history assures us that research and exploration have consistently paid off in betterment of the human race.

With that thought, let me now turn to the proposed legislation to create a national agency for research and exploration in space areas not immediately recognizable as a matter of primary concern to the military departments.

In the varied reactions that arose after sputnik's I and II, it appeared for a while that space technology might be considered a completely new science and that yet undevised agencies would have to be established to implement our national effort. I am glad to see that calmness and logic have now prevailed; and we have come to the realization that the basic tools for this task are already, for the most part, at hand in governmental agencies, science, and industry. Actually, the principal task we now face is to augment and reorient these tools in certain respects, select the most profitable avenues to pursue, provide adequate resources on a continuing basis, and coordinate properly the work of the many agencies involved.

In that respect the legislation now before the Congress calling for the redesignation, reorientation, and increased responsibilities of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics as the National Aeronautics and Space Agency is a most logical action.

It is logical from many viewpoints. First, because there is no clearcut division, per se, between the atmosphere and space, the NACA already is well into the astronautical sciences. Secondly, the NACA already is an operating organization and thus we need not incur the delay of creating an entirely new capability. Actually, the word "Advisory" in the NACA title has been misleading for many years. The NACA operates many laboratories and high-performance aircraft, and tests guided missiles and various components. Only a small portion of their efforts is devoted to study-type research.

The NACA truly has much to offer as a national space agency. In over 40 years, it has proved countless times a capability to accomplish highly complex basic and applied research as well as a unique capability to devise, design, and construct new research tools. Today, the NACA operates facilities worth more than $300 million, the bulk of which are applicable to space technology.

The NACA possesses a well-balanced team of competent professional personnel. They command well-deserved national respect from the Director down to the lowest level laboratory working technicians. But, perhaps even more important, they have established a fine working relationship with the military services, scientific fraternities, and industry. In my opinion, we could not make a better choice than the NACA as the foundation for our national space research and exploration agency.

Senator JOHNSON. Just a minute. Let's go just a little bit slower. I want you to repeat that.

Mr. MACINTYRE. I cannot urge too strongly that the Congress act favorably on proper legislation that will redesignate the NACA as the National Aeronautics and Space Agency and increase the scope of its mission and responsibilities in a commensurate manner. With regards to the bill now being considered by this committee, I should like to comment specifically on two of its provisions.

First, I understand the meaning of the bill is that the Department of Defense is not unduly restricted from undertaking basic research related to defense missions. The bill as now written recites in the second sentence of section 2 that this new agency would undertake all space research "except insofar as such activities may be peculiar to our primarily associated weapons systems or military operations,' and then goes on to state that in this area of exception "the agency may act in cooperation with, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense." I want to make clear that our understanding of the intent of this policy expressed in the bill is that, in the broad twilight zone of dual usefulness, the two agencies should operate in close mutual cooperation with each other, under overall executive direction, without domination of either over the other, and subject always to the budgetary scrutiny and control of the Congress.

I assume secondly that the provision in section 2 that not less than one board member is to be from the Department of Defense is truly minimal and that under normal circumstances there would be more representation from the service areas to create a greater ability for formulation of a balanced approach to programs.

We are entering an era of vast technological advancements. For example, landing on the moon and travel to the planets far beyond is now only a matter of years ahead.