Senator JOHNSON. So you were another one of those officials who were asked to comment on this bill as it whizzed through the Department in 24 hours.

Secretary BRUCKER. That is correct. I was asked to comment in that period for the Army.

Senator JOHNSON. How long was General Medaris given to make his comments and suggestions?

Secretary BRUCKER. I am not acquainted with the time that he had nor when it was; but he was not present during that 24 hours. He was at the Huntsville Arsenal.

Senator JOHNSON. Did he submit any comments to your knowledge? Secretary BRUCKER. Not to my knowledge.

Senator JOHNSON. Would he have submitted any without your knowledge?

Secretary BRUCKER. I think not.

Senator JOHNSON. The answer is he did not submit any comments? Secretary BRUCKER. None that I know of, sir.

Senator JOHNSON. You say:

We could all live with it if its legislative history allows us to construe it properly. Is that a polite invitation to us to rewrite it, to revise it? Secretary BRUCKER. No. What I mean precisely, or a little better on that was this: The clause that I have reference to, or the clauses, have to do with the section 2 of the bill that states the amount of authority that should be granted to the Director or to the Space Agency and then makes reference to the Department of Defense, and it is in that context that I made this comment that I think that is the crux of that part, and that an interpretation of that would be most important and helpful.

But I think what Let us leave it all up

Senator JOHNSON. I quite agree with you. amazes me is that you say "papa knows best." to the Executive and let time adjust things. It seems to me that on a subject as important as this is, it shouldn't be left up to interpretation. We should write some definite language in the bill that will set the pattern to be followed. And that seems to be what officials are suggesting in a polite but not very definite way.

Secretary BRUCKER. May I make reference

Senator JOHNSON. Maybe it is because of that 24-hour limitation or maybe it is just party line, but what I am trying to find out is whether you people that are going to live with this thing and are going to have such great and far-reaching responsibilities under it, really embrace and recommend this bill and whether you think it is the best product that ingenious minds in the Defense Department can produce.

Now, our information is that you got a bill from the Budget Bureau. You were asked for comments within 24-hours. You submitted them and we got the same bill up here without any substantial corrections. Is that your information?

Secretary BRUCKER. I don't have all of that direct, but I do have the information direct that it went to the General Counsel of our Department and then back, within 24 hours, to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense. And I assume from what I have heard, but I don't know it, of course, that it went back from him directly within the short period to the Bureau of the Budget.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, now, you don't think it would be wise for Congress to shoot this bill through the Congress as fast as you got it through the Department, do you?

Secretary BRUCKER. No. I don't ask any 24 hours on the bill. Senator JOHNSON. Now on your comments, have you seen any of them reflected in a rewrite of the bill that came to you?

Secretary BRUCKER. As to any comments, they were technical comments that were made-I think by the Judge Advocate General, as I recall and I think there were some of those that were adopted. I didn't compare it, but I am quite sure that some were adopted. They were technical matters entirely.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, the Department of the Army under your direction has accepted the bill prepared by the Bureau of the Budget with only a few technical corrections.

Secretary BRUCKER. We reported favorably on it and sent it back that way.

Senator JOHNSON. With only a few technical corrections.

Secretary BRUCKER. That is right.

Senator JOHNSON. And you made no other suggestions.

Secretary BRUCKER. No other suggestions were made at that time. Senator JOHNSON. Have you made any since?

Secretary BRUCKER. I have in discussion, and have discussed the matter.

Senator JOHNSON. To what effect?

Secretary BRUCKER. But no recommendations with respect to any changes. I have discussed it, of course, with those who are in authority in the Department of Defense. That I have done-with Secretary Quarles.

Senator JOHNSON. What additional suggestions have you made?

Secretary BRUCKER. Nothing except that my attention has been focused rather directly on the language in section 2 of the bill, lines 4 to 10 inclusive, which has to do with the Director of the Space Agency and the relationship with the Department of Defense. I have been endeavoring to resolve in my mind the interpretation of that without legislative counsel or statement on it. That has been the matter that has intrigued me.

Senator JOHNSON. Could that be made clearer in your opinion? Secretary BRUCKER. I think it might be made clearer but if it is properly interpreted, I think we could live with it perfectly all right.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFYING LANGUAGE

Senator JOHNSON. It is probably too important a matter to guess on some interpretation. If you think the language of the bill could be made clearer, would you give us the benefit of any written suggestions you think would clarify it as far as the Army is concerned?

Secretary BRUCKER. I would be glad to do that.

May I state to you what I have in the back of my mind here on it, because I think any help I can give you, I ought to do it.

As it is written here, there isn't any doubt about the fact that there is somebody who could question just where the relationship between the Department of Defense and the Space Agency Director-what that relationship would be. There might be those who might argue that the Department of Defense is wholly independent of the Space Agency

and that it doesn't owe allegiance, liaison, or otherwise, to it on those things which are primarily military in nature.

On the other hand, if I were given the bill, which I am, to give you a very plain answer on, I would say that with the history that I have so far, that it is little clearer than that, and that it might not be necessary to question that; because I believe that the intent of the whole act is to give to the new Space Agency a rather transcending position in the field. It is my belief that what is intended or was intended was to give to the Space Agency a surveillance that would be overall; and that, while the Department of Defense and its military objectives were recognized. they were not expected to be primary, as against the surveillance of the Space Agency.

I think that that is something that I should call to your attention. Senator JOHNSON. How do you think the bill should be written? Secretary BRUCKER. I think it should be written so it is clear, if there is any doubt that it is that way.

I think it should be a civilian agency with civilian direction and civilian surveillance that should not be exclusive of military interests. The Agency should take into consideration the military interests but should have an overall surveillance, taking into consideration all of the objectives of space and not being able to cut off Defense, but to take into consideration those things which are bona fide, legitimate, defense vehicles or agencies or projects. If there is any dispute about the matter, then that can be resolved just the way interdepartmental

matters are now.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, now, with that thought in mind, would you try to suggest language to us that will clarify that particular point as you think it should be, and submit it in writing so that we may consider it in our executive session to mark up the bill.

Secretary BRUCKER. I would be happy to.

Senator JOHNSON. It is your responsibility to defend the country. Would this bill as written-I am not talking about how it may be interpreted-would this bill as written interfere with you in carrying out that responsibility in any manner?

Secretary BRUCKER. I don't think it will interfere with it.

I might raise a question as to where that interpretation would leave it, but I don't think it would interfere with it. I think we would go right ahead full steam with what we are doing.

Senator JOHNSON. Have you talked to General Medaris about this bill and the conflicting interpretations that might be placed on it? Secretary BRUCKER. I talked to him briefly at the time of his testimony before the House committee, and General Medaris has already testified there, and I refer you to that testimony. And that was the sole time that I talked with him in my office.

Senator JOHNSON. I wonder if you would be willing to do this: To consult with him further before you make any recommendations and then submit them to us in writing. We ask you this not for the purpose of having a conflict between the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force, and the executive or the judiciary or anybody else, but in order that we can get the best product of the best minds that we have. We are trying to give this country the type of development that it has the right to expect from our system.

Secretary BRUCKER. I will be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. (The material appears at the end of Mr. Brucker's testimony.)

30543 O-58-pt. 1–15

DRAFTING OF THE BILL

Senator JOHNSON. You know in times past the executive branch has relied very heavily on studies by commissions in connection with reorganization problems and problems involving Government organizations.

Do you know whether any experts such as the Hoover Commission were consulted in connection with this Agency?

Secretary BRICKER. I do not.

Senator JOHNSON. What is the name of the person that wrote the bill?

Secretary BRUCKER. I don't know.

Senator JOHNSON. You don't even know who wrote the bill?

Secretary BRUCKER. No; I do not know it.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you know where it was written?

Secretary BRUCKER. No; I do not.

Senator JOHNSON. Have you ever heard where it came from?

Secretary BRUCKER. I have heard rumors.

Senator JOHNSON. What were the rumors?

Secretary BRUCKER. I have heard rumors that Dr. Killian was very much interested in this, but that is merely a rumor. I did not confirm it in any way.

Senator JOHNSON. Well, I have heard rumors that he is very much interested in this whole field. But did you hear rumors that he had anything to do with drafting the bill?

Secretary BRUCKER. No; I did not, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. But you have heard he is interested in this general subject.

Secretary BRUCKER. Yes; not only interested in it, but is following it very closely.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you know whether he has approved the bill as written?

Secretary BRUCKER. I do not. I have had no discussions with Dr. Killian about it.

DIVIDING PROJECTS INTO MILITARY AND CIVILIAN

Senator JOHNSON. In your opinion, can the work on satellites that you are now doing in Huntsville, Ala., be divided between civilian and military aspects?

Secretary BRUCKER. Well, that is something I would like to confer with General Medaris on, project by project.

I am certainly sure that it can go along with a space agency in which civilian leadership is primary.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think the right way to go about this space problem is to divide it between civilian or military, or do you think there are some areas where it can't be divided, such as hardware and scientific personnel?

Secretary BRUCKER. I think there are areas, Mr. Chairman, where it cannot be divided-where there has got to be an allocation or a placement of the project with the military. And vice versa.

I think there are some projects that the military have been doing that can very properly be placed as a project with the NASA.

Senator JOHNSON. In your experience, does it make any difference to a scientist whether he is working on a scientific experiment within the Department of Defense or outside?

Secretary BRUCKER. Your question is: Is there a difference between them?

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think it makes any difference to him whether he is working within the Department of Defense or outside the Department of Defense, just so long as it is a scientific experiment? Does the organization have anything to do with it, in other words, so far as he is concerned?

Secretary BRUCKER. Well, ordinarily, no. "yes."

But in this may I add

I think the scientists that work with the organization at Huntsville and in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, as an illustration, work much better as a team than they do alone.

It has been my experience with them that that team concept improves each man and makes him more powerful than if he were alone. In other words, their contribution to the whole is very much better under General Medaris or-let us put General Medaris out of the picture there together. I am very sure that General Medaris adds to that.

Senator JOHNSON. In your opinion, should the Department of Defense, through ARPA, be permitted to continue advanced research which cannot be labeled precisely at the present time as military or civilian?

Secretary BRUCKER. I would think that ARPA very properly has enough to engage its interest in those things which are military. Senator JOHNSON. And should not be allowed to handle anything that can properly be interpreted as civilian.

Secretary BRUCKER. May I just say this about that:

I don't know what projects they have. I am not well enough acquainted.

I would think basically that that is the way to look at it. But I wouldn't want to say that the projects they have don't have some military interest or something which may so eventuate.

I have heard it said that it may start off to look very much like a civilian project but that later on there is a breaking of a barrier and they find it has a very, very good military interest.

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Saltonstall?

Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CIVILIAN COOPERATION

Mr. Brucker, the chairman has gone into the question of civilian administrative cooperation, as has also your statement, so I will not go into that except to say that I understand that you believe that the military and the civilians can cooperate and should cooperate; and that precedence will not be given to the civilian or to the military, but that they will go along together cooperatively.

Is that a fair interpretation?

Secretary BRUCKER. Yes, that is a fair interpretation of my impression.

Senator SALTONSTALL. All right.