« 이전계속 »
would be better to have it in general language, put the implications in there that we are going to touch base with the different departments; and, if you do get into the realm of restricted information or top secret, and so on, to have that portion of it state, just as the Atomic Energy Act does, what must be the basis of clearance and the prosecution for any violation of it, and so forth. But leave the overall guidance pretty general.
Senator MUNDT. I concur completely in that type of analysis of how you would operate in the international field.
That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator GREEN. Mr. Secretary, unless you have something you wish to add-Mr. Counsel?
ARMY RELATIONSHIP TO NACA
Mr. WEISL. Mr. Secretary, I have one question. In your statement you say:
I believe the Department of Defense should be assured the same working relationship with the proposed NASA as it now has with the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics.
Now, would your attitude toward this bill be different if the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics were not transferred to this new Space Agency? Secretary BRUCKER. It is transferred, of course, to the
Mr. WEISL. It is transferred, but would your attitude be different if it wasn't transferred?
Secretary BRUCKER. Well, I haven't thought of that, but I
Mr. WEISL. Because there is no assurance in this bill that the same members will continue. It does transfer the members until their successors are appointed, but then the President can choose whatever members he wants on the Advisory Committee.
Secretary BRUCKER. No. I think-
Secretary BRUCKER. I think that is one leg of the chair on which I am sitting when I say that. But I think this about it: that it demonstrates a cooperative "good will” between agencies in this field that is indicative and spells out that it can be done. What I am saying about NACA is that when you also add to that possibility and that fact something that has already succeeded in that field, you have pretty surely coalesced the two things together.
Mr. WEISL. I just wondered how you could be assured of the same kind of cooperation in this bill.
Secretary BRUCKER. I don't believe that there is any assurance on anything, but I think that as near as we can, this will spell it out by having that agency merged with it. If there were any doubt left, this would be the straw that would incline me surely to that.
Mr. WEISL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have. Senator GREEN. Senator Saltonstall, did you have a further question?
Senator SalToNSTALL. I had one more after you are through. In my second time around I have one more question.
Senator GREEN. Go ahead.
CONQUEST OF OUTER SPACE
Mr. Brucker, you used the words "conquest of outer space” in your prepared statement. Have you thought out—could you identify a little more what you mean by that?
Secretary BRUCKER. That is sort of a generalism that is applied, I suppose, to the whole space beyond the atmosphere where man can live and survive in manned vehicles. And I would say that what I have in mind is that in all the spectrum of space beyond occupied atmospheric or possible occupied atmospheric space I meant everything that pertains to that realm.
You meant the word "conquest” particularly?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, you used that term "conquest of outer space" and I wanted you to identify it.
Secretary BRUCKER. Well, the word "conquest” may have a military connotation that I didn't think about.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Well, I wasn't thinking of that either.
Secretary BRUCKER. I didn't mean in any sense conquest by military means, or might, or anything of that kind. I meant the complete exploration and the complete obtaining of every bit of know-how and information that one can in that space beyond. I think that we both feel that that excludes automatically the lower level, the airbreathing level, and takes in all above that.
Senator SALTONSTALL. And following out that conception, I assume it isn't your idea that there should be a rivalry to conquer the outer space;
but rather, that space should be used for peaceful purposes as far as we can and for purposes of our defense, but not with the idea of conquering and controlling it to the exclusion of other nations.
Secretary BRUCKER. Indeed not. I think we should certainly not use terms that confuse, and maybe that is one, "conquest.” It is not that at all. Rather here is one field where there is no rivalry except who can best cooperate and who can best agree.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Now, just one other very broad question as to your philosophy, we will say, on this subject. What relationship should there be between the level of effort to be put into space research and conquest of space, as we have been discussing it, and, we will say, the achievement of important better living conditions here in the United States through conquest of disease, hunger, poverty, and so forth.
Secretary BRUCKER. I think they have a better relationship than a person on the surface would think because I believe that the exploration of space will relate itself to living conditions on the earth, and I do think that the living of our people may be affected somewhat by what occurs sooner or later. Maybe not now but later on.
Now, as to the division, nobody can say what, but I do think that without defining it we ought at the very start to give adequate enough money to this Space Agency so that it is somewhat comparable to that which we are doing in the military field.
Senator SALTONSTALL. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We thank you for your attendance and testimony here today.
Secretary BRUCKER. Thank you very much.
(The material for the record, supplied by Mr. Brucker, is as follows:)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Washington, D. C., May 20, 1958. Hon. LYNDON. B. JOHNSON, Chairman, Special Committee on Space and Astronautics,
United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: During the hearing on S. 3609 before the Special Committee on Space and Astronautics during the afternoon of May 8, *1958, you requested that I submit my ideas for changes in the bill including suggestions for clarifying language. You also requested that I consult General Medaris prior to submitting the ideas and suggestions.
In accordance with your request, I recommend that the following changes be made in the text of S. 3609:
1. Page 2: Change lines 4 through 10 to read as follows:
“The Congress further declares that such activities should be directed by a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space research sponsored by the United States, except insofar as such activities may be peculiar to or primarily associated with weapons systems or military operations, in which case the Department of Defense shall exercise control. The Congress, recognizing that the predetermination of the primary application of such activities in the vast new field of space may be impossible, hereby declares that responsibility in such areas shall be as agreed upon by the civilian agency created by this enactment and the Department of Defense, or as directed by the President."
2. Page 13: Add a new section as follows at the end of section 6 and renumber the succeeding sections:
"LIAISON" “Sec. 7. The Director of the Agency and the Secretary of Defense shall jointly establish liaison between the Agency and the Department of Defense as required to insure joint effort, the interchange of information and the coordination of programs and to avoid duplication."
I have also consulted with General Medaris regarding these changes. He concurs that the change proposed above on page 2 of the bill would render the bill relatively more desirable than it is in its present form. He would, however, go even further and reword lines 7 through 10 as follows:
"Except insofar as such activities may be peculiar to or primarily associated with weapons systems or military operations, in which case the Department of Defense shall exercise control. The Congress, recognizing that the predetermination of the primary application of such activities in the vast new field of space may be impossible, hereby declares that where such clear-cut determination appears impossible, the Secretary of Defense shall be responsible for the determination of whether such projects should be carried out by the civilian agency or by the Department of Defense unless he is otherwise directed by the President.”
General Medaris concurs in the addition of section 7, "Liaison,” recommended above. General Medaris further recommends an additional change on page 3. He recommends that lines 16 through 23 be amended to read:
“SEC. 4. (a) There is hereby established the National Aeronautics and Space Board, hereinafter called the “Board” which shall be composed of not to exceed five members appointed by the President.
"(1) Two members of the Board shall be designated from the Department of Defense."
Although I have carefully considered the recommended changes proposed by General Medaris, I still believe, as I have indicated in my testimony, that the question of conflict between the National Aeronautics and Space Agency and the Department of Defense over the question of the assignment of responsibility for space projects has become somewhat overexaggerated and that there will be powerful influences tending to bring about cooperation and coordination between these two agencies. I also feel that the text of the bill as written with regard to the membership of the National Aeronautics and Space Board allows sufficient flexibility to permit the administration to name a workable number of members to this Board and to provide the required representation from the civilian scientific community, industry, and the Government. I therefore recommend the changes proposed in the second paragraph of this letter and that no changes be made relative to the membership of the Board.
As requested by the committee, I here have presented my personal views, together with the personal views of General Medaris where indicated, rather than endeavoring to present a coordinated official position of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense. Sincerely yours,
WILBER M. BRUCKER,
Secretary of the Army.
Senator GREEN. Our next witness is Mr. Garrison Norton, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air.
STATEMENT OF GARRISON NORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE NAVY FOR AIR
Senator GREEN. Mr. Norton, so the record may disclose your background and qualifications, I ask unanimous consent that we include a copy of your biographical sketch in the record.
Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir.
GARRISON NORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR AIR
Member of staff, New York partner and general partner, Arthur Young & Co., accounting firm, New York, Chicago, etc., 1923–40: deputy general manager Home Owner's Loan Corporation, Washington, 1934; Assistant Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Authority, Washington, 1938.
Active duty United States Naval Reserve (aviator) 1940–45, captain, overseas service; Chairman, Naval Air Advisory Council.
Appointed Deputy Director, Office of Transport and Communications, Department of State, 1945; United States delegate, Civil Aviation Conference, Bermuda, 1946; in charge negotiations for settlement United States British bases agreement, Bermuda, 1946; United States representative Civil Aviation Conference, Paris, 1946; United States delegate, First Assembly, Provisional International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal, 1946.
Appointed Director, Office of Transport and Communications, Department of State, 1946; United States representative, discussion of International Air Transport Policy, London, 1946.
Appointed Assistant Secretary of State, 1947; Chairman Air Coordinating Committee; Chairman International meeting on Marine-Radio Aids to Navigation, New York and New London, 1947; Chairman United States delegation First Assembly, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), Montreal, 1947; Chairman United States delegation, International Delegation to Commission on Multilateral Agreements, ICĂO, Geneva, 1947; Chairman United States delegation U. N. Conference on an Inter-Governmental Maritime Organization, Geneva, 1948; Director, Export-Import Bank, 1948; Deputy Director, International Bank and Monetary Fund, 1948.
Resigned as Assistant Secretary of State, 1949; entered banking firm of Wm. A. M. Burden & Co. (New York) as special partner, 1949.
Resigned to accept assignment with Mr. Burden as consultant (Research and Development) to Secretary of the Air Force, 1951; consultant to Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (R. and D.) 1952–55.
Appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Air, 1956.
Senator GREEN. Now, the committee will be pleased to receive your statement.
Mr. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a prepared statement to make. I have simply a general statement to the effect that the Navy supports wholeheartedly the intent as expressed by both the President and the Secretary of Defense with respect to this Agency.
We do have, however, grave misgivings about certain portions of this proposed bill as it is now drafted, and I am prepared, if you wish to have me do so, to be specific as to what our misgivings are in this respect.
Senator GREEN. Have you copies of your statement with you?
MISGIVINGS CONCERNING THE BILL
Senator GREEN. You state your misgivings on the bill.
Mr. Norton. Yes, sir. My first misgiving occurs with respect to the sentence in section 2 beginning on line 4 of page 2 of the bill which reads as follows:
The Congress further declares that such activities should be directed by a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space research sponsored by the United States, except insofar as such activities may be peculiar to or primarily associated with weapons systems or military operations, in which case the agency may act in cooperation with, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in sympathy with the spirit and philosophy back of this bill. If we were living in a different kind of world, I would certainly be in favor of complete civilian control in this matter, but unfortunately we are living in a world in which the existence of the United States is threatened every day, and the United States survival in my opinion should come first in our thinking with respect to this bill, and that basically is what bothers me about this sentence.
I believe the Secretary of Defense should decide what weapons systems should go to this new agency. At the very least I would like to see that word “may” contained in line 9 changed to “shall." I would prefer to see that entire sentence clarified and amplified in such a way as to make it clear that in order to assure adequate military consideration of these problems we would not have to go every time to the President.
Senator GREEN. That would change the meaning considerably. Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir, it would. Senator GREEN. “May” is permissive action by the Department of Defense and if you say "shall," then you are giving direction to the Department of Defense, are you not?
Mr. WEISL. The Agency "shall."
Senator GREEN. The Agency may act in cooperation with or on behalf of the Department of Defense, and you are proposing that it say “The Agency shall act in cooperation with or on behalf of the Department of Defense.”
It directs that action be taken.
Senator GREEN. So it is not permissive. It is a command to the Department of Defense.
Mr. NORTON. It is a command, yes.