Mr. Norton, very respectfully I do not believe that changing the word "may" to the word "shall" is going to quite achieve the thing that you have in mind. I am entirely in sympathy with your objective and it has been brought out by 2 or 3 previous witnesses. But then you come to the very sticky question how are you going to interpret the word "behalf." I want to be sure the Department of Defense is in this act and I would hate to have it construed by some solicitor that by using the word "shall" that the agency then has the initial responsibility and is doing it in lieu of the Department of Defense. Mr. NORTON. I agree with you entirely, Senator. Senator MUNDT. I want the Department of Defense to have some initial authority and I think you do. Mr. NORTON. I agree with you, sir. I was not suggesting to this committee that the only change in that sentence should be from "may" to "shall." I was simply pointing that word out as being perhaps the focal point. Senator GREEN. The whole sentence needs rewriting. Mr. NORTON. The whole sentence needs rewriting and clarification; yes. Senator GREEN. The original idea was to make it permissive, was it not, and now this makes it mandatory. Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir. Senator GREEN. Go ahead. Mr. NORTON. My next point is with respect to the compensation which is to be paid to this director. On page 3, line 9 Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Norton has not got a prepared statement, may we ask him questions before he gets away on another point? Senator GREEN. He says he has no prepared statement. Senator SALTONSTALL. I would like to ask him a question on the point he has just been making before he hops off to another one. Senator GREEN. Certainly, you mask ask it. ADEQUACY OF POLICY OBJECTIVES Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, sir. Mr. Norton, you covered lines 4 to 10 on page 2 in the policy declaration on the question of the cooperation between the civilian agency and the Department of Defense. Do you think that the policy objectives, which of course concern the Department of Defense and in turn concern the civilian agency, are adequately set forth? What is your conception of the objectives that should be put in this bill? Mr. NORTON. Senator Saltonstall, in my opinion this act should make it clear beyond any question that matters of military concern in this area shall be under the control of the Secretary of Defense, and that if the Secretary of Defense sees fit to pass these matters along to this new Agency in the same way in which he now passes them along to the NAČA that he should be the controlling factor in that as far as military and weapons systems are concerned. And why worry about that sentence? It is simply this. That it could be interpreted by some future Director to take over the entire matter of aeronautical and space travel regardless of whether it is associated with defense of the country or not. Senator SALTONSTALL. I agree and I understand what you mean, but I had more in mind. If you will look at line 12 and following on page 2 of the bill through the second line of the next page, do you agree with those policy objectives? Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir; I think they are fine objectives. Senator SALTONSTALL. And are they clearly set forth? Mr. NORTON. I think they are reasonably clearly set forth; yes, sir. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, your thought with relation to the objectives of the research and development of the ability to go into space is generally covered by these policy objectives? Mr. NORTON. I would say yes, but the thing that is not covered in my opinion is the ability of the Secretary of Defense to determine and to decide what weapons systems in this field he desires to have this Agency take over. I am talking about defense of the country now. I am not talking about general research in space. I am talking about specific weapons systems. This act, drawn up as it is now, is written in such a way that this agency could take over everything. It could take over all weapons systems. It could take over all aeronautical as well as space vehicles. Senator SALTONSTALL. It is a watering down of the power of the Secretary of Defense from being the top defense policymaker of our country. Mr. NORTON. It could be; yes, sir. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you. SALARY OF THE DIRECTOR Mr. NORTON. My next misgiving arises in connection with the salary proposed to be paid to this Director. In the first place this pay rate of $22,500 is inconsistent with the prevailing rates that are referred to later on in this same bill as being the rates that this Director can pay to key individuals whom he wishes to bring into the organization. This business of fixing the salary of the Director, who himself should be one of the leading scientists of the country, at a salary rate which is probably going to be half or maybe only a third of the rates that he is going to have to pay to get the kind of people he needs, seems to me penny wise. It is in sharp contrast to what we know the Russians are doing themselves, where they have not only picked their top scientists for this kind of work, but have seen to it that their compensation was the highest in the land, and I submit to this committee that we are not being very wise if we fix that salary Senator SALTONSTALL. In that connection are you referring to the top of page 7, lines 1 to 4, in section 6 (b) (2)? Mr. NORTON. I am referring to section 3, Senator, to line 9 on page 3. COMPARABLE PAY SCALES Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes, but are you not referring also to the matter of paying agency employees at rates comparable with the prevailing rates paid by non-Federal employers for similar work? Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir; that is right, on page 7. Senator SALTONSTALL. From your experience in the Department of Defense and from your experience in the Department of State, while it may be good in some respects, isn't that going to throw everything out of kilter? Mr. NORTON. Well, sir, you have put your finger on 1 of my 7 points that I was going to make. I would be very glad to jump right to it now and make it. The provision in section 6 (b) (2) here which begins on page 6, line 17, and runs along through the top of page 7 down through line 4, is in my opinion a very good provision because it recognizes the facts of life. If you are going to get the quality of people you want for this Agency, you are going to have to do just what this thing says here. On the other hand, it is going to have a bad effect on other Government agencies and laboratories, there is no doubt about that. Senator SALTONSTALL. It just isn't practical, is it? Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir; I think it is practical. I think it is actually in use right now. I am not too sure what this so-called IDA organization is or how it is set up-the Institute of Defense Analysis-but I think you will find that that is being used now as a means of getting adequate salaries for people like Dr. York, for example, who is now serving as the Scientific Director of ARPA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Senator SALTONSTALL. What is that organization that you just mentioned? Mr. NORTON. This IDA, I am not too sure myself what this organization is. It has some private and some Government sponsorship, I believe, but it is a device Mr. SALTONSTALL. Those men are not being paid those sums out of appropriations by the Congress. Mr. NORTON. No, I think not. I think that a portion of these salaries is paid out of other sources through this Institute of Defense Analysis. Senator GREEN. Are you proposing a substitute? Mr. NORTON. No, sir; I am not. I am endorsing this part of the bill. Senator GREEN. Where you find fault with the present act would you possibly offer substitutes that in your opinion are preferable? Mr. NORTON. I am endorsing this part of the bill, Senator, but I am simply inviting attention to the difficulty that this is going to create with respect to our Government laboratories. Senator GREEN. I thought you said it was capable of different constructions. Mr. NORTON. I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear your question. Senator GREEN. I say do you think that in its present draft it is capable of different constructions? Mr. NORTON. No, sir; I think the present draft in this respect is quite clear, and I think it is a good draft here. I think it is a fine thing that this Director will be able to go out and on the basis of pay at rates which are reasonably comparable with prevailing rates, to get the people he needs. I think that is a very fine thing to do. But I am simply pointing out that it is going to create a very considerable difficulty. Let me just give you an example. I am not saying this is an actual case at all. We have Dr. McLean who is the Director of our Naval Ordnance Test Station. He is the in ventor of the Sidewinder missile. He is a very brilliant scientist. He is being paid a rate which I think is close to if not the actual maximum that we can pay him under the law. Now it is quite possible that the Director of this new agency would take a look and say, "We will ask Dr. McLean. It would be very nice to have him in this agency, and we can offer him $40,000.' This kind of thing could create a very serious problem for all 3 services, that is, the laboratories supported by all 3 services. Senator GREEN. Are you proposing an improvement of the present draft? Mr. NORTON. No, sir, I am not in that respect. I am saying we should stand on the present draft. I think what I am really proposing here, if I am proposing anything, is that we perhaps look at the rate of pay that we can pay all these people and perhaps move them up to what they should be getting. Senator GREEN. Then you are in favor of the draft as it stands? Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir; in this respect, I am. Senator GREEN. Very well, you may proceed. COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD Mr. NORTON. My next point occurs with respect to the membership of the proposed Aeronautics and Space Board, which is referred to in section 4, on page 3, of the bill. The composition of this Board is a sort of reversal of the NACA type of board. In the first place, on the NACA, which is a board also of 17, not more than 7 can be from outside the Government and the other 10, or a majority of the Board, are in the Government. Furthermore, of that 10, 5 are in the Defense Establishment. I believe in the case of the NACA it calls for 2 Air Force, 2 Navy, and 1 Defense Department. Now this new Board more or less reverses that and says that out of the 17, no more than 8 shall be designated from departments or agencies of the Government, and it stipulates that of this group, at least 1 shall be from the Department of Defense. In other words, it sets up a majority of civilians, and it only provides for one from the Department of Defense. Now, I just do not feel that this relationship of 16 to 1, which is possible under this bill, is very realistic in the face of what I would call the facts of life here. Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question on that point? Senator GREEN. Certainly. Senator SALTONSTALL. Do you believe in the principle of the NACA, that the majority should be with the Government? Mr. NORTON. I believe in the principle of the NACA; yes. Senator SALTONSTALL. And you also believe, of course, as you have just stated that there should be more representatives of the Department of Defense. I am inclined to agree with you. Now the other question in that connection which I would like to ask you-perhaps you are coming to it-do you believe that this should be a consulting board or do you believe that as with the NACA it should have the responsibility and the directive to carry out Mr. NORTON. That was my very next point, Senator, and I will be glad to come to it right now. FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD My fourth point here has to do with the functions of the Board as set forth on page 4 beginning in section 5 (a). Here again Senator Saltonstall points out that this bill differs from the NACĂ in that the Board is advisory only. It puts full responsibility on one underpaid Director. At least I think he is underpaid. There is no obligation on this Director to carry out the advice of this Board. I think again the NACA organization, which is more like a business board of directors, making the Director an agent of the Board is more realistic in the face of the kind of world we are living in today. Now I do want to say that I think I appreciate the philosophy back of this business about the functions of the Board as well as the membership. I think if we were living in another kind of world and did not have the kind of enemies that we have, it would be a very fine thing to see this whole thing in the hands of civilians, our most outstanding scientists who are appointed to this Board purely on their record as scientists, but I do feel that under the circumstances, with the kind of government in Russia that we have today, that this is simply not realistic. Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, could I be permitted to ask one question out of order because I am afraid I have got to leave and I am awfully anxious to get Mr. Norton's opinion on one other question. Senator GREEN. Certainly you may ask your question. TRANSFER OF AGENCIES On page 15, section 8, I am very anxious to know what is your opinion of that section. Should it be left the way it is or should it be changed or should it be eliminated? I hope that that is your seventh point. Mr. NORTON. This has to do, Senator, with the transfer to itself of other Government agencies or departments. Senator SALTONSTALL. Yes, sir. Mr. NORTON. Well here, Senator, my thinking about that section would be very much conditioned on what sort of action was taken with respect to my first point. My first point you may recall had to do with this. Now if the bill were very clear and positive about my first point, I would not have very many misgivings about section 8. Senator SALTONSTALL. In other words, your principal objection to the bill as it is now written, or your principal idea of how to improve it, is to clarify the relationship between the Department of Defense and this new agency. Mr. NORTON. That is it exactly. Senator SALTONSTALL. And to make certain that the Department has predominance in the field of military security. Mr. NORTON. Yes, sir; that is it exactly. Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you. Mr. NORTON. Shall I go ahead? Senator GREEN. Mr. Norton, there is a call from the Senate and we feel we must leave, and so I am going to ask you to put in writing |