2. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics should proceed to formulate such detailed plans as may be required to reorient its present programs, internal organization, and management structure to carry out the functions to be assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, including the functions now being performed by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, and should also plan and propose such additional actions and programs as may be necessary to implement the proposed legislation. Such actions would include determination of any requirements for additional staff, facilities, or funds that may be needed in the immediate future.

3. The Department of Defense and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics should jointly review the pertinent programs currently underway within or planned by the Department, including those authorized by me on March 27, 1958, and should recommend to me as soon as possible which of these programs should be placed under the direction of the new Agency. The Department of Defense and the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics should also prepare an operating plan to assure adequate arrangements for utilizing in support of the new Agency, either by cooperative arrangements or by transfer to the new Agency, appropriate organizations, facilities, and other functions now within the Department. These actions should be taken in light of the fact that the proposed legislation contemplates that the new Agency will be given responsibility for all programs except those peculiar to or primarily associated with military weapons systems or military operations. Supporting research and development should be coordinated to provide for the needs of both military and civil programs without unnecessary duplication. It should be noted that Public Law 85-325 authorized the Department of Defense for a period of 1 year to engage in advanced space projects designated by me. The 1-year period will come to a close February 12, 1959. Since the new Agency will absorb the going organization of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, it should be capable of assuming direction of appropriate programs prior to that date.

4. The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics should discuss with the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences, as well as other governmental and nongovernmental bodies, the matter of participation of the Scientific Community on a continuing basis in planning and coordinating the scientific programs for the use of space vehicles in civilian space science. The best scientific judgment available in determining space science objectives should be utilized. Matters related to dissemination of the data collected should also be considered.

5. The Department of Defense should identify and report to me what programs now appear to be needed in support of well-defined military requirements. It is understood that the Advanced Research Projects Agency will continue to serve as the focal point for such programs within the Department.

Any problems that may arise in carrying out these interim instructions should be discussed with my Special Assistant for Science and Technology or with the Bureau of the Budget, as appropriate.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

INTERPRETATION OF THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2 OF THE BILL

Mr. Secretary, the thing that impresses me about your statement is that apparently you have some serious questions as to the intrepretations that might be placed upon the language in this bill. I listened with great interest to your statement and I notice on page 2

you say:

However, to avoid any misunderstanding I would like to state my interpretation of certain provisions ***

On page 3 your state:

It is my understanding that this in no way implies that the military departments would be precluded from similar activities ***

On page 4 you say:

I cite these points not as an argument that the language should be changed but merely to make sure that we are all similarly interpreting the language.

Now, the committee, of course, has made no interpretation of the language. When you raise the question at least 3 time in a 4-page statement, I just wonder if you have coordinated your statement with other people in the administration, particularly those who prepared this bill, and if they are in agreement with you as to your interpretation of the language.

Mr. QUARLES. I think it is fair to say they are in agreement with me as to my interpretation of the language, and I think they also are in agreement that the present language may be properly interpreted as I have attempted to interpret it, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. And whom do you include under the term "they"-the Budget and the NACA?

Mr. QUARLES. Well, I can't speak for every individual, but I am speaking for NACA and my contacts with the top people in that organization, and also my contacts with the top people in the President's office who deal with such matters.

Senator JOHNSON. And you think there is a clear understanding among the administration people who would operate under this legislation as to lines of authority and where one starts and the other ends?

Mr. QUARLES. Among the responsible leaders of these organizations I believe that is right, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be going too far to imply that everybody involved does have this same interpretation of these words.

Senator JOHNSON. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Johnson, the Director of ARPA, appeared before the House committee and suggested changing the wording of page 2, line 4, in section 2, which you favor?

Mr. QUARLES. I am aware of that, yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that that might be explained this way, that here is

Senator JOHNSON. Are you in agreement with his suggestion?

Mr. QUARLES. Not that a change in wording is necessary, no, I am not, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. Then do you have a difference of viewpoint on the necessity of the amendment he suggested.

Mr. QUARLES. We do have that difference of viewpoint, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. Would you care to elaborate?

Mr. QUARLES. Well, to say this, that I believe we were seeking the same interpretation. In other words, I believe that he, by his amendment, produces the same substance that I have attempted to achieve by my statement of interpretation of the words, but I do not believe that the amendment of the words is necessary to achieve this.

Senator JOHNSON. You would have no objection to the amendment, then, I assume, if it comes to the same substance that you seek. Mr. QUARLES. I think I would have to say that anything that leaves the substance where I have tried to put it, Mr. ChairmanSenator JOHNSON. I didn't understand your answer.

Mr. QUARLES. I say that I would have no objection to anything that left the substance where it now is.

SENATOR JOHNSON. And your opinion is that this amendment would leave the substance where it is now.

Mr. QUARLES. I haven't studied it that closely, but I believe it would.

Senator JOHNSON. Would you study it and inform the committee by letter whether or not you agree that it is better to change the wording by amendment and to say what you mean and mean what you say in the bill or whether you prefer to do it by testimony in the hearing? Mr. QUARLES. I would be glad to review that point and respond by letter, yes, Mr. Chairman."

CURRENT LAWS, PROPOSALS, AND FUNDS RELATED TO OUTER SPACE DEVELOPMENT

SENATOR JOHNSON. Now, Mr. Secretary, the Congress has already passed during this session two laws providing for outer space programs; they are Public Law 85-325, H. R. 9739, enacted on February 12, to give the Secretary of Defense authority to engage in advanced military projects, and for 1 year to develop nonmilitary space projects designated by the President and Public Law 85-322, H. R. 10126, enacted February 11. This gives the Secretary of Defense authority to transfer appropriations which are available to the Department in the amount of $10 million for advanced research. As I understand it, our outer space projects are now being carried on by the Advanced Research Projects Agency under the direction of Mr. Roy Johnson who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. Is that a correct statement?

Mr. QUARLES. That is a correct statement, I think.

Senator JOHNSON. Now, there are four additional administration proposals on outer space pending before the Congress. They are: ARPA's appropriations for fiscal 1959; the administration bill providing for a new space agency; an estimate from the Bureau of the Budget for funds needed for the new agency over a 5-year period, 1959 to 1963, and the President's bill on the reorganization of the Department of Defense which contains recommendations relating to the military accomplishment of outer-space programs.

I wish to direct my questions toward a few of these proposals because they are interrelated and what we do about one of them may affect what is done in connection with the others.

First, the Department of Defense has asked for $520 million for advanced research projects for fiscal 1959. Is this the amount you intend to spend for both military and nonmilitary space projects for that period so far as you can see, at this time?

Mr. QUARLES. Not all for space projects, Mr. Chairman, but all— otherwise all for advanced research projects; it is the amount that we now expect to spend. However, I should explain that we expect to transfer some of those funds to the new organization when it is created. Senator JOHNSON. All right. Now, how much more do you anticipate you would transfer and merge into this fund from other appropriations for related programs?

Mr. QUARLES. I know of none at this time. Some have already been transferred and merged in line with the authority the chairman cited earlier, but I know of no further plans to transfer and merge funds.

Senator JOHNSON. You do not contemplate transferring any funds to the military departments to carry on outer space programs?

Mr. QUARLES. None that have not already been transferred or that are not included in your total, Mr. Chairman. You are dealing, I think with a 1959 situation

Senator JOHNSON. That is right. Fiscal 1959.

Mr. QUARLES so that some of the actions that are contemplated there may not actually have been taken, but the numbers you cite are the total numbers in our present plan.

Senator JOHNSON. Now, if the Congress should establish a new space agency along the lines suggested or some similar agency, with a provision that you requested that space programs may be transferred to the space agency with concurrence of the Department of Defense, how many programs do you anticipate would be transferred?

Mr. QUARLES. As to number of programs, that depends on how you define a program. But may I answer your question this way, Mr. Chairman, that we expect to transfer those satellite programs and supporting research programs for them, including the very large engine development, as soon as this agency is created and ready to receive those, and this would be in total amount of $95 million of funds of those that you earlier mentioned from the fiscal 1959 availability. Senator JOHNSON. Would you transfer personnel and hardware as well as funds?

Mr. QUARLES. There are no present plans to transfer personnel, although very possibly some military people would be assigned as we work out this program. I think we have no plans to transfer hardware, but we do assume that the Department of Defense will support these missions by providing hardware in many cases, particularly rocket hardware.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you expect to be reimbursed by NASA for the use of your outer space facilities, personnel, equipment, and so forth?

Mr. QUARLES. We have not worked out accounting matters of that kind. Certainly we would be reimbursed for some. I think we would not be reimbursed for such things as military personnel. I believe I can't answer that question yet with finality, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. What do you understand to be the meaning of the words of the bill that NASĂ "may act in cooperation with, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense"?

Mr. QUARLES. I understand

Senator JOHNSON. I want you to elaborate on that.

Mr. QUARLES. Yes. "Act in cooperation with" I interpret to mean that they may continue the kind of cooperation we have had with NACA in which we join in organizing and carrying out research and exploratory projects. I would understand "cooperation" to mean that.

I would understand the words "on behalf of" to mean that in those Defense projects which NASA would appear to be in the best position itself to carry out, they might on request of Defense act on behalf of Defense in carrying out such projects and with Defense funds.

Senator JOHNSON. Now, this final question. I have many more but because of the time limitation we have set, I will conclude with this

one.

DIVISION OF FUNDS AND PROJECTS BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE NEW SPACE AGENCY

Would you say that division between the military and civilian space projects is already implicit in the amounts of money which are being requested by the Department of Defense and the proposed new agency?

Mr. QUARLES. I think, Mr. Chairman, when that division is finally made, it would almost fix the division of projects, but we still have the exercise of responding to the President jointly with NACA in recommending the division of these programs between the two organizations, and the funds that will flow with that divisional program. Senator JOHNSON. And another question I must ask: Who has responsibility for making decisions to divide outer space projects between the agency and the Department of Defense?

Mr. QUARLES. The President, I would say, as things now stand, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Bridges?

MILITARY ROLE IN SPACE DEVELOPMENT

Senator BRIDGES. Mr. Secretary, I joined with the distinguished chairman of this committee in introducing this legislation by request, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I approve of the bill in its entirety. I have some reservations on various points of it.

One is that I don't believe in overwhelming civilian control, but I do believe in the necessity of some of the points which you made. I have, in addition, suggested that it must be tied closer to the military than is now proposed in the bill. I think that with the general feeling in the country concerning civilian control, which I agree with in theory, we have made every effort in the drafting of this legislation to recognize that concept.

Now, personally I believe that in the final draft of this legislation there will be proposed a closer working relationship between the military and the civilian agency. I want to ask you if it isn't true that in the early stages, certainly, and for a long time, that in initial space exploration we will have to rely very heavily on military ballistic missiles as the boosters or thrust for these space vehicles, also that these missiles are now procured and are under the general control of the military?

Mr. QUARLES. For some time to come that is certainly true, that the reliance will be primarily on the military ballistic missile rockets.

MILITARY REPRESENTATION ON SPACE BOARD

Senator BRIDGES. Should this legislation be adopted as it is now written, it would mean that the military would have one representative on the Board, would it not? The President could, of course, appoint more than one but the legislation now specifies that only 1 of the 8 on the Board must be a member of the Military Establishment. I think there should be more.