« 이전계속 »
your recommendations for changes, the reasons for them, and supply them to the committee.
Are you willing to do that? Mr. NORTON. I will be glad to do that; yes, sir. Senator GREEN. That will make it more satisfactory to both sides. We will then have that understanding. This committee will adjourn until 10 a. m., Tuesday, May 13. We will reconvene in the Senate caucus room to hear Dr. Hugh Dryden, the Director of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.
We stand adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 3:45 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, May 13, 1958.) (The material for the record, supplied by Mr. Norton, is as follows:) THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR AIR,
Washington, May 19, 1958. Hon. Lyndon B. JOHNSON, Chairman, Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During my appearance_before the Senate Special Committee on Space and Astronautics on May 8; I discussed several points contained in the draft bill for the establishment of a National Aeronautics and Space Agency that I feel must be modified if this Agency is to serve the best interests of the Nation. Lack of time prevented me from developing fully these points during my oral testimony. Consequently, the acting chairman requested that I submit to the committee my recommendations in writing. The following comments, of course, stem from my previous testimony,
The Navy has firm requirements for militarily useful vehicles in a space program, chiefly as reconnaissance, communication, surveillance, and navigational devices. The other services have similar interests and requirements, however, equally as strong as the Navy's. I believe, therefore, that the services are in agreement that no military department has so overriding a need and capability in the space field as to warrant the exclusion of the other military departments. Space programs will be of such technical complexity, importance, and expense that overall military requirements can best be met through a national program, using the totality of best resources available to the Government.
The Navy is fully in accord with the objectives and intent of this bill as expressed by the President in his message to the Congress. The interests of the Nation and the capabilities of the Navy in the defense of the Nation are best served by a broad national research and development program in space work. In view of its splendid work in research in aeronautics and allied fields and the beginning it has made in space programs, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics is the logical choice to act as the nucleus for a national agency devoted to aeronautical and space research.
However, in attempting to implement the philosophy of the President's objectives, the original language of the draft did not squarely and realistically face up to the military threat to the very existence of the United States. The Navy's major concern was the fact that the language of the draft appeared to vest ultimate responsibility for the development of space weapon systems in the proposed new agency rather than in the Department of Defense. The new agency could have excluded the Department of Defense from its consideration of aeronautical and space programs and could have taken over the whole field irrespective of the Defense programs required by the military departments.
This was the crux of Navy objections to the draft bill in its original form. Because the bill did not provide for a clear delineation of civilian and military interests, I pointed out, as representative of the Navy, further specific sections which seemed likely to threaten our national security.
Thus, I noted that the language contained in section 6 (a) (3) which gives the new Agency a mandate to develop, test, launch, and operate aeronautical and space vehicles” would permit it to duplicate or split the functions of the military departments, such as those performed by the Bureau of Aeronautics or the Air Research and Development Command, in developing and operating aeronautical and space vehicles.
Similarly, I noted that the contractual authority vested in the new Agency by section 6 (b) (5) could constitute a source of competition with the military departments for major programs in the aircraft and missile industries, leading to increased costs and duplication.
Of particular concern was the composition of the proposed National Aeronautics and Space Board specified in section 4 (a) of the bill. As originally written that section called for a majority of the Board to be appointed from outside the Government. Furthermore the minority representation from Government agencies included only one member from the Department of Defense.
The Navy's concern over these specific provisions of the bill was prompted in large measure by the fact that the bill did not make it clear that the Department of Defense would retain control over the development of space weapon systems. As I stated in my testimony, with this point clarified and insured, the Navy's misgivings on other specific points would fade.
Since my testimony, however, I have been advised by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense that specific language has been recommended for insertion in section 2 of the bill which would make clear that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with weapon systems or military operations will be the responsibility of the Department of Defense. Furthermore, a desirable change has been made in the composition of the Board of the new agency. It has been recommended that the majority of the members of the Board should be from within the Government and that at least three members of this Board should be from the Department of Defense.
In view of these changes, the principal concerns of the Navy, to which I have adverted above, have now been removed. The Navy is fully in accord with the language of the bill as revised.
There remain several minor points in my own mind. In commenting on these points, I should like to emphasize that they are matters of personal opinion and in no way affect the Navy's support of the bill.
One of these points relates to the functions of the Board as set forth in section 5 (a) in relation to the functions and authority of the Director of the Agency. As opposed to the very effective NACA organization, the Board for the new Agency acts in an advisory capacity only to the Director. The Director is under no obligation to carry out the advice of the Board. The Director has a completely free hand in the organization of the Agency and in the direction research shall take. I am personally of the opinion that responsibilities of such magnitude should not devolve upon the single Director but should be vested in the Board, representing the views of both military and civilian. I think that the National Aeronautics and Space Board should preferably be constituted in a manner similar to the NACA and that the Board have the responsibility and the directive authority for the functions of the Agency.
The other point concerns the provisions of the act for the pay of employees of the Agency and for the pay of the Director. I am fully in accord with the provisions of section 6 (b) (2) which permit the Director to pay at rates comparable to industry rates. The excellent and dedicated men in Government scientific work have long deserved this sort of recognition. I must point out, however, the inequities that would result and the difficulties that other Government agencies would face in retaining and recruiting scientific personnel and keeping up their morale should this Agency alone pay at industry rates. My own feeling is that all Government scientific workers should be paid at rates competitive with industry.
I also feel that the compensation provided for the Director is not realistic. Like his employees, he should be paid at a level comparable to industry salaries.
These personal reservations are minor in nature and do not, of course, mean that I do not support the revised bill. My sole interest, both officially and personally, has been to insure that the defense needs of the Nation in the aeronautical and space area are not lost in the undeniably appealing philosophy of civilian control over space travel. Sincerely yours,
GARRISON NORTON. X