« 이전계속 »
aircraft systems that fly in the air, as well as space vehicles, both military and nonmilitary, and I don't think that we can deny them the right to do research and engineering work in this field.
POSSIBLE JURISDICTIONAL DISPUTES
Mr. WEISL. But in a bill such as this, shouldn't the Congress make every effort to prevent jurisdictional disputes and struggles for power?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
Dr. STEVER. I think you should, but you should also recognize that there is an area of mutual interest which must be handled by mutual agreement or by the decision of the President. I don't think that you can write a bill that will ever eliminate disagreements over jurisdiction of the overlap areas. This is true not only for space technology. It is true for all of the other fields of science with respect to their military uses.
Mr. WEISL. It is very well to say that a bill can provide for settlement of jurisdictional disputes by the President, but isn't that rather unrealistic with an overworked President? Couldn't the bill provide for some decision-making board to make these decisions as to what is military and what is civilian promptly? Couldn't you have a committee consisting of a representative of the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, or similar representatives and have them decide rather than refer these matters to an overworked President?
Dr. STEVER. I think that there are a number of possible solutions. You must set up something in the organization which can decide these disputes.
Mr. WEISL. That is all.
Senator MUNDT. Under our Constitution the President is charged with the defense of the country, and while I can envision that a board of arbitration could be established such as counsel questioned you about, it would seem to me that if I were the President charged with the safety and the security of the country, that when you get disputes of this type, I would want to handle it. I was just wondering whether you have any observations as to the relative merits. I can see the excessive workload in the White House, but I don't see how the White House can shirk a responsibility imposed on it by the Constitution in
Dr. STEVER. Sir, I would comment that the President has some other responsibilities such as looking out for the welfare of the Nation; he must use some judgment in determining between his different responsibilities. There must be some mechanism for getting decisions of this importance. Since I think these decisions on the areas of overlap are of major importance to the United States, I believe they should come from the top level of our Government.
Senator MundT. I am impressed by the fact that, speaking as you do as a member of the academic world, you have placed so much emphasis on the importance of the defense aspect of this program being handled by the Department of Defense. That, to me, is an encouraging indication that when we get this thing established, other scientists like you, if they are like-minded, might cooperate with the Defense Department so well that the areas of adjudication to be referred to the White House might be relatively few.
Dr. STEVER. I would hope so, sir.
Dr. STEVER. Personally I think that both the new agency, NASA, and the Department of Defense will have so many difficult tasks that they won't have much time to argue about overlap. They will probably want help from one another. It has worked out this way in the relationship between NACA and the military services in the past. There are many important things that the military services have asked the NACA to do for them.
Senator Mundt. You speak from an abundance of experience in this field. That would be your best educated guess on that, would it?
Dr. STEVER. Yes, sir.
NECESSITY FOR KEEPING CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES INFORMED
Senator McCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I didn't get here in time to hear all the Doctor's testimony, but since this question has been raised about the setting up of a board to determine jurisdiction, what do you think of the device of having that board report its findings to the appropriate committees of Congress for their review?
Dr. STEVER. Again this is an area in which I am not expert, but I do feel that such a proposal has one merit. I will speak of that, and then I will mention some items on the debit side.
The merit it has is to keep a constant interest in Congress in this area of science and engineering which is going to be of growing importance. I think that it has been beneficial for the elected legislative members of the Government to show the amount of interest in space that they have up to now.
However, let me go back to an earlier comment; we cannot make the channels of authority and responsibility too complicated. From my experience that has been the principal factor which has delayed many of our important projects in this country, both military and nonmilitary. So I believe we must streamline these channels.
Senator McCLELLAN. Well, you express my views regarding it. I still think that assuming this committee, or a similar committee, was made a permanent committee of the two bodies to constantly study and process legislation in this area, it would be well at least to require the Board immediately as it makes a decision to get that information to that committee. Whether there should be a waiting period to give the committee time to act, I am not prepared to say, but I do think if any such board is established, its decisions should be filed with the respective committees of the Congress having jurisdiction in that field so that they can keep informed, so they know what is going on, and not have decisions made without keeping the legislative sources informed. Thank you, sir.
Senator MUNDT. Thank you very much for very informative and instructive testimony.
Dr. STEVER. Thank you very much.
Senator Mundt. We will stand in recess until 2:30, and again, our testimony this afternoon will be from the Bureau of the Budget.
(Whereupon, at 11:45 a. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2:30 p. m., the same date.)
AFTERNOON SESSION Senator SalTONSTALL (presiding). The hour to which the committee was adjourned having arrived, the committee will be in order. : Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Maurice Stans, Director of
the Bureau of the Budget. He is accompanied by Mr. William Finan, :the Bureau's Assistant Director for Management and Organization.
According to the testimony, Mr. Stans, your agency was the only one which really had an opportunity to consider this measure before it was sent up by the President. We have been told that it was whizzed through the Pentagon in a 24-hour period, without Defense officials commenting on it as it went by.
As a background for your testimony, I am inserting in the record a biography covering your life, your times and your travels.
I am also inserting a biography of Mr. Finan. (The material referred to follows:)
BIOGRAPHY OF MAURICE H. Stans, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET
Maurice H. Stans took office as Director of the Bureau of the Budget on March 18, 1958. Prior to his appointment to this post by the President, he had been Deputy Director for 6 months.
Before coming to the Bureau of the Budget in September 1957, Mr. Stans had been Deputy Postmaster General for 2 years. During his service in the Post Office Department he took a major part in planning and directing the reorganization of the postal service and the modernization of the Department's management structure and operating practices.
His first experience in the Federal Government was in 1953, when he served on a task force which assisted the House Appropriations Committee in reviewing the Federal Budget for the fiscal year 1954. Subsequently, he was engaged for more than a year in a special study of postal fiscal systems and accounting practices for the Postmaster General.
He was formerly executive partner in the national accounting firm of Alexander Grant & Co. He holds the degree of certified public accountant from eight States.
For outstanding professional achievements he received the American Accounting Association Annual Award in 1952 and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants annual award in 1954. He is a past president of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and a member of the National Association of Cost Accountants, the American Accounting Association, and the Federal Government Accountants Association.
Mr. Stans has won distinction as a big game hunter. He is an honorary member of the East African Professional Hunters Association, a member of Shikar-Safari Club and the Adventurers Club. His other club memberships include the Economic, Executive and Union League Clubs of Chicago, the Chemists Club of New York, and the National Capital Skeet and Trap Club of Washington.
He holds an LL.D. degree conferred in 1953 by Illinois Wesleyan University. He received his college education at Northwestern and Columbia Universities. He was born in Shakopee, Minn., on March 22, 1908.
BIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM F. FINAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT AND
ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET : Mr. Finan was born in Memphis, Tenn. on February 11, 1913. He attended the University of Arkansas Law School in 1935-36.
Mr. Finan has held progressively responsible State positions in Arkansas, including secretary, Department of Public Utilities and acting State personnel director, 1933–39; administrative consultant, Public Administration Service, 1939–40 and 1941–42; organization and procedures assignments with Bureau of the Budget, 1940–41 and 1942–43; United States Army, 1943–45; Department of State, 1945–46; progressively responsible positions in Bureau of the Budget, 1946–52. He has been Assistant Director, Management and Organization, Bureau of the Budget since 1952.
He is a member of the American Society for Public Administration and the International Institute of Administrative Sciences.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Stans, the committee is ready for any statement you may have.
STATEMENT OF MAURICE H. STANS, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE
BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM F. FINAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; ALAN L. DEAN, MANAGEMENT ANALYST, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; AND KENNETH F. MCCLURE, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. STANS. I have a prepared statement to present today, Mr. Chairman, but before I do so, I would like to make a few prefatory remarks.
As I am sure you know, I have been Director of the Bureau of the Budget for only 8 weeks, or more precisely, since March 18. Prior to. that date, matters related to the establishment of a new space agency were handled, insofar as the Bureau of the Budget was concerned, by the then Director, Mr. Percival Brundage, together with his staff..
I did become familiar with the objectives and provisions of S. 3609 prior to transmitting the draft legislation to Congress on April 2. I have since given considerable thought to the bill and the issues which have risen in the course of the House and Senate hearings.
I am here in the hope that I can be helpful to the committee in explaining why the administration believes that early enactment of S. 3609 is so important. I will say in all frankness that I am not familiar with all the background factors which were considered in the preparation of the legislation. For this reason I am accompanied today by the following members of the staff who did the technical job of drafting the bill: Mr. William F. Finan, Assistant Director for Management and Organization, Bureau of the Budget; Mr. Alan L. Dean, management analyst, Bureau of the Budget; and Mr. Kenneth F. McClure, Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Commerce, who was detailed to the Bureau of the Budget for this purpose.
At the end of my statement I shall present certain amendments to the bill in the hope that they will satisfy certain objections which have been raised in the course of hearings before this committee.
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Stans, the committee has received through its counsel, Mr. Weisl, certain proposed amendments which have been approved, we are told, by the Executive Office of the President and the Bureau of the Budget. They will be released at 2 p. m. today. They concern certain amendments in section 2 on page 2, lines 9 and 10; in section 4 (a) on page 3, line 18; in section 4 (a) (1) on page 3, line 20 and on line 23; and page 13, line 8, à new section 7 entitled "International Cooperation.” (See p. 285 for text of proposed amendments.)
Have you seen those amendments?
Mr. STANs. Yes, sir; and I am prepared to offer them as amendments proposed by the administration to clarify some of the matters before the committee.
Senator SALTONSTALL. Were these amendments submitted to the Defense Department? : Mr. Stans. Yes, sir.
Senator SALTONSTALL. And they have the approval of the Defense Department, as far as you know?
Mr. Stans. That is right. Senator SALTONSTALL. And by the Secretary of Defense? Mr. STANS. The Secretary of Defense has approved them. Senator SALTONSTALL. Will you proceed, sir? Mr. STANS. As for the chairman's opening remark about the time which the agencies had to consider the bill before it came to the Congress, I should like to cover that later on in the course of my statement.
I am now referring, Mr. Chairman, to the prepared statement. The committee has already heard the views of many witnesses. I shall, therefore, in my statement, direct my remarks to the features of the legislation which, on the basis of previous testimony or questions raised by members of the committee, appear to require further amplification or explanation.
The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 was drafted by the Bureau of the Budget at the instruction of the President and was transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate on April 2, 1958. In preparing this legislation, the Bureau adhered strictly to the wishes of the President as set forth in his special message to the Congress of April 2, 1958. Throughout the drafting there was the closest exchange of views with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology, Mr. James Killian. As transmitted to the Congress, the draft legislation had, and continues to have, the unqualified support of both the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics and Dr. Killian. I should also like to assure the committee that the bill was circulated to the other interested agencies for their views, and that many changes were made in the draft in response to agency suggestions.
You have already been told that only a few days were allowed for agency review and comment. To keep the record straight, I should like to state that the bill was sent to the agencies on Wednesday, March 26, 1958, with a deadline for replies set at noon, Monday, March 31, 1958. Some agencies may not have received the draft until Thursday, March 27, but it was also true that agency comments were received and considered through the morning of April 1. Thus 5 to 6 days were given each agency, including the Department of Defense, to study and comment on the draft legislation.
I will grant that this is a short time for the review of an important bill and that this included a weekend. However, I should also like to point out that the major features of the legislation had been communicated to ranking officials of the most directly affected departments and agencies well in advance of the circularization of the draft bill. Furthermore, the President was particularly anxious to have the legislation go to the Congress prior to the Easter recess in order that the members of the congressional committees involved and their