« 이전계속 »
CITATIONS OF CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATUTES Title 18, United States Code, section 216 | Title 18, United States Code, section 434 Title 18, United States Code, section 281 Title 18, United States Code, section Title 18, United States Code, section 283 1914 Title 18, United States Code, section 284 | Title 5, United States Code, section 99
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES
Senator ANDERSON. Now, page 7. You say:
All administrative authority is thus placed in a single official appointed by and directly responsible to the President. This is the traditional way in which Federal agencies charged with large operating programs are headed.
I am just starting through the list of the independent agencies. The first principal one I come across, not bothering with the American Battle Monuments Commission, is the Atomic Energy Commission. Is that the way that is set up?
Mr. Stans. That is one of the principal exceptions to the rule.
Senator ANDERSON. Let's turn to the next one, the Civil Aeronautics Board. Is that the way that is set up?
Mr. Stans. That is not covered within the context of my statement. That is a regulatory agency, and not included in this category.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. STANS. The Civil Service Commission has three Commissioners.
Senator ANDERSON. Is it set up with a Director that runs it?
Mr. STANS. It does not have an operating program in the sense that this Agency will.
Senator ANDERSON. Well, I see the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency. That has a program. How is it set up? Mr. STANS. I'm not familiar with that, offhand.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Export-Import Bank? That has a Board, hasn't it?
Mr. Stans. I think it has a Board; yes.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Federal Civil Defense Administration?
Mr. STANS. That has a single Administrator.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation?
Mr. STANS. That has a Board of Directors.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Federal Communications Commission?
Mr. Stans. That is a regulatory agency and not comparable. Senator ANDERSON. How about the Federal Power Commission? Mr. STANS. That, too, is a regulatory agency.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Federal Home Loan Bank Board?
Mr. STANS. I believe that has a Board of Directors, like the other banks you mentioned.
Senator ANDERSON. How about the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service? Mr. Stans. That, certainly, is not an operating agency.
Senator ANDERSON. Do you think this is the traditional way? Would you give me some samples, then?
Mr. STANS. The Department of Defense, Commerce
Senator ANDERSON. Well, that is a Cabinet position. Those are wholly different from independent agencies, as you must recognize.
Mr. Stans. They are basic operating agencies of the Government, as you know, of course.
Senator ANDERSON. The Space Agency becomes a separate agency, does it not?
Mr. Stans. The Veterans' Administration is a large agency headed by a single Administrator. The Housing and Home Finance Agency is another.
NO MENTION OF THE AEC Senator ANDERSON. In the preparation of this bill, as I mentioned many times before, you left out all mention of the Atomic Energy Commission, which is in the field of nuclear propulsion, and would seem to have some connection with it. It was included in the original drafts circulated, and then taken out. Could you tell us why?
Mr. STANS. I shall ask Mr. Finan to answer that question, since he handled and directed the draft of the bill.
Mr. FINAN. Senator Anderson, as far as I know, and I think I know, the Atomic Energy Commission was never referred to in any of the successive drafts of this bill.
Senator ANDERSON. We had testimony the other day that I thought indicated it was, and I have certainly talked to some people who thought it was.
Have you been in it from the beginning, in on the drafting?
Senator ANDERSON. And there never was reference to cooperation with the Atomic Energy Commission in that field?
Mr. FINAN. No, sir.
Mr. FINAN. It wasn't considered necessary, Senator. It is a natural relationship. It is bound to develop when the new Space Agency is created, in view of the character that, at least we hope, the program of the Atomic Energy Commission will assume in this field. It is not our normal procedure, Senator to write into legislation arrangements for the cooperation, shall we say, among executive agencies. We normally leave that to the President and, where it needs to be formalized, it is generally done in Executive orders.
Senator ANDERSON. Are there not dozens of examples where it has been written in?
Mr. FINAN. I would be hard put to cite a dozen, I think, Senator Anderson.
Senator ANDERSON. Is that right?
Senator ANDERSON. The problem of nuclear propulsion certainly would enter in, do you not think, with space vehicles?
Mr. Finan. Of course, we all hope it will, eventually. It is like many aspects of this space program. It is fraught with uncertainties,”
Senator ANDERSON. Well, I quoted the other day from Krafft Ehricke, Convair's expert in this field and highly regarded in this country. He certainly stressed the importance of nuclear propulsion. He said:
In regard to propulsion, it need not be stressed that space flight beyond the level of the Spirit of St. Louis type of pioneer accomplishments must have a
propulsion system of higher energy concentration available than is obtained with present chemical means. The nuclear-powered rocket engine may well mean for astronautics what the combustion engine meant for aeronautics,
That would seem to imply he thinks quite highly of it.
Mr. FINAN. I would say he undoubtedly does. I wouldn't want to pit my judgment against that of any scientist, Senator. I am not a scientist. But our understanding is that this is something that may be farther down the road a ways.
Senator ANDERSON. Is it any farther down the road than a millionpound thrust engine?
Mr. Finan. I couldn't answer that question. You would have to get scientific advice.
Senator ANDERSON. I don't know. I have seen a mockup of a project for nuclear propulsion. I have seen much testimony that if we hope to get specific impulses running up to 400, we are going to have to make some most remarkable accomplishments in chemical propulsion. Therefore, it would seem to me that many people feel these specific impulses that run very high would have to be developed by nuclear propulsion. Was that point of view impressed upon you when you were drafting the bill or not?
Mr. FINAN. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. If it were, why not mention the one possible place for space propulsion?
Mr. Finan. We felt that there was ample authority in the act under which the Atomic Energy Commission is conducting the project which it is hoped and expected will produce some form of nuclear propulsion. We were advised that we didn't need additional legislative authority in order to get into that field. We are already in it.
Senator ANDERSON. That is right, there is ample authority for its activity at the present time, so you wrote into this bill a provision that the space group could take it away from the atomic energy, with its approval, of course, and take it over itself.
Now, is it your vision that the space organization will take over Project Rover, Project Pluto? Mr. FINAN. I'm not familiar with the latter project, Senator. With respect to the first, it is not our expectation.
Senator ANDERSON. Project Rover is a nuclear propulsion project for rockets, and Project Pluto is a nuclear ram jet project, very intriguing, I think, and very important, being bandled by Livermore. It would be hard if these things were taken away. I just don't understand why you would take these and turn them over to the National Advisory Committee on Space, when they are doing fairly well as it is.
Mr. Stans. May I say this about this problem? Propulsion is, of course, one of the important features of any type of space vehicle, and nuclear propulsion is one of the types that might be employed. Undoubtedly, in the early stages--and I say this, too, without being a scientist—there will be other types of propulsion. Liquid and perhaps solid fuels will be used in the earlier probes out into space. The Atomic Energy Commission, certainly
Senator ANDERSON. May I stop you there and ask you if liquid or solid propulsion as such has entered into the problem of specific impulse?
Mr. Stans. I don't know what you mean.
Mr. Stans. What I am saying, Senator, is that propulsion is one of the aspects of the development of this program, one of the aspects of the development of a space vehicle.
The centralization of the program in this agency makes it possible for it to secure the means of propulsion that is necessary from whatever source that is available, and certainly the Atomic Energy Commission is the only source from which atomic propulsion will be available.
So we would assume that this agency would develop the vehicle, the scientific instruments and the method by which it is to be operated, and, included in that, certainly would be consideration and use of atomic power to the extent that was feasible.
Senator ANDERSON. But you have been here long enough to know something about the ANP program, aircraft nuclear propelled, and realize it was then pretty well killed. It started again and it runs into difficulty every time. People who have tried to push it have had enormous problems because there is no group that is so drastically interested in nuclear propulsion as to push it hard, other than perhaps one committee. I wonder if you felt that with that representation of that situation here—was there any thought that by the elimination of the Atomic Energy Commission there would be no reason for any interest of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, officially?
Mr. STANS. All I can say, Senator, is that the Department of Defense is the only other agency mentioned in this bill, and I assume that the new Agency would be cooperating with many of the other agencies of the Government in the course of its program. There was no thought of excluding the Atomic Energy Commission or in any way discriminating against it in not mentioning it.
There is full authority for the Agency to cooperate with any other agency.
SALARIES AT “REASONABLY COMPARABLE RATES"
Senator ANDERSON. You mentioned salaries at the top of page 7, in section 6 (b) (2), at reasonably comparable rates. Do
Do you anticipate that if they are going to be paid rates comparable to industry, these people will have their salaries supplemented, or will they get their full salaries from the Government.
Mr. STANS. I would expect them to get their full salary from the Government.
Senator ANDERSON. Is Dr. York now getting his full salary from the Government?
Mr. STANS. I'm not informed on that, sir.
Senator ANDERSON. Well, he was up there testifying the other day, and I felt it might be a hard question to ask him. I thought this might be a good place to ask it.
ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS
Is it your program or your plan that a person may receive so much basic salary from the Government and so much in gifts from private sources ?
Mr. Stans. It hasn't been considered, to the best of my knowledge.
Senator ANDERSON. Would that be possible under this legislation or would it be desirable under the statute?
The statute, title 18, United States Code, section 1914, says:
Whoever, being a Government official or an employee, receives any salary in connection with his services as such an official or employee from any source other than the Government of the United States, except as may be contributed out of the treasury of any State, county, or municipalityand so forth.
If this legislation permits the organization to receive gifts, it is a little unusual in that respect.
Would it be possible for an organization to contribute a gift of $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 a year and ask that it be added to the salaries of one of these people in order that you might attract scientists at comparable wages?
Mr. MCCLURE. With respect to the receipt of gifts, Senator, the bill does provide in section 6 (b) (12) on page 11 that to the extent authorized by the Directorcontributions may be made by private sources and accepted by employees receiving training in non-Federal facilities without regard to the provisionsof that law that I believe you just read from, sir.
But this is with respect only to employees of the
Senator ANDERSON. Well, now, wait a minute. We are not reading out of the same part. I am reading in section 6 (b) (4) on page 7 where it says: to accept gifts or donations of services, money, or property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, and to make grants to further the authorized purposes of the act.
Mr. McCLURE. Yes.
Senator ANDERSON. Suppose I represent X Co. interested in the development of astronautical spaceships, and I give them $20,000 and say you split this into two equal parts, and give each one of these people $10,000 as a gift. Would that be all right, under the law?
Mr. MCCLURE. You can make gifts under this to the Agency, but not to the employees.
Senator ANDERSON. I was very careful not to say “to the employees,” because anybody that was wise enough to work this out would be too wise to violate the law.
Mr. McClURE. You could make gifts to the Agency.
Mr. McCLURE. The Agency in turn to the scientists? The Agency in turn to the employees? The purpose of this provision is to authorize the Agency to take gifts but not to make gifts.
Senator ANDERSON. I see my time has expired.
Senator Johnson. Senator Bridges, Senator Wiley, Senator Hickenlooper, Senator Saltonstall?
Senator SALTONSTALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DECISIONS BETWEEN MILITARY AND CIVILIAN ACTIVITIES
Senator SALTONSTALL. You have amended now the policy statement in section 2 on page 2, lines 4 to 10, about which there was so much objection.