PROPOSALS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS

Senator JOHNSON. Now let's turn to page 10 of your statement. There you say:

In March of this year, the Soviet Union placed on the provisional agenda of the 13th General Assembly an item calling for, among other things, "the establishment of a United Nations agency for international cooperation in the study of cosmic space."

In view of statements made in the Congress and the President's letter to Bulganin and the rather rapid developments in this field, doesn't our cheek kind of blush with shame when we realize we didn't make some proposal of that nature ourselves; that we have to react to the Russians, instead of taking the initiative and making affirmative proposals ourselves?

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer that question this way. As I have noted in my statement, we had already some time before made a proposal that we get together with the Russians and anybody interested in the subject.

Senator JOHNSON. I have noticed when somebody suggests that something be done, the classic, stock, regular, day-to-day answer of the State Department is, "We did that some time ago." Then they pull out a mimeographed statement that shows that a day ago or a month ago or a year ago or a decade ago they made a statement that somehow remotely resembles the proposal.

But to get back to my original question, in view of the rather rapid developments in this field, don't you think it would have been advisable and in our national interest if we could have made an affirmative, positive proposal to the United Nations prior to the Russian suggestion of March of this year?

Mr. BECKER. Well, Mr.

Senator JOHNSON. I understood the Secretary to say that the President was giving consideration to it. I know early in January, before the President's letter to Bulganin, suggestions were made to that effect. I know when he sent the letter to Bulganin it indicated concentrated thinking in that field.

Now what did we do during January and February and March to put forward a positive, affirmative proposal that would arrest the attention of the peaceful people of the world?

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a very serious issue that you have raised, and I would like to comment on it.

As I have said, I think the record is clear that we had a considerable time before proposed that outer space be devoted to peaceful purposes. Senator JOHNSON. You are speaking now of your August 1957 proposal?

Mr. BECKER. It was in 1957. It was continued by the President, and the Secretary made a similar proposal. We have made it continuously; since I believe it was January in either 1956 or 1957it was first made by Ambassador Lodge in the United Nations. Now it was our hope that people would come and talk with us about that proposal. One of the first things

Senator JOHNSON. About the proposal, now, that you made in August 1957?

Mr. BECKER. We made it earlier than that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. You don't make any reference to it in your statement. You say August in this statement. Let's tie down the date and see what proposal you are talking about.

Mr. BECKER. All right, sir, I have it here.

Senator JOHNSON. If you have difficulty locating it, just put the

date in the record.

Mr. BECKER. I'll put the date in the record.

(The date referred to appears at the end of the testimony) Senator JOHNSON. It was reaffirmed August 1957?

Mr. BECKER. It was.

Senator JOHNSON. What have you done to follow up and expand it since then?

Mr. BECKER. We have devoted a considerable amount of study to the problem of cooperation in outer space, as the Secretary had indicated. It had been discussed at the highest levels in the Government. You can approach this problem either of two ways. One of the ways is that in which, apparently, the U. S. S. R. approached it for a long time, and that is with an effort to get a propaganda advantage. Because, you will recall that their proposal with respect to cooperation in outer space was coupled with what we regard as a wholly unacceptable linkage. That is to say, you give up all your bases overseas. It was our hope that they would sit down with us and talk, and it was our feeling that if we sat down and began to talk with some sincerity, there was more chance of working something out than merely issuing propaganda statements.

Senator JOHNSON. That is good. So we have studied and hoped from August until now.

Mr. BECKER. Well, I believe that my statement will indicate that we do not look unfavorably upon cooperation in the outer space field, and that we have already said that the really unacceptable portion of the Russian position is the linkage with the elimination of our bases

overseas.

Senator JOHNSON. I want to know what we have done besides study and hope. I want the record to show if we have done anything to follow up on what you describe as a policy of this Government that was initiated in January of 1957 and I guess reiterated in August of 1957. What have we done to follow up and expand that proposal to the peoples of the world?

Mr. BECKER. Well, it was directed at the peoples of the world who, up to now, have not indicated any willingness to discuss the point. Senator JOHNSON. Have we extended an offer or proposal such as the March 1958 Soviet proposal for international exploration of outer space?

Mr. BECKER. That proposal stands in the record, as I have previously stated. The portion of the proposal we are not willing to discuss is to link those two questions. If they insist there will be a linkage of the elimination of United States bases overseas with any cooperation in outer space, we are not prepared to discuss on that basis.

Senator JOHNSON. Aren't there some steps that the Department is prepared to take or to suggest that we should take now? And shouldn't we explore these possibilities fully?

Mr. BECKER. We are indeed exploring them, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. Don't you think that some progress is better than a stalemate?

Mr. BECKER. I think progress is better than a stalemate, but I am not certain we can make any progress unless other people are willing to discuss with us.

Senator JOHNSON. I quite agree with you. Now what are we doing to follow up and to make an affirmative proposal through the United Nations that we explore outer space together?

Mr. BECKER. Well, you have undoubtedly seen the material that has been published with respect to a possible summit meeting.

Senator JOHNSON. Oh, yes.

Mr. BECKER. And all the way through, discussion with respect to outer space has continued to be one of the points that we have advanced.

Senator JOHNSON. I didn't realize, though, that we had regarded that possible summit meeting with a great deal of approval. I wonder if we need to wait on a summit meeting to take any steps in this field.

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I know of no way that you can make people sit down and talk with you unless they are willing to do so.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you know of anybody lately even suggesting that we sit down and talk to them in this field? Has Ambassador Lodge made any statement since the first of the year in the United Nations? Has any public statement been made other than the Secretary's statement at the Press Club that he has given consideration to the proposal?

Mr. BECKER. Well, according to my best recollection, these statements have been made.

Senator JOHNSON. Would you insert them in the record at this point-any proposals and statements to assure the committee that we are active and aggressive and alert and on top of this thing? Mr. BECKER. I shall.

(The material referred to appears at the end of the testimony).

CONSULTATION AND PREPARATION OF THE BILL

of

Senator JOHNSON. I gather that the Department fully approves the suggested wording, which you just read, regarding the international cooperation amendment to the act.

Mr. BECKER. We do, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator JOHNSON. Were you consulted in the original drafting of the bill?

Mr. BECKER. In the normal course, we received a copy of the bill from the Bureau of the Budget asking our views on it.

Senator JOHNSON. Before it came to Congress?

Mr. BECKER. I believe it came to us on the 27th of April. I would like permission to correct that if it is an erroneous recollection, but I believe it was the 27th of April.

(The corrected date appears at the end of the testimony).

Senator JOHNSON. It came to Congress in the early part of April, didn't it

Mr. BECKER. I believe it did, yes.

Senator JOHNSON. April 2.

Mr. BECKER. The first I heard of it coming into the Department was on the 27th of April. I'm not aware that the Department was consulted in the actual drafting of the bill.

Senator JOHNSON. So apparently the Department received a copy of the bill 3 weeks after it had been sent to the Congress. Mr. BECKER. If my recollection is correct.

Senator JOHNSON. That may account for the failure to include in the original draft the amendment relating to international cooperation. Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairmen, let me attempt to correct myself on that. Did it come out as a congressional print very soon after it went to Congress? If that is the case, of course, we would routinely receive a copy of the bill. I was referring to the time when our comments on the bill were requested, so that it is entirely possible that we received, or almost certain, that we received a copy of the bill, but that was the time when our comments were requested by the Budget Bureau.

Senator JOHNSON. The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 14. Mr. BECKER. Yes, I would assume that we would have a copy of the bill as soon as it was introduced, but I was saying the time when our comments were requested, and I was not aware that we were consulted in connection with the drafting of the bill.

Senator JOHNSON. Don't you think it would have been better if you had had a chance to review it and make your suggestions before the bill came down and was introduced?

Mr. BECKER. It is always better if you have more time to comment or suggest.

Senator JOHNSON. Have you any other suggestions to make concerning improvements that should be made in the bill?

Mr. BECKER. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman, nor does the Department.

MAKING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think the use of the word "agreements" in the suggested section plus the fact that they would have to be approved by the Department of State in any way encroaches upon the power of the President to negotiate agreements?

Mr. BECKER. No, Mr. Chairman, because I think actually-I don't think the proposed language is necessary, because it is well recognized that the Secretary of State and the Department of State act only at the direction of the President.

ROLE OF STATE DEPARTMENT IN THE IGY

Senator JOHNSON. What role has the Department of State played in the International Geophysical Year?

Mr. BECKER. I checked into that question, Mr. Chairman. We have now close liaison with the various agencies that are engaged in the International Geophysical Year, and Dr. Brode, our science adviser, is informed as to what happens. It is my understanding, however, that the Department did not, as such, participate in the arrangements leading to the International Geophysical Year.

Senator JOHNSON. Has the Department taken any part in any arrangements to extend the IGY or any part of it?

Mr. BECKER. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.

LIAISON WITH NEW AGENCY

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think that the new section that we have discussed adding to the bill implies a well-established liaison between the new agency and the State Department?

Mr. BECKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

VANGUARD AND FOREIGN POLICY

Senator JOHNSON. Would you not agree that failure to relate the Vanguard project to our national security problem created problems for the Department of State in the conduct of our foreign policy?

Mr. BECKER. I'm not aware of any difficulty in our foreign policy that has been created by the Vanguard project, as a project.

SATELLITE PASSAGE AND SOVEREIGNTY

Senator JOHNSON. Is it likely that either the United States or the Soviet Union will ever declare that the passage of a satellite over its territory will constitute an infringement of sovereignty?

Mr. BECKER. I didn't quite get that question. Would you repeat it, please?

Senator JOHNSON. Is it very likely that either the Soviet Union or the United States will declare that the passage of a satellite over its territory will constitute an infringement of soverignty?

Mr. BECKER. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't like to answer that question hypothetically. You would have to ask it in the context of the specific fact situation existing at the time. I would point out that there are a number of factors you would have to consider in that relation, because one is the question of what is your reaction to their doing something, and the other is the question of whether you, yourself, want to do it. You would have to very carefully balance that in order to determine the position you would take. I would much prefer not to answer it hypothetically.

Senator JOHNSON. Do you think the answer to the question might be different if it developed that a satellite could be mistaken for an ICBM?

Mr. BECKER. I think that you have put your finger, Mr. Chairman, on a very difficult point, because ultimately, a decision might have to be made as to whether the passage of a particular object, for example, constituted such a threat to your security that you regarded youself as entitled to react against it.

Now, that is a determination that would be shared, certainly by both Defense and State. It would be a very serious determination.

NEGOTIATIONS ON OUTER SPACE

Senator JOHNSON. Are you going to furnish for the record a complete account of the negotiations by the United States Government on outer space-both within and outside the United States? Will you furnish that information to the committee so that we may be aware of what steps we have taken?

Mr. BECKER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll have to refer that back to the Department on that particular point, because diplomatic negotiations are usually regarded as privileged.