COMPOSITION OF NEW SPACE BOARD Senator JOHNSON. Are you at all concerned about the language in the bill that would permit employment of 16 retired vice presidents over the country and 1 civilian who was named day before yesterday in the Defense Department to make up this so-called policy board? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, yes, I believe that this could be improved. I do believe that if there is a Government agency, that the majority of the Board should represent Government and have their first loyalty to the Government. I believe that the Department of Defense activity in this Board or position in this Board should be improved, should be expanded. TRANSFER OF SOME ARPA FUNCTIONS TO NEW AGENCY Senator JOHNSON. Dr. Dryden said on Face the Nation, CBS Television Network, April 27, 1958, 4:30 to 5 p. m.-did you hear that program? Mr. JOHNSON. I did, sir; yes. Senator JOHNSON. Do you remember this statement? Mr. RAYMOND. Dr. Dryden, how would you divide between the military and the civilian? Dr. DRYDEN. This is very simple. We are engaged in discussions with ARPA at the present time to see which of the programs the President has approved will be transferred to the new agency. I guess you held on to your chair by that time. He goes ahead: There is complete agreement that space science programs in their entirety will be transferred. Were you a party to that agreement? Did you know about that agreement? Did you transfer your outfit as part of it? Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, the background is this Senator JOHNSON. I don't want the background. I just want to know if you were a party to it. Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; but I would like to, if I may explain- Elaborate. Mr. JOHNSON. The scientific portion of the budget that we have requested of the Congress for 1959 includes $72 million for an extension of the IGY program for 1959 that would be satellites put into space to get purely scientific data, some more cosmic ray information, and that sort of thing. We have always contended in the last 3 months that if an agency of this kind was created, it should logically be transferred. This is an extension of the IGY, and we had a letter from the President saying that part of the program he had already approved, that was scientific, should be transferred; and I do not think we had any disagreement on that. But as to the man in space, great disagreement. On that we compromised and said that is joint civilian and joint military. I am not too unhappy about that compromise at the moment, as long as we can both do what we want to do and pursue our objectives without interference from the other. I am for cooperation and you can get the job done that you want to get done. Senator JOHNSON. I am quoting further: There is agreement that reconnaissance satellites will remain in the military and certain other aspects of it, and that there be joint projects in other areas. Man in space I think will be a joint project. There has been an agreement and you were a party to that agreement? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; this at the moment, I think we-in order to stop any possible in-fighting and to make sure that we get going while the Congress and I hope that the Congress takes the time to deliberate on this one-and in the meantime our programs have to go forward. I cannot sit up there and just argue this is going to be man in space and let 3 or 4 months go by, so I am going to see to it that not one single thing is left undone while this legislation is being debated. So we, in spite of the objections of many people, have agreed cooperatively so we are meeting regularly. We met yesterday with the Air Force. There were 50 of us in the room. NASA had three representatives there on "the man in space" program. We met on meteorology. We are meeting regularly with NACA. If they get this job, they will be up to date on everything we are doing and no progress will be stopped in the meantime. This is my reason why. Anything you decide to do, we will cooperate on. We are going to make it work because the job cannot be stopped by people getting emotional or arguing over prerogatives. INSUFFICIENT TIME TO COMMENT ON BILL Senator JOHNSON. I agree, Mr. Johnson. Now, a final question. Do you think that the executive branch of the Government might have produced a better bill, a sounder bill, had you been given more than 24 hours to formulate your views and had tried to put them in this legislation? In other words, if you had been as deliberate as you are asking us to be, might not we have started off with a better bill? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would be less than frank if I did not answer "Yes." I would be less than honest if I did not say yes. I am quite sure that we could have been helpful. I am quite sure that I personally could have contributed to some of the things in this bill that I feel would have improved it. Senator JOHNSON. Is there disagreement on the character of weather or communications satellites? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you see, there are several kinds of communications. There are several kinds of weather, cloud-cover problems. At the moment I think we could cooperatively get together but as the programs become more refined, I think military communications might take quite a different road than civilian communications. It is quite possible to meteorology studying cloud cover formations from satellites and the TV cameras, that the requirements of the Navy and the Air Force, particularly, could be quite different from those of the Weather Bureau; but at the moment, at the beginning, during the first getting acquainted with the problem, it would not be wrong to have 4 satellites up there: 1 for the Army, 1 for the Navy, 1 for the Air Force, and 1 for the Weather Bureau. I don't think having one is going to last as it becomes more refined in specialized knowledge. Senator JOHNSON. Now, when did you first see this bill? Mr. JOHNSON. Sir, the date is not in my memory and I do not have any notes here. I will supply this for the record when I get back and consult my calendar, sir. Senator JOHNSON. The bill was introduced on April 14, so I assume you saw it sometime before that? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. Now, you have had considerable time to deliberate, as you put it, on the provisions of this bill? Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes. Yes, sir. Senator JOHNSON. You are going to have some more time before you submit your detailed suggestions and they are going to receive the very thorough and adequate and I trust objective consideration of this committee. We thank you very, very much for coming here. We may want to talk to you again. Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. It was an honor to be here. (The material for the record, supplied by Mr. Roy W. Johnson, is as follows:) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Space and Astronautics, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. Roy Johnson, Director of ARPA, and I left an executive session of the House Select Committee on Space and Astronautics at 4 o'clock this afternoon, at which time he had an engagement to fly to Massachusetts with a group of other persons on a mission connected with ARPA activities. He asked me at that time to write this letter to you on his behalf, in order to fulfill his undertaking to let you know if language was developed which was satisfactory to him to alter the provisions of S. 3609 (and the corresponding House bill), in order to meet the concerns which he had with the original language of those bills. As a result of consideration of the matter today before the appearance of Mr. Roy Johnson before the House select committee, Mr. Johnson was able to report substantial agreement within the executive department upon the following two changes in S. 3609: First: Strike out on lines 9 and 10 the following: in which case the agency may act in cooperation with, or on behalf of, the Department of Defense." Substitute for the language thus stricken out the following: "in the case of which activities the Department of Defense shall be responsible. The whole sentence beginning on line 4, as a result of the above change, will read as follows: "The Congress further declares that such activities should be directed by a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space research sponsored by the United States, except insofar as such activities may be peculiar to or primarily associated with weapons systems or military operations, in the case of which activities the Department of Defense shall be responsible.' Second: On page 3, line 20, substitute the single word "nine" at the beginning of the sentence for the four words "no more than eight"; and also on line 23 substitute the word "three" for the word "one". The provision thus amended, appearing on lines 20 to 23 inclusive of page 3 will, therefore, read as follows: "(1) Nine of the members of the Board shall be designated from appropriate departments or agencies of the Government of the United States, including at least three who shall be from the Department of Defense." Mr. Johnson testified that with these changes he believed that his expressions of possible concern had been met and that the bill as thus changed was in his judgment entirely satisfactory. Very sincerely, ROBERT DECHERT. Mr. EDWIN WEISL, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, Committee Counsel, Special Senate Committee on Space and Astronautics, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. WEISL: In response to your question, "We have the NACA. Why do we need another agency?" I should like to expand on my testimony of May 7, 1958, before the Special Committee on Space and Astronautics. I think my testimony makes it clear that I support the proposed legislation (S. 3609) for a National Aeronautics and Space Agency; although I suggested, as you know, some clarifying language. It seems to me that the President's proposal is in effect an extension of the NACA's statutory responsibilities. In this sense, it would not be a "new agency.' I understand that one of the main reasons for new legislation is to eliminate any doubt or ambiguity in existing legislation under which NACA functions that presently could be restrictively interpreted so as to prevent NACA from expanding its work to include space research and development. This broader concept of a national space agency, based upon the good record of the NACA, is a sound one and I share the views of those who believe that it can be organized and developed so as to help concentrate the military, scientific, and industrial resources of our country to meet effectively the challenge to leadership in this field. Sincerely yours, ROY W. JOHNSON, Director. Senator JOHNSON. The next witness is Dr. Herbert York, Chief Scientist of the Advanced Research Projects Agency. Dr. York, will you please come to the stand and be seated at the table? (Whereupon, Herbert York was called as a witness.) STATEMENT OF HERBERT YORK Senator JOHNSON. Dr. York, as background for your testimony, your biography will be placed into the record. (Biography of Dr. Herbert York follows:) DR. HERBERT YORK, CHIEF SCIENTIST, ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY Dr. York was born in Rochester, N. Y., on November 24, 1921. He attended the University of Rochester, receiving degrees of bachelor of arts in 1942 and master of science in 1943. In 1949 he received the degree of doctor of philosophy from the University of California. From 1942 to 1943, Dr. York was a teaching assistant at the University of Rochester and since that time has been continuously associated with the University of California. He became a physicist in the Radiation Laboratory in 1943, and since 1951 he has also served as assistant professor and associate professor of physics at the university. He became a director of the Livermore Laboratory in 1942. Dr. York was appointed a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee on November 30, 1957. He is presently a member of the Army Scientific Advisory Panel and the Ballistic Missiles Advisory Committee, and a former member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. He was appointed Chief Scientist of the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department of Defense on March 18, 1958. Senator JOHNSON. The committee will be pleased to have any statements you care to make. CONCERN OVER UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS ON MILITARY SPACE PROGRAMS Dr. YORK. I don't have a statement of my own, separate from Mr. Johnson's. I might just say I am concerned about some of the same things that he is concerned about; namely, that in writing a bill to set up a civilian space agency that no unnecessary restrictions are placed on the Department of Defense and its space science program. I do not have a statement. I would be glad to answer any of the same kind of questions or any other you might wish to put. Senator JOHNSON. Senator Hickenlooper? QUESTION OF SPECIFICITY OF LEGISLATION Senator HICKENLOOPER. I would like to ask Dr. York if, in his opinion, we can write legislation at this time in detail as far as various phases of our problems are concerned that can be relied upon to guide us for several years, or should we attempt merely generalized legislation? Should we take a look-see and go on from there as experience unfolds? Dr. YORK. Sir, I am not a very good one to answer that question. I am not very familiar with the legal problems and other things of that sort. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not think that is a legal problem. Dr. YORK. However, I am sure that it is not possible for anybody to foresee all of the problems that are going to arise here. I do not know whether that means you should write generalized or specialized legislation, but I am sure in a few years the problem is going to look different from what it looks today. Senator HICKENLOOPER. In other words, what I am trying to get at is this: We could write legislation today that would channel certain functions in certain lines; in some ways get them, for the time being, at least, frozen into that pattern. It might be very difficult in the future to change those patterns that we had written into law today. Do you think that is an element we should be considering in this legislation? Dr. YORK. I think you should bear in mind you may very well have to change the pattern in a few years; yes, sir. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I realize that it is a big field and we do not know just what the future holds. Dr. YORK. Yes; space is not a field; it is a place and until we get in there and have a look around, it is kind of hard to judge what we are going to find, what problems we will be faced with, and what is the right way to handle them. Senator HICKENLOOPER. You have stated something that is in my mind about the necessity for not freezing or attempting to freeze the pattern of this legislation in too great detail at this time; and I hope that we can find an approach that will give us the framework within which to work and still have some room for modification for the future. I think that is all. Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Anderson? Senator ANDERSON. Dr. York, you know that I am very mad at you. I hated to see you leave Livermore Laboratory, more than anything in the world, because I regarded you as one of the very fine Government people and I think the contributions you made were wonderful, indeed. Dr. YORK. I appreciate your anger. Senator ANDERSON. I opposed the creation of Livermore originally and I was wrong because the results are very fine, indeed. |