the Senate on March 10. The House completed its action on April 14, and the bill was signed by the President on April 22 and became Public Law 86-12. Two days before the authorization act was signed by the President, the budget estimate of $45 million was officially transmitted to the House and reported as House Document No. 114. Since this was an urgent program, congressional action on the fiscal year 1960 authorization bill proceeded on the assumption that prompt action would be taken on the supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1959. AUTHORIZATION BILL PROVISION Section 4 of the 1960 authorization bill provided for the continuation of the requirement that all appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration must be preceded by legislative authorization, The exact wording of this section is as follows: SEC. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration unless previously authorized by legislation hereafter enacted by the Congress. This 1960 authorization bill was enacted on June 15, 1959, as Public Law 86-45. However, the House still had not taken action on the 1959 supplemental appropriation authorization for NASA, despite the fact that legislative authorization for such appropriations had been available since April 22 and the hearings of the House Appropriations Subcommittee had concluded on May 1. Because of the House delay in handling the NASA supplemental appropriation for fiscal 1959, a technical point of order was raised and sustained that authorization no longer existed for the fiscal year 1959 appropriations in view of the wording of section 4 of Public Law 86-45. Of course, when the Congress passed the 1960 NASA authorization bill, there was absolutely no intent to nullify the supplemental authorization for fiscal year 1959 that had been provided earlier by Public Law 86-12. It is purely a technical situation, arising from a situation that had not been anticipated; namely, that there would be protracted delay in handling the supplemental appropriation requests for fiscal year 1959. I do not say this in criticism of the House. I am just stating the facts. On the merits of the matter, Mr. Chairman, and, of course, this will be sustained by Dr. Glennan and others, I think we should speedily restore the figures in this appropriation bill. The technical point raised in the House can be taken care of simply by incorporating in this bill the minor language changes recommended in Dr. Glennan's letter of July 9 to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Hayden. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. PREPARED STATEMENT I would like my full statement to go in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN STENNIS Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the distinguished majority leader in urging full restoration of the amounts cut by the House. Before we proceed with questioning Dr. Glennan, I believe it might be helpful to get the record straight at the outset of these hearings as to the relationship between the authorization acts and the appropriation requests. When this bill was before the House, a technical point of order was raised on the floor that legislative authorization no longer existed for the $45 million requested in supplemental fiscal year 1959 appropriations. This technicality was upheld and resulted in deletion from the bill of $22,725,000 which had been recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. Since I know that this committee will carefully consider the dollar amounts that should be appropriated, I do not intend to discuss this specific reduction at this time. I am concerned, however, about some mistaken impressions that might result from the debate on the floor of the House relative to this cut unless the correct facts are made available. The discussion on this matter was summed up by the statement that: “* * * when you do not get the authorization bill passed promptly, and when you do not get an adequate authorization, you run into roadblocks that slow down the U.S. effort to achieve the first manned vehicle in space." This certainly gives the impression that the space program either has been, or will be, hampered by the fact that all appropriations for NASA require specific authorization. Nothing could be further from the truth. Legislative authorization for the supplemental appropriations required by the National Aeronautics and Space Agency for the fiscal year 1959 was promptly provided by the Senate on March 10. The House completed its action on April 14. The bill was signed by the President on April 22 and became Public Law 86-12. Two days before the authorization act was signed by the President, the budget estimate of $45 million was officially transmitted to the House. was contained in House Document 114. This Since this was an urgent program, congressional action on the fiscal year 1960 authorization bill proceeded on the assumption that prompt action would be taken on the supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1959. Section 4 of the 1960 authorization bill provided for continuation of the requirement that all appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration must be preceded by legislative authorization. The exact wording of this section is as follows: "SEC. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, no appropriation may be made to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration unless previously authorized by legislation hereafter enacted by the Congress." The 1960 authorization bill was enacted on June 15, 1959, as Public Law 86-45. However, the House still had not taken action on the 1959 supplemental appropriation request for NASA, despite the fact that legislative authorization for such appropriations had been available since April 22, and the hearings of the House Appropriations Subcommittee had concluded on May 1. Because of the House delay in handling the NASA supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1959, a technical point of order was raised, and sustained, that authorization no longer existed for the fiscal year 1959 appropriations in view of the wording of section 4 of Public Law 86-45. Of course, when the Congress passed the 1960 NASA authorization bill, there was absolutely no intent to nullify the supplemental authorization for fiscal year 1959 that had been provided earlier by Public Law 86-12. On the basis of hindsight 20/20 vision, the legislative committees may be guilty of an oversight in not foreseeing the possibility of protracted delay by the House in handling the supplemental appropriation request. However, there is certainly no basis for anyone to conclude from this one unusual situation that the authorization requirement is undesirable or causes unnecessary delay in providing necessary funds for NASA. The staff of the Space Committee has carefully reviewed the legislative situation resulting from the technicality raised in the House. It is my understanding that there is no impediment to providing the full amount of the budget request for fiscal years 1959 and 1960, if this committee and the Senate desire to do so. I would urge that this be done. RESTORATION OF HOUSE CUTS Chairman HAYDEN. Senator Kerr, do you have any comment? Senator KERR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my complete agreement with the remarks made by Senator Johnson and Senator Stennis, urging this committee to provide the full amounts requested for the space program. Failure to restore the House cuts could prove to be one of the most "penny wise and pound foolish" moves that could be made by the Congress. Chairman HAYDEN. Mrs. Smith, have you any comment? Senator SMITH. No, except to say the chairman has spoken for the subcommittee and I am very glad to concur in all that he said, as I am with the chairman of the full committee. It has been a very, very great privilege to sit with both these gentlemen. Chairman HAYDEN. Senator Martin. Senator MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I second the motion of Senator Smith and Senator Stennis and Senator Johnson. I have never seen an authorization program bill more thoroughly studied and carefully analyzed than this bill in our committee. The work was really most outstanding, especially by the chairman of our subcommittee, Mr. Stennis, and by Dr. Glennan and his staff. We were very much impressed by the importance of the situation and we very much wanted to meet the challenge that is before our Nation today insofar as we could help to that end. The best endorsement of the proceedings that I can recite at this time is the unanimity of the action of the subcommittee and of the full Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, and also, as Senator Johnson has pointed out, the very outstanding vote on the Senate as a whole on these authorizations that we had studied so carefully in the committee. I want to add my full endorsement to their presentation. There is certainly nothing partisan in it. This is unanimous as far as our committee is concerned. Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, may I add one sentence. POSSIBLE DUPLICATIONS We also went into the proposition of possible duplications with the military or any other agency of government with reference to facilities, and programs, and so forth, and were completely satisfied that if there were any at all, they were certainly reduced to the absolute minimum. Senator ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, before Dr. Glennan testifies, I would like to ask Senator Stennis one or two questions just to get clearly before us the amount to be restored. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ITEMS On page 4 of the bill we find a committee item of $18,675,000 for research and development, which was under the budget estimate. That went out on a point of order, and another committee item also went out on a point of order, allowance for overseas entertainment, I believe. Then I understand that there was an addition made in that following paragraph and that took care of those two items that went out on a point of order. Senator STENNIS. Dr. Glennan will develop that, Senator RobertI would be happy to answer your questions, but I believe it would be better for Dr. Glennan to do so. son. Senator ROBERTSON. It seems the committee wrote this up before they thought it was subject to a point of order and delayed consideration on the floor, and then the point of order was made and the Chair sustained it. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ITEMS On page 5 there is a budget item of $24,250,000 for construction equipment. The committee had written is $22,725,000 and that went out on a point of order and that has stayed out. Will this request be for the restoration of what the House eliminated from the committee report on the point of order? Will it be the restoration of the full budget estimate for all these items? Senator STENNIS. That is correct, the request will be for restoration of the original budget estimate, as I understand Dr. Glennan's testimony to be. Senator ROBERTSON. Full budget estimate? Senator STENNIS. Yes. Senator ROBERTSON. And the total amount of restoration is in what amount, Doctor? Dr. GLENNAN. $68,225,000, Senator Robertson. Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to supplement what Senator Stennis has said about the desirability of including in this appropriation bill such language as may be necessary to meet any technical point of order that may be brought or has been brought to knock out funds in this bill. In view of the nonpartisan attitude on the authorizing committee and in view of the fact that a number of us are also on the Appropriations Committee, I think that if we will insert in this bill any authorizing language that may be necessary in the opinion of the staff, the Senate will, I hope, support our decision. We certainly do not want a vital national program to be hampered by a technicality. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND JUSTIFICATION Chairman HAYDEN. Dr. Glennan, we will place in the record your letter, the amendments, the authorization legislation, the budget estimates together with the summary statements from our justifications and you may proceed. (The information referred to follows:) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made herein to H.R. 7978, the supplemental appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives on June 29, 1959. This bill includes an fiscal year 1959 supplemental request and the regular fiscal year 1960 request for funds for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Due to several technical points of order being sustained during the debate in the House, the Appropriations Committee's reduction of NASA's funding request were increased from $45,500,000 to $68,225,000. Any reduction in the NASA's tight budget will have a critical effect on the Nation's space pro gram. The Senate Appropriations Committee is being requested to fully restore the funds cut by the House. The areas in which the reductions have been made and the effects that such reductions will have if enacted are explained as follows: Funds requested, $354 million; 1959 supplemental reduced $2,075,000; fiscal year 1960 reduced $33,070,000. The NASA in discharging its duty to develop and manage a national space exploration program for the United States formulated an orderly and progressive program during fiscal year 1959. This program not only sought to produce immediate and obvious results, but was designed to produce a sound, continuing foundation for anticipated accomplishments in the future. A reduction in "Research and development" funds which are the fundamental ingredients of this Nation's space effort, at the very beginning of this complex program can only result in crippling our efforts to establish U.S. leadership in space. In requesting its appropriations, the NASA sought adequate research and development funds to carry out the programs formulated in fiscal year 1959 and to take the first steps toward future programs. Of the $354 million requested for supplemental fiscal year 1959, and fiscal year 1960 funds, $222 million is required to continue contractual obligations started in 1959. An additional $88 million is needed to purchase payloads and to pay flight operation costs and other expenses required to use efficiently the items already being procured through existing contracts. Thus, out of $354 million, $310 million of the research and development sums requested are the fixed costs required to carry out the space program presented in detail to the Congress. The remaining $44 million is required to initiate advanced development of vehicle and payload components needed to improve the technical competence of the United States for flight programs to the moon and other planets. The proposed cut in research and development funding of $35,145,000 would, if absorbed in areas not definitely related to the presently contemplated flight program, reduce the funds available for development of these advanced systems to $8,305,500. Such a reduction in advanced development funding would result in a completely unbalanced NASA program. In order to achieve a new balance in the face of the proposed cut, it will, therefore, be necessary for the NASA to delete scheduled space flights or to slow down the procurement of equipment for these flights and hence to delay important elements of the flight program. Such reduction would seriously retard flight programs having great international repercussions as well as great practical benefits to the United States. Project Mercury, the Nation's first manned space flight project, for example, is the sole item represented in the $20,750,000 research and development funds requested in the supplemental fiscal year 1959 bill. The Appropriations Committee reduced this vital sum 10 percent. A reduction in the Project Mercury funding level below the requested sums can only be satisfied by slowing down the Mercury program, thereby jeopardizing the U.S. possibility of being the first Nation to place man in orbital space flight. By the same token, cuts may have to be made in the meteorological and communication satellite programs. Such reductions can only be accomplished by deferring certain of the developmental flights proposed in the budget transmitted to the Congress. 2. CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT Supplemental, 1959, reduced $1,525,000; fiscal year 1960 reduced $5,800,000. The NASA cannot make savings in the construction and equipment program of approximately 10 percent as proposed by the House without reducing the |