Senator Smith and Senator Martin are both members of our Space Committee and I know that this committee will want to get their views about the wisdom of the House's action after I have had a chance to speak briefly and after Senator Stennis, who is perhaps the most competent person on our side of the Hill in this field, has had a chance to give you his views.

Your Appropriations Committee has a proud record of approving the funds and the programs that our national interest requires. I think this was fully demonstrated last week in the action taken on the Department of Defense appropriation bill, which comes up for floor action today.

ACCELERATION OF BALLISTIC MISSILES PROGRAM

In the case of the Department of Defense appropriation bill, your Appropriations Committee wisely recommended appropriating at least $346 million more than the budget estimates as well as providing the Secretary of Defense with additional authority to accelerate the ballistic missiles program.

I have no doubt that perhaps other programs would have been increased had the thought been entertained that the money would have been spent if we had appropriated it.

I wholeheartedly support these steps, which I think are clearly necessary to overcome some of the deficiencies in our defense program. We have from time to time pointed out those deficiencies in hearings conducted by the Preparedness Subcommittee.

SPACE PROGRAM AND NATIONAL SECURITY

As we meet here today, we have to deal with appropriations of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In many respects the space program is a vital part of our national security efforts.

I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to know that the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Dr. Keith Glennan, will testify in full in connection with their request for restoration.

I did not know Dr. Glennan until he came before our committee in connection with his confirmation. Since then I have had a number of dealings with him. I believe he is an extremely competent administrator, a very dedicated public servant, and I have commended the President on his selection of this quality of man to head this most vital program.

PROJECT MERCURY

Project Mercury, which is NASA's No. 1 task, has been given the same highest national priority designation that applies to the ballistic missiles program.

The Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences has examined the NASA program in every detail. Copies of the comprehensive hearings and report are on the table for each member here today. That was done under the leadership of Senator Stennis, and I do not believe we have ever had a more thorough or more comprehensive hearing than was conducted in that connection.

Our committee procedure in reviewing the NASA authorization program was to first address ourselves to the $45 million fiscal year

1959 supplemental request, and then to the $485,300,000 fiscal year 1960 program. In each instance the authorizing committee's concern was whether or not the programs as presented were sufficient for the time periods concerned to provide the United States with a program which could make us preeminent in this field.

We were assured by all responsible witnesses that these specific programs were sufficient, but that the following years would require additional authorizations and appropriations.

On the basis of this expert testimony and on the basis of the thorough deliberations of the subcommittee, the subcommittee and the full committee unanimously recommended favorable Senate action, and the Senate took that action.

The House Space Committee took parallel action and the House approved the authorization bill as reported.

HOUSE REDUCTIONS

In dealing with the appropriations request, however, the House reduced the fiscal year 1959 supplemental from $45 million to $18,675,000, a reduction of approximately 59 percent.

The House reduced the fiscal year 1960 appropriation from $485,300,000 to $443,400,000, a 9 percent reduction.

Mr. Chairman, the total of these two bills as authorized by both the House and the Senate was $530,300,000. This does not include $3,354,000 authorized for the costs of the civilian pay increase in fiscal year 1959, the appropriations for which were provided in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Act for 1959.

The House Appropriations Committee action totaled $462,075,000, or $68,225,000 less than both the Senate and the House had authorized. That is what we are talking about now, the sharp cut of $68,225,000. Mr. Chairman, I urge that this committee support the full amount as authorized; in other words, take appropriate action to reinstate the full $68,225,000.

I shall not at this time ask the committee to indulge me in order to go into precise details of the impact on the space program if this action is not taken because, as I have told you, I have the greatest respect and confidence in the Administrator, Dr. Glennan, and in his staff of dedicated experts, who are here ready and willing and eager and prepared to testify on the subject and to justify their request.

LETTER FROM DR. GLENNAN

On July 10, Dr. Glennan sent me a letter expressing his deep concern over the cuts. I believe the letter will be of interest to all members of the committee. I assume that it is somewhat the same as the letter which the chairman indicated will be put in the record, so I will not ask that it be inserted in the record, but the letter will be available to anyone interested in it.

I would like to conclude by saying that we all know the importance to our Nation of this space program. It is a program that knows no party lines. It is a program that should appeal to and receive the support of all good Americans.

The program is new and it is one with many unknown areas.

I do not think we can afford to be complacent. I think we must provide our country with the means to be preeminent in the field.

I am convinced that if the administration has erred at all in this field, it has erred in the field of conservatism in appropriations rather than exaggeration or extravagance. I believe my opinion in that field will be confirmed by some of the most solid and stable and prudent Members of this Congress who serve on our committee.

I thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity to state these views. I want to be here and participate when the markup is taken on the bill, and I commend to you the hearings conducted by Senator Stennis, and particularly the opinions of Senator Stennis, Senator Smith, and Senator Martin, who were active in these authorization hearings and who also serve as members of this committee.

I want to point out again that these authorizations passed the House and the Senate by practically unanimous votes. I think one of them was 81 to 1 and the other was 91 to 0.

That is the kind of unity I like to see presented to the rest of the world in national security matters like this, and I think it would be a great mistake if this committee refused to agree to the request made by Dr. Glennan.

Thank you very much.

Chairman HAYDEN. Senator, thank you.

Senator Stennis?

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to supplement what Senator Johnson has said with a brief statement, and I feel that I am speaking for our subcommittee on this.

We on the subcommittee that held the hearings were favorably impressed indeed with Dr. Glennan and Dr. Dryden and their very fine staff. Dr. Glennan was very frank in his statements about the cost of these projects, that some of them might be more, and some might be less."

However, we went through every item and did not recommend reduction of one dollar in the overall program, and that passed the floor, as the majority leader said, by these overwhelming votes. But there was a technical point of order raised on the floor of the House that resulted in the deletion of some funds. These funds were rejected not on the merits, as I understand it, but simply because of a technicality. I have prepared a very brief statement that I believe should be read, in order to clear the record and bring into exact focus the point that is here before the committee. Of course, the merits of the NASA programs will be testified to by Dr. Glennan and others.

EFFECT OF DELAY IN AUTHORIZATION

There was discussion on the floor of the House after this technicality arose that summed the matter up by this statement:

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.

That gives the impression, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that the program has been hampered somewhat here this year by the lack of authorization and that is just not the fact.

Legislative authorization for the supplemental appropriation required by NASA for the fiscal year 1959 was promptly provided by

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. This was contained in House Document 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. 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. would urge that this be done.

I