Does the gentleman from Indiana have any questions with reference to that?

Mr. ROUSH. No.

Mr. SISK. Go right ahead, then, General. That is a very good explanation. You have given a clear picture of some of the problems that you have in coordinating all of these various groups, agencies, centers, and departments.

General SCHRIEVER. It is a big command; and, as you can see, there are a lot of people reporting directly to me, and I am going to see if I can't change that a little bit.

I have tried to indicate resources here, just to give you a feel for the command.

First of all, manpower and I will give you a more detailed breakdown on the manpower in the next chart-but there are 44,297 personnel in the Air Research and Development Command.

Moneywise, the total Air Force program which the Research and Development Command has responsibility for is $2.6 billion. Although some of this money comes from the Air Materiel Command, we work directly with AMC in the management of the program. That is about what it was last year, fiscal year 1959, and that is about what it is this year.

In installed facilities and equipment, we have almost $1.8 billion in the various centers in ARDC. And I think you can understand, if you have been down to the cape or seen the facilities at Tullahoma, where this money is, and the rocket facilities at Edwards, and so forth; they are tremendous facilities.

Mr. SISK. That is what you would term "capital investment." General SCHRIEVER. That is right, capital investment in facilities.

47386-59--14

These are Government facilities.

Now, let me go into a little more detail on the personnel-some 44,000.

PERSONNEL - Total 44297

8717

WAGE BOARD
EDUCATIONAL LEVELS of ALL ARDC OFFICERS
75% HAVE AT LEAST A BACHELOR'S DEGREE
25% HAVE AT LEAST A MASTER'S DEGREE

INCL. ENGRS, SCIENTISTS, & TECHS,

3% HAVE A PhD DEGREE

EDUCATIONAL LEVELS of TECHNICAL OFFICERS
93.5 % HAVE AT LEAST A BACHELOR'S DEGREE
34.5 % HAVE AT LEAST A MASTER'S DEGREE

2.5 % HAVE A PhD DEGREE

CIVILIAN SCIENTISTS and ENGINEERS (5000)

92% AT LEAST BACHELOR DEGREES

26% ADVANCED DEGREES

There are 5,800 officers, about 15,000 airmen, about 14,000 graded civilians, and Wage Board, about 9,000.

Now, going over to breakout of the officers from a technical standpoint-3,400 of them are technical; of the airmen, 8,100; and some 10,000 technical civilians.

Now, the educational level. Of all ARDC officers: 75 percent have at least a bachelor's degree, with 25 percent having higher than a bachelor's, 3 percent having a Ph. D.

Of the technical officers, 93.5 percent have at least a bachelor's degree, 34.5 percent have at least a master's degree, and 2.5 percent have a Ph. D.

Now, our civilian scientists and engineers-there are 5,000, dropping out the technical support personnel. Of those 5,000, 92 percent have at least bachelor's degrees and 26 percent have advanced degrees.

Now, I might say there is an active program going on throughout ARDC of on-the-job going to school. This is quite active. I have made a trip around to the various centers. I still have to cover a couple, and I was quite impressed by the enthusiasm that is being shown in self-improvement, you might say, by the civilian personnel going to school while on the job, and getting advanced degrees.

Mr. SISK. Now, before you leave that, do you have any other charts on personnel?

General SCHRIEVER. No, sir, this is the only one I have here.

Mr. SISK. I would like to ask counsel, Do you have a copy of Secretary Charyk's statement yesterday?

Mr. HINES. Yes, sir, I will get it for you.

Mr. SISK. What I have in mind is this: I am trying to tie together some personnel figures which Secretary Charyk gave us yesterday. As I recall, there were some 44,000 military personnel and 10,000 civilian. Now, what overlap is there?

Colonel, you could probably make a comment on that.

Colonel STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. I just wanted to clarify whether or not it is the same group of people we are talking about, or to what extent there is a difference.

Colonel STEWART. I was here yesterday.

Mr. SISK. I recall; yes.

Colonel STEWART. We mentioned a figure of 44,000, and I think you misunderstood, sir, because that was military and civilian personnel under the Air Research and Development Command. Then we also mentioned a figure of 54,000, if you recall, and this included some 10,000 contractor personnel who we consider in the aspect of working for ARDC, for example, the contractor personnel at Tullahoma, at the Atlantic Missile Range. That is where the 54,000 figure came from, sir.

General SCHRIEVER. I can explain.

You see, we have under contract, working directly for the Air Force Pan American and RCA, for example operating the facilities at Patrick. We have ARD operating the wind tunnels at Tullahoma; STL (Space Technology Laboratories) which is working directly for the Ballistic Missile Division on the west coast. So I imagine that is where the 10,000 came from.

I don't have the breakdown.

Mr. SISK. Well, I appreciate that. And it wasn't any attempt to trip anyone up, but to get clear in my own mind the figures, because I assumed that the 44,000 we are speaking of here was the 44,000 we were talking of yesterday.

Colonel STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. But I understood yesterday that was all military personnel, and I find now I was in error.

Colonel STEWART. I was afraid yesterday you had misunderstood that, sir, because the 44,000 figure was a total of military and civilian. Mr. SISK. So actually in total military here you only haveGeneral SCHRIEVER. About 21,000.

Mr. SISK. So in the whole 54,000 we were talking about yesterday, about 60 percent of that 54,000 figure would be civilian personnel. Colonel STEWART. Civil service and contractor, sir.

Mr. SISK. Well, that is what I mean.

Colonel STEWART. Yes, sir; civilian personnel.

Mr. SISK. In other words, only about 21,000 are military.
Colonel STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISK. Well, I am glad you clarified that, because I had the wrong idea.

Colonel STEWART. We are sorry if we confused the situation yesterday.

Mr. SISK. No, it was my own fault. But I am glad this is straightened out now.

Now I am sure my colleague from Indiana may have some questions with reference to a couple of points.

First, how much difficulty are you having in getting some of these people, and second, how much trouble are you having in retaining them?

General SCHRIEVER. I can quickly cover this point, and then we can get back to that.

Mr. SISK. Very well. You may proceed.

General SCHRIEVER. This merely indicates the many agencies that ARDC deals with. We start right out here with the White House. There is a great deal of informal contact, for example, with the President's Science Advisory Committee. Sometimes it is formal. If it is formal, it comes through channels. But there is a great deal of informal contact, because we know many of the people on this committee, so there is much interchange here, and of course in the Congress. I have spent a good deal of time testifying before Congress.

OPERATING RELATIONSHIPS

Mr. SISK. I wonder sometimes how much we impose on the time. you need to spend on other things.

General SCHRIEVER. No, as a matter of fact, I have been around here long enough to realize that is part of our job.

Mr. SISK. That is part of democracy.

General SCHRIEVER. Yes.

Of course the Secretary of Defense-that goes right through channels here, as you can see.

I have explained there are some simplified channels as relates to the ballistic missile program. We have the ballistic missile committee, headed by the Secretary of the Air Force, and actually for program approval and policy direction we go through that committee directly to the Secretary of Defense's Office. At the DOD level there is a Secretary of Defense committee, or ballistic missile com

mittee, with the Under Secretary or Deputy Secretary as chairman. So we do get expedited administrative action in the ballistic missile field.

Now, going here to NASA, we are doing quite a lot of work with NASA, particularly in the space area. We are tied in with them on the Mercury project, the Centaur project. We have some special deep space probe projects. We have and are attempting to work out detailed working relationships with NASA in all of these areas.

Of course, you realize, as you move from ballistic missiles into space, or you have military space programs, like our Century project, Discoverer, Midas, and so on, you are essentially using the same set of resources, so we have to work extremely closely with NASA. I have had a number of sessions with Dr. Glennan, working out details in this regard.

Mr. SISK. I am sure you have the same problem we have here on this committee; that is, this idea of jurisdiction. We have, of course, committees of the House which have jurisdiction over defense and over armed services, and yet at the same time your program, the weapons, the vehicles, and the hardware which you use are so intermingled and tied in with our space program that it is quite a complicated problem.

General SCHRIEVER. Yet; it is quite a job.

Mr. SISK. That is right.

General SCHRIEVER. Of course, in the aeronautics field we have had long, long experience in dealing with NACA, and that relationship is continuing right along. Like on the X15, for example, the NASA and also the Navy, as a matter of fact, are in on the X15 project. So this is definitely a joint program.

Well, of course, there are many other Government agencies that we deal with directly, such as the Bureau of Standards, the new Federal Aviation Administration-agencies of that kind that we are dealing with directly.

Mr. SISK. Right at that point, General, let me ask you to what extent or what type of liaison do you have generally with, for example, the Bureau of Standards. I know that happens to be one agency that is under the jurisdiction of this committee. What type of liaison do you have, for example, between the Bureau of Standards and the Air Force? Or does the Bureau simply have liaison with the Department of Defense and then information filters down to the various branches of the service? How does that work out?

General SCHRIEVER. I Would have to check this.

We do not-I am pretty sure I am correct in this: We do not have active liaison in terms of having an officer stationed with the Bureau of Standards. But I have been in the research and development business ever since the end of the war, mostly here in Washington, and we have always had very close working relationships with the Bureau of Standards, and they have been primarily on an informal basis. We know the people and we know what they are responsible for, what they can do for us, and we ask them to do certain things for us. In the past we have had-and I am pretty sure now they are doing certain projects for us which we are funding-I know that this has been so in the past. I am not sure where we stand at the moment.

Mr. SISK. That is fine.