Mr. WOLF. Bomarc B, that's right. This could be ready in 1965? Dr. YORK. The Zeus.

Mr. WOLF. The Zeus he is talking about, if we proceeded at the same speed with it as we are the Bomarc.

Dr. YORK. Bomarc can probably be ready before 1964, sir.

Mr. WOLF. On an accelerated program, say a year. The thing that still bothers me and fascinates me is that this Bomarc is a ramjet engine, which means its maximum range is going to be limited to the amount of air that is in the atmosphere at any height.

Dr. YORK. It is only for opposing air-breathing planes or missiles. Mr. WOLF. Yet within a year's time, or maybe two-you say laterwe could have a rocket propelled

Dr. YORK. For defense against ICBM's, which is a differerent kind of defense.

Mr. WOLF. But 3 months ago we were exposed to the fact over in the Pentagon that the Russians are building ICBM's, and in 1961 they are going to have enough to kill this country completely.

Dr. YORK. 1961, 1962?

Mr. WOLF. That is why I took the floor on this thing yesterday, and that's why I am here now asking this question: Why are we spending so much money on an obsolete program? It has to be obsolete. We are going to have military aircraft; we are relying on the Strategic Air Command in this problem, which can go in any direction. They don't have to go just in a given 400-mile range. They can be based

out and come in.

Why aren't we spending a lot more money on this program with a rocket component?

Dr. YORK. On the program to intercept rockets?

Mr. WOLF. That's right. That's why I asked the other question on this death ray thing a little while ago.

Dr. YORK. The difference between the two is simply that, in the one case, we know how to do it; and in the other case we don't.

Mr. WOLF. We started this thing in 1949, Mr. Chairman, against the proposed target date of 1955, and still here it is 1959. They have plowed a tremendous amount of money into this Bomarc program. They still haven't had a supersonic kill. Here we have got the NikeZeus. I am not interested in the question of an interservice fight.

It is a tragic thing that has happened. Your job is going to be to try to stop it. The thing that worries me is what happens next.

Dr. YORK. The Bomarc and the Zeus now are for two entirely different purposes. The Bomarc is for antiaircraft, and the Zeus is for antimissiles.

Mr. WOLF. I agree with that.

Dr. YORK. It is probably true that

Mr. HALL. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Certainly.

Mr. HALL. But the Nike-Hercules, which is also the first stage, is antiaircraft.

Dr. YORK. That is antiaircraft.

Mr. HALL. And the further adaptation of that system, or the further development of that system, to the Nike-Zeus is antimissile. Dr. YORK. Yes, but that is a tremendously big difference. Mr. HALL. Bomarc is only for antiaircraft.

Mr. WOLF. That is what I am saying. It looks as if we are out of proportion in the amounts of money we are spending in this program when our real danger, if we can believe the military, is this question of ICBM's.

Dr. YORK. I believe that is correct, and I wish we knew how to intercept ICBM's. But in my opinion we don't. That is sort of a fact of nature.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we are going to have to adjourn. We will have to get the doctor back again, because I am satisfied that everybody here would like to ask lots of additional questions. Mr. WOLF. I think Mr. Bass has one.

The CHAIRMAN. I have got a dozen. Mr. Hechler just asked permission to ask a question, too. I don't believe we can finish, really. Mr. WOLF. Can we bring him back?

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, would you consent to come back again at some later date?

Dr. YORK. Yes, sir. I have a rather bad schedule in connection with another problem that is hot in the next couple of weeks. I am sure we can fit something together.

The CHAIRMAN. We will work it out.

Dr. YORK. I am having kind of a rough time for the next 2 weeks. The CHAIRMAN. The committee stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene Friday morning, 10 a.m., June 5, 1959.)

! BASIC SCIENTIFIC AND ASTRONAUTIC RESEARCH IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1959

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a.m., in room B-214, New House Office Building, Hon. Overton Brooks (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We are a little slow getting started this morning because it is Monday morning. We had a heavy schedule last week and we have got a heavy one this week.

Before we begin, however, I want to say that we have the pleasure of Maj. Gen. Hugo Panasco Alvin of Brazil, commanding officer of the Army Staff School of Brazil, with us this morning. He is over here studying the missile program, so I invited him down here to this committee to hear the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Secretary McNeil. He is accompanied by Lt. Jack Halliburton, who is with him during his stay in the United States.

We are happy to have you, gentlemen, here on behalf of the committee.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you, Mr. Chairman, in welcoming General Alvin to this committee this morning. I hope your stay in this country will be profitable and pleasant. General ALVIN. I thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The general will have to leave in a few moments. I told him to stay as long as he could. When he would have to leave, it is understood.

We are fortunate to have this morning Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. W. J. McNeil, who is going to talk to us on the program from a budget viewpoint of the science research and development program for the Defense Department.

Secretary McNeil, you have a statement, sir. If you wish to proceed with your general statement, we would appreciate it very much.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. J. MCNEIL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)

Mr. MCNEIL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would hope that the general could stay quite a while because I feel better, you know, when one is well supported.

The CHAIRMAN. He is supposed to catch a plane at 11 o'clock, I understand, but maybe we could get him to stay over until this afternoon instead.

Mr. MCNEIL. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the committee desired a general discussion of the fiscal aspects of the research, development, test and evaluation program of the Department of Defense. It may be useful in placing this program in its proper framework to discuss briefly the overall defense budget and the manner in which it is organized and developed.

Arrangement of the fiscal year 1960 budget

First, a brief discussion of the arrangement of the fiscal year 1960 budget might be helpful. The budget format and changes in appropriation structure proposed for 1960 are intended to facilitate presentation and consideration of the Department of Defense budget on a functional and more uniform basis than in past years.

I might interpolate that in the past the emphasis has been on Army, Navy, Air Force and the Office of Secretary of Defense, or other organizational divisions. This year the presentation is based on the principle of broad functional areas.

Attachment A to this statement is a conversion table showing the relationships between the 1960 and 1959 budget arrangements. (Attachment A faces p. 50.)

The 1960 arrangement-while retaining Service identification— emphasizes the functional rather than the organizational aspects of the Department of Defense budget. All appropriations are grouped under five main functional headings: "Military personnel"; Operations and Maintenance"; "Procurement"; "Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation"; and “Military Construction." A sixth grouping covers the revolving and management funds of the Department of Defense.

In addition, there are changes in the content of a number of individual appropriations in 1960 compared to 1959. With regard to the subject under discussion this morning, the new arrangement of the budget differentiates more clearly between procurement on the one hand, and research, development, test and evaluation on the other. For the most part the changes to accomplish this result represent decreases in the estimates for the procurement-type appropriations and corresponding increases in the estimates for the more comprehensive research, development, test, and evaluation appropriations. To the extent that amounts associated with development, test, and evaluation remain in the procurement appropriations, at least for the present, they are to be identified as separate budget activities.

Language changes recommended in the President's budget for fiscal year 1960 appropriations are for the purpose of accommodating changes in budget structure and providing greater uniformity. They are not intended to enlarge any of the authority of the existing language.

It should be emphasized that neither the changes in language nor the changes in structure give the Secretary of Defense any greater or lesser authority over the utilization of appropriations for the military functions administered by the Department of Defense than he now has.

The three measures of the defense program

There are actually three related measures of the defense effort in fiscal terms-frequently we think of them as only two, but actually in the Department of Defense there are three: (1) new obligational authority-generally the amount appropriated by the Congress each year; (2) direct obligations-measure of the level of new activity planned for the year the volume of contracts placed for goods and services, people employed, et cetera. That can be more than the amount requested from Congress, depending on the amount available from sales of material, carryover funds, and so forth; (3) expenditures the net amount of payments made during the year for personnel costs and for goods and services received, regardless of the year in which the goods and services were ordered.

Attachment B (p. 50) to this statement presents a summary of these three measures of the defense effort for fiscal years 1958, 1959, and 1960. Attachments B-1 (p. 51), B-2 (p. 52), and B-3 (p. 53) present the same data for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, for each of the 3 fiscal years. All Department of Defense appropriations-some 50-odd-are now grouped under the 5 new headings or titles.

I might say this grouping is only for the purpose of understanding, because with 50 different appropriations it is hard to grasp them all when considered individually.

We have found it useful in our own work to consider these titles under two broad categories-operating costs and capital costs. shown in the table, operating costs include military personnel and operation and maintenance the day-to-day costs of the Department of Defense. Under capital costs are procurement, research, development, test and evaluation, and military construction. These three titles must be considered jointly since decisions on major weapons systems affect all three.

Summary of the 1960 research, development, test, and evaluation effort

As shown in the table, a little over $3.7 billion in direct obligations is planned for fiscal year 1960 under the new, more comprehensive budget classification research, development, test, and evaluation. To the extent that amounts associated with development, test and evaluation still remain under the new procurement appropriations they are identified as separate budget activities; that is so they can be easily seen and understood.

When these amounts are added to the funds for the research, development, test, and evaluation appropriations, the total is about $5.6 billion. Of this amount, about 82 percent is planned to be placed under contract or order with non-Federal organizations-private industry, educational institutions, and so forth. The balance of the effortabout 18 percent-will be performed by the laboratories and test activities of the Defense Establishment-in-house, as we call it.

In addition, certain costs related to the research, development, test and evaluation program are included in other parts of the Defense. budget. For example, the cost of constructing research, development, test, and supporting facilities is included in the military construction appropriations. Similarly, the costs of military personnel engaged in