ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. JOHN W. WYDLER AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH The committee has increased the NASA request for additional research in the aeronautical program. I heartily approve of this action. This increase emphasizes the importance that I and the committee believe is necessary to keep this Nation foremost in the aeronautics field. These additional funds are to be utilized by NASA in the important areas of V/STOL and collision avoidance research and to increase the effort in aircraft noise abatement. Although NASA has embarked on a progressive aircraft noise reduction program, I feel that much more emphasis is needed to reduce noise about the airport and relieve our citizens of this serious annoyance. NASA alone cannot do all that is needed to solve the noise problem but after several years of prodding by me and the committee & sense of awakening is being noticed in other departments of the administration, such as the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and President's Office of Science and Technology. Much more must be done, however, to give this program direction in the administration. I hope that this indication of emphasis will demonstrate to the administration the feeling of the Congress about the need for a purposeful noise abatement program and also the need to transfer to our economy the safety-of-flight and V/STOL technology that is being pursued in NASA. JOHN W. WYDLER. JAMES G. FULTON. (192) ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. JOHN W. WYDLER DUPLICATION OF APOLLO APPLICATIONS AND MOL For the past 5 years I have entered into the committee report additional views pointing out the need for increased security for our country through our space program. The administration continues to divide the responsibility for the security of our citizens by failing to recognize the threat and failing to conduct the determined unified program that is required for our safety. I have pointed out several times before that the proposed Apollo applications program of NASA is a duplication and dilution of the Air Force MOL program. Also, this double standard, of undertaking the most advanced research and development and spending billions in the name of science and prestige, while insisiting on detailed justification and clear-cut missions, when the objective is national security, is not noble and efficient but foolhardy. It constitutes a confusion of priorities that endangers our Nation and wastes the taxpayers' money. Further I cannot agree with NASA testimony that these programs are not duplicatory in part and why they cannot be combined into a single Air Force program. We will have separate programs with unnecessary costs. Yet the true military value of a space weapons system will not be fully met. The Air Force MOL program is now estimated to cost $2.9 billion. These costs are skyrocketing, with an increase of $1.4 billion over the 1965 estimate. At the end of fiscal year 1968 the cost to the country will be about $700 million. The fiscal year 1969 budget request is $600 million. The cost of the NASA program in total will be at least that much. But I ask, which program fulfills a national need? It is obviously not the Apollo applications program yet it shares the same priority for funds in this administration. With the passage of time we dig ourselves deeper into these duplications, costing more and more. It, therefore, becomes imperative that we call a halt to this duplication and concentrate on the Air Force program. I wish to make clear that I support and believe we need an Apollo applications program of the type NASA proposes. My point is that this should be part of a larger unified program conducted by the Department of Defense. I believe the equipment proposed by NASA is the proper equipment for this program to utilize as it is more powerful and versatile. A practical and important additional advantage is the fact that these items would be budgeted as part of our national security effort where they will have strong congressional support. Also, it will have the national security emphasis that the program needs. As now proposed, the Apollo applications and MOL programs are to create essentially the same space platform on which men can survive for long periods of time. No rational explanation is offered as to why the men on these platforms cannot perform both military and civilian functions. The expenditure of billions of dollars to maintain the stance that we have a separate civilian space program can serve to fool the American public but does not change the crucial fact that the world recognizes the control of space as a national security matter. In this regard, the Soviet Union makes no pretenses. Whether NASA considers this a "parallel effort" or a pure and simple duplication of effort, the result is disheartening. At a time when the Administrator of NASA is calling for a joint venture with the Soviet Union to land a man on the moon, he appears unable and unwilling to have a joint venture with the U.S. Air Force to utilize man in near-space orbit. Since most of our astronauts are military personnel anyway, and NASA is committed to peaceful space exploration, obviously the two programs call for two groups of astronauts. Here is an instance of duplication, in addition to two sets of launch facilities, two sets of boosters, two sets of ground support facilities, two sets of tracking facilities, two data reduction centers, two recovery operations, and more than two costs to the U.S. taxpayers. The result is a duplicate of one set of data. I believe that this type of unwarranted duplication is not only wasteful but also destroys the credence that we have in NASA and the confidence the public has in the committees of Congress. In the long run we will destroy the public desire to support our national space effort. The executive branch should react with responsible forthrightness in recognizing the obvious and combine these two programs. The best time to do it is right now. JOHN W. WYDLER. JOHN E. HUNT. MARCH 19, 1968.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee, from the Committee on Rules, REPORT [To accompany H. Res. 1103] The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House Resolution 1103, report the same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution do pass. |