But, at bottom, my greatest hope for the future, and my largest present concern, centers on the people of our research centers the 5,000 skilled, dedicated, and experienced men and women currently engaged in aeronautical research for NASA. This is a national asset of large importance that must be diligently tended. I was disturbed last year with the lack of youth at our centers and I am still disturbed. This need to inject a significent element of youth into our research centers, with all of the enthusiasm, spirit, and modern education they can bring to the job, remains intractable. Under shrinking personnel ceilings and present regulations, only a very weak attack on this problem has been possible. My only hope is that we may yet experience, for the first time in many years, a stable level of complement so that at least the normal attrition of staff may be used to bring youth in instead of being a means to reach ever lower complement levels.

In summary, I am grateful for the support of this subcommittee to the programs of OART through the years, and can assure you that we are working hard to merit this support. We are, for the most part, working on the important problems; relationships among centers and among agencies of our Government are truly excellent; our work force is solidly in place and going about their job in a businesslike manner; and we're busy as never before. While the future does confront us with both problems and uncertainties of large dimension, there is much about American aviation to justify a sense of pride and much about current aeronautical research to enable us to face this future with confidence.

Thank you.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Mr. Lundin.

Mr. Jackson, does this complete the series of prepared statements that you are presenting to the committee?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

Mr. HECHLER. You will find that this committee, unlike some committees of Congress, is not looking to where they can cut this program but particularly in the aeronautics field we are looking for ways in which we can strengthen this program and ask why you aren't doing more than you propose to do. I think this sentiment is shared by people on both sides of the aisle on this subcommittee.

Mr. Armstrong, do you have anything to add of an informal nature to these presentations?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. No. It is particularly satisfying to have people from the Centers who are really doing the work share their views with the committee.

Mr. HECHLER. Dr. Mark alluded to the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, and it has always puzzled me and I raised this question many times, why isn't it possible in NAS to recapture some of the old spirit, morale, and national emphasis on aeronautics which NACA had? Or what can be done in order to recapture that and build on it?

Mr. ARMSTRONG. We endorse that view and I believe that the people here assembled today voice unanimous consent and agreement.

Mr. HECHLER. Now it puzzles me, Mr. Jackson and associates, that we have made so many mistakes in the early sixties and mid-sixties in the deemphasis of aeronautics that we have a lot of catching up to do. There is one area which several of you gentlemen mentioned,

namely the recruitment of young people which alarms me by the lack of progress. How can you say, Mr. Cortright, as you have, that we have been forced to cancel all hiring of new graduates and then in the same breath say how necessary it is to recruit young people? Yet when this committee and the Congress last year voted additional authorizations for the hiring of new graduates to go into the aeronautics field, NASA turned around and didn't use the money and washed it out. What is wrong? The rhetoric is very high-blown, but when we give you the authority to do it, nothing is done.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, would you like Mr. Cortright to comment first in respect to your question?

Mr. HECHLER. Yes.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I think it is a good question. It will take me just a minute to say what I want to say on it, sir.

When I talked with you last, we saw eye to eye on the need for young people. I put together a total new recruiting program at Langley in which I recruit myself every year. All my senior directors go out and recruit a job that is normally done by much younger men. The idea was to bring us face to face with the student and to begin to understand the problems at the universities and with the students and also to tell that what our views on their opportunities were. This was highly successful. Last year when we hired 50 young men, we had the best crop with the highest grade point averages that we have had in 15 years.

Now, why have I not hired any this year? The reason is I am faced with a reduction of staff of 200. A reduction in force using Civil Service procedures is such that it is not possible for me to pick the 200 lowest performers at the Center. You are well aware of the limitations and I am doing what I can do to get a little more flexibility in the hands of the lab director so that when we have to cut back, we can strengthen, not weaken the Center. With the constraints we have today, I would be cutting people who don't deserve to be fired out of the agency. Every new man we would hire could be displacing a high performer and I felt it wasn't ethical to do that. I feel the decision is debatable, but that is the way I arrived at the decision, very unhappily.

Mr. HECHLER. You are just telling the committee you can't get there from here. We are trying to accomplish something along with you. Do you mean to indicate that the processes of Government cannot be utilized for what we all recognize is a necessary goal?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. No, sir; I have two optimistic notes to throw in, if I may. We have just signed an agreement with the Thomas Nelson Community College whereby they will train apprentices for us. At the end of a 3-year period in which the trainees take classroom work at Thomas Nelson and on-the-job training at Langley, they would be eligible to replace our technicians as they retire or leave for other reasons. I hope to stop the leakage away of skilled technicians.

On the engineers, once we get through this year's reduction in force, we will be back campaigning next year and start the buildup again.

With regard to your specific request of last year, we have a program in which we have obligated $435,000 so far. We will shortly have 20 students, 14 of them from George Washington and five or six from Old Dominion University, working at the laboratory and taking grad

uate education in aeronautics which is in direct response to your program.

Mr. HECHLER. This is very good. The Congress voted last year 1.4 million a year for 3 years and how much is the figure that is put into the current budget that you are now submitting for the purpose under R. & P.M. for this type of stimulus?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, we have a plan, but before I describe it, you surprise me with your statement of 1.4 million a year. I believe it was 1.4 million over a period of 3 years.

Mr. WELLS. It was 1.4 million to begin with fiscal year 1971 with the intent that this was setting in motion a program that would continue at this level. It was obviously not authorized for 1972 as yet, but this was the intent to institute a program at a certain level which will continue.

Mr. JACKSON. I will ask Mr. Kilgore, who is a Deputy for Management, to describe our plan for you. I might say, though, while the $1.4 million did pass with the authorization bill, it did not pass with the appropriation bill. We fully respect your desire. It is the same desire we have. We do have a plan. It is underway.

Mr. HECHLER. I might advise also when we got into the conference committee last year and were confronting a number of the individuals in the other body that wanted to cut back a lot of items, it was with great ease that I was able to persuade them to increase this item. We made a convincing case for the necessity of increasing authorization to employ young aeronautical engineers and research specialists. We made the case so effectively that we got strong support for it from the Senate conferees.

Mr. JACKSON. I think that is our good fortune.

Mr. HECHLER. Everybody recognizes the need. It is very frustrating that we can't seem to get very far with accomplishing it, despite the fact Congress and NASA both want to proceed.

Mr. JACKSON. In regard to the total complement, the decision was made by the Administration that there shall be a net reduction in force within NASA, so we have to face that reduction and it has been described here how we are going about it-we think we are doing it in a way that is in the best interest of the total program, but we certainly completely recognize that it doesn't satisfy the need for bringing in the younger trained engineers and scientists.

Mr. HECHLER. I don't want to impose on your time or Mr. Kilgore's by going through material we already have. I would like to observe that I think it is one-third what we voted last year, is that correct?

Mr. KILGORE. I might be able to clear this up. We took very seriously the suggestion last year on the 1.4 million for fiscal year 1971. We have a very firm program underway at the present time for a total of $1.4 million.

Mr. HECHLER. Over 3 years?

Mr. KILGORE. It was spread over 3 years so that the students will have 1 year in residence at our research centers. The only way to complete the program with a graduate student was to spread it over his 3-year graduate career.

Mr. HECHLER. I understand. Why don't you make it 4.2 then? Mr. ARMSTRONG. If we have $1.4 million appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 1972, we can expand. We put the 1.4 in as you said

except the universities chose not to spend it all in 1 year, but rather to have a balanced program which requires a 3-year period to complete. Mr. HECHLER. All right. Any questions by other members of the

committee?

Mr. FULTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to compliment the chairman. I was on the conference committee and know what a good job of selling the chairman did on aeronautics, especially on getting the young people into the program.

My question is this: How much did you request from the Office of Management and Budget for personnel? Did you apply for the full complement? Did you apply for a cut of 200 personnel, and then when you went to the Office of Management and Budget for young people. were you turned down?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Fulton, we went forward with the plan that worlə have retained the staff levels at the fiscal year 1971 level.

Mr. FULTON. You were cut 200 people by the OMB?

Mr. JACKSON. A total of 5 percent within NASA overall.
Mr. FULTON. What does that mean to you?

Mr. JACKSON. That means about 500 people out of some 10,000 that we have in the four OART laboratories.

Mr. FULTON. How many people of those would greatly diminish your capacity and competence in research and development? Of the 500, how many are the important ones?

Mr. JACKSON. I will have to answer your question this way: We will take full advantage as best we can of the attrition that does occur.

Mr. FULTON. Yes; you have to live with it. I didn't ask that question. I said where does it cut? Are you losing important people? If so, how many had you asked of the OMB?

Mr. JACKSON. I will turn to the Center directors. They are in a better position to supply some specifics.

Mr. LUNDIN. At Lewis we are planning a reduction of 208 people at the end of next fiscal year. All of these 208 people are important to the work of the Center.

Mr. FULTON. How much is that in money?

Mr. LUNDIN. About $3 million.

Mr. FULTON. Now, where else? Dr. Cortright?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I feel the same way about the people we are losing, that they are valuable. I have the option to take the cuts in the areas that I see fit and we haven't determined just where they will be. Some of them will be in aeronautics and some in space work.

Mr. FULTON. How many personnel for you and in what amount? Mr. CORTRIGHT. About the same, a little less than 200 and about $22 million.

Mr. FULTON. Where do the others come from?

Dr. MARK. A cut of about 100, a million and a half dollars. That is at Ames Research.

Mr. FULTON. So it means a total cut of personnel of 500. That is about a 5 million cut budgetwise in dollars.

Mr. JACKSON. About $42 million associated with the people.

Mr. FULTON. Are all of these people important? Do they contribute in great measure to the research and development and the success of these installations?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; they are, Mr. Fulton. We would not reduce the staff if the decision is based on their importance.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. May I add a thought to that? One thing which will help you understand why they are important is that we have been coming down in staff for a period of years and have gradually focused our remaining people and on the best programs.

Mr. FULTON. Can you put on the record, with the chairman's permission? How much has the staff been reduced through these years and in what categories?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; and we can inform you now that in fiscal year 1969

Mr. FULTON. I would rather not take the time now.

Mr. HECHLER. I would also like to have you put in the average age level.

Mr. JACKSON. Fine.

(Information requested for the record follows:)

Because of the increased requirement for manpower in Aeronautics, as well as projects such as Viking, we have significantly decreased manpower on Space Technology effort at the Research Centers to provide for these increases while reducing total manpower. The Space Technology effort has absorbed all of the personnel reductions we have experienced over the past several years. The following chart shows these actions, by year, from the end of FY 1968, and the anticipated effect for Fiscal Years 1971 and 1972:

MANPOWER AT THE RESEARCH CENTERS AND THE SPACE NUCLEAR SYSTEMS OFFICE

The above reductions from the end of FY 1968 through the end of FY 1972 will result in 740 less Scientists and Engineers, and 870 less Technical Support people at the OART Centers.

From the end of FY 1968 to the end of FY 1970, the average age at the OART Centers has increased from 40.2 to 41.9 years, or .85 a year. We expect that the average age will increase at a faster rate during fiscal years 1971 and 1972, due to RIF actions affecting the younger portions of the population.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Pelly?

Mr. PELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WYDLER. Would you yield to me following up what the gentleman from Pennsylvania said?

Mr. PELLY. I will be happy to yield to you.

Mr. WYDLER. The amounts that you cut, what would be the normal amount of attrition of your staff? What would be the percentage of normal attrition of your staff?

Mr. JACKSON. I think maybe half of the 500.

Mr. WYDLER. Thank you.

Mr. PELLY. Mr. Jackson, am I right that the present depressed condition of the private enterprise industry that normally would contribute research at their own expenses has meant that they cannot because of cuts in military contracts and in their profits and so forth, they cannot put into research and development the amount that they have been in the past?