Mr. Edwin Kilgore, Deputy for Management, has submitted a statement for fiscal year 1972 on the construction of facilities and research and program management. These people are with me this morning should you wish to question them.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

With reference to what you said on page 2 about the 3,400 personnel, working in the space research and technology program, how does this compare with the high point of both NASA personnel and contractor personnel? How does your total contractor personnel compare with the in-house personnel in terms of numbers? I preface this question with the observation that this committee of course concerned with recent developments in employment of both NASA and contractor personnel, and would like to get some of your ideas and suggestions in this area as time goes on.

Mr. JACKSON. Would you like for me to comment on your question

now?

Mr. HECHLER. I think if you have the figures, perhaps it would be a good starter.

Mr. JACKSON. I don't have those figures with me.

Mr. HECHLER. If you could supply those for the record and make some preliminary comments on the question I raised?

Mr. JACKSON. We recognize that the OART space research and technology program is a lesser program in 1972, than in 1971 and preceding years. The need to understand how it is different, in terms. of activity as well as in terms of dollars, is very important. I would like to supply some additional information for the record.

Mr. HECHLER. My question, incidentally, was intended to be a broader one that was not narrowly confined just to space research and technology. This of course is a problem which besets all of NASA and its activities.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

(Material requested for the record follows:)

Question. How do the numbers of contractor, NASA, space research and technology, and nuclear power propulsion personnel compare for FY 1972 to their high point?

Answer. From FY 1966 through FY 1972 the NASA manpower on Space Research and Technology will have declined from 6,309 to 3,400. The contractor manpower will have declined from 3,600 to an estimated 1,756 manyears during the same period.

In the Nuclear Rocket Program, contractor manpower will have declined from 4,410 manyears in FY 1966 to an estimated 870 manyears in FY 1972.

NASA overall had a peak employment of 386,000 contractors in 1966 as compared to a level of 129,500 at the end of FY 1970, an estimated 108,400 at the end of FY 1971, and an estimated 108,700 at the end of FY 1972.

NASA civil service personnel peaked in July, 1967, at 34,126 and will be below 29,850 at the end of FY 1971 and an estimated 28,350 at the end of FY 1972. Mr. HECHLER. Mr. McCormack?

Mr. McCORMACK. No questions.

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Pelly?

Mr. PELLY. I didn't quite catch what you referred to as far as the personnel were concerned. Were you asking also that the present rate of employment in nuclear power propulsion program would also be included in the record?

Mr. JACKSON. We can put that in the record.

Mr. PELLY. And that would be as against previous years?
Mr. JACKSON. Yes.

That is all.

(Material requested for the record follows:)

Question. I didn't quite catch what you referred to as far as the personnci were concerned. Were you asking also that the present rate of employment in nuclear power propulsion program would also be included in the record?

Answer. The manpower associated with the principal organizations in the nuclear propulsion program are provided in the following table. These FY 1972 figures are preliminary estimates and are being refined at this time.

Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have other presentations here this morning?

Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Jackson, as I understand, yours is the only formal presentation. I must say this is the chairman's responsibility, if I have shortchanged any members of the committee who may wish additional testimony. There have been voluminous and I felt thorough presentations before the full committee. This subcommittee has also found it frustrating during our subcommittee hearings when large additional amounts of material are brought in to the extent that they take up the time that we would like to use to delve in a little bit deeper in questions.

This is the reason that I know Mr. Jackson and the others realize, I have put the heat on very, very hard to eliminate long formal presentations so that we could get our teeth into some additional questions. However, among the magnificent talent that you have before this subcommittee if anyone feels the urge to make a presentation, why, I don't want to discourage anybody.

Mr. PELLY. I might mention we are going in the House at 11 this morning before they respond to your offer. [Laughter.]

Mr. HECHLER. We only have 50 minutes to proceed with questions concerning the whole area, and particularly the areas of research and program management facilities and space research and technology. Do any other members of the committee have any additional questions?

Mr. WYDLER. I just in my own mind want to try to get straight exactly how much money NASA spent last year in the area of research and program management. I know what you show in your schedules, budgeting schedules you sent us. I was under the impression that some money had been transferred from one foundation to the other. You have a figure that would really tell us how much money you spent in fiscal year 1971 under research and management?

Mr. JACKSON. In all of OART?

Mr. WYDLER. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; we have that. Mr. Kilgore, I believe, can comment.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. Wydler, that figure in 1971 for OART is $203,795,000.

Mr. WYDLER. I know that is the figure you show in your schedules. I thought that in the last few weeks I received some notification of certain funds being transferred into research and program management by NASA. And I wonder if this changes these figures in any way, shape or form and if so, in what way.

I am just trying to get in my own mind a comparison between fiscal 1971, actual use and proposed fiscal 1972.

Mr. KILGORE. The only increase I know of is the increase to take care of the pay raise. There is the January 1971 raise which is about $4 million, and is not included in our total.

This is expected to be included in a Government-wide supplemental request this fiscal year.

Mr. WYDLER. Do you have any figure, any idea what that figure will be at the end of 1972, what it will really be?

Mr. KILGORE. It should be up by about $8.8 million to account for the January 1971 pay raise.

Mr. WYDLER. So it would still be considerably-so it would be considerably more than the request you are making for the fiscal year 1972 ?

Mr. KILGORE. The January 1971 pay raise is not included in the fiscal year 1972 budget request. That will have to be covered by a supplemental. That is about $8.8 million for fiscal year 1972.

Mr. JACKSON. That is my instruction. We were not to include in the budget the possible adjustment that did occur in January.

Mr. WYDLER. The way you have done it gives us a fair relative picture of the figures, the figures are slightly distorted?

Mr. JACKSON. We can supply those actual figures for the record if you would like.

(Material requested for the record follows:)

The OART FY 1971 plan of $203.795M includes $9.086M of costs for the April 1970 pay raise (PL 91-207). We expect that this amount has been included in a government-wide supplemental appropriation request.

The January 1971 pay increase is not included in the FY 1972 budget. The effect of this pay increase will be an additional $4.300M in FY 1971 and $8.831 in FY 1972 for Advanced Research and Technology. The FY 1971 amount will be included in the supplemental appropriation request referred to above, and we expect similar action by the administration on the FY 1972 amount.

Mr. WYDLER. I think it would be helpful and useful.

Now, am I to assume from what you are telling me you are just about figuring the same level of employment in your division in the coming year?

Mr. JACKSON. No; we will reduce by approximately 5 percent in fiscal year 1972. That is, will be down by 5 percent from our present ceiling. At the present time, we are about 1 percent under the present ceiling.

We are projecting a reduction in personnel levels within the four OART centers, nuclear systems office and headquarters.

Mr. WYDLER. Where is that additional money, where is that going?

Mr. JACKSON. The R. & D. dollars you have in your figures are consistent with that reduction.

Mr. WYDLER. There must be some increase somewhere to take care of it. Where do you think that the money that you are going to save by reducing 5 percent is still being spent? I am just curious. Mr. JACKSON. In fiscal year 1972?

Mr. WYDLER. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. I guess I still don't understand your question. It is still being spent.

Mr. WYDLER. If I understood what you told me about the way you handle the proposed increases in salary, you are going to end up with the same total dollar expenditures in fiscal years 1971 and 1972 for research and program management?

Mr. JACKSON. Approximate numbers; yes.

Mr. WYDLER. Are you going to reduce total personnel by 5 percent, so there should be a saving?

Mr. JACKSON. The salaries are greater in the year 1972.

Mr. WYDLER. Those that are left will get more?

Mr. JACKSON. In some respects; yes. The raise in itself makes the difference.

Mr. WYDLER. Can you tell me that reduction in 5 percent, is this a reduction in both NASA personnel and contractor personnel? Mr. JACKSON. The 5 percent is in NASA personnel.

Mr. WYDLER. What would the comparable be in contract personnel? Mr. JACKSON. Now, would your question be support contractor personnel or all?

Mr. WYDLER. Support.

Mr. KILGORE. We do not expect a decrease in support contractor personnel in either 1971 and 1972. We are going very slowly in this area, that is any increases will be rather slow. For example, in fiscal year 1972 it may be like a 200-person increase. However, in none of these areas where we increase personnel will there be any replacing of civil service personnel who are reduced.

Mr. JACKSON. We will not be using contract support personnel to do the work that Government personnel are now doing.

Mr. WYDLER. Do I understand the answer to be then you are going to increase the number of support personnel?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes; we think so. There will be a small increase. Mr. HECHLER. Mr. McCormack?

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Jackson, if I may, your presentation before the entire committee, I asked about the NERVA program, the schedule, and the effect of the cutbacks, proposed cutbacks in fiscal year 1972 on appropriations for NERVA. Î would like to go back and explore this a little more with you, if I may, but I am afraid I must approach it with your help, even developing my questions intelligently. What I am trying to determine, is the degree to which the space program may be inhibited by cutting back the proposed cutback on the NERVA beginning in fiscal 1972. In the previous testimony, it was indicated that it would take about 10 to 12 years from the present time to develop an operational NERVA propulsion system.

I was attempting then to relate to proposed space program which might require NERVA-which might be delayed because the NERVA