Ortmann, Dean A. O'Shaughnessy, Robert J. O'Toole, Arthur L., Padrta, Jerry C. Matthew F. Pierce, John T. Pierce, Robert K. Pikell, Joseph V. Ramos, Steve L. Reeder, John G. Register, Marvin O. Richter, Ronald P. Riendeau, Gerald L. Robey, George R., Jr. Rockwell, William A. Pietrowski, Joseph L. Roth, Conrad W. Pilcher, Howard G. Rowland, Charles M., Shelton, Donald C. III Strasler, Herbert J. Stratton, Richard A. Sturm, Gerard M., Jr. Sullivan, John G. Sullivan, Martin J. Sullivan, Russell J. Sullivan, Richard M., Jr. Shewchuk, William M. Stuebben, Richard W., Sullivan, Thomas E. Skorupski, Stanley S., Tanner, Charles N. Jr. Slack, Stephen R. Smith, "H" "O" Smith, Irvin L. Tanner, John P. Thudium, Wayne E. Snyder, Edward C., Jr. Trammell, Webb D. Snyder, Sherman R. Snyder, Virgil C. Soczek, William Soltys, Mitchel S. Trask, Ace F. Treagy, Paul E., Jr. Trenham, Herbert D. Soderholm, Richard C. Trevors, George A. Sommers, Carl W., II Sorenson, Curtis A. Sottak, Edward J. Southard, David F. Truman, Ernest W., Jr. Trygsland, Arnold L. Tsantes, George, Jr. Tucker, Eli L., Jr. Southwick, Charles E. Tucker, James R. Tully, William R., Jr. Vandewater, George L., Jr. Vandien, Casper R. Vandusen, Harold L. Vandyke, Willard H., Varhalla, Michael R. Wilmer, Robert R. Walsh, Harvey T., Jr. Winn, Velmer A. J. Walsh, John J. Ward, Conrad J. Webb, James E. Winton, Fred B., Jr. Wintriss, George V. Wise, Stephen A. Wisniewski, Sylvester S. Withers, Fred J. Witherspoon, Beverly W. Witthoft, Ronald D. Wolkensdorfer, Daniel J. Wood, Fred L. Woodward, John L. Woollard, Edwin F. Woolway, David J. Wootten, Thomas F. Wright, James R. Wright, Marshall O. Wright, Murray H. Wright, Robert R. Wyckoff, Peter B. Yaeger, Ernest F. Yarker, Luther D. Yarwood, John O. Yates, James L., Jr. Yurso, Joseph F. Zaborniak, Walter J. Theodore P. Sherwin, Stephen B. Small The following-named (Naval Reserve officers) to be permanent lieutenants (junior grade) and temporary lieutenants in the Medical Corps of the Navy, subject to the qualifications therefor as provided by law: Phillip Goldfedder Louis D. O'Brien Ralph W. Hale Raymond L. Sphar, Rudolph E. Jackson Jr. The following-named (Naval Reserve officers) to be permanent lieutenants in the Medical Corps of the Navy, subject to the qualifications therefor as provided by law: Edwin H. Bennett Harmon D. Wilkes Murray W. Meador, Jr. (Naval Reserve officer) to be permanent lieutenant and a temporary lieutenant commander in the Medical Corps of the Navy, subject to the qualifications therefor as provided by law. Edward J. Koehne, Jr. (U.S. Navy retired officer) to be a lieutenant in the line of the Navy, for temporary service, pursuant to title 10, United States Code, section 1211. CONFIRMATION Executive nomination confirmed by the Senate November 8 (legislative day October 22), 1963: FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM J. Dewey Daane, of Virginia, to be a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the remainder of the term of 14 years from February 1, 1960. Independence of Cambodia EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ADAM C. POWELL OF NEW YORK EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, November 8, 1963 Mr. POWELL. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 9, the Kingdom of Cambodia will celebrate the 10th anniversary of her independence, and on this occasion we take opportunity to send warm felicitations to His Royal Highness Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the Chief of State; and His Excellency Nong Kimny, the Cambodian Ambassador to the United States. This small country in southeast Asia is located between Thailand and wartorn Laos and South Vietnam. It is situated in a very troubled part of the world, and yet, for a decade now the people of Cambodia have lived in remarkable tranquility. If there is one individual responsible for this happy state of affairs it is Prince Norodom Sihanouk. At one time the King of Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk abdicated in March 1955 in favor of his parents, King Suramarit and Queen Kassamak. The reason he left the throne was that he wished to participate more actively in the political affairs of the country. He immediately established his own political movement and later that year became the Prime Minister when his party won a sweeping victory at the polls. When his father died in 1960, Prince Sihanouk made a decision not to resume the throne. The National Assembly adopted an amendment to the constitution stating that in special circumstances the Assembly could confer the powers of Chief of State on a person chosen by a national referendum. Subsequently Prince Sihanouk was unanimously elected Chief of State by the National Assembly after the Prince received overwhelming popular support in a nationwide referendum. Cambodia's leader has made a unique and determined effort to establish personal contact with the people. He has explained his policies to them and has succeeded in winning their full support. He has continued also to enjoy the great respect which the Cambodian people have accorded him as King and as the leader who secured the country's independence. Cambodia has emerged as one of the important states in southeast Asia. Prince Sihanouk's government has adopted a position of neutralism in the cold war. Cambodia's neutrality is described as being neither complaisant nor surrendering to anyone, but a genuine attempt to maintain an equal balance between the blocs and to eliminate any pretext for aggression. This attitude of the Cambodian Government has been re spected by the United States. The policy of our own Government toward Cambodia has been based on the simple precept that we would like to assist Cambodia to remain free. The United States has considered it to be in its own national interest to help in the economic and social advancement of Cambodia. Through its programs of assistance, the United States has endeavored to help the Cambodian Government maintain the independence of the Kingdom and promote the welfare of the Cambodian people. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the people and the Government of Cambodia on the 10th anniversary of I know the Kingdom's independence. that many other Americans join me in this gesture. ARA: The Seed for Economic Growth EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ELIZABETH KEE OF WEST VIRGINIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, November 8, 1963 Mrs. KEE. Mr. Speaker, until the last 20 months or so, there were times when I wept silently over the apparent hopelessness of the economic prospects for the people in my district, and for all of West Virginia, for that matter. Until the latter part of 1961, we were all preoccupied with despair brought about by economic change and technological innovations that made some of our natural resources less important as job-creating factorsa despair and bitterness sustained and fed by the absence of any new program that might offer new paths for economic growth and new employment. By the early part of 1962, however, West Virginians came to appreciate the role of the Area Redevelopment Administration in providing that kind of program. The full gamut of ARA's tools have been put to use in southern West Virginia: Industrial loans for new or expanding companies; public facility loans and grants for water systems required by industrial establishments; retraining of unemployed men and women for new skills in good-paying jobs; technical assistance for the discovery of new ways of utilizing the natural resources of an area grant and loan from ARA to implement the New River Gorge study. What this announcement has doneWrites Mr. Faulconeris unbelievable. The morale of the people has had an overnight transformation that has lifted them from the depths of despair to the pinnacle of optimism and to borrow a word from our astronauts: the word in Hinton now is "Go." In 1939 Imperial Russia in a deal with Adolph Hitler, put an end to Latvian national independence. This deal was worked out in the Russian-Nazi pact of mutual assistance which triggered off World War II. Imperial Russia was given the right by conquest or such other means as it determined to bring Latvian national independence to an end. Stalin did not delay in exercising his end of this deal and Latvia was soon forcibly and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union, as a so-called constitutent republic. It is worth noting in this regard that in order to create new job opportunities. I would like to tell my colleagues about ernizing their facilities and hiring more with Latvia in 1920. Article II of that one concrete train of events resulting from ARA's technical assistance program in my part of West Virginia. This technical assistance consisted of a feasibility study to discover the possibilities of converting the current liabilities of the New River Gorge area into future assets for the ever-expanding tourismrecreation demands of Americans, especially those on the eastern seaboard who are competing with each other for space and activity areas in their leisure time. The results of the feasibility study were positive, and immediately following on that, the State of West Virginia developed concrete proposals for the implementation of the technical assistance recommendations. By the end of June, of this year, ARA was able to process and approve a multimillion-dollar tourist and recreation project. Mr. Speaker, I challenge any critic of ARA to go down to towns in, say, Summers County, W. Va., and make one single uncomplimentary comment about that agency before the citizens of that county. I dare such antagonists of the ARA program to stand up in Hinton and accuse ARA of being incompetent and political. While I challenge and dare, I cannot assure any critic that he would get a cordial reception. I wonder how he would be received by the publisher of the Hinton Daily News, Mr. John E. Faulconer? I raise this question because of Mr. Faulconer's description of the electrifying effects of ARA's mere announcement of the approval of that project-a description which I would like to insert as part of my remarks here today. In a letter dated July 24, 1963, Mr. Faulconer provides us with just some of the insight into the meaning of ARA's action last June: First, he points out that many years ago, a few creative citizens of the county came to the conclusion that prosperity cannot be based on only one industry and that a dam at Bluestone would mean the reconstruction of that area's basic economy. Because power associated with such a dam is not yet a reality Local citizens *** then went to sleep. No industries came into the area, but the dieselization of the C. & O. Railway, the county's main industry, resulted in the loss of hundreds of jobs. But more recently, after overcoming many obstacles, the four counties around Bluestone were able to obtain a The entire area is now buzzing with an atmosphere of confidence that has proven to be the second trigger for an upsurge of economic activity-things like the local retail establishments modadvertising; a rise in banking transacemployees; an increase in newspaper tions with the result that more bank employees are being put to work; and the banks themselves modernizing; a local dairy plant expansion; national restaurant, motel, and gasoline service stations are scouring the immediate vicinity of the State tourist project area to find the right site to meet the needs of the thousands upon thousands of tourists expected to "invade" the four counties. These are only a sampling from Mr. Faulconer's letter. More of them are cropping up even now. And here is one of the morals to be drawn from this one decision of the Area Redevelopment Administration: No ARA funds have been requested for any of these local projects. They were all initiated as the result of the tourism project which provided the seed for the economic growth of the county. "The seed for economic growth." That term symbolizes the purpose and spirit of ARA. Ask anybody in Summers County, or Wyoming County, or Fayette County in the Fifth Congressional District which I have the honor to repre sent. Rulers of Russia Are Never HonestLatvia a Classic Example EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, November 8, 1963 Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 45th anniversary of the Latvian Declaration of Independence. This is a day of great significance to all people of Latvian origin living in the free world as well as those in the homeland. Its greatest significance lies in the fact that the people of Latvia were able to throw off the chains of Russian imperialism 45 years ago and to establish their national independence. This event marks a fullfilment of the long held hopes and aspirations of the Latvian people. Those hopes and aspirations of the Latvian people were satisfied from 1918 until 1939, when the Latvian nation blossomed into full sovereign and respected statehood. During that period the United States enjoyed the most cordial relations with the Latvian nation. Red Russia entered into a treaty of peace treaty provided the following Russian guarantee of Latvian national independ ence: By virtue of the principles proclaimed by the Federal Russian Socialist Republic of Soviets which established the right of selfdetermination for all nations, even to total secession from the empire with which they have been incorporated, and in view of the desire expressed by the Latvian people to lead an independent national existence, Russia unreservedly recognizes the independence, self-government, and sovereignty of the Latvian Republic and voluntarily and forever renounces all sovereign rights over the Latvian people and territory which formerly belonged to Russia. The Federal Russian Socialist Republic of Soviets was the new name of the Russian nation, adopted by the Bolsheviks. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, full successor to the reconstructed Russian empire, did not come into being until 1923. Nevertheless the new Russian ruling class assumed full responsibility for the treaty entered into with Latvia. The brutal violation of that treaty of peace with Latvia by the new Russian ruling class stands as a classic example of what happens to any nonRussian nation entering into treaty relations or any other types of agreements with imperial Russia. Time must not be allowed to obscure this classic example of Russian behavior in the field of international relations. Observance of this 45th anniversary of Latvian national independence, therefore, serves as a proper occasion to renew this memory in the hope that our present dealings with imperial Russia will be governed accordingly. Further, this occasion provides thinking Americans with the opportunity to renew our faith in the determination that Latvia shall regain its national independence in the foreseeable future. Lest We Forget EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM G. BRAY OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Friday, November 8, 1963 Mr. BRAY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced a bill, House Joint Resolution 800, to establish a World War I Commemorative Commission. This Commission would plan appropriate observances of our entry into World War I and our eventual victory. In addition, it would seek to stimulate and encourage scholarship concerning the causes, conduct, and effects of the war and to expand public knowledge and understanding of the goals of the war and the extent to which they were realized before more years slip away and the facts become colder. With another global conflict endured in the intervening years since the First World War, and with the ever-present threat of another catastrophic war, a little time to study and consider the first struggle to "make the world safe for democracy" should be time well spent. There is still another reason that. I propose this Commission at this time. More than 4,355,000 Americans served in our Armed Forces during World War I. During the war, 126,000 died and hundreds of thousands have passed away since that time. The majority of World War I veterans still remain, however, and in commemorating the significant events of the war upon their 50th anniversaries we have a rather unique opportunity to do honor to the brave men and women who defended us while they are still with us. It is certainly appropriate that we observe those to whom we owe so much by various ceremonies honoring the dead; in noting the forthcoming anniversaries of World War I we can pay particular homage to the thousands of veterans still among us, and through them honor their comrades who have gone on. A carnival is not the appropriate observance of the carnage of the battlefield. A circus does not properly mark the suffering of a great war. The conflict of great nations and great ideals is not fittingly noted with Sunday afternoon skirmishes. "Lest we forget" has become the common reminder of our obligation to remember our honored dead. In truth it is a privilege to recall the sacrifice and devotion of this Nation's defenders, living and dead, for what greater proof could there be of the great worth of this Nation, in which we all share. Only at our great peril could we forget or ignore them. What greater bulwark is there for us today than the remembrance of those brave countrymen who risked their lives in defense of our freedom. We need the inspiration and rededication which the memory of their devotion gives us. Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will give earnest consideration to this proposal and that it will move promptly toward enactment. Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligencer Presents Reasoned Editorial in Support of Quality Stabilization EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH OF WEST VIRGINIA It is not too early to be planning these IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES observances. We entered World War I on April 6, 1917, the 50th anniversary of which is 32 years hence. An appropriate observance of that anniversary would require public notice of some of the events which preceded it. To adequately plan and prepare the schedule of events and related programs, the Commission should be under full steam by mid-1965. Rather than have the Congress in any way "buy a pig in a poke" I would further suggest that the Commission begin with preparing a preliminary plan, so that it can then return to the Congress with its specific proposals and an indication of what funds it will require. To allow adequate time for this plan to be prepared and to be submitted to the Congress by mid-1965, the Commission should be established during 1964. With a view to allowing adequate consideration and deliberate progress through the various committees and the Congress, and in the hope of seeing it enacted during the next year, I am submitting the bill at this time and bringing it to the attention of my colleagues. I have heard some say that we are going to extremes in celebrating various historic occasions; and that some of the observances planned are far too elaborate and involved. In offering this proposal, it is my hope that the Commission would show appropriate restraint in the type and number of programs it undertakes, in keeping with the great, sad dignity of the events it honors. Friday, November 8, 1963 Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, my views on the need for quality stabilization and restriction of the more predatory competitive practices of our distributive economy have not altered significantly since I cosponsored legislation on this subject in the Senate in 1961. Since then I have twice gone on record in support of its principles by joining colleagues in reintroducing the measure in perfected form. I have also testified for quality stabilization before congressional committees, as I did again on June 5, before the Senate Commerce Commit tee. The measure has been examined and reexamined by committees of Congress and it is particularly gratifying that last year, though the bill was not brought to a final vote it received favorable reports from three separate committees. It is most deserving of enactment by this Congress so it can go to work as a helpful economic force. On August 6, 1963, the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligencer printed an effective commentary on quality stabilization and its implications. The reasoned editorial approach of this leading West Virginia newspaper is in refreshing contrast to illogical, and in many instances, intemperate editorials in opposition to the proposal. The Intelligencer pays deserved tribute to the leadership of Representative CHET HOLIFIELD, of Califorina, in the cause of the consumer. Likewise, it is appropriate that we take note of the fact that the Senate assistant majority leader, the Honorable HUBERT HUMPHREY, introduced S. 774, and that the Honorable THOMAS H. KUCHEL, assistant minority leader, is cosponsor. Some nine other Senators, including myself, are also listed as cosponsors of the measure, and proponents are seated on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I concur with the view propounded by Senator HUMPHREY in a recent speech. In describing tactics employed by opponents of the quality stabilization bill, the articulate Democratic whip stated: They've set up a "strawman" and then proceeded to knock it down again. In other words, they invented a mythical quality stabilization bill and then tore it to pieces. bill hardly resembles the legislation that 10 The trouble is, their quality stabilization other Senators and I introduced in the Senate. So there are really two quality stabilization bills-ours-the real one-which will give a measure of needed protection to the small business community against unfair competition, and theirs-the phony one-the mythical bill invented by predatory price cutters and some editorial writers and newspaper cartoonists to muddy the genuine issues. I request that the editorial "Buyer Beware" in the August 6, 1963, issue of the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligencer be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: BUYER BEWARE presented the case for the defense, briefly Congressman CHET HOLIFIELD, of California, and tersely, in answering charges that the quality stabilization bill, of which he is a cosponsor, ignores the interests of both the consumer and the small merchant. The Intelligencer recommends a careful reading of Mr. HOLIFIELD's statement. It and the legislation in behalf of which he speaks deal with a subject close to the heart of every shopper in the land. As a basic proposition it is difficult to quarrel with the proposition that once a merchant acquires an article from a manufacturer it is his to do with as he pleases. The corollary that to deprive the merchant of that right not only invades his freedom, but stifles competition and tends to encourage consumer gouging, while by no means as compelling, is sufficiently persuasive to bring into disrepute the whole idea of reposing in the manufacturer the authority to fix the retail price of his product. Thus the gen eral tenor of court decisions has been to outlaw so-called fair trade laws, and the dis position of the public to applaud this judi cial thinking. Unfortunately, this is not an all-white or all-black area of public policy. The issue is not one of which it can be said with assurance this way lies public welfare, that way group interest. There is something to be the Intelligencer has been disposed to side said for both points of view. For its part, with those who recognize the producer's proprietary interest in a brand name to which he has given meaning, and who feel that on balance the consumer loses if the right to protect this interest is denied by law. It does not profess to know whether or not the legislation Mr. HOLIFIELD and his associates propose is the best answer to this perplexing question. It confesses to a nagging fear, however, that if no way is found in the law to protect the integrity of brand names, the I wish to commend to my colleagues this suggestion by Representative KARTH, and I ask unanimous consent that the article entitled "Representative KARTH Urges United States Sell Boosters," appearing in Missiles and Rockets of August 26, 1963, be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: REPRESENTATIVE KARTH URGES UNITED STATES SELL BOOSTERS: HOUSE EXPERT SAYS SALES WOULD MAKE JOBS, EASE GOLD PROBLEM WITH NO RISK TO U.S. SECURITY (The U.S. space industry has a fantastic future market for boosters and advanced systems in the developing European space programs. Exploiting this market will bring financial profit to U.S. companies, help stem the worrisome flow of gold out of the country, and lessen the persistent unemployment problem. In giving these opinions to Missiles and Rockets, Representative JOSEPH E. KARTH, Democrat, of Minnesota, draws from his 4 years' experience as a charter member of the House Space Committee and his current chairmanship of its Subcommittee on Space Sciences and Advanced Research and Technology. He also tells how the United States can sell Atlas, Centaur, and Saturn to foreign countries with no security problem. This interview with KARTH was conducted by Missiles and Rockets senior editor, William Beller.) Question. Mr. KARTH, you have expressed the belief that the United States should do more to tie in with the emerging space programs in Europe. Why is that? Answer. I feel this is a good area for us to explore because we are suffering from persistent unemployment, excessive outflow of gold, and an imbalance-of-payments problem. I am mindful that the President on quite a number of occasions has expressed deep concern about these matters. In many areas, boosters for example, where we have gone through the extremely expensive research and developemnt phases-these are the areas we should now exploit with the friendly foreign countries. We should see if we can sell some of this great technological development. It may prevent them from de veloping their own and therefore lead to a fantastic future market. Question. So far only Scouts and Thors have been available to European countries. Could they get the Atlas? Answer. I would say so, under these conditions: 1. That they pay for the vehicle-I don't think we should give it away. 2. We would need to launch it for them. They don't have the launching pads and probably can't get into the tremendously expensive launching pad, gantry, electronictype setup that goes with the launching of a major booster system for some time. But eventually they would, because they are serious about their own space programs. 3. Whatever secrecies surround the launch vehicle and/or other devices, all of this would be handled by U.S. personnel. Question. Why should foreign countries pay for boosters if NASA is willing to provide them free for programs of mutual scientific benefit? other nations are not as interested in adAnswer. That's the catch. In my opinion, vancing scientific exploration as they are in embarking on programs to advance their own economic position. And in this instance I say it's fine for us to cooperate by selling to them a booster or whatever other paraphernalia they need. As these countries become more involved in space programs, it may be they will be desirous of buying Saturns or Centaurs. We don't necessarily need to stop at Atlas. I think the whole high-thrust field of boosters is a tremendous market with great potential. Question. How could such sales be handled, government-to-government? Answer. My first opinion is we should do this through an agency of the U.S. Government, probably through the Defense Debe involved does not go to NASA, does not partment or NASA. Whatever profit might go to DOD-it goes to private industry, to those who make the Atlas or the Saturn or Centaur. This money gets back into the economy. It provides jobs. It stimulates the U.S. gross national product, causing our overall economy to grow and expand. So I don't really think it makes too much difference whether or not sales of our space capabilities to foreign interests are made through an agency of of our Government. However as a matter of convenience or protocol or a requirement, from an international standpoint-this may well be the best if not the only procedure. It would merely be an agency of the U.S. Government making available to the foreign country under prescribed conditions, a booster or a space system or whatever it may be. Then these countries would contract for this work in terms of dollars and cents with the U.S. manufacturer, whoever that might be, through the U.S. Government. Question. Could a foreign country-or U.S. industry, for that matter-now proceed to design a project about a large U.S. booster and feel that there is a high probability that under proper security measures it could get such a booster? Would there be anything against U.S. policy? Answer. Nothing that I know of, if the proper security precautions are taken. The missile or the launch vehicle would not leave this country. It isn't a matter of shipping it to a foreign country where they could tear it apart and see how it is made, and gain whatever information might be held secret in the United States. No, I don't see any laws or rules or regulations that would be violated if we merely made our space capabilities available to foreign countries, with all the proper secrecy precautions taken, for the purpose of launching one or a dozen or 5 dozen of their space systems. Question. This means, then, Mr. KARTH, that General Dynamics-for instance-could try to sell its launch vehicles directly if it got the blessings of the requisite agency in the United States? Answer. If it involved launch vehicles around which there are no matters of security; yes, sir. rity; yes, sir. Certanly, they could, and I would hope they would. Question. But even if there were matters of security, couldn't the companies sell boosters if the vehicles were launched in the United States, with proper security measures? Answer. Yes, I don't see any reason why they should not or could not. Question. Would it be necessary for the United States to have any control over the payloads a foreign country launched with U.S. boosters? Answer. I think this could be established by a predetermined set of standards. We had better take these things on a piecemeal basis, examine them carefully and one at a time. Certainly we wouldn't make available to a foreign country a booster to launch an atomic bomb just to further develop that country's technology in the development of nuclear energy. Of course not. In this instance we would say "No. We won't sell you one under any such condition." So I say we would have to give our assents on an individual-project basis. Question. Mr. Karth, is there now any effort to sell our heavy-thrust booster capabilities abroad? Answer. I know of no one who is looking That into the proposition of selling them. doesn't mean it isn't time we started thinking about it and I intend to talk to people about this proposition and would hope that our Government would give it serious consideration and weigh all the pros and cons. Question. Where do you feel the initiative lies to start a program of selling our space systems abroad? Should it be industry, NASA, Congress, the White House? Answer. I feel very strongly that some serious consideration should be given to it. I think maybe the administration should first go through the exercise of looking into the merits and demerits. And this need not take forever. This could be done by appointing a very select committee of NASA officials, Department of Defense officials, State Department officials. I think industry should be represented on this board too, or on this select committee * * * call it what you like. And, of course, the administration directly. And then some people from the scientific community, in general, could be called on for con tributions. Question. How would we react if a nation wanted our boosters to launch its own system of communications satellites? Answer. If they are really serious about becoming engaged in this kind of a program, they are going to do it with or without us. I'd rather they did not develop all of these technologies themselves, but depend upon us to supply them. Nevertheless, if they want boosters for peaceful purposes, we ought to sell the vehicles to them as long as we can. Here we are in a position to capitalize on our capabilities over a long period of timeprobably for a decade or two decades-and I think we're acting like the ostrich with its head in the sand. When you've got an opportunity, I think you've got to exercise that opportunity, and here is an area where I think we have it. Here is an area where I think we should not go down the road of archaic-type thinking. Good grief, we've never gone to the moon before either, and if our thinking is that we shouldn't do anything we haven't done in the past-well, I guess we really wouldn't have a space program. |