374 HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



committee. Those attending expressed the consensus that a public 

 investigation of the U-2 incident would only embarrass NASA. 

 Chairman Brooks agreed to make the facts on which he had been 

 briefed available to any committee members in strict confidence, 

 closing the book on the embarrassing incident. Years later, the Presi- 

 dent's Science Adviser, Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., wrote in Sputnik, 

 Scientists, and Eisenhower: 



The whole episode of the shooting down of the plane — the timing of the flight, 

 the confused reaction of the American government and the untruthful statements it 

 made — seems incomprehensible today.* * * There were serious disagreements in the 

 White House staff in regard to how to respond to the news.* * * The President 

 himself accepted full responsibility for the flight. 



A COMMITTEE DIVIDED 



The U-2 fiasco and the sensational orbiting flight of Yuri Gagarin 

 in April 1961, combined to push efforts toward cooperation into the 

 background. Among committee members who attempted to stimulate 

 greater cooperation, Anfuso, Fulton, and Miller were the leaders. 

 Anfuso's visit to the Soviet Union «n September 1959, had made a 

 deep impression on him. He reported to his colleagues that he had 

 talked with Russian scientists like academician Leonid I. Sedov, and 

 "they said they were willing to cooperate on the peaceful exploration 

 of outer space." In February 1961, Anfuso posed this question to 

 Dr. Hugh L. Dryden, NASA's Deputy Administrator at a committee 

 hearing: 



Mr. Anfuso. Since the U.S.S.R. and the United States are the two prime countries 

 that have done the most in this field of space exploration, would you favor a joint 

 conference between an American team and a Russian team to discuss the peaceful uses 

 and exploration of outer space? 



Dr. Dryden. I have on every occasion discussed with the Russians this matter of 

 cooperation. They generally talk about exchange of information as a first step. 



The committee was sharply divided on the issue of cooperation 

 with the Soviet Union. Teague and Casey were the most outspoken 

 opponents of cooperation, and they were accurately reflecting the 

 views of their constituents. In his doctoral dissertation on the com- 

 mittee, James R. Kerr furnished the results of a poll he took among 

 committee members in 1961 on attitudes toward cooperation with the 

 Soviet Union on space: 



Of ten Members favoring more cooperation nine are Democrats and one is a 

 Republican; of eleven opposing more cooperation four are Democrats and seven are 

 Republicans. There is also a noticeable split based on dividing the Members into urban 

 and rural categories. Of those favoring more cooperation, eight represent urban 

 districts and two rural constituencies; of those opposing more cooperation seven 

 represent rural districts and four represent urban ones. 



