« PreviousContinue »
ics and getting down to brass tacks in a hurry. They asked this very question: What size effort were we thinking about? We mentioned this one-third, one-third, one-third division at every meeting.
They made no commitment on the spot, nor have they made any specific commitment in terms of what they will do. However, within a week of those sessions and, as Mr. Pollack may outline, at subsequent international meetings the Soviet Union has supported the United States in this proposal with full knowledge in their hands of what we are thinking about.
Mr. POLLACK. I might add that since we have not at this point become specific in our discussions with other countries on the size and scope of the program or on structure that will be used to manage this program, it would be premature to speak of other governments' intentions just as it would be premature at this point to speak of our own Government's final position with respect to these matters.
I mentioned in my remarks our hopes that the General Assembly would at its meeting this fall adopt a view generally in support of the proposal for an international decade. It is possible that if the General Assembly does take this position that in addition to a general statement in support of the decade, it will call for the establishment of a procedure possibly involving the International Oceanographic Commission whereby countries will be making specific proposals to be reviewed by the IOC and perhaps for the IOC staff itself to be generating proposals for activities to be carried on within the scope of the decade. I think, only when these specific programs begin to materialize and the consensus begins to develop as to the activities under the decade that it will be possible for precise or reasonably precise estimates on the extent of this program and its costs to be developed.
We are probably as much as a year away from being able to be very precise and responsive in dealing with that kind of question.
Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield to me at that point in the record to develop two points that you touched on?
Mr. MOSHER. Í yield.
COUNCIL CONTRACT WITH NAS
Mr LENNON. Thank you; I do this so that we can get into the record this particular point.
What was the date that the National Council of Marine Resources and Engineering Development contracted with the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering to conduct this additional study related to the International Decade of Exploration? Dr. WENK. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to confirm this subsequent to the hearing?
Mr. LENNON. Yes.
Dr. WENK. It is my recollection that the contract was concluded about June 28. The press release was issued July 23, but the mechanics of contract negotiations, as I recall, were concluded about June 28.
Mr. LENNON. I recall that there was a public announcement made by the Vice President on July 23, and I think it would be interesting to insert for the record a quote from the Vice President in announcing this contract, and I now quote:
Now we are turning to the Academies to assist the Council in developing the U. S. contribution to the Decade and in identifying scientific and engineering goals, objectives, milestones, priorities and timing.
Then this article goes ahead and I read on :
In addition the study will include identification of capabilities required to achieve these goals in terms of manpower, marine data, instrumentation, sea and shore facilities and funds. It also will identify the end products that should be produced during the Decade such as the charts, maps, research reports, and atlases.
COSTS OF DECADE
The gentleman from Ohio touched upon the projected cost and, Dr. Wenk, you are quoted as having made the statement that in your judgment the cost of our U.S. contribution during the decade could be as much as $5 billion during the 10-year period and expressed the hope that the Soviets would contribute an equal amount, and you further are quoted as saying that together the United States and U.S.S.R. could contribute as much as 50 to 60 percent, and you explain how this would work out, and you are quoted as elaborating on the reasons why the United States and U.S.S.R. would be such heavy contributors to the IDOE when there is a possibility that 30 to 40 maritime nations may participate.
In a further quote, you say:
This estimate is based on ships now available to conduct oceanographic research on the high seas and the combined U.S. and USSR oceanographic fleet represents about 60 to 80 per cent of this capability.
You are further quoted as saying:
"Much of the IDOE cost will be reflected in the ship operating costs" and that this money would be spent even if the United States were not a participant in the IDOE.
For instance, you stated that about $100 million of the fiscal 1969 budget would be defined as IDOE funds if the program were in progress at this moment.
Is that a fair representation of your quotes in an interview that you had with the editor of the weekly of Ocean Technology Oceanology which is quoted in the April 18, 1968, issue of that publication? Dr. WENK. Mr. Chairman, that is quite an accurate reflection of my comments. I believe the numbers that I responded to Mr. Mosher agree with these almost completely, although I would characterize our current level of effort of decade-type activity as closer to $150 million per
Mr. LENNON. I was trying to get it in terms of dollars. You said what the ratio over the period of 10 years would be, and I was trying to get it in terms of dollars, and you say that in your judgment the cost of the IDOE to the United States during this decade could be as much as $3 to $5 billion over the 10-year span, and you hope that the Soviets would contribute an equal amount, and you go ahead and say why.
BENEFITS FROM EXPLORATION
Dr. WENK. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that the atmosphere in Washington these days is not the most favorable for talking about funds for future plans, but notwithstanding that, I agree with you completely. I think we really must look ahead, and if this field is to meet the promise that this Congress--your committee-had for it when you passed
the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act 2 years ago, if it lives up to the expectations that President Johnson and Vice President Humphrey have, it is going to grow. We have rationalized this growth in terms of direct benefits and these benefits lie in terms of resource development; oil, gas, and minerals; of fisheries, of protein; or our national security; of better weather forecasting; of economic development of our own coastal zone. It is, in these terms that we look on this as an investment. It is really my belief that this is one of the most exciting as well as challenging programs that have ever been proposed because it goes beyond science which has a very good record for international cooperation.
It goes into cooperation in resource delineation and cooperation, not just between scientists, but between nations and between industrial partners from different nations.
This is what makes it both difficult and exciting in terms of the kind of partnership that we visualize; incidentally, one in which the United States has taken the leadership and which we, I think, are going to feel a sense of responsibility to support.
TEN-YEAR COSTS OF $3 BILLION
The $3 billion that I mentioned for the 10-year interval and which I am quoted as stating is consistent with what I mentioned this morning as roughly $150 million annually, now, as being consistent with our definition of a decade and would be considered within it if the decade were active.
With this level of effort increasing by at least a factor of three during the 10 years, this would amount to some $3 billion.
RESOLUTION 803 CARRIES NO AUTHORIZATION
I note, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, that your resolution takes no position on authorization. Indeed, it could well be premature because we have no proposals to make yet in terms of dollars. In fact, section 3 of your resolution requires that the President in his report next year transmit to the Congress a plan setting forth participation of the United States in terms of funds and appropriations that would be sought subsequently. It seems to me that, apart from the support for the concept, this places the executive branch under an obligation to come back to the Congress next year with considerably more detail, and I would say this we would be prepared to do.
Mr. LENNON. Gentlemen, the only reason I make this point was because of the points Mr. Mosher brought out.
If the gentleman from Alaska would permit me to move on down, Mr. Pelly.
Mr. PELLY. I don't want to be facetious, Dr. Wenk, but in your testimony on page 6 you end up by concluding that: "In our form of government, the two branches have an independent voice in determining what we as a nation can and what we should do."
I think there are three branches that have been determining what we can do. I notice in your suggestion, by way of illustration, that you state certain objectives and you mention that we might be mapping selected areas of the Continental Shelf of developing nations.
EXPLORATION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF
You are limiting that, I hope, to developing nations and not suggesting the Russians come over and start helping us map some of our Continental Shelf, are you?
Dr. WENK. That is exactly correct, Mr. Pelly. Our view is that a few developed nations, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union, do have the capabilities to map their own shelves. We would not expect others to help us map our own shelves, but there are many less developed countries that have the probability of resources off their shelves but from which they can gain now no benefits because they do not know what is there.
Mr. PELLY. We had some think like that in connection with the Indian Ocean. We participated in the international exploration of the Indian Ocean.
Dr. WENK. That is true and this continues the spirit of that exploration. We, of course, would not engage in such exploration without the invitation of the coastal state, but we frankly hope that they would see this in their interest. The data incidentally would again be made available internationally.
Mr. PELLY. I wonder if you have thought of any nations that don't have any seacoast as participating in this international joint venture? Do you think any might?
Dr. WENK. Mr. Pollack may wish to comment on that because I believe there are several such states who have indicated an interest perhaps because of their engineering capabilities.
Mr. POLLACK. I am trying to recall whether any of the governments that have thus far indicated their support of the decade represent governments without coastlines. I don't believe so. But there are several such governments participating in the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee on the Seabed.
Mr. PELLY. That is what I had in mind that maybe they would become so interested there and see possibilities maybe of getting some benefits themselves that they would want to put in a little money along with us.
INTEREST BY OTHER NATIONS
Mr. LENNON. There were 42 nations that were invited to participate in the meeting held in the Department of State on this subject matter. That is true; isn't it?
Mr. POLLACK. And 40 accepted.
Mr. LENNON. Forty accepted and participated?
Mr. POLLACK. Right.
Mr. LENNON. Would you furnish for the record those 40?
Mr. POLLACK. I would be very glad to.
(The information follows:)
NATIONS BRIEFED ON INTERNATIONAL DECADE OF OCEAN EXPLORATION The nations whose representatives were briefed on the proposal for an International Decade of Ocean Exploration on March 8, 1968 were: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Greece, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malto,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, U.K., U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia.
Mr. LENNON. Out of the 40 you have indicated in your testimony this morning that 22 have indicated an interest or have accepted the philosophy of participating in the International Decade of Ocean Exploration.
Mr. POLLACK. The figure I cited earlier was 28, and I stated that they had expressed a positive interest. Now, this expression could have been in any number of ways. In a few cases we have received written communications.
Mr. LENNON. Before I forget this, in addition to the 40 who participated in the briefing at the State Department, will you furnish those for the record and following that will you furnish the names of the 28 countries which have indicated an interest in one way or another and, as you say, have indicated a likely participation? Mr. POLLACK. We would be very glad to do so.
(The information follows:)
COUNTRIES SHOWING INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL DECADE OF
Foreign countries which have indicated some form of interest in an International Decade of Ocean Exploration are: Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Ceylon, Denmark, Ecuador, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malagasy, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Rumania, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom and U.S.S.R.
Mr. POLLACK. I was going to say that I think it is entirely possible that a country like Switzerland interested in the sale of scientific equipment might very well feel that it would be worth their while to develop oceanographic equipment even though they themselves are not an oceanographic state.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROVAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Mr. PELLY. There is one question that I have which is caused by the fact that in the Space Act there is a specific requirement that Congress must approve any joint international ventures. I don't know of any specific requirement as far as oceanography or any of the aspects of that, but I assume from the way you have welcomed this resolution that the executive branch would certainly welcome and in fact invite the approval of the legislative branch to any joint venture of this
Mr. POLLACK. I, myself, do not know, sir, what the legislative requirements are with respect to oceanographic activities, although I would point out that any joint proposals will involve the expenditure of funds and that these funds will, of course, be described as such in their justification to the Congress.
Mr. PELLY. Even an international agreement, as far as space is concerned, as I understand, would require under the basic act the approval of Congress, and I certainly would hope that, even though there might be no specific legal reason to do so, the executive branch will ask the approval of Congress for an agreement covering this proposal. I am sure they will get it, but it just seems to me that we ought to be a little careful in moving into the field of international agree