Page images

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 TOC 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.


Mr LENNOX. 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. LExxox. 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:

[ocr errors]

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.


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 year.

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 Soriets would contribute an equal amount, and you go ahead and say why.


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.


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.


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.


You are limiting that, I hope, to developing nations and not sug

I gesting 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.


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, Mr. LENNON. I share that view after reading again section 3, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President is to annually report to Congress pursuant to Public Law 89-454, should transmit to the Congress a plan setting forth the proposed participation of the United States for the next fiscal year in the International Decade of Ocean Exploration, and goes on to state that the plan should contain a statement of the activities to be conducted and specify he department or agency of the Government which would conduct the activity and seek appropriations therefor.

Mr. PELLY. Would the chairman yield at that point?

It seems to me that we should also ask for an interpretation of the sense of Congress as it applies to an arrangement which might be effected possibly setting forth the percentage that each country would contribute.

In other words, is this authorizing an international agreement? Do you say that already the executive branch has the authority to go ahead and set that into a treaty or how actually are we to proceed as far as approving of the arrangements that you may be making in the future?

Mr. POLLACK. I would say that I won't rule this out as a possibility, but I think it is highly unlikely that the Decade would ever be established on the basis of a formula of governmental participation. This is such a widely varied concept encompassing both national activities, binational, ocean basin activities, global activities, that it would be, I think, just a physical impossibility to formulate a percentage arrangement that would for the period of a decade be at all feasible for the management of it.

Mr. PELLY. Actually, isn't the sense of Congress just a sort of green light; we approve of the idea, go ahead from here, but not approving any specifics?

Mr. POLLACK. That is correct. It would have a further advantage in that we are now promoting as a government this concept very actively both in international forums and in the capitals of the world and we believe that our hand would be strengthened quite significantly by an indication by the congressional branch of our Government that it was its sense that our national policy called for such an international program.

Mr. LENNON. Will the gentleman yield at that point ?
Mr. PELLY. I yield back the floor, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LENNON. Being specific when you related section 2 to subsection (5) thereof, I can see how it would have been of some concern to the membership not only of this committee, but of the Congress. I will read it:


It is further the sense of Congress that the President should cooperate with other nations inthen going to (5) providing appropriate technical and training assistance and facilities to the developing countries and support to international organizations so they may effectively contribute their share to the International Decade of Ocean Exploration.

The gut issue here is whether or not the Congress is expressing a sense that the President should cooperate with other nations in provid

« PreviousContinue »