Review of U.S.-U.S.S.R. cooperative agreements on science and technology

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Review of U.S.-U.S.S.R. cooperative agreements on science and technology special oversight report no. 6
Series Title:
Serial - House, Committee on Science and Technology ; no. 94-VV
Physical Description:
vii, 32 p. : ; 24 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Geier, Claire Riley
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Science and Technology. -- Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Place of Publication:
Washington
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Exchanges, Literary and scientific   ( lcsh )
Relations -- United States -- Soviet Union   ( lcsh )
Relations -- Soviet Union -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Claire Riley Geier ; Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning and Analysis of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session.
General Note:
At head of title: Committee print.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025989411
oclc - 02669326
System ID:
AA00024873:00001

Full Text

(COKXITTEE PRINT]



"~REVIEW OFU.S.-US.S.R. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
ON SCIENCE-AND TECHNOLOGY,


..'SEOIAL OVERSIGHT REPORT NO. 6



SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DOMESTIC AND) INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC PLANNING AND ANALYSIS OF TME
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESNINETYt-FOUR~TH CONGRESS


Serial, V









NOVEMBER 19T6



Printed for t o ofthe committee on .Science and Technology

U.S. GOV""NENT PRINTING OFFICE 71-245 WASHINGTON : 1976

For sle by the Suintendent of Docuznns U.S Govemuinent Puiating Offes
Washngton, D.C 242Pie50 cents
There is a mnum charge of #1.00 for each nunl oer












COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OLIN E. TEAGUE, texas, 6airown KEN Hh-CHLbh' Westv*gInta, CHARLES A. XOSI[Ek, 6hio
THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia ALPHONZO BELL, California
DON FUQUA, Flonift JOHN JA.RMAN, Oklahoiha
JAMES W. SYMINGTON, Missouri JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey LOUIS PREY, JR., Florida
MIKE MCCORMACK, Washington BARRY X GOLDWATER,.T&., California
GEORGE E. 13ROWN, JR., Califointa MARVIN L. IkSCH' 3A61gah
DALE MILFORD, Texas JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York DAVID F. EMERY, Maine
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota
HENRY A. WA AN, Califorlda PHILIP H. HAYES, Indiana TOM HARKING, Iowh JIM LLOYD, California JEROME A. ALM13RO, Xew York CHRISTOP]EIER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL T. BLOUIN, Iowa TIM 4 HALL, I111nols ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee JAMES T. BLANCHARD, Michigan TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
JOHN L, SwiaraT, Jr., Executive Director Hmom A. Goum, DepatV Direoftr PMLIP B. YkAdzft, bou"el FRANK. R. HAMMILT.% Jr., (Tommel JAMES E. WILSON, 2WhWcal (Yontultant J. THOMAS RATCHYMD, Science Commitant JOHN D. HOLMVIbLD, fttencs ConmItant RALPH N. READ, Technical CommItant ROBERT C. KETCHAM, 00SM61 RxGiNA A. DAvis, Chief Clerk BUCHAEL A. SupzRATA, Ifinority Counsel


SUBCOMMir ON D6MRSTIC AND INTMMATroN&L
Sc=NTme PL&*Nm A" AwALTsis
RAY THORNTON, Atkansas, Chairman

ROBERT A- ROE, New.Tersey JOHN B. CONLAN, Arizona
DALE MILFORD, Texas JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma
JAMES H. SCREUER, New York GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JEROME A. AMBRO, New York JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Michigan

SUBCOMMITTEE STAPP JoHm. D HoLwrrm, Science Con8ultant DARbli 1). BiLACXili, '90iMee 06nftifait JAMES L. GALLAGHER, Minority Technical Consultant (3:1)











LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL


HousE OFp REPRESENTATIVES,
ComxrrrmE ON SCIENCE AimU TECHNlOLOGY,
Hon. Omw~ E. TEAGUJE, Waahingtoti, D.C., November 10, 1976. CMirman, Committee on Science and Technsology, Howe, of Repmeentativeg, Washkngton, D.C.
DEA MR CHAIMAN: I am transmitting herewith a report on the operation of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Cooperative Agreements on Science and Technology.
This Subcommittee's predecessor, the Subcommittee on International Cooperation in Science and Space of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, held hearings on this subject in June, 1972. This was one month after the Moscow Summit Meeting at which the first of a series of accords were signed.
The purpose of those hearings, as stated by the Subcommittee's Chairman, the Honorable James W. Symington, was "to provide the committee with better insight into their full meaning, and their implications for the future." He added that the committee would also like to explore potential methods for implementing the agreements.
It thus seemed to be a propitious time in late 1975-following a trial period of over three and one-half years-to review the policies and programs of these bilateral agreements and to focus particularly on the scientific research benefits. The hearings were held on November 18-20,1975, in Washington, D.C.
The Summar and Analysis was prepared by Claire Riley Geier, analyst in the Sience Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, in collaboration with the Subcommittee staff.
I commend it to you and to all Members of the Committee.
Sincerely yours, RAY THORNTON, Chimwfl
Subcommittee on Domestic and Intenational
Scientific Planning and Avaiyig.

















CONTENTS

Page
Letter of Transmittal ------------------------------------------------ M
Contents ------- ------------------------------------------------- v
Special Oversight ----------------------------------------------------- vn
Recommendations -------------------------------------- ----------- 1
Summary and analysis of hearings -------------------------------- - 5
Introduction ----------------------------------------------------- 5
Part I: Summary and analysis ---------------------------------------- 9
status -------- --------------- ------------------------ ----- 9
Organization and administration, ---- ---------------------- - -- 11
Funding ------- -- ------------------------------- ---- ----- 13
Foreign Policy considerations ------------- ------------- -------- 15
Cooperative scientific research ----------- ---- ------ ----------- 17
(A) Academy exchanges ------------------------------- ----- 17
(B) Role of Scientists --------------------------------------- 17
Reciprocity ----------------------------------------------------- 18
Part 2: Three promising agreements ----- ----------------- ------ -- 23
The agreement on scientific and technical cooperation-------------- 23
(A) Electrometallurgy working group ------------------ - --- 23
(B) Chemical catalysis working group ------------ --- ------ 24
The agreement on studies of the world ocean ----------------------- 25
The agreement on environmental protection ------------------------- 27
Appendix: List of witnesses and statements ---------------------------- 31

















Resarc ad deelopet is conducted truhut the Federal Goverment Mos agencies and departments support research and devlopentto urteradvances in thos fields of science and technoloy wicharerelated to their mission.

In te Huseof Reprsetatives these research and development actvitesare reviewed individually by. a number of standing Cornmiteeshavngjurisdiction of the various programs, agencies, and deprtmnts Beinnngwith the 94th Congress, the rules of the Hous proid that Tereview and the recommendations included in this report are maepursuant to this Special Oversight provision of the House rules.
(yxz)























Agremens. o Scenc and Tehnoogymakstehfooig



re~'uodtheeora evuatd o



Throopativeo Agent ind Science and Technology


wer enereino ntial fo rhpliia pu~rpCose Iof reduA

ingtenisan futein inenaina-uss on bewe



futhrmnfth~ai~icti f cinc adtmchnolg toankm
mopoesintetoconre il liaeldpno
the benefits they yield to the Uite ttsateSve
Unio. Te ageemnts houd threfre b evluatd o





2
to effect science policy, but technically broad in competence to advise on matters of scientific substance, is required. e Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is well qualified to carry out this function and should be considered
for this task.
RECOMMENDATION 3
UPDATED STATEMENTS O OPERATIONAL AND AN AT PRcavas Sioute RE Pievious oTima AMkERICANb CoCifidtbn OF T JOIrat COMMISSrONS FOnRn Gemita op eT Humtr rTM SachETAB BS AND OZWAR ADAmERISTAto08 iR Tim 4tMW
TvE LEAD AGENCIES AND FOR THE PARTICIPAT SMIM
The program has not as yet realized its potentials Se p its shortcomings are attributable to the inadequacy of the current structure under -which the overall aciene &Ad teebnology program opreineluding lack ot gtient and proper guidelths, intting, and thoding. Alii
though U.S.-U.S.S.R. science program is relatively new, for which-some justifiable allbwance should be made, it would








NmDcBAss To NUETATEA
iappea reason nble tp exp that during the fouft years which hire elhp d hee initial Agretents were sighed, a body of adininistativo principles Wad problem-solving experiences should have emerged oh tihe American side ivch could he "crodified"., shared -With, and piovicht gfaile to, the









Progtats admuioristrators mand scientists at all levels of the








Such evalti.insure RtECOMMENDATION 4
ALL CURRENT PROJECTS SntormoBE CRITICALLY EXAMINED ON A Penionic BASIS To ENSURE THAT THE SCIENCE AND THORROLOGY COOPEIRATIVE AGREEMENTs PROGRAM AS A WHOLE IS Pnoonsorse] ON A RECIPROCAL AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL BASIS AND IN THE
MOSTt EFFECTIVE MANNER
Periodically, and no less than annually, all individual Workincg Group projects. now numbering about 150, khmild be subjected to a critical evaluation. The principle of reciprocity should be broadly applied. There may be individual Working Group projects where one side gains more than the other while in other projects the reverse may be true. But on balarice, the entire program Should be evaluated to insure that both nations give as much as they receive. The benefits gained by each nation should consist of scientific and technological knowledge which is helpful and useful in advancing, research and development objectives. Resources should be concentrated on projects'which offer a demonstrably greater potential for more meanineful scientific or technical returns.
Such evaluation will insure that worthwhile projects will not
suffer at the expense of marginal projects.













UEUNNATO 5
New Paenars 'Te SnCARRIED OUT UNDER Tim ExstioX COMrhaptEont ANn Mu~m Watmo Gnewps SniaLBaCAREFULLY ScaENEx To INSURE THT ONLY $'HOSE"WITH H IGH POTENwrAL was SUCCESS AnE INtrarno
In wedaie-*ng proposals by Americani or Soviet scientists for thd Wtiition of hew poecsa the United States side of the
..Joint Gothnissions Ahoul enersise a more discriminatory
project seetivity, particularly in faver of projects where mutually keen laterest is demonstrated, where the scientific
prolempresented is one in which both sides have strong
i~t'V~yand *there thie prospeak t* or eem b past good.
RECOMMENDATION 0
Poorant Wars hadown twornMrava T1HROUen tACK Or PERtomaswouit at n orMp SIDs SHOULD, FouLowrxoG lisaso-NstL .,SUE Feut On CobMtWANGR, _Bi Pnoxyror TERMINzATED IN A
batnerent, Buwaran tAssnow
SA9 1 66 1h ptidat th6 Agreement oni Agriendture, the Sovdtside Zd1fAtnettenaotattq ate at a joint workt.hop that the T ItSA hienhtittd itl, ifth n,9 rt-run
a th.in t a M :m y there hadt
b6 tomiliIty WhihlbWas rughly dottathble td short-term 1ftcsthig dt pradthb& i the United Sfatts. Stibsequently, it was dihd698th4 by fld if.S. sie that, ih fact, work of this kind wagt Whig 86t)idst and th6 indivdruth in the UTSSR in charge of this activity were identified. When such a situation develops, it should lead to immediate requests for cooperationl on the part of the Soviet side. But if the project does not become6 operative, it should be promptly terminated in a manner which makes it clear that the lack of full, forthright compliance in accordance with the language and intent of the agreemnent is the cause.
RliECil-fENDA'ION 7
!MAD AGENCIES OF THE VXECUTI1VE RANCH RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SCIENTIFI CONDUCT ON THE 11.S. SIDE OF THE ScIENTIFIC AGREExATS SHOULD Senarr REQUESTS FOR ADEQUATE F UNDS ToCARRY OUTr THEIR COMMITMNTS UNDER THE AGREEMENTS TO THE PPRESIDENT FOR INCL.USION IN9 THE ANNUAL FEDERAL BUDGET
The haphazard funding procedures currently employed by the Federal departments and agencies involved in this bilateral pro!am has increasingly impeded the performance of the participants and has adversely affected the progress of many projects. Because of the failure to provide line-items in lead agency budgets for this inter-national programn. funds





4

now must be transferred from domestic programs ito support projects o i f the former. If the lead agencies are to fulfill fbe*ir assigned, missions under this program, then adequat6,fuyidi g commensurate with their responsibilities should be provided.
RECOMMENDATION 8
DEPARTMMN-rs 'AND AGENoms op THF, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SERVING As LEAD AGENciEs FOR INDIVIDUALU.&-U.S.S.R. AGREEMENTS SHOULD SELECT THE'PERS0NNmLTo- STAFF -Bom THEPosT op EXECUTIVE E SECRETARY AND THE OTHER STAFF POSITIONS INTHEIR
OWN SECRETAR-IATSIFORTuosEAGREEMMMTS
The txecutive' Secretaries I for each I o f the' ag,'ieements are, with one exception, selected, employed by, or detacl ed to, the designated lead agencies. The exception is the Agreement on Scientific and Technical Cooperation, for which the T aition'al Science Foundation currently is the des' af d -lead, &&ncy.
However-, -the Executive Secretary for this agreement is located in the Department of State. This anomaly removes the secretariat from the staff of the lead agency And;excludes. the N-SF from membership on the Executive Secreta ries Committee, which. is chaired by, the D partniejit of State. To effect so.unA s'ekintific guidance over the Scientificand., Technical Cooperative Agreement the NSF should.'appoint its own Executive Secretary. The Departmemt-of State should continue to provide foreign policy guidance- for the overall program through the U.9. co-chairmen and. by. its chairmanship of theUnder Secretary's Committee, of the National Security
Council and the Executive Secretaries CQn-uniftee.'
RECOMMENDATION 9
I w KFxPiNG Wrm ITS OVERSIGHT ASSIGNMENT THE HousE ScrFNCE AN-DTECIELN-OLOGY COMMITTEE SHomD. BE FURNISHED oN A CURRENT AND CONTINuolus BASIS WITH ADEQUATE DocuMENTATION BY T ExEcuTivE BRANcia oN THE STATus or THE U.S.U.S.S.R. CooPERATivEAGREEMENTS ON SCIENCE AND TEcHxoLoGy
The first hearings on this subject were held by this Subcommittee's predecessor in June 1972, one month after the signing of the first of a seriesof bilateral agreements between the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. 'on science and technology. The second and most recent hearings on these agreements were, held in midNovember 1975, three and one-half years later. From the Subcommittee's viewpoint, the informational gap which had developed during the interval between hearings was evident during the latter hearings. In order to be better informed at subsequent hearings and to avoid an informational catch-up situation as had prevailed, it is recommended that the Committee be provided reports on this p ogram. in order to assure it an informed foundation for carrying out its Congressional
oversight responsibilities in the future.


























pro-rr cndutedunere ltthe S.R.operatientAgmet-i

The urpse f tesehearngswil beto vluated he tatu







firsarswr sucmiet aSmi etngi ocwi




in 12inacmat f dete te as bee wide aclaime
asa urnng pintin te rlatins etwen te wold' tw

maorpoer. owve, feltht hee ovrne(5)-gv





6

private-sector, scientific exchanges of some duration with the Soviet Union.
Additionally, statements were submitted for the hearing record (See Appendix 1, Hearings), by the seven U.S. Chairmen representing the remaining eight agreements.3 In addition to the statement on Medical Science and Public Health, papers wer alsq receiv9pd fortle following six cooperative agreements: space; agriculture; transportation; peaceful uses of atomic energy; energy; And housing and other construction.
The govern witness o4iiiresse S
The~~~~~~~ goenetwtese 1e4jhemselves to both the form and substanceof the agreements. Unlike earlier bilateral arrangements between the two nations, the scientific cooperative agreements were instituted as problem-solving instruments. Hence, the paric ants at the initial meetings explored and solete4 thooe brwosew 41w where mutual problems existed that chllJenged both prtis gj wlwm solutions appeared feasible, eg., pollutioi and energy.
After areas of general interest were idontifida #Joint Qornaw9
and secretariat w ere created under which speci& joit wokn g"~ would function. Both the Commissions and the working groups p.. co-chaired by an authorized representative from each country. Subtopics, which now nuinblr about 150 udp W~ working groupwer subsequently identified and organized into projects in wh ch thle Actual work of joint scientific research is carried -out. Not all projects however have progressed to the actual working phase. Under the Scfitific and Technical Agreement, 24 of 49 projects were operative in October 1975, whereas onliy 4 projects had been functioning during the previous October.
The w itnesses discussed other administrative features of the treements program including the role of lead agencies (iLe. thoe with foremost administrative or substantive responsibilities for a specific agreement, or project), coordination and policy (including the roles of the Department of State and the National Security Council) and attendant considerations concerning security, foreign policy, funding, travel, and problems of translation.
Substantively, two (Chemical Catalysis and Electrometallurgy of the twelve working groups under the Agreement on Scienti e and Technical Cooperation were examined in some depth. While no working group leader from the other two agreements, i.e. Environmental Protection and World -Ocean, testified at the hearings because of time limitations, the U.S. Chairman or his designated alternate for these agreements covered their respective areas in a forthight and comtprei hensive manner.
T.he consensus of the witesses was that:
The program overall was moderately suemesfu4;
Progress, although unevenly developed, ba4 been mutual
beneficial thus far;
0 The Potenial for future saiti benefits exists for bth
parish;
The rapid proliferation of projects especially under the older
agreemn~ats requires careful r viw for purp of pruinxg un4 Th~e discrepancy herze btwqA the liube o chaimen &dta fteareet eateacactivities under the Agreeer In&e eneeand Publc lh CRp#





7

productive or marginal programs while preserving those which demonstrated prospects for meaningful benefits;
0 Those projects which had failed to live up to reasonable expectations or to an otherwise foreseeable potential because of unnecessary or unwarranted delays by the Soviet side, with due allowance for the normal bureaucratic pace, should be promptly terminated;
0 Some worthwhile projects might suffer severely unless immediate measures are undertaken to resolve the funding issue keenly felt by some lead agencies, a problem which in turn, may also affect the translation process;
0 The role of the Department of State could be more clearly defined and possibly confined to matters of foreign policy to assure the unfettered pursuit, between the scientists of both parties, of scientific objectives with due allowance for policy and national security restrictions. A separate, central coordinating organization was conceived necessary in this context to administer to the strictly substantive side of the agreements and to the resolution of day-to-day scientific problems.
0 The committee, in fulfiffing its oversight function, should be provided, on a regular basis, with current status reports on the U.S.-U.S.S.R. scientific agreements program by the agencies of the Executive Branch responsible for that program.














PAR I-UMAYAD AALYSIS











TheUnte Sats ndtheU..SR.hae E' elvn cOooperative agreements





coverthe ield of1
sietifc ndtecnial ooertio-My (,9)7 ooertininenirnmnalpr-et-nMa23 14





10

systems and made a major contribution
rescue capability for future manned flights." [p. 46]
Under the Energy Areeto 94 xet ncaol
gas, and information and forecasting, have madeprgesi
formulating recommendations forjonprecsAtityn
the on-going el tion by U.S. magnetohydrodynamics experts in thet
a U.S.-constructed channel a et pilot facility. The
provided useful data on vai elect e mater


Mr. Kratzer ou remarked that the

nainino three, "have been impressive." Thentitled"PorsReotoU..SveUnoCoprie

StateS.1 2 flo woul yo y eocl hs p 6
Mr. Kratzer resp ed t 1973 findings and s

Gary From, Director of the Wa Bureu of cnmcRsacsae ta lhuhteehsbe

tunity basis, the rogm is far from real log-er potntil. [p 93].
Dr. Fromnm attributed these shortcomings. toteiadqayo the 'ent s eune wh

aui lines g, d ingp.3
r k" ,' Zo "" : m
N~il pogr~ato~pnuess ha enso, inita cnatewe






scoeraio o ..-....sinitshv enmd n e





an a o a nt of
nStat r Mr Rusl Trai noted















We ega toseetanibl evdene ofertwhat evtroneta

As o te utue o te areeens alete writse fto dht with






rson in th ontio aereand astan ofthe agretsy
including ~0 alytmfrcntaie udn, athea bi-ltier agreees

program~ wouldt beeorrbetaryal

,Becauts rortfthe entt-eent, naur orfo the coeative,, Chaijn~i fom a sie Tis is ilsrey orte Jon4greeent


selef~dsciece rea and poe toral gudanc fxor for
piite une thes agreement.3~ e mbict





12

tration amplified the purpose of the Executive Seretaries Committee meetings:
It is not the intent of those meetings to provide technical
guidance. That is my understanding. I look to it for policy
guidance and direction. [p. 7(5]
Some Committee members were interested in the overall coordination of the Joint Commissions. Specifically, Congressman Conlan asked Dr. Stever, as Chairman of the U.S. side of his Joint Commission, to whom he reported: Dr. Stever responded that he reported to the Under Secretary of State and to the National Security C~ouncil with respect to his judgment on the reciprocity of the exchanges.
Asked if the National SecurityK Council directs the work of the working groups anid Joint Commissions, Mr. Kratzer replied:
It has an oversight responsibility which I think is a better
way of putting it. It is certainly not, in any real sense of the word, a direct supervisory relationship. Each one of these joint committees is headed by a very senior official, often the Secretary of the government department or agency concerned.
[p. 22]
Chairman Thornton asked Dr. Allen Kassof, Director of the International Research and Exchanges Board, -his opinion of the Government's responsibilities toward this program as administered b~y the Department of State within the context of the oversight function of the National Security Council: "Do you think that such a continuing evaluation or oversight by the NSC would be a proper function, even if the administration of the program was performed outside the Department of State?" [p. 1021 Dr. Kassof answered that the National Security Council certainly should be informed of developments in the program especially in relation to security matters but, he added, that "should not be confused with the daily administration of these programs. That is a separate matter." [p. 102]
Chairman Thornton asked Dr. Kassof, concerning daily administration of the agreements, whether he preferred that they should be coordinated through the newly proposed Office of Science and Technology Policy or by a quasi-governmental body. Dr. Kassof replied:
My own preference is for a quaigvrmnlornization. The reason for this has to do with a danger to which I alluded to in my prepared testimony, namely, the possibility of confusion between diplomatic and scientific priorities.
** It seems to ne that if we are engaged in these science projects we ought to be doing so because they are important
in their own right [p. 102]
On the subject of the part to be played by the Department of State, Mr. Train testified that it should not "run the cooperative effort in a programmatic se. . ." 11ie added:
I think the strength of agreements such as this lies in their
being conducted primarily by hs wit progrmaire
sponsibilities on both sides. When you get the fellow who has a budget control on one side talking with an opposite number who has some comparability as to budget control, they can





13

reach agreement and say OK, we cam do this. The State Department cannot do this. It cannot commit my staff and my budget. . while I think the State Department has an enormously important role, it should be distinguished and kept
separate from the direct running of the program. [p. 143]
Dr. Alexander Rich, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technologty and Chairman of the Scientific Exchange Board of the National Academy of Sciences, (NAS) testified that the Department of State's role was important in a "catalytic" seme. However, "it should not be an operating arm because the principals really should be the people who are doing the work," he said, adding7 "I think you run into. too many difficulties if you have someone responsible for it, and someone, else running it who is not responsible for it." [p. 249]
When asked by Chairman Thornton for his opinion of an annual Congressional review, Mr. Kratzer responded:
I thiuk it would be very wise, Air. Chairman, for the conimittee to receive, if I could presume to put myself in your shoes, a periodic report on the progress of these agreements.
11 am sure that we would be very fortheoming in developing
such reports for you. [p. 521
FUNDTNG
Although many witnesses commented on one or more of the administrative problems in the agreements program, most of them expressed some concern over the funding arrangements. Chairman Thornton asked how the funding process might be improved, asid Dr. Steer replied:
We are in the agency-I am now speaking as Director of
the National Science Foundation-handling our funds in line with our regular procedures. Essentially each agency must fit the U.S.S.R. activities into *ts, -ogram. You will find it in the budget presentation and 0juws't1iKc'at1on from the National Science Foundation.... A statement to the effect that some of the additional money we come to Congress for, is included for further international cooperative research, primarily
with the U.S.S.R. [p. 14]
As an example of the financial pressures upon the, National Science Foundation, Dr. Alexander Rich, Chairman of the Sc-ienre Exchange Board of the National Academy of Sciences, noted that all of the NAS's programs were funded by the National Science, Foundation. And, he said, fiscal limitations on the NSF budget, in terms of its international program, has placed pressure on the Academy programs. The above mentioned report prepared by the General Accounting Office also had noted that the, lack of centralized funding policies greatly impeded the work of the agreements.5
In r esponding to the GAO's contention that policies for funding the agreements had adversely affected progress under the agfeements, Dr. Gary Fromm suggested:
Funding for the program might better be undertaken by explicit recognition in the Federal budget process and- sul;mis5 Op. cit., A Progress Report on United States-Soviet Union Cooperative Programs, p. 46.








ii!i !ii! !!!!i! iii.................... ............ i~ i i ............. ...........................4'

sion oreussbthNionlSineFunainiru
the usual channeiil.Noml rceurswol tendctt rv iw b app op ae C ongessi ona ...........................................
t r a n f e r o riii iii! i!!i g r a n t s...............................................................
coud e roided as eeed bt heFondtin' sbmsson probably~iiiiii~i~i shul be copeesv n ovralfed ne
theiiiii cietfcadTcnclCoeainAreet[p95
Dr.iiiiii Kassof suggested:.....ii
Ini] teftrtbiltrlouhtobcerayfndd.6
teetnthttiisaraitcps iii.It 8oo roe
dure to sgm agreement and hen look or the wirewithal toii!iiii~iiiiii car h m o t to lgsth atcp tn gn ist complete ......ii!i ...gi n t hi r own... ao e i .... ..... to com up it
approriat bugtad i]dsorspirtis p 6
Asked by Ch ia Thrno ho ewudefeta r
metho ofi, fudntoacmmdt Cnrssoa oes trspni
iitiesadpo e eiwwthnteEectv rXM.ri
ried
,!Iii hinktefnigqeto sqiecuil n ti
clsl idt h o grsin loesg tf nction ............
......icethr inieitemappopraton orhi
moe, tmen i scoig u o ombd'snrmloprt i nji~:,iiiiiiiiii~i i ........... and! th s e dstip nc *
wolieniowecm aseifcaprpitintiass ]iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii in'':?" .......... fu th ra ce of th s gr em nt [ p.14 -2
S o me........... w o r i n .................................o t ..........................................
testfie... Dr.: @f%7 BldscweU.. h irman of the Workin









iiii !ilii i~ili1 5

Dr ihosre aeteialta h oietion amin-,

ooftersin cadtcnclporm ifferis te r e t h e iiifii i=iiiu.nd in = ii~iiiiiii=liiiiii ii=iiiiiiiiiii i iiiiiliii iiliii! ii ii iiiii!!!iiI iiii!i
ently fromi! i! that the U nited States.iiliiiilii~i iiiiiiiiii~iiiiiii==i~= = il

tr.W a n esin th Sovietii Unionisdis ini~i~ii thei,...

e= Zi fiveyea intevals
However, the steadiness of the risei is quite impressive. In iiiiii
contrast to this, the funding of American science has consider-..
abeisaiiy ihatraigproso es n a ie.iiiii~


fudig i enrl, iiin th Unie Stte is treated no 17F= == =ren .........
roaibil iii T so m e year large stretches of high w ayiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicaniiii be con-i i ..
str cte wh &iiii;;iiii i i iii======iii ~i~~~i = = iiiii ii=iiii in o' co s iu to can ~ ii=== be ~ ~ i ==ii= i~iiiiiiii reduced drast !ically nhgwyaporitos hr ustdy i sciec
1n"m%. noted, craedmg otesinii structure that"" will
pess vrmn er.H ugetdta tmgtb etrt
stblz U.. udig o siec rserhevni it! ............... seaed t
loe eel hntocnuit by thencon istn methd wichcur





i~16
ii!!i!i!!!iii assesingpo rs i .nfreg olc olst atM rt
oimented: i
.... Weii~~~~~i~iiiiii~iiii~~~~ii~iiiiiiiii~~~iii~ b e iiiiliv e cni d erab le ii p ro res h asi b een~i m adeiiil 'iiiiiiiii i ,ii iiiiiii ii iniii~~l~~i~~~~~i~ e istab-!i~~~iiii~~~ii
lihgantoko niiul adisiuin h e ti


their interest toegg ncoeainrte hnincfrnai n eaeetbihn sflcnat ihhge

an rae eeso oitofcadmta vrbfr.W
ar a ifis-adkoldeaotSve eeom tS
and exhnin.da...ay.ra f uul neet.p 8

.... Frm exrse hi iw ntea iofsinfcadteh


nclcoeaintordctesn.
Amavnaeofetnieo..USSR itrhnei
tha i ~ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~~iiiiiiii~~ii~iiiiii~i helps to reduce uncertainties and creates conditionsiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii





17

COOPERATIVE SCIENTIFIC RF""CH
Dr.4 i%_ver underscored the scientific rather than the technologically thrust of the agreements.
most'bf the activities' 'in our agreement focus on basic
and applied scientific research and not on technology. The Soviets are pursuing their interests in technology in other &reas outside of our agreement, primarily through contacts
wl* United States' private companies.
My review of the Science and Technology Agreement,
Ithink indicates the wide variety of areasandtypesof activities Qertaken in these cooperative programs. [pp. 7-8]
Addressing himself to cooperative research in general, Dr. Kassof praise four basic questions for the Subcommittee's consideration:
Is them a reasonable balance 1
How are participating Americans treated?
What posture should the United States adopt when research
does not proceed equitably?
How should these enterprises be implemented?
These have been addressed in other parts of this summary but they are mentioned here to indicate Dr. Kassof's belief that they form an integral part of the evaluating process for cooperative research.
(A) ACADEMY EXCHANGES
The agreements discussed by Dr. Rich between the National Academy of Sciences and the Soviet Academy of Sciences, although not part of the gove men Is cooperative agreements program, illustrate the similarities in the two cooperative efforts. He noted that these agreements grew out of the relaxation of cold war tensions during the late fifties, and were concluded at the initiative of the Soviet government. The National Academy which customarily engages in providing advisory services, now provides three kinds of internge
Academyexcha s.
First, academicians and distinguished persons are exchanged in orderto lecture for periods of up to one month. Second, scieDtists visit each other's count to compare and survey different fields of research. Third, there are a7so, visits for long-term research which extend for about one year. The inter-Academy exchanges have also included symposia visits in subjects such as radio astronomy and partial differential e"ations.
WIfile. these exchanges have been useful, Dr. Rich testified that more substantive, joint research projects were needed.
(B) ROLF, OF SCIENTISTS
In assessing cooperative research the Subcommittee examined the treatment received by American scientists abroad as well as their views on the research programs. Dr. Fromm posed and answered two illustrative questions on the subject:
"What feedback is provided by leading U.S. scientists about
their work on cooperative projects?" Participants have been requested to. submit.reports and have responded to inquiries








f~W
ab ou t theiii~~ii i r w o rk on o p r v ..........................................
tosmaie hsifrato n ak tpbilyaalbe
"What~ii~ asuane haebenfrtcmng ht h eiU.S.!iiiiiiil s ienist et ihte etscetso nte oit
Un iii"I i el f pliain fconutes t angmet oh idshaeenole lain siitss n h po

g .......... .............
Dr. iii Thoor opeUS.C-har no heAeicn o
the~~~iiii Ageeen fo ooeato n eiclSiec adPblcHelh wrt fth rsrtinbt roa n poesoal etb
American scientist in th U.S. V.

...... manyii frsrtin.o.Aeian..kngi h
U .S.S.R is one.o..........am's...t.dif .cult .. oblm.............
Sov~~~ii: :,~i:' : i ets au t r style ofi~! i e and..................................... theii~~! ................ ici ons under whichii
all........... sc~iei st mus wor in............itU in a eac n tn
sorc ofcomplint by.......tit&Thereat..isla.o of thosei logr emexhng cenitsadth intn
dea... ingi w !i it aii ighly bureaucrati oiylead to maAYiiiiiii ................. frustrations. Within researchinstitutios, peren
nilsotgso qipmntan uplisisa rblm o
f am;i i a t o~i Si!: ................................ s c ie n t is ts...... ", :: ,,, .............. [ p 2 6 1 1~~~: i ..................... :i ~: ............ .....ii: : ................ .........





1%O

Stevow somed. wH satiofieti that a quid pro quo existed. Further, he felt tW theV iprace of a quid pro quo was not merely limited to the U.S. uide. Cogressman Ooiilan on-this point inquied:
Evidence has come to my attention that the U.S.S.R. Com,
imioner have pntt wel dictated the choice fo the work-n group areas md the pr~ojets to be cduted, Coud you
comment on that? [p. 15]
Dr. Stever stated that~ he did not~ believe that this was true. He hd said previously that "there is abundant evidence of good will
an*srious intent to engage in productive joint efforts. On the posit1* sde Ican report modest but coneirete resutig."1 [p. 81t
Dr'. Kassof also depicted an atmosphere, of good will in te privatesector, IREX program: "1Tndeed, the actuail record comes asa pleasant-and i asuring-uprise. We very carefully follow uip Soviet visits to our univmity ewuse~s an~d 10,xsratories by comprehensive questionnaires t~o the Amicn academic and scientific hosts in order to explore this issue." [p. 81] Air. Train, in speaking of the Environmental Protetioni Agrement, stated:
..I would say on balance that it is really going as well, an Iwouldsupcti mnaiy ways i Iaa d deal
better, than I had aAi~td I thl cabao it is proving
to be very successful. [p. 134]
Ono project that~ illustrate the good will and muituality of the cooprto to dat we the pwucful Apol-lo.Soyug test project Dr. Stvp m me oiR th posiivp mpcms QT bofla the Soviet Union
and thnited States to this project: "By the wa~y, they are very pleased with thw Sqyuz4p9flo weoipt. I3kth pides- delivered on
sceue n hswsa pde~ag, p
Mfr. Kratzer also disqussed the Apollo-Soyuz project:
~TJe nmcv well-Ipwn and4 cortq4Wy the ipost drampatic
[pojct o artist in- n salst uly ofthe
AploadSyzsaerf.ti historic event has more 1hqn symblic importance. The live, "on the spot" real-time~
ffnications we truly riarJ~ble. [p. 46~]
Committee members asked for more specific examples of a quid pro quo. Congressman Scheuer commented:
All Iget ... is wt aebeg ing tstart, and that what
has happened ini the past, has been small but pigniflcant. I reiaffl Would lke to yae some for instances an~d perhaps
you an et ogehoravd submit something for the record.
1p,8a 1091 ~ .ha
(Dr, 1 o u~qp l s uitted fqiF tb~q lhqjg ~r a summary of the evaluatfpw pysvided b~y the T,$ pietjts ail4 sc)Qlars who had visited the U.S.S.R. under private-sector fREX programs.7)
Mr. Train indicated that there seemed to be reciprocity in the Environmental Protection Agreement. He mentioned as an exampibi theinterest shwn in the West in the development of oil shale

IThe Soviets b~v been extracting Qi frv shl.frago
many years. It is our~ u ndei-sanding tt hey hay 4eve4qe
See Hearings, p. 112.







a Lair amount of information on atmos pheric eftects, pollution~ problems and human health effects from the side products. of
the retorting' process, with which we, have no expxeiene'.
[p. 139]
Other specific examples of mutually beneficial research are reiewed under Paxt 2, dealing with the three specific agreements discussed at the hearings.
In spite of the general belief that there is reciprocity iin the agreements, the witnesses agreed that there shlid be safeguiards to mainti it anid measures~ for "scaling down" those projects that seem to.qpc it. As noted above, the chirmien of thLe joint working groups tirednLo assure continual bal ance in their respective areas. But there were other reciprocal features, as Dr. Stever noted:
You do not have to just balance one man or onie computer
with another adding up the bill here. If a grup ofscientsts spend their time in one of these fields and discovers that it is not getting something back for what it puts in, the scientists
are going to ref use to continue the acivitf. They just will not
spend their time without benefit. [p. 182
Chairman Thornton asked Dr. Stever to describe how decisions are made to curtail or terminate certain projects.
Dr. Stever replied:
We asked ourselves and the working groups if some of the:
activities should be stopped. We have slowed down some of them practically to P. stop. My feeling is that we do not need at this particular time. .. some of these things. If we are not doing anything on them, then we are not doing anything on
them, lest Atem go down to a low level. [p. 84]
He noted that this method, however, would not be appropriate for the long term, and added that a way should be. found to pick those projects which are most promising for both sides. Mr. Kratzer stated that no new projects were currently under consideration,
Dr. Kassof s uggested that allowances should be made fort hose projects that appeared to be lagging, noting that bureaucratic differences between the tw9 nationss contributed greatly to these problems. He added:
But once-due allowance has been made, there should be no
hesitation to abort projects-and in cases where delays and
obstructions have been severe and where efforts andresn
able negotiation have failed, the 4ormination should -be exposed to the full glare of publicity so that those having a~ stake in the continuation of Soviet-American project cooperation and the public imagery that it entails will come to
realize the costs of nion-performance. [p. 83]
Dr. Fromm testified that the ability to terminate projects should also obtain in cases where it seemed that the-U.S.S.R. might become superior to the United States, in areas. where the latter now leads. Dr. Fromm noted that if U.S. superiority "was seriously threatened by, scientific cooperation and this were felt to be detrimental to the national interest," the United States always had the option of curtailing or terminating the program. [p. 9~41





21

The hearings reflected both pluses and minuses on the question of mutuality of benefits asdid the statements submitted subsequently from lead agencies which had not testified. Robert W. Lon g, U.S. Vice-chairman of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Committee on Agricultural Cooperation and Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Conservation, Research and Education, stated on this issue that:
The major problem, and the largest of all problems with
the entire Agreement, is the failure so far of the Soviets to provide current situation and outlook data [i.e. forecast estimates] on production, utilization and foreign trade of major
agricultural commodities. [p. 290]
The Soviet refusal to provide the above data to the U.S. side has had the not effect of making "the benefits obtained by the Soviets from the Agreement larger so far than those received by the United States, measured entirely
A y in agricultural and agriculturally-related terms.
. agreement activities have not yet proceeded far enough to make this imbalance unacceptable to the United States, but there is watchful concern." [p. 293]
. The statement from the Department of Transportation, while noting that the Soviets had conducted themselves in a "forthcoming and businesslike way", indicated two problems, among others, affecting cooperation:
[1] We have found that, despite their assertions to the contrary, the Soviets lag behind the U.S. in some areas where we had hoped to gain froin their experience (e.g., magnetic
levitation).
[2] In order to maximize the cooperative relationship, we
need more information conce ng what the Soviets have to offer. In most cases we have to rely on what they say is available. Their task is easier because much of what isnew here
is covered in the open press. [p. 316]
The testimony indicated that overall there appeared to be a comparable level of scientific contributions, although, the achievements were modest to date.

















Scintit ad fthica Copeatin; tudeson the World Ocean;









Thre wine~e. Dr.H. uyfrd tevtDr hn APeemiel and Dr.Jon aldsewiletdicusedt aremnt be Scetii the







Techii~n Oopewin, Dt; tc-vr adresed hsnmarks o eremetR mmsfat t.PmleladBlacwelrrvee e







is roughly the size of a half-ton. It is for oevauto.I
has cost us nothing The quid r is that we wil tlth
what we think of it after we aeeaie t p 1
Dr. Promise provided detailed description of the wori



iequiprmetanduy phroeig ofthovit an hto teUrl Statesge f hscces ing rac ksouobeve w




Whe hrav nwihw av makdwthteSves

ins oormalteial teachy basind
sectoreofthedsciece and engipee rin.
degre o suces in achieving orobjectives..e.obvious.




canrb nowledths tge atiles rosd to ntedats i 20
Beyothe speifi techniica ach iimet whiDr Pi sel



Any dveifeene id pioe place of excel
tine dinshUS.S R n oaheevlalesnlYp
side ustandg ianat higher ud taiw




stronatescduinge extnd ged inpac muiyovrtee



dtsiral nowleg tlescstto the Unte Sttsib oe

Focusly the basictha re her hav e bea nosignworcan[polm 211
Any!i diffrece have beeni recocild b friend ad oje i

sid hasi mange t ~ incudei the ina program iiii those fea-i
...... inwihi asisleyiestd [p. 206

Witnse inicae ha h re ncemcl atlssisnt


. ch mic l ca ayss ................ one project in life supportiii~iiiiiiiiiiii
systmsis in]delingint thecheica rectins hic ar rode from exhald caron doxideand sgarsto beeate

a stro n a u ts.......... d u.................................... ....................p a ce mii~ i!!!!!!ii isi n s. W e discov ered iiiiiii~iiii

at henaur o the~i react iii r duc the suars wasfirst,,
research by! aR sin ini st 1p. 5]iiiiiiii
Dr J h Bad sh i r i r a ofii th W r ing Groupii oniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii







Projects withinthis group include:
Organo-metallic compounds used as catalysts;
Reactor modelin
1n-depth study ofselected catalytic systems;
Catalysts in developing life support systems for long
term spamtravel;
EiLvironmental control with a focus on decomposition of
nitric oxide.
.A Dr. Baldeschwieler expressed optimism for these projects. He said: "Inthe two and a half years we have been operating we have in fact rasnaged to get a substantial number of exchanges both ways." fp. 215] He provided a list of publications, which resulted from the eap for the hearing rd p. 220-21]
Concerning problem areas, Dr. BIschwicler indicated that most of these were of an administrative nature, stemming from the different ways in which the United States and the Soviets performed their research.
-There are various asymmetries in the way the United States and the Soviet Union do research that, of course, enter t1ds kind of program., And of these asymmetries, I think perhaps the most important one is the fact that the fellows we -send to the Soviet Union:are normally fresh Ph. D.Is just beginning their post"doctoral work.

no Soviet fellows on the other hand have been somewhat
older. They have been people who would, in our system, be
regarded as perhaps equivalent to senior research fellows.
[P. 2151
There is also an &symmetry, he, continued, in the way the Soviets deliver or follow-up their programs.
M rincip al concern is with [working group] project
nl:Lrp one Li.e., organo-metallic compounds used as catalyst work] where we have a. lot, to gain and the Soviets have not as yet delivered in full on 1n this case
our original agreement,
we have been reasonably that is to say, the Soviets are
anxious to bring additional U.S. cap bilit;v 'into this area, that is, some work on the structure of zirconium and titanium complexes, and we have taken the position that we will do this only when they deliver in full on that portion of the project
which has already been agreed to. [p. 216]
In spite of such problems, Dr. Baldeschwieler noted progress had been greater than he had initially expected.
Mom AGREmmwT Tw STuDms oF WORM OCEAN
The Agreement in Studies of the World Ocean, signed in June 1973, was discussed b y Dr. Donald Martineau, Executive Secretary of the AgTeement, Lt. Commander Charles Molyneaux, Tnternational Coordinator. for- Plans and Programs, Marine Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Dr. Ned Ostenso, Senior Oceanographer and Deputy Director of the Ocean Science and






Technology Division, Ofieof vlPtswhCopriy M graphic and iie the United S 1972.




Intrs oforaiztioneia poeurDr arina tsife


taterea Oensreuetpr~lldta of the Agreemwitt opn6

Sependii apnd Tehnival Cooperativsced byD.ptve. Ih BcenAdeethe the U.S sidve o h onomiteihie



that the Admoisetor fteNtoalOencadAtopeid

police l continued:peetngteNtinlSceo oudt
a n t h e.. . ..e p.....t...... ................. ...........................................
C i tteeiiii iiiiii~~' fiiiiori the........ Oceans i~ii and iiiii Atm herei and'' the....... National A MA
emie of Scineado nierigpoiemm Drs atneuntd


dee-se drlig heeoilgclrdciiy cocrn instmetaion Wit th ecptono gmb istyad aie hmstysuieter r poet' na







sad erier than others

conclude a] Dep-e rilingPoeti eray17 hog separt Meoadu fUnesanigbtwe heNtonlSi
eneFudainad h oie cdmyo cene.Fr hspr
ticlrpot r atnaQepaieteSve no n-il
cotiuean ilo olrad ntrteUie ttspoie acomdtosfrSvithenit nechcag fte6ow Chalener Duing some! voyagesi~iiii headed.......eAseoche
s c en t i s t s .. . .. :...... .................. ........................................ .. . ..... ........

...... by.. Chairman Thrto fhecul fkea eautno ........ prjet un erte..ldO ea..remn....rtn aurple
thtteprjcsvaidarostebar.n..pne n h tt





27
.data ip being oxalymA by both. countri..3. I am sure there will
be Pxchanges and ffyviposia aaq Wwtiugs- [p. 73]
Concerning the mutual benefits of the research, the witness was AsIM4 wilether U.S. scientists had ever sailed on Soviet ships as Soviet Wontists had sailed on U.S. research ship& Dr. Marti-aeau responded ."; U.S. sojeutists did sail on So-viek. rmarc]4 ships and, moreover, there. are probably more U.S. scientists. &boa-rd SOVIet ships than the ....wAverm-excludlin-ga, the, activities of tho Glomar Ch4lknger which is under a separate agreement.
In concluding his testimonyj)r. Martineau stated that he believed that t4e World Ocean A ree ent had provided a means of facilitating the cooperative. orts by the two nations, and it has brought together their capabi ies and interests to work cooperatively on problem.5 of mutual inWr*." Epp., 66-71
Tim AGMEMENT ON ENvmowmmNTAx, PWT. cwo:K
The U-8,-U.S.S.R, Agreement on Cooperation in the Fieldof Environmental Protection, signed in May 1972, was one of the original Mosgor swmrpit mwting itgreemeuU. for jo t Tw rch between the UniWd States amd the $oviet Union, Mr. ]Russell Train, AdmWistrator for the EuNiroT=P,,nta1 Protection Agency, explained that as former ChairmaA of t a CpunLcil ou EnviTor' W Quality, he w" responsible for the negotiation of the Agreement, ajt7agugh the load agency nowJ. s: the EPA.,
o4 piajor areu
The origmial agreement provided for elev of bilateral
cooperation: air pollution; water pollution; pollution related to agricultural production; urban environment; nviture, and preserves; marine pallutims; biological and genetile elffeet* 9f poiltitiou; u of pollution of thea-tmqaphere on the climate, es I rtbquake prpdiotion;
arctic and subaret4e w1ogy; and 1wl Emd ad-wim*irative WRasures for eavironment*l protA ction.
Generally, Ur. TraWis tqedmny Micated succom to d*te with the mutual in exchange of benefits and a belief that the projectr, under t4ijs agreement will cQAtiuue to succeed, 13uedon '4is qxperimm 4a CoChairman of the T.1,49., Jde, of the joint I Cown.AW, be Aaiwd;
Soviet lovdorship, like ours, realizes the benefits
4 hitem tioa4lly, to be gairsed, from bil4e environmental cooperation between two of the world's leading i4dustrial powers, notwitbstandixig the differences in
their political, economic, wid socialustems. Up. 1201
A.,s further evidence of cooperation, Mr. Train discussed some oni*oing projects fuid exchanges indicative of a coiltinuing mutuality. In im, for example, he noted that 50 meetings -occurred auring which'a gre0 deal of information was exchancred on the basis of reciprocity
and mutual blMefit. Hq coutinued: tn
We began to see tangible evidence of what our environmental specialists working together could produce. For example:
Working side by side with each 'other's equipment along
the San Andrea-s Fault in California and the highly seismic Garm areas of Tadzhikistan in Soviet Central Asia, U.S. and





n o i i i [ i i i i i i i i l : : : i i i ii i i i : i i i i ii. . . . . . . . .
:::i ,:,:ii~ii :iii~i r dii
S ov, i !i i'iii s i n i s ts "' '" i m p r o v ed'' t hei i r t e c h n i q u es...... ..... ...l y s i s
-to refine theiaiiytprdceatqaean hm o
reduc eartquak damge [.24 Although Mr. Tra~~~~~~~i ti ldsvrlohraesfmualxcng
une hs gemn, ohCaimnTontnadCogesa
S cheuer~~i'i"' :,,:,,: raiiiii:i ii~ ::,,::J : :: : ]i' ii iiise qu s i concern~i i ng overall coope ation B oth : v e r e ::~ ii :::: iiiiiiiiiiiii i :: : :i iiii ~ ~ll: iii ,,ii, ::,:,,,,,,, ,,,, , ,,::, ,,,,,,0,,,,,, cocrndovrth.pprn lack of cooperation in protecting the ii ii whle In reeec ote17'etn fteItai onl hain

C o m s s o M r.. S c h u e a s k e d : : : : :: :iiiiiiiiiiiii:~ : iiiii~~iiiii~~~~~ii!iiiiii i i :iiii~i!]iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiii~ i


!!I~iiii th'!iiin wha we hav seno h ietsd sased



.... kno it isii ani!!:ii issiuieiii and wehv. enate h Rsim


can!! ienify herei::
stonewallingii us.liimIiwionii[p......


nto na WhlngCi io.Tht i corect
They.... have, hioweviier,.ii .: supote ai substantial ial~ reduction
S---iiin wha l ii iuiii at ..... lat metn...h I tr ato a
Wai Mm-sin [p 121
Mr Tri hoeetsifiedta h usas a o sytpo
posed........... == any ........ t :i peio for has' ou w aeh n ig........
-Cnresa Schue' ",iiii!!ivieiii tha "Ii!! thnkwihvetibia-itl
more had-osdin whtw r gvn n wa eaeetn"
o[p.i122] Ind!ii sie of thei df icl i cing amortorium!iii ove whaiieii!
hunting, M r. Train expressed opt iii imiiii i s forliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiii the agr em nt and for





29

Mr. Train indicated that he could foresee a continuation of reciprocity based on mutual interest and mutual benefits. He concluded:
In my view, one of the special characteristics of the Environmental Agreement is the extraordinary scope of its coverage. It opens up an unusually wide range of positive opportunities for cooperation to the mutual benefit of both nations. To be sure, some obstacles remain, but on the basis of the record we have achieved to date, I am confident we
,can succeed. [p. 130]















APP I" Ix
LISTiiii OF WiiiSSES An ftit31ktf fii iiii
EFRIGSONU..-.SS.. OOERTIE GREMNT IiSIECEAN
TECHNOLOGYiiii
November 18,1975:ii
........................................................iso r to th e P resid en t ; D irec-ii~i~i~~iii~~i~i~
tor National Science Foundatin; and U.S. Co-Chairman, U.S.
U.A..R.Agremet o ScentficandTecnic l peao.. iii
Mr. Mron ratze, Acing Asistnt Seretay forOceas an
Internatonal En ironmentl an Si entiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiii''i i fi c Afirs, Depart-iiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Secretary ofSat orAvacdn Appie Tehnloiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiffairs.~ "~iiiiiii
Dr.Donld Mrtieau Deut Asocite dmiistatoio M arine. .....o.....s..Na....nal..Oc....ic..nd...t..............ii-ii
trtoDprmn o omre n xeuieSceay
U..-..SR AremntiiSu i on the World Ocean:iiiiiiI
accompanied.... by' LCR hre oye ,Itra iona
CodntrPlnanPrgasMaineRsucs a
tinlOenc nItopercAmnsrainIn r
Ned~~~~ ~ ~ ~ A.....................e, ffie f Nva

Research. iiiiiiiii
November19..9..
Dr!le .Ksoeeuiv director..... IntenatonalResarc
and i Exhags ord ewYok NwYok
Dr.~~~~ ~~~~~~~~N GayFomDretr WsigtnOfie atoa Bra
of~~ EcnoiiRsarh

Novmbe 20,1975:






Dr. Alexander Rich, Sdwc rfso fBohscD t
ment of BiologMsahstsIsiueo eho a


ments on: MedicalScecanPulcHat;pc; gilP Transportation; PecflUeofAoleEeg;Ery;.MSAM and Other Construction:(riiilHatRDwsicue --cal Science and Pbi elh


.t L at;








I~ '