control over weather research to be thoroughly established, and I do not intend to replow that same ground at this time. Further, our government has indicated that significant progress has been made in the development of a draft treaty with the Soviet Union on weather modification. Hopefully such a treaty will serve as a model for a more general treaty to which many nations will be signatories. The specific details of this treaty-which have not been made public-however, raise the first important question which I hope the subcommittee will consider. This is the question of its inclusiveness. I. WEATHER AND CLIMATE MODIFICATION In the period since the last hearing some questions of definition of terms have been raised which need clarification. A number of observers, including Stephen Rosenfeld, of the Washington Post, following comments made at the last hearing, have drawn a distinction between weather modification and climate modification, the former being, generally, shorter term specific acts seeking to temporarily modify specific weather conditions, and the latter being longer term more permanent changes. Dr. Edith Brown Weiss of the Brookings Institution pointed out quite clearly the significance of this distinction in her testimony before the subcommittee last September. I quote a brief section of it: Mr. Chairman, we need a ban on the future use of weather and climate modification for hostile purposes. The United States-Soviet statement of last July on the use of environmental modification for military purposes is a useful initiative. But we need to be careful that we do not end up with a partial agreement with the Soviets which bans the techniques neither side was planning to use and legitimizes the use in warfare of the weather modification techniques that are more nearly ready for use... We also need to recognize the limits of the statement. The statement calls only for the "most effective measures possible to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes" in acceptable ways. The problem is that the statement explicitly refers to climate modification in the text and not to weather modification which is the more imminent problem. It is left ambiguous in the statement whether the use of weather modification techniques raises "dangers" which need to be overcome. It is quite possible that this dictinction is an artificial one, serving only to create doubts and fears where none need exist. Nonetheless, the question has been raised, and the government response thus far has done nothing to answer it. Today's hearing provides an excellent opportunity to do just that, and I hope that the subcommittee's ensuing dialogue with Admiral Davies serves to clarify the situation. In this context, the value of House Resolution 28 is in its effect of reinforcing the government's intent to negotiate an agreement and in making clear the Congressional conception of what such a treaty should contain. As presently phrased, the resolution seeks an agreement "on the prohibition of research, experimentation, or use of weather modification activity as a weapon of war." This is clearly terminology designed to be broadly inclusive of both the long and short term definitions as outlined earlier, and the legislative history of this resolution should leave no doubt about that. The operative phrase in the resolving clause is “weapon of war." This indicates that it is the use to which weather modification activity will be put that is the determining factor, not the type of such activity. Obviously a short run tactical move like the creation of a flood-inducing rainfall or a drought at a key time in the crop year are acts of war. Far more devastating in the long run, though much more difficult to detect as intentional are long range climatic changes. Prolonged drought-perhaps over a period of years-changes in rainfall patterns, changes in temperature, would have a major impact on the agriculture of a country of an entire region over the long term. Such an action would be difficult if not impossible to perceive as deliberate, leading to a situation where a country would not even know it had been attacked. Though possibilities such as these are technologically more remote-at least I think they are they are not inconceivable and must be covered by any treaty. Any meaningful treaty, therefore, must include both short and long term weather modification activities, and it should be the purpose of this hearing to ascertain whether that is the case with the agreement now in draft. II. CREDIBILITY Beyond the question of the scope of any projected treaty, however, is the equally important question of its credibility. Since weather modification activity (used here to include both meanings) is difficult to identify as different from normal weather changes and since it does have legitimate uses, cloud seeding to increase rainfall for agricultural purposes, and airport fog dispersion, to mention two, it will always be difficult to determine adherence to a treaty. One important indicator of a nation's commitment to a ban on weather warfare is the nature of its weather modification research and the manner in which it is conducted. If weather modification research is open and above board, if it is conducted domestically by domestic agencies, then a fairly high level of credibility can be established. If, on the other hand, weather modification research is conducted in secret, frequently outside the country by military or intelligence agencies, then I would suggest that any treaty would not be worth the paper it's printed on. Unfortunately, the latter situation is what exists at this time, as Senator Pell, Congressman Fraser and I indicated in a recent letter to the President. The text of that letter is appended to my statement. Regrettably, the Administration's response to our suggestion, also attached, totally ignored the question of military weather research activities, concentrating instead on other points raised in our letter, thereby emphasizing the question of the government's real commitment to a weather warfare treaty and raising further doubts as to our credibility. We must understand that civilian control of weather modification research is integrally connected to the development of any kind of treaty. No treaty will be meaningful unless all signators are confident that its terms are being honored and adhered to scrupulously. There have been repeated allegations over the years that the Department of Defense is engaging in weather warfare projects and research. The most famous case, of course, is that of our rainmaking efforts in Southeast Asia. Previous hearings have brought out the story of this $21.6 million fiasco. I will not repeat the details. Suffice it to say that our government embarked on a classic science fiction adventure of doubtful merit and little if any success. This episode, however, as well as current revelations about American intelligence activities, have created real fears of other clandestine projects. Whether these are happening or not remains a mystery, and it may well be outside the scope of this hearing to seek to unravel it. The relationship between suspicions of such weather activity and the viability of a treaty banning weather warfare, however, is obvious. It is both proper and desirable for this committee to point out to the Administration the concern it has about the scope of Defense Department activities in the field of weather modification and to emphasize the effect of such activities on the successful construction of a treaty. After receipt of the Administration's answer to our letter on this subject. I wrote the chairman of the Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee, Congressman Mahon, urging his subcommittee to delete weather modification funds in the fiscal 1976 Defense Department budget. That subcommittee has previously shown some concern about this same subject, as can be seen in the subcommittee hearings of last year, "Department of Defense Appropriations for 1975. Part 4, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation." In response to questions, the Navy provided a list of twelve weather modification projects it had undertaken between 1966 and the time of the hearing. In addition to the seven projects that took place over the United States or offshore, there were projects in or over India, the Philippines, Okinawa, the Azores, and the Caribbean Sea. With the exception of the latter which was a hurricane control experiment, the others involved primarily rainfall augmentation. There seemed to be some doubt in the subcommittee's mind as to the usefulness of these projects, which is why the information was requested. This year I have asked the subcommittee to consider not only that question but whether such activities are properly within the scope of the military budget or whether they should be placed in one of the several civilian agencies also undertaking weather modification research and development (Department of Transportation, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce-NOAA, Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation). III. EFFECTIVENESS The question of the usefulness of any weather modification research is one I have not touched on directly, but which should be discussed briefly. The merits of weather modification have always been the subject of controversy, and this was raised to new heights by the recent suit filed alleging that cloud seeding was responsible for the 1972 Rapid City, South Dakota, flood which killed more than two hundred people. Similar suits have not fared well in the past. Of the fourteen other cases involving weather modification, in only one was the weather modification activity enjoined, and no damages have ever been assessed in the cases. There is, moreover, solid evidence to show that certain weather modification techniques, notably cloud seeding, do work under the right conditions, and that they do have a potential for agricultural benefit. Nonetheless, there are growing numbers of doubters about weather modification. Their concerns bear largely on the problem of control-particularly downwind-and they range from those who have experienced the excesses of a "successful" project, as may have been the case in Rapid City, to those who have seen the whole experiment go awry and produce results directly contrary to those expected. As a result of an article on weather modification which appeared in Parade, I have received several letters from northwest Texas illustrating the devastating effects of drought which the residents apparently feel was the result of a cloud seeding program. One letter made this point clearly: We have had a weather project here since 1970, and 3 of the five years we have been declared a disaster area by USDA. This is the most destructive thing that ever came to our area. Last year we recorded the driest summer we have had in 63 years, but had the greatest hail damage we have ever recorded. We had lost 350,000 acres to hail by June 9, 1974, but the cloud seeders claim they are increasing rainfall and suppressing hail. This was certainly not the intended result of the project, but it shows both the dangers and the uncertainties of the current state of weather modification technology. I am not proposing that we ban our weather modification research. I am, however, pointing out that in many respects it is still in the research-and not the demonstration-stage, and that we may well have tended to underestimate its dangers. These very dangers serve as the rationale for the treaty we are discussing today. I would think they should also serve as a brake on our own government's domestic activities. IV. CONCLUSION On the surface, the government's pursuit of a weather warfare treaty is most impressive. It is the purpose of this hearing to determine whether that pursuit is more than superficial and whether the treaty that is in the process of development is truly meaningful in terms of the various distinctions I have made. Since no substantive statements have been made yet about the details of the draft, various rumors abound, and I am anxiously awaiting Admiral Davies' comments. Second, it is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will solicit views of the other witnesses on the other important questions I have raised, particularly that of the relationship between military involvement in weather modification and the credibility of the developing treaty. A treaty which, to use the words of Dr. Brown Weiss, "bans the techniques neither side was planning to use and legitimizes the use in warfare of the weather modification techniques that are more nearly ready for use," and a treaty which lacks credibility because of the ongoing secret military activities of the signatories is not treaty at all. The adoption of House Resolution 28 will serve a valuable purpose in this regard by affirming the desire of Congress to see a meaningful treaty and specifying the Congressional intent as to what that treaty should contain. [From the Congressional Record, June 17, 1975] WEATHER MODIFICATION (Mr. GUDE asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. GUDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention an exchange of correspondence Senator PELL, Congressman FRASER, and I have reeently had with the White House concerning Federal weather modification activities. On April 23, we wrote the President the following letter urging the creation of a lead agency to coordinate Federal work on weather modification and urging that such research be conducted by civilian agencies rather than the Defense Department: THE PRESIDENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As authors of several resolutions for outlawing environmental modification as a weapon of war, we now write recommending government work in the peaceful uses of such modification that would help to promote energy conservation, safeguard the environment and stabilize agricultural production. In sending these recommendations, we wish to make clear that we support continued research, particularly into weather modification for peaceful purposes, regarding which we believe there currently exist numerous opportunities for its applications. The role of weather modification in energy conservation was sharply outlined in a recent example which came to our attention. Coming from Boston to Washington, a recent flight was delayed by bad weather and according to one passenger's calculations, as much fuel was exhausted around Washington while the plane waited to land as was consumed during the entire flight from Boston. This is only one example of the energy costs of bad weather, but weather conditions being what they are, it is a frequent case. Research into fog dissipation is precisely the kind of work which can reduce those costs. We are only beginning to research and understand how our own industrial development has inadvertently modified weather and environment. Studies are beginning to show differences in temperature and air quality over urban and industrial areas, which affect the immediate environment as well as influence weather downwind. There is sufficient growing suspicion that inadvertent environmental modification can help produce extremes of weather, such as drought, to warrant further investigation and research. The implications of weather modification for agriculture are obvious and various efforts to enhance rainfall have been going on for years. These efforts, however, need coordination and careful study to help determine what approaches are productive, what types of weather formation are most susceptible to modification and how modification in one area affects weather elsewhere. Clearly, the potential for increased agriculture output-both domestically and worldwideis great. Given these opportunities, it is unfortunate that civilian directed research has been diffuse. The fiscal 1975 budget shows weather modification projects in six agencies and a division by function as follows: Although in some respects the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration gathers data on all these projects, it does not really function as a lead agency or exert sufficient direction, coordination or control over the civilian or military projects. It is clear from the second chart, furthermore, that considerable overlap and possible duplication exists. We believe, however, that in a field' as diverse and speculative as this, a greater degree of centralization is desirable. This same recommendation has been made on a number of occasions by the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere: NACOA finds that, although we appear to stand on the threshold of practical weather modification, and some facets are operational, in other applications a great deal of complex research still needs to be done. Unless the scientific manpower and funding are better directed, we assuredly will continue to make very slow progress towards weather control. NACOA therefore reiterates its recommendations of last year that: "The many small programs in weather modification now scattered widely through the Federal agencies be focused and coordinated under NOAA's head; basic cloud physics and dynamics be given higher priority; and that the legal, social, and economic impact of weather modification be thoroughly examined and appropriate regulatory and licensing legislation be sought." (A Report to the President and the Congress, NACOA, June 29, 1973, page viii.) We also believe it is particularly important that any such coordination should be in the hands of a civilian agency; indeed, that all such research should be conducted by civilian agencies. Considerable doubt has been raised in the past over the nature of some of the research conducted by the Defense Department in the area of weather modification. You will recall the not too successful efforts to increase rainfall over the Ho Chi Minh Trail several years ago at a cost of $21.6 million. We have grave doubts about the merits of any project such as this, but we are also concerned about the way in which the incident was handled by the Government. The project was at first flatly-and repeatedly-denied publicly and before Congress by the Department of Defense, but the basic facts were ultimately conceded some years later by former Defense Secretary Laird in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which confirmed the allegations that had been made. Such incidents have given rise to continuing concern on our part over the scope of federal research and development on environmental and weather modification. What is significant about these incidents is that they continue to occur in respect to Defense Department research, even though DOD asserts such research has only peaceful applications, such as airport fog dispersal. If this is the case, then it would seem both logical and appropriate to place such research in civilian agencies where it can be carried on with the same degree of precision and success, since weapons' applications are not involved, and where it would not cause new suspicions about the real nature of the work. Weather modification is a field of great potential, promising considerable benefits to agriculture and transportation, to mention only two prime areas of research. At the same time the potential military applications of weather modification research are serious. Last summer's agreement with the Soviet Union to meet to discuss a ban on weather warfare is most encouraging. We hope that in |