the light of that agreement, you will be able to give favorable consideration to our recommendations.

Sincerely,

GILBERT GUDE,

Member of Congress. CLAIBORNE PELL,

U.S. Senator.

DONALD M. FRASER,

Member of Congress.

On June 5, we received the following response from Norman E. Ross, Jr., Assistant Director of the Domestic Council:

Hon. GILBERT GUDE,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, June 5, 1975.

DEAR MR. GUDE: The President has asked me to respond to your letter of April 23, 1975, in which you recommend a coordinated program of governmental work in the peaceful uses of weather modification.

A considerable amount of careful thought and study has been devoted to the subject of weather modification and what the Federal role and, in particular, the role of various agencies should be in this area. As a result of this study, we have developed a general strategy for addressing weather modification efforts which we believe provides for an appropriate level of coordination.

For the most part, as your letter points out, we are just beginning to understand the possibilities for weather modification and the complexities that are involved. Inadvertent modification of weather and environment through industrial development is indeed a prime example.

There are many problems generated by various weather phenomena such as loss of crops through hail damage and destruction of property caused by hurricanes and flooding. In many cases the approaches to solving these proi lems may or may not be best met through weather modification techniques. Other solutions such as community preparedness, better land use planning, and protective measures may more effectively and realistically achieve the objectives.

For this reason, we believe that the agency which is charged with the responsibility for dealing with a particular national problem should be given the latitude to seek the best approach or solution to the problem. In some instances this may involve a form of weather modification, while in other instances other approaches may be more appropriate.

While we would certainly agree that some level of coordination of weather modification research efforts is logical, we do not believe that a program under the direction of any one single agency's leadership is either necessary or desirable. We have found from our study that the types of scientific research conducted by agencies are substantially different in approach, techniques, and type of equipment employed, depending on the particular weather phenomena being addressed. For example, there is very little in common between hurricane suppression and attempting to increase rain or snow. Fog dispersal efforts have almost nothing in common with any other weather modification. Each type of weather modification requires a different form of program management and there are few common threads which run among all programs.

To the extent that there are common problems and solutions among the programs, the Interagency Committee on Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) is bringing together agency representatives who are involved in weather modification research, for the purpose of sharing their ideas and approaches to various problems. In addition, a series of lead agencies have been established to concentrate efforts in particular areas: Interior in precipitation; Agriculture in lightning suppression; Commerce in severe storms, including hurricanes; NSF in hail research; and Transportation in fog suppression. These lead roles provide for coordination in areas with common characteristics and have gone a long way toward eliminating duplicative efforts. Although more than one agency is involved in a general area such as inadvertent modification, their efforts are keyed toward particular objectives.

I hope this information will be helpful to you and I would like to thank you for sharing your views with us. We would be happy to provide you any additional information you may need concerning current efforts in the weather modification

area.

Sincerely,

NORMAN E. Ross, Jr., Assistant Director, Domestic Council. Mr. FRASER. The immediate problem, I gather, that we have is the question of determining what the intention of the administration is. The fact that the administration doesn't have a witness here today is probably partly due to my own failure to pursue the matter. I had understood that they would take it up with the staff and discuss the question they were raising as to the advisability of providing witnesses.

The next thing I heard, they agreed not to provide a witness which represented a misunderstanding. It would seem to me that one of the things that we should do after this hearing is to frame questions that we submit officially on behalf of the subcommittee to the Department; probably, both to the Department of Defense as well as to-well, probably, I suppose, we have three departments involved: Defense, the State and the Arms Control Agency. And maybe simply go to the President, rather than trying to solicit departmental views.

So as to any assistance that you could provide us in framing these questions, I think it would be helpful.

Dr. MacDonald, have you got an understanding as to what the administration is up to?

Mr. MACDONALD. No, sir, I don't. All I know about the treaty is what I read in the newspaper so I wouldn't be able to comment on what is likely to be there.

Mr. FRASER. One issue, apparently, is the question of whether we are dealing with short-term or long-term weather. Are we talking about banning the longer term but perhaps permitting the shorter term weather modification? Do we have any capability or effecting long-term changes in climate?

Mr. MACDONALD. At present I would have to say no. There are several proposals that have been advanced from time to time that might bring about longer term changes in climate, but I certainly do not know of any existing technology we could deploy in which we would have any confidence of its bringing about a desired change.

Mr. FRASER. About 30 years ago, I remember reading something, somebody writing an article in the Reader's Digest about a deflecting mechanism in the Gulf Stream. It was suggesting that it would have profound consequences.

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes. The magnitude of that undertaking would certainly dwarf any previously conceived public works project.

Mr. GUDE. Effecting a change in the ozone layers is very feasible. Mr. MACDONALD. There is a real possibility that one could open up the atmosphere to more penetration by removing some ozone.

It appears that we may be doing that with aerosol cans and freons. The Department of Transportation Climatic Impact Assessment Study said the same thing about the supersonic transports, but to use that as a weapon would be very, very difficult.

We have to remove ozone, localize it, keep it removed and not have the hole in the stratosphere move over your territory. The consequences of such removal would not be so much the effect on the climate

as an increase in skin cancer melanomas. There would be direct health effects as well as direct biological effects.

I would stick by my statement that right now we don't have any technology-whether it is for defecting the Gulf Stream, or covering the Arctic or the Antarctic with soot in order to change the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back out into the atmosphere, or for any one of the hypotheses. I believe Congressman Gude's remarks that the administration's discussion of the proposed bilateral agreement with the Soviets, centering on the longer term, carries with it a sense of unreality.

Mr. FRASER. In other words, we would be banning something that is not a problem.

Mr. MACDONALD. We would certainly be banning something that is not a problem. The Soviets in their proposed United Nations Convention have gone much further and actually specified the kinds of shortrange activities they wish not only to see banned in weather but in other environmental modifications. This is a position I would abdicate. As I pointed out in my prepared statement, there are elements of that convention that I find objectionable; but there should be degrees of specificity, and the fact that both long- and short-term modifications are included, is a good feature of the proposed convention.

Mr. FRASER. I gather, with the present state of technology, that one of the most important benefits to be derived from an agreement would be to maintain confidence between nations, that their activities were of a meaningful nature because of our interest in maintaining a free flow of information across national boundaries.

Mr. MACDONALD. Many of us have some concern as to whether we should practice any kind of weather modification and feel that it should be very limited and restricted because of longer term influences on the environment. The only way, however, to find out if we can be influenced by weather modification is to carry out the needed experiments. I believe that these should be carried out in an open fashion and insofar as possible under international auspices in much the same way that we and other nations have developed weather forcasting capabilities through an interchange of data information and research. Mr. FRASER. Do we have any capability now to effect changes in tornadoes or hurricanes?

Mr. MACDONALD. We have no capability to effect tornadoes. In the series of experiments carried out by NOAA and the U.S. Navy under Storm Fury, there have been two experiments that have been successful, but some change was brought about in the behavior of the hurricanes.

After seeding Hurricane Debbie in 1969 there was an apparent lessening of the velocities in the central vortex of the hurricane. Whether those are reproducible results or not. I think very few people would agree that they have been established to such an extent that there can be scientific verification of hurricanes.

On the other side. I would raise a point that others have raised, that hurricanes play a tremendously important role in maintaining the overall atmospheric balance as we know it today. I would want to be very, very careful before I started modifying hurricanes or typhoons

on a large scale. They are very important elements of our atmospheric circulation.

Mr. FRASER. Is it feasible to turn over prime research weather modification for peaceful purposes? Are they technologically geared up for that kind of experimentation?

Mr. MACDONALD. Our principal capability for weather research, right across the board, rests in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce. They have our national weather service. They have had experience in dealing with weather modification experiments not only on hurricanes, but on cumulus clouds in Florida and in the Southwest.

I would certainly have confidence in that agency leading and directing the Federal activities.

Furthermore, there are many university and industrial groups that have carried out weather modification experiments, some of them under grants from the National Science Foundation. These two kinds of efforts, one coming out of NOAA and one coming out of the National Science Foundation, would lead to a very healthy domestic program of examining the civilian applications of weather modifications.

Mr. FRASER. I suppose they use the Defense Department facilities, but in an open fashion.

Mr. MACDONALD. In an open fashion. Because of the buildup of our capability, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, in terms of aircraft, now has availability to it.

I am not as sure that the logistics support they have provided to the weather service and later to the Environmental Science Services Administration is needed. Certainly, it is not needed as much today as it was 10 or 12 years ago when these activities started up.

Mr. FRASER. There is a publication by the Naval Weapons Center which is entitled, "Handbook of Applied Weather Modification, Part 1, Cloud Modification. Subsystem, Volume 1, Cumulus Clouds," but in the foreword, it contains this paragraph:

Present technology, under appropriate meteorological conditions, will enable the Navy to modify certain local weather conditions for the protection of personnel and resources against weather hazards and also, certain aggressive capability of any potential adversary which might threaten Navy personnel and

resources.

The statement is not clear as to whether it means the aggressive capability of an adversary or whether this is a defensive tactic.

Mr. MACDONALD. Without being facetious, I find it very difficult. to comment on that statement because I don't understand it.

Mr. FRASER. Well, maybe if our ships are being attacked, we can create a cloud bank.

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, although cloud banks are not very effective in hiding against radar, or clouds or fog, either one.

Mr. FRASER. Maybe we need a Navy, the Navy gear, the principal agency in the Defense Department.

Mr. MACDONALD. Yes. The Navy and the Naval Laboratory at China Lake, have been the leaders in pushing the use of weather modification for operational purposes.

Again, referring to Congressman Gude's statement, he notes that there have been operations not only in the Southeast Asia, but also in India, the Philippines, Okinawa and the Caribbean Sea. Except

19

for the Caribbean Sea which was used for the Fury experiments, the other cases were an augmentation of rain using, presumably, very similar if not identical techniques like those used in Southeast Asia. Mr. FRASER. Do you think that under ideal circumstances, either where we unilaterally renounced the use of weather modification, or by way of a treaty, that there would remain a legitimate role for the Navy in experimentation?

Mr. MACDONALD. The only role I could see for the Defense Department, and I would, obviously, include the Navy within the Defense Department, is in the clearing of cold and warm fogs. There is a lot of research that is needed, particularly in the warm fog area. This kind of capability would be valuable to them. Under my definition of what the use of weather modification as a weapon of war would involve, such activities would not be included. They wouldn't be over the territory of another nation nor would they be near the borders of another nation.

Even if they were close to borders, I suspect that agreement could be reached that these do not constitute a weapon of war; but I find it difficult to see what role rainfall or precipitation augmentation has in the support of the Navy's mission.

Mr. FRASER. There is really a question of sorting out the kinds of research that they are undertaking. Well, I think our need is to, in effect, form some interrogatories to the executive branch and if you are willing, we might involve your assistance along with Mr. Gude in helping to frame these, but I gather, most immediately, we must get a better fix on the nature of the treaty that is involved, although I understand that whatever is being proposed is what CCD put forth in Geneva but at least, we will propose the multilateral.

Mr. GUDE. The proposal could well come out quite in advance of consideration by CCD. At the end, to lock it in, it could be announced as a joint United States-Soviet proposal.

Mr. Chairman, we have to go to rollcall.

Mr. FRASER. Since there is a vote now, maybe we should terminate the hearing at this point, and then just keep following the subject through various inquiries.

Mr. GUDE. I think that asking the administration some questions is an excellent idea. We will work on that.

Mr. MACDONALD. In particular, what is the administration's position with respect to the treaty tabled by the Soviets at the 29th General Assembly.

Mr. FRASER. Right. We will consider this as an opening inquiry, and we will pursue it and look to you as consultants for your assistance. We would appreciate it.

Mr. MACDONALD. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRASER. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]