into force. In view of this, we do not believe it would be desirable at this time, when cooperation with the other countries is being carried on so well, to change organizational patterns. For all the reasons stated, we recommend against enactment of H.R. 7149, H.R. 7475, H.R. 7486, or H.R. 7489. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us that it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, ALAN T. WATERMAN, Director. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Hon. Wayne N. ASPINALL, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. ASPINALL: In reviewing H.R. 7149, relating to the establishment of the Richard E. Byrd Antarctic Commission, which was introduced by Mr. Zablocki and referred to your committee, we note that section 12 would amend section 505 of the Classification Act by adding a new subsection as follows: "The Director of the Antarctic Commission is authorized, without regard to any other provision of this section, to place a total of seven positions in the Antarctic Commission in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the General Schedule. Such positions shall be in addition to the number of positions authorized to be placed in such grades by subsection (b)." [Italic supplied.] We are interested in this section because it relates to the Commission's responsibilities under section 505 for placing positions in grades GS-16, 17, and 18 and for determining the qualifications of the proposed appointees to such positions. Section 505 of the Classification Act provides, in pertinent part, that 1. "No position shall be placed in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the general schedule except by action of, or after prior approval by, a majority of the Civil Service Commissioners. 2. "Appointments to positions in grades 16, 17, and 18 of the general schedule shall be made only upon approval by the Civil Service Commission of the qualifications of the proposed appointees ***" The language which we have underscored in the above quotation from section 12 of the bill would exempt those seven positions from prior approval of the appropriate grade by the Civil Service Commission. It would not, in our opinion, affect the Commission's responsibility for passing upon the qualifications of proposed appointees to these positions. If your committee desires that the Civil Service Commission pass upon both the appropriateness of the grades for these positions and the qualifications of their incumbents in the usual way, the bill could be amended as follows: On page 11, beginning in line 10, strike out "without regard to any other provision of this section," and insert in lieu thereof the following: "subject to the standards and procedures prescribed by this Act,". We are particularly anxious that the meaning of the language in the proposed amendment be clearly understood by the committee so that no question will arise as to its interpretation if section 12 as drafted is enacted into law. We will be glad to answer any questions your committee or your committee staff members may have about the provision discussed in this letter. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. Mr. ASPINALL. The hearings will be continued tomorrow, at which time Rear Adm. David M. Tyree, of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Antarctica Projects Officer, will discuss the Navy's role in the Antarctica program and will present a colored film on the 1960-61 operations. Since our last meeting on this subject, we had visiting the area Mr. O'Brien, the chairman of this subcommittee. Also, we had visiting the area the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Saylor, and our staff consultant, Dr. Taylor. Does anyone else wish to make a statement before we call on Mr. Zablocki? Mr. SAYLOR. I would like to comment that I have read with interest the comments of the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Defense Department, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of the Interior, which have all reported unfavorably upon this legislation. It is amusing that all of the reports have the same tenor, that they are afraid they might lose some of the influence they now have in that area if any one of these four bills were passed. I think the reason they are unfavorable is, they believe this empire building which goes on in the various agencies might be affected. It is interesting to note as I look at the printed reports from last year there are substantially the same objections, in all probability by the same people who wrote the reports this year. So it makes no difference what administration is downtown, the same philosophy exists. Mr. ASPINALL. The chairman of the full committee will not take any issue with the gentleman from Pennsylvania regarding his remarks. There are times when some of us think our interest in our own little kingdom of operations is more important than the overall interest and the welfare of the people. We have to contend with that in every activity of life. With that introduction, I will call on Mr. Zablocki. We are glad to have you here again, Mr. Zablocki, because we know of your interest in this area, and your interest in the progress and protection of the activities we carry on in these faraway lands. Mr. SAYLOR. I said to our colleague, Mr. Zablocki, when he came in the room, having watched him perform on the floor of the House all last week on the foreign aid bill, this is rather far removed from that field, and it is good to know that he has interests other than that. STATEMENT OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Mr. ZABLOCKI. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee, Mr. Chairman, to testify again on behalf of my bill, H.R. 7149, and the related proposals providing for the establishment of the Richard E. Byrd Antarctica Commission. I might state that my interest in this field was aroused when a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee had a briefing on some of the problems in Antarctica, and I was concerned to the extent that I then took it upon myself to study the possibility of introducing legislation which would correct some of the shortcomings in the administration and coordination of our Antarctic programs. I was very concerned about the treaties we entered into with some of the countries. I was fearful that our long-range interests in Antarctica were not adequately taken care of, and, therefore, I introduced the legislation which is being considered by your committee. Again, I want to say I appreciate being here to add in a very humble way my views on this legislation that is before the committee. The purpose of this legislation is to establish a single agency in the Federal Government to plan, develop, organize, coordinate, and direct Antarctica activities among governmental agencies, and to synchronize such activities with the efforts expended by private institutions, so as to promote our national and civil objectives. I believe that the need for the establishment of such an agency is as urgent today as it was a year ago when I last testified on this legislation before your committee. Of all the nations involved in the Antarctic, the United States is the only country without a single overall organization to handle our Antarctica affairs. I think we should take sufficient note of this, that we are the only country that does not have such an overall coordinating commission. Some 14 of our governmental agencies are presently active, or have an interest, in Antarctica matters. These include the Department of the Navy and its Hydrographic Office, the Department of the Army, the Department of Air Force, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the Weather Bureau, the Department of the Interior and its Geological Survey and its Bureau of the Mines, the Department of State, the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Science. Not one of these agencies specifically is empowered, or directed, to coordinate our national effort in the Antarctic. I have with me a copy of the report submitted on my bill to your committee by the Department of Defense. Just this morning, I had an opportunity, as I came to this committee room, to glance hurriedly over the comments in the reports from the Department of State and the Department of Interior. I did not have an opportunity to digest the parlance of the State Department, but even a cursory and hurried glance will show, as Mr. Saylor has pointed out, that their statement does not differ from the reports and comments made on similar legislation in the last Congress, which indicates that the same people have written these reports that wrote the last reports. That is not unusual. We find that continually in our Foreign Affairs Committee, and that is why some of the members of the committee feel rather frustrated. I believe the arguments that were presented in opposition to the Department's position last year still hold true at the present time. These reports, as a matter of fact, confirm what we have been saying right along. Comparing, for example, the Defense Department report with the Interior and the State reports, we find that there are only informal arrangements for coordinating our Antarctic programs and interests. For example, the Department of State says: The Department believes that present arrangements for the conduct of Antarctica programs provide the opportunity for that continuing consultation among the agencies concerned, regarding both their plans and operations, which is essential in order to assure the coordination of their respective activities in Antarctica but that the Department earlier admits, and the Department of Defense clearly confirms, that these arrangements are only "informal" at present, particularly after the Operations Coordinating Board was dissolved. The Department of Defense report states: Arctic matters are now coordinated through informal arrangements. The Department of Defense points out it has the responsibility to provide logistic support for the operations in the Antarctic. The report further states that the National Science Foundation, which was established to encourage general basic scientific research, performs a coordinating role with respect to our scientific programs on that continent. The report goes on to say that the commander of the Antarctica support force acts as the senior U.S. representative in Antarctica and is supposed to insure the success and safety of Antarctic operations. And they further assert, and I am merely referring in my statement to the Defense Department report because that is the one I had at my disposal which you so kindly sent to me, that the Department of State "through informal arrangements, is trying to provide"-trying to provide "for interagency coordination of antarctic matters.' Should we not do more than just try? Should we not have a commission that is actually going to do it? That is a question that must be resolved by this committee and the Congress. These are four separate authorities that I have just mentioned, each with its own separate responsibility and function. In the opinion of the Department of Defense, these and other agencies, working partly through formal and partly through informal arrangements, are effectively advancing our interests in the Antarctic. The Department of Defense report appears to be satisfied with the existing situation. To be blunt, I am not. I do not think that our interests in the Antarctic, the last great unexplored continent on this globe, are so insignificant as to be handled in a haphazard, informally coordinated manner. I believe we must have an overall policy for the Antarctic, and an overall coordination and supervision in the implementation of such policy. We cannot achieve this without having a single agency responsible for these tasks. None of the Government departments and agencies presently involved in the Antarctic has or can assume the authority for directing the formulation of policy, for supervising its execution, and for providing for continuing modification of such policy with respect to our national effort in the Antarctic. Further, not one of these agencies can properly represent U.S. economic, commercial, political, and certain other interests in the Antarctic. And, finally, not one of them can fulfill the task of international cooperation and representation on behalf of our Nation with respect to Antarctic matters. Each one of the agencies presently involved in the Antarctic is limited by its own area of specialization, by its own primary responsibilities for other matters, and by its lack of authority to act as an overall coordinating body to promote our many and complex interests in Antarctica. These are the reasons, the compelling reasons, which prompted me to introduce H.R. 7149, a bill which would provide for the establishment of the agency that we need in this field, the Richard E. Byrd Antarctica Commission. I firmly believe that this proposal is in our national interest, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giving me the opportunity to testify on its behalf. At this time, I would like to ask permission to insert into the record, if there is no objection on the part of the committee, a column that appeared in the Evening Star, Monday, November 28, 1960, by William Hines, the Star science writer, entitled "The Last FrontierPlanning Lag Here Blunts Polar Thrust." As you know, Mr. Hines returned late last year, from Antarctica where he observed preparations for Operation Deep Freeze 1961, and interviewed leading scientists and military figures. This was the first of three interpretative articles, and I believe Mr. Hines very 75478-62 succinctly and forcefully presents the arguments why legislation is necessary in our national interest. Mr. ASPINALL. I suggest, inasmuch as our rules prohibit the printing of newspaper columns in the record, if you want to get it into the record you had better read it. Mr. ZABLOCKI. The column is a bit longer than my statement, but I will be delighted to read it. Mr. William Hines in his column of Monday, November 28, 1960, writes: The U.S. Government is spending close to $20 million this year to probe the secrets of the earth's last frontier-the vast, remote, iceblocked Antarctic Continent. Mr. SAYLOR. I ask unanimous consent that the article be considered as read. Mr. ASPINALL. Is there any objection? [From the Evening Star; Washington, D.C., Nov. 28, 1960] THE LAST FRONTIER-PLANNING LAG HERE BLUNTS POLAR THRUST (By William Hines) (Mr. Hines recently returned from Antarctica where he observed preparations for Operation Deep Freeze-61 and interviewed leading scientists and military figures. This is the first of three interpretive articles.) The U.S. Government is spending close to $20 million this year to probe the secrets of the earth's last frontier-the vast, remote iceblocked Antarctic Continent. Something less than $4 million of this is being provided by the National Science Foundation in grants and contracts to research scientists, more than $15 million comes from the Navy for logistic support of the scientific effort. One cannot avoid being struck by the incongruity of a $15 million tail decorating and inevitably wagging-a $4 million dog. The question immediately arises: Is the United States getting its money's worth in the pursuit of scientific knowledge on the great south polar continent. It is this writer's impression, based on conversations, interviews, and observations both in Antarctica and here, that it is not. PLANNING NEEDED This is not to say that no scientific work is being done there. On the contrary, a fair amount of very good work is going on. But the best balance between logistic support and primary scientific mission has not yet been achieved. A great deal more profitable research work could be done with practically no increase in logistic costs. There is one thing lacking, however, and that is a long-range plan for America's effort there. This country has ratified a treaty affirming its scientific interest in Antarctica throughout the rest of this century; but there is not the vaguest shred of a plan as to what direction scientific inquiry will take, even through the rest of this decade. The responsibility for an overall plan for Antarctic research lies in Washington. It is not the job of Rear Adm. David M. Tyree, as task force director, to lay out this plan; it is his job to support a scientific effort financed by the National Science Foundation. Nor can Admiral Tyree's superiors at the Navy Department in Washington prescribe a program for Antarctica. And even the National Science Foundation, which finances individual research projects, is not the proper agency to make and enforce a long-range plan. This is a Government-wide responsibility which must be met at the top levels of the administration in concert with the appropriate committees of Congress. A policy for the scientific exploitation of the polar continent is required. |