Committee. Dr. Hill's letter summarized the views of the Research Committee and the outgoing as well as the incoming Executive Committee and was written in response to a request from the Amsoc Committee for advice respecting alternative Mohole Drilling procedures under consideration, for single or multi-hole Mantle testing.

In the preamble to his letter of advice Dr. Hill stated:

"Since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists was not involved in the conception of Project Mohole, and was not consulted regarding the original proposal prior to its approval by the American Academy of Science-National Science Foundation, this report does not consider the merits of the project itself. Neither does this report imply approval or disapproval of the project as a whole. The findings are confined to a study of the scientific program questions raised and specified below."

The letter then proceeds to advise that, of the two proposed alternatives, a single or a multi-hole project, the latter would be more desirable.

In response to the second question raised, whether or not an intermediate ship should be built or whether an all-out effort should be devoted to the design and construction of the ultimate drilling-ship, the AAPG advised that the intermediate ship approach should be the more desirable of the two.

In brief, the Executive Committee of the AAPG would like to make it clear that Project Mohole is not our project and we have no control over it. For that reason the name of the Association should not be connected with Project Mohole on any basis other than our position as recipients of the scientific results currently obtained. At the same time, as an interested Scientific Society, we would be ungrateful if we refused to give advice as it is requested.

Mr. CASEY. I have no more questions.
Mr. LENNON. Mr. Mosher.

J. C. SPROULE, President (For the Executive Committee).

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, I am very much impressed with the logic of Dr. Hedberg's recommendations. However, I am a complete newcomer to this subject. I plead ignorance.

I am interested. I am willing to learn. I was not present at the hearings in June. At the risk of asking a question the answer to which all of you know, I would like to ask who specifically espouses the other point of view? Who are the protagonists for the shoot-the-works type of program and going immediately to the ultimate goal?

Dr. HEDBERG. If you will pardon me, I would like to leave that to those people who believe in that to express that viewpoint because I would not like to put any particular person in the position of espousing that cause.

Mr. MOSHER. Mr. Chairman, in this current series of hearings are we to hear the protagonists of the other point of view?

Mr. LENNON. That is what we hope to be able to do.

Mr. MOSHER. Do I judge just from this testimony that it is Brown & Root who advise the other?

Mr. LENNON. Brown & Root are the prime contractors for the National Science Foundation for the Mohole project. The Amsoc Committee, an advisory committee to the National Science Foundation, have made these recommendations that this project be consummated in a series of intermediate steps.

Mr. MOSHER. Has the Science Foundation given Brown & Root a contract to follow in the opposite direction?

Mr. LENNON. The contract, as we understand it, and as has been explained to us, does not spell out categorically the method and the way Brown & Root must accomplish the ultimate in securing the depth of the Moho. The Amsoc Committee is attempting to project its scientific knowledge and thinking to the National Science Foundation

to persuade them to have the prime contractor do this in an intermediate step rather than, as you have indicated, shoot the works. Mr. MOSHER. Is it generally known or is it in the knowledge of this committee that Brown & Root intend to do it by the other route?

Mr. LENNON. All we know is that Dr. Waterman, who now is retired as head of the National Science Foundation, testified in June that he was well satisfied with the setup of Brown & Root, that they were a competent company, that they had a staff of experts unexcelled anywhere. He did not say categorically what they were going to insist that Brown & Root do, whether they were going to attempt to establish the ultimate in reaching the Moho without these intermediate steps. It is still in a state of flux, I would say.

Mr. MOSHER. Then we, as a committee, do not know as yet what Mr. LENNON. What the final decision of the National Science Foundation will be.

Mr. MOSHER. Or what the recommendation of Brown & Root would be?

Mr. LENNON. I am not in a position to say.

Mr. CASEY. Would the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. MOSHER. Yes.

Mr. CASEY. As I understand it, Mr. Mosher, the National Science Foundation has not made a definite choice yet whether to go with the ultimate vessel or to include or maybe start with the intermediate vessel. As I gather, the Amsoc Committee has been recommending, or certain members of it have, I understand the doctor today to say the majority are recommending the intermediate vessel. They are a little put out that the National Science Foundation has not responded yet to their recommendations. In this I am expressing my own personal opinion that this is my observation.

Dr. Waterman in June said, "We believe that the sooner a vessel of appropriate capability and capacity is constructed the sooner both the intermediate and ultimate objective of the project will be accomplished," indicating that their thinking was the ultimate vessel could drill to the Moho.

Mr. LENNON. May I suggest, sir, that you confer with Mr. Bauer, the technical expert on the committee, who can give any member of the committee the full background as he knows it.

Mr. MOSHER. I do not want to hold up the committee.

Mr. LENNON. I did not want to hold up the witnesses.

Mr. MOSHER. I agree. Would it be a fair question to ask what the role of this committee will be in this, the potential role of this committee?

Mr. LENNON. That is a ponderable. I would say we are sitting here now as a sort of oversight committee, having in some degree participated in this and other oceanographic objectives since coming into existence. We have no authorization authority as such. The money was appropriated through the Independent Offices Appropriations Committee for this contract. It is rather unfortunate, perhaps, that we do not have a legislative committee with the authorizing authority for such projects.

Mr. MOSHER. What does Amsoc stand for?

Dr. HEDBERG. Amsoc is derived from American Miscellaneous Society because the group which originated this project were members

of the American Miscellaneous Society. Then this group moved out of that background to become a committee of the National Academy of Sciences and somehow or other-it was before my time-the name Amsoc went with them.

Mr. LENNON. It is a little different from ad hoc. This is Amsoc.

Mr. CASEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOSHER. Yes.

Mr. CASEY. I would like to say this, Mr. Mosher. The National Science Foundation is going to make the final decision and, personally, I hope this committee does not take the position they are going to try to influence the National Science Foundation in its decision. I personally am not qualified to say what type of vessel to use.

Mr. LENNON. I will say to the gentleman that the committee does not intend at present to interject itself, but when the time comes that the committee by majority of opinion has any views with respect to any position it should or should not take, I think we ought to express them to any Government agency that is spending taxpayers' funds; $67 million of taxpayers' funds are involved in this project. Are there any other questions?

Mr. MOSHER. No further questions.

Mr. LENNON. Mr. Rogers.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, I am interested in the change of position of Amsoc in connection with this project. I believe you started out as directly carrying out the project, is that true; and now you have shifted over to being just an advisory committee?

Dr. HEDBERG. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. Why was this change brought about in your operations? Dr. HEDBERG. Again, this was before my time with the Committee but, as I understand it, there was a feeling on the part of the National Academy of Sciences, of which Amsoc is a Committee, and on the part of the Amsoc Committee itself at that time that the operations should be entrusted to someone else through a prime contract rather than carried out through the Academy.

Mr. ROGERS. I thought you had great success with the first part of the project that you describe in 1957. With your experimental oceanic drilling in 1961 at La Jolla and Guadalupe Island on the Pacific

coast.

Dr. HEDBERG. That is right.

Mr. ROGERS. Although you had this success in actually carrying out operations, the decision was made not to continue to carry out operations through this Committee?

Dr. HEDBERG. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. Who actually made the decision to stop? You say it was the consensus of the group?

Dr. HEDBERG. It was, I believe, the consensus of the Amsoc Committee at that time, and it certainly was the feeling of the National Academy of Sciences that operations of this type were not appropriate to the National Academy, and since the Committee was a Committee of the National Academy, they were not appropriate to the Committee. Mr. ROGERS. How was it you started on first directing the operations, then?

Dr. HEDBERG. The original idea came through the Amsoc Committee, and when it became a Committee of the Academy, through the Academy it obtained from the National Science Foundation financing to go ahead with an experimental stage to start with to see how feasible the project was.

Mr. ROGERS. How much time do the members of Amsoc devote to the Committee work of Amsoc? How much time are you able to devote, for instance?

Dr. HEDBERG. I would say a great deal. We have several meetings a year of the Amsoc Committee, and also of the executive group.

Mr. ROGERS. I am just asking these questions to find out for myself. I am not aware of the time you are able to devote. I want to commend all of you for devoting your time and effort, as I understand it, without compensation; is that right?

of

Dr. HEDBERG. Right.

Mr. ROGERS. Which certainly I am sure this committee admires all you for doing. I do want to find out how much time you are able to spend with a project of this nature, where you are advisory, how much time you are able to devote to it.

Dr. HEDBERG. To go on, in addition to the Committee meetingsMr. ROGERS. How many would you say you have had this year? Dr. HEDBERG. We have had three thus far this year, I believe. Mr. ROGERS. How long do they last, these three you have had this year?

Dr. HEDBERG. Either 1 or 2 days.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you have a staff?
Dr. HEDBERG. We have a permanent staff.
Mr. ROGERS. How many people?

Dr. HEDBERG. The staff consists of the scientific officer, executive secretary, and two officeworkers.

Mr. ROGERS. You did have a larger staff when you carried out your project in 1961?

Dr. HEDBERG. Yes, we had a technical staff of about five people then, as I recall.

Mr. ROGERS. Were they paid through Amsoc funds at that time, or what?

Dr. HEDBERG. I believe so. We get a grant through the Academy, from the National Science Foundation, for financing of the Committee's operations.

Mr. ROGERS. Is that the way they were paid in your earlier project where you actually carried out the work directly?

Dr. HEDBERG. Yes; I believe so. Mr. Petrie here can probably answer more accurately than I can. He is executive secretary of Amsoc.

Mr. ROGERS. I noticed in the report that you provided us, entitled "Status of Amsoc Oceanic Deep Drilling Project," a reprint from Geotimes, volume 2, No. 1, that those who were on your staff carrying out the work at that time have now changed from a position of working for you, have formed their own company, have become subcontractors to the prime contractor. Is that a general practice?

Dr. HEDBERG. I do not think they are subcontractors to the prime contractor at the present time.

Mr. ROGERS. That is what this says.

Dr. HEDBERG. At one time they were, but this is a little out of date now. I think it was published in the summer of 1962.

Mr. ROGERS. How long were they subcontractors?

Dr. HEDBERG. That I could not tell you.

Mr. PETRIE. Two months.

Mr. ROGERS. They are no longer used?

Mr. PETRIE. That is my understanding, sir.

Mr. ROGERS. What kind of contract did they have for 2 months? Mr. PETRIE. I am afraid I cannot answer.

There are people here who can answer that question. Could I refer to someone else? Mr. ROGERS. I think I would like to know; yes.

Mr. PETRIE. I would like to refer that question to Dr. McLelland. Dr. MCLELLAND. I can answer. I am Jack McLelland, vice president of engineering for Ocean Science & Engineering. I was the chief engineer for the Mohole project from September 1959 to May

1962.

Your question is pertinent during that period, I can answer for you. We formed a corporation of Ocean Science & Engineering. We were consultants on a 2-month contract through Brown & Root in May and June of 1962. That was the duration of the contract, 2 months.

Mr. LENNON. Let me interrupt the gentleman. Your name is what? Dr. MCLELLAND. Jack McLelland.

Mr. LENNON. You are scheduled as a witness if the gentleman will withhold his questions so we can move along with these witnesses. Mr. ROGERS. I will be glad to, but I do want to go into that further. Was it Amsoc's recommendation that a prime contractor be obtained?

Dr. HEDBERG. Yes; I think so.

Mr. ROGERS. Before the decision was made how to proceed?

Dr. HEDBERG. It was at the time when it was decided that operations should be handled by a prime contractor, as I have explained, Amsoc concurred with that decision that there should be a prime contractor to handle the operations, continuing operations of the project. Mr. ROGERS. As I understand it, the contract was let to the Texas company, Brown & Root?

Dr. HEDBERG. That is correct.

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a specific figure?

Dr. HEDBERG. I cannot speak authoritatively on this contract at all. That was handled by the National Science Foundation and I would prefer not to talk about it.

Mr. ROGERS. What will be your duty now as this Amsoc project proceeds?

Dr. HEDBERG. Our duties will be concerned with advising the National Science Foundation on the scientific guidance of the project. I have here an agreement between the National Science Foundation and the Amsoc Committee outlining what should be the relations between the two. It starts, and I will read you the first paragraph:

The National Science Foundation recognizes the fundamental scientific nature of the project and the need for centralized scientific guidance. It further recognizes that the project should be aimed to attain as far as possible the scientific objectives conceived for it by the Amsoc Committee of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, with whom the project originated.

It is understood that the NAS-NRC, through its Amsoc Committee will provide these scientific objectives and this scientific guidance.