verting and concentrating solar energy so that as much as 3 percent of the Sun's energy falling on a plant is converted into combustible fuel. Not only would this method of energy production be self-sustaining, but the energy would be produced and consumed with far less environmental impact than with existing fuels.

But people must realize that the practical applications of these research efforts are many years away. What we can do now, without further plans or studies, is to take action to conserve and protect existing resources.

CONCERN FOR ENVIRONMENT AND NEED FOR ENERGY

Mr. MAHON. You mention energy and resource conservation, but we in Congress must also deal with other proposals for solving the energy crisis. One argument used frequently is that environmental concerns should take second priority to expanding and developing domestic energy supplies. Do you agree with that view?

Admiral RICKOVER. No, sir, I do not, with one major caveat. I think there has to be some balance in the presentation of the environmental costs and energy benefits of each energy project. For nuclear power, as I mentioned, I think there is some justification to some of the environmental concerns being raised. But it is not enough, for example, to say a nuclear project is unsafe, and then wait for a future problem to back up the claim. The environmental and safety arguments have to be weighed against the safety and environmental history of past operation of nuclear plants.

At the same time, it is incumbent on us as citizens to see that the environment is protected from unnecessary abuse. Unlike people, municipalities, trusts, and corporations, the environment has no independent rights under the law. It cannot act for itself, except through the eventual operation of the laws of nature.

I believe that the energy shortages and degradation of the environment are both consequences of the same basic forces-unrestrained technological development and uncontrolled world population growth. It has been widely recognized that rapid industrial development has made possible the great material opulence of our society. However, industry and Government decisionmakers have not always given adequate consideration to the less immediate but equally obvious long run costs of unlimited expansion-air and water pollution, power shortages, and overcrowded living conditions. The suggestion that we now abandon environmental standards in view of the energy crisis is a dangerously short run approach. While it may be necessary to relax certain environmental standards temporarily to deal with specific emergencies, a general relaxation of standards coupled with uncontrolled technological development will only result in more frequent environmental and energy crises in the future. Unlimited growth is impossible in a limited environment.

It is my experience that technology must be viewed humanistically and be carefully controlled if it is to provide satisfactory results for mankind. Technology is not a mysterious force which, if left unrestrained, will invariably work to the benefit of mankind. Technological development must be limited by a careful assessment of the effects of our actions on the environment and the conservation of natural

58-991 O 75-8

resources. Failure to consider these effects permits further disruption of the delicate balance of nature that makes human existence possible. Technology has produced the illusion that man can rise above the laws of nature. Yet man can only be defined in terms of his natural environment. He cannot disregard his interdependence with other forms of life.

For example, one of the most profound effects of oil pollution of the oceans may be the effect on phytoplankton-the microscopic plants which generate about 90 percent of the living material in the sea and recycle approximately 75 percent of the world's oxygen supply. Through the process of photosynthesis, these tiny plants generate living matter that provides food for other ocean creatures. If, as some studies have suggested, even minor oil pollution may substantially inhibit photosynthesis in these plants, then potential oil spills from supertankers could have an enormous impact on the environmental life cycle.

Ultimately, a disregard for environmental consequences will affect humans. The effects of air pollution on human physiology are well known. It was recently announced that the water supplies of many cities may contain potentially dangerous levels, of cancer-causing agents. The consequence of this condition may not be seen for many years, but the possible threat to human life is sobering.

Frequently, we try to improve nature, without appreciating nature's complexity. Then, we are surprised when our efforts actually backfire on us. For example, in China in the 1950's, a campaign was launched to wipe out sparrows, which were eating large quantities of seed. Once the sparrows were killed, however, the insect population on which the birds also fed was left uncontrolled, resulting in more crop damage than before.

Rapid technological development has taken its toll in disruption of nature's cycle and the actual extinction of many species of life. But even potential material benefits of technological development have been canceled out in many countries by uncontrolled population growth.

Mr. MAHON. In the past, you stated that there might be a limit on development because of heat.

Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir. All industrial processes use energy and consequently emit heat to the atmosphere. Today, manmade emission of heat is minor-about one fifteen-thousandth of the natural flow of heat from the Sun and the Earth. But manmade emission of heat is growing exponentially with rapid industrial development. According to one group's calculations, at the present growth rate the emission of heat from manmade sources would equal the heat absorbed from the Sun in about 250 years, leaving the world unsuitable for human life.

I do not believe that man will develop and consume his way into this predicament. I do not expect the elaborate catastrophes predicted by those who believe that all technological development is ultimately destructive. But neither do I accept the grand development schemes of those who insist that more is better. What has worked in the past will not necessarily work in the future.

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

At the risk of being repetitive, let me reemphasize this point: Conservation is the key presently available for dealing with both our energy and our environmental problems. Wasteful consumption of fossil fuels contributes to environmental pollution. Conversely, many pollutants represent substantial drains on our nonrenewable energy resources. The contemporary throwaway style of life and planned obsolescence have flooded the market with disposable products, giving the United States the highest per capita production of waste in the world. In addition to littering the countryside, the production and disposal of these products, including metal cans, plastic containers, vast quantities of paper and packaging materials, represent a major burden on our energy resources.

I think we are beginning to see some positive trends in redressing the previous abuse of natural resources. There is some public awareness that growth statistics can be deceptive, and that we must seek qualitative improvement within quantitative limits. We are beginning to show real concern for other species of life-for example, the International Whaling Commission recently adopted drastically reduced quotas for the hunting of whales with the agreement of the Japanese and the Soviets, who have been principal hunters of these magnificent animals.

However, the world is still far from a satisfactory resolution of the problem. We must not allow energy alarmists to persuade us to reverse the improvements that have been initiated. We must recognize the futility of further rapid expansion in quantity. But it is not necessary to accept stagnation in the process; instead, we can channel our ingenuity and resources to real improvements in the quality of life, to the cultural and humanistic advancement of society.

The choice is not easy. Limiting growth runs counter to the thrust of centuries of human experience and aspiration. However, the consequences of failure to adapt to these limits are far more onerous. By recognizing our position in nature, we can provide for our long run energy needs and pass on a richer environment to future generations. Mr. GIAIMO [presiding]. Mr. Robinson.

Mr. ROBINSON. Admiral, in response to one of Mr. Flynt's questions with respect to the Newport News bid on the DLGN, you mentioned that was a competitive bid. Were there other competitive bids submitted?

Admiral RICKOVER. I said the ships on which there were large reported losses, nearly all were competitive bids. I was talking about submarines. The DLGN's were negotiated procurements.

Mr. ROBINSON. So there were no other bids?

Admiral RICKOVER. A proposal for DLGN 36/37 was received from another yard but was not acceptable. The contracts for DLGN 36 and DLGN 37 and for the DLGN 38 class ships were negotiated with Newport News and they accepted them.

Mr. ROBINSON. That was my impression, and coming from Virginia I wanted to clear the record.

Admiral RICKOVER. About two-thirds of the losses that Newport News currently reports are on ships which were taken on competitive contracts where they were low bidder.

You want me to amplify this for the record?

Mr. ROBINSON. I think that is all that is necessary.

We all know that the Secretary of Defense recently sent a letter to Congress disclosing his plans for a missioned program of Aegis antiair warfare ships; the first would be a conventional of the DD-963 in the fiscal year 1977 budget, and the other a nuclear powered Aegis ship in the fiscal year 1978 budget.

To what extent, if any, has this been changed by the budget amendment?

Admiral RICKOVER. I would think that if Congress agrees it means that the first one will be nuclear instead of conventional.

My recommendation would be certainly to make the first few strike cruisers all nuclear because they are so much superior to the conventional ones. The conventional ship has to be redesigned, too. It is a very expensive ship too and I am not sure that it won't end up being a lot different from a DD-963 when the design is worked out.

Mr. ROBINSON. That would be the only significant change brought about by the suggested budget amendment?

Admiral RICKOVER. No, sir, let me repeat what I have said to make sure you understand me. The Secretary of Defense recommended that the first Aegis ship be a conventional one. The House, however, voted that the first Aegis ship should be capable of being nuclear. The Senate voted to delete design funds for the nuclear ship. The President then advised Congress that he desired to have the first one nuclear. That issue is up in conference right now. That is where it stands. What will happen will have to be thrashed out in Congress this year and next year.

Mr. GIAIMO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBINSON. Yes.

Mr. GIAIMO. The first one is still in doubt, isn't it, if it is still in conference?

Mr. LEIGHTON. Yes; the action has not been completed on the first ship.

Admiral RICKOVER. They have the House desire and the Presidential request. That is where it stands now. What will happen in the conference is up to the conferees.

Mr. GIAMO. Apparently with this kind of impasse, it would appear as if there is a real difference of opinion between House and Senate. Mr. LEIGHTON. We will have to see the results of the conference. Admiral RICKOVER. I can't get into that. That is not my prerogative. Mr. ROBINSON. What would be your appraisal of the status of the R. & D. on the Aegis system with regard to how far down the road we have gone in terms of reaching

Admiral RICKOVER. Mr. Robinson, I am no expert on the Aegis system, I can only repeat what the Navy says, which Mr. Leighton has outlined; I am not familiar with the details of Aegis. I don't have any opinion because I don't know enough about it.

Mr. ROBINSON. We know, of course, that there have been some problems, and I just wonder if the R. & D. is far enough along so

that the system will be ready when you want to begin the work on the Long Beach?

Admiral RICKOVER. I understand the tests have been run and that supersonic missiles have been shot down. The AEGIS people are very optimistic and claim there is reason to be. That is as much as I can tell you. I cannot tell you from my own knowledge or experience, sir.

INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. ROBINSON. One final question, Admiral. The GAO has released a report on "Contractor Independent Research and Development" that concludes on at least a first reading that the present system for funding I.R. & D. is working fairly well. What is your opinion of independent research and development?

ADMIRAL RICKOVER. Sir, I think it is working very well for the contractors. But with due respect to the General Accounting Office, I think they are wrong in concluding it is working well for the Government.

When bid and proposal expenses are included with independent research and development costs, and if all defense contractors are counted in, I think you would find we are handing out as much as $1 billion a year to companies for this independent research work. We have very little proof that the work will benefit the Defense Department.

If this committee is really looking for ways to save large sums of money, here is one area. If the Defense Department needs to do research and development work, that effort, in my opinion should be funded directly.

Mr. ROBINSON. You would take serious issue with the conclusions reached by GAO?

Admiral RICKOVER. Yes, sir, I do. I have written a letter to the General Accounting Office in which I set forth the problems with I.R. & D. as I see them. With the chairman's approval, I would like to include my letter in the record.

I do not think that the country is getting the value for the money spent on I.R. & D. First, there are serious problems with this way of doing defense research. The Defense Department neither directs nor controls the contractor's research and development work being performed. Under present practices, there is no provision for eliminating duplication, or for determining if the benefits gained by DOD are worth the costs incurred. And even if the Government pays the largest share of the costs for the research accomplished, it has no rights in technical data or in patents derived from this work.

The controls placed over I.R. & D. are ineffective. Almost any research project can be shown to meet the law's relevancy requirement that the work have a potential military_relationship before I.R. & D. costs can be accepted by the Defense Department. Reviews of contractor I.R. & D. programs tend to be superficial and are often conducted by people with little knowledge of the work.

I have found cases where the Defense Department was funding independent research and development projects in the nuclear field which duplicated work I was doing. Other projects were directed