1400 



study were reported to the Congress, January 8, 1975. In its report 

 GAO remarked on the protracted period of time required for "nego- 

 tiating meetings for working out frameworks for cooperation." Ex- 

 change of information had been "Umited and of little technical benefit 

 to the United States." Exchanges of scientists and technicians were 

 "just beginning to materialize." Time lags were attributed to "poor 

 communications, differing priorities, misunderstandings, and security 

 considerations." Problems of "funding, language translating facilities, 

 and travel costs of visiting scientists should have been resolved 

 during this period but were not." Accordingly, GAO recommended 

 that the "coordinators for the environmental protection and science 

 and technology agreements . . . formulate and execute improved 

 plans which will: 



— "Identify topics for early development into specific coopera- 

 tive programs; 



— "Assess the number of potential projects that can be efficiently 

 managed; 



— "Insure that projects of priority interest are adequately 

 supported and vigorously pursued by the responsible agencies 

 or institutions; 



— "Emphasize the need to progress from merely exchanging 

 visits to real cooperative efforts; 



— "Require participating agencies to identify all costs associated 

 with the program; 



—"Determine the long-range funding and personnel require- 

 ments of the agreements; and 



— "Arrange the necessary Russian language training and trans- 

 lating facilities to meet the needs raised by the agreements." "^ 

 GAO also recommended that the Congress "should consider the 

 desirability of an annual progress report on each agreement," and 

 consider monitoring ])rogram execution. It might also consider the 

 desirability of specifically funding the agreements and observed : 



We are concerned that the present diffused funding of the programs under these 

 agreements makes congressional overview and control difficult and could result 

 in significant commitments prior to congressional authorization of funds. ''^ 



PROLIFERATION OF AGREEMENTS 



It appears that from about 1966 on, President Johnson and then 

 President Nixon regarded the bilateral science agreement as a fre- 

 quently useful instrument of diplomacy. It was something tangible 

 that could be announced in a joint communique on the occasion of 

 meetings of Heads of State, something constructive and noncontro- 

 versial, offering a promise of continuing benefit to both parties. At 

 any rate^ agreements continued to mount up : 

 1961 Japan 

 1966 Germany 



1966 India 



1967 Italy 



1968 Iran 



»2 U.S. General Accounting Office of the Comptroller General, A Progress Report on United States-Soviet 

 Union Cooper aiit^ Programs (January 1975), p. iii. 

 '" Ibid., p. 43. 



