A mere increase in our efforts in basic research, in applied research, in education, or in service work will not bring about the desired results. These areas must be attacked simultaneously. This very fact was the reason for the overwhelming success of the land-grant college. Commercial fisherman or oil well drillers will not benefit for many years from the results of today's basic research unless an effective extension-type program is in operation. An extension program cannot be successful unless basic and applied research programs are in operation. Furthermore, neither research nor extension programs can function effectively unless our educational institutions are turning out qualified personnel.

It is not easy to develop a plan for initiating a sustained effort along a broad front. I believe, however, that Senator Pell's bill is such a plan and that it is workable. In adhering to the land-grant concept, this bill makes it possible to provide unrestricted funds to agencies interested in and capable of increasing the country's competence in marine matters. I strongly urge that a major portion of the funding under this program should be in the form of institutional grants. Continuing broad-based financial support is essential to the program. Perhaps I could best exemplify my statement by referring again to the University of New Hampshire. Our water resources research center was funded under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 in a manner similar to that suggested in the proposed legislation we are considering today. Basically, this act, which is concerned with the problems of providing adequate and safe fresh water supplies, provides for institutional grants for research and education programs. Additional moneys are available on a matching fund basis for individual research projects. Prior to the initiation of the center, three of our departments were carrying on good, but uncoordinated, research projects related to water problems. The lack of coordination was not intentional, but existed primarily due to a lack of a common goal. We are now completing the second year of operation of this coordination program, and the results have been quite astounding to me in the following respects:

1. I find that faculty members who previously did not even know each other are now submitting joint research projects.

2. The degree of cooperation with our State agencies has increased manifold.

3. Undergraduate and graduate student interest in this area has been stimulated.

4. Many additional departments in the biological and physical sciences are cooperating on research programs.

5. The economists and sociologists now have research projects concerned with water.

6. In filling vacated and new faculty positions, we are now making a coordinated effort to recruit competence that we have unknowingly lacked in many of the areas crucial to the program.

I see no reason why these same results could not be achieved in the marine area.

To mobilize scientific manpower and facilities toward achieving a given goal is not something that can be done with money alone. It is imperative that the program be conceived in a manner that assures cooperation between scientists and technicians and allows for

the approaching of problems along the broad fronts of research, education, and extension. I believe that the proposed sea grant college program fully meets these criteria. Thank you.

Senator PELL. Thank you, Dr. Drew. To get a little more background for our committee would you state what your specialization is? Dr. DREW. I am a resource economist.

Senator PELL. What does that mean?

Dr. DREW. One who is trained in the basic field of economics, but specifically trained in research areas allied to agriculture.

Senator PELL. I am still confused as to what the definition of resource economist is.

Dr. DREW. That is an economist who is interested in the practical aspect of developing resources.

Senator PELL. It could be mineral, agricultural, sea, or land resources, right?

Dr. DREW. Practical exploitation, right. The difference between a regular economist and a resource economist is that the latter has more expertise in carrying out a practical resource program.

Senator PELL. So, from your viewpoint, this bill is right up your alley because it seeks to take the theoretical knowledge that we have and make it more available to exploration.

Dr. DREW. That is correct, that would be our area.

Senator PELL. Do you have any thought as to where the administration of this bill should be placed? Should it rest with the National Scientific Foundation or the Smithsonian Institute? Do you have any thought on that?

Dr. DREW. Well, I did prepare a statement for the meeting that was held in Newport, R.I., in which I expressed the idea that I did not think it should be put in the hands of the National Science Foundation which has a very good record in supporting very good research projects in another area. I can't quite envision the National Science Foundation getting into this sort of thing, this sort of operation.

Senator PELL. Do you have any specific suggestions for improving this bill S. 2439?

Dr. DREW. Well, other than what I mentioned as to the fact that I had some real doubt as to the National Science Foundation administering the bill. I have some doubt about the centers of excellence concept. I don't think the centers of excellence can hope to work this type of program because they have to be administered close to home.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, Dr. Drew. We are particularly lucky to have the testimony of an economist whose field is the utilization and exploration of all the resources that we have. Thank you, Dr. Drew.

Dr. DREW. Thank you, Senator Pell, for allowing me to testify. Senator PELL. Our final witness is Dr. Richard J. Benoit of Colchester, Conn. Dr. Benoit is a member of the executive board for the Southern New England Marine Sciences Association and he is highly respected for his marine work. Will you proceed, Dr. Benoit ?

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD J. BENOIT, MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE BOARD, SOUTHERN NEW ENGLAND MARINE SCIENCES ASSOCIATION

Dr. BENOIT. The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1965 has been stated to be in the public interest by many fine men who have been before this committee and I hasten to add my endorsement to that statement. The committee is no doubt thoroughly familiar with the proceedings of the recent Sea Grant Colleges Conference at Newport, R.I., cosponsored by the University of Rhode Island and Southern New England Marine Sciences Association. So there is no need for me to review the ideas presented there. Dr. Spilhaus' keynote address at that conference has been read into the Congressional Record, as you know. I would also call or recall your attention to the 1964 National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council report, "Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Research." That document states the case far better than I might with regard to the ways in which the public welfare will be benefited. The sea grant colleges program seems to me to be the proper educational foundation for the Federal program we can all see evolving.

Working in industry I am probably more accustomed to justifying proposed course of action on an economic basis than are my university colleagues. I do not, however, think we are in this instance dealing with a system that can be subjected to economic analysis except by making many cumbersome assumptions, all subject to challenge. I think we must rely confidently on the example afforded by the history of the land-grant college program.

Let me state parenthetically that I feel strongly that the sea grant program would be weakened by any attempt to provide means for full and direct participation by States that are not marine coastal or Great Lakes States. The available resources might be diluted to the extent that any single State's activity would be ineffectual. My own personal suggestion for broadening the geographical basis for participation would be to provide appointments to sea grant institutions by Congressmen from States with no sea grant college, in the same general way as appointments are made to the Federal Service Academies, of which one, the Coast Guard Academy at New London, is a valued landmark of my home State, Connecticut.

In my student days, I worked at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station in New Haven. I found the atmosphere there to be ideal for productive research. The station worked in contact with industry in the development of agricultural chemicals and equipment, with farmers on the application of new knowledge, and with the scientific and academic community at large in the interchange of new knowledge. That partnership assures the prompt application and exploitation of the fruits of research. The sea grant college program can, I am confident, assure the same success in the seas that we now enjoy on the land. The committee should, I feel, consider amendments and establish administrative or policy machinery that will promote the participation of industry in the program.

Senator PELL. I am not sure I would go along with your thought on congressional appointments to those institutes that get grants because, being in that position myself, I see how very difficult it is in

62-996-66-10

the implementation of the congressional appointment. I'd like to see more boys interested, other young people, where, maybe, they could apply from inland States to institutions that had a grant.

Dr. BENOIT. My suggestion wouldn't necessarily be restricted to a formal appointment plan, but rather to a provision, a method of assuring a 50-State participation worked from a standpoint of students from the States in the inner part of the country. One of the difficulties in planning a fishing industry in this country is due to the fact that we can only draw on the community or communities that are right on the coastline. I am sure that there are many young men, and perhaps young women, from Kansas, Colorado, States of that kind, where, if the specific opportunity were presented to them, they would be glad to turn their attention toward a career in the marine industry, including fisheries.

Senator PELL. Another point in connection with your final statement that we should consider amendments and establish administrative or policy machinery that will promote the participation of industry in the program.

I wonder if you could be more specific. Do you have any amendments in mind?

Dr. BENOIT. I believe that is in your printed statement, the way that industry participates in agricultural operations. It is on an informal basis although several agricultural firms have established grants for research. I have in mind, specifically, a fellowship from an agricultural experiment station doing research on insecticide chemicals. Industry cooperates with the universities in one way by making specific grants for research projects, and also by taking on the university scientists as consultants. This program has been well received and has worked out fine in the field of agriculture. I know it can be worked out in the marine sciences.

Senator PELL. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for your reputation in this field. I was wondering if you would like to leave the record open for a week or so and you can submit for consideration any specific amendments and changes to the language of the bill that would achieve that objective. I am not sure just how we would put this in writing, what you are talking about. I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying.

Dr. BENOIT. Well, I am not sure that I have given the problem enough thought. I am not sure that a week or 2 weeks would be enough time to do that, but I will do the best I can. I will get some of my colleagues together at work and see what we can do in that time.

Senator PELL. Specifically as to the suggestion of the sea grant college program, how it could be set up in order to assure a more direct participation in industry.

Dr. BENOIT. I will do what I can.

Senator PELL. And, for the record, what is your position within your corporation?

Dr. BENOIT. I am chief of marine sciences at the electric boat division of General Dynamics.

Senator PELL. This lends authenticity to the testimony that you gave because your corporation is one of the leading ones in this field, and speaking as a Senator from Rhode Island it is also of great eco

nomic importance to our State since so many of our people work there. I appreciate very much, Dr. Benoit, your coming here today and being with us. The record will be left open for a period of time. You may submit any thoughts you have relating to this industrial application. I like the idea, I just don't quite know how we should take hold of it.

Now, in closing I would just like to say that I am impressed with the arrangements that have been made by the University of Rhode Island for today's session. We want to thank you, Dr. Horn. Also I would like to say to the students present here today that you have seen the Federal Government in action. I hope that you have enjoyed the hearing. I want to thank all of those people that traveled to Rhode Island today from New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Rhode Island is a small State, but we appreciated it.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene Tuesday, May 3, 1966, in Washington, D.C.)