SEA GRANT COLLEGES

WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEA GRANT COLLEGES

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The special subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, at 10 a.m., Senator Claiborne Pell (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Pell (presiding).

Committee staff present: Fitzhugh Green, special assistant to Senator Pell; Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Roy H. Millenson, minority clerk.

Senator PELL. The third session of the Special Subcommittee on Sea Grant Colleges will resume its hearing today. We will be terminating at 12 in deference to the funeral of Senator McNamara. So I trust we can get through the scheduled witnesses this morning.

Are either Representative Clausen or Representative Keith here? Pending their arrival, we will go on with the executive branch and private witnesses.

The first witness this morning, then, will be Captain Snyder of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, who is appearing in behalf of Mr. Morse, and Mr. Abel is with him, a fact of which I am glad. Captain Snyder, will you proceed?

Captain SNYDER. Good morning. Dr. Morse is still on the sick list. He sincerely regrets his inability to appear this morning.

He did write this statement and, with your permission, I will read it as if he were here.

Senator PELL. All right.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT W. MORSE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT), AND CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, AS PRESENTED BY CAPT. J. EDWARD SNYDER, JR., U.S. NAVY, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT B. ABEL

Captain SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommitteeSenator PELL. Excuse me. If anybody in the back of the room can't hear, raise your hand.

Will you talk more into the microphone, Captain, and raise your voice, and if you can't hear me, let me know, too.

Captain SNYDER. It gives me great pleasure to appear on behalf of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) to discuss the

183

ICO's view of the sea grant college concept, as put forward in Senator Pell's bill, S. 2439.

Since the essential components of this legislation are presented in a very straightforward manner, and because they represent not an entirely new concept in terms of applied research, education, and training but rather an ingenious twist on an educational approach which has already established itself as a success-I feel that I can be equally direct and precise in expressing those views which are the reason for my being here today.

There is no doubt of the general need for the continuance of Federal assistance in developing and maintaining centers of oceanographic excellence in our universities. The establishment of such centers of excellence necessarily includes the support of means whereby a broad range of skilled manpower can be developed to handle theoretical and practical problems soon to be encountered by the research scientist, the development engineer, and the technician who supports the ocean operators. All of this contemplates progress in instrumentation, resource development, intelligently integrated academic curricula, purposefully defined research goals, improvement in operational techniques, and last but not least-dissemination of the knowledge acquired to those people who daily work will eventually exploit the ocean to the fullest.

I can say without reservation that the Interagency Committee on Oceanography supports the concept of sea grant colleges as outlined in S. 2439. If I might also depart from custom, I might add that my personal views are identical to that of the ICO.

I would like us to look at a problem of administration-and from your vantage point, gentlemen, one of legislation-which I think we will all agree is most difficult-the question of implementation. Or said in other terms: "What is the best way to go about getting this done?" S. 2439 calls for the deposit, in a special account in the Treasury, of 10 percent of all bonuses, rentals, and royalties paid to the Federal Government after June 30, 1965, in accordance with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

The conclusion that the ICO has reached is that no program of this nature should look to funds earmarked from another source for its subsistence. If the principle is worthwhile, which this one is, it should stand on its own merit. Thus the ICO feels that needs and the means to meet them should be analyzed and then funds to support them can and should be provided through the normal budget and appropriation processes. This would insure that funding is planned in relation to the required program and that funding is adequate to meet the challenging opportunities.

I feel certain that State enthusiasm for this program can best be effected by a stipulation in this bill that Federal moneys allocated for the development of these "centers of excellence" be paralleled by funds from individual State legislatures, according to an apportioned

formula.

Another aspect of "State participation," which the ICO feels is deserving of careful attention, is the question of which States should receive the benefits of such a bill were it to become law. I do believe that some means should be devised whereby all of the 50 States, regardless of their location in proximity to the oceans or the Great Lakes,

could qualify. Surely the call to the sea has not in the past been confined to residents of coastal areas nor is that likely to be the case in the future.

But of even more substance are the declarations of purpose in S. 2439 calling for the use of marine resources to provide greater economic opportunities, expanded employment and trade, new sources of food, and new means for the utilization of fresh and salt water. These, we believe, are the most obvious opportunities for true State participation, particularly in the case of our landlocked States. Therefore, we urge that due consideration be given to recovery, conservation, processing and marketing techniques, and to the "home economics of marine products." These subjects should be well within the meaning of "* * * education, training, and research in the marine sciences and a program of advisory services * * *."

Concerning the point of an executive agency to administer the use of allocated sea grant funds, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography concurs with Senator Pell's designation of the National Science Foundation. The ICO feels that the considerable experience of the Foundation in the interaction of the academic community and the Federal Government makes the NSF the best agency to administer the bill. We do feel strongly that members of the ICO-particularly Navy, Commerce, and Interior-have essential roles to play and also should provide advisory services to the Science Foundation in view of the complex ends to be served by S. 2439. The ICO stands ready to assist the Science Foundation in the performance of its administrative duties under the act, thus recognizing these essential roles and insuring direct participation by other agencies in the sea grant college structure.

In closing, the ICO is in full agreement with the three basic premises of S. 2439-first, that the time is ripe for an aggressive move toward fuller exploitation of the resources of the seas; second, that our universities and colleges must pay a key role in this movement; and third, that while ocean science itself is in good shape, the exploitation of ocean resources requires a forward thrust.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to try to attempt to answer any questions.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much, indeed.

Returning to the three points you mentioned, first, the relationship of the amount of money that would be authorized through the revenues from the rents and royalties, the reason for that is to show that this would be a self-generating measure. I realize that there are executive branch reasons why they don't like to create separate trust funds and I am conscious of this fact.

In this connection, have you been in touch with the Bureau of the Budget? Have you any idea what their general viewpoint is in this bill?

Captain SNYDER. Yes, sir. Dr. Morse had this statement which he wrote taken to the staff of the Bureau of the Budget and to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and this particular statement represents the official position of the Department of Defense, his own personal viewpoint, the position of the Department of the Navy, the concensus of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and the Bureau of the Budget had no objection.

Senator PELL. Do you think a letter could be forthcoming from the Bureau of the Budget that if these measures, the suggestions, were

met by the committee, that the bill would be agreeable to the administration, because as you know, from the viewpoint of actual passage, it is very important that there be some specific statement of approval of the Bureau of the Budget.

Captain SNYDER. I think each agency's official submission to you does have in its end paragraph that the Bureau of the Budget has no objection, again, stated, not in the statements, but in the official letters that the heads of each agency write to you in their comments on the bill.

For example, the National Science Foundation's statement says in its final paragraph:

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.

So that if the agency, the majority of agencies, are in favor of it and they all contain this statement, as I understand it, that is the Bureau of the Budget's concurrence.

Senator PELL. And, as I understand it, your Interagency Committee is the key executive branch group for coordinating executive branch's opinion and you are authorized, in this connection, then, to speak on behalf of the Bureau of the Budget so that if-and I am not saying that the committee will agree to the various points raised in your statement, but if all the points were accepted, would this bill be agreeable to the Bureau of the Budget?

Captain SNYDER. I think I would have to directly ask them but it is my impression that it would be agreeable, as stated.

Senator PELL. Right. I think it would be of help after we have discussed this, if a letter could be forthcoming from the Bureau of the Budget to this effect and maybe Mr. Green of my staff could be in touch with you in this regard.

Now, another question is, with regard to the matching formula idea, which we had not thought of in the basic bill. It may have merits. Have you thought of the idea of what formula-50-50, 90-10, 75-25?

Captain SNYDER. Speaking for Dr. Morse, Dr. Morse has kicked this around in his own mind and has not come to any firm formula. This is only a suggestion on his part because there are many things that have to be taken into consideration-the exact nature of the programand it may not be true that the apportioned formula would be the same as rigid guideline.

Senator PELL. What about the viewpoint of the Bureau of the Budget? Do they have any view as to what the formula should be? Captain SNYDER. No, sir. They have not expressed any view, sir. Senator PELL. But they do have a view that it would be a good idea, presumably.

Captain SNYDER. They accept that, sir.

Senator PELL. They accept it. I see. But, from the viewpoint of the Government, if it was a 90-10 percent formula, 90 percent Federal, 10 percent State, which would show some sort of State interest or commitment, that would be acceptable to the executive branch of the Government and the Bureau of the Budget, in your view.

Captain SNYDER. That is my understanding. And my understanding is, also, what you just expressed, that the real reason for this is that a person doesn't have a stake unless he has an interest, and the best way to insure interest is actual dollars out-of-pocket.

mm يا