available and used in Montana or Vermont as it would be by the estuarine States.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. I feel that each sea grant college should develop its own program in the same manner as is done by the land-grant colleges. Some of them went into entomology, some livestock raising, some agricultural engineering. They had a diversified program. I think this was the strength of the program. I don't think they should all do the same thing.

For instance, in Alabama we have no desire at all to compete with deep-sea oceanographic institutions already established, but we do have a great need to work on our estimates.

Senator PELL. I wonder if your thoughts might be somewhat akin to the Arts and Humanities Foundation bill, of which I was the floor manager at the last Congress, where a certain minimum was given to each State provided they had a council and an interest, and then over and beyond that minimum, it was allocated by the Federal Government on the basis of excellence in competition that that particular State offered.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. I agree, sir, there will have to be some kind of a compromise and I think this is

Senator PELL. With a provision of that sort you would find the bill acceptable.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. Now, another question. I am not saying we can do that but I want to get your thinking. Another question here is that you think the Department of Interior should administer the act as opposed to the National Science Foundation. If it is understood, however, that it will be doing it basically on a temporary basis until the agency set up to handle oceanography in the Nation comes into being and helps make a decision on this, would that be equally acceptable to you?

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. I am not strong on this particular point. The Interior Department has desalination, fisheries, minerals, and submerged lands now. They have competent staffs in these fields and they might be able to give the program a little better start than an organization which has been in the granting-of-money business and not in the actual staffing business. Interior has the administrative setup right now. Senator PELL. What would you think of the Smithsonian Institution as the original agency?

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Well, I thought from the talk given yesterday that their interest was largely in classification of organisms rather than in administering a bill.

Senator PELL. I think that came out in the testimony of their own witness.

Those are the two main points. Were there any other specific points I failed to catch in the written testimony or what you say today? Dr. ROUNSEFELL. No. I think this covers it very well.

Senator PELL. Those are the two points basically. If those two points were met, you would find yourself agreeable?

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. Yes, I would.

Senator PELL. As far as the Interior Department administering it, that would not seem to be in the cards, from the bulk of the testimony that has come in so far.

Dr. ROUNSEFELL. This was merely a suggestion, sir.

Senator PELL. Right. Thank you very much. Very kind of you to come here.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Rounsefell follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE A. ROUNSEFELL, PROFESSOR OF MARINE BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA

I commend the sincerity and dedication of Senator Claiborne Pell and the scientists who labored with him in drafting this bill (S. 2439). I also thank Senator Pell for his invitation to testify concerning it. The terms of reference in the first draft of this bill are broad. Senator Pell has indicated, however, that this bill perhaps should be modified before enactment. I agree on this point and should like to suggest to this committee some changes which I feel are essential.

Before explaining these needed changes I should like to state that I have been a research scientist, administrator, and educator in fisheries and biological oceanography for over 40 years. I have worked in California, Washington, Alaska, Massachusetts, Maine, Texas, and Alabama, and spent 1 year in Turkey for the Food and Agriculture Organization, besides serving a 4-year term in Washington, D.C. I am familiar with all of your great fisheries and the fishermen who make their living thereby. I have seen oceanology and the marine sciences grow from almost nothing to their present size. I have directed marine science programs and laboratories and appreciate their problems.

Prior to World War II, a number of marine laboratories were already in existence. Some were fostered and backed by universities, some were privately endowed, and several were run by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. All were oriented toward the study of living organisms; a few managed to scrape together enough money to buy an old vessel and make excursions from the shore to study the chemistry, physics, and biology of the open sea.

With the advent of World War II, it was suddenly realized that the scientists at these marine laboratories could make important contributions to defense through knowledge of ocean currents, wave heights, and the vagaries of underwater sound. A few of these laboratories were recipients of large defense grants and contracts and so quickly outstripped the other laboratories in physical facilities.

After the war terminated, these laboratories continued to receive generous defense funds. In addition, they and a few more laboratories obtained considerable large-scale support from the National Science Foundation. But existing sources of funds are well-nigh exhausted, or fully obligated.

Dr. Harve Carlson of the National Science Foundation recently stated "*** the national oceanographic program, encompassing the activities of 22 Federal agencies, has been virtually level-funded for the past 4 years. This implies that if a new project is to be started, somewhere an old project must be curtailed or discontinued * * *. Many institutions are now financially undernourished." In view of the vast sums already spent on physical oceanography, and the much smaller sums spent specifically on fisheries over the years, the results are pitiful. U.S. fishery production has remained static for the past 30 years; we have slipped from second to a poor fifth place; we import more fishery products than we produce. At the same time, our agricultural production has been advancing in giant strides. Why has our agriculture been so successful while our fishery production has been failing?

I believe the answer lies chiefly in the difference between the manner of financing and operation of marine education and research as contrasted to that in agricultural education and research as carried out by our great land-grant college system. Land-grant programs are devised and administered at the State level, largely unfettered by bureaucracy. A large part of the support has been institutional, thus permitting the development of a core group of faculty with continuous and dependable financing. Marine education and research needs this same type of funding.

The President of the United States last September mentioned the concentration of Federal research and instructional funds in "*** too few institutions in too few areas of the country" and the need for providing support" *** under terms which give the university and the investigator wider scope for inquiry, as contrasted with highly specific, narrowly defined projects." Unless amended, S. 2439 will increase the problem which the President has cited, to the detriment of both marine science and our universities.

One other point needs clarification. Throughout most of the discussions on S. 2439 the term "oceanography" has been used without real definition. Oceanography is not a science anymore than you can speak of "land science"; it is merely the application of many basic sciences to problems of the sea. fore, you need to know what this bill is intended to finance.

There

The land-grant colleges did not set out to solve all terrestrial problems. They were mission-oriented to perform specific functions-undergraduate training for future farmers, graduate training for research and teaching, basic and applied research applicable to food production, and extension services at a local level to assure maximum use of research findings. They certainly were not chartered to engage in developing materials and techniques for defense. Some such structure of purpose needs to be given the sea grant colleges.

There has been much discussion of the inadequacy of available funds for the purposes of S. 2439; several have suggested limiting the number of sea grant colleges to those who have already shown competence. What is meant by "competence" is hard to define except in terms of costly research vessels for deep sea work. Whether possession of such a vessel always means competence is open to serious question.

One of the top participants in the symposium on sea grant colleges held in Rhode Island last October and a member of the National Committee for Sea Grant Colleges, in discussing S. 2439, named only seven universities he thought should be sea grant colleges. At least one of these commenced oceanographic work after 1960. Five are in the Pacific, only two are on the Atlantic coast, and none was on the Gulf of Mexico or the Great Lakes. This would mean a sea grant college in all 5 States bordering on the Pacific with only 2 left for the remaining 25 maritime States: What if the land-grant colleges had been so poorly distributed?

Dr. Paul Fye, director of perhaps the world's largest oceanographic laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass., stated at the October symposium, "*** we're not very far from the time when we need to have a form of marine science and ocean engineering in every decent university." I agree entirely; and S. 2439 should be designed to accomplish this result.

Funds considered inadequate, on the one hand, to embark on a deep sea venture requiring a research vessel and a large corps of scientists to analyze the data gathered may be sufficient, on the other hand, to carry on a very ambitious and equally or even more important program of mariculture, for example. Because one form of research is much more expensive does not guarantee that it is either better, or likely to produce more lasting results. I favor allowing latitude to each sea grant university to develop its own marine program, unhampered by the necessity of conforming. This diversity of program has been the most clearly identifiable source of success for our land grant universities, and for American education in general.

It seems clear from the discussions held at the October 1965 meeting in Rhode Island that many of the participants believe we already have enough basic knowledge to enable us to decrease emphasis on basic research and plunge headlong into marine engineering for the conquest and occupation of the sea. It was even stated that management of shallow coastal resources was easy, and that we should move on at once to the more challenging problems of the deeper waters. These parochial views remind me of the early workers in limnology who worked chiefly on the larger lakes where stable conditions were easier to understand than those in the smaller, but vastly more productive, shoal waters, ponds, and streams. After years of poorly financed work we do not have sufficient knowledge to manage intelligently even our common estuarine species. Yet, the basic research needed could be acomplished at a fraction of the cost of deep sea engineering.

In the foregoing context I should now like to address my remarks to certain provisions of the bill before you. This bill would authorize the making of grants to, or contracts with, not only universities, but also public or private agencies, museums, foundations, industries, laboratories, corporations, organizations, or groups of individuals. In short, the funds could be given to anyone at the pleasure of the Federal administrators of the program.

I cannot in good conscience support such a provision. The strength of the land grant colleges lies in the fact that they provide research, teaching, and service. To grant funds to industrial and nonuniversity groups merely to accomplish a particular piece of research defeats the avowed purpose of the bill. I should like to see this section 3(a) (10) revised to read "Programs to carry out

the purposes of section 3(a)(10) shall be accomplished through grants to 1 fully accredited university in each of the 30 States that border the sea or the Great Lakes. Such university shall be one that is accredited to grant doctorate degrees in the natural and physical sciences."

I should not mind if the wording were such as to permit a sea grant university to be established in any or all of the 20 inland States as well. Many of them have faculty interested in the sea, and each one could arrange to share costs of maintaining any needed seacoast facilities with one of the coastal sea grant universities.

My reasoning is simple. The total funds available under this bill as now worded have been variously estimated as between $10 and $17 million per year, with the later figure probably the closer estimate. It is well known and understood that this sum is only a small fraction of the amounts already being spent on oceanography-in fact, less than the annual budgets of only two or three of the existing oceanographic laboratories. Instead, then, of using this money as a supplement to existing projects, or for funding other organizations (as the bill provides), it needs to be used to broaden the base of our competence by providing funds in every maritime State to strengthen academic teaching and research.

The few institutions that have achieved, largely through public funds, the most competence or physical facilities in some field of oceanography seem to feel they alone should participate in the sea grant college program. This is because they are well aware of the great expense of maintaining and operating ocean research vessels. This, however, is a very narrow and selfish view of the problem. There are many phases of marine science, possibly less glamorous, but equally or even more rewarding, that do not require this tremendous outlay in expensive hardware.

Every sea grant college should be free to develop its own program, just as the land grant colleges diversified their attack. The result will not and should not be unhealthful competition, but an urgently needed opportunity to awaken and maintain a widespread attack on all phases of marine science.

I also question the naming of the National Science Foundation to administer the act. The land grant colleges work through the Department of Agriculture. The sea grant college program should be administered through the Department of the Interior, which has jurisdiction regarding submerged lands, minerals, desalination, and fisheries. The National Science Foundation was set up to encourage basic research; it was not set up to administer programs of applied science, teaching, or training. The latter are the most important in development of marine science.

Earlier I mentioned the fact that our fisheries are lagging far behind those of other countries. This failure is continuing despite the enormous sums that have been spent on oceanography. We need not only the diversified approach that can be provided by a number of sea grant colleges, but also the means of translating discoveries in basic and applied research into action programs at the State level. Such work cannot be achieved by a few super universities but must come from local sources working closely with fishery operators.

In the impending year 2000, only 34 years hence, our present population may be doubled. We may or may not need to know more about the Mohole, but we still shall want to eat, and food will likely be a scarce and expensive commodity. If we are to farm our coastal waters and control our pollution, we shall have to start now to accumulate the necessary knowledge.

It was stated at the Newport, R.I., symposium that "At the outset it would seem best to utilize the resources of institutions which have already established a reputation of leadership in oceanography ***." This concept entirely ignores the proportionately much greater need for support of the smaller marine laboratories already in existence in most coastal States, including Alabama. The funneling of so-called sea grant college funds into a few oceanographic laboratories would result in furthering the existing sad imbalance that is losing us our share of the world's fishery harvest. By our failing to provide sufficient funds at the State level for research, education, and service, our marine sciences program has been marking time.

This bill, S. 2439, could be the vehicle for rejuvenating our failing fisheries and developing new sources of marine wealth. Senator Pell should be congratulated for his foresight in introducing it. With suitable modification, such as I have suggested, the bill should be supported vigorously. As it now stands, the bill should be opposed.

Senator PELL. At this time I would like to pay particular tribute to my own intellectual godfather, Dean Knauss, of the University of Rhode Island, who presented his testimony at Rhode Island 2 days ago, and is down here with Mr. Leslie of the university.

Are there any additional points, Dean Knauss, that you think, having heard testimony here, that you would like to offer or supplement your views given in Kingston?

Dr. KNAUSS. No, sir. Not at this time.

Senator PELL. Thank you. I would be most remiss, incidentally, if I did not pay complete tribute to all the help that Dean Knauss has been to me. When I started out on this, very much interested in the field but very ignorant, he guided and helped me a great deal, and it is our own university that has taken up a leading role in this and has also helped inspire an interest in me.

We also have, from the University of Maryland, Dr. Eugene Cronin, whom I understood had a word he wanted to say and will submit a written statement at a later date.

STATEMENT OF DR. L. EUGENE CRONIN, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Dr. CRONIN. Thank you, Senator Pell. I will make this brief and confine it to several specific points.

I am the director of the university's Chesapeake biological laboratory and of its natural resources institute, and I had the advantage of spending about 15 months in Europe visiting marine laboratories prior to last September. Most of my attention was directed toward marine biology, although I had some opportunity to see activities in other fields.

I did not have an opportunity to visit Russian activities, although I talked with a number of people who did.

I feel a very strong sense of urgency in our competitive position in many of the fields that you have touched on in this bill. I think that the Russians are providing a degree of application, of dedication, of expenditure in marine science that may produce changes, perhaps unexpected changes, as important as they have in other fields in science. At the moment I would like to comment on two specific aspects of the bill. One is the relation of the proposal to present State activities. In 1964 I conduced a survey of the oceanographic work being done by States. I have a summary of that information and it shows that at least 25 of the States at that time were directly engaged and investing in oceanographic work. In at least 20 of those States a university or college was designated by the State and was conducting a program in oceanography. I have the details of the activities at this time.

Very briefly, the States were spending about $7.5 million on oceanographic

Senator PELL. Excuse me. If you are going to submit a statement at a later date, why don't you merely summarize it now.

Dr. CRONIN. Fine. The States were spending $7.5 million in research in oceanography. They had about $20 million worth of facilities and they had a staff of 831 people in related fields. There is a substantial development-not all of it, of course-at universities.