In discussing this bill we should explore all possible means for it implementation. I urge the use of the talents, staff, and organiza tional structures of an existing Federal agency. Also, all agencies whose ongoing programs have any bearing on sea grant college pro grams should participate in a group advisory basis.

Perhaps a coordinating committee should be established by th agency having primary responsibility to expedite interagency com munication and cooperation.

Also to be discussed is the question of where this new program migh probably be established. I believe there is merit in starting out this program under the aegis of the Smithsonian Institution, with its tra dition of giving temporary haven to various programs and then spinning them of to more permanent sponsors. The important issue here is how best the considerable knowledge we already have may be profit stly exploited as opposed to the development of basic research.

Now, we come to the actual hearing and to the witnesses. Those of you in the back room, if you can't hear the witness, I wish you would wave your hand to indicate that you can't hear. I can notice it and I will ask them to talk more directly into the microphone. If you can't bear me, you do the same thing.

Now, for our leader witness I will call Dr. Francis H. Horn, president of the University of Rhode Island, where this hearing is being Held. Before having him testify. I would like to pay particular tribute to him because of the long connection that the University of Rhode IsAnd and be have had with the field of oceanology. The University of Rhode Island had this long involvement going back to 1937 when a stall marine laboratory was established at the mouth of Narragansett Fay. And then, years later, in 1958, Dr. Horn came to the University of Rhode Island and issued a report at that time which shortly proved perfect. He told the board of trustees that some day inner space will become as important as outer space, and in 1961 Dr. Horn was responsible for establishing the graduate school of oceanography present y on the camps. In 1963 Dr. Horn became interested in the sex grantides and proposed a conference on that. The National Sea Grant Conference was held last year in Newport under the sponsorShip of Dr. Horn, and the Southern New England Marine Sciences

Saits with particular pleasure that we welcome Dr. Horn here today become of all that he has done for oceanology and our State. Ask the very fact that this hearing is being held at the university, eina sense Federal building is a tribute, as well, to Dr. Horn and to the University of Rhode Island. From my own recollection in the committee the is the first time we have had a hearing not in a Fedbalding so I have served on it. Will you come forward, Dr.

Hom, and pas pour testimony!

STATEMENT OF DR. FRANCIS H. HORN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND

De Hon. Thank you for those kind remarks, Mr. Chairman. As ma almay know, but I will put it on the record, I am Francis H. Horn president of the University of Rhode Island, which is one of de tine S32 supported institutions of higher learning in this State. As you noted previously, this I believe, is the first time a senatorial

hearing has been held at a university. We are proud that the University of Rhode Island has that honor. We are grateful to you, sir, and to the chairman of the full committee, Senator Hill, for holding this hearing on our campus. May I also express my profound regret at the death of your colleague on this committee, Senator McNamara. Senator PELL. Thank you.

Dr. HORN. It is a pleasure to testify here today because I believe the bill to establish sea grant colleges presents the Nation with a great opportunity and even greater responsibilities. I believe that we stand at an important crossroads in the history of the marine sciences in this country.

After 8 years of intimate involvement with the faculty in what since 1961 has been a graduate school of oceanography and with other people working in the marine sciences in this region, I am convinced that we must provide a more effective educational structure to help solve the problems involved in harvesting the wealth of the oceans. If we don't seize this opportunity, I'm afraid others will. A Russian scientist summed up the outlook this way: "The nation which first learns to understand the seas will control them, and the nation which controls the seas will control the world." In other words, whether we realize it or not, we are now engaged in a race to see who will control the inner space of the oceans.

While our eyes are focused on the heavens, I hope we don't lose sight of what is happening right off the shores of this and every continent in the world. Many informed observers claim that the Russians are seeking mastery of the seas, not only for the wealth to be realized, but also because this control provides a unique instrument of foreign policy. For instance, Russia's advanced knowledge in fisheries is being used to win them new friends among the underdeveloped nations of the world. Tons of Russian fish are being landed for consumption in Africa and in other parts of the world. Millions of people have benefited from the addition of fish protein to their diet, and Russian prestige has been advanced.

While we struggle in this country to salvage a faltering fishing industry, Russian factory ships and fishing vessels cruise the major ocean highways and establish port and other facilities in strategic locations astride the avenues of ocean commerce.

While we in the United States attempt to coordinate the activities of dozens of Federal agencies concerned with marine activities, we learn that the Russians have recently organized a National Council for the Utilization of the Resources of the Sea. The function of this latter group is to speed up economic and political exploitation of the sea. If time would permit, I am sure other examples could be developed of how we suffer in comparison to rising Soviet excellence in oceanography and the marine sciences at present. However, I believe it will become evident in the course of these hearings that we need a national oceanographic policy that places major emphasis on the utilization of the brains and talents in our institutions of higher learning.

The partnership between the Federal Government and our colleges and universities has been most successful in the past. I see n why we shouldn't adapt it to today's needs.

I emphasize the word "partnership." This is what i in this sea grant college bill.

62-996 0-662

It is being proposed that the Federal Government and the Nation's colleges and universities enter into an alliance for exploring and harvesting the seas. This effort would be financed with 10 percent of the funds received by the Federal Government from the lease of lands on the Continental Shelf.

An official of the U.S. Interior Department has said that $17 million a year could be expected as the 10-percent share from leases granted primarily for the extraction of oil, gas, and sulfur from the underwater property. What can the Nation expect by the way of return from the Government's investment in this partnership? There are two ways to answer this question. You can begin by examining partnerships of a similar nature which are already in existence. In looking around for parallel situations, it is inevitable that we focus our attention, at least briefly, on the land grant colleges and universities.

Here we have a vigorous eductional system founded on the principles of public service, education for "the industrial classes," and research. In the case of research, a wise balance was struck between projects of an applied nature, where a short-term benefit or economic gain has been the goal, and investigation of a long-range nature, where the object has been to advance man's basic knowledge of life processes. At the time of their establishment, the land grant colleges represented a sharp break with educational tradition and the prevailing views about classical education imported from Europe. The land grant concept is distinctly American in character. It incorporates the democratic ideals of the frontier and of our pioneer forefathers— the idea that each man should progress in accordance with his abilities, and the idea that almost any problem can be solved, given the proper tools, time, and knowledge. Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that many of today's emerging nations are looking toward the American land-grant system for guidance in framing their own programs of higher education.

If we examine the record, the optimism of Senator Morrill and Jonathan B. Turner was not unfounded.

Today, although the land grant colleges comprise only 5 percent of all the colleges and universities in the United States, they enroll onefifth of the students and conduct the world's largest off-campus educational programs. Research centers at land grant institutions came up with such scientific achievements as hybrid corn and streptomycin. The unparalleled efficiencies achieved in agriculture have given this Nation a surplus of food and fiber. But even more important, these efficiencies released a surplus of people from the farm so they could contribute elsewhere to our industrial and economic growth. For instance, it has been estimated that if output per man-hour had remained the same in the last half century, we would need to employ over 29 million persons today in agriculture. Actual employment in the field of agriculture is less than 7 million persons.

This then is the educational pattern followed under the land grant legislation which the National Manpower Council has called the most important single Government step in connection with the training of scientific and professional personnel.

A variation of this formula came into being-more as a matter of necessity than anything else during and after World War II. The Government mobilized the scientific know-how of the universities, first to help win the war, and secondly to assist in solving the problems of

a relatively peaceful world where science and technology had assumed & new significance. Billions of dollars have been channeled into university laboratories through a complex structure of grants and contracts. In many ways the financial relationships that have evolved have been less satisfying and fruitful than the formula-type allocations upon which an institution may build a solid and reasonably permanent structure. The land grant allocations can be considered a type of endowment, whereas grants and contracts are here today and gone tomorrow. To me this is the essential point to be grasped in considering the sea grant legislation.

The name "sea grant" implies an institution of higher learning offering a broad spectrum of studies relating to the sea. Its mission would be to train the scientists, engineers, economists, political scientists, lawyer, doctors, and hundreds of others who will be needed if we are going to live and work on and under the sea. We also need what Dr. Athelstan Spilhaus has so aptly called the county agent in hip boots to transmit our knowledge of the ocean environment to the people who will apply it.

Formula or institutional grants would be required to support such a system of sea grant colleges. Possibly there should be one such institution in each of the 30 states bordering the Great Lakes and the oceans. In addition, it would be reasonable to allocate about half the available funds on a competitive basis to any college or university which could make a contribution to understanding the sea and its

creatures.

Any examination of the sea grant concept would be incomplete, if it did not touch on at least one other area. Admittedly, full-scale exploration of any new frontier, whether it be space or the ocean depths, carries with it an element of romance and adventure. However, the Oceans and their depths promise much more. In support of this argument, I would make passing reference to the 50-page report published by the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council entitled "Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Research." I understand some of the authors of this document may be called as witnesses, but a few figures should be mentioned. This report estimated that a continuing national investment of approximately $165 million a year in fisheries production, undersea mining, marine recreation projects, improvement of sewage disposal methods, reduction of shipping costs, and improvement of weather forecasting techniques could produce savings of nearly $3 billion a year or increase annual production by nearly that much.

Finally, if for no other reason, we need sea grant colleges as a weapon in the global battle against hunger and disease. Experts have estimated that at least 500 million persons suffer from critical deficiencies of animal protein. Meanwhile, the world's population increases by nearly 200,000 persons each day. At the present rate, the global population of 3.4 billion persons will more than double by the year 2000.

In many countries, such as Japan, there is little possibility of converting any substantial amount of additional land to agricultural use. In other parts of the world, poor weather and lack of adequate moisture make it difficult to cultivate the soil. However, each square mile of ocean contains up to 4,000 tons of vegetation and a majority of all

animal life exists in the sea. With today's technology, we could produre, for less than 30 cents per pound, a ish protein concentrate also called fish four-that could help feed the world. Government scientists at the University of Maryland believe the techniques developed there could also be exported to nations such as India.

Even with the methods we have now of hunting dish in the sea, it is estimated we could, with greater efort and present technology, increase the yield of fish approximately four times. But, what if we learned to truly farm the sea! What if we know how to fertilize the sea and stimulate the growth of valuable species! The benefits to be gained are beyond calculation.

There is also reason to believe that the oceans may be an untapped some of the new medisines. Many of today's pharmaceuticals were originally found in tiny organisms living in the soil, but the oceans teen with life. In fact, one of the oceanographers here at the University of Rhode Island was the recipient of the first patent for a marine antibiotic. However, we really have no idea of what other useful substances might be found in the ocean, because only limited research is being conducted in this field.

These are some of the challenges which the oceans ofer. I am convinced that Federal funding for sea grant colleges would be one of the most significant educational steps we could take at this time in our history. I therefore urge passage of this legislation. Thank you.

Senator PELL. Thank you. Dr. Horn, and because of your pioneering work and thenghts which have led to the fact that this university here comples a very leading role in this field on the east coast of the United States.

I have a couple of inquiries here on which I am wondering about your thinking. First: The thought has come up that perhaps the original administration of this bill might best benefit in the hands of the Smithsonian Institution or some other agency on a temporary basis rather than the National Science Foundation. Do you have any thought one way or the other as to this matter!

Dr. Horn. Well. I haven't thought about that, sir, but I should think that whichever agency is most interested in seeing that these funds are adequately distributed where they can be best used should be the oce to initially get the program of the ground. One of the difficulties in giving or placing the fun is exclusively in the hands of the National Science Foundation revolves around the point that they give their financial support to the individual. There is growing feeling that this has not been always in the best interest of science or the universities. I think it would be wise to find another agency.

Senster PELL. Another question along the same line is whether or not the $17 million is enough to start with. Do you have any thought as to that! Do you think it is too much! Do you think it is too little? What do you think!

Dr. H ̄RN. Well, any amount, sin, is good. But $17 million is peanuts when it is compared to the budget for NASA which is $6 billion. I think. I hope that eventually the importance of exploration of the inner space, as you have called it, verstis outer space will become evident to our people and that the results would be rather substantial. Consequently, I don't think it on tht to be tied exclusively to a percentage of income from the reality of offshore exploration.