168 SEA GRANT COLLEGES 



I will comment very briefly now on two major aspects of the bill. 

 One is how the program, should be financed ; the other relates to the 

 basic concept of the sea grant institution. First, I cannot see many 

 advantages in financing support under the bill by tying such support 

 to a fraction of the funds derived from offshore leases as proposed in 

 section o(b) of the bill. The Foundation favors the established pro- 

 cedure of analyzing our needs and opportunities and then providing 

 the necessary funds througii the budget process. This would be a 

 more direct procedure for insuring that funding is carefully planned 

 in relation to the required program and that it is adequate to meet the 

 opportunities. 



Second, the Foundation would urge that the title "sea grant insti- 

 tution" be reserved for a limited group of carefully selected universi- 

 ties which agree to mount major programs in the ocean resources field 

 rather than being applied merely to any institution receiving sup- 

 port under S. 2439. Institutions qualifying would most likely be in 

 the coastal and Great Lakes areas. Further, I believe that the Na- 

 tional Science Foundation should work closely with the State govern- 

 ments in this development, and that a "sea grant institution"' should 

 be the fruit of an agreement between the Federal Government and the 

 State, in which the State agrees to commit some of its own resources 

 to the program. To qualify for sea grant status, an institution would 

 have to present a carefully worked out, realistic plan showing how 

 it would proceed to develop a program of education and research, 

 both basic and applied, aimed at training the manpower required 

 and developing the knowledge and techniques necessary for tapping 

 the resources of the oceans. These selected institutions would not in 

 any sense have a monopoly on the field. However, they would be 

 clearly identified as the focal institutions for this enterprise, which 

 is so important to the future of our Nation. This would give a much 

 more significant meaning to the term "sea grant institution" than that 

 presently envisaged by the bill and thereby help stimulate research 

 and education in this field. 



I appreciate the opportunity of appearing here today to present 

 the Foundation's position and will be glad to answer any questions. 



Senator Pell. Thank you very much. Dr. Kobertson, for your suc- 

 cinct, imaginative, and thoughtful testimony with the specific sug- 

 gestions. I was struck with your point that it might be wiser not 

 to relate the funds to the percentage of the rents and royalties. The 

 Bureau of the Budget may have some views on this matter, too. And 

 there may well prove to be considerable wisdom to your thought that 

 we should just have a straight authorization. Our minds are open on 

 that. 



The reason we originally tied it into the rents and royalties was to 

 show that it was a self-feeding operation, that the more money that 

 went into it, the more money would be produced for the public weal. 

 Secondly, with regard to your point about matching programs with 

 the States and not spreading the program too widely, diverting it, 

 diluting it, I think there is some merit in this thought, too. 



Have you thought how the program might be matched, what kind 



of ratio you are thinking of, 50-50, 90-10, or anything of that sort? 



Dr. Robertson. We have not worked it out in detail. I believe 



there should be a negotiated participation by the State in the program. 



