278 SEA GRAKT COLLEGES 



United Aibcbaft, 



May 10, 196S. 

 Senator Claiborne Pell, 

 U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, B.C. 



Deab Senator Pell: Thank you for sending me a copy of your bill S. 2439 

 and your invitation to comment. I am sorry that my work has kept me away 

 from the ofBce so much that my reply has been delayed. 



I feel that the objective of your bill is excellent. In the interest of our na- 

 tional posture in the world community, we need urgently to develop the skilled 

 manpower, including scientists, engineers, and technicians, and the facilities and 

 equipment necessary for the exploitation of these resources. 



I feel that the land-grant college program is largely responsible for our pre- 

 eminent position in agriculture today, and it would be desirable if we could 

 utilize a similar technique to educate ocean engineers and develop capabilities 

 that can be passed on to those who will exploit the ocean. The program should 

 be heavily oriented toward applications, and there is some doubt in my mind 

 that the National Science Foundation is best suited for administration of the 

 Federal portion of the program. I confess to being at a loss to suggest a better 

 place from among the present Government organizations. 



Perhaps, if the opportunities still exist, you might consider a slight modification 

 so that administration by the National Science Foundation is regarded as tempo- 

 rary, pending the establishment of a more appropriate oceanographic agency 

 with the Federal Government. I would be happy to discuss this in greater detail 

 if you desire. 



Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to comment. I will be happy 

 to assist you with the sea grant idea in any way I can. 

 Sincerely, 



H. A. Arnold, 

 Assistant to the Chief Scientist. 



University of Miami, 

 Coral Gables, Fla., May 11, 19GS. 

 Hon. Claiborne Pell, 

 Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

 U.S. Senate, Washington, B.C. 



Dear Senator Pell : I greatly appreciate your courtesy in allowing Dr. C. P. 

 Idyll, the chairman of the fisheries division of the Institute of Marine Science, 

 to testify in favor of your bill S. 2439, the National Sea Grant College and Pro- 

 gram Act of 1965. You are well aware, of course, of the interest of our institu- 

 tion in oceanographic and fisheries research, and of our deep commitment to the 

 kinds of activities your bill would encourage and support. We look on it as an 

 intelligent and effective method of supporting programs vital to the United 

 States. 



I am informed that one unresolved point concerning the administration of the 

 sea grant college program is whether and how matching funds should be required 

 from institutions which become recipients of program support. I am aware of the 

 advantages of some such provision, but I am concerned whether it might elimi- 

 nate from the program a private institution, such as ours, which has already 

 contributed private funds (not State) to establishing buildings and a faculty, 

 and which would be penalized if required to shoulder a yet greater financial 

 burden to support the purposes of the Government. 



I would assume that the objective of requiring matching funds to be supplied 

 by sea grant colleges would be to increase the amount of money available for the 

 work on the one hand, and to provide evidence of serious commitment to the 

 program on the other. If the report of your subcommittee includes a recommen- 

 dation that some kind of contribution should be required from institutions par- 

 ticipating in the sea grant program, I would respectfully request that it stress 

 the reasons for such a requirement. Further, I am anxious that the report 

 should recognize that some institutions, like my own, have existing programs and 

 records that show clearly that they have the necessary serious commitment to the 

 concepts of the program and have already committed private funds to the 

 general purpose. They may be unable to provide further matching funds in 

 dollars, but this should not eliminate them from the prosrram. Could not the 

 report specify that the administering agency should have the authority to accept 

 the existence of laboratory buildings, research vessels, equipment, faculty, and 

 other assets as equivalent matching commitments? Is it not also pertinent that 



