SEA GRANT COLLEGES 279 



the Buerau of the Budget, in its directives regarding matching funds, has clearly 

 exempted programs of national importance from these requirements? 



I would be most grateful if you could incorporate these ideas into the sub- 

 committee report. Meanwhile, please be assured of my enthusiastic support for 

 your bill. 



Sincerely yours, 



Henry King Stanford, President. 



Peepabed Statement of A. F. Chestnut, Director, University of North 

 Carolina Institute of Fisheries Research 



I have been engaged in estuarine research for 25 years in North Carolina, 

 Virginia, and New Jersey and have had close contact with many scientists, 

 laboratories, and programs along the Atlantic and gulf coasts. New laboratories, 

 many programs and a large increase in number of scientists has taken place. 

 A degree of coordination and further stimulus in the area of marine sciences 

 is still needed and can be provided through a national program. Considerable 

 evidence has been presented before the subcommittee to show the need for 

 expanded effort and support of research, education, and services to develop our 

 marine resources in their overall scope. 



I would like to direct attention to the fact that many States through a univer- 

 sity complex and other agencies are active in programs of marine science. As 

 an example, the program in North Carolina may be cited. The State of North 

 Carolina will spend in the next 2 years, from its own sources, over $1 million 

 for new facilities, including a research laboratory, an exploratory vessel, an 

 administrative building and associated items for fisheries development and 

 research in marine sciences. A new coastal studies institute has been established 

 with initial studies centered on beach erosion problems. The board of con- 

 servation and development has proposed an expanded extension program in the 

 area of commercial fisheries and an interagency committee within the State has 

 been active in formulating a program. 



We believe in North Carolina, that a broad program has evolved covering the 

 wide spectrum of basic research, applied research, technological studies, engineer- 

 ing, processing, marketing, and promotion of utilization of resources from the 

 sea. Supplemental activities of such institutions as Duke University Marine 

 Laboratory expand the area of studies from the inshore sounds and baj^ to the 

 open ocean. 



The funds currently being spent within one State, North Carolina, amount to 

 one-tenth of the funding anticipated under the proposed bill for a national 

 program. Other states expend far greater amounts, and budgets of some indi- 

 vidual oceanographic laboratories further exceed these sums. These facts point 

 to the need for a serious consideration of a proper balance in funding the proposed 

 program. 



I would like to center attention on another point, that of the mechanism of 

 providing grants. Vast sums are being spent in physical oceanography. Other 

 funds have been available from various Federal agencies for project research 

 and individual grants. There is a definite need for grants to institutions allowing 

 freedom for development of specific areas within the concept of the program. 

 This would allow necessary diversification and offer encouragement of balanced 

 programs. 



This bill, S. 2439, can be an important factor in providing the necessary 

 stimulus to expand and promote a vital area of our Nation's economy and well- 

 being, and with some revision this can be accomplished. 



Port Aransas, Tex., May 2, 1966. 

 Senator Claiborne Pell, 

 Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 

 U.S. Senute, Washington, D.C. 



De.\r Senator Pell: In support of the National Sea Grant College and Pro- 

 gram Act of 1965, S. 2439, I should like to submit a few comments for consid- 

 eration by the Special Subcommittee on Sea Grant Colleges of the Senate Com- 

 mittee on Labor and Public Welfare. 



