1607 
Scientific research and education should reside with the National 
Science Foundation which, I think, and I can say without prejudice 
since I was not here at the time, has done an outstanding job in ad- 
vancing scientific research and development in the oceans. 
The Commission did not disagree on this as a matter of fact. The 
Commission identified the National Science Foundation as the leader 
in ocean research and education, and I think, frankly, it would be a 
critical and almost disastrous mistake to remove this area from the 
rest of the educational components of the universities and colleges and 
give the responsibility to another organization. 
Ocean research and education are the critical underpinnings of all 
the other three activities that I have mentioned above, and this, I sub- 
mit, must be kept intact. 
The Foundation also is affected greatly by a number of other recom- 
mendations in the Commission’s report. For example, it would remove 
the Antarctic program. It would remove NCAR. It would remove the 
institutional support that we now give to a number of large oceano- 
graphic institutions, and it would remove the National Sea Grant and 
College program. 
All of these programs are in direct support or closely related to 
the research and graduate training conducted in the universities and 
colleges. 
A new agency, that, by tradition or experience, has not worked in 
these areas, would be asked to take on, these responsibilities, and I say 
when you have a good thing going, as we have now, I question whether 
it should be disturbed, but rather it should be improved to meet the 
national growing needs of the additional research and education in 
the oceans. 
One area, though, that I am particularly concerned about is the Sea 
Grant College program, that I hope Mr. Abel will have a chance to 
answer questions on. 
NSF has made a large investment in the support of oceanographic 
institutions For example, the Commission recommends a system of 
federally supported university national laboratories. 
Mr. Lennon. Let’s return for a minute, doctor, to interrupt you 
when you said that you wanted Mr. Abel to speak to the national 
sea grant program. 
Dr. McEnroy. I would be happy to have him answer any questions 
or to make a statement 1f you desire, Mr. Lennon. 
Mr. Lennon. One of the difficulties in having a statement made off- 
the-cuff or a summary of your statement is that it does not give the 
committee an opportunity to follow your statement and to subse- 
quently question you in connection with your statement. 
If you summarize and then put your statement in the record, which 
we have agreed to do because we want to accommodate you in the 
interests of your time and the committee’s time. It does put the com- 
mittee at a disadvantage however, unless, while you are summa- 
rizing, they can go back and read your statement. 
Dr. McErroy. I understand. 
Mr. Lennon. I bring this to your attention because I have read your 
statement hurriedly, standing out in the hall a few minutes ago, but 
I doubt if other members have had that chance. 
I quote: “I am deeply concerned with the report’s recommendation 
regarding the National Sea Grant program.” 
