The CHAIRMAN. I hope we will have continued success. As you know, every now and then we have an uphill battle with the administration about continuing sea grant at all. But in terms of dollar-in/value-out, I do not think there is any educational money where we get more out for what we put in.

Mr. WICK. Certainly, last year, Senator, your help was the cru

cial part.

We have tried to maintain trust with the program that focuses on State and national marine problems.

I want to talk mainly today about how sea grant may or may not fit into OCS revenue-sharing type legislation, but I also want to indicate that I hope some way is found to keep this sea grant partnership going. I have attached a statement on sea grant reauthorization relating to Outer Continental Shelf revenues, and while I speak as a representative of Oregon State University, my views are a reasonale consensus from the national sea grant network of 30 programs.

The general idea of assigning a modest portion of Outer Continental Shelf revenue to support aspects of national resource strategy certainly has merit. This has been brought to the point here many times today.

I have tried to study both bills, your bill, S. 2792, and Senator Weicker's bill, S. 2794, which seems to be somewhat similar to a House bill from Congressman Jones, as I recall. Each bill addresses legitimate concerns and, although each raises policy questions for your committee and the Congress, there appears to be common ground.

As I mentioned, I would like to talk about sea grant and how it may or may not fit. I think the national sea grant program has been effective, and deserves continuing authorization through whatever funding mechanism is provided. The important purpose, as I see it, is to leave the structure of the program essentially intact.

Sea grant has been permitted to evolve by the Congress over the past 15 years toward the goal of helping to protect marine resources, to create new marine-related jobs, to advance commerce of the ocean, the Great Lakes, and coastal zones, and finally to enhance foreign trade.

There seem to be several key ingredients for a successful sea grant college program. I will list these because they may tend to show how we differ from some of the other programs talked about today.

The sea grant college program is a locally based national network, building on strong local programing, fostering cooperative approaches, but relying on multiple funding. It is a universitybased program with three functions: research, education and training, and extension or advisory services-somewhat similar to the land grant college program.

We have a long-range focus, and try to deal with it using impartial expertise. We have often talked about being a partnership of government at all levels, of industry small and large, and of the educational community. We really mean that.

We are a matching fund program. We blend funds from Federal, State, local, and industry sources into a program of mutual con

cern.

We have a broad marine resource orientation. Some of our programs differ one from another. In Oregon, the program features fisheries, coastal engineering and port development, Columbia River problems, marine mammal activities, maritime law, and so forth.

We are competitively funded. The 30 coastal and Great Lakes programs compete with each other for funding within the framework of funding available from the Federal appropriation process and State and local support. This helps to keep us sharp, helps to keep us selecting programs on the basis of capacity, quality, and need.

At the same time, we have become good friends across the country developing this network. I think that is very important.

Last, we are accountable to Congress. We are accountable to our State partners, not only in Government but also in agencies and industries. We are accountable to our scientific peers, who can be quite cruel at times.

We are one of the most consistently and thoroughly reviewed programs in the country. We believe that this oversight has been productive and urge that it be continued.

If I might, I would like to give a few Oregon examples of the State-Federal program. With me today is Paul Heikkila, who is the marine extension agent for Coos, Douglas, and northern Curry Counties. Paul began work here in 1968, under the former State Technical Services Act. This was preliminary to sea grant, when we were able to get some extension-type operations going.

Paul is the sea grant representative here. He brings the resources of the national network to the people of the bay region. He has done this for many years, and regardless of what their marine interests may be he is able to work over a broad range of subjects. For example, currently an expanded marine weather forecast service is in place. This was a cooperative project among the Port of Coos Bay, primarily with Larry Ivy and Bruce Laird, with Paul Heikkila, of sea grant with the National Weather Service. What it amounts to is and focusing on better weather information for better fishing conditions and improved safety.

Paul was telling me just at lunch, that this service provides 1,500-mile reach now. We've never had this capability before. It is this Federal-State-local partnership again that really helped out.

Improved port management. We have been involved with a number of ports on the coast, particularly the one here in Coos Bay, 2 years ago, the port, together with sea grant, sponsored a port management seminar. This has led to today's activities on computer management applications for port systems, which we are working together on.

The people of the Coos Bay region-fishermen, processors, fishermen's wives, and so forth-have worked with Paul in developing an annual trawl fisheries conference which has become a focal point for the whole west coast. It is held each March here in Coos Bay.

Finally, on the local scene, the South Slough estuarine sanctuary was the Nation's first estuarian sanctuary. We worked closely with them developing educational projects for school children.

Another example: the five sea grant colleges in the Pacific have formed a collegium. We found, for example, that many of our problems today are too large for one university or one State to handle. We simply do not have the talent in the right place at the right time. Many of the programs are too large.

We have a big fishing argument going in Oregon these days, one segment of which deals with how many fish the ocean can hold. Is the ocean too full of salmon? That is a tough question. It is one that we cannot address on a single-program basis. Our program right now is putting more than $200,000 a year into that particular study, trying to sample at sea some of the salmon questions.

But this is just a piece of it. By working together with the five programs, we have been able to put together enough talent so that we can conceptually address questions like that.

We are also sponsoring an International Seafood Conference in Anchorage this month. This came right out of an Oregon State University international seafood marketing project, a research project. It is bringing together more than 125 people from 20 countries. We think that export trade must be increased. The export deficit in fisheries, as you well know, is very substantial.

One other example might be of interest. Some sea grant programs specialize in unique areas. We have been fortunate to be able to specialize in marine mammals. We are the only program that does mainly because we have special talent in Dr. Bruce Mate. We have conducted a number of research projects on marine mammals, not only on do mammals eat fish, but such concerns as scaring mammals away from fish concentrations without harming the mammals. We have had some good success with that. This project is important not only in Oregon, but in many other parts of the world.

I could cite many other ideas, but the point I am trying to make is that the Federal-State partnership approach has really been successful to sea grant.

Our problems are really long term and generic. Fortunately, sea grant has been able to work across the university system and slowly get some of these brilliant teams of people to work more closely together on problems. Problems are seldom vertical, like university, departments and schools they are horizontal or obligue. Had sea grant been solely a national program, it never would have worked. It will not work if it becomes largely a State program or a private sector program. It is the combination support that makes sea grant different-the opportunity to take on long-range, high-risk, very pointed research questions, train students, and get the information out.

Returning now to the OCS bills, this is my summary. I believe that the source of funds in your bill, S. 2792, is more stable. The sea grant network and I do not have any major problem with this proposed bill as it affects the States.

It is obvious from testimony here this afternoon that State and local agencies certainly need this kind of help. They have already talked about the equalization problem.

But I do have a caveat from the sea grant standpoint. If the national sea grant program is to be included in revenue sharing legislation, it should be under some trust fund arrangement such as proposed in S. 2794; or, alternatively, sea grant should be omitted from this legislation and continued through the normal authorization appropriation process.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Bill, let me make sure that you understand and I understand the significance of that last statement. The normal authorization-appropriation process is fraught with danger. If Congress wanted to appropriate $50 million for sea grant and the President wanted $20 million, and we appropriate $50 million and he vetoes it, and the veto is sustained, the debate is not between 20 and 50; it is between 20 and nothing.

Mr. WICK. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. At that stage, it could be nothing. We have managed to surmount that.

Even with that, because I am not sure you are going to get both bills passed, you would rather run the risk of the continual authorization-appropriation program than be included as an approved recipient in S. 2792?

Mr. WICK. We recognize the risk, Senator Packwood. We have appreciated the time and effort Congress has provided in the past for us, and continues to. We feel that this is a very healthy process. It provides checks and balances on performance that we think are very valuable.

The CHAIRMAN. But what I want to know is, do the sea grant colleges want to be in or out as an activity included in S. 2792? Because if they do not want to be in, we will take them out. We are not going to force it on anybody.

Mr. WICK. It is my feeling personally and by consensus that they would rather not be in.

The CHAIRMAN. OK. That is what I need to know.
Thank you very much for your testimony, Bill.
Mr. WICK. Thank you, Senator.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF PROF. WILLIAM Q. WICK, DIRECTor, Oregon State UNIVERSITY SEA

GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM

My name is William Q. Wick; I am director of the Oregon State University sea grant college program and professor of wildlife ecology and extension education. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the national ocean policy study. It is especially appropriate that these hearings are being held in the ocean State of Oregon where policies and practices relevant to Federal-State-industry approaches to marine resource conservation and development are central to our economic well being. Senator Packwood, I express our appreciation to you and other members of this committee for your long-term support of the national sea grant college program. You may recall that Oregon State University was the Nation's first sea grant institution, selected for sea grant support in 1968, and was the first to earn sea grant college designation in 1971. We have tried to maintain that trust with a program that focuses on State and national marine problems through research, technical training, and extension activities. The Congress created the program, and Congress has sustained us over the years. In Oregon, as elsewhere, State and local governments and industries have joined with universities to complete the Sea Grant partnership.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss two important proposals for legislation, S. 2792, the Ocean and Coastal Development Impact Assistance Block Grant Act, and S. 2794, the Marine Resource Management and Research Act. Both of these proposed acts relate to the support of major State-Federal ocean-related activities of the United States. My testimony will relate to the essential qualities that should be preserved in the national sea grant college program, in whatever way you choose to fund it.

I have attached a statement on sea grant reauthorization and on the relationship of sea grant to Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenue sharing. The fundamental points are common to both subjects.

The general idea of assigning a modest portion of OCS revenues to support aspects of a national marine resource strategy has merit. The two bills address the use of these funds from several different viewpoints. S. 2792, the revenue sharing/block grant approach, is concerned with the questions of OCS related impacts, FederalState-local relations, and governmental activities. S. 2794, on the other hand, uses the trust fund mechanism and is concerned with resource questions, resulting program needs, and supplemental funding. Each bill addresses legitimate concerns. Although their differences may raise some policy questions for your committee and the Congress, there appear to be areas of common ground. I anticipate that other witnesses will examine various aspects of the legislation. I will confine myself primarily to matters relating to the national sea grant colleage program.

I believe that the national sea grant college program has been effective and that it deserves continuing authorization through whatever funding mechanism is provided. The important point is to leave the purpose and structure of the program essentially intact.

Sea grant has been permitted to evolve, over the past 15 years, toward the goals of helping to protect marine resources, create new marine-related jobs, advance commerce of oceans, Great Lakes and coastal zones, and enhance foreign trade.

There appear to be several key ingredients for a successful sea grant college program. In looking toward the forthcoming reauthorization activities next year, we have identified seven essential criteria that have made sea grant an effective, costefficient, Federal-State-private sector partnership in ocean development and conservation:

The sea grant college program is a locally-based national network, building on strong local programing and fostering a cooperative approach to identify and solve problems while eliminating unnecessary duplication.

Sea grant is a university-based program of research, education and training and advisory (extension) services, with a long-range focus and impartial expertise.

Sea grant is a partnership of Government, industry, and education. Involvement of the general public and all levels of government helps to insure a balance approach to marine issues.

Sea grant is a matching fund program, blending support from Federal, State, local government and industry sources in a program of mutual concern.

Sea grant has a broad marine resource orientation. The Oregon program features fisheries, coastal engineering and port development, Columbia River problems, marine mammal questions, maritime law, and other relevant areas.

Sea grant is competitively funded. The 30 coastal and Great Lakes programs compete with each other for funding, helping to insure that funds are allocated on the basis of quality and capacity. At the same time, remarkably, we conduct projects and programs in close collaboration.

Sea grant is accountable to Congress, our State partners in government and industry, and to the scientific community. This is one of the most consistently and thoroughly reviewed programs in the country. We believe that this oversight has been productive and urge that it be continued.

Some Oregon examples may help to explain these points. Sea grant's work with the Port of Coos Bay, the processors and the fishermen actually predates 1968. Paul Heikkila, the marine extension agent for Coos, Douglas, and northern Curry counties began work here under the former State Technical Services Act. Paul, as the sea grant representative, brings the resources of the national sea grant network to the people of the Bay region, whatever their marine interests may be. He works with local people to define needed programs of research, education, and advisory services. Currently, an expanded marine weather forecast service is almost in place. Sea grant through Heikkila, together with Larry Ivy, Port of Coos Bay, and the National Weather Service have cooperated to equip and develop operation of this station. Increased safety and better fishing weather information, with longer range, is the goal.